Eng v WI, Lord’s, day one: WI 243-9

There were two talking points today before play had even started: England’s team selection and Strauss’ decision to bowl first after winning his first toss in four matches. Whilst I understand the decision to play Bresnan, I would not have done so. He is a good bowler and he adds quite a bit to the side, but I don’t think this was the best occasion for him. The conditions actually most suited Graham Onions and I think Steven Finn would have added some very nice variation to the attack. Purely looking at the bowling, both would probably have been better selections, In a way, I think Bresnan’s main qualification is almost his batting. I can certainly see the argument for using batting skill as a tie-breaker of sorts for bowlers, but with Stuart Broad already in the side along with six batsmen and Matt Prior it is rather superfluous. With Bresnan in the side, we comfortably bat down to nine with Swann at ten. That sounds like an argument in favour of Bresnan, of course, and fact that we can bat so deep without seriously compromising our bowling is definitely a good thing. We have seen lower order partnerships either save us or break the back of the opposition many times before. Against the West Indies, however, it’s probably excessive. In my mind, the benefit of playing a stronger bowler is greater than the benefit of extra batting that is probably extraneous anyway. I’d have gone for Finn.

I do, however, agree with Strauss’ decision to bowl first. The pitch is pretty flat, but there was some moisture in it, there was some cloud cover and there was already a strong indication that the West Indies were not going to play a spinner. The Lord’s pitch has been known to actually get better as the match goes on as well, so there was almost nothing to lose by bowling and an opportunity to see if the West Indies would implode.

The Windies did not do so and it is a credit to them. Jimmy Anderson certainly did not make it easy, but the Windies showed some proper application this time and England had to work for a lot of the wickets. The only times we saw the Windies to which we are used was when Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Darren Bravo found themselves at the same end, glaring at each other. It was Shiv’s fault, but Bravo was the man out. Shiv is a great player, but he has had accusations of selfishness levelled at him before and I think we saw a bit of that today. Not only did he make sure he was not the one to pay for his failed calling, he exposed Fidel Edwards in the last over of the day. Edwards did not make it to stumps.

There was also some discussion during the day of Chris Gayle and how much the West Indies theoretically miss him. One would get the impression from listening to people that he would be scoring a century by lunch and keeping the West Indies in the match single-handed. In fact, he only averages 36 in England with one century in 21 innings. In his last six Tests in England he has only passed fifty twice and last time he played at Lord’s he made 28 and nought against an attack that was not as good as the current one. The subject of where he ought to be playing is one for it’s own post, but there is no reason to suspect that the West Indies would be substantially better off in this Test or on this tour with him in the side.

I don’t think the West Indies were particularly poor today. Certainly it was not like what we frequently saw from them against Australia. At the same time, England did not look quite at their best, particularly in the morning session. All the same, England are in the stronger position overnight and deservedly so. They may not have been at their best, but they did play the better cricket over the course of the day. Anderson looked lethal, though that’s nothing unusual, and Broad came back from a poor morning to blow away most of the tail with a combination of fortune and some brilliant deliveries. Today was a case of a very good side playing a fairly poor one. Given how it went, one shudders to think what will happen when England find their stride or the West Indies slip back into their old routine.

LV=CC week six roundup

Another heavily rain-affected week in the County Championship last week finished with only one positive result. That result was in a contrived match at Bristol where Yorkshire managed to chase 400 in just over a day. There was very nearly another, however, as Surrey were forced to follow-on at New Road before managing to set the hosts 260 to win and reducing them to 150-8. There was not quite enough time for a memorable victory, however. There was also a contrived match at Leicester with the hosts nine down when time time ran out. The full results:

Sussex drew with Lancashire
Durham drew with Somerset
Nottinghamshire drew with Middlesex
Worcestershire drew with Surrey
Essex drew with Kent
Yorkshire beat Gloucestershire by four wickets
Hampshire drew with Derbyshire
Leicestershire drew with Northamptonshire

Naturally, there has not been a great change in the table this week with only one result. The fact that Notts played and Warwicks didn’t has put the former on top of the division one table, but given that Warwickshire have two matches in hand I don’t think they will be worried. Yorkshire’s contrived victory in the second division has seen them fly up to second in the table. It is an interesting indication too of just how big of a difference even two victories can still make and one which will probably not be lost on Lancashire or Durham.

Whilst there was not a lot of time, there were still some very notable performances. Standing out, of course, are the centuries for Phil Jaques (160) and Gary Ballance (121*) in Yorkshire’s improbable victory at Bristol. That match also featured 111 for Kane Williamson and 5-81 for Tim Bresnan in Gloucs’ first innings. The match at Trent Bridge saw 162 from Michael Lumb countered by 143* from Ollie Rayner as the match never came close to a result. Not nearly as large, but still notable was the unbeaten 43* for the England Captain in the second innings. Surrey’s escape/near victory at New Road naturally included some very impressive batting performances in the second innings, including 115 for Rory Hamilton-Brown and 143 for Tom Maynard. Smaller, but again notable, was KP’s 69 after coming in with Surrey on 11-2 after following-on. Kent’s first innings at Chelmsford saw five ducks and nine single digit scores. And 119 for Darren Stevens. He and Geriant Jones (88) put on 196 for the sixth wicket after coming together at 9-5. The main destroyer for Essex was Charl Willoughby who took 5-70 and four of Kent’s top five batsmen. Derbyshire retained their spot at the summit of Division Two in a tame draw at Southampton. Their first innings of 403-9 featured centuries from Wes Durston (121) and Dan Redfern (133). This was after Hants skipper Jimmy Adams scored 122 in the first innings.

England v West Indies preview

The West Indies come to England fresh from a disappointing 0-2 defeat at home to Australia. They only performed passably well even at the best of times during that series and were frequently dire. Despite England’s recent woes in the subcontinent and similar regions, they are a side who have lost only two Tests at home since the start of 2009 and are still number one in the world. It is fair to say that if the Windies are going to come close in this series, they will have to perform far, far better than they did at home.

History, or at least recent history, is against them. They have not won an overseas Test somewhere other than Bangladesh since the Boxing Day Test in South Africa in 2007. The last time they won a Test in England was at Edgbaston in 2000; since then they have lost 12 and only managed to draw two. Their coach, Ottis Gibson, said that his hope for the Lord’s Test was to take it into a fifth day this time. This was in reference to their defeat inside three days at the home of cricket in 2009. That hope may be a bit optimistic. They have selected a squad which on paper appears to be slightly weaker than the one which lost to Australia and they have started the tour by losing to the Lions by ten wickets. In truth, they did well to make it that close. The Lions, boasting England’s third choice bowling attack, bowled the West Indies out for 147 in the first innings and went on to post a lead of 196. The Windies did come back a bit in the second innings, however.

Their performance against the Lions shows the fact that their batting almost begins and ends with Shivnarine Chanderpaul. He is a true great, but we have already seen that one great cannot carry a poor side. The rest of them have talent, and we saw some of that in the first innings of the first Test against Australia, but they are also very prone to give their wickets away (as we saw in the rest of that series). The West Indies will be facing arguably the best pace attack in the world in very friendly conditions. It is a far cry from the flat pitches and weak attacks on the subcontinent, or even the turning ones pitches from the recent series in the Caribbean. They occasionally performed well in those places, but even then were prone to collapses. Even if they were to cut out all the mistakes that have plagued them recently I think they will find the going very difficult and they are up against an attack that thrives on coaxing batsmen into errors. Last year India failed to pass 300 in four Tests; the Windies have only three and I would not be at all surprised to see the same result.

They will clearly need something from their bowlers. Unfortunately, their best performers at home were probably the spinners and despite England’s struggles against turn over the winter, they are unlikely to be more than a supplement in England. A lot will rest on their pace attack. Again there is some talent, but of what would appear to be their first choice attack (Fidel Edwards, Kemar Roach and Darren Sammy) only Roach has a bowling average under 30. They may cause some damage in friendly conditions, but these are home conditions for England’s batsmen and they put a pair of similar attacks to the sword last summer. Given that their batsmen already liable to give them a mountain to climb, I think it will be a tough ask for the West Indies bowlers.

England are strong favourites, but do go in under a bit of pressure after the disappointing winter. There is a strong sense that nothing less than three emphatic wins will do. As mentioned above, however, they have lost only twice at home in twenty Tests under Strauss and Flower. (They’ve won 14 of those Tests.) Most of the side have scored runs in the Championship already (no easy feat) with Cook the only exception and he has not had a lot of opportunities. As already mentioned, Bairstow looks like he will be batting at six. After the struggles of the winter, the batsmen do seem to have found some form and should present a formidable opposition to the Windies. The biggest hope will be that Strauss can get some big runs and ease the (insane) questions about his place in the side. He has a pair of decent scores in the Championship already, including an unbeaten 43 in Middlesex’s last match, and I do not see any reason why he could not push on from there.

England will probably be playing either Finn or Bresnan as a third seamer, though Onions is also in the squad. Whoever is picked will have an excellent opportunity to nail down the spot for the series against South Africa, but that’s assuming whoever it is (I’m guessing Finn) gets much of a bowl. Jimmy Anderson finished the series in Sri Lanka looking like the best bowler in the world and Stuart Broad had been in excellent form in the UAE before picking up an injury. They have both, especially Jimmy, shown themselves to be formidable weapons in all conditions and in May in England against a side prone to collapse I expect them to take bags of wickets. Swann will also be useful, he always is, but I doubt he will have an opportunity to do much more than chip in with a few wickets.

I can’t see the West Indies winning a Test. I said before the Australia series that I thought they had a chance to steal one from that series, but they could not and England are a much different proposition. I’ve already mentioned that at Lord’s in 2009 they lost before stumps on the third day. At Durham in 2007 the entire first day and quite a bit of the second day was lost to rain, but England still won comfortably. England are now a much better side than they were in either 2007 or 2009, whilst the Windies are arguably worse. Unless it rains non-stop for three days during one of the Tests I can see no other result than a 3-0 whitewash for England.

LV=CC week five roundup

There was more rain in the LV=CC this week, but not as bad as it was last week and we did have more results than draws this time. (Though this was partly due to a contrived match at Lord’s.

Nottinghamshire beat Lancashire by 185 runs
Warwickshire beat Durham by nine wickets
Middlesex beat Worcestershire by 132 runs
Derbyshire drew with Gloucestershire
Glamorgan drew with Essex
Northamptonshire beat Hampshire by 117 runs
Yorkshire beat Leicestershire by an innings and 22 runs

Of note is that now all of Durham, Lancashire, Worcestershire and Glamorgan have still not won a match this season. Yorkshire’s win at Scarborough was their first of the Championship. Meantime, Warwicks and Notts are each yet to lose a match despite some close finishes for the former and the latter having just a single batting point this season. It keeps Warwickshire on top of the D1 table by four points over Notts, having played one fewer match. Derbys have also done enough in their draw to stay at the summit of D2.

As mentioned above, one of the most notable match of the round was probably at Lord’s where Worcestershire declared before the last day on 45-2 and Middlesex forfeited their second innings. It set up a chase of 283 on the last day, but Worcs did not get near it. It was still an example of good attacking thinking, however. The points allocation system is (rightly, I think) set up to reward victories highly and almost discount draws. Worcs correctly assessed that it was worth going for a win and we got an exciting finish out of a match that looked dead.

This was also the week in which all of the England players were cleared to appear for their counties. Ian Bell rather dramatically returned to form for Warwickshire, scoring 120 after coming in with the Bears 15-3. He this time outshone his England colleague Trott, who could only make two. As Warwickshire do not play next week, Bell will appear for the Lions to get some more time in the middle. Jimmy Anderson bruised his hand and come down with a stomach ailment, but still managed to take 5-82 in Notts’ second innings. In the other dressing room for that match, Swann and Broad took 3-26 & 2-30 and 0-60 & 3-67 respectively. Swann and Anderson each bowled the other in the match as well. Andrew Strauss scored a pretty good 49 in tricky conditions at Lord’s. It was not chanceless, but it was fairly quick and pretty fluent for the conditions. It should ease the silly media speculation about him, however. Steven Finn did not play a large role on the final day, but did take 2-30. For Essex, Alastair Cook’s return to the middle did not last long, as he made only nine and five. Jonny Bairstow made his case to bat at six against the Windies with 182 in Yorkshire’s innings victory, whilst Tim Bresnan took 1-37 and 1-57.

Many of the best performances were not from the England players, or even those on the fringes of the side, however. Andre Adams completely turned the match at Old Trafford with his first innings 7-32 (a career best) and Warwickshire’s Keith Barker took 5-33 in the first innings and 5-37 in the second to ensure that Durham were only briefly in the match. Strauss got the most publicity in Middlesex’s first innings, but it was Joe Denly who put them in a winning position with his unbeaten 134 whilst Alan Richardson tried in vain to restrict the hosts with his 5-89. Derbyshire captain Wayne Madsen hit a century and Tony Palladino took 5-47 as Gloucestershire were forced to follow-on at Derby, but Kane Williamson stepped up for the visitors with 128 (of 409-4) as they secured the draw. Cook failed for Essex, but Alviro Petersen, his South African counterpart, did not and scored 145 at Cardiff. Huw Waters responded for the hosts with 5-47 to restrict Essex in the second innings as the match was drawn. David Willey put in a possibly match-winning effort with the ball for Northants, taking 5-39 in the final innings as Hants could not get close to their target. Finally, Leicestershire had a pair of excellent performances in vain at Scarborough. Wayne White took 5-90 in the first innings and Matthew Boyce scored 122 as Leicestershire tried to make Yorkshire bat again.

Australian fitness

Theoretically, Australia have bowling ‘in depth’. Which is good for them, because they are having a terrible time keeping any of their first choice quicks fit. In a best case scenario, they will have to choose three (usually) of James Pattinson, Pat Cummins, Peter Siddle, Ryan Harris and Ben Hilfenhaus. The problem for them is that it does not look like it will ever be a best case scenario. Cummins played one Test before injuring himself and has now missed the next eight. Pattinson played four Tests before being injured and missing the next three. Harris is so fragile that he has been omitted from the current Test purely as a precaution. With respect to Peter Siddle, there has been a lot of suggestion that Cummins, Pattinson and Harris are Australia’s three best bowlers. (Though I would dispute Cummins, and to a lesser extent Pattinson, on the ground that they have not played in enough Tests to properly establish their credentials.) They have to improve their fitness if they are to compete against the best sides again.

Compare the Australian situation to that of England: Jimmy Anderson has missed one Test (for any reason) since being rested for the tour of Bangladesh two years ago. There is no current consensus about the identity of the third seamer, but Steven Finn is yet to be ruled out through injury and Tim Bresnan has only been unavailable for three Tests out of the 17 since the start of the last Ashes. Only Stuart Broad has had notable injury problems, but even he has only missed four of the aforementioned 17 Tests.

The question of why Australia have such injury concerns is certainly an interesting one. I partly suspect that, slightly counter-intuitively, they play too little cricket, or at least too little first class and Test cricket. They played only three Tests in the ten months between the Ashes and the series in South Africa and their domestic teams play only ten matches in a season. It may be that when they do play they are simply not prepared for the more densely packed Tests seen in modern schedules. Cricket Australia need to find out the reason though. Australia already only have an average, or ever so slightly above, bowling attack. They can get by with playing their reserve bowlers against teams as prone to self destruction as India and the West Indies, they will not be able to do so against the better sides.

England win by eight wickets!

It’s been a disappointing winter, but England have finished it on a high. Chasing 94 to win at an absolute canter with KP hitting the winning runs with a six of none other than Dilshan (who conceded 16 to that man off four balls in the final over). I could not have asked for any more from the end of the match, really. It means that England cling onto the number one Test ranking still and will have a bit of confidence going into India this winter. It was straightforward in the end. Sri Lanka never developed a really threatening partnership and only the early wicket of Strauss threatened to disrupt England’s chase. KP took the bowling by the scruff of the neck again, however, and England ended up chasing the target in just 19.4 overs. KP got a deserved Man of the Match and almost did enough to back up his statements about not having a problem against left-arm spinners. Almost.

For now though, attention can shift in the short-term for the County Championship, and the battle therein for the number six spot in the English batting order, and the Test series in the West Indies as a good build up to their tour of England in a couple of months. Both promise to be fascinating, but I think the battle for number six will be more so. Samit Patel acquitted himself well in the second Test, but always looked like a horse for a course and it seems unlikely that he is in England’s plans for the summer. That would mean back to Bopara, back to Morgan, Bresnan or a Lions player. Simple. Morgan and Bopara should be discounted by the selectors, however. The former decided to play in the IPL rather than bat himself back into form for Middlesex and Bopara is Bopara. Bresnan seems unlikely as a six/seven batsman and given the recent preferences of the selectors will probably be the third seamer, batting at eight, or not play at all. Which would leave a Lions player. Which one will probably be down to LVCC performances, though it is interesting that James Taylor was not included in the England Performance Squad.

There is also a smaller battle to be had now for the third seamer. Bresnan would appear to be the first choice, as almost a proper all-rounder, but Finn seemed to outbowl him in the final Test. As I said above, I don’t think Bresnan will play as a sixth bat/fourth seamer (though I think he is well-qualified to do so). Once again, performances in the LVCC might make the difference, but right now I think Finn would get the nod.

Those are all things on which to keep an eye over the next six weeks. For now though, time to celebrate a much-awaited victory and the retention of the number one spot!

Anyone but Bopara

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

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

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

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

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

ODI selection

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

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

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

Pakistan v England limited overs preview

England are looking to bounce back in the limited overs leg of the UAE tour, having lost a Test series for the first time since the start of 2009. On the face of it, they look about as likely to bounce back as they are to go back in time and play the Test series over. Since returning home from that ill-fated tour of the West Indies England have won 31 and lost 30 ODIs, but are 14-17 away from home. In Asia, going back to when England played Pakistan in 2005, England have won just 13 and lost 25 ODIs. England will make some changes to the side that was beaten in the Tests, with Bell out of the side and KP set to open. Tim Bresnan is also back fit and will provide a good bowling option, whilst Steven Finn performed admirably in India last year. I very much doubt any of that will be enough for England to perform any better than they did in India, however. Pakistan are probably a tougher challenge than India, and England did not make that series close.

England are also considered the best T20 team at the moment and are still World Champions in that format, but were also hammered by the West Indies at the end of last summer. (Though I got the impression that no one really cared.) England also won the T20 in India, which was reasonably impressive. There will be three T20s, so it will be interesting to see how a full series plays out. The short form of the game makes it very hard to predict the result, but I think that uncertainty will benefit England. After the results in the Tests, the T20s are probably their best chance to get something out of the tour. At the very least it will be practice for the T20 World Cup in Sri Lanka.

Pakistan v England review and player marks

There’s not much more to say about how England performed in this series. No batsman scored a hundred and only Matt Prior averaged over 30 in the series. England were not just poor with the bat, but historically awful. The only series of three or more matches in which England have averaged lower than the 19.06 they did in the UAE was the 1888 Ashes. From that perspective, it’s amazing to think that we definitely ought to have wont he second Test and maybe even the third. It’s hard to know which is more surprising: that the bowlers kept us in the match after the batsmen had failed so badly or that the batsmen threw away such good positions. I’ve compiled marks out of ten for each of the players:

Pakistan
Misbah-ul-Haq* – 7/10
It was only a mediocre series with the bat from the Pakistan captain, but such was the nature of the series that his average of 36 was still fifth highest. More importantly for Pakistan is that he led the side well. It didn’t seem to take a lot to beat England’s batsmen, but he did not give them very many openings with his bowling changes and field placings.

Mohammad Hafeez – 6/10
Only one score of note with the bat, 88 in the first match, but he made it into double figures each of his other innings as well. His main contribution was with the ball, spinning it early in the innings. He took five wickets at 16 apiece, including the wicket of Cook on the first morning that started the rot for England.

Taufeeq Umar – 3/10
Passed fifty in the first Test, but was dismissed cheaply by Swann and Anderson in the next two. Victim of some good bowling, but did not look assured and did not defend well.

Azhar Ali – 9/10
Overcame an indifferent start to the series to finish top of the averages thanks to a match winning 157 in the final Test. He also scored a crucial (and possibly also match winning) 68 in the second Test and showed considerable maturity throughout.

Younis Khan – 6/10
A high score of 127 in a series where only one other batsman made it to three figures would seem to require more than six points out of ten, but he only scored 66 runs in the other four innings in the series. His high score before that knock had been 37 in the opening Test, and that had been ignominiously ended when he was lbw to Jonathan Trott.

Asad Shafiq – 5/10
A very creditable series for a batsman from whom little was expected. He passed 40 in three of the five innings in which he batted, but had difficulty going on and his top score was only 58.

Adnan Akmal† – 4/10
In rating the latest Akmal’s performance it is important to compare him with other wicket-keepers, not just his infamous brother. He did a reasonable job with the gloves, but appealed every time the ball hit the pads. (Though I will concede that a lot of them were out.) Had a hilarious drop early in England’s third Test run chase, but it cost them little. Poor series with the bat, but better than most were expecting.

Abdur Rehman – 9/10
A fantastic series for the left arm spinner, he finished only behind Ajmal in the series wicket tally and was the main destroyer in England’s second and third Test collapses.

Umar Gul – 8/10
Very quietly had a brilliant series. All of the headlines were about England woes against spin and with the effectiveness of Ajmal and Rehman he only needed to bowl 74 overs in the series. In those 74 overs he took 11 wickets at 22.27 and with a strike rate second only to Ajmal.

Saeed Ajmal – 10/10
Came off a brilliant 2011 and could not have made a better start to 2012. England could not read his variations and never got over the mess he made of them in the first innings of the series. Bell in particular looked all at sea facing him. Deserved man of the series.

Aizaz Cheema- 1/10
Only played in the first and third Tests, but was hardly needed. Bowled only 27 overs and took one wicket for 70 runs. Scored 0* in each of his three innings with the bat.

Junaid Khan – 0/10
Sadly, never really showed up. His biggest contribution to the second Test was a terrible drop in the deep with Prior batting in the first innings. Took 0-33 off eight overs in the first innings, did not bowl in the second.

England
Andrew Strauss* – 6/10
Led from the front with a good 56 in the last Test, but that was the high point as he struggled to get onto the front foot the entire series. He used his bowlers to good effect and did a good job keeping spirits up when England were in the field.

Alastair Cook – 5/10
Could not replicate his form from the summer, though he came closest of any English batsman to score a century this series. His soft dismissal in the first innings of the first Test set the tone for the series and he fell cheaply to start the disastrous run chase in the second Test too.

Jonathan Trott – 5/10
Second in England’s batting averages, but needless to say he still had a poor series. Made a good 74 in the second Test, but had an untimely illness in the second and could not meaningfully contribute to the run chase.

Kevin Pietersen – 1/10
Not merely a poor series from KP, but an abysmal one. He threw his wicket away more often than not, his efforts in the second innings of the first Test deserving special criticism. He finally started to find some form in the third Test, but still could not master the trick of hitting the ball with the bat when defending.

Ian Bell – 1/10
Poor Ian. Only once did he look like he could pick the variations from Ajmal and when he did he was trapped by Gul instead. His dismissal in the third Test run chase was one of the worst one will ever see, the very picture of a batsman out of form. From a man who came into the series on the back of an imperious 200 against India, it was rather a shock.

Eoin Morgan – 1/10
Eoin Morgan was supposed to be the man who would play spin. Supposedly his unorthodox style and ability to score quickly and to all parts of the field were going to be invaluable against spin. Instead he consistently threw his wicket away to the spinners. Just for a change in the last Test he threw his wicket away to Gul instead, but the entire series clearly showed up a dearth of application.

Matt Prior† – 7/10
England’s best batsman, plus another good series with the gloves (though he did not have a huge amount to do behind the stumps). He started the series with an unbeaten 70 as England collapsed and finished it with an unbeaten 49. His form dipped in between, but he was one of only two batsmen to get into double figures in the second Test run chase.

Stuart Broad – 9/10
Put in an absolutely amazing effort in the series. He was the pick of the English bowlers with 13 wickets at just over 20 and put England into excellent positions in the second and third Tests. He was more than handy with the bat as well, averaging more than KP, Bell and Morgan and scoring more in one innings (58* in the first innings of the second Test) than Bell did in the series.

Graeme Swann – 8/10
Rather unexpectedly found himself as the second spinner when Monty returned to the side, but still performed admirably. He finished with 13 and an almost identical strike rate to Broad, but conceded about sixty more runs. As usual, he was most effective against left-handers

Jimmy Anderson – 8/10
Took a bit of a back seat to Broad, but certainly did not embarrass himself. He was very unlucky to end up with only nine wickets, but bowled a very tight, probing line throughout.

Monty Panesar – 9/10
England sprung a surprise by playing two spinners in Abu Dhabi, and Monty took the opportunity superbly. He took 6-62 in the second innings to set up what should have been a very straightforward run chase. He was the only English bowler to take five wickets in a match in the series and he did so twice, picking up 14 in all.

Chris Tremlett – 0/10
Only played in the first Test and only had a chance to bowl in the first innings. He took 0-53, never looked particularly threatening and was dropped in favour of Monty.

Despite the poor performance of England in the series, I would not make wholesale changes for Sri Lanka. It is worth remembering that we did come up against some very good bowlers in conditions which suited them. KP and Bell averaged over 70 and over 100 last year, respectively, so to suggest that they be dropped over one poor series is very, very harsh. Similarly, Andrew Strauss has not been in the best of form with the bat, but he is easily the best leader of the side. Cook showed in the ODIs in India that he is not ready for the captaincy yet, and I would certainly not want to entrust Broad with it as I would want some England to still have reviews left after the first over. In any case, Strauss was the best of the full time batsmen in the third Test.

A change I would make is that I would drop Morgan.He has shown in this series that he is not a Test batsman. That is not to say that he will never be one, but he was brought into the side on the back of limited overs performances and I think a season playing first class cricket will do his temperament no end of good. In his place I would play Tim Bresnan, assuming he is fit (which seems likely). Whilst it seems odd to suggest playing one fewer batsman after the struggles in the UAE, Bres has a Test batting average of 45. Not only is this very reasonable on its own, it is actually 15 runs higher than Morgan averages. It’s good enough that I would pick him as a batsman over Mogan and Bopara even if he did not bowl a single ball.

That is the only change I would make, however, the other batsmen have good enough records that they certainly deserve another chance against the weaker Sri Lankan bowling and Monty has easily done enough to stay in the starting XI. It’s been a poor series, but these players will be strongly motivated to put that behind them and play well in Sri Lanka.