Five bowlers

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

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

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

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

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

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

England Test squad

England have named a 13-man squad for the first Test against the West Indies starting this Thursday. Predictably, Bopara and Patel have missed out. In their place come Jonny Bairstow and Graham Onions. I’m quite pleased with this squad; I’d be pretty happy with almost any realistic XI that could be picked from this. Bairstow, as I said the other day, probably deserves the call-up and I am always happy to see Onions in the squad.

I suspect that Bairstow will get the nod at number six with probably Finn being the third seamer. This series looks like it will be a good one in which to test out the young batsman and Finn has had a very impressive winter and deserves another chance to show what he can do at the highest level. The ongoing ‘problem’ for England is that there are currently no fewer than three different people who probably deserve an extended chance as third seamer. This is one of the reasons why I would still like to see Prior at six and Bresnan at seven and Finn at eleven. Strauss and Flower seem set against that, however. With that in mind, hopefully Bairstow will have a productive series and secure the number six spot for the near future.

A lucky break

Joy at another person’s injury is probably a little bit cruel. It’s not like being dropped or losing form, it’s actual pain that goes beyond the sporting arena. That said, I’m apparently a slightly cruel person as I am very glad to hear that Ravi Bopara has a quad injury and is a major doubt for the first Test. (I was also happy when McGrath stepped on that cricket ball ahead of the Edgbaston Test in 2005.)

I’m glad because with Compton only scoring 20-odd for the Lions, Bopara looked like he had secured an spot in the Test side. As I have mentioned more than once Bopara should not be anywhere near the Test side, so this injury is a very good thing for England. It’s unfortunate for Bopara, of course and I would prefer that he had simply not been selected. Whatever the actual reason, however, England needed to keep him out of the Test team and this will accomplish that.

Now the question of who to bat at six becomes more interesting too. Compton has still had his incredible start to the season even though he only made 20-odd. Taylor scored a very impressive century, however, to put him in almost the opposite situation to Compton. Bairstow also scored a fifty on the back of his 182 for Yorkshire last week. There’s still a second innings to come, so we may have a clearer picture then, but right now I would still give it to Compton, with Bairstow as the second choice. I don’t think one innings is enough to put Taylor in form or Compton out of form. Bairstow, meantime, I think has consistently done almost enough to be selected. He would certainly not be a bad choice either.

Twelve Lions

The Lions squad was announced last week and whilst I didn’t remark upon it at the time, there are some interesting names both included and not.

Apart from the inclusion of Simon Kerrigan (about which I am actually a bit disappointed as we really need him in the LV=CC right now), Nick Compton has also been rewarded for his great start to the season with a call-up. The side is still led by James Taylor. Ravi Bopara has not been included, fuelling suggestion that he is already written into number six in the Test side. This may be true, but I am not certain that it is. The argument goes that England are so sure he will be in the side that they do not want the Windies to get a look at him ahead of time and thus they have omitted him in favour of a purely experimental side of youngsters. Again, this could be. There’s nothing ridiculous about it. But I am not convinced. (Note that this has nothing to do with the fact that Bopara shouldn’t be selected, it’s the separate question of whether he will be anyway.)

First off, I am uneasy with using a lack of selection to a reserve match as proof of first team selection. Note that Graham Onions will also not be playing for the Lions either, however he is very, very unlikely to be in the Test side. The bigger objection is the inclusion of Compton, however. Compton will be 29 this summer, he is not a young prospect. He is not a developing player. I don’t see him being in the Lions as a measure for the next few years, the way it is with Taylor. Surely, the only reason for him to be playing is as an audition for the Test side. Were it a guarantee that Bopara were playing, there would be no need to select Compton for the Lions.

I think the most likely explanation is that Bopara is the default. Despite not playing recently, he will be selected if nothing changes. However, the selection of Compton is an opportunity for something to change. I think the attitude of the selectors will be that Compton can force his way into the side with a good Lions performance in much the same way that Morgan did last year. I rather hope I am right, Bopara remains almost the last person I want to see batting at six for England.

LV=CC week three roundup

Unfortunately, this was a very rain hit round of matches. Out of eight matches played in both divisions, only two had positive results. Despite this, some of the draws were quite close run things and we were treated to a handful of very tense finishes. The eight matches, with summaries thereof at the end of the post, were:

Warwickshire beat Lancashire by five wickets
Middlesex drew with Durham
Nottinghamshire drew with Somerset
Surrey drew with Worcestershire
Derbyshire drew with Leicestershire
Hampshire beat Glamorgan by two wickets
Kent drew with Gloucestershire
Yorkshire drew with Essex

Warwickshire’s second successive dramatic win puts them top of the Division One table, whilst Derbyshire’s survival keeps them in that spot in the second tier. It’s still probably too early to draw any definitive conclusions, but it is worth noting that none of Durham, Lancashire or Yorkshire have won a match yet. I was far from alone in predicting those three to finish at or near the top of their respective divisions and it will be interesting to see how they go from here. Derbyshire also looked far from impressive in their match and it will be interesting to see if their good start was due to favourable opposition.

There were many very good performances this week, but my player of the week this week is Warwickshire’s Rikki Clarke. His innings pained me greatly, but coming in at 81-7 and scoring 140 is very impressive. Given how close the match turned out, if he had scored even twenty or thirty fewer it might have made a difference to the result.

Warwickshire‘s win over Lancashire was a fairly exciting match and not a little bit gutting. It and the ramifications thereof are worth a separate bog post which I will write tomorrow. Meantime, credit must go to Rikki Clarke and Darren Maddy for excellent innings each and a match-winning partnership together.

Middlesex‘s match at Lord’s was most notable for the return of Andrew Strauss to his county as he looked to bat himself into some form. He faced the first ball of the match after Durham won the toss and bowled. It was not until the next day, however, as rain prevented any play on day one. Strauss might have wished it would keep raining: Onions nipped one back in and knocked back the England captain’s off stump. Onions did his Test hopes no harm with an additional nine wickets in the match and whilst Strauss will no doubt be disappointed with his return, he can take solace in the fact that the rest of his batsmen only managed 336 runs between them in both innings. There was, fortunately, an exciting ending to this match. Rain had interrupted the early part of Durham’s chase of 130 to win, but left them 16 overs to get another 122. Happily, they went for it. They lost six wickets en route too, but there too few overs for a proper climax and the match was drawn.

At first glance, it is not too surprising that Nottinghamshire and Somerset combined to score four centuries, one of them a double and three of them unbeaten, in a drawn match at Trent Bridge. They probably have on paper the two strongest batting lineups in the country. The devil is in the deatils, however, and only one side was even in this match. The ten batsmen who were out in Notts’ first innings scored 41 runs between them. The top-score amongst those was ten. Which makes the unbeaten 104 by Chris Read all the more remarkable in comparison. It was still not close to enough, however, as Arul Suppiah scored 124, Nick Compton made an unbeaten 204, and James Hildreth chipped in with 102*. Somerset declared on 445-2, a first innings lead of 283. Notts showed some more fight in the second innings, however, and the intervention of rain meant that Somerset did not get the win that they deserved.

Bowling dominated Worcestershire‘s trip to the Oval. Surrey were bowled out for 140 in the first innings as Alan Richardson took 6-47, but Stuart Meaker returned the favour with 6-39 at Worcs only made 119 in reply. Despite being reduced to 59-5, a solid 79 from Rory Hamilton-Brown helped Surrey set Worcs a tricky 246 to win. The Oval pitch reverted to it’s stereotype, however, and when the rain came at 94-1 it probably denied Worcs a victory instead of Surrey.

Leicestershire dominated the derby in Derby, putting on 324 in the first innings against the hosts including 105 each from Ramnaresh Sarwan and Joshua Cobb. Unfortunately for the prospects of a result, it took them over two days to do so. When Derbyshire just managed to avoid the follow-on it seemed to seal the fate of the match and even a third innings declaration did not threaten to bring about a result.

Hampshire went to Glamorgan for what turned out to be the best match of the round. It was notable in the first innings for the return of the tactical declaration: Glamorgan skipper Mark Wallace declared with his side on 103-9 late on the first day to try to get a Hants wicket before the close. It worked as Wallace’s opposite number departed for just three. From there Hampshire slipped to 156 all out the next day and a century for Ben Wright gave Glamorgan a real chance at their first win of the season. Hampshire needed 204 to win and by stumps on day three they were 112 for four. Cue the rain. For a very long time it looked as though the teams would not even get on the pitch on the fourth day. When they did, however, it was just barely in time and Hampshire won by just two wickets off of the penultimate ball.

Will Gidman had another good match for Gloucestershire at Canterbury, scoring 56 in the first innings and then taking 5-43 in Kent‘s reply. Gloucestershire had a first innings lead of 105, but like in the rest of the country rain had taken time out of the match and Will’s brother Alex took too long in declaring on the last day. Kent were asked to chase a nominal 363, but only 38 overs were ultimately possible and they were comfortably able to draw the match.

Yorkshire were also unable to play on the first day of their match against Essex at Headingley. When they did get on the park, 126 from Phil Jaques saw them at one point reach 184-2. The subsequent collapse quite spectacularly saw them finish 246 all out. It was still a decent total and only Ravi Bopara, as already mentioned, resisted for Essex. It did not leave the White Rose with much of a first innings lead, however, and with time already lost in the match the only way to get a result was for Yorkshire to dramatically collapse again and when that failed to happen it was always going to be a draw.

Bopara is still not the answer

There has been a suggestion that Ravi Bopara has secured the number six spot in the Tests with his 117* against Yorkshire today. It was a good innings, Essex only made a total of 199, but it is still not a reason to pick him to play at six.

First off, it does not change Bopara’s terrible Test stats. As I have noted previously, Bopara’s batting average against teams other than the West Indies is a dismal 15. Going by the same criteria (ie, throwing out Tests against the West Indies) that average fits neatly between Jimmy Anderson’s 13 and Graeme Swann’s 18. That’s good enough for a specialist bowler, it is not good enough for someone who has one Test wicket for 212 runs. There is no reason to suspect that if we give him another chance now it will be any different from all the previous chances we have given him. He can get runs against the Windies, but we need to pick someone who will succeed against South Africa too. There is no reason to suspect that Bopara will do that.

It is important to remember that Bopara’s innings, whilst good, was in the second division. In their only other match, Yorkshire conceded over 500 in the first innings against Kent. One hundred seventeen is a good fightback when part of 199, but the fact is that it is an innings against a bowling attack that is not special. He played a good innings in difficult circumstances against a mediocre attack in the second division. That does not at all indicate a reversal of his absolutely terrible Test form.

That innings was not even the best in this round of matches. Chris Read played a much better innings for Nottinghamshire, his hundred was ten times the score of the next best batsman. It was out of a tally of 162 and it was in the first division. Also in the first division, Rikki Clarke scored 140 after coming in with Warwickshire 81-7. Darren Maddy also scored what was for me an incredibly frustrating century in that match and they have probably ensured their side cannot lose from a position where they looked very likely to lose. As I type this, Nick Compton has scored his second century of the season to go with his 99 in the first match of the year. He leads the first division in runs, average and balls faced by a huge amount and that is with the incredibly bowling friendly conditions around the country so far.

I am very much in favour of the selectors looking at runs in the County Championship, but Bopara has failed so often he must not be given any special preference over other batsmen and he has demonstrably not been the best of those batsmen. There remains no rational argument to pick Bopara.

Anyone but Bopara

England start their quest for redemption in Galle on 26 March. They’ve made a good start though, the selectors have shown some ruthlessness and dropped Eoin Morgan from the squad after his abject performance on the pitch in the UAE. (And possibly his nonchalance off the pitch.) James Tredwell was the surprise replacement for him in the squad, with Samit Patel also being added, but it’s not a sure thing that either of them will replace Morgan in the final XI.

The obvious candidate is probably Ravi Bopara. Depressingly, I think he’s also the most likely replacement, despite the fact that he has only ever scored runs against the West Indies. The fact that Bopara is even in the squad baffles me. He has been in and out of the side since 2007 and in that time his overall numbers are 553 runs at 34.56. Those are probably reason enough to be dropped, but when one throws out the 355 runs he made in three matches against the West Indies his average drops to an inexcusable 15.23 with a high score of 44*. Forty-four. By contrast, if one applies the same criteria to Graeme Swann he still averages 17.63 with a high score of 85. Even James Anderson averages 12.89 against teams other than the Windies! The excuse usually given for this is that Bopara can bowl a bit too. That’s technically true, but his bowling is actually worse than his batting: he has one career wicket for the cost of 212 runs.

Fortunately for England there are options apart from Bopara. Samit Patel, whilst still not as fit as I think Flower would like him to be, has put in a lot of work recently and has made it clear that his ambition is to play in the Test side. Whilst I don’t think he is a long-term solution, he may be useful in the two Tests in Sri Lanka as a spinner who can bat reasonably well. Graeme Swann already fills this role to an extent, but there is a case for letting Patel have a go at Test level. There isn’t anyone in the side who is demonstrably a better batsman than Patel (except Tim Bresnan, more on whom below) and whilst I don’t think he can bat to an acceptable standard in Tests, he has done enough that it might be worth giving him a go and finding out for sure.

I still, however, think the best option is Tim Bresnan. He’s a very good bowler anyway and will probably do well on a slower pitch. More than that though, he averages 45 in Test matches. Even if he were to slot straight in at number six and not bowl at all he would probably be the best batsman available. As it is, if he plays it will probably be at seven with Prior at six. That is still a perfectly good option. That would mean that England would still have a very solid 1-7 (and actually a more reliable number six than we have had in quite some time) and with Broad and Swann still effectively bat down to number nine. That would not, however, leave a place for Steven Finn who has been pushing hard for one. Right now, I don’t think that could be avoided, but a good batting performance from Bresnan might see the selectors stick with him at number six in the summer. It’s very, very unlikely of course, but if that did happen it would open up a place for Finn. Since that is so unlikely, however, it might be worth playing Bresnan in the first match and Finn in the second and let them effectively go head to head to see who gets the nod in May. The caveat to that is that playing Finn would lengthen England’s tail.

It’s an interesting decision to make, and whilst I fear they will go with the wrong one (Bopara), Flower has done a very good job and I have a fair bit of faith in him.

Pakistan v England tour review

Make no mistake, this was a dreadful tour for England. It’s easy to forget that in the wake of a 4-0 ODI victory and a 2-1 T20 victory, but when it really counted we lost 0-3.

Our batsmen mostly displayed either an infuriating inconsistency on the tour or were simply consistently awful. This was a middle order that came into the series having thrashed the best in the world in England and the second best in the world in their own backyard. 517-1, 620-5, 513 and 644 v Australia in Australia and 474-8, 544, 710-7 and 591-6 v India suddenly gave way to 72 all out. The spin of Ajmal was a contributing factor, of course, but it was not the sharp, quick spin of someone like Warne. It was theoretically playable spin, but England could not play it. I thought before the series that the batsman would win it for us, but instead they did the exact opposite. And then, incredibly surprisingly, they turned their fortunes around in the ODIs. Captain Cook scored two tons and an eighty, whilst KP chipped in with a pair of imperious tons and a match winning 50 in the last T20. That’s the same KP who averaged 11 in the Tests. The turnaround was not quite inexplicable, one of England’s problems in the Tests was an unwillingness to go after Ajmal and not just sit back and block. In the ODIs they had to try to score and had the extra advantage of fewer men around the bat and so had better success. (Though that’s a relative measure, Ajmal still did very well.)

Cook and Prior are probably the only ones to come through with their reputations unscathed; Cook had the highest individual score for England in the Tests, plus good success in the ODIs and Prior had the highest average in the Tests (the only one over 30). Strauss, however, did not embarrass himself to the extent of many of the batsmen. He was the only one to look relatively assured during the 72 all out debacle, and for a time it looked like he and Prior might lead England to victory. Strauss then also ground out a fifty in the third Test run chase. I know none of that sounds like much, but the important aspect was that he looked like he had learnt how to play, albeit too late. None of the other batsmen looked like they had learnt anything at all. KP, meanwhile, will coast into the next series on the back of his ODI and T20 heroics, but he had an absolutely terrible Test series and that must not be swept under the rug. He looked, as he so often does, like an idiot. And I don’t mean in the proverbial sense, I mean he looked literally stupid. He so often does not seem capable of learning from experience and has always had very poor impulse control. He did better in the ODIs, but he has to find a way to play sensibly when it matters. When it comes off, as it did at Lord’s last year, it is majestic and when he only does that in pyjama cricket it is so, so frustrating. There was also the limited overs introduction of Jos Buttler and Jonny Bairstow. Buttler was much hyped after an incredible Lions tour to Sri Lanka, but he did not look quite ready for this level yet. Bairstow did rather better, hitting a match winning 60* in the second T20 and generally looking quite composed. Bopara was another who was given a chance in the limited overs leg, and scored two fifties in the ODIs. This has led, of course, to another wave of suggestions for him to bat at six in the Test series. Very annoyingly, I except Flower and Strauss will agree. Despite my saying that Morgan has to go, I cannot overemphasise that Bopara is not the answer! He has failed in every chance that he has been given in Tests. If we are going to persist with playing a batsman at six then we should give a chance to one of the Lions players. There are no fewer than three candidates, any of whom would not be worse than Bopara. Personally, I would play another bowler, but…

In the vicious battle for worst batsman of the tour, Morgan edges out Bell by virtue of failing for the entire tour as opposed to just the Tests. Morgan showed clearly that he does not have the temperament for Test cricket, at least not yet, and then he abjectly failed to redeem himself in the limited overs matches. This despite the fat that he is supposed to be a limited overs expert, able to find any gap in the field. He did sod all, then gave an interview that showed he was not willing to work and change to help the team. As I said last week, it’s time for him to go back to Ireland. Bell, meantime, had a much more anomalous tour. He was the best batsman in the world last year, averaging over 100, but he could seemingly not buy a run this time. Even when he started to look like he might know roughly how to play Ajmal he promptly became unable to play Gul and his last dismissal of the series was horrific. He has a very good record as a batsman, however, and I expect him to improve.

The one outstanding bright spot on the tour was the bowlers. The 0-3 scoreline was fair in the end, but the absolutely outstanding bowling effort prevented it from being in the same league as the hammering we gave to India during the summer. The only bowler who did not perform was Tremlett, who probably ought not have been selected at all. Graeme Swann had a slightly below par tour, but still did quite well despite taking a backseat to Monty in the second two Tests. Broad, Jimmy and Monty were outstanding, however. Monty deserves special praise for doing so well after being out of the Test side for so long, but Broad and Anderson were not supposed to be so effective on the slower pitches. Broad was probably the pick of the bowlers for me, as he continued his revival from the ‘enforcer’ phase of his career. He pitched the ball up and got it to nip back at the top of off stump time and time again, and the Pakistani batsmen seemed to have no answer. He continued his good performance into the limited overs leg as well, including some good captaincy in the T20 series win. In that limited overs leg we also were treated to an outstanding performance from Steven Finn. He picked up where he left off in the India ODIs and ran through the Pakistani top order. He appears to have added a yard of pace and some accuracy and there are many calling for him to be in the Test side. I think that might be a bit premature, I am always hesitant to try to apply ODI form to Tests, but at the same time I probably would not have dropped him from the Test side to begin with. The problem is that there is no one for him to replace. He certainly has not shown that he is a better bowler than Tim Bresnan, let alone Jimmy and Broad. I think for now he is still the fourth seamer, which means he is going to be carrying the drinks until someone is injured or England decide to bat Prior at six and Bresnan at seven. (And the latter is apparently never going to happen, even though it would also solve the problem of who to bat at six.)

As tempting as it would be to say that England won the tour 2-1, everyone knows that Tests count at least quintuple and that England lost the tour rather heavily. I have every confidence that the management will look most closely at the Tests when analysing the tour, but it is important the the media and fans do the same. We cannot say that KP is off the hook due to his ODI runs, nor can we say that Bopara is a Test number six. We cannot think that this was a good tour, or even a decent tour. Most importantly, we cannot think that anything short of a pair of comprehensive victories over Sri Lanka will redeem England. That willingness to gloss over flaws has become a defining characteristic of Indian cricket recently and it is almost certainly related to their loss of form. We must not allow it to happen in England as well.

ODI selection

The first Pakistan v England ODI is tomorrow. I don’t think England ought to be particularly optimistic, their only warmup has come from crushing the Lions and Pakistan are a rather better side. The Lions match did seem to suggest that a lot of the youngsters are not yet ready to be called up the the senior side, however, and with Buttler injured I think I’d be hesitant to call any of the Lions players up for the first ODI. (Though I wouldn’t mind seeing them for subsequent matches if the seniors continue to underperform.) Ideally, I would also extend this to Kieswetter, who played for the Lions before coming to the UAE. We’ve seen that runs for the Lions are no guarantee of success, and I’d like to see Davies (better ODI average and S/R than Kieswetter) given another chance. Unfortunately he isn’t in the squad.

There is also the Bopara question. I don’t harbour the same antipathy toward him in the shorter formats as I do in Test matches (he can’t do nearly as much damage in only 100 overs) but I am still reluctant to see him play. He also fared the worst of any of the senior players in the warmup, scoring only 36 (off 45). With none of the Lions players standing up and demanding selection I’d keep him in, but only until Buttler is fit. There is also an interesting question around the bowlers; they did exceptionally well to bowl the Lions out for 97 and should probably stay unchanged, but they did so without Stuart Broad, who has been England’s star performer. Before the match I would have replaced Dernbach with Broad, but the former’s 3-21 off eight overs probably demands selection. The odd man out is probably going to be the fit again Tim Bresnan who took only one wicket and went at 4.6 in the warmup. If any of the other bowlers struggle in the opening matches, however, I would not hesitate to bring Bresnan back in. My XI for the first ODI would thus be:

Cook*
KP
Trott
Morgan
Bopara
Kieswetter†
Patel
Broad
Swann
Finn
Dernbach

It would be nice to avoid a whitewash

I’m a bit torn trying to guess England’s prospects for the third Test. On the one hand they haven’t played as poorly as they did in the fourth innings since the 51 all out debacle at Sabina Park three years ago, but at the same time they were in front for the first three days of the Test and even a slightly better performance would have seen them level the series.

It was a popular statistic going into the second Test that England had not lost back to back Tests since losing the second and third Tests against South Africa in the summer of 2008. It was a mark of the resilience of the side, but with that string of results being broken and the batting looking as frail as ever they will have to find even more to prevent their first whitewash since the 06/07 Ashes. (Which was also the last time we lost three matches on the trot). I do not doubt the motivation of the side, but I do worry about whether the batmen can overcome both their technical deficiencies and what now appear to be major mental blocks. This is why bringing someone new like Steven Davies may help, as he was not part of those collapses and hopefully would have a more positive outlook. A fully fit Jonathan Trott will also help England a lot, as the fact that the batting order was shuffled certainly did not help England in their chase of 72. I will reiterate, however, that I don’t think Ravi Bopara should come into the side. Morgan’s problem is that he cannot score runs when England are under pressure and Bopara has long since proven that he has the same weakness. He can make runs against mediocre attacks, but I very much doubt he will improve the side at all in Dubai.

Any proposed changes are mostly just window-dressing, however; England simply have to bat better in these conditions. We have a very accomplished batting order that includes the best opener in the world, a number three who averages over fifty, a number five who averaged over 100 last year and the best ‘keeper-batsman in cricket. It is not a top seven that should be averaging 18.77 even in alien conditions. There have been some scores, Alastair Cook’s 94 is actually the best in an innings on either side, so we know they can play, but for whatever reason they are getting trapped in a negative mindset and failing. Flower will be working on that, but I would not want to predict the results.