Mumbai, day one: India 266-6

By the standards of Ahmedabad, England started much better in the Mumbai Test. The problem, however, is that Ahmedabad was so poor that even this improvement was not enough to be on top. India were 119-5 at one point in the day before a sixth wicket stand of fifty and an unbeaten seventh wicket stand of 97 wrested the initiative back. Cheteshwar Pujara scored another brilliant hundred and is still not out for the series. It really is much like Rahul Dravid batted in England two summers ago and England need to come up with a plan to counter him. But it is the runs of his partners that are far more alarming. On another day those runs might be only an irritation, but this looks like a low-scoring wicket and those runs might be very important. There is bounce and turn and it looks like it will only get worse as the match go on. It is a bit hard to judge as the conditions are so unusual, but it looks like three hundred is a good first innings score. Certainly with England having to bat last they will have wanted a handy first innings lead and the odds of that have dropped sharply and India are fairly comfortably on top after the first day.

England did play a second spinner, Monty Panesar, in place of Tim Bresnan which was not surprising. They did not pick a third seamer, however, choosing instead to stick with Samit Patel. I said in my preview that they should only do that if the pitch was going to turn from the first ball and to be fair it did. Panesar took four wickets in the day and two in the first session, though one was to the predictable poor shot from Virender Sehwag. But it quickly looked like England were a seamer light anyway because Stuart Broad had a terrible day. One of the advantages of playing five bowlers is that one of them can have a terrible day and the attack can adapt around this, but with only four bowlers and only one seamer England started to look badly lacking by the time the day ended. Panesar shared the second new ball and was not effective with it and Anderson bowled well, but the attack just looked tired by the end of the day.

This will increase the pressure on Broad’s place for the third Test. He has been under par for a few months, but today was truly terrible. Anderson kept it tight and looked threatening, but Broad did neither. Not only did he never really look like taking a wicket, he went at five an over as well and really let India take the initiative late in the day. There is still an innings and a half for him to bowl, of course, but one has to think that at this point he is bowling for his place in the side. If Steven Finn is fit for the third Test and England only play two seamers it is hard to see how Broad can play at all. Even if Finn isn’t fit or England do play three seamers Broad still probably has to improve in the rest of the Test to stay in the side. We all know how talented he is both with the bat and the ball and it is hard to drop him because a magic spell might always be just around the corner. But England can’t keep picking him in hope forever and if he can’t bowl better than this then England need to give someone else a chance.

The obvious thing England need tomorrow is an early wicket. Just getting one, especially Pujara, would expose a proper tail-ender. That is no guarantee of anything as we have already seen, but it will give England a chance of keeping the score reasonable. But after that they have to find someone to play an innings to match Pujara. The pressure will be on to get not only a decent score, but actually a big one on a pitch on which it looks tricky to bat. They might take some hope from the fact that it seemed to flatten out in the evening session, but there is every chance that it is merely an effect of the two batsmen playing well. The goal is still just about within reach, but the bowlers need to finish the innings off and then the batsmen need to follow Pujara’s lead and bat sensibly.

England second Test selection

After England’s defeat in the first Test there have been many calls to change the side for the Mumbai Test and particularly change the bowling which badly underperformed. There will be an enforced change with Ian Bell leaving and so Flower et al must decide how they want their batting to look as well.

With regard to Bell’s spot I don’t think the discussion should be very long; Jonny Bairstow is the only real choice. There was some talk about playing Eoin Morgan simply because he is left-handed (and India’s spinners had more success against right handers in the first Test), but there is no way that should matter. The fact that Morgan may have a slight statistical edge must not outweigh the fact that he is far from a Test quality batsman. Not only has he never made significant runs at Test level, he has never even done it at the first class level. He is in the side because of his abilities as a pyjama batsman and a wholly mythical strength against spin. He out to be watching the Test series from England before flying out in the new year with the hard-done-by James Taylor in his place. The other option in the squad available is to push Nick Compton into the middle order and open with Joe Root. After Compton’s relative success opening with Cook in the first Test I don’t think that is wise, however, and certainly I don’t think it is necessary with Bairstow available.

But the real focus will be on the bowlers. Stuart Broad and Tim Bresnan badly underperformed in the first Test and particularly in the first two sessions of the match in which India racked up 250-3. James Anderson did better, but all he could really do was try to keep it tight on a flat and slow pitch. But it is important to remember as well that the pitch never did a lot to help the bowlers at all and especially not on the first two days when India were batting. Steven Finn might have had a better time with his extra pace, but I don’t think Monty Panesar would be nearly as effective as most people seem to think. Graeme Swann was England’s best bowler, yes, but that says more about the underperforming seamers than anything else; Swann’s wickets mostly came to terrible shots. After England’s usual horrific collapse India’s spinners got another go on a wearing third and fourth day pitch. They took a collective 5-257 whilst their seamers took a combined 5-129 and that against an English side who play spin rather worse than the Indians. The pitch turned, but not sharply. Mostly it was just a road with marginally less in it for the seamers than the spinners. England simply contrived in their first innings to make it look a lot more spicy than it was.

Apart from the week’s worth of statements that Panesar ‘must’ be brought in for the second Test there have been also suggestions that Broad and/or Bresnan be dropped. None of the three are imminently unreasonable and I would not be surprised to see some change. But Finn has not recovered from his thigh injury as expected and has actually re-aggravated it which throws a spanner into the works for England. The obvious change was going to be Finn for Bresnan; now they have to wait to see if Finn will even take any further part in the series. England do have Graham Onions and Stuart Meaker still in the squad as possible replacements. Meaker offers pace as well and is the closest thing to a like-for-like replacement for Finn, though has never played Test cricket. I think, however, that Onions’ wicket-to-wicket bowling may be the better option. The umpires in the last Test only seemed to give lbws if the ball was going down leg, but they might have a better Test this time and even if they don’t England’s only success in the first Test came from consistent lines that kept the scoring down.

I would bring Onions in for Bresnan. Bresnan’s batting is making a slow comeback after his elbow surgery, but unfortunately his bowling is still miles away from where it was at this time last year. He got his place by bowling well in the warmups, but could not translate that into success in the Test. His pace is down and he does not seem to be able to get the ball to reverse swing much anymore. Stuart Broad has not had a great time either; since his eleven-fer at Lord’s to start the summer his pace has also been down and the only really good spell he had was in the second innings of the Headingley Test and that was against some declaration batting. He does, however, look more like he is simply out of form than suffering from a long-term problem as Bresnan does. He can’t be persisted with forever, of course, but I think it is still too soon to drop him. It was only nine months ago that he was running through the Pakistani batting in the UAE.

As for Panesar, I think he could play. But he should only play in place of a seamer if the pitch is a real raging turner, which by recent accounts it does not appear to be. In fact the suggestion is that it will offer more help (though not a lot more) to the seamers than the one at Ahmedabad did. If that’s the case I think the option is to either play Panesar in place of Samit Patel or not at all; England should certainly play three seamers though unless the pitch very heavily favours the spinners. It would be a bit harsh to drop Patel after he got two poor lbw decisions, but I prefer having five bowlers anyway and dropping him in favour of Panesar will give England flexibility to adapt to the conditions even if they don’t read them perfectly.

This arrangement would weaken the batting; there are only five specialists and a long tail. I don’t think England should worry too much about the tail though. Their deep batting has helped them get up to a competitive score or put matches away in the past, but mostly in England. certainly in the last Test and in the two tours last winter having a long batting lineup didn’t help. So with the bowling struggling a bit in the first Test it is imperative to ignore batting and just focus on who will get us twenty wickets. Nor should they worry greatly about only having five specialist batsmen (plus Prior). England could pick eleven specialist batsmen, but still would not get a decent score if they batted the way they did in the first innings at Ahmedabad. England have to just back the batsmen to actually do their job and pick a bowling attack that can turn that into a victory.

My XI for Mumbai: Cook*, Compton, Trott, Pietersen, Bairstow, Prior†, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Onions, Panesar

India win by nine wickets

As expected, England could not actually fight long enough to save the first India v England Test. They batted until lunch, losing 5-66 in the morning session and India comfortably knocked off the 77 they were set to win the Test.

England’s performance in the Test was a bit of a mixed bag. At the top was Alastair Cook’s incredible 176 in the second innings. He fought and fought before being undone by a ball that kept low from Ojha. There is nothing more that could have been asked from him with the bat in his first Test as captain. Matt Prior also contributed a pair of excellent half-centuries, the last one a 91 that deserved three figures. Farther down there was Nick Compton’s performance; he played well in both innings and got a couple of good deliveries. There is room for improvement, but he played fairly well overall and did nothing to be dropped. Samit Patel is in a similar category after getting a pair of poor lbw decisions. His place is in a bit more doubt though simply because he seems to have been picked more as a subcontinent specialist. Ian Bell played well in the second innings after playing the second-worst shot of the Test in the first and is already on his way back to England for the birth of his child. And at the bottom of the scale is Kevin Pietersen. The man who, stats notwithstanding, has been hailed by the likes of Piers Morgan as England’s saviour in India played two appalling shots to the left arm spinner to be dismissed for 17 and two.

The second innings was about as well as England have played on the subcontinent this year, but England do have to prove that was the new standard and not a rare exception. There is not a lot of time before the Mumbai Test and there is probably not a lot that the coaches can do in that time, however. England will mostly be hoping that the confidence from having played India’s spinners quite well for once will carry over. I don’t think this is an unreasonable hope, but they still must go out and perform.

But perhaps the bigger concern, and by far the more surprising concern, is the bowling. England’s bowling varied between ‘poor’ and ‘passable if not great’ in the first innings and never did what was hoped in the second. Part of the problem was the loss of an important (not match-deciding by any means, but still important) toss and having to bowl on a very flat pitch, but it was not until tea on the first day that they worked out that they had to keep it tight and never were very penetrating. They can take some consolation in that they did get Tendulkar and the much-heralded Virat Kohli out cheaply, but that is about it. England’s seam attack was brilliant last winter in the subcontinent, but they were not nearly as good in the summer in England and they were not great here. The only one to come out with any dignity at all was James Anderson who at least worked out how to keep it tight.

There are always going to be fluctuations in form, of course, but the fact that what was a very strong attack seems to have gone so far off the boil has to trouble England. Steven Finn will likely be back for the second Test and that should be an improvement, but the rest of the attack still have to step up. Stuart Broad is the vice captain now, but apart from the odd spell here and there he has not had a really good Test since the first one of the summer. He was very good in the UAE though. Tim Bresnan did very well in the warmups, but he has not looked the same in Tests since his elbow operation last year and was very poor in this match. There is a strong suggestion, almost an assumption in some quarters, that Monty Panesar should play in Mumbai and one or both of Broad and Bresnan should be dropped. But although Swann was England’s best bowler, it is worth noting that India’s spinners did not have a great time in the second innings and Flower’s aversion to two full-time spinners is well founded historically. I don’t think Panesar would have had any effect on this game at all.

England should not be without hope. They proved that they can play spin, even if not in the absolute most trying circumstances and Pietersen apart they seem to have hit upon the right approach. That does not mean that they will actually perform a second time and they still have the luck of the toss with which to contend, of course, but the fact that they did much better this Test than last winter is something to carry forward. They can also remember that the last time England won in India it was a comeback after losing the first Test. But hope is one thing. They have to actually learn the lessons of this Test and play better in Mumbai.

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.

Second warmup selection

England started their second warmup match, this one against Mumbai A, early this morning/late last night. Most of the regulars sat out this time, but there were a pair of battles of note. Joe Root and Nick Compton went head-to-head at the top of the order as they each vied for the now-vacant spot alongside Alastair Cook and Jonny Bairstow and Eoin Morgan both batted in the middle order as they looked to get the nod to replace Ian Bell when he returns to England for the birth of his child. Graham Onions also played, but Tim Bresnan did not which suggests that Bresnan already has the last bowling place.

There have been some oddities in the selection for this match, chief amongst them Alastair Cook sitting out. I can understand this from the standpoint of wanting all the players to get a match at some point and wanting the likely Test team, or most of it, to play in the final warmup. This means that Root, Compton, Morgan and Baristow all have to play in this match which in turn means that some of the regulars have to sit out and it is better that the centurion does so then someone like Ian Bell who made only five in the first warmup. But at the same time Cook is a new captain and it is important that he stamp his authority on the side. I think it is a bit early for him to be sitting out matches, even if there is a good reason. I would rather see him getting used to his new charges and possibly more importantly making sure that they are used to him. There is also the fact that Broad sat out the first warmup and will likely sit out the last one as well since England will want Stuart Meaker to get a game after being drafted late into the squad as cover for Steven Finn. This means that Cook will not have a single warmup match with his vice-captain before the first Test. This is not a disaster, certainly, but it hardly seems ideal either.

As far as actual selection issues, we have learnt a bit from the first day. Compton failed again, making only one, but Root did not really make the most of this as he fell for only 28. By all accounts Root did look the more settled and composed, but given that he started out as the second favourite he probably needed a big score to put him in front of Compton. England batted first this time, so they each should get another chance in the second innings as well. Bairstow made a century to advance his claims for the reserve middle order spot, but Morgan made 76 as well so it is not fully settled yet. That said, unlike Compton and Root there is previous Test history to consider with Morgan and Bairstow and that also favours Bairstow. Morgan really should not have even been on the plane. The selectors have been inexplicably favourable to Morgan, but Bairstow should have done enough today to secure the spot as Bell’s deputy. Tomorrow/tonight we should see England bowl and see if Onions and Monty Panesar can put any doubts in the selectors’ minds about Bresnan, as well as just how bad an idea it was to let Broad be vice-captain.

One more month

As of today it is exactly one month until England play the first Test against India in Ahmedabad. Of course, really it is a bit less than one month because I’m writing this late in the day on the 15th and the time difference means that the match will be starting about 16 hours before this on the 15th of next month. (It will actually be the 14th for me.) But never mind that. I am, of course, greatly looking forward to it. Although England have not had a good year in Test cricket so far, India are far from their peak and England are very much in with a shout. But there are a few things to be settled over the next month.

The first is the Pietersen matter. He is now being reintegrated into the team and although it seems likely that he will be added to the touring squad (likely as a 17th member rather than displace one of the current 16) it is not guaranteed. I can see the logic behind this; Flower wants to have Pietersen back in the side, but will rightly not compromise the reintegration process if it is not completed in time for the Test series. But I think it would be better for the team if the matter could finally be put to rest. As I have stated before, Pietersen is of very limited utility in the subcontinent and England lose very little by not having him. I would therefore lean toward leaving him out. But if he is not to be left out then he should be added to the squad as soon as possible. The uncertainty about Pietersen is not yet a problem, but the longer it is left the more it damages the pre-tour plans.

A less important matter is that of Cook’s vice-captain. Stuart Broad seems to be the next in line, being the T20 captain, but he has yet to demonstrate any qualities that suit him even to that role, let alone the vice-captaincy in Tests. In fact, it is almost hard to think of a player less suited to the role than Broad. Much better candidates for the role would be Graeme Swann, Ian Bell and Matt Prior. Swann is possibly the first choice as he did a good job as T20 captain when Broad was injured, though I might just prefer Bell. In general I prefer to have a batsman captain as it rules out ego playing a role in bowling changes and fielding reviews. Matt Prior is another possibility, but his habit of considering every single appeal to be out is problematic. I would go with Bell in the end, but it is something at which Flower will probably have to look. Of course, England might go back to the practice of a few years ago and not have an official vice-captain at all. But a deputy would still have to be nominated if and when Cook goes off the field.

The other matters to be sorted are the more commonplace ones of team selection. Specifically Cook’s new opening partner is yet to be determined and neither is the final balance of the side. These are probably both matter which will be settled during the warmups however. Right now I’d have Root open and play three seamers and two proper spinners, but I might change my mind based on performances in the warmup matches.

Of course, all those matters take a slight backseat to trying to find a way to keep the batsmen from losing their heads whenever a spinner comes on.

England in the T20WC

England had a dead rubber T20 World Cup match yesterday against India. It’s just as well for England that there was nothing riding on it as it didn’t go as well as one would have liked. England conceded too many with the ball and then looked less than helpless with the bat en route to a comprehensive defeat. The main problem when England were batting was their old nemesis: spin. It wasn’t even good spin, but England still looked helpless in reading it and collapsed quite farcically. There have been several predictable statements about the implications of the collapse and whilst it is bad I think there are only a few things one can take from this match.

The first is nothing to do with the batting and instead relates to England’s failed tactic with the ball. They decided the best way to go after India was with four seamers and a lot of short stuff. It didn’t work. Bresnan was hit around the park, Dernbach had a disastrous last over (and wasn’t great in the other three) and Broad was never terribly effective. The only bowler to do well was Swann, the lone spinner, who took 1-17 off his four overs. It was a dead rubber, so some experimentation was understandable. But England must take note that it didn’t work. Whilst that wasn’t the reason they lost, chasing a large total never helps the batsmen either.

Stuart Broad is still not convincing as a T20 captain. (Or any captain, actually, but this is the only format in which we’ve seen him.) Admittedly it’s harder to judge captaincy in so short a format, but he does not really seem to be on top of matters. From what we saw last year, Graeme Swann looks much better suited and although the ECB did interview several candidates before deciding on Broad I think they might want to reconsider at some point.

Whilst there is no doubting that England do have a big problem against spin, it is important to remember that such things do happen in T20s. At the end of last summer, England collapsed in a very similar manner against the West Indies at the Oval and lost a match they probably ought to have won. No one said anything about there being a fatal weakness that would haunt them in Tests then and rightly so. There are similarities, but the style of play is overall so different that I think it is very hard to draw long-term conclusions from one T20 innings. Again, England do have a problem against spin. But we knew this from watching them in the UAE and Tests against Sri Lanka, not watching a single T20 innings.

Looking at the next round of the tournament, for which England qualified after their first match, they will still have a lot of confidence in getting to the knockouts. Their group contains the West Indies, Sri Lanka and New Zealand and they only need to finish in the top two to the semi-finals. They will want an improved performance before then, but they certainly can do so. They’ve actually done rather better in this group stage than they did two years ago when they won. Of course, this all assumes the rain stays away. Given the forecast, that might be optimistic and we might see some ridiculous rain shortened results.

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 two: England 208-5

The first two days of this Test have had an odd symmetry about them. Both sides have suffered from dramatic top order collapses, and in fact both lost their fourth wicket on 54, before recovering to decent positions. South Africa are probably in the better position, however, as they have the security of knowing that their tail has wagged (whilst England are still only hoping that theirs do) and they are not the ones under pressure to win the match.

Part of that success from the tail was Vernon Philander scoring his maiden Test fifty this morning. He joint top-scored in the innings with 61 and frustrated England by building good partnerships with the other bowlers. South Africa’s last four batsmen, all pure bowlers, made 114 runs between them. England did not bowl too poorly this morning, but Anderson for once did not use the new ball terribly well. He kept banging it in short to the batsmen, but he did not control it well enough to make it really count. Broad was still down on pace, but was pitching the ball up and getting it to swing well and probably deserved more than just the one wicket that he got. England would not have been too disappointed with their efforts, 309 is hardly a formidable total. but the lopsided nature of the scorecard was quite disappointing.

As disappointing as South Africa’s resistance and England’s post-lunch collapse were, probably the most gutting aspect of the day for England supporters came on the stroke of lunch. Andrew Strauss got off to an excellent start with the bat in his hundredth Test, but was bowled through the gate on twenty and in the last over before lunch. It was Morne Morkel to get him yet again and with an excellent delivery. Going around the wicket, Morkel had got several balls to shape away from the left-handed Strauss and finally nipped one back in and through the gate to bowl the England captain. Whilst Strauss maybe should not have had that gate, there was not a lot he could have done. It was a fantastic piece of bowling and the demoralising effect possibly played a role in the collapse that came after the interval.

England have at least done a better job of recovering with their recognised batsmen than South Africa did, South Africa lost their fifth wicket on 105 and their sixth on 163, and will hope to leave less work for their tail. Jonny Bairstow was responsible for a lot of England’s recovery. He was dropped after a poor series against the West Indies in which it was decided that he had a weakness against the short ball, but three innings always seemed like an absurdly small sample size and he went about showing the folly of that judgement today. South Africa had clearly heard about his supposed weakness and gave him a steady diet of short stuff at the start of his innings. That’s not an easy thing to get through for anyone, regardless of any real or supposed weakness, but Bairstow did so well. He not only managed to fight through the difficult bit but also managed to score some runs as he did so and after tea the South Africans had clearly tired. Bairstow and Bell scored more fluently after the interval and put on over a hundred before Bell was out to a slightly loose drive off Philander. It came during a good over in which Philander had beat the bat twice and the wicket taking ball was a good one, but Bell looked as though he had got just a bit too relaxed and was maybe a bit careless. Matt Prior played a chancy innings, but both he and Bairstow survived to stumps.

England trail by 101 runs at stumps with five wickets still in hand. On paper one would probably back them to get to parity, but there is the obstacle of the second new ball to be negotiated. It is due after eight overs of the morning session tomorrow and what England do in the morning session will probably dictate with how much a lead or deficit England end up. Given that England batting second and needing to win they cannot really afford a significant deficit and could very much do with a decent lead. Prior and Bairstow need to survive to the new ball tomorrow and get themselves well enough set to at least get a few off it even if they get out to it in the end. Prior can be quite dangerous in that sort of situation, but one expects that a lot will really come down to whether or not Broad and Swann can score appreciable runs. Broad has talent, but has been out of form this summer whilst Swann is very hit-or-miss (often literally). Unless Prior and Bairstow do the very unlikely and knock off the deficit themselves, England will very much need Broad and Swann to show up with the bat tomorrow.

Headingley, day five: match drawn

I said yesterday the match would be drawn and so it was. But that would be too easy and what should have been the least interesting day of the match (and for the first session made it look absolutely certain to be) ended up the most exciting. England went out in the morning looking to instigate a quick collapse. They had a decent go, the bowling was good, but South Africa really had the rub of the green with possible catches evading fielders and the ball beating the bat entirely. They also came off for rain a couple of times and it was not until a couple of overs before a late lunch that England finally shifted South Africa’s makeshift opening partnership. Incredibly, it was Kevin Pietersen to Jacques Rudolph again. Pietersen bowled four balls to Rudolph in the match and dismissed him twice.

A few days ago, I said that I thought England had made the right call by bowling four seamers as Swann had not bowled well at Headingley and there was not any turn on the first four days. Today, however, there was turn and Pietersen found it. Whilst I still do see the logic of the decision, it is now clear that it was indeed the wrong one. Pietersen got good turn, good bounce and three wickets in the innings. The only caveat to those wickets was that one of them, the dismissal of Smith, was very questionable and Amla’s dismissal was nothing whatsoever to do with spin as he tamely hit a full toss straight to cover. The Smith dismissal was an interesting one as he was given out caught at short leg and discussed it with his partner before deciding to review it. The replay showed that he had hit his boot, but the actual view of where the ball either did or did not hit the bat was obscured by James Taylor. If one was to make a decision based off that alone one would say not out, but there was certainly not enough evidence to overturn the umpire’s call of out and so it stayed. To his credit, Smith took the decision with good grace.

That dismissal cost South Africa in an odd way later though as it meant that South Africa were out of reviews. This was very unlucky for South Africa as I have seen teams get the review back in similar situations in the past and I am not entirely sure why South Africa did not. When Broad then trapped AB de Villiers lbw, South Africa could not review and the replay showed that the ball was sliding down leg. That said, it looked plumb live and there is actually every chance it would not have been reviewed. Unfortunately we won’t ever know, but regardless of whether or not it would have been reviewed it was a poor decision by the umpire which South Africa did not have the opportunity to correct.

This was the start of a fearsome spell by Stuart Broad that very much livened up the match. He had previously started to bowl too short again, but here he remembered to pitch the ball up and try to hit the stumps and he was rewarded. De Villiers may have got a poor decision, but he was still entirely beaten by the delivery and ended up playing all around a fairly straight one. JP Duminy was then trapped lbw (correctly this time) to a very similarly full and straight delivery that he played poorly. A few overs later, Vernon Philander departed to one that had nipped back and hit him in front of off. This is what Broad does when he is bowling at his best and it is so important for England that he remembers to do so. Only once he establishes that danger for the batsmen can he use the short ball to any effect, as he subsequently did to get rid of Kallis. Broad finished with an excellent and well deserved five-fer.

Broad’s heroics led to the best part of the day and possibly the match: Smith and Strauss, two of the most defensive captains in world cricket, had a mini contest to see which one could grab some sort of initiative and mental edge over the other heading into the Lord’s Test. Smith declared with nine down in a purely symbolic gesture (Tahir is very much a number eleven) but the gesture was clear. In response, Strauss juggled the England batting order and sent Kevin Pietersen out to open the run chase. Despite this, however, neither side still really went all out for it. South Africa had a reasonably attacking field, but only about the standard for the start of an innings and England, despite being up with or close to the required rate for a long period still sent Trott in at number four. Trott is a good ODI batsman, and actually was scoring at over a run a ball for the start of his innings, but it was still more of a defensive move than anything else. England’s entire approach actually seemed quite muddled. Prior, a very attacking option, came in after Trott and it was only when he was finally out that England stopped going for it. Taylor and Broad never got to bat at all though. As nice as it was to see England try to win the match, the execution was poor and one was left with the impression that England could have come a lot closer.

In a way, England have already lost the series. Whilst they can still get out with a draw, their excellent home series winning streak (seven consecutive home series won, dating back to the last time South Africa toured) is over and all they can do is try to make it a less impressive unbeaten streak. They will also still have not managed to beat South Africa and put to rest the discussion of which side is better. They have only themselves to blame for this; not entirely because of the actual results (though obviously that as well) but because the series is only three Tests. This is always a possibility of a three Test series; the ECB could have and should have scheduled another Test and now it will cost them.