Author: thelegglance

England vs Pakistan: 2nd ODI

thelegglance32 Comments

No form of cricket can guarantee close matches or excitement, and the first game somewhat petered out in a drizzly mess.  But even though England’s win was ultimately confirmed by Messieurs Duckworth Lewis and Stern, there was little doubt which way the match was going anyway.  It was a curiously old fashioned game, at least as far as Palistan were concerned, as their innings brought back memories of England under Flower and Moores as much as anything.  260 may even be a “winning score” as far as the statisticians are concerned (probably not) but England were in complete cruise control throughout.

The second match therefore will be interesting to see how the visitors look to approach it, for England look a real force in the one day format, one who seem quite capable of reaching another hundred on top of that.  That’s not to say they can’t fall in a heap, for the shorter the game, the higher the level of risk, and the greater the opportunity for collapse.  One of the more pleasing things about this England side is that when that does happen, they regard it as an occupational hazard, shrug it off and continue in the same vein.

Yet if the batting is doing well, it was the bowling, or more specifically, one element of the bowling, that caught the eye.  Mark Wood has shown he has ability and pace before, but his entire England career to date has been while labouring with the presence of an ankle problem.  Having been away for quite some time getting it sorted, he is now back – and my, how he is back.  His pace is right up there with anyone, and it was startling to read that he feels he’s not fully there yet and could get quicker.  It may yet be the best news of the summer providing he suffers no reaction.

In the days between these matches England confirmed that they will tour Bangladesh this autumn.  The ECB rarely earn praise from anyone – well, apart from one or two for whom they can do no wrong no matter what – but while it is impossible to judge the rights and wrongs of this particular decision, they do deserve praise for at least trying wherever possible to ensure these tours go ahead.  It’s not the first time, back in 2008 after the Mumbai terror attacks, England returned to the country, ensuring that normality was restored in sporting terms.

Again, we must trust the Foreign Office and the ECB’s own advisors that this particular decision is the correct one, but assuming it is so, it would still have been easy to use the security situation to cancel it.  Indeed, there must be a suspicion that other countries may well have done so, and thus with the proviso that we do not know the reality of the decision, the ECB do deserve credit for not using it as an excuse to avoid going.  Notwithstanding Pakistan’s wonderful rise to the top of the Test rankings, it would have been crippling to Bangladesh had it got the go ahead.

The ECB have told England’s players that they can drop out of the tour with no effect on their careers, but whilst this is a good thing to say, the truth of the matter is that for all but those absolutely certain of their place, it means nothing.  Players who do well are always going to be in pole position, the man in possession has the advantage.  It means that for some, there will be some soul searching about whether to make themselves available or not.  It is hard to think how else the ECB could have done things, they may be many things, but they are not fools, and they will be as aware of this as anyone.

Finally in other news Somerset have announced the prices for the T20 international between England and South Africa next year.  It is the first time they will host an international in 30 years, and they seem determined to make the most of it, by announcing ticket prices of between £60 and £80.  It’s not the biggest ground, it is a big event for them.  But it is still an outrageous price.  There seems little doubt they will sell out, and therefore in commercial terms it’s justifiable.  Yet once more it is those who support the game being used as a cash cow and nothing else.  Commercially sensible yes.  Grasping and greedy, also yes.  I trust they’ll use the financial bonanza wisely.

2nd ODI comments below

England vs Pakistan: 1st ODI preview

thelegglance28 Comments

It’s excitingly poised at 8-8 in the Super Series as we go into the ODI portion of Pakistan’s tour.  What?  You weren’t aware? Come now, this is what makes cricket relevant and modern, this is how we provide context for the game.  Perhaps it was lost in pointless discussion about such things as the extraordinary achievement by Pakistan in going to number one in the world Test rankings.  I mean, who cares about such irrelevancies like that?  Who would note that a side who haven’t been able to play so much as a home match in years have gone to the top of the pile?  No, no, there are bilateral trophies, and Super Series that are far more important.

OK, although the sarcasm mode is deserved, in reality we do have some more cricket coming.  And somewhat peculiarly historically, we go into an ODI series where England are the ones who have been playing vibrant cricket, while Pakistan are much less certain about where they are and what they’re doing.  A comfortable enough win over Ireland gave them a decent warm up, but with good weather forecast, it’s more about whether Pakistan can match England’s batting firepower than anything else.

There’s no question that as far as this blog goes, Test matches are where it’s at.  In the baldest terms, the number of hits received for ODIs is far below those of Test matches.  Personally, I find them enjoyable enough to watch, but rather instantly forgettable.  That’s illustrated as much as anything by having to remind myself of how England have done in recent outings, and vaguely trying to remember who the hell is playing.

It’s not to say that the shorter forms of the game are unimportant, for the financial realities are always that 50 or especially 20 over cricket is where the finances are most supported.  There’s an article in there which I will return to at some point soon about why there’s no excuse for one form of the game to be in trouble, it can only be through lack of care or deliberate action, it’s just that World Cups aside, they don’t live long in the memory.

It’ll be on, I’ll pay attention to it, and I’ll likely enjoy it.  Just don’t ask me in a week what the scores were, because I won’t remember.

Comments on the game below!

Hand me Down a Solution – Series Review

thelegglance38 Comments

In the early 1980s when growing up, summer holidays meant tuning in to BBC1 at 10:55 to watch the Test matches.  Come the end of summer, the feeling of melancholy at the conclusion of a series was always strong, with the only subsequent cricket being the end of season Lords one day final, which was akin to pretending to enjoy the sloe gin from the drinks cabinet when everything else has been consumed.  Times change, and cricket now is unending, where the finish to the Tests is merely a pause before the one day internationals begin, and then England go on tour somewhere.  In the same way that the end of the football season is a mere pause in hostilities, the end of the Test match cricket summer no longer normally carries so much power to create sadness.

And yet with this one, perhaps there is a little more in the way of regret at the passing of the season.  This is probably as much as anything due to Pakistan, who have been exceptional tourists, and thoroughly merited their victory at the Oval to draw the series.  Four Tests also offered up the reminder as to why a five Test series remains the best possible format, provided the series is a competitive one.  Few cricket fans would object to a decider for this one, yet it is a lament that so often is heard and never acted upon.  It was at least better than the ridiculous two Test “series” against New Zealand last year.

What the drawn series did do was silence those who were quoting the article of faith about England holding all the bilateral trophies.  It isn’t that doing such a thing isn’t a meritorious achievement, it’s just that something that no one had ever noticed or paid attention to before somehow became the highest possible achievement in the game in their eyes.  As with so many things, the context is all, noting success is a good thing, going overboard about it is not.  Doubtless, the bilateral series record will now return to being what it always was – a minor matter.

Given their troubled previous tour to England, Pakistan clearly intended to win hearts and minds this time around, and in that they succeeded.  It is a remarkable turn around for a side who it is probably fair to say were one of the least popular touring sides in England; they played with a joie de vivre that reminds everyone that cricket – even in its modern, money is all important guide – is a game, a pastime, and above all fun; the reason all of these players first picked up a bat or a ball in the first place.  The repeated press ups may have irritated the England players, but it amused the spectators every time.  Quite simply, the Pakistan team looked like they were enjoying themselves.  One particular moment comes to mind, a catch by Hafeez (who didn’t exactly have many high points) caused a young boy in the crowd to wildly celebrate, being picked up by the TV cameras and leading the player to end almost doubled over laughing, and applauding his young supporter.  It was a delightful moment, and one that re-inforced the image of a team comfortable with where and who they are at last.

Misbah ul-Haq remains under-appreciated in his homeland, but elsewhere he is approaching hero status for cricket fans.  The achievements are verging on the extraordinary, with Pakistan now having the most successful period in Test cricket in their history under his leadership.  It is quite exceptional in itself, and given his age, truly remarkable.  Misbah has made Pakistan competitive, and above all given his team their self-respect.  If it has to be that it is something more recognised for what it is abroad, then that is a pity, but it is still worth recognising.

So what of England?  The first part of the summer was routine enough, a Sri Lankan side shorn of its great players was despatched with little difficulty, but Pakistan proved to be something of a harder nut to crack.  This in itself came as something of a surprise to some, with many predictions of a comfortable England win before the series began.  Yet Pakistan were always going to be a threat, and in advance of the series the assessment of it being between two sides with good seam attacks, and patchy batting proved to be ultimately more or less right.  England had the advantage in the middle and lower order, while Pakistan had a (much) better spinner at their disposal.

Statistics can be gleefully misleading at the end of a series though: take the comparison between Moeen Ali and Yasir Shah, both of whom averaged over 40 in the series with the ball.  Yet Yasir was instrumental in both Pakistan wins, while Moeen – with the ball at least – certainly was not.  This isn’t a particular surprise of course, for Yasir is an outstanding bowler, and even the most adoring fan of Moeen would never make that claim.  But it does highlight the point that players can have an impact in a game disproportionate to their overall figures, perhaps we could call it the Ben Stokes effect.

England did have some real successes in the series, Moeen himself batted absolutely beautifully, that dreadful slog at Lords proving to be very much the exception.  It’s notable in his case that that particular dismissal didn’t stop him from using his feet to the spinners, most gloriously on that final morning at Edgbaston where in the first over of the day he served notice that England were going all out for the win.  That Moeen can bat is not especially surprising news, that his batting improves out of all recognition when given one of the batting spots rather than being in the tail perhaps is.  Either way, and given that England have limited spin bowling options – presumably Adil Rashid will come in for the India tour – his series will count as a success, albeit with a couple of major caveats.  One item of note with Moeen’s bowling is that although his average is certainly not the best, his strike rate is quite decent, comparable with Nathan Lyon for example.  Batsmen do try to attack him, and do get out to him.  In the absence of a truly top class spinner of the calibre of a Graeme Swann, replacing Moeen with another off spinner is unlikely to deliver markedly improved results.  It doesn’t mean defending Moeen irrespective, but it does mean cutting England’s cloth according to what they have.  A decade ago Ashley Giles received no end of criticism for not being Shane Warne, but he did a job, and did it well.  Chasing rainbows is not the means to a successful side.

Joe Root finished top of the batting averages, largely due to that astounding 254.  Aside from that it will represent a mildly frustrating series for him, getting in and getting out with annoying frequency.  An illustration of just how good Root has become is shown by the feeling that the series was a slightly unsatisfying one despite over 500 runs at more than 73.  Such is the penalty for excellence, for brilliance is expected every time.  But Root himself alluded to the irritation of getting out when set, so it is less a criticism, and more a matter of the player being so good now that he can deliver even more than he currently is.  He has a decent shout of being England’s best batsman in many, many years.

Cook too had a mixed time of it, despite a strong set of figures over the series.  He looked somewhat rusty in the first Test, but thereafter his biggest problem appeared to be that his form was too good if anything.  He rattled along, having the highest strike rate of anyone bar Moeen, a most un-Cooklike state of affairs.  He was fluent and even playing cover drives, which tends to be one of the best indicators of an in form Cook.  That would then bring about his downfall – seeing him caught at point off a skewed drive, or dragging pull shots onto the stumps is not something that is expected.  Most batsmen will tell you that they score the most runs when they are just shy of their very best, where there is a degree of caution in the strokeplay.  When feeling on top of the world, more chances are taken, and getting out is more likely.  It is impossible to measure, but the suspicion has to be that this was the case with Cook this time.  Still, a good series for him.

Jonny Bairstow was the other major plus point in the batting order.  He’s the leading run scorer in Tests in the world this calendar year (by dint of having played far more than anyone else, it has to be an Englishman) and scored heavily without ever going on to a truly match defining innings at any point.  Four fifties and no hundreds represents a decent return from a player in excellent form, but perhaps his most notable achievement was muting the comment about his wicketkeeping.  He hasn’t turned into a great ‘keeper overnight, and probably never will, but it is tidier, and with fewer errors than in previous series.  He pulled off a couple of decent catches too.  His wicketkeeping remains a work in progress, but the reality is that his runs balance that out; the age old debate about a specialist keeper versus an auxiliary batsman who keeps has long been settled, in favour of the batting.  Bairstow will make mistakes, but the more he keeps – and it does need to be remembered that much of his career he has been essentially part-time – the better he will get.  There have been some suggestions that he move up the order, effectively to compensate for the flaws in England’s batting, but it would be a big ask to expect him to do that, especially in the heat of India or Bangladesh.  Weakening another player to make up for the failures of others has never been a solution.

England have become something of a team of all rounders in the last eighteen months, and the player who was widely felt to be more of a bits and pieces player than a true example of the breed is Chris Woakes, who probably had the best series of anyone.  He batted well enough, making a maiden half century, but his bowling was a revelation to many.  Yet Woakes has an excellent first class record with both bat and ball, and he was hardly the first player to find the transition to Test cricket a challenge.  The demand for instant success clouds the reality that an immediate impact guarantees nothing, and other players can take time to adjust.  One fine series doesn’t mean that he’s a fixture for the next few years, but he’s started to look the part with the ball for a while; in South Africa he bowled with very well yet was spectacularly unlucky.  This time he got the rewards.  By all accounts he has worked exceptionally hard on his bowling, putting on an extra few mph and improving his control.  Players can and do learn – it is not unlikely that James Anderson is a rather useful resource – and Woakes’ success is a reward for being patient with him.

Stuart Broad is a bowler who attracts considerable ire and much comment, despite a record over the last couple of years that compares with anyone.  This series certainly wasn’t his best, and mutterings about his apparent habit of coasting resurfaced.  Yet 13 wickets at 28.61 is hardly a catastrophic return, and if that now counts as coasting, then it merely demonstrates what a fine bowler he has become.  It was a relatively quiet series for him because he didn’t have one of those spells where he becomes completely unplayable, rather than because he struggled at any point.  Broad is the focal point of the England bowling attack these days, despite Woakes having a better time of it this time.  Criticism of Broad is absurd, he is a fine bowler who had a series that was quiet by his standards.  The “by his standards” is the key.  Where there can be severe disappointment with him is with his batting.  It has completely fallen apart, and the pity of that is that for so long he looked like someone who, if never destined to be a true all rounder, looked a player capable of meaningful contributions on a regular basis.

Anderson too had a reasonably quiet but still moderately effective series.  He didn’t take a whole lot of wickets, but maintained excellent control throughout.  He made more headlines for having a preposterous strop at being rightly sanctioned for running on the track than anything else.  What can be said about him is that at 34 he remains an outstanding athlete, with few obvious signs of diminishing powers.  Assuming he carries on for another few years he will doubtless get slower, but he is a clever bowler, and one who will use the skill developed over a career to take wickets.  At the veteran stage of his cricketing life, he is still a valuable asset.

As for Steven Finn, his raw figures look horrible, but at times he bowled well and with pace.  He’s a difficult one to assess, forever making progress and then regressing.  At 27 he should be coming into his peak, but the nagging worry that he is not going to fulfil the potential he first showed is very much there.  Two away series (assuming Bangladesh goes ahead) in Asia are unlikely to show him at his very best, given that the rampaging, lightning fast Finn of the past now appears to be something we won’t see again.  He is once more at the crossroads, and which way his career goes is open to question.

The bowling overall looks in reasonable shape, the nucleus is there as it has been for some years, and if the spin side of it looks a bit thin, it’s an issue that applies to the English game as a whole more than anything.  Unfortunately the same can’t be said of the batting, for despite the good performances of those mentioned, that they were required to do almost all of it as the rest of the top order had poor series.

Ballance was the best of them, and he at least has a strong record to fall back on.  His return to Test cricket doesn’t appear to have shown any major changes in his technique, beyond batting a little more out of the crease than he used to.  He didn’t appear out of his depth, did get a few good deliveries and made one score of note.  Of all the players who had weak series, he still appears to be best equipped for Test cricket.  Yet the jury remains out on him, as to whether that slightly idiosyncratic style is going to allow him to make a true success of the longest form of the game.  He probably did enough to retain his place in the side, if only because others did worse, but he needs significant runs soon if he is not to be another to shine brightly but briefly.

Hales and Vince are the two who are most at risk, yet for differing reasons.  Hales doesn’t have the purest technique, but was brought into the side to provide a contrast with Alastair Cook’s accumulative style of batting.  Yet it was Cook who was by far the more fluent, while Hales appears to be attempting to bat like a traditional opener.  It’s hard to understand the thinking behind this, for Hales is never going to be as competent at that as others are, his strengths are in playing his shots, taking the attack to the bowling and giving England a fast start.  Once in, he is one of the most destructive players around, but whether it is his own decision, or it is pushed from above, it seems to be the worst of all worlds, a pedestrian style and a technique that doesn’t stand up to the rigours of Test cricket.  It would be easier to comprehend if he was trying to be England’s answer to David Warner, and whether that succeeded or failed, it would at least be an experiment worth trying.  As things stand, it’s hard to grasp what the intention is.

Vince in contrast looks lovely, full of gorgeous and stylish shots, only to fall repeatedly to a fundamental weakness outside off stump.  The health enforced retirement of James Taylor created a vacancy in the middle order, but it wasn’t a position that had carried much strength anyway.  Vince looks every inch the Test cricketer right up to the point he gets out, then rinse and repeat next time around.  Michael Vaughan for one has insisted that Vince be given more time but the ISM factor there lowers the credibility of someone whose views ought to be credible.

What that means is that there are three players in the top five not pulling their weight, an impossible situation for any team.  The only reason it hasn’t proved catastrophic is because of the strength of the middle and lower order.  When England’s top five (with two obvious exceptions) are collectively referred to as the “first tail” it’s clear there is a problem.  Of course, not for the first time the selectors have made a rod for their own backs.  As with the Pietersen situation it requires replacements to be notably better than those that have been dropped, and the discarding of Ian Bell can hardly be said to have been an unqualified success.  The problem here is not the dropping of a player, it so rarely is.  Bell had struggled for a while and not selecting him for the South Africa tour was a decision that could be justified.  Where England go wrong is in at the very least implying that at no point could they ever have made a mistake, and ignoring any and all criticism that they may have done so.  All teams have to create a space for new players to develop, the issue England have is that 60% of the top five are in that position, something completely unsustainable.  The rather transparent attempt to undermine the selectors in the media by the coincidence of several articles at once proposing the creation of a supremo (like we haven’t been here before) don’t alter the truth that the selectors themselves have a fairly patchy record.

Looked at that way, it is something of a miracle England managed to draw the series at all.  With the five matches in India to come, it is difficult to see how they could get away with these flaws.  The one bright spot is that Ben Stokes will return, and while his batting is not entirely reliable it is at least more so than some currently in the side.  It may well be that by bringing in Rashid and dropping one of the seamers (presumably Finn at this stage) they have a ridiculously strong middle order with Stokes, Bairstow, Moeen, Woakes and Rashid comprimising numbers 5 to 9.  Whether that then compensates for the top is another matter.  There are whispers that Adam Lyth may be recalled to top of the order, or it could be that another young player is thrown in.  Eventually no doubt they will find the right player, but repeated discarding of batsmen doesn’t give too much confidence in the method.

A few last items: It has been a regular topic of complaint on here, but this was surely the summer in which poor over rates finally caused the ICC to take action and stop the theft of spectators’ money.  It would take an extraordinarily insular governing body who didn’t have an issue with it, one that considered paying spectators as nothing other than a resource to be exploited.  Perish the thought.

According to the press, should the Bangladesh series go ahead it will be left to the players to decide whether to go, with no adverse reaction should they decide not to do so.  Nice words, but the reality is always different; it may not be deliberate, but a player has a chance to get into the side by making himself available – equally few but the most comfortable will want to take the chance that someone else comes in and takes their spot.  It’s not meant to be critical, the ECB’s position on this is a reasonable enough one.  But reality intrudes on this – there will be some reluctant tourists.

After that comes India, and a huge challenge for the team.  While it is entirely for monetary reasons, it is still welcome to have a five Test series over there, but 2012 is a long time ago and England will do will to escape with a drawn series, let alone anything better.  Cook will need to be at his very best for one thing, but the batting will need to do far better than it has shown itself capable of in recent times in order to compete.

England are not a bad side at all.  The Test rankings show nothing more than that several teams are capable of beating each other on their day and (especially) in their own conditions.  But for all the talk about whether England could get to number one by beating Pakistan, it’s of no importance if they might drop down the series following.  There is no outstanding side in world cricket quite simply, and the focus on being the best is quite some way away.  Although there is necessarily going to be an England-centric focus on that, it’s no bad thing to have a number of competitive sides.  A bigger issue is the difficulty of winning away for anyone – which is why Pakistan drawing this series is such a creditable result.  They have been delightful visitors.

Oh yes one last thing.  It’s 8-8 in Director, Cricket’s  Big Plan To Make Cricket Relevant Idea.  You hadn’t forgotten had you?

England vs Pakistan: Fourth Test, Day Two

thelegglance47 Comments

We’ve been here before. So far this game is, if not quite a carbon copy, certainly reminiscent of the last match at Edgbaston. England struggled their way to a score that was more or less adequate but no more (again thanks to Bairstow and Moeen) and Pakistan went past it thanks to a century (well, two this time )and will hope to get a decent lead in the morning. 

Of course, all games are different and similarities are somewhat superficial. Moeen’s contribution in particular went beyond useful this time and into the exceptional, a glorious century that turned potential disaster into something half reasonable. This summer his batting has been excellent.  Today however, the weaker side of his game was exposed, as Pakistan attacked his bowling and milked him ruthlessly. This should never really be a surprise, for although he does a competent enough job, and no off spinners are demanding his place, he’s still a batsman who bowls. 

Equally he is hardly the first spinner to have had a tough time against Asian batsmen, especially on a flat surface with the now customary relative slowness. But it did mean that England struggled to maintain control.  

It was a welcome return to form for two of the tourist’s batsmen: Asad Shafiq had something of a nightmare last time out, while Younis Khan has looked downright clueless much of the time this series – an astonishing state of affairs for such a good player. 

Where Pakistan get to tomorrow very much depends on the two currently in. Sarfraz has shown repeatedly this tour that he can bat, while Younis may well extract revenge for being so out of nick, as such performers are wont to do. But there’s not a lot behind them and with a newish ball and one wicket to take before getting into the tail, England may well be batting with no more than a modest deficit.  Given how things have gone, it would therefore be typical of the perversity of it for Pakistan to instead pile on the runs. 

For England Finn showed the first signs in a while of getting his pace back up – it was touching 90mph at times, and Broad wasn’t far behind. But if the bowlers had their gander up, it didn’t transfer to the fielders, as catches went down at fairly regular intervals. Hales was the worst offender, dropping one as easy as they get at gully. It happens, but it didn’t make for a good day for him given his 15% of his match fee disappeared due to him entering the 3rd umpire’s room to argue over his dismissal yesterday. 

Quite what he hoped to achieve by doing that is hard to understand. Why England let him go is even harder to grasp. He’s lucky it was just that relative slap on the wrist based on what was reported. 

Of the four Tests this series, three have been decent. But given Pakistan were in the acendancy last time it’s hard not to expect England to come out on top this time too. These are two flawed sides, but the visitors look slightly the more brittle. We shall see. 

Day three comments below

Guest Post – Andy On Over Rates

thelegglance23 Comments

Given that over rates have been topical in the last Test, and again today, with only 80 overs bowled (counting as 82 with the change of innings) we decided to bring forward a post that we’ve been looking to put up for a little while.  It seemed appropriate, and although it means no report on today, this is rather a report on a problem with Test cricket as it stands.

We’ve always welcomed guest contributions, and this from Andy is in our view a good one.

As always with people who post, treat them fairly, they aren’t the same as us curmudgeons, and remember, they’ve taken the time, their own time, to do this for us for which we are really grateful.

TLG/Dmitri – take it away Andy

england-v-india-august-2007-3rd-test-003-02.jpeg.jpeg

 

Over rates – a ramble

First off I’d just like to say well done to Dmitri et al.  Just writing this article has put me through the mill with the amount of research & number crunching I’ve ended up doing.  Not sure I could do it as regularly as these guys. [enough of that nonsense…ed.]

Anyway – This started off as a comment in reply to something Chris wrote after day 1 of the Edgbaston test (I think, maybe Day 2).  Then it started getting longer and longer so I felt I couldn’t post it into the comments section – so I pinged Dmitri and offered an article for the blog, and so it grew into the monster you are about to read!

(Warning – this article has brought out my inner Nerd (Capital N), but that is not to say I can do maths, use excel properly or that my calculations are correct!!!)

One of the popular gripes of the modern fan is that over rates are rubbish.  90 overs in 6 hours should be more than manageable.  How can they only bowl 86 (day 1) or 81 (day 3).  That is just embarrassing – surely.  But, rather than grumble, I thought I’d look into it (and then bore you all with my findings).

 Begin the Begin

Where to start – well, how about with how long should a cricket match actually take?

I for one was not really sure whether a day’s play is 6 hours, or 90 overs, or how the extra half hour comes into play (this can make a big difference to the number of overs a side gets in), so let’s look at the ICC Standard Test Playing Conditions.

Condition 16.1 deals with the start / end times (I’ll paraphrase because it’s long and wordy).

– The home board determines the start and end times, so long as there are 6 hours play,

16.1.1 – Minimum overs in the day

– Play shall continue until the completion of a minimum target of 90 overs (or a minimum of 15 overs per hour) or the completion of scheduled time (but with no more than 30 minutes extra time).

So basically there should be at least 90 overs a day right.  Well – the Conditions say they can finish when 90 overs are bowled, or when time is up (6 hours), but critically it basically states that there will be no more than 6.5 hours play (assuming no rain/bad light delays – which is a whole other kettle of fish).

The extra half hour in effect mostly offsets the interruptions in play such as the fall of wickets and drinks (we will come back to this below).

 Can’t Get There From Here

Right – so can we get on with over rates now?  Back to the ICC Standard Test Playing Conditions state; (I’ll paraphrase again).

Condition 16.3 – Minimum over rates

The min over rate shall be 15 overs per hour

So in theory you get 4 minutes per over – Plenty of time!  This I think is where people stop reading.

The condition goes on to state;

The umpires should calculate the days overrate at end of the match and will average the rate for the fielding team across both batting innings – accounting for interruptions (such as injuries, drinks, reviews, wickets, timewasting etc).

In other words for everything that happens outside of the ball being bowled, played and fielded – then that time should be accounted for.  It can either be a positive or a negative allowance.  So the fielding side are not punished if the batsmen are deliberately timewasting, likewise it’s obvious if the fielding side are timewasting.  Also, if the rate is slow in the first innings, it could be balanced by the second (this may be important – keep reading to find out).

There are budgeted interruptions/allowances;

  • Wickets get 2 minutes
  • Drinks get 4 minutes (and should be 1 per session)
  • Change of innings lose 2 overs (but only if not taken at a regular break such as lunch/tea)

A review would be unbudgeted in that it could take 30 seconds or 3 minutes – depending on how easy/difficult it is.  I’m sure you can think of many interruptions that just seem to occur in Cricket!  For example – how is Anderson getting removed from the attack by the umpire accounted for?  How long did it take?

So where are we?  In (at most) 6.5 hours official play, we should be seeing 90 overs at on average 4 minutes per over – minus some odds and ends which are allowed to eat into the time.

Horse to Water

What does this mean in the real world then?  Now that the 3rd test has finished I can go and crunch some numbers and see how the over rates work out (can I just say that I wish time were metric as it would make excel so much easier).

We know from the Playing Conditions that the over rate is an average across each innings – not just how many overs are bowled per day or in a single innings, but overs bowled in the match against the time taken – so we have the following;

Pakistan’s over rate (so 1st and 3rd innings when England batted) was;

14.61

England’s over rate (so 2nd and 4th innings when Pakistan batted) was

14.91

Ah ha I hear you say – so the over rate was short and I’ve been short changed, and I’m owed money and the Captain should be banned, right!?!?!

Wwweeelllllll, not so I’m afraid.

These have been calculated based on the wickets falling, official drinks, a guesstimate of 3 minutes per review and no other distractions (even though I’m sure there were plenty… Jimmy…).

Another wrinkle is the ‘change of innings’ loss of 2 overs.  It doesn’t matter after England’s 1st innings (end of day 1), or Pakistan’s 1st innings (tea of day 3).  However the end of England’s 2nd innings was mid-morning on the 5th day – so 2 overs are removed from the required amount of overs to be bowled.  I suspect this is not given to either side in terms of a time allowance (as the 2 overs are lost between the end of one innings and the start of the next), but I could be wrong.  I haven’t included it in the above over rates.

Further to this – A little play with the spreadsheet (like I said, I’m a Nerd, I made a spreadsheet) suggests that there would only need to be 15 minutes of additional deducted time for Pakistan to get to 15 overs per hour for their match average (and only 5 minutes for England).

It’s eminently believable that 15 minutes could be accounted for with those extra drinks, changing gloves, moving the sight screen, or warnings to bowlers etc, especially across almost 3 days of Pakistan bowling.

Side note – Good umpires are supposed to make notes of every delay and its cause so that they can accurately calculate the over rate.  I don’t know if those out in the middle of a test make such notes (you do see them scribbling occasionally) or if they just leave that to the 3rd umpire.

I can well imagine the umpires only really enforcing a minimum over rate ruling if a Captain has been obviously taking the Piss and they cannot gain a bit of time here and there.

 Worst Joke Ever

Looking closer at the data, England’s bowling in the 1st Pakistan innings came out to 14.12 overs per hour– which was the worst innings rate in the match.  England only got near 15 overs per hour due to the exceptionally fast over rate of 16.71 they managed in the 2nd Pakistan innings.  It’s amazing what can be achieved when someone puts their mind to it.  Pakistan’s first bowling innings went at a respectable 15.13 while their 2nd bowling fell to 14.28.

So what are we going to do about day 3 when only 81 overs were bowled?  If I’ve got my spreadsheet working correctly it appears that the days over rate was a measly 13.61 overs per hour (accounting for deductions – but not the big one… Jimmy….).  Now both teams batted so who is to blame for the lack of overs.  Well, England bowled at 13.53 overs per hour while Pakistan bowled at 13.73 overs per hour.  Neither is great – but one is worse than the other.

But as I’ve just spent the last however many pages telling you – whether you like it or not, this doesn’t matter as it is the match rate that counts…

 TL:DR

A Match is targeted for 90 overs, but the Playing Conditions state a game must finish after 6.5 hours – no matter what, and the fielding captain is not at risk of punishment so long as they have gone along at 15 overs per hour after allowances have been made for wickets, reviews etc (or whatever else the Umpire has decided to allow or ignore – depending on how rude any given team is I assume).

Which is not to say that it is fair to the fans that they don’t bowl 90 overs in a day…. Sorry Chris, you weren’t expecting an actual answer were you…

Please correct me if I have read/interpreted anything incorrectly.  I’m far from an expert.  Thanks for indulging me and well done to anyone who spotted the REM song titles.

Bonus section

If you have skipped to the end for the conclusion – you have gone too far, go back a bit, if not, you are in for some more fun…

So, we know that there should be a minimum 15 overs per hour (over the full days play), but what happens when this is breached?

From the ICC Players Code of Conduct

Condition 2.5 (and Appendix 2) – Minimum over rate offences (for test matches)

It is a minor offence if the over rate is up to 5 overs short

It is a serious offence if it is more than 5 overs short

For a 1st Minor offence the Fielding Captain is fined 20% of his fee per over that is short, while the players are fined 10% (I assume this is all the players not just bowlers or something silly).

For a 2nd Minor offence (within 12 months) the captain and players receive the same fine but the captain is suspended for one match (of the same format).

For a serious offence the players get the above fine for the first 5 overs, then a 20% fine for the overs missing beyond the first 5 overs.  The captain however starts accumulating (insert Jaws music here) Suspension Points.

Now, the Code doesn’t say the captain gets any fine for serious offences, but as he is a player – does he qualify for the fine in the above paragraph?  Who knows, I guess we will have to wait for it to happen to see!

Suspension points are a whole different topic and are wwwaaaayyyy to much of a diversion for this article.

 Endgame

England were last fined (in a test match) for the 5th Ashes test at the Oval last year for being ‘2 overs short of target’ – I’m guessing that the ICC calculate overs short whereas I’ve looked at how much time the umpires would need to account for… Maybe I should go and look at that match and bore you with those numbers as well….<tumble weed/>

Further reading

The ICC Playing Conditions and Code of Conduct are buried under the publications section of the website.  If you fancy a nap, they are just the thing.

I also came across these websites are I was reading up.  I wish to thank Thatscricket and cricketingview for researching an area of cricket that I am interested in (see what I’ve done there….Cough….FICJAM….Cough).

In all seriousness, they helped break down a few things and while my post and these tread similar ground, I hope I have managed to add value without copying!

http://www.thatscricket.com/news/2012/02/20/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-slow-over-rate.html

http://cricketingview.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/over-rates-in-cricket.html

England vs Pakistan: 3rd Test Day Five

thelegglance77 Comments

Pakistan must be wondering how they contrived to lose this game. Having been 257-2 one ball before the close of play on day two, a mere 40 runs behind England, they would surely have expected to go on to win the match. Even though their first innings wasn’t as big as it could have been, it still left them with a lead in excess of 100.

Indeed, although England wiped off the deficit without loss, they were soon back in some kind of trouble at effectively 23-2 and again though less so at effectively 179-5. That turned out to be the final chance to win the game, from there Moeen and Bairstow took the match away from Pakistan and by the start of play today a draw was about the best they could hope for.

Cook has not been especially brave with his declarations during his captaincy but there could be few complaints (whatever the eventual result) with today. The plan was clearly to throw the bat and declare as soon as possible and Moeen rather helped by taking the first over from Yasir for 20. He might be a flawed player (albeit one who has had a great year to date with the bat) but he is exceptionally unselfish. He could have a better batting average than he does by quietly ensuring the red ink, but many a time he has got out desperately seeking runs when batting with the tail. Today his immediate assault ensured that it was quite clear England were going for the win.

344 was the nominal target, but despite a pitch that was still flat, and despite the usual panic about Pakistan making it, the history of the game makes it clear that such targets are unlikely in the extreme. But there was no reason at all the tourists couldn’t bat out the day, the surface showed no signs of breaking up – if anything the only concession to four days of play was for it to have got slower and lower.

When batting out time a key requirement is to have a good start, but Hafeez once again decided to give England a boost. Having slapped a long hop to point in the first innings, this time he decided to hook Broad straight to Woakes at fine leg. Batsmen make mistakes, it’s part of the game, but this was poor batting and given the circumstances, somewhat irresponsible.

Still, there was a recovery from there, Azhar Ali joining the hugely impressive youngster Sami Aslam. For a time, all seemed serene and England were, if not flat, somewhat subdued.

It was not long before tea that all hell broke loose, four wickets falling for a single run as Anderson, Finn and Woakes ripped through the middle order. Edgbaston is the most raucous, noisy ground on the English circuit, and when the home team gets on top – especially with the ball, it creates an air of expectancy and certainty that another wicket is round the corner. Enough sportmen are quick to say that the crowd can be the twelfth player for it to be obvious that this does make a difference, and it takes a strong team to resist that kind of atmosphere.

When Finn (who bowled at times with something approaching his old hostility) persuaded Sami to leave a ball that darted back in to the crash into his off stump, it was all over bar the shouting. An entertaining last wicket partnership merely delayed the inevitable slightly.

Make no mistake about it, this was a fine England victory. The lower order strength in batting rescued them from an unpromising position, and when the seamers get some shape through the air, they look lethally dangerous. England’s bowlers are superb exponents of making the most of favourable conditions, where they look toothless is when there’s nothing to help them, for they don’t have the raw pace or hostility to trouble opponents on flat and unhelpful surfaces/conditions. No matter, for all bowling sides can be criticised for the times they don’t succeed, but England do have a useful unit, one that might be completed by a truly Test class spinner. Ah yes, the Moeen question – he has a poor average but it’s worth noting that he also has a very similar strike rate to Nathan Lyon. It’s hard to see anyone else being a radical improvement, which isn’t to say that they shouldn’t be tried of course.

Today they forced a win they had little right to expect. It was great to watch, and a perfect example of why those who talk about four day Tests are quite simply wrong. 

England can go to the top of the ICC Test rankings if they win the final Test. That is perhaps more reflective of a number of flawed sides in world cricket than anything else, for there is no outstanding team in the game, only ones who look good sometimes, dreadful others. A degree of uncertainty is not something to be unhappy about, though winning away in the modern era looks increasingly difficult to achieve.

This was a second good Test from three this series. If the final one of the summer approaches it then it will have been one of the better ones in recent years. It was therefore slightly disappointing that Edgbaston was barely half full for what was likely to be a good final day. This time it wasn’t about the pricing, as £16 for adults was well judged and good value.

It was a weekend, England had a good chance of winning and it was cheap. But not full or close to it. Perhaps this is having unreasonable expectations, misremembering a time when there were queues to get in; certainly the 80,000 spectators over five days seems a number the authorities are pleased with. It just doesn’t feel like cricket can ever again truly capture the public, and that’s a deep concern.

England 2-1 up, and no one has even thought about the score across the whole tour. I suspect most have forgotten about it. Which probably says it all.

One final point. The over rate today was excellent. Indeed had they needed to really push they might have been able to squeeze another in. Funny that. 

England vs Pakistan: 3rd Test, Day Three

thelegglance40 Comments

This blog has been on something of a mission to talk about over rates over the last year or so, but even by the woeful and unpunished standards of that time today was something special.  Only 81 overs were bowled in the day, and that was thanks to the innings change being at tea, otherwise it would have been in the seventies.  That is 10% of the day’s play not completed, and rightfully there has been much comment about it.

Yet it is merely an extreme example of something that is considered acceptable.  In no other sport would this go on – can you imagine a football match finishing after 81 minutes for example?  People have paid good money to go to these matches, and they are being shortchanged repeatedly.  What normally happens is that the match referees take into account delays such as reviews, repairing the bowlers footholes and so on – but this is nonsense.  The additional half hour is there precisely to cater for such things, it is not part of the playing time.

No excuses, no justification.  Today is merely an extreme example of the game not giving a stuff about those who pay to watch.

During what play there was, England actually had an exceptionally good day, perhaps even more so considering it wasn’t one of those magic days where nothing can go wrong.  Instead, on a pitch that has shown no signs whatever of breaking up – indeed it appears to have got flatter – they worked hard and stayed in touch through the dint of those efforts rather than anything extraordinary.  The wickets were shared around with the exception of the luckless Finn who cannot buy one at the present and suffered yet another dropped catch towards the end.

Woakes again was excellent, Anderson was miserly, and Broad showed what he has added to his game in the last few years – namely the ability to keep things tight and pick up wickets even when not at his very best.  Broad in particular is one of those divisive characters who gets criticism despite having a truly outstanding record in recent years.  He has a bowling average of 22.69 in the last two years.  This isn’t just good, it is truly world class.  Yet he still gets stick when he has a less than perfect day.  It’s hard to know what more he could possibly do to win the detractors over.

For Pakistan, a lead of 103 might have been less than they had hoped for, but it would have still been an immensely satisfying outcome from the first innings.  Stats can be manipulated to express a desired outcome, but the one that only 3% of matches have been lost by a side taking a lead of 100 or more does emphasise the strong position in which they found themselves.

It could have been better still – Misbah continued his one man mission to give hope to all those over the age of 40 with another good innings, cut short rather unluckily from an inside edge that deflected off pad and heel back on to the stumps.  After his departure the innings began to fall away, despite the best efforts of the increasingly impressive Sarfraz Ahmed, ultimately left stranded on 46 as the tail fell away.

Flat as the surface was, England were in some difficulty with the match position, and Cook and Hales deserve immense credit for batting to the end of the day without either being dismissed.  Pakistan’s bowling could have been better certainly, but there’s always the temptation to lay the blame on the opposition rather than praising England.  Confining Cook by not bowling anything wide of the stumps for him to cut is extremely easy to say, and not terribly easy to do.  The way Australia managed it in 2010/11 was exceptional – but that is not normal, or cricket would be a far easier game than it ever has been.  Likewise, Hales may have a weakness outside off stump, but he batted with good discipline and reined his instincts in.  In some ways this was his most impressive innings to date in the Test side.

So with England now in the lead with all 10 wickets in hand, it could be argued that the match is now level, and numerically this is so.  But psychology plays a funny role in cricket, and an effective 17-0 it may be, but the effort in getting to parity cannot be overlooked.  England have made a very good start, but 120-0 can all too easily become 150-3; still not a bad innings but in the match context 50-3 is back in trouble.  Therefore for England to get into a good position they will need to bat exceptionally well tomorrow too, they are the vulnerable team in this match still.

The draw is now a good possibility though, with two days remaining it’s hard to see circumstances where England are sufficiently comfortable to be in a position to declare, so at worst Pakistan will likely have less than a day to bat should things go perfectly for England.  Pakistan remain the most likely winners, and perhaps England’s best chance of victory is to be bowled out, sometime towards the end of play tomorrow.  Another 300 would represent a perfect fourth day and be a stiff target.  But another 300 would also require England to bat out of their skins.

This could yet become an exceptionally good Test match.

Day Four Comments Below

 

 

 

 

England vs Pakistan: 3rd Test Day Two

thelegglance57 Comments

Predicting sporting contests is a fool’s game much of the time, though it remains fun to do.  The very essence of sport is that the unexpected happens, otherwise there’d be no point watching or participating.  Nevertheless, the degree of certainty so many had that England would prevail in this match before the start was rather peculiar, apparently based on the undoubted hiding that England dished out at Old Trafford.  When Pakistan put England into bat, it was called defensive, when England were bowled out on day one, it meant that England would do the same to the tourists on day two.  It is as though Pakistan’s victory at Lords never happened, as though they were merely cannon fodder for an all conquering home side to swat aside.  Some even predicted a 7-0 Test summer, as though Pakistan were no more of a threat than Sri Lanka.

England are not out of this game by any means, the late wicket of the excellent Azhar Ali made the day slightly less dreadful than it would have otherwise been, and with Pakistan still 40 runs behind the possibility of early wickets in the morning with a still fairly new ball remains.  But England desperately need those early wickets for if they don’t get them they are in serious trouble, even if Pakistan are the ones having to bat last.  All things being equal, by the time England are batting again, there should be a little more help for the spinners, and one of the notable things about Moeen Ali’s bowling today was that while it wasn’t hugely effective, he was getting bounce occasionally, and bounce is a considerable danger when utilised by an outstanding spin bowler.

It had all started so well, Mohammed Hafeez slapping a wide long hop straight to Gary Ballance at point, but after that it was all Pakistan.  Sami Aslam impressed mightily in only his third Test match – and startlingly, he hasn’t played a first class match since December.  He looked every inch the Test opener; compact, technically sound and perhaps as important as anything else, he left the ball superbly.  England didn’t look like getting him out, so his partner did it for them, running him out with a dreadful call, albeit Sami could have backed up a little more.

Should Pakistan bat well tomorrow, England have another potential problem, for Anderson has received two warnings for running on the pitch and another will see him banned for the rest of the innings.  Anderson himself didn’t behave terribly well, and subsequently said that he’d apologised to both umpires.  Whether that is enough to distract the match referee remains to be seen.

The not out batsman overnight is Younis Khan, and it is hard to decide whether it is amusing or painful to watch his batting travails at present.  He looks hideously out of form and is fighting with himself every ball he faces.  His batting technique is all over the place, jumping in the air constantly, weight distribution somewhere around the inverse of what it should be – yet he is still there.  To see such an elegant player battling this way is both impressive and worrying given his age.  As ever, when a player gets older he is given little time to simply be out of form.

One other small point:  the 90 overs were completed today.  That it is worthy of comment should in itself highlight the problem.

By the close of play tomorrow England could be in serious trouble, if they aren’t batting soon after lunch it will be a difficult match to win; if they aren’t batting by tea they are in dire straits.  Tomorrow is a big day for both teams, but Test cricket can and does turn on a session.  England will need the morning to be one of those.

Day Three Comments Below

 

England vs Pakistan: 3rd Test Day One

thelegglance41 Comments

The trouble with day one of a Test is that unless one side has had a truly grim day every summary at the end of it revolves around it being too early to say whether the score is a good one, the toss decision is a good one or if the pitch is favouring one side in particular.  There are only so many ways to say that it’s in the balance and that after tomorrow we will know more.

Pakistan’s decision to bowl first certainly caused some raised eyebrows, but having bowled England out in a day will have viewed that call as being vindicated.  England’s score of 297 is right in the zone of being enough to be in the game but anything but a good score.  It could become a good score, if England were to bowl Pakistan out cheaply tomorrow, or it could be a bad score if they go past it – self evident of course, but still how it is.  The trouble is, saying as much isn’t about sitting on the fence, there’s nothing but uncertainty around how it will develop from here.

So perhaps the only indication is the relative happiness of the two sides – England trying to convince that it’s not a bad score at all, Pakistan reasonably content with their day’s work.  If that is an indicator then Pakistan could be said to have had the better of the day, and instinctively that feels about right, but not so much so that England are at this stage in any kind of trouble.  Likewise the strong criticism towards Misbah for electing to bowl had dissipated somewhat by the close, again suggesting that decision had – thus far at least – been vindicated.

Certainly England will be a little disappointed with the total, as much due to how many players got in and then got out again as anything else.  Cook started with rare fluency, and while Root’s dismissal was ascribed to overconfidence perhaps the same can be said of the captain.  He appeared in outstanding form, and that is so often when the mistakes come.  No matter, these things do happen, and all cricketers know the frustration of being back in the pavilion having made an error on a day when they felt they could do as they wished in the middle.

Vince again got in and got out, and again it was his flaw outside off stump that did for him.  His 39 was the opportunity to go on and make a meaningful contribution, and he didn’t.  He looks good, then he gets out, and while looking good tends to buy a little more patience (unfairly so, of course, but true nonetheless) than for less attractive players, at some point the chances run out.  Vince needs a good innings urgently, and he’ll be as aware of that as anyone.

Ballance is the antithesis of the stylish player, yet his 70 was the mainstay of the innings.  He scores runs, and while the 142 he’s scored in four knocks he’s since his recall won’t make too many headlines, he looks a far better player than the one dropped last year.  What is interesting there is that the technical adjustment appears minimal, and by some accounts he’s proven entirely resistant to attempts by others to tinker with it.  Confidence and faith in one’s own game is often far more important.  His dismissal was one of those often felt somewhat unlucky, taken down the legside off Yasir Shah by the rather impressive Sarfraz.  It was a good catch too, legside catches standing up are always prized by wicketkeepers – more so than stumpings much of the time.  The angle did allow that rarity when up to the stumps, time to adjust, but it was a significant deflection, and he will be pleased with that one.

Bairstow pushed too hard at a ball that wasn’t really there to drive off the back foot, and Woakes was probably due a failure.  Thus it was Moeen who was principally responsible for getting an unquestionably sub-par 224-6 to a perhaps adequate 297.  There may be better batsmen than Moeen around, but there are few as delightful to watch as he is.  He has that languid (and frustrating style) that is rather reminiscent of David Gower.  One item worthy of note here is that Moeen was today batting at seven.  Helped rather substantially by his unbeaten century against Sri Lanka, his average when batting in that position is now over 80.  The sample remains far too small to draw conclusions either way, but he wouldn’t be the first player to respond to being in the lower order by batting like a lower order player instead of the batsman that he is.

For Pakistan, the man of the day was quite clearly Sohail Khan – a 32 year old playing only his third Test and his first in nearly five years.  His time in the limelight may yet be brief, but there is a special pleasure to be had in seeing an unlikely successful comeback.  That he is a right arm bowler may have worked in his favour, after two Tests with solely left arm seamers for England to negotiate.  But he bowled well, deserved his success and his evident pleasure (and press ups) leaving the field couldn’t help but raise a smile.

The weather forecast for day two isn’t particularly great, and the England bowlers will hope to make the most of the leaden skies. Yet the England total is not big enough to prove decisive barring something extraordinary.  We may well have another good match on our hands.

And finally, the last England wicket fell with five minutes of play remaining, and 86 overs bowled.  Once again the required number of overs in the day fell short, even with the additional half hour, and once again nothing will be done about it.  Given that, we can assume that the ICC approves of literally shortchanging their paying customers.  It remains unacceptable, it remains disgraceful.

Day two comments below

England vs Pakistan: 3rd Test Preview

thelegglance65 Comments

Perhaps the most welcome facet of the build up to this third Test is that with the series at one apiece it is both alive and very much uncertain as to the outcome. England may well have well and truly battered Pakistan last time out, but at least much of the press have learnt some lessons from the past and avoided the “momentum” cliché. One sided matches have little effect on the following game, indeed the Ashes last year seemed to provoke the opposite result. Therefore there is no particular reason to assume this match will go the same way.

Indeed, it could be argued that one very special innings from someone who is becoming a very special player ultimately proved the difference. Cricket is what it always has been, an individual game in a team context. A player can have an impact that decides a match, even if the coup de grace occurs a couple of days later.

Pakistan will feel that they had the worst of the conditions at Old Trafford and were beaten by a sublime knock. It happens, and even if it is a crutch on which to lean rather than the whole story, it still means that a fresh start in the next game ensures all possibilities are there.

That said, Edgbaston is a happy hunting ground for England, and a home victory, subject to weather, is probably where the probabilities lie. But a talented Pakistan attack have the capability of ripping through England in any conditions, particularly given the soft middle order. This match is subject to the same vagaries as all the others – two fine bowling attacks, two brittle batting orders.

Where England have had an advantage is in the lower middle order. That is best defined by the lack of comment that replacing the injured Stokes with Finn rather obviously weakens the batting, but only in the sense that it is now simply strong rather than ridiculously so. Moeen at a likely number eight is still a dangerous customer, though he could do with a few runs after his less than impressive dismissals recently. Woakes of course is simply having a golden run with both bat and ball, in the way all rounders seem to do.

Alastair Cook indicated that England would go in with four seamers and a spinner, suggesting that someone has had a word with the groundsman the pitch is not likely to favour Yasir Shah overly, though proverbially leg spinners do have the ability to turn the ball on glass. He remains a substantial threat, particularly given England’s continued vulnerability to it, Old Trafford notwithstanding.

Edgbaston is one of the more raucous, enjoyable Test venues to visit, and Pakistan should have plenty of support too. If the cricket lives up to the crowd, it might just be something special. Not every Test can be an exceptional one, thus far this series we’ve had one excellent match and one that was too one sided to be truly enjoyable, except for partisan reasons. Here’s hoping we are lucky and get a second good one.

Comments on Day One Below