Prior cannot do it alone

Dear ECB/England selectors,

You may have noticed that England are not doing so well after a prolonged relatively good period extending from about 2005.  As a concerned cricket fan, I would like to help you out with your selections for the India tour, since you seem to have made so many bad choices recently.  The main issue I want to point out is that you are expecting far too much of Matt Prior. He cannot be expected to carry the team on his own.  You have asked him to try to achieve something that has not been done since Strauss in June 2005 against Bangladesh.  That was the last test that England won with only one South African born player in the team.  Can it really be a coincidence that England's best stretch of form in decades links with the presence of between two and four South Africans in the team?  Is it any wonder that Sri Lanka beat this English team when Prior is on his own?  Indeed no English team has won with less than three South Africans since August 2008, and the majority of test wins since then have required four South Africans.  

I realise that there is a little shortage of South Africans qualified and ready to play for England at the moment, but I can suggest a couple to help Prior with the heavy lifting against India.  There seems to be a place opening up at the top of the order with the form of Cook.  Thankfully there is a South African ready to step in.  Compton is both South African and an opener.  It seemed last year that he was dropped for the sole reason that he did not fit well into the Flower-Cook style (originally the Flower-Stauss style), but this would no longer be a concern as Flower is gone already, and this way Cook would be gone too.  

To get to three South Africans, and thereby give England a fighting chance there needs to be one more.  With Trott still not back this means that you will need to look elsewhere.  There is a little known player named Kevin Pietersen who looks a handy sort of player.  I believe he could even score 10000 runs in test cricket if given a chance. To squeeze him in, he could replace Joe Root.  Yes, I know Root recently scored a double hundred, but he can safely be dropped from any test not played at Lords.  In three matches at the English home of cricket he has accrued 512 runs at 102.4 including a 180 and a 200*.  His other 14 tests have only amounted to 702 runs at 28.08 with a solitary century.  So for any test at Lords he is a walk up start, but KP is a better bet overall.  And once again his main (though perhaps not only) detractors in the team were rumoured to be Cook and Flower.  

Yours almost sincerely

An Aussie Fan

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.   

English Report Card

(For the Aussie Report Card click here)

It is hard to say where it all went wrong for England.  They have been outplayed in every area of the game.  Their batsmen scored a thousand less runs than the Aussies (2158 vs 3189 including extras).  Their bowlers took 23 fewer wickets (77 vs 100 including runouts), and they only took 20 wickets in Sydney where the Aussies were practically giving them away to hasten the end of the series.  They dropped more catches and missed more stumpings, and these errors cost them more than the Aussies' errors cost them.  Even their captain lost four tosses out of five.  

The problem is not skill or experience.  England have shown over the last four or five years that they have the skill.  They even (briefly) reached number one in the world.  They were also by far the more experienced line up that started the 'Gabba test.  Nor was age a factor.  Australia had the oldest players, and the higher average age.  No, test cricket is played as much between the ears as in the middle, and one suspects that it is here that the problem lies.  Perhaps the team is jaded.  Having just won the Ashes in England, it may have been hard to try to climb that mountain again.  Perhaps the pressure of the dressingroom culture is wearing thin.  Exacting standards are much easier to handle when you are in the ascendancy, but can become a burden when things are not working out as you would like.  Perhaps the team believed the publicity that had people like Botham predicting a 5-0 scoreline for England, not against it: They just needed to turn up, watch Australia roll over and collect their trophy - but were shocked when it was their team on the back foot (both literally and figuratively).  From shock came panic which compounded the problem.

Sydney test preview

The Aussies are trying for a clean sweep- the second in three home Ashes and only third 5-0 scoreline in Ashes history-, and to jump to number three in the world.  The English are playing for pride and to keep the third place on the test rankings (for which they need a win here).  So a quick look at the teams:

Australia

Only a couple of injury worries would see the team change.  Harris's knee could see Coulter-Nile make a debut, and Watson's injury could see Doolan take his place at three, and Faulkner take his place (and Bailey's) as an all-rounder.  However they both seemed to be on track to keep the same team together for the fifth straight match.  

England

It seems likely that Ballance will get a run in the team given the repeated failures of the top six.  The question is who he replaces.  Carberry seems to be the favourite, though Root has been just as bad. England really cannot afford to have two slow scorers in the top three. Some people are still singling out KP, but he was by far the best in Melbourne.  I suspect Root will open with Cook, and Ballance will either slot in at three, or swap with Bell.  

Bairstow proved me wrong when I said that he couldn't do worse than Prior.  The shame is that England have several good keepers going around, but picked part-timer Bairstow as the back up as they thought he could be a back up batsman as well.  I guess they could not believe that Prior would be in such bad form for so long.  However, I think they will give Bairstow a second chance.  

The bowlers are an interesting problem.  Borthwick is likely to get a run.  Firstly, Panesar injured himself, so may not be available.  Even if he is, Cook showed no faith in him in Melbourne bowling Root in two spells before finally bringing Panesar on with only 30-odd left to defend.  If they are going to have a specialist spinner they don't trust, it might as well be one that bats and fields better the Monty, and is a chance to develop for the future.  As for the quicks, having brought Finn and Rankin, at least one of them really needs to play.  They would need to replace Anderson or Bresnan.  Anderson needs the rest and Bresnan was particularly unimpressive.  I doubt that both will be replaced, and realistically if the other changes are made, the English are unlikely to make a change here.

Prediction

Having put up a good fight for the first two and a half days in Melbourne, getting themselves into a position to control the match, England fell apart spectacularly to lose inside four days.  Given that, it is hard to see any result other than another Aussie win, though if they can find the early fight from Melbourne it would be a better match.  I am not usually this optomistic but I am looking at a clean sweep (which probably means England will find a way to win, but I still think that is unlikely).

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.

Don't be fooled

The Aussies are 2-0 up, and in the box seat to regain the Ashes.  England have been pulled apart for a combined loss of 599 runs.  Given that Perth has been Mitchell Johnson's favourite ground over the years, it is not inconceivable that the urn could return to Australia in the next week.  It is not impossible, however unlikely, that 5-0 could be the score line at the end of the summer. But don't be fooled.  The gap between the teams is not as great as it looks at the moment.  It is only a few months, ago, with largely the same teams, that the English demolished Australia 3-0.  The difference then was one player: Bell.  Without his three centuries, and calming influence on the English middle order, the result could, probably would, have been different.  Overall the teams were fairly well matched apart from his influence.  Of course the weather helped, with the two matches that Australia dominated being heavily affected by rain (that England almost won one of them was more to do with Clarke declaring early because of the threat of rain than England's  efforts in the game).

This time around, in spite of the huge margins, the difference is again one player: Mitchell Johnson.  Australia may still have won in Brisbane without Mitchell, but not as comprehensively.  There is also the possibility that without Johnson, the first innings score would have been much lower, and all the pressure on the Aussies, which may have reversed the result.  Almost certainly Adelaide would not have been the same without him.  His burst of 5 for not much turned a test that was likely to be a draw into a test in which a win was possible. The psychological damage of that spell and the other bowlers did the rest.

Johnson's dominance in the first three innings of the series has made the difference between the sides look huge.  However, like Bell's dominance in England, it exaggerates the difference between the sides.  If Johnson were to return to his inconsistent past during the match in Perth, suddenly the teams don't seem so far apart.  The English batsmen will suddenly look ten time better than they have thus far, and the fact that Rogers, Watson, Smith and Bailey have not been overly convincing in the first two tests will look a lot more relevant.

The Aussies are on top, and their supporters should enjoy that, but don't be fooled: the gap between the teams is not as big as it seems right now.