Tag: Steven Finn

Calcutta Test preview

The Calcutta Test starts on Wednesday (or late on Tuesday here) with each side looking to secure at least a share of the spoils for the series. After all the fuss about the pitch and groundstaff, it sounds like the wicket will be similar to the one from the Mumbai Test. It is another used one and should have plenty of bounce and turn like the one at Mumbai did. I expect this will suit England; Dhoni may have correctly identified a weakness against good spin bowling, but his spinners will need to bowl a lot better than they did at Mumbai to exploit that weakness and even then they have the problem that England’s spinners are still better. The pitch also means that whilst it is still probably going to be a good toss to win, it will not be vital.

The other good news for England is that Steven Finn is fit and Ian Bell is back from his paternity leave so they can field an improved XI to the one who won in Mumbai. Finn looks guaranteed a place in the XI; England badly missed him in the first Test and although it got lost in the second innings romp by the spinners he was missed in Mumbai too. England looked definitely short a bowler in the first innings and Stuart Broad’s inability to keep things tight was a big part of that. Assuming England will play four bowlers again there is very little else they could do but drop Broad to make way for Finn. But with Samit Patel only bowling four overs in Mumbai he ought to be the one to make way with England playing five bowlers. That way if Broad regains his form he will still play a role, but if he does not England still have the resources to cover him with the bowling and with very little impact on the batting. (Broad’s career average is actually higher than Patel’s and even taking form and Patel’s bad luck into account I don’t think there is a large difference between the two.)

Bell should also come straight back into the side, but there is a bit more question around that. His first innings dismissal in Ahmedabad was terrible and although Jonny Bairstow did play a poor shot for his dismissal in Mumbai he was unlucky to be given out. But I would have Bell return; he looked more convincing in his second innings than Bairstow ever did in Mumbai and he is the overall better batsman in any case. Although I would have Bairstow at six in New Zealand (unless something radically changes between now and then), the only way he should play in Calcutta is if England drop Patel, but decide not to go with five bowlers. There’s probably a better chance of that happening than of them actually going with five bowlers, but I think Patel has shown a bit more with the bat than Bairstow did (admittedly in only one innings) and if he is to be dropped it should be for a bowler.

The worry for England with respect to the batting is that they still only had two players really fire in Mumbai. A lot of that was admittedly to do with the pitch, India also had just two scores over thirty in their first innings, but it does bring up the worry that if Alastair Cook fails this time England might be in trouble. Kevin Pietersen played the best crafted innings I have seen from him in Mumbai, but it’s impossible to know if that Pietersen or the Pietersen who panicked twice against Pragyan Ojha will show up in Calcutta. What England will really be hoping is that this time Jonathan Trott and/or Ian Bell can get themselves in and play a big score. As well as the team did in Mumbai, they do need someone to step up and take some of the burden off Cook and Pietersen.

Especially with Finn back fit and looking like he will be tough to play plus the increase in confidence coming from the Mumbai victory I would say England are probably just favourites in Calcutta. But I would have said India were favourites in Mumbai and we saw how that turned out. England look to have comfortably enough bowling to keep India down to a reasonable score, the question will be if the batsmen can do as well or better than they did in Mumbai. Without that it will just be a replay of the UAE.

My XI for the Calcutta Test: Cook*, Compton, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Prior†, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn, Panesar

Mumbai Test: England win by ten wickets

The morning session of the fourth day of the Mumbai Test was not quite a formality; there was still a worry that India’s tail could hit out and give England a tricky target. But when Graeme Swann got Harbhajan Singh out in the second over of the day that possibility all but vanished and in fact India just managed to grind out another 25 runs over the course of about an hour before setting England 57 runs to win.

But the Test was really won long before the fourth day and it was just as a comprehensive win for England as the scoreline suggests and just as comprehensive a win as India recorded in the first Test. England beat India at their own game in this Test; their spinners comprehensively outbowled India’s spinners and their batsmen put last winter behind them and outdid their Indian counterparts to make a match-winning score in the first innings. That’s not to say it was a perfect victory for England by any means, however. There are still things to address if they want to avoid the tables turning again in Calcutta.

The first is that whilst the batsmen did manage to put up a good score it was off the performance of Cook and Pietersen almost exclusively. A lot of that is down to the pitch; it was never easy to bat on and only five of the 35 batsmen to come to the wicket for both sides even made it past thirty. It was that clear difficulty which made the innings of Cook and Pietersen so special. But not all of England’s wickets fell to good bowling and there is still some uncertainty about the middle order. Trott played very poorly for his duck and then Bairstow played a terrible shot to precipitate the controversy about his dismissal. England will at least reinforce the middle order with Ian Bell in the next Test and hopefully Nick Compton’s fluent thirty not out in the run chase will settle him down. He has never really been at fault in his dismissals, but he has been very nervy at times. If the Calcutta pitch is anything like the Mumbai one, however, England should not necessarily expect a lot from the middle order; they just need to make sure none of the batsmen give their wicket away and deny themselves a chance to get set.

Despite bowling India out for 142 in the second innings, England could look at the bowling as well. Swann and Panesar did pretty much all of the damage which was always going to be likely after it became clear how much the pitch was turning and indeed would turn later. But that was a slight problem in the first innings. England bowled well to restrict India to 119-5, but as the day wore on the batsmen settled in and the spinners started to look tired. England needed another option and although Anderson did manage to look threatening at times the only other seamer was Stuart Broad and he was a liability in this Test. He wasn’t threatening and he wasn’t economical and England really needed him to be at least one of those to give the spinners a break in the first innings and to give the batsmen a different look. If there had been a third seamer that would not have been as much of a problem, but as it was India recovered to 327 all out. If Broad plays in the Calcutta Test then it has to be as part of a five bowler attack, but I don’t think he will or should play at all. What I would have liked to see before the next Test is Broad play in the England Performance Programme match that started today to try to find some bowling rhythm and make sure that he is at full fitness. Steven Finn is playing in it and so is Graham Onions, however, so they might be in the mix for the next Test. Broad is a major asset to England at his best, but he’s been far from that in this series.

India have some questions ahead of Calcutta too, however. Not only did India win what looked like an important toss, but they played three spinners on a pitch that MS Dhoni had specifically asked to be a turner. To lose from there must be alarming. But the fact is that the only one of their spinners to consistently trouble England’s batsmen was Pragyan Ojha. Ravichandran Ashwin was poor for the second innings in succession; he did manage to get Cook which is o small feat with his current form, but he bowled far too many loose deliveries and the only other wicket he got in over 42 overs of effort was Monty Panesar. The decision to recall Harbhajan Singh was clearly an error. Singh was once a great bowler, but his career is coming to a close and this was at least one Test too many. The only wickets he picked up were Broad and Anderson late in England’s innings and generally looked ineffective. He won’t get many better pitches on which to bowl than this one and I don’t see how he can reasonably be picked again.

India’s top order had a fairly poor Test except for Cheteshwar Pujara who hit another century in the first innings. He has shown excellent temperament and technique and batted very well again for his runs. Gautam Gambhir also played a good lone hand in the second innings to possibly save his place in the XI and was unlucky not to carry his bat. But the rest of the top order had a match to forget. Sehwag, Tendulkar, Kohli and Yuvraj Singh made just 89 runs between their eight innings with a combination of poor shots and excellent bowling accounting for them. Kohli’s dismissals were both particularly bad and combined with his dismissal in the first Test might throw up some red flags for India. For Tendulkar this is a continuation of his poor form. Despite what some think, he isn’t immortal and he has now not made more than 27 in any of his last ten innings. I would be amazed if he does not play out the rest of this series, but either this one or the next should be his last. With Tendulkar undroppable, however, it’s Singh who might really be feeling the pressure having made nought and eight in this Test. It’s still a tough situation for the selectors, because Singh of course just made his incredible comeback from lung cancer and everyone wants to see him do well. But he was never really a Test-calibre player even before his illness, he had a batting average under 35 and a bowling average over 55, and that is showing again now. Unfortunately for India the first replacement would appear to be Suresh Raina and he would not only not appear to be an improvement, he actually has an average even worse than Singh’s.

Neither side need to make any sort of decision on their XI for the Calcutta Test this early of course, but I would be surprised to see either of them name the same bowling attack. England will be desperately hoping Finn is fit and India need to look at their other spinners to see if any of them can perform better than Harbhajan Singh. Other than that, I doubt either will change their batting apart from the return of Ian Bell to the England side. Both sides probably should look hard at their number six, however.

England injury concerns

Another England fast bowler has gone down with a mild injury as Stuart Broad bowled only ten overs in England’s warmup match before bruising a heel. He was actually expected to miss the last warmup anyway and this means that if he is fit for the first Test he will go in having hardly bowled a ball in a competitive match. Steven Finn is also still a doubt for both the last warmup and the first Test and he looks less likely to be fit then Broad, so England will at best be going into the first Test with only one member of their pace attack both fit and prepared. England do at least have strong reserves; Tim Bresnan is no stranger to the Test side and has already made a strong case to replace Finn.

If Broad misses the first Test then it will be down to one of Graham Onions, Stuart Meaker or possibly Monty Panesar to replace him. Panesar is the least likely as Samit Patel will already be playing (and actually took three wickets against Mumbai A), but despite the extra spinner probably not being the best balance in India England should pick whoever is most likely to take wickets. In general this won’t be an extra spinner, but with two of the top three pace bowlers out that may cease to be the case. Certainly I think they should all play in the final warmup along with Bresnan. I expect Jimmy Anderson will miss out as he played in the first two matches and Patel might rest as well to allow Graeme Swann another match.

That would make for something of a bowler-heavy XI, but with Nick Compton’s unbeaten fifty in the second innings against Mumbai A they should not now have any more questions to answer with respect to the batting. I see no reason why the top six should not be Cook, Compton, Trott, Pietersen, Bell and Patel unless someone picks up an injury in the final warmup. England, and Flower specifically, like to play to win in the warmups and that is a good thing. But in this case with question marks still hovering over the bowling I think it is a better idea to make sure that all of the possible replacements have a match worth of bowling ahead of the first Test and to fully assess who should play in case Broad turns out not to be fit.

What I suspect is more likely is that Patel will play and Panesar won’t and that England will try to play an XI as close as possible to the one who will play in the first Test with Meaker for Broad being the only difference. I think that Onions will be the one to come into the side if Broad is not fit, but that England will simply take that for granted rather than try to give him another match.

England’s selection a bit clearer

I’ve said a few times before that I don’t think England are well advised to select bits-and-pieces players just for a special occasion like India and that therefore Samit Patel should not play. I stand by the first part, but Patel has furnished solid evidence in the first warmup that he could be able to hold his own in the side as a batsman and if he can do that then there is no reason he should not play. He scored 104 in England’s first and only innings and came in when England were under a bit of pressure. Only Alastair Cook made a higher score. I would not say that this guarantees him a place; we still have yet to see what Jonny Bairstow can do and it is a bit harsh to drop him after the excellent innings he played at Lord’s. But Patel made his century against a fairly strong attack and certainly a stronger one than Bairstow will face when he gets a chance. I think Bairstow will have to be very convincing to force a place from here and given the selectors’ clear preference to having someone who can bowl a bit it may already be an impossible task.

The warmup match also clarified the bowling selection, albeit in an unfortunate way. Steven Finn started as the favourite for the final bowling position, but he picked up a thigh injury early on and missed the rest of the match. He is not a doubt for the tour as a whole, but there is little chance of his playing the first Test unless he can guarantee to Flower and Cook that he is one hundred per cent fit and I doubt that will happen. With Patel looking very likely to play that also reduces the chance that England will try to give Monty Panesar a game as a second spinner, meaning that the last bowling place appears to be down to Tim Bresnan and Graham Onions. Bresnan is certainly the initial favourite, as evidenced by the fact that he was chosen ahead of Onions to play in this match in the first place. He also took 3-59 and scored 33 not out to put Onions in a very similar position as Bairstow with two warmups remaining.

The only selection issue that was opened up more was that of Cook’s new opening partner. Nick Compton was given the first crack at the role, but lasted just three balls and failed to score. Unfortunately for him, since India A batted first he did not get a second chance in the match. He likely will in at least one of the remaining warmups, but Joe Root will also get a shot to prove that he is the best option instead. Compton is still probably the favourite until Root makes a strong case otherwise, but I actually would not be surprised to see Cook sit out one of the next two warmups and have Compton and Root go head-to-head.

There was other bad news for England as well. They did manage to put up a good score overall, but five of their wickets fell to the part time spin of Yuvraj Singh. Singh is rather better than Kevin Pietersen’s memorable assessment of him as a ‘pie-chucker’, but it is still a touch worrying that England still pick out the spinner to whom to give their wickets. The good news at least for England was of Singh’s five wickets one was a tailender, one had a century and one had fifty. The dismissals of Pietersen and Ian Bell are both issues that will need to be addressed, but it is at least not as panic inducing as a proper collapse.

England 0-2 South Africa review and player marks

It should have been more than just three matches. The second two Tests were very good, very close and very much left one wanting more. But fortunately the possibility that the reduced series might have robbed us all of a proper result did not come to pass. South Africa were very much the better side and deserved to win. England came close in the last two Tests, but never looked like outplaying South Africa and I don’t think even the most partisan Englishman would begrudge South Africa their victory.

England were always up against it after their dismal performance in the first Test. The batsmen gave away a good start, the bowlers toiled for three days on a flat wicket and then the batsmen succumbed to the pressure of trying to bat out the draw. Whilst they did improve dramatically in the next two Tests, it was always going to be a tough task to come back and South Africa were simply too good. Michael Vaughan put it well on TMS when he said that throughout the series when England built partnerships one always got the feeling that South Africa would find a way to break them, but when South Africa built partnerships it felt like they would bat indefinitely. Part of this was that England threw wickets away too regularly (though South Africa did so as well) and part was that England dropped too many catches in the field. But I think a lot of it was to due with the fact that the English bowling often just looked too flat. South Africa seemed to always have something whether it be swing, bite or just raw pace and aggression. When the ball stopped swinging for England, however, all too often one simply could not see how they were going to get a wicket. It was a fairly harsh come down after they had performed so well in the subcontinent in the winter.

Both sides have slightly to somewhat tricky tours up next in the forms of India and Australia, but first here are how the players did in this series:

England (75/140, average 5.36)
Andrew Strauss* – 5
Stayed calm, measured and reasonable as the KP problem overshadowed the third Test and his hundredth. Led the side admirably as England went for the runs both at Headingley and Lord’s, but his own form was quite poor. His nemesis, Morkel, got him with the fourth ball of the series and the best Strauss could do after that was just making starts. His dismissal on the fourth day at Lord’s told of a someone who had a trying week.

Alastair Cook – 6
Scored 195 runs in the series, but 115 of them were in his first innings. Threw his wicket away a few times (once out of necessity at Headingley), but also had problems with the bowlers nipping it back into him and was lbw to Philander twice.

Jonathan Trott – 4
Somehow managed to average over forty in the series despite looking terrible throughout. Had a decent knock in the first Test before getting out to a terrible waft outside off. He also threw away his wicket after a good start at Headingley and edged his way to 63 at the Oval whilst running out Taylor for good measure. Starts show he is seeing the ball okay, but needs to regain the patience he showed most notably in the last Ashes.

Ian Bell – 6
Played some good innings in the series, but had the same trouble as most of the batsmen in getting out to poor shots. Played very well to try to save England at the Oval and dig them out of a first innings hole at Lord’s, but should have gone on in both innings. The fifties were useful, but England needed hundreds.

James Taylor – 5
Replaced Bopara for the Headingley Test and had a decent debut. His 34 was hardly going to set the world alight, but it was very patiently scored over the course of 104 balls in fairly difficult circumstances. Didn’t get many at Lord’s but was the victim of a decent ball in the first innings and was done up by Prior in the second. Should have a spot on the plane to India.

Jonny Bairstow – 9
Harshly dropped for the first two Tests after it was perceived that he had a problem with the short ball against the West Indies, but made a strong statement when he returned for the last one. Came in with the score 54-4 in the first innings, rescued England and came agonisingly close to getting on the Lord’s honours board. Came in with the score 45-4 in the second innings and scored a fifty at better than a run a ball to (amazingly) keep England in the match. Could not have asked for much more.

Matt Prior† – 8
England’s leading run scorer in the series by a distance; he scored valuable runs with the tail in four of the six innings and had a fifty in each Test. The only marks against him with the bat were some soft dismissals after he had got to fifty. Somewhat offset though by his stunning 73 in the last Test which gave England a sniff of a very improbable victory. Was good with the gloves, but dropped Amla on two in the last Test (his first drop standing back for two years) which ultimately cost England 119 runs.

Stuart Broad – 4
Came into the series having averaged 19 with the ball in the past twelve months, but had a very poor series. His pace was well down for most of the series and he only had one really good spell, in the second innings at Headingley. He did swing the ball some in the last Test, but never looked as threatening as he had last year. Fairly poor series with the bat as well, but found a bit of form at Lord’s.

Graeme Swann – 4
Had trouble really getting into the series with the ball. Bowed some very good spells in the two Tests he played, but by and large the South African batsmen were equal to the challenge. Took only four wickets, all of them in the last Test and one thanks only to a very clever bit of work from Prior. Managed to average exactly fifty with the bat, however, which was good enough for third best in the series on the English side and hit a thrilling 41 on the last day.

James Anderson – 6
Desperately unlucky for most of the series; he had a few spells where he beat the bat with regularity but was not rewarded. Unlike in the winter, though, he could not always coax enough movement out of it to trouble the batsmen when they were well set. Looked flat at periods when the ball was not swinging and ended up without a lot of reward.

Steven Finn – 8
Finally got his chance when Swann was left out for the Headingley Test and had problems with his knee hitting the stumps, denying him a wicket in the first innings. Did well enough to keep his place for the Lord’s Test though and was brilliant there. He provided a much needed pace option when the ball was not swinging and his spell on the fourth day almost got England back into the Test. Has given Bresnan a bit of work to do to get back in the side.

Kevin Pietersen – 8
His off-the-pitch antics were almost the only story in the run up to the third Test, for which he was dropped. My thoughts on that matter are well documented, but on the pitch he had a good series. His 149 at Headingley was an absolutely staggering innings and included hitting Dale Steyn back over his head for six. Tempered somewhat by his throwing his wicket away in both innings at the Oval and costing England a good position in the first. Also performed admirably with the ball at Headingley when Swann was absent. Was outdone by his replacement, Bairstow, at Lord’s.

Ravi Bopara – 1
Scored 22 runs total in the only Test he played. Threw his wicket away to an appalling shot in the first innings and then to a poor one in the second, though in that innings he had at least hung on for a while before hand. Missed the next two Test due to personal reasons and the performances of Taylor and Bairstow will make it tricky for him to reclaim that spot. Inexplicably, he is expected to have a chance anyway.

Tim Bresnan – 1
A very poor series for the Yorkshireman saw him dropped for the Lord’s Test in favour of Steven Finn. Before that he had taken just two wickets, both of Smith and both in rather surprising ways, for over two hundred runs. His batting had suffered a bit too and he was going much more slowly than usual. Seems to still not be up to full strength.

South Africa (73/110, average 6.64)
Graeme Smith* – 8
A relatively poor tour of England for the South African skipper, he ‘only’ averaged 54 and ‘only’ scored one century. He also appears to have failed to cause the resignation of his opposite number. Still did very well, of course and his captaincy was at the best I’ve seen it. He declared aggressively at the Oval and was rewarded with an innings victory and made an odd declaration going for an unlikely win at Headingley.

Alviro Petersen – 7
Out for a duck at the Oval and had three days to think about it whilst his teammates batted and batted. If anything though, that time seemed to help him as he scored 182 at Headingley to see South Africa to a decent score. Didn’t get many in the second innings after injuring his hamstring and only had a couple of starts in the third Test, but still did enough to average over sixty in the series.

Hashim Amla – 10
Amla is the sort of batsman one could watch forever and for England fans that seemed to be what happened. Hit an unbeaten triple century in the first Test (when he came to the wicket in the third over) and then backed that up with a vital and arguably match-winning hundred in the second innings of the last Test. Only looked human when he hit a full toss straight to cover in the second Test and when he got a jaffa from Finn in the third. England fans will be relieved to see him bat against the Aussies for a while.

Jacques Kallis – 7
Came into the series with a very poor record in England and looked like turning it around with 182* at the Oval. His next highest score in the series was 31, however, though he was brutally given out in the first innings at Lord’s. Did manage to pick up four wickets in the series as well, including the important one of Broad on the last day at Lord’s.

AB de Villiers† – 5
Did well with the gloves in his spell as Test ‘keeper. Made few clear mistakes and none which might not have been made by a full-time gloveman. Did not perform as well as South Africa might have liked with the bat though; he scored no fifties in four innings. He did pass forty three times, however.

Jacques Rudolph – 4
Not a great series for the former Yorkshire batsman. He did not get to bat at the Oval, of course, and somehow managed to get out twice to Pietersen at Headingley. Finished the series with just one fifty to his name and an average of 35.

JP Duminy – 6
His highest score in the series was the 61 he made in the first innings at Lord’s, but that disguises the fact that he put on some incredibly frustrating runs with the tail. His second innings partnership with Philander probably won the third Test for South Africa. Was also stranded on 48* at Headingley and was South Africa’s best spinner.

Vernon Philander – 9
He did not run through England the way he had done to other teams in his career, but he did bowl extremely well. He consistently bowled a good line and length and got the ball to nip around making life very difficult for the batsmen. Man of the Match in the last Test with 96 runs in the two innings and a five-fer to bowl England out. Might have been Man of the Series were it not for Amla.

Dale Steyn – 9
Bowled with his usual pace, hostility and accuracy and was rewarded with the 15 wickets, the most of any bowler in the series. His five-fer at the Oval made sure that England could not bat out a draw and he picked up important wickets throughout the series. Was only made to look bad by Pietersen at Headingley.

Morne Morkel – 6
Drifted between brilliant and wayward. Usually opened the bowling to Strauss and Cook as both have problems with him at his best, but this was only effective twice as he was simply too inaccurate most of the time. One of those times was in the fourth ball of the series, however, which seemed to convince Smith to keep trying it.

Imran Tahir – 2
It’s never a good series when one is outbowled by both JP Duminy and Kevin Pietersen and that is what happened to Imran Tahir. Only managed one top order wicket in the series, that of Strauss, and his only strength seemed to be an ability to get Prior late in the innings as the latter went for quick runs. Was utterly taken apart on the last day of the series as England tried to get a win.

Lord’s, day four: England 16-2

Barring a miracle, today was the last day of England being number one in the world. As they have in most of the series, England had some very good spells with the ball. But they never got the kind of collapse they needed to keep the South Africans down to a reasonable total. Steven Finn was the best bowler for England and for the first time in the three Tests he has got this summer he really looked like fulfilling his potential. He bowled a hostile spell with the old ball in the morning and then coming on as first change with the second new ball in the afternoon he had a spell of 3-14 to give England an opening. It was an excellent demonstration of his value in a four man attack; neither Jimmy nor Broad were getting any appreciable swing and were looking innocuous. Finn, however, used his pace and height to good effect with the still hard ball. As useful as Bresnan is when he is on song, I think that variation in the attack is very important for England. Ideally both Bresnan and Finn would play, but since that does not seem likely I would go for Finn.

Finn gave England a bit of a chance; he gave them an opening. But he had to come off eventually and after tea South Africa regrouped with their tail again. JP Duminy and Vernon Philander built another frustrating partnership and by the time Philander gifted his wicket to Anderson it was already too late for England. It was the same sort of frustrating partnership that the two put on in the first innings. It wasn’t as long, but in the circumstances it was more important and although the Amla-De Villiers partnership was worth more I think there is a fair case to be made that if South Africa win it will be because of that eighth wicket partnership instead. It took the momentum and indeed the match away from England who were otherwise in with a chance.

That partnership took the game away from England, but where England all but lost it was in the 13 overs of batting before stumps. Three hundred and forty-six was always going to be a very tough ask and probably too much (it would have been a record for a Lord’s Test). But there was still some faint sense of hope that maybe, maybe on a flat wicket England could do something special. That hope lasted approximately four overs, in which time Philander (that man again) got both openers lbw. Strauss’s dismissal was particularly horrific. He completely misjudged the length of a ball and left one that hit him halfway up the pad. Michael Vaughan described it simply as the shot (lack thereof, more accurately) of a man who had too much on his plate this week and whose mind was just a bit scrambled. It definitely did seem as though the Pietersen issue had got to him. It was far less than he deserved in his hundredth Test. England were left needing another 330 to win with eight wickets in hand, but the simple expression does not do justice to how unlikely that really is. England only have ninety overs and so would have to not only bat better than they have all year, but do so quickly. There is little to no chance that tomorrow will be anything other than a formality.

Headingley, day one: SA 262-5

England, for once, showed some admirable aggression today. No, they did not finally play five bowlers. But they did something similar and played four quick bowlers leaving out Swann. Partly due to this and partly due to the conditions looking bowler friendly, Strauss also opted to bowl first upon winning the toss. There was plenty of criticism of this both at the time and subsequently, but I think it was the right move. I would have preferred five bowlers with Swann included, but knowing that was never going to happen this was the next best thing. Headingley tends to favour seamers and Swann in particular has never been effective there. England have to attack in this Test; they have to find a way to win and I do think that the best way to do that was to select the four bowlers who would be getting the most out of the conditions. If I had to make a change I actually might have brought Onions in, who probably would have used the conditions very well also. The same applies to the decision to bowl first, especially once it had been decided to play four bowlers. The conditions were cloudy for a lot of the day and should be so tomorrow as well and bowling first gave us an excellent chance to try to put South Africa on the back foot. It did not come off as well as Strauss would have liked, but I definitely do not think it in any way backfired (at least not yet) either.

The first part of the day was dominated by the controversy about Steven Finn being ‘dead-balled’ for hitting the stumps with his knee during his delivery stride. This is something that Finn does with some regularity, but for the first time the batsmen, Graeme Smith and Alviro Petersen, complained to the umpire that it was ‘distracting’ and Finn was informed that the ball would henceforth be declared dead whenever the bails were dislodged. All of the actions did take place in accordance with the laws and the umpires did apply this consistently; both an edge to slip and a pair of boundaries were discounted so one certainly would not say that Finn was treated unfairly. That said, the fact that no other batsman has ever complained about Finn, the fact that there was actually no precedent of any batsmen having complained about a myriad of bowlers in the past who regularly hit the stumps and the fact that Smith was not so distracted that he could not dispatch a couple of the dead balls to the boundary suggests that the complaint was borne less out of distraction and more out of a desire to put Finn off. I have a lot of trouble believing that it was anything other than gamesmanship by Smith.

England did not do as well with the ball as they would have liked, but I do think that the general suggestion that by bowling first England should have South Africa all out by now are a bit harsh. I don’t think bowling first should be considered as radical a tactic as it is often is and if South Africa had one won the toss and batted I think most would say that it was about honours even now. Perhaps a slight edge to South Africa. Certainly England are still very much in the match. Alviro Petersen is still there overnight after making an excellent hundred today (as an interesting aside: his last three Test innings are now 156, 0 and 124*), but there is not a lot of other batting left. Of the other five batsmen who are yet to be dismissed, three are tailenders and two are Rudolph and Duminy. Rudolph is a good county player, but does not fill one with confidence at Test level and Duminy was actually selected after Rudolph. This does not mean that they can not or will not score runs, of course, but England will fancy their chances of getting through them pretty quickly tomorrow morning.

With the rate South Africa batted today they can probably expect to get to about 350 by lunch tomorrow and they will probably be thinking of 400 as something of a minimum total for the innings. Whether they can get that far will likely depend on Petersen; I expect that if he bats through to lunch South Africa will have a great chance of getting a score well over 400. One of England’s weaknesses in the past few years has been bowling out sides when a top order batsman has been shepherding the tail and even if the other players only bat to their fairly low averages alongside Petersen it should be enough to put South Africa in control of the match. On the other side of that coin though, if England can get him early tomorrow then they will have a great chance to knock South Africa over very cheaply. The second new ball is only seven overs old and the bowlers will be fresh as they always are at the start of a day. But regardless of South Africa’s total, I suspect tomorrow will mostly be about whether England can bat properly this time. It is that which will decide the match.

Second Test squad

England have named a 13-man squad for the second Test against South Africa at Headingley and there is one surprise omission. After I said after the first Test that I did not think that Bopara would be dropped, he was left out of the squad due to ‘personal reasons’. Whilst obviously I, and I suspect everyone, hopes that all is well with Bopara this is a boost for England. I don’t know how many times I have said that he should not be in the side. In his place comes James Taylor, now of Nottinghamshire. It is interesting as it does seem to be a slight case of selection on potential. Taylor is a very good, very talented player who had a very poor 2011 (which may have cost him a place in the Test side at the time). He has had a better 2012 and he is an excellent choice, but Nick Compton is in better form. Still, Taylor very much deserves his chance and it is probably overdue. Hopefully he gets the extended run that Bairstow (rather unfairly) did not. Unless the personal reasons are long-term, I do expect Bopara will be back soon so Taylor cannot assume that he will have long in which to prove himself. Hopefully he gets a big score immediately and makes himself very hard to drop.

The rest of the squad of 13 is unchanged, so there is once again the possibility that England will play five bowlers. I would still be very surprised if it actually happens, but the performance at the Oval certainly looked a bowler short. Though I do expect a four-man (three seamer) attack, the exact composition of it may change. There is a suggestion that Stuart Broad was perhaps not entirely fit at the Oval and if he is still carrying a niggle then he should not play at Headingley. It is also possible that Finn could come in for Bresnan after the latter did not look particularly good in the first Test. Though as I said after the Test it would be harsh; Bresnan really looked no worse than the rest. It looks necessary to get some variation into the attack, however, and Bresnan is probably the odd man out if that is what happens.

My preferred XI, assuming Broad is fit, would be: Strauss*, Cook, Trott, KP, Bell, Prior†, Bresnan, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Finn.

My predicted XI, taking into account the previous selection preferences and again assuming that Broad is fit, is: Strauss*, Cook, Trott, KP, Bell, Taylor, Prior†, Bresnan, Broad, Swann, Anderson.

If Broad is not fit I would replace him with Onions (batting at eleven) in my preferred XI and Finn (also batting at XI) in my predicted XI.

South Africa win by an innings and twelve runs

The final scoreline probably disguises the true gap between the way the two sides played. England won the first day, but ought to have done better. South Africa dominated from there. That said, England probably should still have escaped with a draw. The pitch was still a very flat one even on the last day, though it had broken up a bit by then. Jimmy Anderson and Tim Bresnan made it very clear that once batsmen played themselves in they were hard to dislodge. England simply threw too many wickets away in their effort to get a draw and more broadly in the Test itself.

England’s first innings total of 385 always looked a bit under par and South Africa showed just how far short it was. South Africa in general and Hashim Amla in particular batted with incredible patience on a flat wicket. They did very seldom played outside the off stump and Graeme Smith did well to survive and negate a testing spell from Graeme Swann on the third morning. It was an example of how to bat in stark contrast to the way England went about their affairs for far too much of the match. The first day was especially galling. England were in a great position with the wicket looking very flat and South Africa’s attack looking a bit rusty, but still Trott fished outside his off-stump to get out and Kevin Pietersen played an idiotic attempt at a hook just before the new ball. The next day Bopara played a half a hook to nick behind and Tim Bresnan somehow contrived to play a wide long hop from Tahir onto his stumps. Those sort of mental lapses cost England dearly, especially as South Africa never seemed in any great danger of making them. I count eight avoidable dismissals by batsmen who ought to have known better and I am being rather generous. That number could easily be expanded to twelve or more. England were probably never going to put up 637-2, of course, but 450 should have been a minimum and those extra 65 runs probably would have been the difference in the match.

England’s bowling was lacklustre though. There was a period on the second day where the conditions very much favoured the bowlers and in that time England looked fantastic. Jimmy got an early wicket and Broad looked very threatening. But after the sun came out, there was suddenly nothing. The best thing South Africa did with the ball was that they kept testing England and making things a bit difficult even when there was not a lot out there. All of England’s bowlers seemed a bit down on pace and there was no out and out aggression of the type that South Africa occasionally produced. Once the long partnerships started to develop with the ball not swinging England looked out of ideas. This is where a fifth bowler, especially one such as Steven Finn who offered a bit of variety, would have been very useful. Especially seeing as Bopara made nought and 22 and threw his wicket away twice. England can say that South Africa had the rub of the conditions, and that would be true, but it is not enough to account for the disparity. England looked short a bowler and the bowlers who were there looked short of match fitness. Almost as if not playing any red ball cricket in almost two months was not a good lead up to the series.

England will take few positives from this match. They do not even have another three or four Tests in which to come back, only two thanks to the ECB. They must play a lot better at Headingley in two weeks, though that is something of a result ground and there will likely be more in it for the bowlers. Work must be done, however, to ensure that the other bowlers are properly match-fit. There was some suggestion that a few were carrying niggles; we have good replacements for Broad and Bresnan so if one or both of them is not fit they should not play. I would also play Finn no matter what. As alluded to above, he offers some variation in an attack that can otherwise look bereft of ideas when the ball is not swinging. Ideally for me Finn would come in for Bopara. I know people say that since our batting failed we should not drop a batsman, but playing six batsmen for the sake thereof is pointless. We cannot just play any batsman because that does not shore up anything; it just weakens the bowling. If we can find a batsman who can regularly contribute then that would be excellent, but Bopara is not that batsmen and there are not currently any others who would not in some way be a gamble. Now is not the time to gamble; Finn has a Test average of 14, that’s as high as Bopara’s average against teams other than the West Indies.

I don’t think England will drop Bopara, but I still think Finn ought to play. More or less by definition, this means Bresnan is to miss out unless Broad is injured. I have seen a few calls to drop Broad and although he had a poor Test I think they are very rash. Coming into the Test he had over fifty wickets at an average under 19 in the previous twelve months. One bad Test is no reason to drop him, meaning that Bresnan is the unlucky bowler. It is an unfortunate aspect of England’s current strength in depth and also a slightly ridiculous one given that they persist in playing a non-performing batsman at six.

England have a lot of work to do both going into and following the Headingley Test to rescue this series, but they did not get to be number one in the world by accident. It was a poor performance this time, but it is far too early to draw any conclusions just yet.