Pakistan v England review and player marks

There’s not much more to say about how England performed in this series. No batsman scored a hundred and only Matt Prior averaged over 30 in the series. England were not just poor with the bat, but historically awful. The only series of three or more matches in which England have averaged lower than the 19.06 they did in the UAE was the 1888 Ashes. From that perspective, it’s amazing to think that we definitely ought to have wont he second Test and maybe even the third. It’s hard to know which is more surprising: that the bowlers kept us in the match after the batsmen had failed so badly or that the batsmen threw away such good positions. I’ve compiled marks out of ten for each of the players:

Pakistan
Misbah-ul-Haq* – 7/10
It was only a mediocre series with the bat from the Pakistan captain, but such was the nature of the series that his average of 36 was still fifth highest. More importantly for Pakistan is that he led the side well. It didn’t seem to take a lot to beat England’s batsmen, but he did not give them very many openings with his bowling changes and field placings.

Mohammad Hafeez – 6/10
Only one score of note with the bat, 88 in the first match, but he made it into double figures each of his other innings as well. His main contribution was with the ball, spinning it early in the innings. He took five wickets at 16 apiece, including the wicket of Cook on the first morning that started the rot for England.

Taufeeq Umar – 3/10
Passed fifty in the first Test, but was dismissed cheaply by Swann and Anderson in the next two. Victim of some good bowling, but did not look assured and did not defend well.

Azhar Ali – 9/10
Overcame an indifferent start to the series to finish top of the averages thanks to a match winning 157 in the final Test. He also scored a crucial (and possibly also match winning) 68 in the second Test and showed considerable maturity throughout.

Younis Khan – 6/10
A high score of 127 in a series where only one other batsman made it to three figures would seem to require more than six points out of ten, but he only scored 66 runs in the other four innings in the series. His high score before that knock had been 37 in the opening Test, and that had been ignominiously ended when he was lbw to Jonathan Trott.

Asad Shafiq – 5/10
A very creditable series for a batsman from whom little was expected. He passed 40 in three of the five innings in which he batted, but had difficulty going on and his top score was only 58.

Adnan Akmal† – 4/10
In rating the latest Akmal’s performance it is important to compare him with other wicket-keepers, not just his infamous brother. He did a reasonable job with the gloves, but appealed every time the ball hit the pads. (Though I will concede that a lot of them were out.) Had a hilarious drop early in England’s third Test run chase, but it cost them little. Poor series with the bat, but better than most were expecting.

Abdur Rehman – 9/10
A fantastic series for the left arm spinner, he finished only behind Ajmal in the series wicket tally and was the main destroyer in England’s second and third Test collapses.

Umar Gul – 8/10
Very quietly had a brilliant series. All of the headlines were about England woes against spin and with the effectiveness of Ajmal and Rehman he only needed to bowl 74 overs in the series. In those 74 overs he took 11 wickets at 22.27 and with a strike rate second only to Ajmal.

Saeed Ajmal – 10/10
Came off a brilliant 2011 and could not have made a better start to 2012. England could not read his variations and never got over the mess he made of them in the first innings of the series. Bell in particular looked all at sea facing him. Deserved man of the series.

Aizaz Cheema- 1/10
Only played in the first and third Tests, but was hardly needed. Bowled only 27 overs and took one wicket for 70 runs. Scored 0* in each of his three innings with the bat.

Junaid Khan – 0/10
Sadly, never really showed up. His biggest contribution to the second Test was a terrible drop in the deep with Prior batting in the first innings. Took 0-33 off eight overs in the first innings, did not bowl in the second.

England
Andrew Strauss* – 6/10
Led from the front with a good 56 in the last Test, but that was the high point as he struggled to get onto the front foot the entire series. He used his bowlers to good effect and did a good job keeping spirits up when England were in the field.

Alastair Cook – 5/10
Could not replicate his form from the summer, though he came closest of any English batsman to score a century this series. His soft dismissal in the first innings of the first Test set the tone for the series and he fell cheaply to start the disastrous run chase in the second Test too.

Jonathan Trott – 5/10
Second in England’s batting averages, but needless to say he still had a poor series. Made a good 74 in the second Test, but had an untimely illness in the second and could not meaningfully contribute to the run chase.

Kevin Pietersen – 1/10
Not merely a poor series from KP, but an abysmal one. He threw his wicket away more often than not, his efforts in the second innings of the first Test deserving special criticism. He finally started to find some form in the third Test, but still could not master the trick of hitting the ball with the bat when defending.

Ian Bell – 1/10
Poor Ian. Only once did he look like he could pick the variations from Ajmal and when he did he was trapped by Gul instead. His dismissal in the third Test run chase was one of the worst one will ever see, the very picture of a batsman out of form. From a man who came into the series on the back of an imperious 200 against India, it was rather a shock.

Eoin Morgan – 1/10
Eoin Morgan was supposed to be the man who would play spin. Supposedly his unorthodox style and ability to score quickly and to all parts of the field were going to be invaluable against spin. Instead he consistently threw his wicket away to the spinners. Just for a change in the last Test he threw his wicket away to Gul instead, but the entire series clearly showed up a dearth of application.

Matt Prior† – 7/10
England’s best batsman, plus another good series with the gloves (though he did not have a huge amount to do behind the stumps). He started the series with an unbeaten 70 as England collapsed and finished it with an unbeaten 49. His form dipped in between, but he was one of only two batsmen to get into double figures in the second Test run chase.

Stuart Broad – 9/10
Put in an absolutely amazing effort in the series. He was the pick of the English bowlers with 13 wickets at just over 20 and put England into excellent positions in the second and third Tests. He was more than handy with the bat as well, averaging more than KP, Bell and Morgan and scoring more in one innings (58* in the first innings of the second Test) than Bell did in the series.

Graeme Swann – 8/10
Rather unexpectedly found himself as the second spinner when Monty returned to the side, but still performed admirably. He finished with 13 and an almost identical strike rate to Broad, but conceded about sixty more runs. As usual, he was most effective against left-handers

Jimmy Anderson – 8/10
Took a bit of a back seat to Broad, but certainly did not embarrass himself. He was very unlucky to end up with only nine wickets, but bowled a very tight, probing line throughout.

Monty Panesar – 9/10
England sprung a surprise by playing two spinners in Abu Dhabi, and Monty took the opportunity superbly. He took 6-62 in the second innings to set up what should have been a very straightforward run chase. He was the only English bowler to take five wickets in a match in the series and he did so twice, picking up 14 in all.

Chris Tremlett – 0/10
Only played in the first Test and only had a chance to bowl in the first innings. He took 0-53, never looked particularly threatening and was dropped in favour of Monty.

Despite the poor performance of England in the series, I would not make wholesale changes for Sri Lanka. It is worth remembering that we did come up against some very good bowlers in conditions which suited them. KP and Bell averaged over 70 and over 100 last year, respectively, so to suggest that they be dropped over one poor series is very, very harsh. Similarly, Andrew Strauss has not been in the best of form with the bat, but he is easily the best leader of the side. Cook showed in the ODIs in India that he is not ready for the captaincy yet, and I would certainly not want to entrust Broad with it as I would want some England to still have reviews left after the first over. In any case, Strauss was the best of the full time batsmen in the third Test.

A change I would make is that I would drop Morgan.He has shown in this series that he is not a Test batsman. That is not to say that he will never be one, but he was brought into the side on the back of limited overs performances and I think a season playing first class cricket will do his temperament no end of good. In his place I would play Tim Bresnan, assuming he is fit (which seems likely). Whilst it seems odd to suggest playing one fewer batsman after the struggles in the UAE, Bres has a Test batting average of 45. Not only is this very reasonable on its own, it is actually 15 runs higher than Morgan averages. It’s good enough that I would pick him as a batsman over Mogan and Bopara even if he did not bowl a single ball.

That is the only change I would make, however, the other batsmen have good enough records that they certainly deserve another chance against the weaker Sri Lankan bowling and Monty has easily done enough to stay in the starting XI. It’s been a poor series, but these players will be strongly motivated to put that behind them and play well in Sri Lanka.

Dubai, third Test, day three

England have not yet lost. It’s more of a cruelty than anything else, however. Pakistan collapsed abruptly to some sharp spin in the evening session to leave England a very improbable target of 324 to win. England made it to stumps on 36-0.

The highlight of the day, the match, and maybe the series, was Azhar Ali. He scored a fantastic 150, the highest individual score of the series and a fantastic demonstration of how to bat on a pitch like this. He seldom took any undue risks, but scored when he had the opportunity to do so and rotated the strike well. It took over nine hours and demonstrated the utmost maturity and patience of which we have seen too little in Test cricket recently. It was an innings of Cook-esque brilliance and without it England’s target would be looking a lot more gettable. It may well be that he has hit a match winning knock for his country in a match and series were almost all of the batsman have failed and he thoroughly deserves every bit of praise he gets.

Pakistan lost their last seven wickets for only 34 runs and lost them to some sharp spin from Monty (who bagged another five-fer) and Swann, so I don’t think England will score another 288 runs and win the Test. Stranger things have happened, of course, and our batting did look a bit better in the first innings, but it is unlikely. England need a good foundation from this pair, but I fear they will need to put on about 200 to make England favourites as it’s not uncommon for a team for team to get off to a good start in a run chase and then collapse to a big defeat. (England chasing 400+ at Lord’s in 2005 is a good example.) For England to win the match they will have to bat out of their skins on a pitch that is now turning sharply. They won’t quite need their highest score in the series, which is 327, but they will need someone to step up and score a century in the same way that Ali did for Pakistan. It is a batting order which we know can score runs and if they manage to knock these off it will be a famous victory. By definition, however, famous victories are quite rare; more likely is that they will get close enough to make us optimistic and then lose anyway. Like I said: it’s cruel.

Dubai, third Test, day one

I feel a bit like I’m listening to a set of variations on a theme with England in this series. Specifically this would be Strauss’s ‘Variations on a theme of having the bowlers do all the work’. Once again they performed outstandingly well, Stuart Broad in particular. He bowled quickly and on a good length getting the ball to nip back a bit and was rewarded with four wickets. Jimmy bowled similarly and picked up three. Pakistan did not play them entirely comfortably, and some of the shots were truly dreadful, but take nothing away from Broad and Anderson; they were fantastic. Pakistan were bowled out for 99 one ball after the midway point of the day. It was exactly how England needed to respond to the defeat in Abu Dhabi and were it any other series (the Ashes, say) one would think that the match was decided then and there. But nothing on this tour is that simple. There was a point at which even a first innings lead did not look a given, as Cook and Trott went early to leave the score 7-2. Eventually Strauss did guide the side to 104-6 at stumps.

England were a bit more unfortunate in the batting collapse this time. Cook was out to an uncharacteristic waft, but Trott was LBW to a ball that was going down leg, but Strauss decided not to review it. Strauss has been a very good judge of these in the past (and this is the one area in which England have comprehensively outplayed Pakistan in the series, Pakistan have had a tendency to throw their reviews away) and this did not sound like a bad decision originally, but as it transpired the ball was going down leg. Still, one could say it was poetic justice for Trott’s similar reprieve at Abu Dhabi. KP was either completely done by technology with shocker of an LBW decision or missed a straight-ish one from the left arm spin of Rehman, depending on one’s opinion on DRS. He got forward to the spinner and was given out on the field. He reviewed and the replay had the ball just clipping the stumps so he stayed out. He was furious and there were many who were unhappy with the decision and the DRS, but I thought it was fair. Once again, it was given out on the field, so the DRS did not give him out and the ball was clipping the stumps, so the decision was clearly not a terrible one. It was disappointing especially as KP had played very well for his 32, but he was not hard done by the decision. It was a blow for England as Strauss then went into his shell again and Bell was having his usual trouble picking Ajmal. He probably only lasted as long as he did because Strauss had been protecting him, but his dismissal was the most unfortunate of all of England’s. He was stumped off the keeper’s pads and only by a proverbial kitten’s whisker. It actually required Akmal to miss the ball (not difficult) and then get a perfect ricochet off the pads. If Prior had been behind the timbers it would have been not out, simply by virtue of the fact that he would have taken the ball cleanly.

There was some hope, however, that the other batsmen would have seen KP’s success getting on the front foot and playing straight and follow suit. Morgan even hit a straight six, but normal service was resumed soon enough. He played back, was hit in front and given out on review. It was a simple and predictable dismissal, but still infuriating. KP showed how to play and Morgan showed that he could play the way we needed, and then failed to carry on. Morgan is now one of the players who falls into my ‘never want to see playing for England again’ category. It’s not a permanent classification, some time playing county cricket could do him the world of good, but right now I’d rather see Monty selected as a specialist batsman than Morgan. (Bopara is also on the list, it should be pointed out.) Prior also missed a straight one, but was actually bowled instead of LBW. It didn’t require a review, obviously, but did serve to demonstrate the fact that when a ball only clips the stumps it is out! (Somehow I think the lesson was lost on KP and a few others, however.) Interestingly, James Anderson went out as a nightwatchman for Stuart Broad. In a way it makes sense; Anderson can bat and Broad has been one of our best batsmen in the series. Jimmy did his job for the second time in the day and England only lost six wickets.

For Pakistan, 99 all out doesn’t look good, but at one point they were 44-7. It was once again Asad Shafiq who frustrated England, scoring an excellent 45. He alone of the Pakistanis looked comfortable and was only dismissed looking for runs to keep the strike. Mohammad Hafeez looked decent, however and seemed to think himself unlucky to be given out LBW. He clearly felt that he had got an inside edge, as did Simon Taufel, but not the third umpire and he had to go. He and KP will have something about which to talk, possibly when they run into each other outside the match referee’s office later.

In 88 overs of play today 203 runs were scored for the loss of 16 wickets. It’s especially surprising given that most of the people who saw the pitch before the day started saw it as a flat batting surface. David Lloyd called it a 400 pitch and it looked for all the world like a great toss to win. It puts the match in a similar situation as in the last Test, with England wanting a big lead to compensate for batting last. The interesting thing this time is that the pitch is still not a minefield and the fourth innings may be played on the third day. That won’t help England with regard to their mental block about spin bowling, but it does mean that they may not have any additional problems from this innings. Still, it looks like once again we are relying on the bowlers to score runs and then bowl Pakistan out cheaply.

Pak v Eng stats

It’s fair to say that England’s batsmen have not had a good tour of the UAE so far. Seeing the performance in light of England spending the last year breaking batting records left, right and centre has been especially shocking, but the numbers actually stand out without any help. I’ve sound some fairly interesting numbers ahead of the third Test

England’s top seven batsmen average just 18.77 between them, right now that’s the lowest they have averaged in any series this century by some distance. The next lowest is 25.04, set on the 03/04 tour of Sri Lanka, so they will need a fairly good performance (most likely in the area of 500 runs) to avoid the worst mark this century.

Pakistan’s top order have been kept in check, however, meaning that the two teams have an average of 25.97 for the top seven batsmen. Currently it ranks 182 of the 190 series this century. Interestingly, recent Pakistan sides have been involved in three of the lower averages; both their series in England in 2010 had combined top order averages under the one from this Test, and their two Test series against the Windies last year is the second lowest.

So far no batsman has scored a century in the series. There have been 14 series of two or more matches in which no batsman has scored a century, but only six three match series in which that has occurred (or failed to occur) and two of those were in the nineteenth century.

The last time no English batsman has scored a century in a series was at home against New Zealand in 1999.

Pakistan’s win is their fourth in a row, which they have not done since August – October 2003 when they whitewashed Bangladesh and then won the first Test against South Africa. The last time they won more than four consecutive Tests was when they won six on the trot from May 2001 to February 2002.

Abu Dhabi, day three

For the third time in a row England have had the better day, but for the third time in a row it has been close enough that the match is still very much up for grabs. England batted with more positive intent this morning than they have in the entire series so far, and though they rode their luck at times they finally managed to put the Pakistani bowlers and fieldsmen under a bit of pressure. Prior was out early (LBW for three, after being amazingly dropped on two), and whilst Bell managed to hang on and dig in against the spinners he was undone by a very good ball from Gul. Stuart Broad, however, played with an incredible fluency given how much the proper batsmen had struggled. Part of this was the pressure being off of him, but with England desperately needing lower order runs it cannot have been completely absent. It is not the first time he has rescued the batsmen (Trent Bridge last summer and Lord’s the year before each spring to mind) and I think he has to be considered an all-rounder now. It isn’t fair to call him a bowler who can bat a bit (as Cricinfo did before the lunch interval) as that implies someone like Graeme Swann or Peter Siddle. With respect to those players, Broad is a much better batsman than either of them and whilst I do not like relying on him for runs it can be done. With his four wickets in the first innings and unbeaten 58 he has to be an early favourite for Man of the Match, especially if England win.

Overall I think this was the best of the three days for England. They did not get as many in the morning as they probably would have liked (Bell especially will be disappointed to get out, even if there was not a lot he could have done) they still got a very handy lead of 70. They also did so quickly; they scored 116 runs in the Morning session, the most by one team in a session all series. (The previous best was Pakistan’s 104 runs in the afternoon session of the first day of this Test.) That lead of 70 was about what many were predicting before the start of play and whilst it isn’t a match sealing lead it is enough to put Pakistan under pressure. Given the low scoring nature of the match it is probably equivalent to a lead of 100 or more in more normal conditions. The biggest boost to England was the four wickets that they took before Pakistan had reached parity, however. There was even a time, after Misbah-ul-Haq was out that it looked possible that England could shoot them out today. That didn’t pan out, but England clamped down on the scoring so effectively that Pakistan still only lead by 55, even after a partnership that lasted almost the entire evening session. The run rate for Pakistan’s second innings is only 2.04 and it was below two for most of the innings.

Pakistan’s fifth wicket partnership of 71 is the only thing that kept England from running away with the day, and indeed the Test. Azhar Ali and Asad Shafiq, with only 32 Tests between them, batted superbly well to see out the day and keep Pakistani hopes alive. They are the last major pair for Pakistan and the pressure was firmly on them when they came out still 16 runs in arrears. I thought that England could certainly get one or both of them before the close. England certainly do not need to feel anxious for a wicket yet, however. The lead is only 55 and there is very little batting to come. Pakistan probably still want another 100 runs at an absolute minimum and with the difficulty new batsmen have had on this pitch, and Pakistan’s tail in general, have had one would think that this pair need to put on about another fifty. They could do it, but it would take an incredible effort and probably a touch of fortune. This situation (and the ten overs or so before close) is where a fifth bowler would be very useful for England. It’s unlikely, but perhaps a combination of this partnership and Morgan’s repeated failures will give Strauss and Flower cause for reconsideration of the balance of the side.

There is a decent chance that the match will end tomorrow. If England keep the deficit manageable they will have enough time to knock the runs off, but if Pakistan get a big lead (or even if they don’t) there will also be enough time for England to collapse before stumps. After our batting performance in the first innings (327 all out, only 11 shy of the highest innings total of the admittedly short series) I think there’s some much needed confidence in the England dressing room and I don’t think we will have another shocker (even on a wearing pitch against Ajmal), but it is possible. I think the only way the match will go into a fifth day is if Pakistan get another 150+ or so tomorrow and England properly dig in to have a go at chasing the runs. My guess is that England will win it early tomorrow evening, but the way the Test and series has gone so far I would not want to put money on anything just yet.

Abu Dhabi, day one

It was a very odd day’s cricket, but England at least shaded it if not won it outright. The day started by England looking like they were going to play both Monty and Finn for long enough to get my hopes up that we were finally going to go with five bowlers, but ultimately only playing Monty. I thought it was a terrible decision at the time; not playing Monty as such, but playing him as part of a four man attack. To me, only having two seamers is too few. It was not as bad as I had thought, England bowled very well, but there were times in the long partnership in the afternoon session in which I think another seam bowler would have been very useful. (Certainly I think he would have been more useful than Morgan batting at six.) But the decision to bowl two spinners looked like a masterstroke during the morning. Swann and Monty bowled in tandem and each picked up a wicket on a pitch that looked like a road.

It was the pitch that was the most unusual aspect of the day. At the start it looked like a flat, fill-your-boots pitch. On TMS Boycott said that England would do fantastically to keep them to 350. As the two spinners took wickets it looked like it might take a lot of turn but there would be nothing in it for the seamers. Broad and Anderson made a mockery of that, however, getting the ball to nip back off the seam and extracting copious amounts of movement with the second new ball. Were it not for three dropped catches (two of them sitters) England would probably already be batting having only conceded about 230. All of which suggests that the pitch was misread at the start, which it probably was, but I don’t think it was so badly misread as to render Pakistan’s total anywhere close to average. To suggest that 256-7 is not a bad total would be to imply that the pitch is as treacherous as the average English wicket in May, which I do not think is true at all. I think the better explanation is that the pitch had a little bit more life in it than was expected, but England simply bowled very, very well. They could have done better, but on a pitch that has seen two high scoring draws and on a still flat looking wicket it was a very good show.

Misbah and Shafiq showed in the afternoon just how easy batting could be. They looked very comfortable as the older ball did not do a lot and could easily blunt England’s attack. (This is where I thought it was a man short.) Their partnership was only ended when Shafiq got himself out with a suicidal mow just before the new ball was due. There’s no guarantee that England’s batsmen won’t go out tomorrow and play the same shot, but with most of them one would back them to have learnt better. (Perhaps not with KP.) Especially with a day of sun on it the pitch will probably be better for batting tomorrow and I think England will back themselves to get at least 400 whenever they get their turn to bat. Depending on how many Pakistan get tomorrow morning (and Misbah is still in to bat with the tail) England should have enough of a lead to put them in the driving seat for the rest of the match.

Today was hard to read, but tomorrow should clarify matters. Usually that means I’ll look like an idiot, mind, but hopefully not this time.

Dubai, first Test, day two

Yesterday we saw the worst of England, today we arguably saw the best. After the disappointment of not getting a wicket last night England still looked up for it in the field this morning, and troubled the batsmen early. Even when they did not pick up a wicket for the first ninety minutes of the morning session they did not let their heads drop and were rewarded with two before lunch.

England’s intensity never really abated today. It was clearly hard going in the field and England never instigated a proper collapse, but they kept at it and picked up wickets when they most needed them. Pakistan built several partnerships, but England put a handbrake on the scoring after lunch and although the batsmen occupied the crease for some time they never managed to up the scoring rate. To an extent this is how Pakistan, especially Misbah-ul-Haq, play all the time but England’s bowlers played a big role in that as well. They never lost their line, they never got desperate for a wicket they just kept probing away and waited for their reward. It was great to see and it is one of the reasons England are currently number one in the world. It also makes a sharp contrast to what we have seen in Australia with the Indian bowlers giving up as soon as a partnership has started to build. There are two stats in particular that I think show how well England bowled: Pakistan are 174-7 after their opening partnership and they only scored 75 in an evening session that was extended to get all the overs in. That’s under 2.5 an over for over two hours at a time when Pakistan would have wanted to put the game out of reach.

Pakistan deserve credit for accepting the slow rate of scoring instead of riskily trying to up the run rate (as we’ve seen from many other teams just before they collapsed). Their best batsman statistically was Mohammed Hafeez with his 88 at the top of the order, but I think the best innings was actually played by Misbah during that final session. Hafeez batted with the pressure mostly off; England were probing and testing, of course, but they had not yet found the right line and length and the going was more comfortable, especially as the shine was mostly off the ball by then. Misbah had to face the new ball at a time when Pakistan could easily have collapsed if he had got out though. When Jimmy Anderson removed Asad Shafiq Pakistan were only 39 runs in front with only the tail to come and a young, fairly unreliable batsmen at the crease in the form of the wicket-keeper. If England had got either of them out right then we might already be batting, but Misbah played very slowly, very deliberately and guided his partner through a very tough passage of play. He was eventually undone by Swann, but the partnership was worth what may be a very important 52.

The match is now set up quite well for the next three days. Pakistan could still get a very good first innings lead if the tail can stick around tomorrow morning, but England will be backing themselves to knock them over quickly. A lead of 150 may be too much for England, but that’s still a long way off with the bowlers on top of the batsmen. England’s batsmen are unlikely to recreate their heroics of Brisbane, but something similar could be on the cards. Certainly they are unlikely to bat as poorly as they did in the first innings, so if Pakistan are held to a lead of 100-115 and England have a day and a half in which to amass a large total they could be in a position to exert considerable pressure in the fourth innings.

Pakistan v England preview

The warmup matches are over and now it’s only four days until the first Test between England and Pakistan in Dubai. England have started the tour positively by winning both of the warmup matches, but there have been still been some clear weaknesses, especially in the middle order batting. It may be because they are having trouble adapting to the pitch, or it could just be rust because England have not played cricket for a while. We’ll know more as the series goes on.

The biggest positive from the two warmups for England must be the bowling. Even though Bresnan hasn’t been able to overcome his elbow injury, Finn, Tremlett, Onions and even Monty have put in good performances to stake their claims to replace him. Monty actually had the best figures from that quartet, taking 8-103 in the second warmup. I doubt England will play two spinners, especially in a four man attack, but Monty has made a strong case for inclusion, probably at the expense of Morgan. Tremlett and Onions are almost neck and neck after taking 4-62 and 4-90 in the second warmup, both of which are better than Finn’s match analysis in the first warmup. Finn is probably still the front-runner, it would have taken an exceptional performance by his competitors to overcome that, but Strauss and Flower can be comfortable in the knowledge that there are replacements available if he struggles. Given the gruelling conditions likely to confront England, I would be very surprised if they did not intentionally rotate some of the bowlers anyway.

The batting for England is more of a concern. Strauss, Cook and Trott have all made runs at some point during the first two warmups, but KP, Bell and Morgan averaged 12.9 between them with a top score of 39. This is troubling, but I don’t think it is a disaster. Ian Bell is a very talented player and has had considerable success in the past against Pakistan. He averages 68.8 against them, albeit ‘only’ 52.16 outside of England. Given his skill and history it is very likely that he will come good. KP and Morgan are more uncertain. KP can be a mercurial player, but he was in form last summer. Given that the pitches will favour batsmen one might think that he will find the going to be relatively easy, but he has struggled in his career in the subcontinent. In his career in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka he averages just 34.6, though he averaged over 80 in two matches in Bangladesh. Eoin Morgan is untried at the highest level, and has never played in a Test outside England, but his technique is said to be good against spin. He has a very inventive style of strokeplay, but he has not yet scored the runs to establish himself as a long term Test candidate. How he fares in this series could tell us quite a bit about if he is a Test batsman or not. Even if KP and Morgan do struggle it is unlikely to be fatal for England. Four firing batsmen can usually carry two out of form ones and when adds Prior and Broad to the mix England’s batting still looks excellent.

For Pakistan, this is their first series against top opposition since they played South Africa in November of 2010. They have won six of their subsequent ten Tests, but drew both matches in that series. Both their bowlers and batsmen performed exceptionally in 2011; their top six averaged just under fifty with the bat and their bowlers averaged under 27 with the ball. Four of their batsmen averaged over 45 last year, and two of those averaged well over fifty, whilst all of their regular bowlers averaged under 30. The caveat to this is that the best team they played was Sri Lanka, and they still almost lost one of those matches. Furthermore, they have recalled Wahab Riaz for this series despite his averaging over 40 last year.

Pakistan have played fairly defensive minded cricket in their last few Tests. It probably cost them a win against Sri Lanka, but may serve them well against England. Whilst England have bowled brilliantly recently, one of their big advantages has been their ability to induce poor shots by choking off scoring. With Pakistan playing cautiously anyway they may not be as susceptible to that tactic, which could in turn make life very difficult for England’s bowlers. At the same time, with Cook and Trott digging in for England it could make it very hard for Pakistan to win. (As well as making the play slow to a crawl, which no one wants.)

Whilst Pakistan are playing well and know the conditions well, I think England are simply a better side. Even if Morgan and KP do not fire we still have six players solid batsmen in the side and a very talented, well drilled and utterly relentless bowling attack. In many ways it doesn’t really matter who replaces Bresnan, England are still going to have an exceptional attack with no real weak point. Going back to the last Ashes they have had 12 Tests in which they have choked the life out of some of the most famous and accomplished batsmen, with only Dravid and Hussey managing to defy them. I think England may still need a Test to get properly acclimatised, but will come back well after that. From what we’ve seen in the warmups I think they can bowl Pakistan out twice and will win the series 2-0.

2011 XI

After an all-too-few 39 matches, 2011 is over. Well not really, but the next Test is at the SCG on 3 January, so the year is over for all intents and purposes. As my final look back on the year I have compiled an XI for 2011. It’s a generalised lineup; I have given no thought to specialised conditions such as a spinning Indian wicket or a seaming English one. Doing so would also be an interesting exercise, but this is a good place to start. For the balance of the side I went with four bowlers and six batsmen. It’s not one with which I entirely agree, but England were undefeated with it this year so there we are. My XI is thus:

Alastair Cook*
Rahul Dravid
Kumar Sangakkara
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Bell
Younis Khan
Matt Prior†
Stuart Broad
Dale Steyn
Saeed Ajmal
James Anderson

12th Man: Misbah-ul-Haq

Cook is an obvious choice. He started the year by scoring 189 runs at the SCG (in one innings, obviously) and barely slacked off after that. He scored 927 runs in only eight matches this year at an average of 84, including 294 at Edgbaston to form the base of England’s 710-7 declared. I also selected him as captain. Although he does not have a lot of experience none of the players in my XI are currently captain and Cook is being groomed as Strauss’ replacement. This XI should not need a particularly strong captain, however, just look at how successful Ponting was. The selection of his opening partner was much more difficult. Few other openers stood out and none came close to matching Cook. Dravid is not a regular opener, and has said that he does not like to open, but did so with aplomb in England. He was lead run scorer this year and averaged better than 57, but in the five innings in which he opened he averaged almost eighty. Although it’s not his regular position, there are no other openers who impressed in the same way that he and Cook did, so they are my opening pair.

By selecting Dravid as an opener it opens up the number three spot and the choice of Sangakkara is an easy one. He scored over a thousand runs this year (only Dravid scored more) and has just come off a match winning century in Durban. He averaged over fifty batting in the middle order as well, and often seemed to carry his side. Ian Bell, although he has preferred batting at number three, spent a lot of the year at number five, so that is where he goes into this XI. His selection was as easy as Sangakkara’s though; he scored 950 runs at 118 apiece this year. He was the only batsman this year to average over 100 after playing in more than one match. Younis Khan was the last pretty straightforward selection. He scored 765 runs at an average of exactly 85, the second best amongst all middle order players. It was a very good performance, especially as he would have had to put a lot of politics out of his head. The last middle order place went to KP, but it was a very difficult decision between him and Misbah-ul-Haq. In the end I though KP had a better year, making a spectacular resurgence against India. Misbah scored a lot or runs, and did a brilliant job captaining the side, but KP had a better average and also provided a good explosive option after the top three who would have built a solid base. Although he was the last selection he goes in at number four as that is his usual spot.

The selection of a wicket-keeper was easy, Matt Prior has been peerless for some time now. He averaged 64.87 with the bat and 2.25 dismissals per innings. The former is far and away the highest, whilst the latter is second by 0.02 to MS Dhoni. Unfortunately Statsguru doesn’t seem to let me sort wicket-keepers by byes, so I don’t know how he ranks in that regard.
— Edited to add: John Townsend very kindly sent me some bye totals for this year on Twitter: Prior 122 (16 innings), Dhoni 103 (22 innings), Carlton Baugh 65 (19 innings). This surprised me somewhat. I knew Dhoni was a good gloveman, but I thought the combination of Prior’s skill, the accuracy of his bowlers and the fact that he played in fewer matches would give him a better total. The weight of Prior’s runs with the bat still gives him a place in the side (he averaged 37.98 runs better than Dhoni with the bat, so an extra 2.94 per innings conceded is not problematic) but it’s interesting that he has farther to go with the gloves than I thought. —

Dale Steyn and Jimmy Anderson share the new ball in this XI. Both have led their respective attacks brilliantly this year. Steyn finished amongst the top ten quick bowlers in terms of number of wickets despite the fact that South Africa only played five matches and he was also the only full time bowler (Mike Hussey absolutely does not count) to have an average under 20 this year. Anderson had the second highest wicket tally amongst quicks this year, and achieved that in only seven matches (as he missed the Lord’s Test against Sri Lanka). He and Steyn were the only two bowlers to average better than five wickets per match this year. First change is Stuart Broad who finally remembered the importance of pitching it in the batsman’s half of the pitch. His overall numbers this year are quite impressive, 33 wickets in seven matches at an average of 22.30, but he actually did not have a great series against Sri Lanka at the start of the summer. He was still pitching the ball short and trying to be the ‘enforcer’. Against India he went back to the fuller length of the Oval 2009 and took 25 wickets in the four matches at an amazing 13.84 apiece. It was one of the best bowling performances in a series one will see, and he also chipped in by scoring 182 runs at 60.66 against India. As much as it pained me not to give the spinner’s slot to Graeme Swann, the fact is that he had a very quiet year. He only took 27 wickets in eight matches, though a large part of that was because the seamers were cleaning up at the other end. Even if he had had a fantastic year, however, it would have been impossible to ignore Saeed Ajmal. In eight matches he took 50 wickets at just shy of 24. It’s true that they were against weak teams, but statistically he was the best bowler, paceman or spinner, of the year.

I expect there are not a lot people who would agree with every one of my selections. The batsmen were particularly difficult, but amongst the bowlers Umar Gul made a very good case for selection as well. The biggest flaw is probably that there are three proper tailenders after Stuart Broad. The top order is such that those three are very unlikely to have to bat at all though. I doubt many would think the players selected are undeserving, but I would still greatly like to see your XI in the comments.

Pakistan v England stats

I always rather enjoy going through Statsguru on Cricinfo, and after looking at some of Sri Lanka’s stats yesterday, today I thought I’d look at Pakistan’s and England’s statistics over the last twelve months and how they compare going into next month’s Test series.

England and Pakistan have been the two best sides over the past twelve months by a considerable distance. England have won seven and lost just one Test in that time and Pakistan have won five and lost one. No other side has a win-loss ratio above 1.00 and no other side has won more than four Tests in that time. (Australia have won four and lost four, India have won four and lost five.)

England have been in dominating form. The twelve month period began with the defeat at Perth, but then included a pair of innings victories over Australia and India each and one over Sri Lanka. The gulf between England and the rest of the world with the bat is astonishing. England average 48.30 with 17 centuries (five of them unbeaten) both numbers easily the best in the world. The next best average is Pakistan’s 39.56 and the overall average for the rest of the world is 29.57. In other words England average almost 200 runs more in a completed innings than the rest of the world. There were 57 centuries hit in the past twelve months by teams other than England, with the most for any one team being India’s ten. England’s 17 centuries come at an average or 1.7 per match (fairly easy maths there), whilst the rest of the world average 0.84 centuries per Test and that is not even accounting for the number of times England have only needed to bat once! There is less of a gap with the ball, as England’s bowling average of 26.58 is only the second best in the world, behind Pakistan’s 26.14. The average amongst other sides in this case is 34.78 so England are still comfortably better, but not by as much. England have also done well bowling sides out. They did so in eight of their ten matches over the past year and averaged 18.7 wickets per match (as a fielding side, i.e. including run outs). Only Pakistan at 19.4 fared better and the average amongst all other sides was 15.8.

Statistically then it should be a fantastic series in January. The best attack against the best batting order and the second best attack against the second best batting order. England’s stats have come against stronger sides than Pakistan’s in that time, but both sides beat Sri Lanka 1-0 at home. England have also never played in the UAE, so an analysis adjusted for home field advantage cannot be made. I’m very much looking forward to seeing how things play out come 17 January.