The continuing story of Kevin Pietersen

A few weeks ago, Kevin Pietersen announced that he was retiring from ODIs and, by necessity due to a clause in his contract, T20s. He was also unhappy with the ECB not allowing him to continue to play T20s. At the time I defended him and I stand by that. England’s ODI schedule is insane and KP is one of the few players to compete in all three formats. I think the ECB could have been more flexible. Unfortunately, it was reported in the Telegraph today that Pietersen has dropped his seemingly reasonable position and instead gone with a crazy egomaniacal one.

There is no conceivable justification for wanting to miss two Test matches to play in the IPL. He cannot claim that he needs a rest, he cannot claim that he needs to spend time with his family. The IPL may be a Mickey Mouse tournament where luck plays a larger role than skill, but it still cannot be classified as a ‘rest’. And unless his family move to India I think it will mean more time away from them for KP. This is all about the fact that he wants more money and more time in the ‘glamour’ of the IPL. It also shows a vastly inflated sense of his own importance if he at all thinks that Flower and co will even consider it. They were happy enough to cut him loose from the T20 side the first time; what on earth makes KP think they will agree to take him back at the cost of a ridiculous demand? His arrogance is simply breathtaking; he would do well to remember that it is only because of his career with England that he is at all valuable in the IPL.

Taking it as a certainty that Flower will only delay in refusing Pietersen’s demand for as long as it takes him to stop laughing, it will be interesting to see what Pietersen’s next move is. There would seem to be every chance that he will take a leaf out of Gayle’s book and refuse to sign a central contract with England later this year. Whilst it would be disappointing to lose out on such a talented batsman, Pietersen is rapidly starting to become more trouble than he is worth. If he decides that he can get the fame and adulation which he values so highly in the IPL alone then I would simply say ‘good riddance’. He is also more than welcome to go back to South Africa, they seldom if ever play matches that conflict with the IPL. However this saga ends, I think we will soon see exactly where Pietersen’s loyalties lie.

LV=CC week eleven roundup

It seems like it has been ages since there has been any Championship cricket. In fact it has only been a month, but a month of only white ball cricket at both the domestic and international level is a long time. Unfortunately it ended up a fairly uneventful week with all four first division matches finishing as draws and so far two of the three second division matches have also been drawn with Northants’ match against Glamorgan only through the second day.

There has been some movement in the tables, however, with Warwickshire getting enough bonus points to move into the top spot of Division One. The Bears have managed this with a match in hand against second-placed Nottinghamshire. Middlesex also picked up enough points to become the third side to 100 in the year, despite being bowled out for an Australia-esque 98 in their first innings. Whilst still outsiders for the title; they remain in the hunt. There was no movement at the bottom of the table with Worcestershire drawing with Durham and both sides remaining in the relegation zone. Division Two leaders Derbyshire did not play this week but Yorkshire, despite a brilliant 222* from Joe Root, did not have time to significantly close the gap. Their draw against Hampshire coupled with Kent also not playing this week was enough to keep Yorkshire in the promotion zone, though they are not secure there. Kent are only seven points behind having played one fewer match and both Hampshire and Northants (who are 336-5 after two days against Glamorgan) are also within a victory of going second. That should make for a very interesting battle over the last two months of the season.

For Lancashire it was another week of disappointment. There was some worry that the month long break may have broken the good form that they had started to show, but fortunately this proved not to be the case. Lancashire put up their highest score of the season with 485-7 against Surrey at Guildford including centuries from Paul Horton and Steven Croft, the latter an unbeaten 154. Lancs made a good start to the bowling as well, with Chapple hitting Rory Burns’ off stump with the first ball of the innings. But with Surrey on 49-2, Lancs ran into Kevin Pietersen. With a fairly flat pitch and small boundaries he hit an absolutely staggering 234* off only 190 deliveries. Whilst Lancashire have had some trouble finishing sides off this year, this time it was not something that can be put at the feet of the bowlers; Pietersen was simply in unbelievable form. It is still a bit troubling for Lancashire, however, that we have now been in very good positions in each of our last four matches and have only managed to win one of them. The weather has been a factor, but our bowling has been surprisingly flat and it has cost us a good chance to move up the table. We still have some good opportunities coming up, but there are now only six matches left in the season and we still sit sixth in the table (and have played more matches than every other team).

KP’s knock was, of course, the highlight of the week, but it was a good round overall for England players. Andrew Strauss scored exactly fifty of Middlesex’s 98 all out in the first innings (the only other double digit score was Gareth Berg’s 32) and 127 not out in the second. Certainly worrying form for the South Africans ahead of the first Test. Ian Bell also scored 57 for Warwickshire.

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.

Edgbaston, day four, Eng 221-5

Today could have been, and maybe should have been, a terribly dull day. With the first three days and the forecast for tomorrow making a result almost impossible, there was almost nothing for which to play. Instead, and fortunately, we got plenty about which to talk.

England started the day much as they finished the previous one. All that time they looked keenly aware that a result was not on the cards and not at all keen on the match. It would be easy to look at the scorecard and conclude that Finn and Onions are simply not Test quality and whilst there would be an element of truth to that, the reality is that they generally bowled quite well and the team let them down. Four catches were put down all told in the innings and the fields and tactics seemed slightly more defensive than usual. More than that though, the entire team just looked like they weren’t really there. Michael Vaughan made the good point on TMS that whilst England did not seem to miss the bowling of Jimmy, they did seem to miss his energy.

It would also be easy to say that England’s rotation policy is at fault here. That is certainly true, but we always knew we would miss Jimmy. Whilst I do not agree with the policy overall, once the first two days were lost I think it was a good idea. By playing Finn and Onions we got potentially important information on how they can fare at Test level and given that the match was overwhelmingly likely to end in a draw anyway, we did not lose much if anything. I think this is probably not at all far from what Flower was expecting to have happened (though perhaps not the poor fielding) and will consider it a success.

If this was a ‘bowl-off’ for a place against South Africa, Onions was the comfortable winner with 4-88. I doubt, however, whether this will be enough to get him in the XI for the Oval next month. England are still unlikely to play five bowlers, although I disagree with that policy, and Onions and Bresnan were still close enough that Bresnan’s batting will probably keep him in the side. Onions may have passed Finn in the pecking order, however.

During all this, Tino Best batted brilliantly to get the highest ever score by a number eleven in Tests. He was finally caught for 95, but it was his partner at the other end who sparked a bit of controversy. When Denesh Ramdin reached his century, he took a note out of his pocket and displayed it to the commentary box. The note suggested that Sir Vivian Richards stop criticising him. Whilst it was not a major point, it was poor form. The job of a commentator or analyst is to criticise at times and it was hardly as though the criticism of Ramdin had been unwarranted. It was a petty gesture and did take some of the gloss off the century.

England stumbled a bit in their reply and it was with this background that Sunil Narine came on for his first bowl in Test cricket. (He could have done so in April, but we’ll let that go for now…) I had heard before the match how he would be a threat to England, how he would make the West Indies competitive again. Which is why I wrote about why he should not be picked. (After which I heard even more support of Narine. As expected, the wicket was flat and England had worked him out after about an over. Narine took 0-70 in fifteen overs. He was not a wicket taking threat, he did not even trouble Finn when the latter came in as a nightwatchman, and he was not even vaguely keeping it tight. Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen were both treating him with contempt by the time he came off. By comparison, Marlon Samuels took 1-29 in nine overs. Welcome to Test cricket…

KP v the ECB

In case you have for some reason been cut off from the world all day and have missed the story about KP (and if so, I’m very flattered that you would come here first), he has retired from ODIs and effectively been dropped from T20s.

I actually think KP ought to be applauded for clearly putting his Test career over ODIs. There is some suggestion (and perhaps not entirely unfounded) that his retirement is from some other conflict with the ECB, but I don’t think there is a need to suggest that. It is clear that there is too much ODI cricket; England have 13 ODIs this summer, seven in India and five in New Zealand over the winter, then ten bilateral ODIs plus the farcical Champions Trophy next summer. KP is one of very few England players who actually play in all three formats and I think it is perfectly reasonable for him to decide that it is not worth the cost to his Test career to play so many ODIs. Hopefully the ICC and national boards take note of this attitude and revise the number of ODIs being played. If even the star players are starting to think it too much of an effort, the format itself may not last much longer.

I think the ECB handled it very badly. They declared that ODIs and T20s were so closely intertwined that KP had to retire from both or none at all. This is one of the causes of the suggestion that there was some other reason for KPs retirement and it is not unreasonable, even if I don’t think it is necessary. I do not pretend to be privy to the ECB’s planning system, of course, but the notion that a player cannot decide to retire from just ODIs seems ridiculous. The tours and planning may be intertwined, but different squads are named and there are even different captains! I do not see how it could be too difficult for KP to play T20s but not ODIs and yet not too much trouble to have different captains in the two formats.

I am not ever going to be the president of the KP fan club, but this time (and actually with the Twitter furore as well) I think he is blameless. The ECB don’t seem to particularly like him and whilst they can be forgiven for that, they are being irrational about the situation and I do not think that is forgivable. They are making themselves and English cricket look bad and I think they need to, if not do a U-turn, at least reassess how they handle situations like this for the future.

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.

Captaincy issues

I have been having a very interesting discussion on Twitter about the merits of various styles of captaincy. This was born, probably fairly predictably, out of a different discussion about Andrew Strauss’ place in the current England side. There were two very interesting questions raised: is captaincy skill reason enough to justify selection and what skills are most important for a captain?

With regard to the first question, I would answer ‘yes’ in almost all cases. The captaincy is almost a specialist position in itself and skill or lack thereof there can have as much an impact on the match as runs or wickets directly taken by the player. The best example of this is probably Mike Brearley. Brearley is rightly famous for his captaincy and boasts not only the fifth highest W/L ratio all time (amongst Englishmen he is behind only Douglas Jardine) but also a record of 11 wins and just one loss in 15 Ashes Tests. He also had a Test batting average just under 23. The goal of a Test match is to win and it is clear that a very good captain can increase the odds of winning even if he or she is a poor batsman. The question of selection is not then ‘pick the best five or six batsmen, a ‘keeper and four or five bowlers’, it is a more general matter of picking the eleven players whose combination of skills provide the best chance of winning a Test match. Depending on the circumstance, one might have a team with very skilled players who can carry a poor captain (eg: Ricky Ponting in the Warne/McGrath era) or one might have a team in which a very good captain causes his team to perform at a higher level than they would otherwise and is thus worth more to the team than a better batsman/bowler. I prefer the latter, but clearly both can work. It is a matter for the selectors to determine which course the situation of the team requires.

How that relates to Strauss then ties into the second question of which skills are most important. As a captain, Strauss has been both lauded for his man-management and criticised for his negativity. The question is whether his captaincy is good enough to offset his form with the bat and I would say that it is. I have certainly not refrained from criticising Strauss when I have felt that it is warranted, but this does not mean I think he is anything other than a very good captain. He has the misfortune of being a captain whose weakest area, tactics, is the one most publicly visible. His work in uniting the dressing room, however, has been utterly astounding. Remember that he took over a very fractured one and managed to transition the ‘old guard’ out with a minimum of fuss whilst at the same time winning an Ashes series that we were not expected to. Since then he has managed to get the very most out of all the players (with the exception of Morgan) and has won the respect of the team. His influence has been visible in some of the ODI series where Cook has been in charge, most notably in India. Cook struggled to control the team when the results were not going their way, this is not something that happens when Strauss is in charge. His calm demeanour and the respect the players have for him has ensured that England have stayed professional even on the occasions where things have not gone their way.

This is not to say that I think tactical ability is completely unnecessary, merely that one can compensate for it. I actually rate Michael Vaughan as one of the best ever England captains because of his tactical genius, but what he and Strauss both exhibit is a massive amount of skill in one area or the other. As with the first question, we have a situation where both man-management and tactics can be successful with the right people in the right circumstances. Finding someone who can do both would be ideal, of course, but a rare luxury. As to which is ‘better’ it is a matter of opinion, but I personally prefer a tactician. As important as it is to have all the players behind the captain, one needs to look no farther than the 2005 Ashes to see the benefits of a tactically astute captain. Cricket is a cerebral game and if a captain can outthink the opposition then the battle is halfway won already. Again, good management can adequately compensate for tactics, but given a straight choice I would choose a tactician.

What does not work, however, is a ‘leader’. I have seen it suggested more than once and more than once have the selectors decided that the best player ought to get the captaincy. I almost think this is from people who watch too much football. In football, all the captain has to do is play well and ‘inspire’ the other ten men. Cricket is not the same, however. A cricket captain has to have something between his or her hears to succeed. To see that this does not work, one needs look no farther than Freddie Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen. (Though one is welcome to look back to Ian Botham too, if one wishes.) Both were unmitigated disasters. Both were captains who played very well, but were tactically inept and could not control the players.

All of the above should give a good indication of why Strauss should have a very secure place in the side. He is not a perfect captain, but there are very few of those and he is a very good one. His captaincy provides more to the side than the runs of another batsman would (and that’s even assuming that Strauss’ contributions with the bat are and will continue to be negligible, neither of which I think are true), if he is dropped the side will be worse off overall.

LV=CC week six roundup

Another heavily rain-affected week in the County Championship last week finished with only one positive result. That result was in a contrived match at Bristol where Yorkshire managed to chase 400 in just over a day. There was very nearly another, however, as Surrey were forced to follow-on at New Road before managing to set the hosts 260 to win and reducing them to 150-8. There was not quite enough time for a memorable victory, however. There was also a contrived match at Leicester with the hosts nine down when time time ran out. The full results:

Sussex drew with Lancashire
Durham drew with Somerset
Nottinghamshire drew with Middlesex
Worcestershire drew with Surrey
Essex drew with Kent
Yorkshire beat Gloucestershire by four wickets
Hampshire drew with Derbyshire
Leicestershire drew with Northamptonshire

Naturally, there has not been a great change in the table this week with only one result. The fact that Notts played and Warwicks didn’t has put the former on top of the division one table, but given that Warwickshire have two matches in hand I don’t think they will be worried. Yorkshire’s contrived victory in the second division has seen them fly up to second in the table. It is an interesting indication too of just how big of a difference even two victories can still make and one which will probably not be lost on Lancashire or Durham.

Whilst there was not a lot of time, there were still some very notable performances. Standing out, of course, are the centuries for Phil Jaques (160) and Gary Ballance (121*) in Yorkshire’s improbable victory at Bristol. That match also featured 111 for Kane Williamson and 5-81 for Tim Bresnan in Gloucs’ first innings. The match at Trent Bridge saw 162 from Michael Lumb countered by 143* from Ollie Rayner as the match never came close to a result. Not nearly as large, but still notable was the unbeaten 43* for the England Captain in the second innings. Surrey’s escape/near victory at New Road naturally included some very impressive batting performances in the second innings, including 115 for Rory Hamilton-Brown and 143 for Tom Maynard. Smaller, but again notable, was KP’s 69 after coming in with Surrey on 11-2 after following-on. Kent’s first innings at Chelmsford saw five ducks and nine single digit scores. And 119 for Darren Stevens. He and Geriant Jones (88) put on 196 for the sixth wicket after coming together at 9-5. The main destroyer for Essex was Charl Willoughby who took 5-70 and four of Kent’s top five batsmen. Derbyshire retained their spot at the summit of Division Two in a tame draw at Southampton. Their first innings of 403-9 featured centuries from Wes Durston (121) and Dan Redfern (133). This was after Hants skipper Jimmy Adams scored 122 in the first innings.

England win by eight wickets!

It’s been a disappointing winter, but England have finished it on a high. Chasing 94 to win at an absolute canter with KP hitting the winning runs with a six of none other than Dilshan (who conceded 16 to that man off four balls in the final over). I could not have asked for any more from the end of the match, really. It means that England cling onto the number one Test ranking still and will have a bit of confidence going into India this winter. It was straightforward in the end. Sri Lanka never developed a really threatening partnership and only the early wicket of Strauss threatened to disrupt England’s chase. KP took the bowling by the scruff of the neck again, however, and England ended up chasing the target in just 19.4 overs. KP got a deserved Man of the Match and almost did enough to back up his statements about not having a problem against left-arm spinners. Almost.

For now though, attention can shift in the short-term for the County Championship, and the battle therein for the number six spot in the English batting order, and the Test series in the West Indies as a good build up to their tour of England in a couple of months. Both promise to be fascinating, but I think the battle for number six will be more so. Samit Patel acquitted himself well in the second Test, but always looked like a horse for a course and it seems unlikely that he is in England’s plans for the summer. That would mean back to Bopara, back to Morgan, Bresnan or a Lions player. Simple. Morgan and Bopara should be discounted by the selectors, however. The former decided to play in the IPL rather than bat himself back into form for Middlesex and Bopara is Bopara. Bresnan seems unlikely as a six/seven batsman and given the recent preferences of the selectors will probably be the third seamer, batting at eight, or not play at all. Which would leave a Lions player. Which one will probably be down to LVCC performances, though it is interesting that James Taylor was not included in the England Performance Squad.

There is also a smaller battle to be had now for the third seamer. Bresnan would appear to be the first choice, as almost a proper all-rounder, but Finn seemed to outbowl him in the final Test. As I said above, I don’t think Bresnan will play as a sixth bat/fourth seamer (though I think he is well-qualified to do so). Once again, performances in the LVCC might make the difference, but right now I think Finn would get the nod.

Those are all things on which to keep an eye over the next six weeks. For now though, time to celebrate a much-awaited victory and the retention of the number one spot!

Colombo, day three

A marvellous day for England. I said last night that Sri Lanka had to be worried about the implications of England’s batting clicking and we did exactly that today. KP was fantastic, absolutely dominating the Sri Lankan bowlers and showing how good he really can be. It must be said, he benefited from the top order batting well. Strauss was out last might, but Cook and Trott batted well into the morning today and England were well set by the time KP came to the middle. Batting with the pressure off and Sri Lanka already starting to fray around the edges he set about putting his boot on their throat and by the time the lunch interval came around Sri Lanka were starting to lose it in the field. They wasted both of their reviews in rapid succession, the second one a horrible referral. They then started to fire the ball around and conceded quite a few overthrows before the interval.

The big controversy of the day came with KP on 98*. He was looking imperious and had recently hit a switch-hit for four. He then set up to do so again and Dilshan pulled out. This happened twice and after Dilshan had a word with the umpires they decided to warn KP for time wasting! Whilst they did not say that KP could not play the shot, they did give him an official warning for setting himself before the bowler was in his delivery stride. As far as it goes, that is correct: all though the MCC ruled that the shot was legal, the ICC said that in international cricket the hands must not be reversed before the bowler enters his stride. The problem here was that the replay clearly showed that KP had switched his hands after the bowler had entered his stride and was thus well within his rights to do what he did. In fact, the second time KP did not even get around to switch his hands before Dilshan pulled out. The player who was wasting time was Dilshan. The entire Sri Lankan team was in a strop by this point and this was a blatant attempt at gamesmanship and sad to say, it worked. The umpires should have stood up to it, however, and it was a very, very spineless effort by them to cave in. Luckily KP was untroubled by this and brought up his hundred with a reverse sweep anyway. But it was absolutely appalling behaviour from both Sri Lanka and very poor from the umpires. Hopefully England will lodge a firm complaint about this, but in the meantime I hope Jimmy, Finn and Bres ping a few off Dilshan’s nose tomorrow. Though if he needs treatment, the umpire will probably warn England for time wasting.

Apart from that, it was a very good day for England. Four hundred and sixty all out represents a first innings lead of 185 and Sri Lanka will do well just to make England bat again. England were bowled out with one over left in the day, but Dishonourable Dilshan did not even go out to face the music, instead sending out Prasad as a nightwatchman. He survived and Sri Lanka are 4-0 overnight. There was not only turn, but very uneven bounce on display as England batted and all four of England’s main bowlers will surely be very eager to have a go tomorrow. Whilst England will probably bat again, I do not expect the match to last into a fifth day.