Alastair Cook

Warping out*

thelegglance49 Comments

One of the differences between those who write on cricket in the media and the poor blogger is that they get to see all the play, are spoiled rotten in the media centre, and are paid for the privilege.  In contrast, the likes of us have to work for a living – and that’s why the dire quality of some of the output from the usuals is so deserving of contempt.

To that end, I was away all of last week, didn’t see a ball of the first three days, saw only the highlights on Friday and finally got to watch some play yesterday.  I did get to listen to a fair bit, while driving around the country, but it’s not quite the same.  And so following the match was somewhat awkward, lots of reading of reports and updates, and generally trying to keep abreast of what is happening.  Since then I’ve gone back and reviewed the highlights to try and get a proper feel for the Test.

I can’t say I’m totally surprised that England won the match, it very much depended on whether England played in the same manner as they’d indicated in the New Zealand series for both Tests and ODIs.  The scale and dominance of the victory on the other hand, that was somewhat unexpected.

Australia’s performance was dire throughout.  More or less anything they could get wrong they did.  As ever, the question is how much of that was their own doing, and how much was down to England’s performance.  What can be said is that after a single Test conclusions shouldn’t be drawn, and yet again we see the crowing from certain quarters.  We’ve been here before, in the last two Test series there was exactly the same arrogance (from the press, not the team), only for England to fall flat on their faces the following game.

First let’s take England.  Cook unquestionably led the side well and captained well.  Good.  Very, very good.  If this is the new captain Cook, then there won’t be too many complaints, he was proactive in the field, changed his bowlers well and generally looked in command throughout.  And this is the point – when the facts change, so does my opinion and perspective, and I don’t have the slightest issue recognising it.  It’s those who blindly insist on a particular view in defiance of what is in front of them that have the problem.  It’s true too that generally there’s been an improvement in how he’s managed the side over this summer.  Quite why that might be is somewhat curious, in terms of what has changed, the only thing that stands out is the replacement of the coach.  I’ve long called for Cook to be in control of the side and live and die by his own actions, not fall back on the backroom staff.  If he’s doing that and doing it well, that is great news.

Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean that the various meltdowns in Australia and here can be forgotten, no matter how some like to pretend they didn’t happen, preferring to stick their fingers in their ears and say they weren’t listening.  What it does mean is that he can look back on this Test with a fair degree of pleasure.  And if continues to captain in that vein then he will reap the plaudits and rightly so.  It’s a matter of whether he does or not that is the question.  He won’t ever be a great captain, but if he’s an adequate one then that is good enough, because up to now he hasn’t been.  Plaudits for this one Mr Cook.

What was particularly striking about the approach was in the second innings.  England were determined to get to a 400+ lead as quickly as they possibly could, and continued to attack even as wickets began to fall.  The sheer jaw-dropping astonishment of seeing an England team do that can’t be overstated.  It certainly seemed to take Australia by surprise.

Initially it didn’t look that way, as England got off to a somewhat sedate start and lost wickets.  In a single Test, that can happen, but it’s something that has occurred a little too often for comfort.  The dropping of Root by Haddin (more on him later) turned out to be fairly critical, as Root took the game to Australia in a way that’s now becoming somewhat familiar.  Before the series began Root was largely written off in much of the Australian media, based on his troubles down under last time.  It was a strange rationale, given that on the same basis Steve Smith could be written off for his performances to date in this country.  I rather doubt it came as a great shock to the Australian team just how good he is looking, but it certainly seemed to elsewhere.  Root’s success has led Ian Chappell to call for him to be pushed up to number three at the expense of Ballance.  I never see the case for this.  If a player is performing outstandingly well in the middle order, where is the benefit in moving him?  It’s treating a symptom rather than a cause and risking weakening the batting if the player doesn’t have the same success in a higher position.  It doesn’t matter where Root bats if he is going to average nearly 60, wherever he goes in, he is going to drag the side to a higher total.  Leave him where he’s comfortable.

Ballance himself scored a fairly scratchy 60 in the first innings, but that will do him the power of good.  An ugly knock does more for the confidence than anything else, because the time at the crease allows the player to rather literally find his feet.  Of course he needs to kick on, but that innings was deeply valuable both to him and the team.

Stokes and Moeen also contributed, and the latter case is important.  He certainly bowled well in the match, but having a batsman of that quality at number eight is a major strength for England.  It has been argued it’s a waste, but it makes for an immensely powerful middle order, IF he can hold down his place as the spinner.  Previously I’ve argued that Moeen is being unfairly compared to the best spinner England have had in the last forty years, and I maintain that he is doing well enough in his primary role to more than justify his selection.  He isn’t going to run through too many sides, but he is certainly useful and his batting frees up an additional spot in the side.  His bowling is improving, but like anything it isn’t a linear trend, there will be peaks and troughs.

Stokes himself is contributing too with both bat and ball.  Both will improve over time, and the very selection of Moeen creates the space in the team for what might be called a luxury player like Stokes.  Patience is required, but England have a genuine five man attack with this line up, and that is a major advantage, perhaps best seen in the way that despite so many fears about it, Anderson is not being bowled into the ground thus far.

Bell scored a few runs in the second innings and looked much more like himself.  Yet it is indicative of the knee jerk response that his 60, a well constructed and fluid innings, was treated as though it was 150 and justification for keeping him in the side.  Personally, I don’t believe there was ever a case for dropping him, and certainly not after the selectors maintained faith with Cook for two years.  But as ever, a single innings proves nothing at all except that if you keep them in the side long enough they will eventually get a few.  That doesn’t mean it wasn’t extremely welcome, and nor does it mean that he didn’t look much better.  It does mean that trumpeting success on the basis of a single fifty is as downright idiotic as it ever was.  He will want more, and hopefully this innings will have got the monkey off his back to the extent he can get more.  It’s no more or less than that.

Jos Buttler failed both times with the bat, which is neither here nor there in a single match, but he did keep very well, and the only reason for mentioning it is that every all rounder who has ever played the game will talk about how difficult it seems to be to get both disciplines operating at full capacity at the same time.  It seems to go this way mostly – one works very well, the other malfunctions a little.

As for the bowling, Wood looks a threat every time he bowls, and perhaps more importantly, for all the wishful thinking about getting a left armer into the side, he provides balance.  Anderson, Broad, Wood and Stokes are all different kinds of bowlers.  That they’re right arm doesn’t in itself matter, it’s not a samey attack.  And while on this subject, it didn’t go unnoticed that it was mentioned as a problem that England have seven left handers and thus provide Lyon with a line of attack given the rough outside off stump.  It’s quite true, but the same applies the other way around given that Australia have two left arm seamers.  Sauce for the goose.

Turning to Australia, this one is a match for them to forget.  While refusing to form definitive views after one match, I hold by the view that you never know a side past its sell by date until they actually become so – just as with England in the last Ashes.  There might be cracks, but complete collapse isn’t anticipated.  This game Australia were truly awful.  Most batsmen are far more annoyed at getting in and getting out than they are being dismissed cheaply, which is considered an occupational hazard.  And yet for the first time in Test history, all of numbers three to six were dismissed in the thirties.  This is both good and bad for Australia, good because all have had time in the middle to get used to conditions, bad because they then got out and mostly to poor shot selection.

Much of the talk around how Australia move forward has centred on the future of Shane Watson.  His playing around the front pad has got him into trouble throughout his career, yet in this game I have a mite of sympathy for him.  The first innings decision was a rotten one, made worse by a proper understanding of how Hawkeye works.  It didn’t show the ball clipping the leg stump, it suggested it was possible it might have done, and at a low probability.  Yes, by all means uphold that decision from the umpire, I don’t have a problem with that; I do feel sorry for Watson because when he gets hit on the pads now, umpires are seemingly predisposed to giving him out when they likely wouldn’t give out another player.  His second innings dismissal was certainly closer, but still an umpire’s call.  Another player would have got away with that one probably, the first innings one certainly.   He may be facing the end of his Test career, and while that may be the correct decision for the Australian team, he was thoroughly shafted in this match.

Warner and Smith both exhibited signs of where they are likely to be vulnerable in English conditions.  Warner’s style of stand and deliver batting is always going to be vulnerable to the ball seaming or swinging.  This isn’t new, and it isn’t in itself the end of the world, because he showed in the second innings that he can fight through the hard times.  Smith has a quirky technique and that is why he finds it more difficult in English conditions, something he’s struggled with since he first broke into the side.  He is more than talented enough to learn how to cope.

Haddin looks like he is reaching the end of the road.  Both his keeping and his batting look frayed and have done for a little while now.  Of course, he could just be out of form, something rarely granted to older players, but this series could well prove decisive for him unless he improves significantly.

As for the bowling, the surface effectively nullified the pace of Starc and Johnson.  Despite some whining in the Australian press, it was a fairly typical Cardiff surface.  What did surprise was that England’s attack handled those conditions so much better.  Johnson had fairly miserable figures for the match, but didn’t bowl too badly.  Starc looked a fine bowler, but I can’t be alone in struggling to understand why when he was clearly injured Clarke insisted on bowling him again and again.  By the second innings the game was already disappearing over the hill, it seemed bizarre to watch him limping over after over and still being kept on.  If he isn’t fit for Lords some questions need to be asked about why they made it worse.  If indeed that is the case, then all of a sudden Australia have some problems.  Siddle is an honest enough workhorse and won’t let anyone down, but he’s not in quite the same class.  Cummins is highly promising, but hasn’t played a first class match in two years, and it’s asking an awful lot for him to come in and play a Test.  Hazlewood on the other hand, looked very good indeed, and will be a handful on other pitches.

Nevertheless, Lords should be a little more conducive to the pace bowling than Cardiff was while not exactly a seamers paradise, and thus triumphal writing off of Australia is highly premature.  It is hard to believe Australia will be so poor in the next game, but if they are, then this tour could go horribly wrong for them.

After one game England will feel it went about as well as it possibly could have done.  Australia will feel it went about as badly as it did in their worst nightmares.  They are more than good enough to step up their game, while England have flattered to deceive on more than one occasion.  What it does though is to provide the most perfect start to the series from the perspective of the spectacle.

One other thing I noted: At the conclusion of the Test, the England players made a point of going around the ground and signing autographs and posing for photos with the supporters.  I don’t remember them doing that before, so whoever has come up with it as a means of engagement deserves a pat on the back.  Is it lip service?  Maybe.  Is it welcome anyway?  Definitely.

*It’s always amused me that this term immediately makes people think of Star Trek and high speed.  In times past, warping out of harbour involved rowing the anchor out ahead in a boat, and winding the capstan in to make progress when there was no wind.  It was backbreaking work and an incredibly slow process.  It seemed appropriate.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

The Gathering Storm

thelegglance84 Comments

Less than a week to go before the Ashes begin, and the news today that Ryan Harris has announced his retirement is an unwelcome development for Australia.  Harris probably wouldn’t have been in the side for Cardiff, mostly because his fitness was questionable anyway – and clearly rightly so – but to lose a player of that calibre from the squad is unquestionably a blow.  For Harris himself, he’s had perhaps four more years of a Test career than seemed likely when he limped out of the 2010/11 series, seemingly into retirement.  That he came back, and proved so effective a bowler, is greatly to his credit.  A shortened career at international level perhaps, but 113 Test wickets at 23.52 represents a fine return even so.   And there’s little question that a certain England captain will be delighted that there’s no prospect of his technique being picked apart by such a clever bowler.

He has said himself that he’s played 27 more Tests than he thought he would, and it’s probable that is at least partly down to Cricket Australia’s relatively careful management of him, providing space for recuperation.  They received a lot of stick for their policy of resting and rotating their pace bowling attack, yet it may well have ensured that in Harris’s case, they truly did get as much out of him as was possible.

Pat Cummins has been called up as his replacement, which is an interesting choice, as he hasn’t played first class cricket in almost two years.  His talent isn’t in doubt, but given his own injury record, it has to be questionable whether in the event he needed to play, he’d be able to last five days of a Test.  Even if completely injury free, he’s very much out of practice at the longer format.

Australia have had a decent workout in their two warm up matches, and perhaps the one area of concern for them has been that their spinners have come in for a fair degree of stick.  A warm up is a warm up, so not too much should be read into it, but it does perhaps detail a line of attack that England could look to adopt when the phoney war is over.

And a phoney war it certainly is.  David Warner picked the build up to the Tests to repeat his claims about Joe Root from the tour two years ago which resulted in Warner throwing a punch.  This is trivial stuff, but it indicates that the sledging game is well and truly on.  Australia themselves are something of a known quantity anyway, much of the series depends on how England play.  The one day series raised optimism that England would look to be aggressive, but the Test side and the one day side are two distinct entities.  An obvious difference is that the captain is Alastair Cook, not a skipper renowned for going for the throat of the opposition.  Indeed Shane Watson specifically referred to that issue recently:

“I’m not sure if that’s exactly in Alastair Cook’s DNA, to be really able to put a game on the line. It’s going to be interesting to see how now that Alastair Cook comes in and takes over the Test team, how they continue to evolve as a team, because it’s very obvious in the one-day series they’ve played how they’ve really started to take on the game.”

Watson hits the nail on the head there.  Partly of course it’s a case of trying to undermine England, which is normal enough and fair enough.  But the question itself is one that England followers have raised several times.  Putting aside the merits of the teams for a moment, the style of play is going to be interesting to watch.  It remains extremely hard to imagine England adopting the mentality of the first innings at Edgbaston in 2005.  That contradiction has been observed by the incoming coach Trevor Bayliss:

“The way the game has been played over the last five or ten years, you could argue that maybe we haven’t kept up to date maybe as some of the other teams. Whether you like it or not, the T20 format and the one-day format do have a bearing on the way the game is played at Test level. It’s that philosophy of being positive and aggressive.”

And yet Andrew Strauss doesn’t seem to be on the same page.

“As I said at the start of the summer, I think Cook is very much the man to take the England Test team forward

Perhaps there’s an element of having to say that, but the innate conservatism of Strauss is looking somewhat out of kilter with the approach of both the new coach and of the stand in.  It was certainly noticeable that Bayliss was very quick to praise Morgan and Farbrace for the way the one day team played the game, as was the much more non-committal remark about Cook:

“I’ve not seen him up close or worked with him before.”

It is of course entirely possible that despite the initial appearance of them being chalk and cheese, they might get on like a house on fire.  It wouldn’t be the first time that has happened – perhaps most notably in the instance of the taciturn Duncan Fletcher and the fiery Nasser Hussain, who proved to be an outstanding partnership.  But it still has the feel of end of term about Cook’s captaincy, particularly so if England lose, as so many expect.

And will England lose?  It was quite amusing to see Glenn McGrath react at the terming of Australia as “Dad’s Army” when it was actually Jason Gillespie who made a point of describing them as such.  And yet it is quite clear that this is indeed a fairly old Australian side.  One thing that shouldn’t be ignored is that sides never look past it until they actually are.  Although more sensible observers noted that England in 2013/14 were a side running out of steam, few anticipated the collapse that followed.  A side can look old very quickly.

Where Australia do clearly look to have the edge is in the fast bowling stakes.  Starc and Johnson are a potent opening pair, though Johnson does blow hot and cold.  If he were to return to the 2009/10/11 vintage, then Australia have a problem.  Of course, if he’s more like the one from the last Ashes, England could be in for a fearful hiding.  Even then, Starc looks a more obvious – and more consistent – threat in any case.

So where do England have to perform if they are to have a chance?  Cook himself is pivotal.  His technique was dismantled by Australia’s bowlers in the last two series, and should that happen again, England will do well to compete.  Cook bats long, and blunts opposition attacks when all is going well for him.  His technical approach is vastly improved over the recent vintage, both in terms of playing much straighter and his judgement of line.  The strength in England’s batting is in the middle order, but for that to be a strength they need a platform.  Lyth is at the start of his career, it’s asking a lot for him to provide it consistently at this stage.  So it hangs on Cook himself.  If England are consistently 30-3, then to call it an uphill task is an understatement.

Equally, there are question marks over other players.  Ballance’s sophomore difficulties need to be resolved and fast.  Ian Bell’s relative drought likewise.  There is ability throughout, but as things stand too many of them have dubious recent records.

The England bowling attack is simpler to assess.  Broad and Anderson are a fine new ball pairing in English conditions, the doubt is over whether the latter will be ground into the dirt and asked to do too much.  Broad might blow hot and cold almost as much as Johnson, but Australia does seem to bring the best out of him.  Perhaps the key might be Mark Wood, who has shown serious promise in his brief career to date.  That doesn’t mean he’s under pressure to deliver, it means that he’s a wildcard that may just come off.

Bayliss also made an interesting comment that Moeen was the number one spinner “at the moment”, and suggested that he had no problem with selecting two spinners for Cardiff. It seems unlikely, but it’ll give Adil Rashid a degree of hope he might be more than a drinks carrier in future.

One of the fascinating elements of this series will be how Steve Smith performs.  He’s had an outstanding couple of years, but his idiosyncratic technique is likely to receive greater examination with the Duke’s ball moving around.  He certainly didn’t do that well on the last tour, and while that doesn’t reflect the player he has become since, the same could be said of Joe Root.

And so it comes to the time of actually making a prediction for the series.  I don’t think it will be as one sided as some others do, but I do think Australia will have a bit too much for England to beat them.  Being optimistic, a 2-2 series result would represent serious progress for England, but the head says Australia will win 3-1.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

Hardly

LordCanisLupus20 Comments

I was in good cheer when I read another tweet yesterday, and which I’ve seen in today’s amazing episode of The Cricketer Magazine.

I mean, seriously. I am getting to be seriously crotchety in my old age, but I hate this shit. I realise we live in a corporate world, where sport has to flog itself to maximise the revenues for its players and so forth. But Hardy’s doesn’t own the Ashes, and they aren’t some commodity that can be flogged to death to some corporate with ties to the sport as deep as a puddle. But no, let’s have it hawked out and retweeted by the players so they can earn a few more bucks. Let’s have all the interviews by England players sponsored so they can earn a few more quid. I even saw an advert on Twitter by Specsavers using the Ashes.

While I don’t doubt the sporting commitment of any of these players, there seems far too much of players hawking themselves to flog a bit of the sponsors wares and not enough actual proper engagement with the hoi polloi who follow them around. The team looks appallingly distant still. I get no more of a warm glow from Alastair Cook as I do from my neighbours on the other side of the estate I live on. I hate how sport has become a corporate vehicle, so it’s corporate first, second, third, fourth and so on, and the punter comes a distant last. The corporate pays and gets the finest seats, the best service, and fuck me blind, decent beer. We sit in the cheap seats, have to somehow manage to carry four beers in a paper/cardboard contraption that happens to break if it gets to wet to a crowded seat, with eff all leg room, to be bombarded by nonsense, have official rehydration breaks, have the most prestigious test series in the game paired with an investment bank every time it is mentioned over here (it was never the Cornhill Insurance Ashes, was it) and drink absolute piss masquerading as one of Paul Sheldon’s selection of “fine beers”.

Their priority is to make money – the players and the administrators. To soak the asset. If they see off some of the low earners or recalcitrant fans, well that’s just collateral damage. They probably wouldn’t drink Hardy’s wine, probably think Waitrose is a bit too pricy, wouldn’t have a scooby who Royal London are, think tap water is fine to drink, don’t use an investment bank and so on and so forth. Stuff ’em. After all, they are outside cricket.

Commercialisation is a growing annoyance, and don’t tell me the journos don’t think so. Agnew, for one, was livid he had to go through this “interview is brought to you by…” crap. The players seriously don’t help themselves when any interview they have is done under serious media management and only on the premise that they can hawk something for a few bob more. This tweet summed it up…

Which brings neatly on to Betway’s new “employee” in his Editor’s notes in The Cricketer…

“Alastair Cook has been called a weasel and a coward and other derogatory things. He does not deserve any of it.”

Ah. But calling someone who scored 8181 test runs a c–t is ok. Rah Rah. The article has decency all over it. Alastair is a thoroughly decent man. If you get a chance, read it. It’s like a bloody love letter. There seems no recognition that there is another interpretation of all this. That Cook has never truly explained the decision that he must have been party to to (a) exclude Pietersen and (b) as Dean Wilson reported, I believe, at the time, that he maintains a veto over his return. I call not explaining this as, yes, a form of cowardice. A form of weasel behaviour. He may have very good reasons, but I’ll bet he’s storing them up for a lovely autobiography somewhere down the line. Hughes, of course, conflates the cowardice line with actual facing up to quick bolwing in a marvellously ridiculous finale…

“He (Cook) is the antithesis of the men who say, “It’s the way I play.” He is constantly evolving as a player and as a leader and is about to confront the fastest attack and feistiest foe to visit these shores for many a year. So whatever you think of him, don’t call him a weasel or a coward.”

Bloody hell. Instead, we’ll just laugh at this piece of analysis (as previewed in comments below) in a tweet from Tickers.

Indeed.

I’m sorry, but Lovejoy, complete with stupid mug shot is at it again in The Cricketer…

“Obviously the above are moot points if England themselves have a divided camp and are still being forced to answer questions about the captain, opening batsman and other extraneous stories that refuse to die down. Alastair Cook must shrug off any worries about the hierarchy and apparent criticism from the media and get back to enjoying the role of prolific run scorer and team captain.”

Count the many ways this is laughable.

The Ashes 2015: A review

thelegglance27 Comments

So there we have it, the Ashes are done, the teams are exhausted and now it’s time to look back on the series.

The series got off to a bad start when the Australian team were held at border control at the Severn Bridge on the M4.  Protesting that “but we’re in England, right mate?” only seemed to make things worse, as Darren Lehmann asked the High Commissioner to issue a formal protest over the visa charge of £6.50 per head.  David Warner was seen looking baffled as explanations about the difference between England and the United Kingdom were made, and matters weren’t helped when Alex Salmond somehow got hold of Darren Lehmann’s mobile number.  Steve Smith was briefly detained due to an unfortunate mix up where they found his name on a watchlist, being released only when it became apparent he really did know nothing about rugby.

So it was a petulant team who finally arrived at the Holiday Inn, Cardiff. An annoyed Mitchell Johnson went off to check the pitch only to return after 10 minutes complaining that while very big, the ground was the wrong shape for cricket.  Given such a start to the series, the ECB felt it appropriate to mend some fences, and sent their best diplomat, Giles Clarke, around to smooth things over.  Rumours that Tony Abbott subsequently approached the USA about buying Trident can now be safely dismissed as untrue and entirely unrelated.

The morning of the first Test dawned bright and sunny, catching out Stuart Broad, who assumed the first day would be rained off and turned up late.  A capacity crowd of at least 750 were in the ground eagerly anticipating the toss.  It’s probably after this point that England fans noticed things starting to go wrong.

Certainly being 65-6 at lunch wasn’t in the plan, though journalists were quick to highlight how brilliantly Cooky batted for his 14 runs.  Indeed, Stephen Brenkley received a British Press Award for his 3,000 word treatise on how he played and missed “with aplomb”.  Straussy wrecked any chance of a Pullitzer by calling the committee “c****s” (except in the Guardian, where they printed it in full – Selvey saying it was the “moment of the series”) for their outrageous decision to exclude it from consideration on the grounds of not being American.

Joe Root was exceptionally careless to be timed out, and his protest that he was waiting for that tall South African bloke to go in at four cut little ice with the critics.  England did at least improve a little after lunch, with Jos Buttler skilfully marshalling the tail before being left high and dry on 2 not out.

As would be seen throughout the summer, England were far from out of it.  With hindsight, making Anderson bowl from both ends all day probably didn’t help his longevity in the series, but it wasn’t until Edgbaston that the umpires had to step in claiming that crawling to the crease on hands and knees was slowing the over rate down too much.

Yet with Australia teetering on 372-5, Stuart Broad spoke to the team at length during tea, berating his colleagues for failing to follow the plan.  Thereafter things went much better, as Brad Haddin was in all sorts of trouble to the short ball, finally being put out his misery for a mere 137 with 19 sixes.

With an uphill battle to save the game, Cooky strode to the middle.  A dazzling array of plays and misses and edges through the slips led to criticism that Michael Clarke had failed to learn the lessons of 2013.  Mike Gatting on Radio Five took one look at the wagon wheel of the innings and concluded it was ten past one and went for lunch, wondering why he had such a craving for marshmallow covered in chocolate.

England fought valiantly, and nearly got away with the draw.  Anderson and Wood were left with a mere 193 overs to survive and got 4 balls into that before Wood was wrongly given out lbw off his fetlock – Stuart Broad having blown the reviews claiming that his leg stump wasn’t on the ground at all.

It was a chastened team at the presentation, Trevor Bayliss being seen muttering to himself while reaching for a pack of Benson and Hedges.  Cooky spoke well about not executing their skills, learning from the game and taking the positives – particularly Stephen Brenkley, who he felt was the right kind of journalist with the right kind of newspaper.

In the Sky Sports studio, Atherton confused Shane Warne by saying that England were losing to win, although Warne’s response was sadly edited out by the ECB Media Compliance Committee producer before anyone could see it.

Media reaction was swift and merciless.  Mike Selvey wrote that the main problem was that Adil Rashid was causing discontent in the camp by scoring an unbeaten century and taking 23 wickets for Yorkshire on the same day, while Paul Newman wrote that Kevin Pietersen’s “morning, lovely day” tweet had divided the dressing room, with born and bred Lancastrian Jos Buttler taking particular exception – his reply of “It is, isn’t it” being scanned for underlying hatred.

And so the second Test approached.  With four days between matches, Andy Flower intervened, sending Jimmy Anderson on a walk from John O’Groats to Lands End as a warm up.  It certainly had an effect, and England were an entirely different side. After an unfortunate injury in the warm up, where Ian Bell was shot with a champagne cork from a local miner on his day off, England had to make a late replacement.  A mystery player known only as Kay PeesorryQueueoopsmadeamistake was firstly drafted in, before Director Comma Cricket Andrew “Straussy” Strauss leapt up from his sedan chair, saying the accent was a bit iffy.

Winning the toss, Australia were soon in trouble.  David Warner was arrested for starting a fight with some of the schoolchildren present, his defence that he thought it was Joe Root sledging him not being accepted by the local magistrate.  Anderson ripped through the top order, using the conditions to good effect as the ball rolled down the slope.  Numerous swipes in vain saw the batsmen bowled time and again, while Shane Watson was lbw.

After such a troubled and controversial start, relations between the teams improved thankfully, Ryan Harris crouching low, putting an arm around James Anderson, adjusting his oxygen tank for him and offering him full use of his knees. Alastair Cook then picked up a suspended ban for not completing the 90 overs in the day as an hour’s delay ensued with the crowd helping the two bowlers back to their feet.

With England feeling in the ascendant, they went on the attack with the bat.  Ben Stokes destroyed the Australian bowling, pinging them to all parts for 260 not out – though quite rightly the press focused on Cook’s admittedly fine 84.  Their partnership of 260 was a sight to behold. England’s dominant position was enforced as the tail wagged, and Jos Buttler reached the heights of getting to 4* before the innings closed.

Darren Lehmann, clearly unimpressed with Australia’s efforts, called for a traditional Aussie approach, and certainly Warner’s day release from custody attached to a ball and chain indicated his words had gone home.  Despite the enormous first innings deficit, they attacked.  There was a slight hiatus when Warner hit the ball attached to him into the pavilion by mistake, but since it landed in Giles Clarke’s champagne George Dobell was seen to laugh so hard he had to be taken to hospital.  In his absence, Jarrod Kimber simply added 350 to the Australian score on Cricinfo.  Peter Moores rang up the ECB Sky pointing out that the data didn’t add up, but unfortunately no-one there could remember who he was, and so Australia got away with it.  Malcolm Conn was the first to react tweeting “That’s for Bodyline, you filthy pommie bastards” before writing an article titled “No offence”.

With England set 200 to win, Cooky decided to get out his inner funk.  Graham Gooch had pointed out that he was far more vulnerable to getting out if he batted, and so taking that on board, reversed the batting order.  Channel 5’s highlights included a 24 minute section of Simon Hughes in the tactics truck moaning with pleasure at the genius of the idea.   England scraped home, mostly thanks to Anderson’s 99.  It got tense towards the end as Australia fought back, but fortunately Jos Buttler stood firm, finishing 6 not out as wickets tumbled around him.  The captain scored the winning run, and was promptly knighted by a grateful public.

With the series so finely poised, it was a great shame that the next two Tests were washed out.  No refunds were given to spectators, as it was considered that highlights of the 2005 series on the big screen were now to be assumed as being part of play.  Some complaints were made that the series as shown was incomplete, but the ECB’s PR department pointed out that the last day of the Oval Test had been sadly cancelled in 2005 and they’d not missed anything.

For the denouement there were a few debates to be had in selection.  Mitchell Johnson had made himself unavailable after Brian May had called him up for the forthcoming Queen comeback tour, but Lehmann had rubbished criticism of the timing by stating that Australia had endless stocks of interchangeable Mitches and the side wouldn’t be affected. With England wondering about their batting line up, the selectors were seen in discussions long into the night.  A conclusion was reached when Straussy Strauss was seen carrying a trowel and smiling as plaintive Afrikaans cries were heard behind a bricked up wall.   England had one other question mark over their side, as Wood unfortunately fell at the fourth fence at Haydock two days before the game, but having been given a clean bill of health by England assistant physio Jimmy Herriot he took his place in the stalls for the start.

Alastair Cook scored a fine hundred, causing Aggers to squeak for an hour on air, so overcome was he.  Pope Francis resigned, David Cameron announced to a hushed Parliament that he was giving way to a much better man, with a much better family, and the US Congress passed what became known at the Cooky-wooky Act allowing foreign born Gods people to stand for the Presidency.  Perhaps the greatest tribute of all came from Geoffrey Boycott who stated to a shocked nation that he was nearly as good as his granny.

England were certainly confident having scored over 400 (Jos Buttler 8*) but Australia weren’t out of it by any means.  Chris Rodgers had escaped from the McCarthy and Stone sheltered accommodation where he was staying, and set about clearing the deficit.  There was one flare up when he accidentally trod on the umpires toes going for a second run, and Stuart Broad squared up to him asking if he was having a go at him.  Rodgers quietly pointed out that it wasn’t the square leg umpire and calm descended, but it was an awkward moment.

A mid innings collapse (Shane Watson, lbw 0) left Australia with a small deficit, and England were back in to bat.  A hush descended on the ground, punctuated only by the occasional South African accented “let me out” heard in the direction of the OCS Stand.  Cooky-wooky-woo-wah headed out to the middle and as one, they all rose and sang the oratorio from Handel’s Messiah – fortunately the ECB had been prepared and issued all spectators with lyric sheets as part of the Conditions of Ground Admittance.

Ben Stokes was the star of the innings, having sneaked out to bat when no one was looking.  Paul Downton – special guest of the ECB – was overheard to say that this bloke looked rather good, and why hadn’t he been around when he was MD?  Giles Clarke was equally confused, having seen no reference of Cockermouth in the Independent Schools List.  Joe Root gave valuable support, making Boycott declare unilateral independence for Yorkshire during the tea break, while Jos Buttler’s quickfire 9 not out added to the swelling total.

With Australia set 300 to win, the game and the series was in the balance.  All was going well for the visitors, with England’s bowlers unable to take a single wicket.  Fortunately for them, Shane Watson ran out 6 batting partners and burst into tears in the middle.  With the tension building, Australia 9 down and with victory only a hit away, there came that moment.  And we all know what happened then.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

England v New Zealand – 1st ODI

LordCanisLupus81 Comments

First up, apologies.

Life has been absolutely manic for me in the past week. It started with a day trip to Monaco, included getting a massive work effort in by Friday and culminated today in a promotion interview. I hope you can excuse me from not posting on here.

I’ve been following the comments but not, in truth, the papers in the past week. I had my own feelings on the loss of the second test, as retold in the “wanderer” post below, but it really as if it hadn’t happened. I’m at a loss to understand why Day 4 at Headingley this year is any different from Day 4 last year. I’m at a loss to understand how Adam Lyth is different to Sam Robson, yet. I’m at a loss to understand how a 4th innings collapse at Headingley differs from the year before, save for the fight from the lower order lasting a darn sight more last year. No. Nothing.

That’s because one of the things I did see this week was Cricket Writers, which spent its first 10 minutes or so with no more a topical hard-hitting discussion than “Alastair Cook is really brilliant, discuss.” The defeat was shrugged off, the portents not really taken in. Still, we’ve no reason to be concerned, because all in the garden looks rosier. Kevin who?

Tomorrow we start the one day series against New Zealand. Last time we played them in an ODI we were demolished. Now we have another new dawn. There’s fresh batting talent and a new-look bowling attack. People are talking about positive cricket, and new brands. Trevor Bayliss is the man because he’s taken a sub-continental team to a sub-continental World Cup Final and is going to be the man for ODI cricket.

Excuse me if I wait a while before coronating anyone or anything.

I’m not going to be able to watch much, and if the trees keep growing the way they are, won’t be able to watch any Sky cricket in the next few weeks. That’ll need to be sorted. Any comments on the game below, or on anything else that takes your mind.

Meanwhile, Australia steamroller the West Indies in three days and people still don’t want to join the dots.  It’s the life we lead.

Wanderer

LordCanisLupus157 Comments

Well, hello all.

Can’t stop long. Work been really hectic, taking me on a day trip to Monaco on Monday (seriously not as glamorous as it sounds) and then picking the beloved up from the airport on Tuesday. Work is a serious problem at the moment as a year long project comes to fruition and is on a knife edge, and sleep is deprived. Add to that, an important interview early next week which I seriously need to prep for, and cricket is a bit of a way down my list of priorities. A really massive thank you to thelegglance for all his work this week. Without it, the blog would have not given the last test the attention it deserved.

I’m not in the habit of saying “I told you so” but I did tell them so, and so did many here. In the headlong pursuit of shutting down the debate, and in so doing rubbing those who dare to criticise noses in it, the acclaim for the first test victory was ridiculous. Look, it’s not as if we’ve got an event long before to instruct us is it? After Grenada, won on the back of a ridiculous individual performance by Jimmy Anderson, England flopped, when in a decent position, at Barbados. Here again, a wonderful England win, fuelled by great individual feats by Ben Stokes, and a top hundred by Captain Invincible, was followed up by England getting in a good position with a great opening stand, and pissing it up the wall. Yes, New Zealand bowled well to restrict us, and batted even better, with little or no fear. But England need to press those positions home.

There’s a crowd out there that say “well played New Zealand” and they are bang on. But that doesn’t absolve England from blame. Come off it. We were 170 for no loss and couldn’t get past their 350. We bowled like clowns in that second innings. You have to hope, too, that fourth innings efforts could be a bit better than falling to Williamson and Craig. I didn’t see the 4th day’s play at all (and not yet watched the highlights) but you didn’t need to be buried in an office in Monaco to know that it was awful.

I’ll do a more full review, maybe, if I get fed up working out a marketing strategy or deciding whether I’m competent enough, over the weekend. Can’t imagine I’ll be doing that 24/7.

I read that KP is now going to play in the Caribbean T20 and leave Surrey. I’m just about had it with a country who decided to chuck that talent away while watching what has happened in a number of our last test matches and thinks it is OK. I would not blame him if he turned his back on England and I won’t forgive the powers that be that decided this was the thing to do. I’m really sorry if this offends anyone who just backs those in the shirts. I’m glad that’s fine with you. You are a better person than me. Andrew Strauss could pull a rabbit out of a hat but that decision, based on that premise, and supposedly with the backing/ultimatum of an entitled skipper who should be thankful he’s still in the team after 2014, will define him in my eyes. Even if we won the Ashes, the World Cup, the World T20 and managed to avoid defeat this winter.

Enough of this wibbling. I am fully aware I am now four centuries behind on the Century Watch – Stokes, Lyth, Watling and tonight’s by Adam Voges. I’ll do what I can, when I can.

Good night.

England v New Zealand: Review

thelegglance206 Comments

Perhaps the one thing all will agree upon is that a series consisting of only two Tests has proved to be a terrible mistake.  These things are decided some years in advance of course, and New Zealand’s rise to become a team to reckon with on the field rather than just in words wasn’t known at the time of scheduling.  That is still no excuse whatever, and it shouldn’t happen again.  The trouble is, it is already going to happen again.  England are scheduled next to visit New Zealand in early 2018 for five ODIs, a T20 and…..two Tests.  It is probably too much to hope the two boards are in contact about changing that.

If ever a short series was crying out for a decider, this is it.  For all the observations on individuals and performances which will follow, the cricket throughout has been thrilling. New Zealand are certainly the ones who set the agenda given that this is how they play, but England did catch the bug at different times, and it does take two sides to ensure the cricket is of the nature we have seen.  That England couldn’t maintain that approach in the second Test shouldn’t be surprising in itself – that they tried to in the first is worthy of note given the style of the side over the last few years.

For this match there is no question than that New Zealand thoroughly and completely deserved their win.  Perhaps the most startling demonstration of their approach is shown by the fact that they only batted 163 overs in the match, against England’s 200 – yet winning by the huge margin of 199 runs.   Yet England scored at 3 an over across the match, which might not be scintillating, but isn’t tardy either, especially when the last day was taken up with trying to survive.  Given that so much time was lost to rain- equivalent to a full day –  and that New Zealand won in the final session of the last day, it can be said to have borne dividends to the ultimate extent.  Without such a high risk approach, and given a decent surface and inclement conditions, this match would have been a fairly tame draw.  Indeed the weather turned out to be kinder on the last day than they could have hoped for, and definitely better than the forecasts indicated – the anticipated rain taking out up to a session would have ensured a stalemate and an England series win.

There can therefore be little argument that New Zealand are the most exciting team in world cricket today, and it is not unimportant to note that they do so while playing the game in such an excellent spirit.  England too joined that particular party, which was good to see, because their own behaviour has fallen short on a number of occasions in recent times.

Yet none of this was particularly unknown before the series.  Their opening bowling attack is extremely potent, and Trent Boult lived up to his reputation by proving frequently lethal and taking thirteen wickets in the two games.  If anything, Southee proved to be a little disappointing. The sense of foreboding about this England side facing up to the assorted Mitches later in the summer is not misplaced.  Most of the team did contribute in the series however, and that they won this Test so comfortably with no contributions from a player as good as Kane Williamson and not too much in either Test from Ross Taylor shows that there is depth in New Zealand cricket, and that hasn’t been said too often over the years.

And what of England? The problem so often is that the media do them no favours.  The win in the first Test was something of a steal; for the first three days England were very much on the back foot, it took a fabulous innings from Cook and an extraordinary one from Stokes to turn that around.  This is of course good in itself and was undeniably thrilling, but it didn’t warrant the glowing response from the usual sections of the press for the simple reason that relying on such heroics to win a match is no basis for assuming the health of the side to be so perfect.  England do have some promising young players, and they do have some reasons for optimism.  The trouble is that the coverage of English cricket has been so appallingly mendacious that it was both predictable and pathetic when the usual suspects piled in with glee as though a single win against the odds had answered every objection or criticism ever made.  We might be used to the press being excessive, but it is unusual compared to most sports when they make excuses for every failing and then trumpet a single success.  The England football team certainly don’t get such favourable treatment and nor should they.

An indication of this has been that after today’s defeat, the “five wins from the last eight Tests” line has been trotted out – of course it was “five from seven” until today – which is trying to shut down debate and criticism by clinging to raw figures of their choosing.  Why pick eight?  Why not twelve, so we can take into account the defeat to Sri Lanka and the Lords loss to India?  Why not seventeen so we can include the Ashes shambles?  Or go the other way and say “two wins and two defeats in the last five” which isn’t so impressive, especially when three of those matches were against the eighth ranked side in the world.  It doesn’t mean that saying “nine defeats in the last seventeen Tests” is a more accurate figure, but it does mean it’s an equally valid one.  To try and select a specific one of those and repeat it at every juncture (whichever one it is) is trying to push a particular point of view.

England do have some grounds for optimism – Cook’s return to form with the bat is essential to the success of the side, and it’s not just that he’s scoring runs it’s how he is scoring those runs that counts.  Never mind how, count how many is true in the overall sense, but the how in terms of a specific player is important for indicating how many.  Cook is batting very, very well.  Yet again here it should not and must not be used to cover the issues with his captaincy.  Yesterday morning’s bowling to the New Zealand tail was nothing less than a complete meltdown, not for the first time.  Where the balance of blame lies for that is a matter of some discussion – Cook himself talked about it being very definitely a plan, which is extraordinary if so, given that time and again it results in England being flayed around the park.  Others suggested with varying degrees of strength that it definitely wasn’t the plan, in which case the captain failing to overrule the bowlers is quite simply weak.  Whichever it might be, it doesn’t look very impressive.

One side issue about his batting did come up during the Test, that he’d engaged Gary Palmer for some private coaching sessions.  Good.  He was seeking solutions and finding someone who could help him without direction from on high.  There is nothing to criticise him for about this, just as there is nothing to criticise other players who use a person they trust.  Players must look after their own game, and that doesn’t mean being confined to official structures; that would be just about the worst thing they could do.  One or two in the press ought to have known better when using it as a stick to beat a particular player with.

Cook did OK as captain in the first Test.  And that’s rather the point, he did OK.  It shouldn’t have been treated with such praise for doing the tactical basics passably well.  Yet there should be no problem in agreeing entirely that he was fine in that match, because it’s acknowledging how it is, just as it’s fine to acknowledge that he is batting superbly well.  The problem arises in the complete ignoring of situations like yesterday morning.  The Black Caps scored 116 in 16 overs in that morning session.  An already strong but not impregnable lead turned into a position of total supremacy in the space of an hour.  It is of course entirely possible that even had Cook and the team got it absolutely spot on, something similar could have happened (in any case, 350 or so would have likely been well beyond them), but it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that in that short period England well and truly threw away any remaining chance they had.  It doesn’t help anyone to skate over things like this, a year ago at the same ground England more obviously disintegrated, but it is merely a matter of degree; the same occurred on the fourth morning this time too, and when put under identical pressure.

Joe Root’s comments that England would go all guns blazing for the total caused some wry amusement given five of the first six overs of the day were maidens, yet in reality they didn’t have a great deal of choice.  Sometimes the opposition just bowl well.  Root probably absolutely believed it at the time he said it, circumstances just changed rather quickly.  In any event, England never had the option.

Other positives (which we must take of course) for England included Mark Wood, Adam Lyth and Jos Buttler.  Lyth and Wood being two games into their nascent Test careers look promising, it’s not fair on either of them to push it further than that.  But they should certainly be in the Ashes side given their performances.

Buttler has quietly gone about his business since coming into the team, and without ever going on to make a really big score has still impressed.  Five half centuries in twelve innings is an excellent return, as is an average of 52.66.  It doesn’t mean for a moment he will or can maintain that, but he can be quietly satisfied thus far.  His keeping standing back has been good – he’s not the first to struggle at Lords – and his keeping standing up has been mostly adequate with a couple of technical flaws to address.  There’s work to do there, but it’s a decent beginning.

We now move into the one day series, and the side announced today is actually quite exciting.  There will be another time to discuss that, but in terms of how the Test side will look in July when the Ashes begins, the likelihood is that barring injuries it won’t be too different.  Bell and Ballance have some work to do, as both need runs, but dropping Bell would be astonishing given his overall record, and would no doubt cause uproar given he is in the same kind of slump that Cook was fully supported throughout. He doesn’t seem terribly happy at present and he deserves precisely the same faith.

Ballance appears to be going through sophomore difficulties.  But it should be remembered that focusing on his footwork during his current problems only has value as criticism if the same were levelled when he was batting so well.  He looks horribly out of nick, not technically inadequate.

Moeen too is under scrutiny, yet his bowling record to date is perfectly adequate by the standards of any spinner England have had since Underwood.  England need to decide what to do here, he’s only going to improve if he is given time to do so.

There is plenty of time for these matters to sort themselves out.  For now it is a matter of saluting a fine team, who played with verve, skill and daring.  A drawn series is the very least they deserved, because in truth barring a couple of days at the end of the first Test, they outplayed England.  And above all else, they were a privilege to watch. If only we had that third and deciding Test to look forward to next week.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

England v New Zealand 2nd Test: Day 3 preview

thelegglance88 Comments

Well, well.  What a difference an hour makes.  England were cruising along and making all the talk that New Zealand’s total was a pretty decent one look silly.  But this being England, they’re never so vulnerable as when they look to be in a good position.  From 177-0 to 253-5 is not a collapse exactly, but it is a reversion from a position of strength to the game being very much in the balance.

Doubtless the main headlines will be about Cook becoming the leading run scorer for England in Tests, and while the unquestioning adoration of England’s skipper from so many media sources has been enough to infuriate many over the last two years, today is certainly a time where he deserves all the plaudits coming his way.  And there’s an irony in that – Cook perhaps won’t receive the credit he deserves from some quarters precisely because of an inability for some to ever offer up a word of criticism when it’s warranted.  And the reality is that it is unfair, this is a huge feat for him.

Cook the batsman is and always has been a separate issue to Cook the captain.  His poor form over a lengthy period tended to cause debate about whether he would ever again be the batsman he had been, not a dismissal of his abilities over his career.  But his last two innings have probably removed that doubt for most; he looks very much back to his best.

And to that end, to be approaching 9,000 Test runs at the age of 30 is an outstanding achievement, and it was pleasing to see Cook receive the recognition of that from the crowd – though not at all surprising; if you aren’t going to stand and applaud a player becoming his country’s leading run scorer when will you?  Whatever anyone might think of him as captain, he deserved that for a career that has been excellent and is some way from being over.  Cook is now in 13th place in the all time run scorers list, and with all above bar Chanderpaul (just) and Sangakkara (not too far off) retired, he’ll be catching and passing many of them.  There was an interesting comment on Sky when he achieved the record that it had stood for 20 years, and that Cook’s record would stand for a lot longer.  I’m not so sure about that.  If Joe Root ends up as good a player as he currently looks, then he might have something to say about it over the next decade.

Adam Lyth of course was the star of this particular day, his maiden century on his home ground repaying the faith of his local supporters.  He should now have the Ashes series to try and cement his place as opener on the back of it.

Earlier, England had demonstrated a familiar cluelessness in terms of how to deal with the tail, as Craig, Henry and Boult happily lashed them to all parts, while England refused to attack the stumps in favour of banging the ball in.  Is this actually a plan, or do the bowlers do their own thing?  It’s not worked for some time now, yet they still do it.  Of course, any team can suffer from the lower order batsmen having a bit of a slog, the point is that it happens to England repeatedly.  Nasser Hussain, astute as ever, made the point that they should look to how Broad is got out for the template – yes a short ball or two to ruffle them up, but then bowling straight and full.

Broad himself got one of the more peculiar Michelles* of his career, going at 6.34 runs an over.  You’d probably take that overall, but when batsmen are derided for recklessness so often, perhaps the same thing could be levelled at Broad on this occasion.

The late flurry of wickets means that England will have to bat exceptionally well against the still new ball in the morning in order to achieve parity.  The weather forecast has improved for the next few days, but it looks likely to be cloudy and good conditions for bowling.  That doesn’t mean New Zealand can feel confident, the third innings so often falls away dramatically, especially under the pressure of trying to set a target, but their approach on day one appears to have been somewhat vindicated by the present match situation.  Weather permitting though, a result looks very likely.

The old cliche about the next session being critical does apply.  If England don’t bat at least passably well they will find themselves in considerable trouble.  It’s been a hugely entertaining series so far, thank goodness that if New Zealand win there’ll be a decider.  Oh hang on…

*Does this really need explaining?

@BlueEarthMngmnt

England v New Zealand, 1st Test: Review

thelegglance94 Comments

Rejoice!  All is well and those doubting over the last two years have been firmly put in their place.  You were told and you didn’t listen, so now you get roundly abused for your negative attitude, and deservedly so.  Right?

Make no mistake, this was a fine win, in a genuinely wonderful Test match.  England produced a wonderful display on the last two days in particular, so surely even the most critical England fan should be pleased with that?  Well yes, actually, they should.  There is a lot to like about the players coming through in this England side and if this is how England are going to play, then there may yet be a chance of recovering some of the ground that the ECB have so needlessly thrown away.  Suggesting that anyone being critical should shut up now misses the point of the issues raised, because many of them haven’t been so much as acknowledged, let alone addressed.  But if it is a first step, then that would be something for everyone to be pleased about.

The captain undoubtedly had a fine game here.  His second innings century was an excellent knock, not just in terms of scoring the runs he did, but in the manner he did so.  Somewhat belatedly, Sky decided to focus on his technique, rather curious in some ways to do so after he’s put it right having ignored it mostly when it was wrong.  He was indeed much more upright, with his head over the ball and aligned well with his front foot.  As a result both his judgement outside off stump was much improved, and he was playing much straighter to the ball aimed at the stumps – his punching of the ball through midwicket and mid on were evidence of that, where previously he had been across the ball due to his balance taking his weight outside off stump.  Cook is never going to be a pretty player, but that’s irrelevant, as others can do that job.  His concentration is indeed one of his prime assets, but in order to make the most of that, he has to stay in.  The point about bowlers having found him out by pitching the ball up at him was always overplayed, because no side can maintain that degree of discipline endlessly if a player gets in – if the game was that easy it would have been worked out a century ago.  Eventually they will bowl balls for him to cash in on.

A Cook in form does change the proposition as far as England are concerned.  Australia’s bowlers wouldn’t have been concerned watching his hundred in the West Indies.  They will be a little more concerned watching his hundred at Lords.

As captain Cook also did little wrong.  England being bowled out this morning was probably the best thing that could have happened, removing the possibility of batting on too long.  But Cook rotated his bowlers well, and tried different things.  He came in for a fair degree of stick in commentary for having a third man in place when New Zealand were 2-2, but Cook is always going to be somewhat stifled by his existing plans and reluctant to change.  He is never going to be a McCullum or Clarke, and given who he is, today he did well.

So no more criticism of him then surely?  Not quite.  That he did well today as captain doesn’t undo the last two years.  But equally there should be no refusal to offer up credit where it is due.   The likely appointment of Trevor Bayliss will place the onus on Cook to run the side on the field, as Bayliss has the reputation for wanting to operate behind the scenes rather than dictating tactics.  That is as it should be, and maybe Cook will flower late as captain.  Yet he should not be given a free pass on the basis of a single Test, and crowing because of it is unseemly.  Credit where it is due and criticism where that is due is entirely reasonable.  This time, it’s credit.

Ben Stokes will of course receive all the plaudits and rightly so.  His second innings century will live long in the memory.  His style is simple and uncomplicated, and although that is often damnation with faint praise, it really shouldn’t be.  He plays straight, has few quirks, and of course that wonderful power.  English cricket probably does need a hero; given the concerns about cricket becoming a niche sport, it’s essential someone grabs the attention of the public.  If only more had the chance to see him.

Despite his second innings heroics, it was his first innings 92 that was perhaps the more important.  Coming in at 30-4 the game was more or less over right there had he gone cheaply.  Although New Zealand surpassed England’s total comfortably, Stokes, Buttler and Ali ensured England were in the game.  From where they were, that was more than could have been expected.

In keeping with being the golden boy, he of course had a say with the ball.  There is something about these kinds of players that they do this sort of thing.  He has shown that he has talent, and in this match he was perhaps the difference.  A word of warning though, Stokes is combative, fiery and awkward.  Recent history suggests England struggle to manage such free spirits, while there is every chance he will be castigated for throwing his wicket away when it goes wrong in similar circumstances.  If we want the glory of it coming off, we have to accept that the price of that is that sometimes he will fail, and it won’t look pretty.  It’s probably too much to hope that he will be granted latitude over that – no one else ever has been.  And that’s frustrating, because just letting him go is probably how England will get the most out of him.  Some players need that freedom, something that so many forgot when slating He Who Must Not Be Mentioned.

Moeen Ali is another who will look back on the match with pleasure.  4-129 on a surface that was friendlier to seam and (especially) swing was a decent return, and when added to over a hundred runs from the bat from number eight, his has fulfilled two roles in the side.  He has done little wrong in his career thus far.

Broad too bowled well overall.  It shouldn’t be forgotten that not for the first time he and Anderson bowled too short in the first innings, though they did correct it.  It remains absolutely mystifying that this happens so often, when they are so much more successful when they pitch it up.  Anderson himself had a relatively quiet Test, but ironically this is no bad thing.  England were looking far too reliant on him for this summer.  For others to do the legwork for once was overdue.

Mark Wood had a wonderful debut.  He bowled with pace, skill, clearly thinks about his bowling judging by how willing he was to use the crease to vary his point of attack, and perhaps above all looked like he was having the time of his life.  When he scored his first Test run he broke into a beaming smile, and on several occasions in the field he betrayed a mischievous sense of humour.  England for the last few years have appeared the most joyless, miserable, bad tempered team in world cricket.  The simple matter of a player plainly having the time of his life was utterly wonderful to see.   Don’t change him.

From a cricketing point of view, a single Test is hardly a sufficient sample size to form a judgement on him, but his presence did make the England attack look properly balanced for the first time since the 2010/11 Ashes.  The additional pace he brought was slightly reminiscent of seeing Simon Jones a decade ago.  Again, there’s no need to pile the pressure on him, but there’s enough there to suggest he might do well in future.

The other debutant Adam Lyth did less well of course.  It really should be written off as irrelevant.  It’s a single game, and he has played little in the last month.  England set him back by not selecting him in the Caribbean.  There’s little more to be said about him except to wish him luck at Headingley.

Ian Bell had a poor game all round.  He could do with a few runs soon, because England can’t keep losing early wickets and expect to get out of the hole.  He did get a couple of very fine deliveries, so for this game it’s a matter of shrugging the shoulders and saying it happens.  He could still do with getting some before too long.

For New Zealand they will be scratching their heads and wondering quite how they lost the game.  They had easily the best of the first three days, and showed that they are an excellent side.  For England to beat them there had to be some quite exceptional performances – they will be thinking that lightning is unlikely to strike twice.

Boult took nine wickets in the match, Williamson scored a fine century, Matt Henry had an excellent debut, BJ Watling showed why even if some of the commentators hadn’t paid attention, that he is a player worthy of considerable respect.

The worst thing anyone could do after this game would be to loudly trumpet that everything is now fine and dandy.  There is some promise in the players coming through in the England side, but England went one up in the Caribbean too and drew the series.  New Zealand are more than capable of turning it around, and England are more than capable of having a stinker.  Indeed, that they won by playing out of their skin on the last two days doesn’t alter the truth that for the first three they were outbatted, outbowled and outfielded.

None of this is intended to be churlish.  It was a thrilling fightback, one that reminded all those who needed the reminder that Test cricket is the apogee of the game.  And that does mean enjoying it thoroughly, so to that extent the praise that will be coming England’s way is fine.  It remains one match.  If they do it repeatedly, that is entirely different, and maybe it could be an England side to become engaged with.  It’s just a question of perspective.

England did well.  That’s good.  A good start.  Pity about the board of course, but for the team, yes a good start.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

2015 Test Century Watch #24 – Alastair Cook

LordCanisLupus4 Comments
REUTERS/Philip Brown
REUTERS/Philip Brown

Alastair Cook – 162 v New Zealand at Lord’s

After Kane Williamson, Alastair Cook becomes the second player to make his second test century of the calendar year, and there was much rejoicing. You don’t have to be reading this blog for long to know how much I’ve gone off him, but this was a really good knock, anchoring the innings. So let’s stick to the stats, and the rule of thumb is that the bigger the ton, the better the stats. Here goes.

This was Cook’s 7th highest score in test matches, and his 8th score over 150. This beat his highest score against New Zealand, which was 130 at Headingley in 2013 (his last home test hundred). It was his third hundred against the BlackCaps, and coincidentally, all have come in the third innings of the game (his other was 116 in Dunedin which went a long way to saving that match). 7 out of Cook’s 150s have come in this decade, as he did have a bit of a habit of scoring small hundreds. This is Cook’s third highest score as captain, trailing his two knocks on the tour of India.

This is the 17th highest score by an England batsman against New Zealand. It is the third highest at Lord’s against this opposition, with the top three all pillars, yes pillars, of the Essex Cricket Hierarchy (see Essex Mafia, Chelmsford Cosa Nostra) – Gooch leads with 183 made in 1986, with Keith Fletcher’s 178 in 1973 in second. Again, like Cook, both of these were made in the third innings of the game. The record score against New Zealand is Walter Hammond’s 336* in Auckland, while John Edrich holds the record score in England of 310*. Neither of the two other Essex scores at Lord’s were their best against New Zealand. Both of them have made a double hundred against the Kiwis, of the seven made by England in this fixture. This was the 107th century made by an English player against New Zealand.

Have you seen a 162 Dmitri? No. There’s been 17 all-time in tests, although the last one didn’t come a long time ago. Steve Smith made this score in his emotional knock at Adelaide Oval against India last December. There had been five years between 162s before then. 162s that people might remember include Chris Broad’s innings at the WACA in 1986, when he and Athey put on 200+ for the opening partnership. Jacques Kallis’s 162* at Durban in 2004 was also a brilliant innings on a deck that started with a flurry of wickets on the first two days. The only other Englishman to make 162 is Ian Bell, in his first test century at Chester-le-Street against Bangladesh in 2005. Some may also remember South African Kepler Wessels making 162 on debut at the Gabba in 1982 against England, but of course, that’s all right because he did it for Australia. This was the second 162 made against New Zealand – Adam Gilchrist made the first at Wellington in 2005. Adelaide and Brisbane have seen two scores of 162, while Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Cairns have seen one, making Australia the 162 capital of the world. This was just the second 162 made in England – the other being Ian Bell’s at Chester-le-Street.

Herbie

The first 162 was made in 1921 at Adelaide by Herbie Collins. This was a timeless test that had six centuries in it, England make 447 in the first innings and take a 90 run lead, and still lose by over 100 despite scoring 370 in the 4th innings, Wisden seems to indicate that Collins’ innings was a little fortunate. Herbie, also known as Horseshoe, made four test centuries for Australia, with a best of 203 against South Africa in Johannesburg. He finished his career with a test average of over 45.

Alastair Cook’s 100 came up in 206 balls and contained 12 x 4.