Mankad sins:the Senanayake controversy.

Sri Lanka's Sachithra Senanayake committed the ultimate in cricket sins in the match against England on Tuesday.  Ever since he "Mankaded" Jos Buttler, controversy has raged.  However his sin was committed two overs earlier.  

Imagine if you will the following circumstance:  the bowler bowls, the non-striker starts to head down the pitch, the batsman hits it straight to a fieldsman who picks it up and sends it back to the bowler standing over the stumps.  The bowler doesn't break the stumps, but rather holds the ball and watches as the non-striker scrambles back to his crease.  That was a warning, don't do it again.

While it might happen in backyard cricket, especially if the non-striker was very young and the bowler very generous, if it happened in international cricket there would be an uproar.  Why did the bowler let him off like that?  He should be trying everything within the laws of the game to get the opposition batsman out, and anything less, like not running him out when he could, or deliberately dropping a catch is not acceptable.  And yet, Senanayake failed to get both Buttler and Jordan out when he had a chance.  They both were backing up too far, too early, and he did not run them out but gave them a warning.  If he sinned, it was in failing to dismiss the batsmen when it was well within his power to do so.  The next time he bowled, Buttler did it again and was run out.  For some reason that perfectly legal action is what has caused the controversy, not the fact that he did not try everything to get the batsmen out the previous two occasions.

It has been interesting to see the reaction.  The main objection it would seem is not to the legality of it, but to the violation of the "spirit of the game".  And this is mainly from the same people who were arguing strongly that Broad was well within the law not walking when he was given not out when he middled one last year.  For the record, I supported Broad on that one, like I support the Sri Lankans in this one.  Both of them were not entirely within the spirit of the game (though by giving a warning, or actually two, Senanayake comes far closer).  However, consistency means that if you supported Broad, you should support Senanayake.  Both of them acted legally (for those wanting to argue the point, it seems clear to me that 1- he was not intending to bowl by the time his back foot hit the ground, therefore he was not in his delivery stride, and 2- the umpires made the decision, so just like in the Broad incident, it is not the player that is at fault if there is any fault).  The error in both occasions was someone else's: the umpire in Broad's case (and the Aussies for having burned their referrals), and in this one, Buttler for backing up too far, too early.  The stupidity of Buttler is that he did it even after being warned, and seeing his partner warned just two overs earlier.  If the English players don't like what happened, the lesson is to stay behind the line until the ball is bowled.   

Boxing Day Preview

The Ashes are over for this edition, England has handed them over.  However, try telling the packed house at the MCG on Boxing Day that this is a dead rubber.  So what should the two teams look like going into this match?

The Aussies

The Aussies are unlikely to change a winning formula, unless there is an injury.  Gone is the rotation policy that might have cost Harris a game or two. As it is, he has made it through seven consecutive tests- a minor miracle- and while a little sore seems likely to be picked for an eighth.  

This is not to say that the Aussies don't have issues, particularly with the batting.  Rogers is constantly playing for his place, and Bailey is far from confirming himself as a long term test prospect.  Watson, in spite of doubling his tally of centuries this year, still looks a bit fragile at three.  However there is no one making an undeniable case to unseat any of them.  Of concern is the fact that all three are over 30 (as are Harris, Haddin, Johnson and Clarke- though their current form gives them plenty of breathing space).

At least Smith seems to be showing a bit of promise, and some substance (there is no way I would have believed I would write this a year ago).  The Aussies will be hoping that this continues, and he is joined by a few more.

So basically stick with the same team, and hope that a few of them consolidate their place.  And hope that Silk and/or one of the other batsmen in the Shield will start piling on the runs and putting pressure on them.  

England

Having unexpectedly lost the Ashes, in the face of 10-0 predictions to the contrary,  the English have several questions regarding their team.  Like the Aussies, they have a few ageing players, though none of these have the protection of form that some if the Aussies have.    

Cook: has had a couple of very average series against the Aussies so far.  However he has a lot of selection credit to use up before he gets dropped, having been perhaps the key batsman over much of the last four years.  He will be back, it is just a matter of time.  His captaincy is more of a question.  It is generally conservative, defensive and unimaginative on the field, and does not seem to have inspired his team off it.  However, only Bell has the form and standing in the team to take over at this stage.  Cook will stay for the foreseeable future.  After all he has only lost four of the 19 tests he has captained, winning 9.

Carberry:  has been fairly impressive, first at getting in, and then at finding a way to get out when set. Still early in his career, but he is over 30 already.  He will need to prove himself soon.  

Root: is also new(ish) in his career, and very new at the number three slot.  He is however, the wrong person for the job.  The Aussies tried Warner at six and quickly corrected that mistake.  So too, the English need to get Root out of three.  While he did make a reasonable 87 (until Stokes, the biggest English score for the series), he has batted so slowly that it has not really hurt the Aussies that he has survived for a while.  He is averaging 157 balls a match, but it is only costing the Aussies about 51 runs.  His strike rate is the lowest for the series apart from Tremlett and Panesar. Meanwhile, the pressure is on his partners to score, the Aussies get the English on the back foot, and the rest is history.  He seems to be the future of English batting (though if you take out his 180 at Lords when the Aussies were at their worst, he is averaging 24 in Ashes cricket), but three is not his cup of tea.  The English need to decide whether to put him in in place of Carberry, as everyone expects him to open eventually, or to have him serve his apprenticeship at 5 or 6.

KP:  Has had plenty of people calling for his head.  I can understand that.  He is extremely frustrating the way he gets out sometimes.  In many ways he is like Watson with the bat- you expect him to deliver far more often than he does.  However, unlike Watson, KP generally gets a good innings or two a series.  And those innings generally shift the match, if not the series his team's way (more often than not it is in the second test of a series).  The fact that he is quite human the rest of the time is not usually noticed because players like Cook, Trott, Bell and Prior have covered for him.  It is noticeable now mainly because the others have failed too.  He is still a very good player having a bad run.  Unless he fails in the rest of this series and the next one or two, I would keep him.  His experience and occasional brilliance is going to be required going forward.

Bell: is still the backbone of the side.  Having carried them to victory in England, he is having a far more modest series this time.  He has however still out scored every one of his teammates.  He needs to move to three unless and until Trott returns.  He has the technique and temperament to do well there.  He can also set the tone for the team- likely to be a much more positive one than Root has set so far. As it is, England are usually already in trouble by the time he gets in.   

Stokes:  shows promise, but it is early days yet.  One century does not make a test match batsman, though you have to start somewhere.  His bowling is also useful.  He can't be dropped for a while yet.  

Prior: has had a lousy series with bat and gloves.  He is really low on confidence.  He is perhaps the ripest candidate for being replaced.

Bresnan: had an average return in his first test back from injury.  The most conservative of the third seamer options on tour, and so will probably stay.  Needs to step up a notch with the bowling to fill a Siddle-like role for England.

Broad: if fit he has to play as he has shown the most fight out of all his team.  However the news was not very good a few days out.

Swann:  can't have had too many worse runs of three matches.  He has been thoroughly out bowled by Lyon, and on occasions Root.  However he brought a lot more to the team than Panesar (his likely replacement), so the Aussies will be happy about his retirement.  Panesar bowled slightly better than Swann in Adelaide, but his batting and fielding are a class below Swann's so it is a loss to the team overall.  A better choice may be Scott Borthwick, the young leg spinner added to the squad on Monday.  Not sure how well he bowls (there must be something to his being picked as a bowler), but sounds like he can bat, and he gives them a view to a longer future than Panesar.

Anderson: like Swann is struggling, but he has been struggling for longer, most of the last seven matches.  He looks like he needs a rest.  He is too good a bowler not to come back from this, unless he has all enjoyment of the game ground out of him.  Rest him for a test or two.  Let him get back on his feet again.  He is too proud to be happy about this, but then again, England are too conservative to be likely to drop him.

So I would keep Cook, KP and Bell as the experienced batsmen, with Bell moving to three.  I would probably open with Root, bringing Ballance in at five (though if you think Compton is a better medium term prospect as an opener, then keep Carberry and put Root at five so you don't have to move him again). Stokes stays at six.  Bairstow can't do any worse than Prior, so he would come in.  The bowlers would be Bresnan, Broad, Borthwick (or more likely, Panesar, or Rankin if England go for four quicks) and Finn (though Anderson will probably still be picked by the English).  Finn would be told that he has two tests to justify his place on the tour, and have instructions to bowl fast.  Rankin or Anderson would replace Broad if he is still hobbling.  In all probability: Bairstow for Prior, Panesar for Swann, the rest of the team unchanged.

Prediction:

Before Swann's retirement, I suspected that this match would be the closest yet in the series.  The English have nothing to lose, and the Aussies will have their fire dampened a little by having already won the Ashes.  However, Swann's retirement may galvanise the English (in which case my prediction holds) or it might totally shatter them, in which case Aussies all the way.  I am hoping for the former, leading to a hard fought Aussie win, unless the weather intervenes in which case a draw is likely.

Ashes Match-ups 1: A tale of two seamers

He was the best of bowlers, he was the worst of bowlers.  Actually both the Aussies and the English have a bowler like this.  And this series might depend on which one of these does better in this series.  Mitchell Johnson and Stuart Broad can both be their teams most destructive bowler on their good days.  They can also leak runs at a rapid rate on their bad days.  They are both confidence bowlers who are hard to stop when they are on a role, however they usually need an early breakthrough to lift their confidence.  The opposition supporters like giving them both heaps.  They are also handy with the bat.

Of course there are differences.  Broad has a higher natural level of confidence, which might explain why he seems to have more good days that Johnson.  Johnson can get very down on himself very quickly, which may be why his worst is worse than Broad's. However his best is better than Broad's as anyone who has seen him in full flight at the WACA can attest.  Broad has shown a more consistent level of fight than Johnson over the years.  Johnson at his best is more brutal (ask Graeme Smith).  

Overall it is hard to pick from their Ashes record.  This is Broad's 13th match against Australia, and he has 50 wickets (3.84 per match) at an average of 28.9.  Johnson is only in his 10th match and has 40 wickets as at the start of day 4 (4 wickets a match so far) at 31.82.  His higher average is offset a bit by his better strike rate (48.1 to 53.9).  Even with the bat, Johnson has 330 at 23.57 and Broad 445 at 26.17, though Johnson leads the 50s count 4 to 3.  In this match, Broad has out bowled. Johnson so far, but not by much.  Johnson has out batted Broad, but Broad has another chance.  Strangely these two match winners have virtually cancelled each other out to this point.  It is the rest of the team that has made the difference.  However, I suspect that the relative performances of these two might just decide the series.

Lessons from Trent Bridge

England won a tight test.  It should have been an easy win, especially with Australia at 9 down and about 100 behind in the first innings.  However they made it closer than it needed to be.  There is much that Australia can learn from this match:

1. Swann can be played.  Twice Swann looked dangerous, once in each innings but he never ran through the Aussies even though the match, weather and pitch all seemed to be conspiring to make him the person to win the test.  As it was Anderson had to do the work.

2. England are reliant on Anderson.  He is by far their best bowler, especially with Swann underperforming.  Finn and Broad are dangerous but inconsistent.  When the Aussies put the pressure on it is Anderson that Cook relies on to change the game.  It was also instructive that he struggled with cramp yesterday.  If we can force Cook to use Anderson for 50+ overs a match, he may not last the distance, or at least drop in effectiveness.

Broad the Fraud?

I awoke this morning to read several outraged comments from Aussies about the fact that Stuart Broad failed to walk when given not out even though he obviously edged a catch to Clarke at first slip.  The general consensus seemed to be that Broad was (is) a cheat.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not an English fan, and Broad is in a battle with KP and Swann as my least favourite English player.  However, I find myself in the awkward position of defending him.  Broad is not the first, nor will he be the last player who let the umpire decide whether or not he was out.  In fact most players do.  Even Australia's captain has been known to do this.  Yes some players will walk on fairly obvious dismissals (Bairstow earlier).  A few rare players will walk even when they could have gotten away with it: Gilchrist comes to mind.  But some may remember, there was almost as much controversy over Gilchrist walking as there has been over Broad refusing to.  Perhaps Broad would be more respected by the Aussie fans had he overridden the umpire, but he is not really the problem.  The problem consists of three parts: firstly the umpire, secondly DRS and finally the Aussie tactics.