2011: England’s dominance, India’s collapse

My original plan for this post was a month-by-month review of all sports. I got halfway through May before realising that I was even boring myself and that there was no way anyone else was going to read past the end of the Sydney Test.

I’m not sure if it was the biggest surprise this year, but I don’t think anyone expected England to do as well as we did. England finished 2010 well by beating Australia by an innings at the MCG, but even after the Sydney Test it was not clear if England were very good or Australia very poor. Strauss and Flower’s stated ambition to become number one in the world was clearly possible, but if it was going to happen it looked like it would be a long climb to the summit. Instead it took eight months. India did not play well, but the extent of England’s dominance over the course of the 4-0 whitewash was incredible. There are no weak links in the side; even though Trott finally started to look mortal Ian Bell picked up the slack. He averaged 118 this year, 23 runs more than the next best batsman. Cook was as brilliantly obdurate as ever, KP had a resurgence and Morgan started to look comfortable at Test level. Prior is easily the best wicket-keeper in the world, both with the gloves and with the bat. Broad stopped trying to be an ‘enforcer’ (though I still haven’t stopped making jokes about it) and instead took a shedload of wickets. Bresnan and Tremlett would share the new ball in probably every other country bar South Africa, but right now they can’t both even get into the team unless someone else is injured. Graeme Swann is still the best spinner in the world and Anderson is second only to Dale Steyn. The calm leadership of Andrew Strauss has ensured that no one has got carried away. In eight Tests in 2011 England won six and lost none. They averaged 59.16 with the bat (and that’s the entire XI, not just the top order) and 28.45 with the ball. With Prior, Broad, Bresnan and Swann in the side England could reasonably be said to bat down to number ten. No other side came close to playing better than England in 2011, and the question is no longer if England are the best side in the world but if they can turn their current success into the kind of dominance that the West Indies and Australia did.

Australia did not play for several months after the Ashes, but have made a good effort to rebuild their side. They’re batting is yet to really come around, though Shaun Marsh is talented and the dropping of Phil Hughes for Ed Cowan was long overdue. Ponting and Hussey are still in the side though, and although they made some runs at the MCG they cannot be allowed to stay much longer. They both have had poor years and are in the twilight of their careers. The real improvement for Australia has been their bowling. In Nathan Lyon they finally seem to have found a long term spinner and the injury to Mitchell Johnson was probably the best thing that could have happened. The introduction of Pat Cummins and James Pattinson in particular are major improvements. They still have some way to go, but the strides they have made since the Ashes were clear when they were playing an Indian side who did not adjust at all to being beaten by England. Australia have become a side very difficult to predict, collapsing to 47 all out against South Africa and losing at home to New Zealand, but also recording big wins over South Africa and India. It might be some time before we know how good they are, however; after what should be an easy tour to the Windies next March they do not play again until November.

There was cricket amongst the non-Ashes sides too, although not very much. (It’s not just this year either. If you want to despair look at the number of Test matches in the Future Tours Programme.) The West Indies lost twice to India, and barely avoided losing a Test against Bangladesh. They beat Pakistan in a Test at the beginning of the year though and they made India work for their victories. (Though that’s not too impressive, see below.) All things considered it was probably a positive year, albeit not by much. South Africa didn’t play for nine months after the New Year’s Test, but looked quite good when they did. Then in the Boxing Day Test they looked dreadful and lost to Sri Lanka. It could simply be another attack of their well known mental problems, they’ve lost four Boxing Day Tests on the trot, but their batsmen are starting to age and they will find themselves in a similar position to Australia before too much longer. Pakistan were overshadowed by the spot fixing judgements, but played very well against weak opposition. Statistically they were the second best team in 2011, after England. Sri Lanka had a bad year, but they ended the year on a high with their first victory in South Africa. They need to find more consistent bowling however, over the course of the year only Bangladesh were worse. No one really expected Sri Lanka to play well after the loss of Murali though. Zimbabwe returned to Test cricket and beat Bangladesh and almost beat New Zealand, neither of whom played enough cricket this year to make an impact.

The worst team in 2011 was surely India. They started the year as the number one Test side, but never looked interested. They did not try to force victories in Tests in South Africa or the West Indies, although the former was to win the series. They never bothered to turn up in England and then used their (self-inflicted) lack of preparedness as an excuse. They didn’t try to improve and looked just as bad at the MCG. That match was only close because Australia are not as good as England and collapsed themselves. As bad as India’s performances were, the fact that they do not seem to care is probably worse. Their batsmen are massively overrated, especially Sehwag, and all of the possible replacements are limited overs specialists. They were the worst team this year and unless there is a massive change in attitude they will be next year as well.

Twenty-eleven also featured the 2000th Test of all time. Officially it was a close encounter at Lord’s in which 20,000 people queued for a mile to get into the ground on the last day and England finished off India in the last session. The actual 2000th Test was a week later at Trent Bridge and saw Stuart Broad and Ian Bell turn a close game into a blowout. Outside of the performances of the individual teams, the year was most notable for the resurgence of bowling and some very close finishes. England twice won a Test in the last session, India drew with the West Indies with nine down and the scores level and Australia won by two wickets and lost by seven runs in fairly quick succession. I lost count of how many debutants took five-fers this year, but I can remember at least four, plus Doug Bracewell’s match winning performance in his third Test. It was a year of fascinating and absorbing Test cricket which highlighted the short-sightedness of the administrators who had been increasingly marginalising the longest form of the game. Hopefully next year we’ll see more good performances and those in charge will give Test cricket the respect it deserves.

Sri Lanka may win a Test

South Africa are in a lot of strife in Durban. That’s not really anything new or surprising, South Africa’s last win at Kingsmead came against the West Indies in 2008. For some reason they seem to have a lot of trouble batting there, each of their last three matches (four including this one) has included a score under 200. Their 168 all out against Sri Lanka is actually an improvement on their previous three matches in which they were bowled out for 138 by Australia, 133 by England and 131 by India. The match against England is particularly interesting as they dominated the other three matches in the series, but had to settle for a 1-1 draw. If they go on to lose this match, as looks very likely, they will have to force a victory in the final Test to avoid the same result.

Mark Boucher has been under some pressure recently, and that is going to increase after this Test. In the first over of the day (after the first hour was lost to rain) Kumar Sangakkara, on three, edged to the area between Boucher and first slip. Boucher reacted very late and only managed to put off the slip fielder (Graeme Smith, I think). The catch went down and Sangakkara went on to make 108 to probably put the match out of South Africa’s reach. The rest of Sri Lanka’s batting card is not impressive and I suspect that if Sangakkara had not been in to build partnerships with the rest of the order Sri Lanka would be all out by now, and obviously for at least 100 runs fewer. Sri Lanka currently lead by 426 and have three wickets in hand. Some rapid-fire batting from the tail should get them to about 460-475 with almost all of the final two days remaining. Even with their depleted and unreliable bowling that ought to be too many for South Africa to chase (it would be comfortably a record) and too much time for South Africa to bat out.

SA v Oz round II

India are still well on top of what has been a very one sided second Test in Calcutta. As I write this the West Indies are 339-4, following on. They need 478 to make India bat again, but they need there is still over a day and a half to play.

The second Test between South Africa and Australia promises to be a much more exciting one. Australia must try to recover from being blown away for 47 (words I will never tire of writing) and losing the Test after having a first innings lead of 188 (also words I will never tire of writing). It’s a daunting task, but South Africa have a fairly daunting one as well – They mustn’t choke.

Apart from the fire and competitiveness that usually defines a South Africa v Australia Test, this will be notable for some peripheral contests as well. Most notably it may be Ricky Ponting’s last Test. He failed again in the first Test (though everyone bar Clarke failed for the Aussies) and if the new chairman of selectors wants to make his mark for the series against New Zealand he may have an easy target. Khawaja, Ponting’s replacement when the latter was injured last January, is in the side for the injured Shaun Marsh and if he gets a good score it’s hard to imagine the selectors not wanting to see him and Marsh batting together very soon. Clarke has also suggested that time may be up for Mitchell ‘He bowls to the left…’ Johnson if he doesn’t fire in Jo’burg. Certainly the teenager Pat Cummins is likely to come into the side, I would guess for the ‘stiff and sore‘ Ryan Harris. (Which, with Paul Harris possibly returning to the South Africa side, would be a relief for me.) It may then be a bowl off between Cummins and Johnson to see which of them is in the XI for the first Test against the Kiwis. Brad Haddin has the benefit of there not being a strong candidate to replace him, but his shot selection when his country are in trouble is so bad Australia might soon want to try anyone else behind the stumps.

South Africa are rather more settled, though Tahir did not get a chance to show himself at Newlands, so Paul Harris may fancy his chances for a return. Jacques Rudolph, after Yorkshire signed a different overseas player for next season, needs a score to maintain his rather tenuous place in the side.

Between Australia’s batsmen barely knowing which end of the bat to hold these days and South Africa having a history of chocking, there are the makings of some more batting collapses. However, South Africa showed a enough nous in their second innings that I think they can do enough to win.

Madness

Today was easily the most incredible day’s cricket I have ever seen. I actually missed the first session (I have to sleep sometime) and woke up to find that South Africa were in a reasonable position, 49-1 in response to Australia’s 284 all out. I didn’t think that Australia would get so many, but Clarke apparently batted very well with the tail. Still, South Africa looked in a good position. Shane Watson opened the bowling after lunch and I thought the Proteas would have an easy time of it. Ten overs later, of course, it was all but over. Watson took 5-17 in just five overs. It was good bowling, pitched up and moving off the surface, but South Africa didn’t play it very well. They went after the ball and were exposed when it nipped back at the stumps. There is bounce in the wicket, but Watson was pitching it on the right length to keep it hitting the stumps. Australia’s use of the DRS was also very good, precisely as it was meant. A dire run out for the ninth wicket summed up South Africa’s failings. After being one down at lunch they were all out for 96 halfway through the session.

Australia came out to bat leading by 188 and to the everyone’s amazement were all out leading by 235. It was without question the most dramatic collapse I have ever seen. I remember the West Indies being 21-5 at Sabina Park in 2004. I remember England being 21-5 at Lord’s the next year, though I’ve tried to block that out. Never before had I seen a side 21-7, however and never before in the history of Test cricket have a side been 21-9 and the Australians at one point were. They were in real danger of breaking the record for the lowest Test score of all time, New Zealand’s 26 all out against England. They got past that mark with a streaky boundary, however, and even managed to go past their lowest ever score of 36 all out. The actually added 26 for the tenth wicket to finish 47 all out. Vernon Philander picked up a five-fer on his debut, and it was certainly deserved. He bowled very tight, much like Watson did; pitching the ball up and threatening the stumps. If it went away from the batsmen he got an edge, if it went in he got an LBW.

It’s a spicy pitch in Cape Town, but that is not solely responsible for the two collapses. Nineteen wickets fell for 94 runs between lunch and the end of the Australian innings, but in the other half of the day 200 runs were added for the loss of just four wickets. The Australians especially could not be said to have batted well. Ponting shuffled across the stumps yet again and was LBW for a duck. Hussey played a needless waft outside off immediately after tea and was caught at slip and Brad Haddin played one of the worst shots I have ever seen. He tried to cut a ball that was too close to him and was caught behind with his team on 18-5! Although Australia avoided their lowest ever Test score, it was still their lowest since the war and their fourth lowest of all time.

More than anything else the Australians were culpable for their own demise and this was demonstrated quite clearly in the final passage of play. South Africa knew they had to bat sensibly to get the 236 they had been set and went about doing so. Australia were probably still in a state of some shock about their collapse and bowled a lot more loose deliveries and South Africa put them away gladly. They finished the day on 81-1 showing that the pitch was not a minefield. They may be favourites to win now, but who’d make a prediction about this match?

SA v Aus preview

The ridiculously short two Test series between South Africa and Australia gets underway on Saturday. Two matches is not enough to decide between two such heavyweights. Even three really isn’t enough (and there is a lovely petition to add an extra match to the England v South Africa series next summer). But it is what it is, and should be good viewing anyway. The ODI and T20 series made for a good primer, both were quite close in the end. South Africa and Australia have produced some incredibly compelling cricket over the last few years, and they are as evenly matched this year as they have ever been.

I gave an early preview a month ago, but everything is a bit clearer now that the limited overs leg is over. Australia may be rebuilding after their 1-3 Ashes defeat, but they’re going about it quite well. They played well in Sri Lanka and reasonably well in the limited overs matches. It will be only the second time that Clarke has lead the side against a major opponent, however, and the first was the innings defeat at Sydney at the start of the year. He didn’t look very creative in that match, in particular he did not look like he had any answers when England’s batsmen were well set. (He now has the ignominy of allowing England’s highest ever score in Australia.) Australia have also brought two spinners on the tour, neither of whom have played in South Africa before. (Ten points to anyone who can name Australia’s spinner last time they toured South Africa without looking it up on Cricinfo.) They may not be a lot of use, however. Cape Town, the venue for the first test, usually takes the most spin of any ground in South Africa, but the Test is being played so early in the summer that it looks like it will seam more. (Though no one is quite sure. It’s been ninety years since the last time Cape Town hosted a November Test.)

South Africa have not made very many changes to their Test side in the last several years and they’ve always played very good cricket in that time. (Though never quite good enough to top the rankings.) Nine of the XI who won by an innings and 20 runs in Jo’burg two and a half years ago are in South Africa’s squad for the first test, though there is a good chance that Paul Harris will miss out in favour of Imran Tahir. Dale Steyn is still the best bowler in the world, especially when the pitches have a bit of pace in them. The Australians (Hussey apart) had a very difficult time against England’s pacemen in the Ashes, and I think they will continue to struggle against Steyn and co. The biggest problem for South africa may be the length of time since they last played a Test match. They have not played a Test since they hosted India in January and it might take them a bit to get back into the rhythm of the longest form. They will need to adjust quickly however; they cannot afford to fall behind in a two match series. I do think that they are marginally the better side, however.

It is very difficult to accurately predict the outcome of a series between two such evenly matched teams, especially over such a short series. It wouldn’t be a proper preview if I didn’t at least try though. So my prediction: The first Test will be drawn and South Africa will win the second.

Recap

Some brief thoughts on occurrences today:

The England men collapsed from 129-0 to 176 all out. It was pretty spectacular, even by English ODI standards, but there is little to be said about the match that has not been said on the tour already. The loss hands England a 0-5 whitewash. England can try to salvage a bit of face in a one off T20 before having two months off preceding the series against Pakistan in the UAE.

England were on the good side of a whitewash in South Africa though, as the women beat South Africa by five wickets to secure a 3-0 whitewash. A good bowling performance ensured that they only had to chase 182 to win and despite the early losses of Charlotte Edwards and Danni Wyatt they got home with a full seven overs to spare. Lydia Greenway top scored with 63, (and won Player of the Series) and Heather Knight won Player of the Match for her unbeaten 55 with the bat and 2-15 with the ball. England now have a three match T20 series to conclude the tour.

Bangladesh drew their rain ruined Test against the West Indies in Chittagong. There was never going to be a result, although the Windies were bowled out for 244 (a deficit of 106). Bangladesh were the better side and will take heart from debutant Elias Sunny who took 6-94 in the first innings. Two full days were lost to rain, although it was all overnight rain. The groundstaff could not get the outfield dry and days two and three were completely lost. It was something of a farce and should not happen on a test match ground, even in Bangladesh. The Windies have not had a great tour thus far; they won the ODI series 2-1, but were bowled out for 61 in the last match and this performance was a pretty poor one. There is one match left in the series and they will need to up their game considerably to avoid a humiliating defeat.

Zimbabwe won a historic victory against New Zealand. They chased down 329 to win by just one wicket and with one ball to spare. It was their highest ever successful run chase. Malcolm Waller won a deserving Man of the Match after scoring an unbeaten 99 off 74 deliveries and hitting the winning runs (though he was dropped twice in the last over). The Kiwis still won the series 2-1, but this does add something (I’m not sure what, exactly, probably some sort of spice) to the one off test match next week. Hopefully it will be a good match.

Not today, but on Sunday South Africa (men) levelled their series against Australia, inflicting an 80 run defeat on the tourists. Australia won the first match by 93 runs (D/L) so it’s been a pair of hammerings, but in opposite directions. The ODI series concludes on Friday and I am not even going to try to predict how that will go. A tie would probably be most fitting.

England have won!

And won convincingly to take an unassailable 2-0 lead in the series! After losing the toss and being put into bat they put up a formidable 315-6 off their fifty overs. Charlotte Edwards led the way with 138 off 139 balls. She was ably supported by Sarah Taylor who scored 77 off 63 balls and with whom she shared a partnership of 159 (at eight an over). South Africa always had trouble keeping up with the required rate. By the time they reached the halfway point of their innings they were only two wickets down, but the asking rate was almost eight an over and their only hope was to keep wickets in hand. When they lost four wickets in three overs shortly thereafter the match was all over bar the shouting. South Africa failed to bat out their fifty overs; they were bowled out for 219 in the 48th over to give England a 2-0 lead in the series. The wickets were shared around the England bowlers, with Laura Marsh, Danni Hazell, Arran Brindle and Danni Wyatt taking two apiece and Heather Knight taking one. The win secures the series for England, and they will go for the whitewash on Tuesday.

The England men also ‘played’, insofar as they appeared on a cricket pitch during a scheduled match. The match was very similar to the second one. England batted first and only scored 220. They had a decent start, but once again had a torrid time against spin (Bell still didn’t play) and ended up well short of a competitive target. The bowlers did better this time; Tim Bresnan conceded only forty runs off his ten overs and Steven Finn had another good match, taking 3-45 off his ten. They never had a defensible target, however, and India could get the runs off the other bowlers. India won with ten overs to spare, in a familiar thrashing.

I only watched part of the men’s match. There are only so many times one can watch such a one sided match (at least when one’s side is on the losing end) and I had only had two and a half hours of sleep anyway. But I’m a bit disappointed that the women’s match was not broadcast anywhere that I could find. Even Cricinfo’s live updates were minimalist. I know that there’s not a lot of demand for it, but England have a very good women’s side (even if they seldom play Test matches) and it would have been quite nice to be able to at least listen to the match live. Two and a half years ago, just after England’s women won the World Cup, (for the third time, making them the single most successful England team in any sport) Claire Taylor wrote an article for the Telegraph about the need for coverage of the women’s game. It’s quite good and all the points are still relevant. There’s another reason why the England women’s side should get media coverage though: They are very good. They play cricket to a very high standard and it is always pleasant to watch good cricket. The broadcasters don’t seem to realise this.

The world does not end at Dover

It’s something that I can sometimes forget about cricket. Watching the build up to England’s slightly silly series in India I nearly forgot that Australia are playing an all too brief series in South Africa. The first T20 starts in about an hour. These two countries have had some of the best contests in recent years as Australia started to slip and South Africa looked to take their crown. Now Australia have well and truly slipped, and are looking to regain ground in the test tables, whilst South Africa were leapfrogged to the top first by India and now by England.

South Africa will hope that they haven’t forgot how to play test cricket. They haven’t had a match since drawing with India at the beginning of the year. Australia have had just one series in that time though, a recently completed tour of Sri Lanka. (Which, as an England fan, amazes me. The fact that England have twice had four whole months between test matches this year is unusual, imagine nine!)

It’s hard to know exactly which XI South Africa will field in the tests, but I expect it will contain many of the now slightly ageing stars it has throughout most of this century. It will be interesting to see how well they continue to get on and how long it takes them to get back into the rhythm of test cricket. (They will hope it’s less than two matches.)

Australia’s side is not too different from the last one to tour South Africa, though Clarke will be leading them this time. Mitchell Johnson is back, and it will be very interesting to see if it’s the world beating Mitchell Johnson of the last tour of RSA or the ‘he bowls to the left, he bowls to the right…’ vintage of the last Ashes. Phil Hughes, if he plays, will be another returning to the scene of bygone glories. One of the big battles could involve Ryan Harris and Paul Harris and whether I can remember who plays for whom.

Australia will take some hope from the fact that South Africa’s home form has been poor recently. They have not won a series against one of the other ‘big four’ sides since beating India 2-1 in ’06/’07. They will probably have a slight advantage with the absurdly short series. Only two tests, proceeded by as many T20s and three ODIs. I expect it to be fairly close, though without the venom of two and a half years ago. More like the 2009 Ashes than 2005.