England v West Indies: 1st Test - Lord's, Broads and IPL Flaws

England can smile again after taking their first home victory of the summer against the West Indies at Lord's.  Batting the side home, Cook and Bell provided England with the partnership required to chaise down 191 runs on day five, but not before the Windies demanded Jonny Bairstow's presence at the crease with England on 189 after Alistair Cook opened the bat looking for glory, but instead finding the hands of Kirk Edwards.  Despite the score sheet now reading 1-0 to England, the West Indies can take away a wealth of positives from their performance at Lord's.  Shiv Chanderpaul showed off his class, forcing the game to extend to five days, and should have been rewarded with his name on the Lord's honors board.  His trademark anti-reflective strips, worn on his cheek bones, appeared like facial war-paint, as he ground England's bowling attack to a halt.  "The war will be over by Christmas" they cried in 1914, that phrase coming to mind late on day three when Surrey announced their free entry policy for Lord's ticket holders the following day.  Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?  

The West Indies would have felt they could have done better than their 243-all out in the first innings, allowing England to take early domination of the game.  The atmosphere in the ground on day one was electric as the crowd rose from their seats to congratulate Broad's five-fore.  What a bowler Broad is, nearly left out of the side this time last year, he has well and truly silenced all critics.  Now his name is eternalised on all three honors boards, a test match 100, 5-wicket haul and a 10-wicket haul.  Broady is England's all rounder, no question.  England's first innings finally put an end to the run drought which has plagued the side over the winter.  Strauss smashed 100, whilst Ian Bell batted back into form with 61 off 105 balls.  Through the innings raised yet another question about Strauss' batting, he is still unable to convert an overnight 100 into a double hundred, the runs have silenced his critics...at least for now.  

This test match also threw up questions to cricket's future and its morals.  Where were key West Indian's like Chris Gayle?  Knocking hundreds for IPL teams rather than representing their country at the home of the cricket.  Why do we now live in a generation where domestic league cricket becomes bigger than representing your country at a test match? Everyone knows that, if they too were in Gayle's position they would take the money and the IPL season, but players should not be put into a situation where they have too choose money over playing international cricket.  The ICC should not be allowing the IPL to get bigger than playing test cricket with the national team.  The IPL teams are engineered each year, dictated to by dollar signs, and should not make players compromise their international duties.  These types of competitions are doing nothing for the future of test cricket or the development of young players and their dominance and importance should be culled and controlled by the ICC, before a situation like the English Premier League develops, where individual clubs are bigger than the national team.  I sincerely hope that the ECB take a different approach to improving domestic cricket and don't follow the advertising, money monster that is the Indian Premier League.    

Stuart Broad who took an 11-wicket haul in the match

Shiv Chanderpaul, number one batsman in the world with his trademark anti-reflective strips 

Pride & Prejudice - story of English Cricket & Great Romance: Broad, Bairstow & Hamilton-Brown

Do people really describe international cricket as "sexy"?  I understand the idea that cricket seduces spectators and that once you fall in love with cricket you never leave it and rarely cheat on it.  Under the summer sun and panama hats the game captures you, not able to look away, you watch every swing, every sweep, every turn and every spin.  It is a passionate love affair with a sport so deeply English that you're proud to be a countryman (or woman!).  So why, in a country so in love with cricket, have very few of us been seduced by the domestic game?

To be seduced by the county game one has to go looking for it.  County sides are playing hard-to-get and they're getting even harder.  Domestic cricket isn't the 'big hitter' for online reporting and county sides don't sell newspapers, so naturally their achievements are slowly becoming less and less significant with many games in empty grounds with no atmosphere.  How hard must that be for young English players, who dream of one day playing for their country to the roar of the Barmy-Army.  The economic troubles of county sides contribute to this, making the situation appear worse, clubs can't pour money into advertising and media and must instead rely on die-hard cricket fan's passing their love for a domestic club down to the next generation.  This isn't working.  

International cricket has drawn in so many new lovers over the past few years, me being one of them.  Individual brilliance and team effort has seduced me and so many others into a love affair with cricket.  It's now part of my summer and a part I look forward too.  How has the England team succeeded in romance where the domestic clubs have failed?  Exposure.  International cricket sells, particularly the development and achievement of young players, given the chance to be followed, to seduce and to enthrall.  The greatest example is the rise of Stuart Broad.  Entering the scene in 2006 at the age of 20, the youngster never left and  has risen to become one of the finest cricketers of his generation.  Stuart Broad being exposed at 20 and becoming a semi-regular appearance in the England T20, ODI and test squads allowed spectators and media to follow and fall in love with this player.  This is what domestic cricket lacks, the opportunity for us to fall in love with players whilst they develop and expand, whilst they seduce us.  

There are so many 'Stuart Broad's' out there, every county team has one, but with such a strong England squad there's no opportunity to captivate.  A player like Jonny Bairstow, wowed in his 'out-of-the-park' style innings during the first ODI against India last summer, could be the next great romantic, but a space in the England side so hard to come by, players must now rely on love at first sight.  This is difficult and though so memorable to watch, Bairstow hasn't made me fall in love, hasn't seduced me to his playing, hasn't made me turn to Yorkshire to watch more.  Cricket writers, both amateur and professional, need to identify the 'Stuart Broads' and give them a platform to make us fall in love with the game all over again.  

For me it's Surrey.  A side with young players, it's a perfect place to go looking for cricket romance.  Rory Hamilton-Brown, the youngest Surrey captain for 138 years, is just one of their 'Stuart Broads's'.  The astonishing thing is that Hamilton-Brown has never had a first class England cap, no opportunity to seduce the widest audience of International cricket.  It is up to the media, the journalists and the bloggers to bring the domestic teams out of their hard-to-get days, to put them out there to allow the cricket and the cricketers to sell their game.  Money isn't needed for advertising, a subtle injection of romance is all that's required to allow Hamilton-Brown and his peers to begin their romance, a romance that would bring in more spectators, sell more seats and provide more income.  This is the England of the future, lets allow ourselves to fall in love now and we all know, once a player and their team have seduced us - we never leave.

Surrey's ground the Kia Oval during England v India 2011 test series.  All five days of this test match were sold out.  

Surrey's ground, the Kia Oval showing large numbers of empty seats for a domestic match.  

  

England's best Soap Opera: the Comeback Kings

Firstly, please excuse my long absence from the blogging scene.  Just because I haven't been writing doesn't mean I haven't been watching! What a winter.

I think my views of the Pakistan series are pretty well voiced.  I felt that England should have taken more risks, played around with their failing batting order and looked outside of the box.  Evidently my radical thinking (echoed by the great Bob Willis on SkySports) was not the way Flower and Strauss wanted to play.  Cowering behind the sofa, I couldn't watch and frankly I didn't want to. 

Bring on the ODI series.  Not usually the cry from an England fan, particularly when the opposition is Pakistan, however where on earth did the form come from?  Whitewash victory is just what we needed to reconcile the awful test performance.  

As I am writing England are still world number one, but boy did they make it interesting.  Under the watchful eye of huge traveling support, the England test cricket soap opera began.  I seem to be attracted to teams who like to keep things interesting, as a Liverpool supporter I'm used to 'expecting the unexpected' and when it all looks too good to be true, it often is.  During the first Sri Lankan test, my very proud half South African friend, Jacob Kaye, knew as well as I did that if England didn't win, South Africa would steal our world number one spot.  Although Jacob would never admit it, the smile on his face made me realize that if we lost our ranking he'd never let me hear the end of it and that my university cricket conversations would be ruined....at least till the summer!

England left it till the very last minute to save my cricket conversations.  Sri Lanka taking the early advantage, England had to win the second test.  Why, oh why do the teams I support always have to be down and out before they bring something back?  The comeback came from a surprising source, KP.  Pietersen, who has played dismally against spin all winter and who's presence at the crease changes the attitude of the batsman at the other end (I forget exactly when, but I have recollections of Cook's attitude changing when KP entered the arena , Cook was noticeably worried for his team-mate at the other end) and it was not the obvious 'comeback king'.  But, his 151  from 165 balls sparked real promise, a player who has struggled so much with spin, particularly left-handed spin, is the one who can dig deep enough and perform - a really cricketer!  Granted, Pieterson fell to an LBW, but his performance was inspired.

I still got stick from Jacob, who reminded me that KP is a South African rather than a true Englishman - but I could cope with that.  As long as KP and our other 'South African' players have  lions on their chest, I don't care much about the 'are they really English?' chirps.  Lions are lions.

Swann finished the job with a tremendous 6-wicket haul, England could breathe a sigh of relief.  With our world number one ranking in tact, it was only the batsman's egos that were broken.  We had survived a winter storm that was both unnecessary and embarrassing.

Hopefully this summer will be more like the last.  Our form at home is dramatically better than our form in the subcontinent.  But, South Africa (tests, ODIs and T20) will be tough and with the West Indies (tests and T20) and Australia (T20) also visiting, every fan is shouting: "Get your act together England - you're not the football team!"      

PAKISTAN v ENGLAND: What would a woman do? An England re-jiggle!

I would like to start by excusing my recent silence, as a student the occasional essay comes your way.  However, following England over the last week or so, it could be interpreted as stunned silence.  I'm sure I was there that day England were handed the world number one title at the Oval, but I'm worried it may all have been a dream.  Are these players really the same bunch of guys who crumpled both Australia and India this summer?

Rather than mull over statistics, I want to discuss the individuals who didn't step up to the mark in the last test match.  You can stare at England's dismal scores all you like, but all it will do is depress any self respecting cricket fan.  How can the world number one team be bowled out for so little?  I wasn't panicking about the situation, after all everyone has a bad few days at the office, until I read in the Telegraph that if England loose the next test match and South Africa beat New Zealand 3-0, England loose world number 1.

PANIC!!!!

Flower talks of dropping batsmen, and by god does he needs to.  Morgan, Pietersen and Bell need to go.  They've proven to us all that they are not able to play in these conditions and against the Pakistan spin machines; they need to be left out.  Also, the omission of such huge names will send shock waves through the England camp, and perhaps provide the very much needed 'kick up the backside'.  I know the question is who replaces them, those waiting in the wings are all bowlers, so put them in and move the order around.  The problem with England in their 3rd innings is that nobody felt free enough to play some shots.  So, I think England need a re-jiggle, a drastic one, and if it were up to me this is how it would look:

1. Strauss                                  7. Swann
2. Cook                                    8. Anderson
3. Trott                                     9. Panesar
4. Broad                                  10. Onions
5. Proir                                    11. Finn
6. Bopara

Broad needs to come in earlier and be the batsman who plays some shots, building up the runs whilst the traditional top order hold a wicket at the other end.  England needs someone to be free and adventurous and Broad is usually their man, so coming in when only 3 wickets are down, should give him the confidence to think big.  We know Bopara can bat, and he's a useful bowler - he deserves to fill a space.  Onions and Finn are the other new editions, both can bowl well and would provide something new for Pakistan to face, especially as Pakistan seem to have Swann's game all sussed out.  Yes, this format makes England vulnerable to a quick tail collapse, but if the top 6 can put on enough runs, this shouldn't be too much of a problem.  Also, seeing as the likes of Swann and Anderson like hitting big - if the top 6 can do well, it will give these two the confidence to go out and think strong.

This is a risky and controversial solution to our problem - but a drastic rethink is what's needed.

Rather than dwelling on what has gone, I wish to dwell on what can be.  We cannot win the series, but what we can do is be brave enough to shake things up a little.  If a risk like this is taken, and pays off, at least a slither of our dignity would be spared.  

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 

PAKISTAN v ENGLAND, 1st Test, Day 2 - The England fight back begins

The England dressing room were all too aware that they have not made this easy for themselves.  On the second day in Dubai, Pakistan were confident, taking to the crease with an intact batting line up.  It was a day like today where England had to show how and why they are world number one.

Play began with two wickets being taken in the morning session.  Hafeez fell to LBW by Swann, having contributed a very useful 88 runs & Stuart Broad led the fight back, by taking the wicket of the second top order batsman, Umar.  Broad delivered with venom to bowl Umar out for 58 - one of the key wickets of the day.  Broady may look baby-faced but when England needs someone to push that little bit harder & dig that little bit deeper, Broad is usually the man for the job.  His second wicket came in the form of, Azhar Ali and Pakistan's number 3 was another important batsman to remove from the crease. 

Strauss' captaincy is also worth a mention.  He showed good vision by bringing on Johnathon Trott to bowl from the Emirates Road end, and Trotty took Pakistan's number 4 by LBW, a brilliant confidence booster for the part-timer.  Trott also has reason to be disappointed; Strauss had removed the slip cordon which, if in place, would have provided his second wicket of the day.  Anderson opened his account in the session before tea, gaining his first wicket from a wonderful Prior catch, after Shafiq came feeling for the ball, guiding it low to the right-hand side of the keeper. 

The real England fight back came in the evening session.  Throughout the day the English bowlers were able to keep Pakistan's lead low.  Strauss' use of Tremlett & Trott to bowl the remaining overs before the new ball was an inspired move, it reduced Pakistan's run-rate to just over two, but the most significant breakthrough came from Anderson & Swann striking late.  Together, the off field partners in crime, took the fight to Pakistan - all guns blazing.  In the penultimate over of the day Swann sent a ball down the off-side to Misbah-ul-Haq, which turned and hit the pad.  Umpire Billy Bowden gave 'not out' & from initial viewing the ball appeared to be just missing leg-stump.  England reviewed, and low and behold the ball was hitting the top of the stumps - Swann had his second wicket & highlighted the importance of the DRS review system in the modern game.  Anderson was handed the ball for the final over of the day, and struck with the very last ball - hitting Rehman's off-stump.       

England played with determination, keeping Pakistan grounded.  Still Tremlett did not look aggressive enough & with 0-48 he is looking like a wasteful bowler, which in England's position, they cannot afford.  At the end of play Pakistan lead by 96 with 3 wickets remaining, suggesting that today the tide turned more in England's favour.  Tomorrow, Stauss must look to his bowlers for fast wickets & be prepared to once again face Ajmal.  

Statistics of Note, Day 2: 

Pakistan 288-7 (104.3 overs) lead by 96  

Trott 1-16

Anderson 2-57

Broad 2-72

Swann 2-89 

Hafeez 88 

Umar 58

Misbah-ul-Haq 52

PAKISTAN v ENGLAND: 1st Test, Day 1 - It's all about one man & Pakistan

It seems to be English tradition to have a batting collapse on the first day - but even by England's standards this was a bad one.  Torn apart by Pakistan's right-arm offbreak bowler, Saeed Ajmal, England were suffocating under the tight fielding on this first day.  The Dubai Sports City stadium offered up so much before play with talk of huge scores and balls turning - not today.  Instead, England's run-rate was less than 2.

The top order batsmen collapsed in real style, beginning with Alastair Cook, and it is fair to say the majority of the dismissals were down to batsman error.  The England batsmen appeared to have no answer to Ajmal and from a team that prides themselves on preparing for test series through detailed analysis of opposition bowling styles, this was particularly worrying. Pietersen, Morgan and Broad reminded me of  playing a video game for the first time, when you're unsure of the controls, making you swing and miss too early or late.  These three, and the others who fell to the mercy of  Ajmal, miscalculated the timing of the ball and played the reverse-sweep far to early, resulting in their dismissal to LBW.  

Nonetheless, only Matt Proir stood up and gave Ajmal and Pakistan a fight.  It was Prior's 70 not out that saved England and got them the score of 192, which in retrospect is a higher score than expected at tea.  Prior built a good partnership with Swann and Anderson, which allowed both of these lower order batsmen to come and play some shots.  The most exciting batting of the day came from Anderson & Swann, who used the pace of the ball nicely to push shots over the top for 4.  

Pakistan's performance must be commended.  They took to the field eager to play and stood firm in their positions.  The field was strong - not allowing England to break through to the boundary.  Pakistan were confident and along with the outstanding Ajmal, challenged England.  I believe their battle had the element of surprise; England did not expect Pakistan to be so strong, that was obvious, and the fact that Pakistan have started their first innings with confidence and determination, suggests that it will be an uphill struggle tomorrow.  England's bowlers must push the Pakistani batsmen back deep into their crease, to push the balance of power in England's favour.  I felt Tremeltt, despite bowling well, wasn't showing enough aggression with his bouncers, as Hafeez and Umar left them to sail over the top of the stumps.  England need wickets and fast!  

Statistics of Note, DAY 1:
England won toss & chose to bat first

England 192 - all out (72.3 overs)

Pakistan 42 - 0 (15.0 overs)

Ajmal 7-55

Prior 70

Swann 34