Abu Dhabi preview

In about nine hours, England will start a match that might be considered ‘must-win’ for the first time since the final Test of the 2009 Ashes. England have not actually trailed in a series since the 51 all out debacle in the West Indies three years ago, and have only played a Test at 1-1 twice. Both of those were against Australia and both were famous victories. Unfortunately for England, they might find themselves in a situation more closely related to that of the West Indies, where three shirtfronts stymied the attempted comeback. It will be interesting to see how England cope with the pressure now; one of their greatest strengths in the last few years has been winning early and keeping the pressure off. They have coped admirably in the few times when there has been real pressure on them, however, and I am backing them to do the same here.

England will be without the services of Chris Tremlett after he had a recurrence of his back/side problems that kept him out for the latter half of the summer. Whilst it’s a disappointment for him, I think it’s no bad thing for England; I suggested that he ought to be dropped anyway and I was far from alone. There have been conflicting reports on who is going to take his place. I’ve heard some say that Onions is the front runner, whilst others have said it’s a late choice between Finn and Monty based on the conditions. It’s no secret that I’ve backed Onions for a few months now, so I’m hoping he gets the nod. I would not at all be disappointed to see Finn though. He’s a good bowler and tends to take a lot of wickets, I just think Onions is better suited to the conditions.

The batting looks likely to be unchanged, though I don’t think anyone thought that England would make any alterations without being forced by injury to do so. It will be Strauss and Cook’s 100th opening partnership, though they have not bee very prolific over the past year. On a flat deck this may be a good opportunity for them to bring the landmark up in some style, though the first session of the match has not been kind to batsmen in the previous two Tests. England will probably bat first no matter what. I expect Strauss to back himself and his fellows to make runs, but Pakistan have a history of inserting opponents so either way we should see Strauss and Cook walk out to the middle first up. If they can survive the first hour or two they should be able to book in for bed and breakfast, as they say. If they can give the bowlers something at which to bowl I definitely think they can put themselves in a position to win the match. Even on a flat deck it will be hard for Pakistan to amass a huge total; this probably going to be the same English attack that only conceded 550 in two innings on the Adelaide road a year ago. Pakistan can bat better than Australia, but I think they’ll still struggle to get to 400.

The worry for England will be a high scoring draw that will cost them a chance to win the series. Strauss is an inherently defensive captain and we saw him failing to force the issue a couple of times during the series against Sri Lanka in the summer. The rain, which was the biggest factor in those draws, will not come into play this time, but Strauss still must attack more than he usually does. England can lay down a marker by winning this series, but to do that they need to go all out to win this Test.

Saturday review – 21 Jan

It’s been a rather dismal week for England. There aren’t many worse ways to start a series than a three day defeat and England will have to play much, much better in the next two Tests to get anything out of this series. The match was also notable for controversies about Saeed Ajmal’s delivery action and the DRS. For once though the cricket actually overshadowed everything else, which is good. Other things happened elsewhere in cricket, but to be honest I was not paying that much attention. I gather that the BBL overcame it’s uncertain start and sold a shedload of tickets at the Waca though. Good for it. In better news, Andy Murray eased into the round of 16 at the Australian open with three pretty convincing wins. He’s still set to face Djokovic in the semis though, so no doubt he’ll be Scottish before the end of next week.

All of the good articles this week were about the England’s defeat, as indeed were most of the bad articles. (Someone somewhere may have written about Australia v India, but surely no one still cares about that?) My favourites were:

The Teesra and other variations – Alan Tyers, The Cricketer
(As amusing as one would expect from the author.)

Jonathan Agnew’s BBC column

Andrew Strauss must lead inquiry into England’s batting failings – Vic Marks, the Guardian

Test Match Special suffers along with England in Dubai – Adam Mountford, BBC

All in a Spin – David Lloyd, Sky Sports

What changes should England make?

Very few, I think. The devil’s in the details, of course, otherwise this would just be a Tweet and not a full blog post. As I wrote yesterday, England’s problems were with the batting, but I don’t think any radical changes need to be made. It would be very out of character for either Strauss or Flower to make panic changes and I think that’s a good thing. It was one of the (many, many) differences between England and Australia a year ago that England only made one change that was not forced by injury. That said, the one change to drop Finn for Bresnan was a very successful one.

If England do want to make changes to the top six, one of the problems they face is that there is a surprising lack of batting depth in the squad. The only full time batsman in reserve is Ravi Bopara, though wicket-keeper Steve Davies has a first class average over 40. For all that I said about Eoin Morgan on the first and third days of the Test, I think to replace him with Bopara would be extremely foolish. Bopara has all the same problems that Morgan does, but he’s had several years now to in which to potentially overcome them and has failed to do so. Given that Morgan can play spin well (even if he does then get himself out) it seems incredibly unlikely that Bopara would represent an improvement. It would be possible to have Davies keep wicket and play Prior as a specialist batsman, but that would be gambling that Davies can out-bat Morgan and out-keep Prior. It’s possible that he could do both, but it is a big risk. If might be interesting to see how such a tactic plays out next time England have a dead rubber (hopefully not before June), but doing so in a vital Test would be ill-advised.

That does not mean that Morgan’s place is secure, however. There were many suggestions before the match that England play a fifth bowler in his place and his, and England’s, poor performance will only increase those calls. I’m still inclined to agree, although I don’t like the idea of shoring up a good bowling attack at the expense of a misfiring batting order. England’s top five, with the possible exception of KP, are better than they showed in Dubai and I think they ought to be backed to score runs on flat decks. In any case, the bowlers still showed an ability to score runs effectively so even without Bresnan a sixth batsman seems unnecessary. The bowlers were fantastic in difficult conditions, they restricted Pakistan to 338 all out on what still looked like a 400 wicket. If it had been in the first innings of the match instead of the second England would have been considered on top. That does not mean that another attacking option would go amiss, however. There were times, especially as the tail added over fifty on the third morning but also during the 100+ opening partnership, that a different type of bowler would have been very handy.

Even if England do not drop Morgan, I think Tremlett should be left out. (‘Rested’ if need be.) He was the least effective bowler for England; his tall bang-it-in style is not suited to the slow pitches. During the second morning Nasser Hussain was suggesting that he needed to pitch the ball up and try to skid if off the surface more. This is true, but it also describes very well the bowling of Graham Onions. He is a wicket-to-wicket bowler not too dissimilar to Junaid Khan who had great success against Sri Lanka. If England had him or Finn (who is also similar, but I don’t think as skiddy) in the attack in the first Test it would not have changed the result, but I think Pakistan would not have made as many runs as Strauss would have had something different at which to throw at their batsmen. I would definitely play at least one of them in Abu Dhabi. I would not play Monty, however. He performed very well in the warmup match, but I still don’t see him as an attacking option. I could be wrong of course, but especially in a four man attack I would prefer a fast bowler.

An interesting idea would be to drop KP for an extra bowler. He can take the match away from the opposition on his best day (see 202* at Lord’s) but more often he proves Boycott’s ‘not got a lot between the ears’ analysis correct. To drop him for a match may give his ego the kick it needs to make sure he comes out in the third Test and makes a couple of big scores. There’s no guarantee that he won’t come out in the second Test and make big scores, but I do not want to rely on him. It would be a brave move by England to drop him, but they have shown an ability to be brave before. My XI for the second Test is: Strauss*, Cook, Trott, Bell, Morgan, Prior†, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn, Onions. It gives an extra bowling option and is still not much of a tail. As far as what will happen (the above being only what I want to happen) the only change I would think likely would be to replace Tremlett with Finn, which I do think would be an improvement. I would prefer Onions, but Finn is above him in the pecking order and England like to stick to that.

Pakistan win by ten wickets

Today marks exactly 13 months since the end of the Perth test of the last Ashes series and England marked the occasion in an appropriate style. The first innings of this match was the first time we had been bowled out for under 200 since Perth and in a touching homage to the dual collapses of that match they only managed only 160 in the second innings here. Pakistan’s successful chase of 15 to win sealed England’s first defeat since that Perth Test as well.

As at Perth, the batsmen were the primary culprits in the defeat and today they were almost entirely culpable. The bowlers put in an admirable and impressive performance yesterday to keep the match within (theoretical) reach, but the batsmen threw it away completely. It was even the bowlers who avoided an innings defeat; Graeme Swann scored 39 and Jimmy Anderson had an unbeaten 15 to complement his 12 in the first innings. Graeme Swann actually scored more runs in the match than any of the top six batsmen and only one fewer than Matt Prior. Trott had a decent match too, he was unlucky to get out to a leg side strangle in the first innings, but looked composed for his 49 in the second. That said, he could have and probably should have stuck around to anchor an English resistance but got skittish with his half century looming and played an ill-disciplined shot outside off and was caught behind.

There may have been other victims of ill-fortune in the innings, Cook misplayed a hook for what seems like the first time in his career and I will have more on Strauss later, but by and large they have very little to excuse them. KP in particular needs to have someone take him by the collar and shout at him for a bit, or whatever it takes to make him realise the value of shot selection. His shot today was absolutely inexcusable; with England in trouble on 25-2 he came in and played a hook on nought and top edged the ball straight to the man at deep square leg. The fieldsman had been placed there for exactly that purpose in a ploy so transparent even a premiership footballer would have seen through it, but KP either missed it (very possible) or simply assumed he could beat it (also very possible). Either way it was one of the most stupid and irresponsible shots you will see, only Brad Haddin could hope to match it.

One of the consequences of the top order failure was that Eoin Morgan was given the chance to redeem himself for letting the side down in the first innings. Instead he played the exact same type of innings; he got in, looked settled and promising, then got out tamely. It is a continuation of a common theme; if the top five score well and put the side in a good position, Morgan can take the game away. When they fail, however, Morgan seems incapable of rescuing the side. Fortunately for Morgan and England the top order succeed a lot more often than they fail, but it does call into question the wisdom of having a batsman at number six who only scores runs when they are not needed. It is a very similar criticism to that which was levelled at Ian Bell for many years, but it wasn’t an unfounded criticism then and it isn’t now either. Bell worked on his temperament and is now one of England’s best batsmen. Morgan must do the same; right now he does not look like a Test calibre batsman. He must also do it quickly, as England have a very talented Lions squad and may not persist with Morgan for as long as they did with Bell.

I mentioned Strauss earlier; he was at the centre of a DRS controversy just before lunch. With England and Strauss each on six he tried to turn one down the leg side and was given out caught behind. Strauss reviewed it and the decision was upheld despite HotSpot showing nothing. Strauss may very well have been out, there was a noise and he took a bit of time in reviewing it, but that did not stop the predictable criticism of the DRS. The fact that Pakistan’s Saeed Ajmal had been similarly given out despite the review earlier in the day added fuel to the debate with many labelling it as evidence against the DRS. Except it was no such thing, of course. Both batsmen had been given out by the on field umpire, Billy Bowden in both cases; the DRS made no difference. Without the DRS they would both still have been given out, fairly or otherwise. If the decisions were incorrect (which is not at all clear, especially for Strauss) then the fault is with the umpire who made the decision and it makes no sense to use that as an argument for why we should not have a review system. Needless to say this did not stop people from claiming that the DRS gave Strauss out.

All the DRS and batting commotion aside, we are left with the fact that England are now 0-1 down with two Tests left. The next one will be at Abu Dhabi before they return to Dubai for the third. The worry for England will be that they will be tailored for draws, as we saw in the Windies in 2009. Fortunately, England are resilient; we saw that clearly yesterday, if not so much today. Before today England had only lost four Tests since Kingston 2009 and each time they won the next one emphatically. The only caveat to that is the innings defeat at Jo’burg in 2010 which was the last in the series. England followed that defeat with six consecutive wins, but the first four were against Bangladesh. England will hope that the comparisons with Perth continue, however; they followed that defeat with three consecutive innings victories. These are not just meaningless filler stats. England respond well to defeat. They are masters at analysing flaws and working to correct them. That is not a guarantee of success in Abu Dhabi, of course, but only someone who has not watched any cricket in the past three years would automatically write England off.

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.

Dubai, first Test, day one

I had waited five months for today. There were times at which that wait was agonising. It wasn’t too bad at first, in September when I had the climax of the County Championship to watch, and it was mostly just irritating in October when there wasn’t any cricket to watch. But by the time we got to the end of November and it had been three months since I had seen England play, with nothing but two South Africa v Australia Tests for sustenance, the fact that today was still eight weeks away seemed borderline unbearable. So to say that today was disappointing is an understatement. I have not seen England play that poorly for quite some time; I think even the performance in Perth may have been better. To be bowled out for 192 on a placid pitch was an incredible feat of incompetence. It’s the sort of thing I expect to see from India, but we are supposed to be better than that.

The England batsmen were almost entirely culpable in their own demise. Only Bell, who got a gem first up, and Trott who was strangled down the leg side can have any excuse. The rest played uncharacteristically poor shots and did not seem to learn anything from the batsmen that were dismissed before them. Cook, Strauss, KP and Morgan all batted like they had never seen this kind of bowling before, but there was nothing that special about it. Even I, who play a handful of times a year with whomever I can convince to join me, have seen a ball that’s supposed to turn and doesn’t. (Quite a few of them, actually.) Last winter that was Xavier Doherty’s stock ball and KP smashed him out of the park. The difference here seemed to be purely psychological. They played the reputation of the pitch and of the bowler instead of the actual delivery and once the collapse started they seemed to be overwhelmed by a collective suicide instinct. It was pathetic, especially on the first day of a series, but it does happen occasionally. It took Prior and Swann to show just how benign the pitch was, as they added fifty for the eighth wicket before Swann finally was bowled by an unplayable delivery. Before that, however, Swann made 34 by hitting with a mostly straight bat back down the ground. With the ball not turning appreciably it was a very low risk strategy and it should not have taken until the number nine batsman to work it out. The batsman who will hold his head highest will be Matt Prior. Whilst everyone fell around him he stayed calm, accumulated for a while, and then got a bit more expansive with the tail to score an unbeaten seventy. If the rest of the batsmen had played even close to as well England would be looking at 500.

For Eoin Morgan the day must be doubly disappointing. Before the match I and several others had suggested that he be dropped for a bowler. He is one of the best players of spin in the side, though, and he had a golden opportunity to play a big innings and cement his place at number six, both against a fifth bowler and against a younger batsman like James Taylor. He batted well with Prior to put on about forty and then played an insane sweep that if he’d been watching the other dismissals he ought to have known wouldn’t work. He was lbw for 24 and with the way Swann and even Jimmy Anderson batted there will certainly be more questions about whether he is worth keeping at number six.

The bright side for England is that because the collapse was so self-inflicted there’s a good chance that it won’t happen again. England under Strauss and Flower have had the occasional dramatic first innings collapse that has cost us a Test match, but have come back well every time. Flower is not the sort of coach to let the basic errors that were on display happen without making an adjustment. It’s not clear if it will happen by the second innings of this match, but the fact that England collapsed today does not mean very much for the rest of the series. It’s worth mentioning too that the last time England collapsed was not in Perth or Jo’burg, but at Trent Bridge. We got about thirty more then, but put up 500 in the second innings to win. A repeat performance isn’t likely, but we do know the batsmen are capable. The problem, however, is that when the previous collapses have turned to defeats they have all brought the series level at 1-1. If England lose here, however, they will be 0-1 down with only two matches to play and on surfaces on which Pakistan can shut up shop. It may be very difficult to even force a draw in the series if England lose here.

It is far from given that England will lose, however, though it certainly looks grim. England have only bowled a handful of overs against the Pakistan openers, but Jimmy already got the ball to swing and beat the bat. The seamers usually get the most out of the pitch in the morning, when there is a bit of moisture still about, and with the ball still quite new England could yet do a bit of damage. The goal right now must be to keep Pakistan under 300. It is possible, though it will be difficult and some luck will be required. England are masters at plugging away relentlessly until the batsmen make an error though and that skill will be invaluable tomorrow. Even a deficit of 150 might be surmountable if the batsmen play better in the second innings. Given that Pakistan tend to bat slowly, even a huge first innings deficit will not leave England a lot of time to bat out. I’m looking forward to seeing how we fare tomorrow.

Saturday review – 14 Jan

It’s mostly been a pretty dismal week in cricket with the ECB accepting the Morgan review. It surprised me, as I hadn’t seen very many who supported the proposition and a huge number who opposed it. It was hugely infuriating to see it accepted, as I wrote about. In better news, England won their second warmup match and won rather more convincingly than their first one. All the bowlers looked good, and I’m greatly looking forward to the start of the series. The other two subcontinental teams currently playing had dismal weeks, with India looking about to lose the third Test inside three days and Sri Lanka bowled out for under 50 in the first ODI against Sri Lanka.

My favourite articles this week were mostly about the foolishness of accepting the Morgan review, but there are also a pair of good previews for the Pakistan v England series.

A step backwards for County Cricket? – Lizzy Ammon, Mirror

A bad decision for English cricket – George Dobell, Cricinfo

Travel time reclaimed from County Championship – King Cricket

England prepare to stay at No1 by innovating and avoiding complacency – Mike Selvey, Guardian

England’s lethal cocktail – Sam Sheringham, BBC

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.

Brief thoughts

I think Australia will win at the WACA to make the Adelaide Test a dead rubber. This could be important (probably not though) as they have a much better chance on the flat Adelaide wicket for the fourth Test. At the WACA though, even if it is only as quick as it was last year the Indian batsmen will struggle. The only one who survived on the quicker, bouncier wickets (relative to India and the rest of Australia) last summer was Dravid, but now he looks like he’s not quite reacting quickly enough to full and straight balls. If he is undone with the rest of his colleagues by the pace of the WACA (as I think is very likely) it will hardly matter how the Australian batsmen fare.

England will have to work a bit in the UAE. We already knew this, or at least strongly suspected it, of course, but the warmup matches are bearing it out. The middle order are yet to really get going and whilst hopefully the different atmosphere and mentality of a Test match will help, it does appear that the going will be difficult for the batsmen. Because it’s only a warmup it’s hard to know how big of a problem it will be, but I’m still confident we can overcome it and win the series.

The ECB are wankers.

Saeed Ajmal announced that he has a new delivery and Graham Gooch has said that he isn’t bothered. I can’t blame Goochie, the last time a new ‘mystery’ delivery was actually effective was during that Warne/Murali era and even Warne still got most of his wickets by just turning the ball square. Right now when I think of a mystery delivery I think of the massively unimpressive Ajantha Mendis. Graeme Swann’s success comes without any weird deliveries and Ajmal is perfectly capable of doing the same.

Will England succumb to spin?

There has been a lot of suggestion ahead of England’s series against Pakistan that there will be a lot of spin on offer in the pitches and that England will struggle. Leaving aside the question of how well the batsmen will play said spin (though it’s a very good one) it also begs the question of whether the predictions about the wickets will be accurate. The UAE is not technically on the subcontinent, though it is only separated from Pakistan by a narrow body of water, and it is not a given that the pitches will thus be a spinning paradise.

Since the start of 2010, spinners in the UAE have performed very slightly better than their seam bowling colleagues. Each have taken 68 wickets in those five matches, but the spinners have done so at an average of 41.51 as opposed to the seamers’ average of 42.32. There’s not much of a difference, and certainly neither are very good. When you consider the fact that the spinners bowled a lot more overs, it is clear that the seamers are still the more successful bowlers. The spinners’ strike rate was 99.0, compared to the 79.5 of the seamers. (Again we see that neither are very good.) The gap is certainly a lot smaller than it is in England, were over the same period of time spinners took less than a quarter of the total wickets and at an average more than ten runs greater than the seamers.

Interestingly, however, when directly compared spinners have actually fared better in England than in the UAE. In England since the start of 2010, spinners have taken wickets at an average of 39.12 and a strike rate of 69.0 (compare to the above figures in the UAE). That time period comprises 15 Tests in which spinners have taken seven five-fers. In the five matches in that time in the UAE spinners took just one five wicket haul. The implication I take from these figures is that the conditions will hurt all bowlers, but it will hurt the seamers much more than the spinners. So whilst the spinners will have a larger role to play (relative to their role in England) they are not going to get so much help from the pitch that they become an unusually large threat to the batsmen.