Reflections on the second test
Rotate the bowlers? Jettison Johnny? Up the ante? Here’s our take on the big talking points from Trent Bridge – and we’d love to hear yours.
How well are we actually playing? Jonathan Agnew, who knows a thing or two about the game, argued yesterday that England must be more ruthless. Repeatedly in the series so far, our side has dropped the intensity and allowed the West Indies to reclaim some of the initiative. That just won’t do against South Africa, he points out. From another point of view, though, England have proved effortlessly superior – we won this test by nine wickets inside four days, and beat the tourists by eight wickets at Lord’s.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. West Indies have fought much harder than India did last summer, and perhaps more tenaciously (in patches) than Australia did in the last couple of 2010/11 Ashes tests. You can only play the opponent in front of you, the old saying goes, and that’s just as true if they rally as when they’re supine. We’ve been less dominant than usual for the principal reason that West Indies have intermittently played some decent cricket. You can beat someone who’s playing well, but you’re unlikely to thrash them. Even at their peak, Australia never won every single match by enormous margins.
As England fans, our expectations have become unrealistic, swollen by 2011′s ridiculously emphatic win over India. We now resent any failure to win inside three days by an innings, so we nitpick and exaggerate any minor disappointment. But all of that said, there is still a sense, difficult to entirely dismiss, that the England machine has not quite clicked into full functionality. I can’t quite put my finger on either the evidence or cause, but two things come to mind: the bowlers losing tenacity when the ball is soft, and a vague malaise around the middle order. I have a feeling in my bones that Matt Prior is in for a difficult summer.
Drop Bairstow? This is an almost unbelievably silly suggestion. So far, he has only actually batted twice. What can you soundly deduce, either way, from two innings? To say he justifies a proper run in the side is axiomatic. As Graham Gooch will tell you – he made a pair on debut – dropping him now would injure his career, and abrade the team’s cohesion, to no advantage.
I’m only an armchair punter, but I’m confident about this next assertion: the talk of Bairstow’s weakness against the short ball is a red herring. No other England player, in this match, was subjected to an intense short-ball scrutiny in the way Bairstow was. At the time, Roach was really purring – is anyone claiming that neither Bell, nor KP, Trott or Prior might have been discomfited too? In the Ashes Oval test of 2009, Ian Bell was very nearly dismissed about a dozen times by Mitchell Johnson short balls which somehow kept managing to evade short leg. Bell was by then an experienced test player; because it was far from the most significant phase of the match, everyone forgot about it afterwards. Read more…
Sky Sports are watching you: day two at Trent Bridge
Stumps: England 259-2. West Indies 370
Here’s a real problem within English cricket: only ten per cent of state schools play cricket. Many thousands of children are missing out on the opportunity to enjoy the game – and maybe contribute to its future in England – because they have no access to it, either from free television or on the playing field.
That’s an issue on our minds thanks to the Chance To Shine charity, who we were talking to a couple of days ago. They work to give disenfranchised state school pupils the chance to play cricket – and we’ll be telling you more about their valuable endeavours next week.
But for now the point is, this is a real problem for cricket – one which affects the whole English game, from top to bottom, and not only now but for years to come. Do the ECB care? Not really. But I’ll tell you what they do care about: KP slagging off Nick Knight on Twitter.
In case you missed this story earlier in the week, Kevin Pietersen Tweeted the following remark:
“Can somebody PLEASE tell me how Nick Knight has worked his way into the commentary box for Home Tests?? RIDICULOUS!!”
These are hardly very explosive words. KP wasn’t cruel or abusive. He made no damaging allegations. He merely questioned Knight’s credentials, and most Sky viewers would concur. Knight is a reasonable broadcaster in some respects, but he’s also fairly dull, and unlike his colleagues in the commentary box, had only a very modest international career. Reportedly, what actually annoys the England team about Knight is the latter’s habit of quoting them on air from private conversations. But whatever – the point is, no one died. All KP did was say something.
The ECB’s response was to fine him an undisclosed sum, believed to be £2,500 with a further £2,000 suspended. According to the Daily Mail, Pietersen was “hauled before England team bosses Andy Flower and Hugh Morris on Wednesday, when he was informed of his punishment and reminded of his obligation to treat key sponsors and partners respectfully”.
The message is clear. However progressive and enlightened the modern ECB pretend to be, it takes very little for them to give the game away and demonstrate how virtually nothing has changed in their mindset since the 1930s. All that matters to them is maintaining appearances, keeping the players in line, and playing the political game. To use an extreme parallel: in 1968 the ECB’s predecessor dropped Basil D’Oliveira to avoid embarrassing their mates on the South African board. In 2012, they fine KP for fear of offending Sky. Read more…
Where’s our cutting edge? Day one at Trent Bridge
West Indies 304-6
The West Indies have never lost a test at Trent Bridge – and if they continue where they left off today, they’ll keep that astonishing record intact. But if the worst does happen, England will only have themselves to blame. A top test team does not let a lower order batsman like Darren Sammy dominate. Marlon Samuels is another matter – as he’s a top order player – but even then, he’s the number six batsman in a low ranking test nation. He’s hardly bloody Brain Lara.
Today was a really depressing day from England’s point of view – and one which makes us wonder whether our form is going in the wrong direction. We had them on the rack at 136-6 but let them escape to 304-6 overnight. And it wasn’t Adam Gilchrist, or even Shiv Chanderpaul, who turned the day on its head: it was two journeymen cricketers. They played well, so fair play to them, but the supposed best test team in the world shouldn’t let things like this happen.
The problem, from where we were sitting, was a complete lack of cutting edge. The pitch offered a little movement off the seam, but was otherwise good for batting; therefore Samuels and Sammy were able to get on the front foot and simply play through the line of the ball all day. It looked so simple – and anything they timed went to the boundary (the outfield was lightening fast).
Batting at test level should not be that easy – unless you’re a top nation playing Bangladesh or possibly New Zealand. Good teams have big fast men like Morne Morkel, or even Ryan Harris, who can push the batsmen back and keep them honest.
England’s bowlers were medium pace at best all day – not even Broad bowled much more than 80mph – and Samuels made Tim Bresnan look like Gavin Larsen. Where was our big nasty quick? I’ll tell you where: he was sitting in the dressing room. The only time we saw Steve Finn was during one of Sky’s lunchtime specials; he was hitting golf balls with former Masters champion Charl Schwartzel.
Do the two number eights add up to the best team?
There has been a lot of chat about the Windies’ supporting bowlers after Lord’s. The theory goes that Darren Sammy’s boys might have won if it wasn’t for, err, Darren Sammy.
They’ve got a point – sort of. Had the West Indies had four Kemar Roaches, or Kemar Roach backed up by a Colin Croft, Sylvester Clarke or Winston Benjamin, then the result may well have been different. The trouble is, the Windies don’t have anyone anywhere near as good as this fearsome trio. Jerome Taylor is probably the closest, but he’s currently stuffed in a black bin liner outside WICB headquarters alongside Chris Gayle and Ramnaresh Sarwan.
Instead, the Windies had to make do with Sammy – who is marginally quicker than Jonathan Trott’s trundlers, and probably a yard slower than Mark Ealham at his pomp (if indeed the Kent medium pacer ever actually had a peak).
The problem is, however, that Darren Sammy is a good leader. He’s a popular figure who has galvanised this Windies side. It could be argued, equally, that the Windies would have been beaten within three days if it wasn’t for Sammy’s presence. Team spirit counts for a hell of a lot in professional sport. Just ask Andre Villas Boas.
However, the point I want to (belatedly) get to is as follows: England fans criticising Sammy’s inclusion are being a bit hypocritical. Could the same thing not be said of Tim Bresnan? Yes he’s a lucky charm – having won all 12 of his test appearances – but is he really the third best seam bowler in England?
It could even be argued that the case for dropping Bresnan is greater: the Windies don’t have any quality replacements for Sammy, whereas England have enough quality cabs on the rank to fill up the members’ car park at Trent Bridge.
When the England attack was toiling to remove Chanderpaul and Sammy in the second innings at Lord’s, our attack looked relatively benign for the first time in several seasons. We desperately needed someone with a bit of pace – somebody like Steve Finn, or even Stuart Meaker (who has been tearing up trees for Surrey recently).
Reflections on the first test
Talk about being wrong, or at least nearly wrong. Earlier in this match we discussed the predictability of any West Indies series in England, and all its dreary futility. This match was neither dreary nor futile, but expectations were confounded only up to a point. We still won.
Much of the talk is now going to be about how well the West Indies played, and quite rightly, because in terms of professionalism and application there was clear water between this team and the last few Caribbean sides to tour here. The daft shots and buffet bowling weren’t entirely eradicated, but were far less significant.
Darren Sammy, their captain, has instilled a telling degree of grit, but from their point of view it’s a shame he also has to bowl. Had West Indies fielded a proper third seamer, in place of his dobblers, they might still have won.
Given how finely balanced was the match in today’s morning session, how must West Indies supporters have ached for another seventy five runs in the bank. And how ruefully must they have reflected upon the career choices of Chris Gayle, Ramnaresh Sarwan, and Dwayne Bravo. Despite being three of the four best batsmen in the West Indies, none of them are playing in this series, due to a complex series of contractual wrangles, perceived slights, and hissy fits. It’s an awful shame.
Although it’s easy for England followers to sound patronising about the West Indies, that can be a bit misleading. Our relationship with their nation’s cricket is not, say, that of a father towards a louche and feckless teenage son, but derives rather from deference and respect, because most of us grew up in awe of a West Indies side who bestrode the world like a Colossus. Instead, we’re like Beatles fans dismayed by Paul McCartney’s solo work – anguished at the decline of a demi-god. Read more…
Let’s talk tomorrow: day four at Lord’s
England 10-2 (one of which was Anderson) need 181 runs to win
We’re not sure what to say about Sunday’s play. There are two ways of looking at it. You could say that the Windies fought hard, but England did well to (finally) bowl the opposition out on a flat and slow wicket; or you could say that the Windies have put themselves into a position from which they might win.
At the end of the day, England need 181 runs to win tomorrow. It should be a walk in the park. The pitch is blameless and the Windies attack, Kemar Roach apart, is pretty average. However, England will be nervous. They’ve already lost their skipper – and they almost lost Jonathan Trott too. They’ve also got their dismal run chase against Pakistan in the UAE in the backs of their minds.
However, tomorrow is another day. The weather forecasters say it will be warmer; the light will be better; batting should be a lot easier than it was in that mini-session at the end of the day, when the Windies bowlers knew England’s batsmen were on a hiding to nothing. England really should win – and win comfortably too. My gut tells me there will be a wobble at some point, but we’ll get home with five wickets to spare.
However, you never know in cricket. After Surrey wrote Otis Gibson’s team talk for him – offering people with tickets for the test match free entry to the Oval this afternoon (they were expecting an early finish) – the Windies will be pumped up.
If they do manage to pull off a magnificent victory tomorrow, we’ll look back on Sunday’s play and marvel at their determination. If England win comfortably, we’ll all say: “yeah, the pitch was so flat even Australia would have made a few runs on it; Chanderpaul and Samuels were just delaying the inevitable”. As I say, we’ll talk again tomorrow.
James Morgan
West Indies 243 & 120-4. England 398
England are still in control of this test match, but they aren’t quite in the unassailable position we’d hoped for at the start of play. It’s all because of two things: firstly, the ball actually swung for the Windies on Saturday, and secondly they have a batsman that seems impossible to dismiss – his name is Shiv Chanderpaul (you might have heard of him).
Let’s deal with the first point. England lost wickets at regular intervals because the Windies suddenly found the movement that Anderson and Co got on Thursday. People talk about visiting teams struggling against the swinging ball in England, but the truth is that all batsmen, of all abilities, of all nationalities, struggle when the ball swings – even English ones.
Let’s face it. It’s bloody hard to bat when the ball is moving around. You want to get on the front foot and drive, but every time you do so you risk being caught at slip. Today proved that. A good ball at Lord’s in May is a good ball at Lord’s in May, whether it’s Tim Bresnan facing the delivery or Adrian Barath.
Batsmen are oft criticised for the slightest mistake, but the truth is that sometimes bowlers bowl deliveries that get you out. Batting can sometimes seem like 50% luck. You either nick it or you don’t. Yesterday Andrew Strauss didn’t. Today he did. Yesterday England’s batsmen survived the close shaves, but today their luck deserted them.
Of course, some credit must go to the Windies bowlers too – they bowled persistently and didn’t let their heads drop, which helps – but tell me honestly that they didn’t bowl well yesterday too. They simply got the breaks today. And fair play to them.
Now I must come to Chanderpaul. Shiv crab / limpet / barnacle (insert your own crustacean here) Chanderpaul. Rarely has a batsman looked so ugly, been so persistently tedious to watch, nor been so consistently bloody brilliant, than Shiv Chanderpaul. The man is a total legend.
Chanderpaul thoroughly deserves his ranking as the number one batsman in the world. He is totally unflappable and his powers of concentration make Gary Kasparov, the chess grand master, look inadequate. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that Chanderpaul is Jonathan Trott times one hundred: He’s just as horrible to watch, but he’s been doing it a hundred times longer – and in a batting side that would fall to pieces without him. How exactly do you get the bugger out?
