Lord’s, day two: England 208-5

The first two days of this Test have had an odd symmetry about them. Both sides have suffered from dramatic top order collapses, and in fact both lost their fourth wicket on 54, before recovering to decent positions. South Africa are probably in the better position, however, as they have the security of knowing that their tail has wagged (whilst England are still only hoping that theirs do) and they are not the ones under pressure to win the match.

Part of that success from the tail was Vernon Philander scoring his maiden Test fifty this morning. He joint top-scored in the innings with 61 and frustrated England by building good partnerships with the other bowlers. South Africa’s last four batsmen, all pure bowlers, made 114 runs between them. England did not bowl too poorly this morning, but Anderson for once did not use the new ball terribly well. He kept banging it in short to the batsmen, but he did not control it well enough to make it really count. Broad was still down on pace, but was pitching the ball up and getting it to swing well and probably deserved more than just the one wicket that he got. England would not have been too disappointed with their efforts, 309 is hardly a formidable total. but the lopsided nature of the scorecard was quite disappointing.

As disappointing as South Africa’s resistance and England’s post-lunch collapse were, probably the most gutting aspect of the day for England supporters came on the stroke of lunch. Andrew Strauss got off to an excellent start with the bat in his hundredth Test, but was bowled through the gate on twenty and in the last over before lunch. It was Morne Morkel to get him yet again and with an excellent delivery. Going around the wicket, Morkel had got several balls to shape away from the left-handed Strauss and finally nipped one back in and through the gate to bowl the England captain. Whilst Strauss maybe should not have had that gate, there was not a lot he could have done. It was a fantastic piece of bowling and the demoralising effect possibly played a role in the collapse that came after the interval.

England have at least done a better job of recovering with their recognised batsmen than South Africa did, South Africa lost their fifth wicket on 105 and their sixth on 163, and will hope to leave less work for their tail. Jonny Bairstow was responsible for a lot of England’s recovery. He was dropped after a poor series against the West Indies in which it was decided that he had a weakness against the short ball, but three innings always seemed like an absurdly small sample size and he went about showing the folly of that judgement today. South Africa had clearly heard about his supposed weakness and gave him a steady diet of short stuff at the start of his innings. That’s not an easy thing to get through for anyone, regardless of any real or supposed weakness, but Bairstow did so well. He not only managed to fight through the difficult bit but also managed to score some runs as he did so and after tea the South Africans had clearly tired. Bairstow and Bell scored more fluently after the interval and put on over a hundred before Bell was out to a slightly loose drive off Philander. It came during a good over in which Philander had beat the bat twice and the wicket taking ball was a good one, but Bell looked as though he had got just a bit too relaxed and was maybe a bit careless. Matt Prior played a chancy innings, but both he and Bairstow survived to stumps.

England trail by 101 runs at stumps with five wickets still in hand. On paper one would probably back them to get to parity, but there is the obstacle of the second new ball to be negotiated. It is due after eight overs of the morning session tomorrow and what England do in the morning session will probably dictate with how much a lead or deficit England end up. Given that England batting second and needing to win they cannot really afford a significant deficit and could very much do with a decent lead. Prior and Bairstow need to survive to the new ball tomorrow and get themselves well enough set to at least get a few off it even if they get out to it in the end. Prior can be quite dangerous in that sort of situation, but one expects that a lot will really come down to whether or not Broad and Swann can score appreciable runs. Broad has talent, but has been out of form this summer whilst Swann is very hit-or-miss (often literally). Unless Prior and Bairstow do the very unlikely and knock off the deficit themselves, England will very much need Broad and Swann to show up with the bat tomorrow.

England squad announcement

England’s squad for the third and unfortunately final Test at Lord’s will be named tomorrow (Saturday) at 09.30 BST/03.30 CDT. Whilst that will not confirm whether Pietersen plays at Lord’s or not, it will probably be a very good indication. I would be exceptionally surprised if he was in the squad and not in the XI on Thursday. With that in mind, I am very much hoping that when the names are read out they go straight from ‘Onions’ to ‘Prior’. I have said before why Pietersen should not play and the recent ‘textgate’ only adds to that. Despite the argument I have heard that people ‘bad mouth their employers all the time’, I cannot imagine anyone who contends that to do so directly to one’s competitors during the competition is in any way the done thing. It wouldn’t be a make-or-break issue for me, but only because that time has already passed. It appears that the selectors may think otherwise, though that is not a guarantee yet. But coming as it does in conjunction with Pietersen’s snub of Strauss at the post-match press conference, I cannot see how they could justify keeping him in.

Dropping KP does raise the question of how to replace him though and I would bring Bairstow back. He had not got much of a run against the West Indies and just scored an excellent century against Australia A. That’s as a recall to the squad, however, I’m not sure I’d actually play him. Strauss and Flower are dead set against five bowlers, but they did play four seamers in the last match and with Pietersen taking four wickets as the spinner it almost was a five man attack. And that attack all but took 20 wickets and had so much time not been lost to rain there is every chance that England would have won. My first choice would be to play Swann for KP as the spinner and go with five bowlers. I would also possibly play Onions for Bresnan. Bresnan has so far had really only one good spell this summer, against the West Indies at Trent Bridge. But overall his pace has been down and he still looks short of fitness. At his best I would play him, but he is not at his best and I think he needs to regain his fitness with Yorkshire before the tour of India. There is also the fact that we can expect a typical Lord’s wicket, the ECB could send Mick Hunt the proverbial King’s ransom and he would still refuse to make a pitch to order, and those tend to suit Onions. I’d still play him in the more likely four man attack and for the same reason, but in that scenario Finn would miss out as well. Finn is talented, but he has yet to set the world alight in his two chances this summer. I would then play Bairstow at six with Bell and Taylor moving up a spot.

My preferred XI for Lord’s: Strauss*, Cook, Trott, Bell, Taylor, Prior†, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Onions, Finn.

Or with a four man attack: Strauss*, Cook, Trott, Bell, Taylor, Bairstow, Prior†, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Onions.

Why are we still talking about Bopara?

The England squad for the first Test against South Africa is set to be announced tomorrow morning at 09.30 BST. There is not much of note, England are untroubled by injury, and the only discussion is about whether Ravi Bopara will be included. The media seem to think it is a fait accompli that he will and I fear they may be right. The apparent reason for this is utterly absurd, however: it seems that Ravi Bopara will be given what will now be a fourth chance due to a combination on Jonny Bairstow’s failure (note that Bopara has three of those to Bairstow’s one) and Bopara’s good form in the ODIs.

The notion that ODI form should be a reason for Test selection is utterly maddening, yet it is seemingly very common. The England selectors seem to have overlooked the fact that there is no number six at the moment precisely because the first person they tried there, Eoin Morgan, failed at the Test level after excelling at ODIs! In fact, Morgan was picked almost purely on his ODI record; his first class record is distinctly average. The fact that he is not batting at six himself shows the folly of picking players on limited overs runs. It is all well and good to say that a player looks ‘assured’ or whatever adjective one prefers, but the fact is that the styles of batting are very different and ought to be incomparable. Just look at how England (and Cook and KP in particular) fared against Pakistan’s bowling in the Tests and ODIs in the UAE in January and February. They are different games.

The other argument for why Bopara ought to be picked is a more reasonable, but still flawed, one. It is that he has done well in the County Championship this season, which he has. He averages 66 from five matches with two hundreds. However, this must be balanced against his previous Test failures and the fact that he is playing against second division attacks this season. There are two players in the first division, and even Joe Root in D2, with a better average than Bopara and who have not yet had a chance at Test cricket. Nick Compton is the obvious one with his incredible start to the season and Rikki Clarke even averages 70. Slightly below Bopara, Joe Denly averages 57 for Middlesex. There is no reason why one should give a fourth chance to Bopara when there are better qualified candidates who have never had a single chance. In fact, there is little reason to even drop Bairstow. Morgan was given over a year to prove himself; it would be very harsh on the much more talented Bairstow to discard him after only three real innings.

If Bopara is selected, as seems very likely, I will hope he does well. I would like him to repay the selectors seemingly insane faith in him and prove me wrong. But I am not at all confident and I think it is very unfair on other players. We will have to see what happens starting on 19 July, but if Bopara fails again, this has to be his last chance.

England v West Indies ratings

England were not troubled in their 2-0 victory over the West Indies, but they were some way short of masterful. They were a bit sloppy, especially in the last match, and they conceded almost a third again as many runs in this series (1549) as they did in the three Tests they lost in the UAE (1178). The good news for England that in they were even worse at the start of last summer, conceding 1606 runs against Sri Lanka, with no effects in the second series.

The West Indies looked like an improving side. Against Australia they never gave up, despite the regular horror-sessions. Here they always looked on the verge of collapsing with the bat, but actually did so only once. They let things get away occasionally with the ball, but did well at regrouping in between sessions and fighting back after intervals. Overall, they were outclassed by England, but can go home with their heads held high. (Or at least they could if they did not still have to play a bunch of pointless ODIs.)

My individual marks (out of ten):

England
Andrew Strauss* – 9
Came into the first Test at Lord’s with ‘questions’ about his place in the side and responded with a majestic first innings century. Made just one in a tricky spell in before stumps in the second innings, but then came back with a bigger hundred and at a vital time for the team. He finished at the top of the England run-scorer list and second in average. His captaincy was poor by his standards, with the players often looking unmotivated and the field settings characteristically negative.

Alastair Cook – 6
A deceptively decent series by the vice-captain. Failed in the first innings in each match, only scoring 54 runs in the three innings. Stepped up when required in the second innings, however. Contributed with an excellent and all but match-winning 79 in the second innings of the first Test and saw England home with an unbeaten 43 in the second Test.

Jonathan Trott – 3
Got himself in a few times, but only managed a solitary fifty from the first Test. Did enough to still average over thirty in the series, but it was not really enough from the number three and almost half of his runs came in relatively easy situations. A disappointing series for such a good player, his Test average is now only a little bit above fifty.

Kevin Pietersen – 7
Made more headlines off the pitch than on it, but still had a good series. Only had one failure with the bat, in the second innings of the first Test, which he followed up with consecutive half-centuries. Put Shillingford and Narine to the sword in the second and third Tests. Had a century in his sights twice, but got out slightly loosely on both occasions.

Ian Bell – 9
In four innings this series, he hit three fifties. Two of them were unbeaten and one of those was a match-winning knock in the first Test. The only time he failed to go past sixty was when he fell for 22 in the second Test. Apart from that, he looked majestic and can count himself unlucky not to have scored a century. He was stranded with the tail in the first Test and was denied by the rain in the third.

Jonny Bairstow – 0 1
Looked talented, but never passed twenty in three innings. Undone by Roach in the first two Tests, then by Best in the third. Deserves another chance against South Africa, but looks unlikely to get one. Addendum: I have accepted the suggestion given to me that he deserves one point for the brilliant run out he effected at Lord’s.

Matt Prior† – 6
Excellent as always behind the stumps, but only got two innings with the bat. Did not contribute significantly in either of them, but has the excuse of twice coming to the wicket when needing to score relatively quick runs.

Tim Bresnan – 7
A series of two halves for Bresnan. Was arguably fortunate to have even been selected for the first two Tests after looking poor in the last Test in Sri Lanka and very poor at Lord’s. Kept up that form for the first part of the second Test, despite getting some tail-end wickets on the second morning. Then showed why he was selected with a some vital runs in England’s innings and then blew away the West Indies. Finished with twelve wickets in the series, second most for either side.

Stuart Broad – 9
Was perhaps slightly flattered by his eleven wickets in the first Test, but it is very hard for someone to luck into such a feat. For comparison, no West Indian bowler took more than ten wickets in the entire series. Highest wicket taker in the series with 14 and also contributed some useful runs in the second Test.

Graeme Swann – 3
Found life difficult on pitches that were not taking appreciable turn and was only a real threat in the second innings of the first Test. Scored thirty in the first innings of that Test as well.

James Anderson – 8
Showed his value most highly in the third Test when he was rested and England were rudderless. His nine wickets in the first two Tests were insufficient reward for the skill with which he bowled, though he did not get the same swing he got last summer.

Graham Onions – 7
Only got one innings of one Test, but looked very good therein. Had the best bowling figures of the innings with 4-88 and looked much like the Onions of old. Unlikely to be picked against South Africa, but will have put himself in the selectors minds.

Steven Finn – 5
Was not picked until the third Test, despite widespread suggestion that he ought to be. Bowled well in the one innings in which he got the chance, but was a bit wayward on the fourth morning. Looks very good, but perhaps still not quite the finished product and may have slipped behind Onions in the pecking order. Made an amusing 0* as nightwatchman.

West Indies
Darren Sammy* – 7
Continues to get the most out of his side, some feat given the massive internal problems of the West Indies. Showed his batting skill in scoring a maiden hundred in the second Test, but badly threw his wicket away in the other two. His bowling was only that of a useful fourth seamer and nothing more. Should definitely be happy with his efforts, however.

Adrian Barath – 4
Not a great series for the West Indian opener, but not a dreadful won. Stuck around well in both innings of the first Test, but never managed to pass fifty and went cheaply in both innings of the second. Comfortably the best of the top three.

Keiran Powell – 2
Three single figure scores in five innings and a top score of only 33 make this a series to forget. His only saving grace was that he did manage to drag his innings out and wear the shine off the ball to protect his colleagues.

Kirk Edwards – 0
Eight runs total in four innings and seven of them came in the first innings of the second Test. For comparison, Fidel Edwards even managed to score twelve. Dropped for the third Test, needs to do a lot of work to come back.

Darren Bravo – 3
Another top order batsman to struggle, he made it into the twenties three times, but not once into the thirties. All the more disappointing after being considered the second best batsman in the order coming into the series. Comprehensively outshone by batsman down the order from him, though was unlucky to be run out by his partner in the first innings of the series.

Shivnarine Chanderpaul – 8
Another good series in England for the West Indian wall. Missed the third Test due to injury, but passed fifty (and came close to a hundred) in both innings at Lord’s, plus a 46 in the first innings at Trent Bridge. His only failure was when playing an uncharacteristically wild hook in what would be his last innings of the series.

Marlon Samuels – 10
Could almost do no wrong. Out to a loose drive in the first innings at Lord’s, he then seemed to feed off Chanderpaul’s patience (with whom he frequently batted) and after that his lowest score in the rest of the series was 76. Did not look overly threatening with the ball, but did enough to pick up five wickets and was a decent second spin option.

Denesh Ramdin† – 4
Scored a century remembered mostly for his puerile celebration in the last Test, but was very underwhelming in the first two. Should be aware that a ton in a rain-ruined dead rubber against a second choice attack is not enough to compensate for three single figure scores in the previous four innings. Was below average with the gloves, but not horrifically so.

Kemar Roach – 8
Some ferocious new ball bowling saw him top the list of West Indian wicket takers despite picking up an injury and missing the third Test. His top moment was causing some worry in the gloom at the start of the England run chase in the first Test, but was class throughout.

Fidel Edwards – 1
His mark matches the number of wickets he took in the first Test, before being dropped. Most notable for the ridiculous design cut into his hair.

Shannon Gabriel – 5
Unfortunately injured after the first Test, but looked good when he played. Someone who should boost the Windies when he returns.

Ravi Rampaul – 7
Came in for the second Test and looked quite good. Got the ball to swing and nip about off the seam. Got some important top order wickets in the first innings, especially that of KP when England looked set for a huge total and dismissed Cook twice in the series.

Shane Shillingford – 1
Desperately unlucky to have only played in one Test. Left out due to a preference for an all-seam attack at Lord’s and due to a preference for hype in the third. Did not look terribly good on an admittedly flat pitch at Trent Bridge, however as KP and Strauss scored at will off him.

Assad Fudadin – 2
Hard to say a lot about a 110 ball 28, apart from it being twenty more runs that Kirk Edwards had scored at that position in the entire series before then. No worse than any other member of the West Indian top four.

Tino Best – 7
Came in for just the last Test, but what a Test he had! Made the highest ever score by a number eleven with an aggressive but technically sound innings. Deserved a century, but suffered a rush of blood on 95. Also picked up some wickets in England’s abbreviated response.

Sunil Narine – 0
Victim of a flat pitch and two of the best players of spin in Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen, but his 0-70 still did not come close to living up to the massive hype that surrounded his belated arrival. His ‘mystery’ could not even fool the number eleven, Steven Finn.

Five bowlers

I have said for some time that I think England should play five bowlers. At first glance, it looks a bit ridiculous. England have not consistently played five bowlers since the retirement of Freddie Flintoff. Since then, England have gone from being the fifth ranked Test team in the world to the first and have lost only one series, the recent one in the UAE. So why should we change a winning formula?

My answer is basically that it is inefficient. We have done very well with four bowlers, but a lot of that has been down to outstanding performances from our main players. Our batsmen have put up huge totals much more often than not and we have seldom been short a bowler. But not all of the batsmen have contributed. Specifically, we have not got a consistent contribution from the batsman at five or six since Collingwood and Bell were both in form against South Africa in 2009/10. This is something on which I touched during the last Test, but there is some important detail. First off is the definition of the ‘sixth batsman’. For a variety of reasons this need not be the person actually at six; the definition I am using is ‘the player most likely to have been dropped if a fifth full time bowler had been played’. I realise this is a subjective definition, but the numbers are actually so strong that the specifics hardly matter. For the avoidance of doubt I have used Morgan in England v Pakistan, Collingwood in the Ashes, Morgan in England v Sri Lanka and the first two England v India Tests, Bopara for the third and fourth England v India Tests, Morgan for Pakistan v England, Patel for Sri Lanka v England and Bairstow for the first two West Indies v England Tests.

This gives us 23 Tests (omitting those against Bangladesh) in which England have won 14 and lost six. In these Tests, the sixth batsmen have contributed 708 runs at an average of 22.84 and one century in 34 innings. The other ten players combine to average 39.66 with almost a century every ten innings and that is including the bowlers! The contrast is more drastic when one looks at the rest of the top six, plus Prior: they have an average of 43.23 with a century every 9.7 innings. In fact, the contribution of the sixth batsmen has been much more comparable to that of the bowlers. Since mid 2010, England’s seam trio plus Swann have combined to average 17.86 with one century, that of Stuart Broad in 2010. In other words, we have had a win/loss ratio over two despite consistently having a batsman who contributes only half of what his top-order colleagues do and only five runs more than the bowlers!

England are clearly not gaining anything by playing a sixth batsman and looking at the actual results of matches backs this up. Of the fourteen matches that England have won in the timeframe I am using, the closest was the five wicket victory in the most recent Lord’s Test. None of the run chases have involved the sixth batsman and when England have successfully defended a total it has never been by fewer than 196 runs (the margin of victory at Lord’s last year). The contribution of the sixth batsman has not only been statistically insignificant, the individual performances have not shifted any result into England’s favour.

The counter argument would point out that England not getting contributions from the sixth batsman in the past does not preclude them from doing so in the future and in any case, the four bowlers have been just as successful. That is all true, but whilst England have not been needing their sixth batsman, there have been times when they have appeared to need another bowling option. The first innings of the most recent Trent Bridge Test was one example: England were on the verge of effectively knocking the West Indies out of the Test, but with the ball going soft they were suddenly without wicket taking options. Bresnan was being hit around the ground, Swann was not getting appreciable turn on a first day pitch and Jimmy and Broad could only bowl short spells as they had to be held back for the new ball. Strauss was reduced to bowling Trott to get the overs in before the new ball was taken. Having a fifth bowler prevents this from happening. Not only are part-timers not needed, but there is variation to suit the conditions. Bresnan bowled very well in the second innings of that Test, but the conditions did not suit him as well in the first innings and England had no alternatives available.

England have nothing, or at lease very little, to lose by playing a fifth bowler. The main batsmen are capable of putting up a large score without further help and adding another world-class bowler to the attack can only help. The time has come to do so.

Trent Bridge, day three: WI 61-6

Today was almost the West Indies’ day. They just needed to get through the final session without collapsing to not only have won the day but to actually have a chance to be on top in the match. That did not happen.

Yesterday I wrote that the West Indies would have to bowl much better today than they did yesterday to stay in the match and that is exactly what they did. Rampaul got some swing with the old ball to remove KP (not even through a bad shot, just an excellent delivery) and Roach finally found a spell where he stayed behind the line and got both Bell and Baristow with the second new ball. It was a fantastic spell of bowling and it really put England on the back foot, a position from which they never fully recovered.

Jonny Baristow looked very uncomfortable against the short delivery in his short stay at the crease. Opinion seemed to be divided over whether it constituted a weakness of not, but I am not inclined to think it does. Certainly he looked surprised by it and certainly he did not play it well, but it was part of a vicious new ball burst by Kemar Roach. There are few batsmen who would have played that very well and fewer still in their second Test. I think it is too early to pass a judgement on him.

I said that Kemar Roach found a spell of keeping his foot behind the line and that is true, but that period passed and we had more instances of the umpires ‘missing’ no-balls. We frequently saw them walk over to the crease to scrape away a bit and we saw on TV that the bowlers were overstepping, but it was only called a few times. This is a situation that should be rectified and could easily be. The on-field umpires have a radio connection to the third umpire; we know that the latter sees the no-balls, why can he not simply alert the former in real time? This would not even add any time to the game. All that has to happen is the third umpire radios down as it happens and the on-field umpire calls and signals such immediately thereafter. No need for analysis, discussion or anything of that sort; it would be just as quick and clear as if the on-field umpire had seen it. It would also free up the on-field umpire to focus on any potential incidents with the delivery.

I suggested yesterday that Tim Bresnan may have sneaked back into the side by picking up the tail-end wickets. That performance is probably irrelevant now, if he does not play at Edgbaston it will only be because of a rotation policy. He showed that he still can score runs and actually looked like he was trying to grind out an innings. At one point he had scored 20 runs off over 60 deliveries. It worked too; he finished with a very good 39 not out. What sealed it, however, was the three wickets he took during the West Indies collapse. England will certainly be happy to have a fully firing Tim Bresnan back, but I actually still think that Steve Finn ought to get a Test at some point. Bresnan’s runs in the first innings only compensated for some of the ones that he conceded on the first day and there is no reason why Finn could not have taken wickets too. The ball was starting to keep low by the time he took his wickets and it really suited the way he was bowling. That may happen again, but this has not been a typical English wicket and I still strongly feel that England must give Steven Finn a chance to show what he can do at some point. Bresnan was very good today, but we cannot just ignore what happened over the first six days of the series. One swallow does not a summer make.

My preference is still to play five bowlers. Bresnan scored runs again today and did so conventionally. The above paragraph should not be taken as a slight on him, he is a good cricketer and would easily be in any other side. It’s just that the same is true of Finn and ideally they would both play. This will probably not happen in the near future, but it would solve a lot of our selection problems.

I’m hesitant to say what might happen tomorrow. The West Indies have swung wildly from being very competitive and showing real talent to the 61-6 we saw in the evening session today. Samuels and Sammy are the two not out batsmen and they really need to put on another 200 partnership or the West Indies have just about had it. Frankly, they may have anyway. The pitch is breaking up, but not so much that one would say that England could not chase almost anything up to 250. The West Indies currently only lead by three. I expect a bit of fight, but I expect them to last to lunch and I would be surprised if they set England more than 100 to win. They’ve been surprising so far, however, they could surprise again.

Trent Bridge, day two: Eng 259-2

Today was rather better from an English point of view. (It was an incredibly frustrating one from a Lancastrian point of view, but that’s a different post.) The West Indies did better in the morning than I thought they might have, but they still did not look like they had done enough with their 370 all out. To be fair, it was always going to be incredibly difficult to get back into contention after their start, but they really did not help themselves. Sammy and Samuels actually saw off the first burst in the morning and Sammy got (a bit streakily) to a very well played and richly deserved hundred. But then when it looked like England were not going to be able to stop them from getting up to a good total, the West Indies appeared to decide to up the pace a bit. Given that it was only the second morning and they were still not yet in a particularly strong position it is a very questionable decision. Sammy probably just reverted to is usual type after bringing up his ton, but Samuels made little effort to shepherd the tail. Given how patient he had been all series, it was rather surprising to say the least. Tim Bresnan was the main beneficiary and ended up taking four wickets. To say his figures are misleading would be a massive understatement.

The West Indies really shot themselves in the foot when they were bowling, however. Twice Kemar Roach got Cook caught off a no-ball and seemed to lose it mentally shortly thereafter. He was never able to completely settle and the West Indies were effectively without their main strike bowler for most of the day. Ravi Rampaul did do a decent job in his stead: getting the ball to swing and taking the wickets of both Cook and Trott. But he could only bowl so much and Sammy’s heroics with the bat did not transfer over to the ball. He is a useful fourth seamer and a borderline third seamer, but he is not close to being good enough to be effectively the second seamer. This just left the spinner, Shane Shillingford, who was very poor. KP smashed him for six down the ground and from there he just seemed unsure of what to do. He (and actually all the West Indies bowlers to some extent) dragged the ball far too short and wide to Strauss and anyone even passingly familiar with how the England captain likes to bat can tell you not to give him balls to cut. Sammy and Shillingford both went for over four and a half runs per over and were between them responsible for 15 of Strauss’ 18 fours and seven of KP’s 11 boundaries. It meant that the evening session was quite similar to the one last night with the batsmen scoring almost at will and the bowlers looking like they had no answer. The difference is that England already had a decent platform. Strauss and KP’s unbeaten partnership has already brought England to within a Nelson of the West Indies and with eight wickets in hand.

The West Indies will have to work hard to come back tomorrow. To be fair they did so at Lord’s so it is far from impossible, but it is a big ask. Strauss has a history of going cheaply in the morning after being not out overnight so they will fancy their chances to remove him. KP tried very hard to give his wicket away at times this evening and may get himself out early tomorrow as well. There is a danger for the West Indies if he gets himself set, however, as he looked in a mood to really take the attack to the bowling. Even if the West Indies do remove the two not out batsmen early tomorrow, they will still have Ian Bell with whom to deal. Bell looked in excellent form at Lord’s and can dominate an attack just as well as KP, but in a more understated way. Bairstow will have a chance to show that he can score runs at Test level, if in relatively easy circumstances, and I think he has the skill to take that chance. After that come Prior, Bresnan, Broad and Swann. All of whom can add quite a few quick runs against an attack that is tiring and the West Indies attack already look tired. None of this is to say that the West Indies cannot or will not keep England close, but to say they will have to put in a much better effort than they did today. They cannot take wickets with no balls and they cannot bowl to batsmen’s strengths! If they cannot improve they will be looking at a huge first innings deficit.

Eng v WI, Lord’s, day three: WI 120-4

On the face of it, today was certainly a much better day for the West Indies than the first two of the Test. They came out in the morning with a new ball in some of the best conditions of the Test and restricted England to 398 all out. I said yesterday that they had to prevent a partnership from forming with Bell and someone who would be able to increase the scoring rate and that is exactly what they did. With some poor weather forecast later in the Test, England did appear to be consciously trying to get some quick runs and the West Indies did very well to usually make sure it was at the cost of a wicket. Jonny Bairstow looked pretty comfortable on debut, but went for only 16 and Prior had looked set too before he missed a straight one trying to flick it through mid-wicket. Only Tim Bresnan looked uncertain and he made a very quick duck. The bowlers were not faultless, however. Ian Bell always looked like he wasn’t going to get out unless he was the last man and Graeme Swann, whilst a decent batsman, was hitting orthodox cover drives to the boundary. A decent batsman he may be, but he is not so good that he should be able to get to thirty off 25 without some help from the bowling. Still, it was a creditable effort and kept the West Indies in the match, albeit barely.

They also managed a bit with the bat. It was not a fluent second innings to set a total, the scoreboard shows that much, but it was a far cry from the catastrophes they had at home. It was much more like what they did in the first innings: the bowlers on top for most of it, but not getting as many wickets as one would expect. By the end of the day they looked pretty comfortable. They in fact did exceedingly well (or were exceedingly lucky) to survive Jimmy Anderson’s spell with the new ball. They did show just a glimmer of their old form, however, and it was enough to cost them three wickets. After Bresnan got the first wicket, England all but telegraphed that they were going to bounce Powell. Broad came around the wicket with two men out on the hook. Between the capacity crowd at the ground and those watching on telly, there were no fewer than 100,000 people who knew what was coming. Powell was not amongst them. Broad’s bouncer was good, but Powell was surprised. He tried to hook, a bit half-heartedly, and could only get under it and sky an easy catch to Bell. That was bad. Worse was the horrible running mix-up on the stroke of tea. Bravo hit one to Bairstow and Edwards came halfway down the pitch before being sent back. It was one of the highlights of the day for England though as the debutant threw down the stumps directly.

Despite the flaws, it was clearly a better day for the West Indies. They can at least show up tomorrow knowing that the match could have been over by now. Part of the reason it is not, however, is the over rate again. Today we played six and a half hours and still lost five overs. That is unacceptable and the fault is with the West Indies again. By my maths, England batted for a total of eight hours and 48 minutes in their innings. That gives a ‘raw’ rate of 12.90 overs/hour. The ICC Test regulations section 16.3 set out a minimum rate of 15 overs/hour with two minutes allotted per wicket (when a new batsman comes in) and four per drinks break. There is also an exemption for reviews and other ‘unavoidable’ delays. By my count, in this innings that gives 18 minutes for wickets, 16 for drinks and let’s say another ten for reviews etc. The revised over rate is still only 14.07, far too low. Put another way, in the eight hours and four minutes of ‘real’ batting time the West Indies were seven overs short of the minimum of 121. The good news for Darren Sammy is that it looks like England will bat again and give him a chance to make up for lost time.

Tomorrow will probably see England win. The West Indies have done better than they might have and better than I thought they would, but the fact remains that they are in a pretty desperate position. Four down and still 35 runs in arrears means they will probably need to bat all day tomorrow and also probably won’t. They resisted today, but once again most of it was due to Chanderpaul and they are dependent on him staying around. If he does and they keep fighting the way they have done today they might last into the afternoon session, but that will still leave England with a fairly small target. My guess is that they will last past lunch, but only barely and England will knock the runs off around tea.

Eng v WI, Lord’s, day two: Eng 259-3

A great day for England, they’ve put themselves in charge of this Test. This highlight was, of course, Andrew Strauss’ unbeaten century, his fifth at Lord’s. He looked fluent almost all day (until he got into the nineties) and hit some of the best drives down the ground one can hope to see. Upon reaching the milestone, he got what sounded to me like an unusually sustained ovation from a packed Lord’s. Every second of it was absolutely deserved, one could see the determination writ across Strauss’ face during his innings and his delight was palpable when he got to his century. I noted three types of reactions. Most common was the delight. I think almost every England supporter wanted to see Strauss score a century and as noted above the appreciation shown by the Lord’s crowd was immense. The second, and rather amusing, reaction was from the people quickly covering themselves by explaining why all the previous ‘questions’ had still been warranted. As I mentioned the other day, I don’t think they were justified, but I do accept that if they were then this innings would not have changed that. It would simply have meant that he had answered the questions they had set. I still found it amusing to see how quickly people started to defend themselves, however. The reaction that was not amusing (but was at least in a small minority) was that of those who immediately said that a hundred against the West Indies was meaningless. I’ll be the first to admit that runs against a small side should be noted and treated as such, but if a batsman is poor enough to be dropped then he or she is not going to score a century against anyone. It’s especially ridiculous in the case of Strauss because the ‘problem’ has always been that he was getting starts and not going on. This time, however, he set himself and made sure that he did go on. The weakness of the attack was not relevant.

Of course, there was another batsman at the crease during all this. For most of the day it was Trott, after Cook got a little bit careless in the morning session. Trott batted well, clipped the ball through mid-wicket a lot as usual and generally looked pretty untroubled until getting out to a bit of a rash shot. There had been a very unusual incident with his batting after lunch, however. With Fidel Edwards bowling, he fished at one outside off, there was a small noise and a stifled appeal by the Windies. The fieldsmen never acted as though they thought it was out and the umpire did not look like he really considered the half-appeal. Hot Spot and Snicko both subsequently showed, however, that the noise heard was definitely a faint outside edge! Trott was lucky there and he had also been lucky just prior to that as he survived an lbw shout and a review that had the ball just barely not hitting enough of leg to be overturned. Needless to say, there was no comment from those who claim that the DRS is unfairly increasing the odds of an lbw.

For most of the day the West Indies were poor. England’s overnight score of 259-3 is one which may look a little bit low at first, I think especially with England one expects closer to 275-300 runs in a day, but this is not because the Windies kept the scoring rate down. It was around four an over in the morning and even though it dropped from there it still ended up well above three an over. The problem was the West Indies over rate. Even accounting for 2.5 overs lost in the morning to the change of innings, the West Indies only managed 80.2 overs before bad light stopped play after the scheduled close. They hardly have the excuse of wickets falling either. Their overall rate was an appalling 13.3 overs per hour and even assuming one minute for each wicket and two minutes for each drinks break it only goes up to 13.7 overs per hour. It had been clear for some time before bad light stopped play that even an extra half hour was not going to allow all of the overs to bowled. In the overs that they did manage to bowl, the ball did very little off the seam and very little in the air. But one gets the feeling that if England had been bowling the conditions would have appeared a lot more helpful. It was a bit like yesterday in that it was not the shambles it could have been, but nor was it ever close to enough.

England go into tomorrow with their two most under-fire batsmen at the crease: Strauss and Bell. Strauss has already made his hundred and Bell made one in the County Championship as well. I don’t think he is nearly out of form as many people think (remember that he averaged 118 in 2011) and is up against an attack that suits him. I would not be at all surprised to see him get a hundred as well. Jonny Bairstow will finally get a chance to bat tomorrow once one of Strauss or Bell is out and I am looking forward to that. He has been doing well in the LV=CC and as I recall he looked pretty good in the handful of ODIs in which he played. He is also a pretty fast scorer and if he gets in along with Bell, Prior or Broad England have a chance to pile on the runs quickly. They already lead by 16, so the West Indies cannot afford to let that happen.

England v West Indies preview

The West Indies come to England fresh from a disappointing 0-2 defeat at home to Australia. They only performed passably well even at the best of times during that series and were frequently dire. Despite England’s recent woes in the subcontinent and similar regions, they are a side who have lost only two Tests at home since the start of 2009 and are still number one in the world. It is fair to say that if the Windies are going to come close in this series, they will have to perform far, far better than they did at home.

History, or at least recent history, is against them. They have not won an overseas Test somewhere other than Bangladesh since the Boxing Day Test in South Africa in 2007. The last time they won a Test in England was at Edgbaston in 2000; since then they have lost 12 and only managed to draw two. Their coach, Ottis Gibson, said that his hope for the Lord’s Test was to take it into a fifth day this time. This was in reference to their defeat inside three days at the home of cricket in 2009. That hope may be a bit optimistic. They have selected a squad which on paper appears to be slightly weaker than the one which lost to Australia and they have started the tour by losing to the Lions by ten wickets. In truth, they did well to make it that close. The Lions, boasting England’s third choice bowling attack, bowled the West Indies out for 147 in the first innings and went on to post a lead of 196. The Windies did come back a bit in the second innings, however.

Their performance against the Lions shows the fact that their batting almost begins and ends with Shivnarine Chanderpaul. He is a true great, but we have already seen that one great cannot carry a poor side. The rest of them have talent, and we saw some of that in the first innings of the first Test against Australia, but they are also very prone to give their wickets away (as we saw in the rest of that series). The West Indies will be facing arguably the best pace attack in the world in very friendly conditions. It is a far cry from the flat pitches and weak attacks on the subcontinent, or even the turning ones pitches from the recent series in the Caribbean. They occasionally performed well in those places, but even then were prone to collapses. Even if they were to cut out all the mistakes that have plagued them recently I think they will find the going very difficult and they are up against an attack that thrives on coaxing batsmen into errors. Last year India failed to pass 300 in four Tests; the Windies have only three and I would not be at all surprised to see the same result.

They will clearly need something from their bowlers. Unfortunately, their best performers at home were probably the spinners and despite England’s struggles against turn over the winter, they are unlikely to be more than a supplement in England. A lot will rest on their pace attack. Again there is some talent, but of what would appear to be their first choice attack (Fidel Edwards, Kemar Roach and Darren Sammy) only Roach has a bowling average under 30. They may cause some damage in friendly conditions, but these are home conditions for England’s batsmen and they put a pair of similar attacks to the sword last summer. Given that their batsmen already liable to give them a mountain to climb, I think it will be a tough ask for the West Indies bowlers.

England are strong favourites, but do go in under a bit of pressure after the disappointing winter. There is a strong sense that nothing less than three emphatic wins will do. As mentioned above, however, they have lost only twice at home in twenty Tests under Strauss and Flower. (They’ve won 14 of those Tests.) Most of the side have scored runs in the Championship already (no easy feat) with Cook the only exception and he has not had a lot of opportunities. As already mentioned, Bairstow looks like he will be batting at six. After the struggles of the winter, the batsmen do seem to have found some form and should present a formidable opposition to the Windies. The biggest hope will be that Strauss can get some big runs and ease the (insane) questions about his place in the side. He has a pair of decent scores in the Championship already, including an unbeaten 43 in Middlesex’s last match, and I do not see any reason why he could not push on from there.

England will probably be playing either Finn or Bresnan as a third seamer, though Onions is also in the squad. Whoever is picked will have an excellent opportunity to nail down the spot for the series against South Africa, but that’s assuming whoever it is (I’m guessing Finn) gets much of a bowl. Jimmy Anderson finished the series in Sri Lanka looking like the best bowler in the world and Stuart Broad had been in excellent form in the UAE before picking up an injury. They have both, especially Jimmy, shown themselves to be formidable weapons in all conditions and in May in England against a side prone to collapse I expect them to take bags of wickets. Swann will also be useful, he always is, but I doubt he will have an opportunity to do much more than chip in with a few wickets.

I can’t see the West Indies winning a Test. I said before the Australia series that I thought they had a chance to steal one from that series, but they could not and England are a much different proposition. I’ve already mentioned that at Lord’s in 2009 they lost before stumps on the third day. At Durham in 2007 the entire first day and quite a bit of the second day was lost to rain, but England still won comfortably. England are now a much better side than they were in either 2007 or 2009, whilst the Windies are arguably worse. Unless it rains non-stop for three days during one of the Tests I can see no other result than a 3-0 whitewash for England.