LV=CC week seven roundup

Last week in the County Championship saw only one positive result, but this time rain was only one of the factors. Very suddenly, batting conditions around the country appeared to get much easier this round and we had some big scores. This did mean that although we still only got one result, we at least got to see quite a bit of cricket before then and some close run finishes.

Surrey drew with Somerset
Warwickshire drew with Lancashire
Worcestershire drew with Sussex
Kent drew with Northamptonshire
Leicestershire drew with Essex
Yorkshire drew with Hampshire
Derbyshire beat Glamorgan by eight wickets

Warwickshire’s points from their drawn match were enough to put them at the top of the first division table without a lot of other movement in D1. Derbyshire’s victory extended their lead over Yorkshire in Division Two, which now stands at 14 points. Glamorgan are still at the foot of the second division and now have more losses than any county in either division.

My player of the week, who I forgot to name the last few weeks, (might do so retroactively when I have more time) is Paul Horton. Lancashire looked headed for a certain defeat after following-on and he played an absolutely brilliant knock to make sure they got out of danger.

Matches at the Oval and Edgbaston both involved the team batting first scoring over 500 and the other one having to fight to stay in the match. Somerset had centuries from Arul Suppiah and James Hildreth to set up their 512-9 declares whilst Warwickshire had tons by Varun Chopra and Rikki Clarke en route to 557-6 declared. Warwicks, however, took so long to get their runs that they only got three batting points. Surrey fought better than Lancashire, however, with a century at the top of the order from Steve Davies. Eight wickets for Stuart Meaker meant that Surrey had an outside chance of winning, whilst Lancs just needed to bat out a draw. The Red Rose got a brilliant, unbeaten century from Paul Horton to make it comfortable in the end. At New Road, the biggest contribution was probably from the groundsman after the flood waters had receded. Sussex managed to set Worcs a large target thanks to a first wicket stand of 189 in the second innings between Ed Joyce and Chris Nash (the former with an unbeaten century) but there was not enough time for a result.

In the second division, Northamptonshire’s trip to Canterbury saw the visitors take a large first innings lead thanks to David Sales’ 140, but a flat pitch did not leave any time for a result. At Leicester the home side put up 372 in the first innings with 119 of them from Ramnaresh Sarwan, who also scored 98 in the second innings. When Essex responded with 409, however, and from there a result was always unlikely. The match at Headingley ultimately followed a similar story, but started with Hampshire 55-3 and 83-4 in their first innings. Simon Katich, however, scored 196 and with help from Michael Bates’ 103 sent Hants to a huge first innings score. Yorkshire needed a response and got it from Antony McGrath, putting up 399-9 in all. The only match with a result was at Derby where Glamorgan continued their poor run. Batting first, they could not do what so many other sides did only made 236. Martin Guptill and Wayne Madsen both scored centuries as Derbyshire showed just how far below par Glamorgan were. David Wainwright’s 5-51 in the second innings meant that they had an easy chase and won comfortably.

LV=CC week two roundup

It was another very entertaining week of matches in the County Championship this week. Early season conditions favoured the bowlers, especially on the first day as over 70 wickets fell around the country. This went a long way to ensuring that all seven matches had positive results. The full results were:
Nottinghamshire beat Durham by 114 runs
Sussex beat Lancashire by ten wickets
Middlesex beat Surrey by three runs
Warwickshire beat Somerset by two wickets
Derbyshire beat Glamorgan by 130 runs
Gloucestershire beat Hampshire by 33 runs
Kent beat Northamptonshire by an innings and 120 runs

It was a poor start to Lancashire‘s title defence as they were bowled out for 124 on the first day. Whilst this was hardly unusual given the conditions around the country, it still looked like a very bad toss to lose. There was some hope: Lancs had some of the best bowlers in the country last year and they reduced Sussex to 15-3 in reply. Michael Yardy and Ed Joyce but on a stand of 164, however, which probably decided the match. It was an especially good innings by Yardy who not only steadied the ship for Sussex but counterattacked brilliantly. Lancashire have to rue the four catches they put down on the second morning however. Sussex had one other fairly big partnership: 43 for the ninth wicket to end Lancashire’s brief hopes of keeping the deficit relatively in check. Lancashire did not play terribly poorly; credit must go to Yardy and Steve Magoffin whose batting and bowling performances respectively were excellent. Lancs could do with a bit more batting practise, but their biggest area of concern will probably be the fielding. It probably did not decide the match, but they dropped far too many catches. In the end, they only barely avoided an innings defeat. Ashwell Prince’s 58 was the biggest score of the match for Lancs as they only set Sussex a target of one to win.

Notts continued a good start to the season by beating Durham despite being bowled out for 161 in their first innings. Both sets of bowlers made good use of the friendly conditions, however, and that 161 turned out to be good enough for a first innings lead of 32. I think it was not unreasonable to expect more of the same, but instead Notts built an unchaseable total around Michael Lumb’s 131. Given that only three other batsmen in the entire match passed fifty, it was a fantastic innings. Durham started the chase of 368 by collapsing to 30-5 and it was only some good lower order batting that saw them avoid humiliation.

Middlesex‘s derby against Surrey looked like it might be the best match of the round even on the second day and it did not disappoint. It started off as a bit of a slow-burner; batsmen had to play themselves in properly before trying to go on. The top order for both sides did so passably well, though both suffered collapses in the first innings (Surrey’s the more dramatic). Neither, however, resembled the implosions seen in many other matches. It was slow, low-scoring work and very pleasing to see unfold even as I listened to Lancashire’s match. The work of Dawid Malan for Middlesex and Steve Davies for Surrey in getting the only two fifties of the first innings was very impressive in light of the fairly low team totals. The second innings saw the return of the proper collapses, however. Middlesex had a first innings lead of 34, but only set Surrey a target of 141. They needed something special from their bowlers and Tim Murtagh and Toby Roland-Jones just about delivered. It was close though. Rory Hamilton-Brown almost got Surrey across the line after they had been reduced to 22-3 and 68-4. He could not find a partner though and even though he made the second highest score of the match with 63, his departure left Surrey 126-8 and the tail could not quite do enough.

Somerset won the toss against Warwickshire at Edgbaston and chose to bat. Seventeen point four overs later they were 44-5 with Trescothick, Nick Compton and James Hildreth making just 14 between them. Compton at least managed to make his five last 64 balls, which is fairly impressive. I did not think they were going to get to 100, before Philander decided to become an all-rounder and top-scored in the innings with 38. In the end, Warwickshire had to rely on their own tail to get the lead close to 100. Somerset had a chance to set a good total and although they lost their openers cheaply again, they got an excellent hundred (133) from Compton and 93 from Jos Buttler. The pair of them put on 167, but it was a mark of how little help they got from the rest of the batsmen that their joint contribution was over half of the total of 354 all out. With Somerset’s batting, it is probably fair to say that it should have been more. Jeetan Patel’s unbeaten 43 left them rueing that failure. Although Warwickshire had briefly been 190-3, they collapsed in just eight overs to 207-8 and Somerset had a real chance. I think, however, that the more deserving team won.

Derbyshire‘s match against Glamorgan was a case of one semi-competent batting innings winning a match. At the end of day one, Derbyshire had been bowled out for 130 and had reduced Glamorgan to 37-4. They would go on to bowl Glamorgan out for 95 before themselves collapsing (again) to 37-5. Eventually they found some semblance of batting in the lower-middle order, most notably an unbeaten 51 from David Wainwright, and could set Glamorgan over 200 to win. It was not objectively a lot, but in the context of the match all the safe money was on Derbyshire. The extent of Glamorgan’s collapse was still pretty surprising, however. They got off to a decent start and were at one point 92-3. Six overs later, they were all out for 102. Jonathan Clare did most of the damage for Derbyshire, but it was still a spectacular implosion.

Gloucestershire managed comfortably the best performance in the first innings of this round of matches in their trip to Hampshire. They put up 314 all out, thanks mostly to 114 from opener Chris Dent. Despite a solid 74 from Simon Katich, Hampshire’s reply never seemed to really get going and Will Gidman’s 5-48 ensured that they were bowled out 115 in arrears. Gloucs made enough of it, but I’m sure they would have liked to have done more. No one went past fifty in their second innings, and Hampshire were set a not unreasonable 290 to win. Hants’ top order didn’t bother to show up for that chase, however, and found themselves 72-6 at one point. Wicket-keeper Michael Bates and Chris Wood engineered a recovery, but when Will Gidman struck to remove Bates 13 short of the latter’s hundred, the match was all but up.

Kent had the biggest victory of the week over Northamptonshire. Northants won the toss, batted and were bowled out for 132. It was an interesting innings as there were no scores of note and the wickets were shared around the Kent bowlers. Northants possibly scented a comeback when Kent were 35-2, but solid contributions from Ben Harmison, Brendan Nash and Geraint Jones combined with an unbeaten 128 from Mike Powell meant that they trailed by a massive 236 after the first innings. Northants did not make much of an effort to make Kent bat again. Captain David Sales 42 was the highest of only three double-digit contributions to their 116 all out as Matt Coles took 6-51 to achieve the earliest finish (lunch on day three) of the week.

Victory for Notts coupled with defeats for Somerset and Surrey mean that Nottinghamshire now top the first division table with 38 points from two matches. In Division Two, Derbyshire are enjoying one of their best starts to a season in recent times; they sit atop the table with 39 points and two wins from two.

Nick Compton would be a dark horse at best for England’s vacant number six spot, but after two matches he leads the first division in both total runs and average. Jos Buttler’s good, but ultimately just insufficient, innings should also keep him in the selectors’ minds.

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.

Pakistan win by 72 runs

I probably don’t need to say how much it hurt to type that title. England were in such a good position yesterday, and Monty bowled so well to give us a very good chance to win the Test and we didn’t even come close. The series is decided now, England will not get the vital result we needed to solidify our status as world number one. We may stay number one, there are few competitors right now, but we missed a chance to prove that we are worthy champions who can win anywhere. For me that is much more disappointing that the official ranking.

England ought to have won this Test. Pakistan played very, very well in the final innings certainly, but there is seldom an excuse for failing to chase 145. Monty bowled so well in his comeback Test and the bowlers as a whole restricted Pakistan to what should have been a very gettable target. They should have been rewarded for their performance. There was an element of ill-luck for England in that Trott was ill and unable to steady the ship at number three as he often does. Instead once Cook was out Bell came in and Bell is still not reading the doosra. This surprises me a bit, as Bell is such a technically good batsman, but he looks utterly out of his depth here. He was made to look foolish, as were KP and Morgan in quick succession (though the last two need no help) and the collapse was on. It is impossible to know how the innings would have played if Trott had been healthy, of course, but his coming in at seven certainly hurt England. The only batsman who held out for any sort of score was the captain. He top scored with an admittedly fortunate 32 and actually played some nice shots. He was relatively comfortable and there was a period when he and Prior were batting that it looked like they might get settled and knock off the runs. In the end he was out in a very predictable way, however, playing back against the spin.

That was the main killer of the English batsmen, playing too much on the back foot. In addition to leaving them vulnerable to being bowled and LBW, the ball was also very seldom on a length conductive to scoring from the back foot. The batsmen were utterly bogged down, and when they got out they had not put many on the board. Andrew Strauss actually batted 100 balls for his 32, and he was one of England’s quickest scorers. To be fair, I can understand why they wanted to play back. With the DRS they were still vulnerable to LBWs even on the front foot and playing back gave them more time to see how the ball was turning. There is a trick to avoiding LBWs on the front foot, however: play with the bat and not the pad. (Easy!) Of course it’s hard to do that if the ball is turning, but they needed to try. Ideally they needed to get to the pitch of the ball and negate the spin entirely, only playing back if the ball was short. It’s very easy for me to say that sat here, of course, but I am surprised that with all the preparation England usually have that they still fell to such a simple thing. It may not be straightforward to read the length of the ball and react so quickly, but it’s not like they have been able to read the spin either. Getting onto the front foot would also open up more scoring opportunities. Only needing 145 to win, it would not have taken much to force the field back and force the bowlers to be more defensive. It must be said though that the Pakistani bowlers did very, very well. They saw the flaw in England’s tactics and exploited it to the hilt. Poorer bowlers would not have been able to trigger a collapse so effectively, and may not have been able to do enough with the runs they had.

The upcoming dead rubber means that England will potentially have a chance to experiment with the side a bit. As I have said more than once, Morgan is not up to Test standard and should be dropped. (After he got out yesterday, I also suggested on Twitter that he ‘sod off back to Ireland’, but I was just cross then. No one deserves that.) I still would not want to see Bopara back in the side, but at this point even he might be a better option. After the first Test I suggested that if there was a dead rubber it might be a good idea to play Steve Davies, however, and I would like to see that happen in Dubai. I would also still like to see five bowers to help shift the sort of troublesome partnerships we have seen from Pakistan in both of the first two Tests, but those are not mutually exclusive. Morgan should be dropped for a long spell, but KP could stand to miss a Test. He has to be hit where it hurts and that is not his batting average, but his ego. Given that England are extremely unlikely to do that or play five bowlers, however, I am going to stick with wanting to see Davies get a cap. I cannot wait until Bresnan is fit and can solve the problem, however.

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.