Number one?

England have lost by 75 runs to Sri Lanka and thus need to win the next Test to stay number one in the world. I’ll mention what I think they need to do later/tomorrow, but right now I think there is a good question about whether England ‘should’ be number one or not. It’s something that has come up a few times on Twitter, albeit usually in the form of a snide remark by a South African/Australian/Indian. (Who, strangely, have not usually shown an actual desire to discuss the topic.) The obvious point is that England have lost four Tests in a row since officially becoming number one last August and in any sport it is very hard to do that and still justify being considered the best in the world. Even if England win the last Test, the question will remain after what has been a very poor winter and unless/until England convincingly win a series in the subcontinent there will certainly still be suggestions that England are not the true ‘number one’ side.

Cricket is already unique amongst international sport with its wide range of conditions and possible results, but it is also in a unique situation where the ‘number one’ question is more than usually pertinent. Cricket has had two dynasties that have stretched most of the past 30+ years: the West Indies and then Australia. I had already noticed (even last summer) that there were those who said that England could not be number one until they matched those two teams. That is patently absurd, of course. The fact that almost no team in any sport ever achieved that kind of domination is what made the West Indies and Australia so special. I don’t think most people would claim that modern teams have to match those two greats, but I do think their legacy runs deeper than is obvious. Most do not say that England have to establish worldwide dominance to be number one, but there are still suggestions that a number one side ‘should’ do certain things. (Win in all conditions being the usual one.) But that is rubbish too. The number one side, by definition, is simply the side that is better than all the other sides. Right now, no side (apparently) can win in all conditions, but we cannot simply have no number one side just as a domestic league cannot be without a table topper.

The question then is whether England are better than all other sides. There is not an obvious answer to that. The nearest, and probably only, competitor is South Africa and they have had problems too. South Africa have not won a series on the subcontinent since beating Pakistan in 2007. They have won only one series at home since the start of 2008, against Sri Lanka this year. England beat Sri Lanka at home too, plus India; Pakistan and Australia. On results one could not say that South Africa are better than England, but the recent ones make it very hard to say that South Africa are worse too. Officially, if England do not win the next Test our run of poor form will have been bad enough to go below South Africa. That’s fair enough, but I don’t think South Africans can feel hard done by if England win and stay at the top. (Just as they could not, or at least should not have, when they failed to beat New Zealand.) England don’t look like the best side in the world right now, but South Africa have hardly pushed for the title.

Luckily, the fixture list has been kind and the issue can be settled head-to-head this summer. Though the series is still too short.

Hamilton preview

The second New Zealand v South Africa Test starts in a few hours. I’ll actually miss the first part of it, I’m going out of town for a couple of days, but I’ll be sorry to do so. South Africa were frustrated by the rain at Dunedin, but they did themselves no favours and ought to be kicking themselves about that. Ideally for South Africa that would translate into coming out all guns blazing in the next Test, but I’m not sure it will. They looked very flat before the close on day four and with the added disappointment of the rain their heads may go down. This is, bear in mind, almost the exact same team who responded to a disappointing draw against England by losing by an innings, then responded to another one by winning by an innings. It’s pretty hard to say how they’ll respond here, but I’m leaning towards a positive reaction.

New Zealand should be positive too. Taylor and McCullum batted reasonably well in a high pressure situation on the fourth day, although very little of that pressure was being actively applied by the South African bowlers. Still, they got to stumps in a good enough position that some were suggesting that the rain may have robbed them of a chance of victory. I don’t think that’s true, Taylor and McCullum would have had to get at least another 100 or so of the remaining runs, but they did at least go out of the match on a positive note and can have cause for optimism. Tim Southee has also been dropped which looks like an excellent decision. He has not really performed since very early in his career and would be a fairly unremarkable county bowler in England. New Zealand had trouble turning pressure into wickets in the second innings of the first Test and a large partnership ensued. If they can avoid that in the second Test, they do look like they have the ability to bowl South Africa out cheaply.

I’ve also seen a lot of rubbish about who has the ‘momentum’. It doesn’t matter. Look at the last two Ashes series: in 2009 Australia had the momentum after Headingley and proceeded to lose badly at the Oval. In 2010/11 it was even worse, England had the momentum after Adelaide, but then lost at Perth giving Australia the momentum. Australia were then promptly bowled out for 98 at the MCG and went on to lose by an innings. Sometimes teams will string wins together (usually when they are simply better than the opposition) and sometimes series will go back and forth. Forget ‘momentum’.

Ultimately, I think Steyn, Philander and Morkel will be keen to atone for their performance in the final session at Dunedin and will go after the batsmen much like they did in their first spell of that innings. New Zealand batted reasonably well in Dunedin, but I expect South Africa to step up a bit more and make life very difficult for them. The Kiwis are an improving side and should do enough to keep the match interesting, but I think South Africa will take a 1-0 lead.

Still number one!

There was no play possible due to rain on the fifth day at Dunedin, meaning that regardless of what happens in the last two Tests of the series England will still be number one in the world. A pretty strong argument could be made that we don’t deserve to be, but then a pretty strong argument could be made that South Africa don’t deserve to be either, so it’s probably fair to have it decided by a head to head series this summer. Or maybe I’m just biased (actually I definitely am that, but it doesn’t necessarily make me wrong) and looking for a justification for our clinging on to the top ranking. Either way England can still slip off the top spot before the upcoming series by failing to beat Sri Lanka in the upcoming series there, but that series won’t end until after the official 1 April cutoff date for the ICC prize money. The big series will still be the criminally short three Test affair this summer. I think few would argue with the winner of that being top of the table.

Dunedin, day four

South Africa went into the day in complete control, but will come out of it worried about the weather. Their problems are mostly their own making, though New Zealand have batted decently. They started the day over 200 runs in front and with an extended session the goal ought to have been to increase the run rate with a view to a declaration around lunch. They certainly should have had time to get the lead over 350, which would be very difficult for New Zealand to chase. Instead they batted slowly. Ninety-one runs in two and a half hours would be slow on the first day of a Test, as declaration batting it was maddening. They looked briefly like picking up the pace after lunch, but that didn’t last and soon it was a matter of waiting for Rudolph to finish his century. He did not appear to be in any hurry. When he did bring up three figures before drinks it was still not enough for Smith. When the lead became 399, ie New Zealand would need 400 to win, it was not enough. Instead they batted another six deliveries until a leg bye made the lead 401. I have no idea why Smith would consider one run more important than another over, but more generally I have no idea why South Africa would have batted so slowly before lunch either.

It was poor cricket and poor captaincy, but four and a half session ought to still be enough to bowl out New Zealand, especially the way their quicks started with the new ball. They were on fire before tea and when Philander got the relatively in-form Guptil to edge to slip it looked like just rewards. They eased off after tea though. Tahir came on and looked innocuous. He still got a wicket, but off a knee high full toss that Nicol somehow managed to hit only to mid-on. Another batsman would have hit it into the next county (or the New Zealand equivalent). Instead New Zealand were 55-2 and South Africa had a chance to effectively end the match. They didn’t look really keen though. Tahir stayed on and Steyn was not as incisive as he had been. The bowling was very wide, though that might have been a tactic as McCullum especially had been chasing those. As the innings went on though he settled down and the wide of off stump line became very negative. With rain forecast for tomorrow, one would think that South Africa would be keen on going after the batsmen, but instead they relied on mistakes after tea and have let a large partnership develop.

South Africa will have to bowl much better tomorrow and hope the rain does not play a large part. The way they have gone about trying to force a victory, however, goes a long way to explaining why they are perennially ranked second best.

Dunedin, day one

I confess, I missed a lot of the play yesterday. Prior engagements (it’s been a busy week) meant that I was only ever going to the first half or so of the play and of course it rained. I did manage to keep up on Cricinfo though and what I saw was very impressive from New Zealand. I did say that I thought they could spring a surprise and it seems like South Africa didn’t expect their bowling to be as good as it was. There’s also the possibility, of course, that South Africa were undercooked, having not played any first class warmup matches. Regardless of the reason, South Africa are 191-7 overnight and whilst they are by no means out of the Test it does make things a lot more interesting than they might have been. They have the bowling to win anyway, and I still expect that they will, but New Zealand are putting up a good fight and sound like a very confident team at the moment.

New Zealand are also at home. It should not make a massive difference as the conditions there are similar to those in South Africa, but it does put them on the right side of a very interesting stat: of the 36 Tests that have been played in the last 12 months, touring sides have won only six and lost 20. South Africa are actually not included in that as they have not played a Test overseas in the past 12 months, but it is still an interesting sign of just how difficult it has been for teams overseas recently.

New Zealand v South Africa preview

Another drought is almost over and in three days we will have a Test match for the first time in a month. New Zealand host South Africa for what could be a very interesting series. There’s certainly a lot at stake, a 3-0 win for the tourists will see them climb to the top of the ICC rankings for the first time since they went top in the aftermath of England’s victory in the 2009 Ashes. (They were actually leapfrogged by third placed England after we whitewashed India.) At the same time, a Kiwi victory by any margin would see the Saffers fall to third and even a draw will be enough for New Zealand to go ahead of the West Indies in the rankings. I like South Africa, and generally cheer for them, but I’ll be supporting the Kiwis/the rain!

Of course, South Africa are massive favourites. New Zealand, despite the wins against Australia and Zimbabwe, still sit eighth in the table, just above Bangladesh. South Africa didn’t have an incredible home summer, 1-1 against Australia and 2-1 against Sri Lanka, but they have a lot about which to be optimistic. Dale Styen is still as good as he ever was and now they have Vernon Philander and Marchant De Lange to support him, giving them a very powerful pace attack. On the friendly wickets of New Zealand they should be able to run riot. Even in the victory at Hobart the Kiwis’ batting looked fragile and I don’t expect a lot from them against the world class attack of South Africa. What New Zealand will have to do is find a batsman who can play a proper innings. (Other than Vettori.) Ross Taylor stood up against Zimbabwe and was supported by Brendan McCullum (surprisingly) and the young wicketkeeper BJ Watling. They will find the going orders of magnitude tougher against South Africa, but if they are going to get anything out of the series they are going to need more innings like those. Their best hope might be for Philander and De Lange to fail to replicate their form from South Africa’s home summer. Both are young and fairly unproven so that is a possibility. There is also the fact that there are no warmups ahead of the Test series, though that could work both ways. Certainly the last thing New Zealand will want is for McCullum to try to play an ODI innings against Steyn in a Test.

It might be a bit more interesting when South Africa bat though. New Zealand are developing a very good attack of their own. Chris Martin and Doug Bracewell aren’t as good as the South Africans, however, and they have a much tougher batting order against whom to bowl. Still, South Africa collapsed badly against Sri Lanka twice at home, so the vulnerabilities are there. They still have questions to answer about the top of the order ahead of their all-important trip to England next summer, certainly, and whilst this series will provide them a good chance to try to answer those questions it also means the Kiwis have a potential opening. If South Africa simply bat to the best of their ability they should be able to post comfortable scores, but I think they underestimate New Zealand at their peril. It wasn’t the greatest ever Australian lineup that collapsed in Hobart, but nor was it their worst. It contained the same group of players that went on to get big scores against India. If South Africa are too casual New Zealand have the talent to spring a surprise.

Ultimately, I don’t think South Africa will take anything lightly and should ease to victory. As promising as New Zealand have looked in their last two Tests there is still a very large gulf in class. I think it can be useful to compare sides by forming a combined XI, and in this case I think the only Kiwi would be Daniel Vettori. It pains me, but I think South Africa are a good enough side that they will win 3-0.