PAKISTAN v ENGLAND: 1st Test, Day 3 - Where it all went wrong for 'the Andrew's' England

“We won’t be panicking” explained Andrew Strauss; “we’ll come back strong in the second Test match” was the message from the captain after England suffered their first test defeat since Perth back in December 2010.  For the first time in over a year we were watching an under-prepared England side, which had under estimated Pakistan’s ability in the sub-continent.  The third day did give England reason to “panic”, at least a little.  The batting order collapsed again, unable to master the line and length of Umar Gul and of course Ajmal struck to take a total of 10 wickets in the entire game. 

The morning began with England needing 3 wickets for as few runs as possible, an easy task for the world number one test side.  England did their best to keep Pakistan from making a large score, but their lower order, namely Akmal, found boundaries with effective use of reverse sweep.  Graham Swann finished off the lower order, with a little help from Broad, but it was clear to see that Pakistan had done enough to secure victory.  Bowled out for 338 runs, they led by 146 – far too many runs for an out-of-form batting line up to make up.  To make England’s life even tougher, Gul removed Andrew Strauss just before lunch.  England trailed by 130.

Cook and Pieterson, two of England’s strongest and most experienced batsmen gave away their wickets cheaply, by misguided shots – Cook feeling for the ball and gloving it, whilst Pieterson carelessly sent the ball high straight to deep backward square.  The middle to lower order batsmen followed quickly behind, with Bell and Prior victims of Ajmal’s doosra and teesra.  Trott was the only batsmen who looked close to his usual playing standards, but worrying signs of England’s lack of preparation and focus were demonstrated by a lazy swipe, causing Trott to edge the ball into the slips.  England’s second innings displayed a team lacking focus and concentration.  Players like Cook and Trott, famous for never giving their wicket away cheaply, displayed a remarkable lack of concentration.  England played less than 10 fours and no sixes in their innings, and chose to play defensively. 

Pakistan were brilliant with their bowling and at times unplayable.  However, the skill, experience and quality of the England batsmen are so great that you would not expect them to crumble so easily.  So why did they?  I believe it was a mixture of a lack of concentration and inadequate preparation.  None of the batsmen appeared comfortable at the crease and playing the Dubai conditions.  When you compare the performance to  that of the Ashes, England looked settled and happy to play in the Australian climate, whereas over the past three days England have looked like they have not adapted to playing in the UAE.  More warm up games, certainly were needed, to acclimatise to conditions and to bring the batsmen up to scratch.  My view is that the way to solve the batting is to put in more time in the nets between now and the next test match and to snap the boys back into focus.  Talent does not disappear and cannot be turned on or off, it just relies on 100% concentration, and no batsman brought that level of focus to the crease.  In theory, this is an easy problem to solve, and will be solved, the only question is, will it be in time for the next test?   

Also, I believe there was a problem with the team selected.  It is not often that you criticize Flower, but I do think he made a mistake in this match.  If you’re playing in drastically different conditions to home, why put out a team that is so used to playing on English pitches.  If the conditions change, as management, they needed to ensure that the team changed with the conditions.  It does not mean that particular players do not deserve their place; it just means that the combination of players must complement the environment of play.   Why was Tremlett there?  Why was Monty not playing?  Granted, it is unusual for England to play two spinners, but in the warm up matches Monty was so promising that he should have been playing and supporting Graham Swann.  Surely the warm up games indicated to the England management, that Monty was better suited to playing on UAE wickets that Tremlett, or even Swann for that matter.  On paper and in practice, at home and in Australia, Tremlett has been the better bowler, but in the experience of the UAE, Monty provided the damage. 

England must regroup, refocus and attack.  They are a side that does not deserve the label of losing by 10 wickets.  But, perhaps this defeat occurred at a critical time.  By England’s recent performance rumours of ‘complacency’ could be whispered.  With hindsight, you might be able to look back on this Test match saying “thank goodness Pakistan thumped them; it gave them the kick up the back-side needed to avoid long-term complacency”.  

Only time will tell if this theory is true – but let’s hope so! 

Statistics of Note: 

Pakistan 338-all out 

England 160-all out 

Gul 4-63

Ajmal 3-42 (10 wickets in match)  

Akmal 61 

Trott 49 

The Perfect Recipe: Cook with a handful of Onions

13th January 2012 

When you look back at the past week it is hard not to pass judgement over our great sport.  A week where the national team flexed its muscles in preparation for the first test against Pakistan on Monday and the domestic game was clouded in a dark haze of corruption.  

But let me begin with the positives of the past week - our national team.  Yet again they have shown measured skill and ability whilst playing in Dubai, and there are obvious improvements in individual performances.  As I write this, England dominates the score card.  Having scored 269 before a declaration in their first innings against the Pakistan Cricket Board XI (not forgetting Alastair Cook's contribution of 133 runs), England's ball-boys set about their task.  In a side adapting to playing on unfamiliar and unfavourable wickets, it was promising to hear of Monty Panesar's five-for, particularly as the inclusion of Panesar as a second spinner is an untried bowling attack formation for the world number 1 side.  

Panesar had to prove his worth to the team and coaches in this tour match, to both secure his place and settle any nerves at the sight of a changed bowling attack.  It's wonderful to see a player, who has not featured much recently in the international field, return to the England squad.  Already, Panesar has written a case for why he deserves his place alongside Anderson, Broad and Swann - bowlers who have achieved the heights of legends.  Yes, Panesar has played the part of the hero, most noticeably against the Aussies in Cardiff 2009, but never have places in an England side been so sacred and hard to come by.  

Additionally, the inclusion of another 'blast-from-the-past' appears to suggest that Flower and Strauss aim to gain an even stronger and deeper England squad.  This England side is not like that of the golden years of 2005 and 2009 - instead this is a well established team with strength filtering through to lower order batsmen and super-human bowlers.  One thing that England made clear against India this summer was their strength and lack of a weak link.  Even batsmen out of form contributed in other areas of the game.  So, the inclusion of Graham Onions instead of Steve Finn, to me, suggests that Flower wants the squad to be even deeper.

Steve Finn has been hanging out with this England side for months now, watching from the side-lines.  It is my firm belief that we're looking at the Jimmy Anderson of the future.  I believe Finny is being kept in and around the squad to learn by observing Jimmy, Broad, Bresnan and Tremlett, so that one day he himself can lead the England attack.  So why no inclusion here?  Well, Finn still has a way to go and has the issue of a poor economy rate.  He is a man knocking on the door, but it just won’t open for him yet.  Granted, I believe Finny is denied wickets in ODI matches, due to the field being set wrongly by Alastair Cook (Finn requires a large number of slips to catch edged balls, but Cook never supplied him with the attacking field required for his bowling style) and I think this unfairly boosts his image as a wasteful bowler.  Still, Onions is the obvious ingredient in the winter cooking pot.  On wickets so favourable to the opposition it is impossible to include a fast bowler who gives away runs and I just hope that Onions' second coming ends in results.  Like Monty, Onions needs to prove himself to this side and quickly.  

But as the Arab sun sets on a promising week for the national team, back at home there is a sharp frost in the air.  Corruption.  A word proudly dismissed by the ICC until the Pakistan scandal of 2010, which ended the careers of three internationally acclaimed cricketers, including the captain Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and the 19 year old Mohammad Amir.  However, yesterday the wave of corruption landed on British soil and most worryingly in the domestic game.  Already English domestic cricket is not a ground filler, an issue that needs to be addressed by the ECB, but county cricket being branded with the news of a match fixing scandal by Mervyn Westfield (Essex), is press the game does not need.  There is a saying that no press is bad press and true, the scandal has flung the county game to the front page of national and international newspapers, but the word "corruption" is so feared in sport it cannot help the game one bit.  If "corruption" ended the careers of international players - even banning them from playing any form of the game - imagine what it does to a domestic cricketer.  A 10 year jail sentence.  That length of time behind bars classifies a person forever.  This is undoubtedly the end of Mervyn Westfield's career.  

Are there any positives in this media coverage for our domestic game?  Yes.  A warning.  If you're going to involve yourself in match fixing, do not do it on British soil, they will catch you and they will finish you.  Strong words from the country holding world domination.  

Until next time, the Seam-Mistress.