Rahul Dravid: Farewell to my Cricketing Hero

Cricket only really appeared in my life around 2002. As I grew up and developed my cricketing skills I became known as a defensive batsman. I was often referred to as ‘The Wall’. This was not a nick-name I disliked. Not by any means. Rahul Dravid was a batsman who was there when I discovered cricket. His ability to bat for hours captured my imagination, inspired me on, and showed me that there was a way to score runs without slogging. Patience, application, dedication were all skills Dravid had in abundance, and I knew that if I could learn from him I’d be on my way to success. And so began my affection for The Wall.

Dravid celebrates India's victory back in 2002

The first time I witnessed Dravid play was in the second Natwest Series ODI between England and India at Lord’s. Given that it was my first International game, I lacked the knowledge I have now, and thus I’d not really come across Dravid. My memory of the game doesn’t really do him justice, as I remember it was Yuvraj that got man of the match for his innings of 64* (65). However, looking back, it’s evident just how integral Dravid was to that chase. He batted with Yuvraj in that match winning partnership, but didn’t take the credit. He just went about his business quietly, effectively and skilfully, which is a testament to his ability. His 73* (86) allowed India to chase 271 successfully, and also enabled Yuvraj to take all the plaudits. He even kept wicket in that game, stumping Nasser Hussain in the process! I wish I’d been older and wiser when I watched that game. If I went back now I would just enjoy the magnificence of Dravid, watch how he bats with such elegance and ease, and feel satisfied that I’d witnessed one of cricket’s greatest ever batsmen plying his trade so superbly.

Dravid scored 13,288 runs at an average of 52.31, but unlike many other members of the Indian team, he was not a flat track bully. He was one of the batsmen best equipped to play on surfaces that offered more to the bowler, as the England series of 2011 showed significantly. He scored 1,376 runs in England at an average of 68.80, whereas his average in India was a mere 51.35 (yes, mere indeed…) In 2003, over five tests, he averaged 100.37, which included a high score of 233. In 2004 he scored a career best 270 in Rawalpindi against Pakistan, with nobody else reaching three-figures in the match. I could list his greatest performances, but that article has been written, and recounts 8 of his greatest innings. There is also a fantastic statistical analysis of the great man, which is a much finer effort than I could possibly come up with. His Test career was superb, and his batting ability enabled him to be a success in the one-day arena too, scoring a paltry 10,889 runs at an average of 39.16. All the articles, statistics and results indicate that Dravid was not just an excellent batsman, but a cricketer that everyone loved, and somebody that will be greatly missed by the game. The poor series he had in Australia did not provide a fitting end, but appropriately showed that he was not a man who would retire as soon as times got tough. He fought hard throughout the series, which is a testament to his dedication to his country.

Dravid's trademark cut shot on display at the St Lawrence Ground back in 2000.

I was not a follower of county cricket at the age of 7, but in the year 2000 Dravid spent a year at Kent, now the team I spend my summers supporting (unfortunately). He played 16 Championship matches scoring 1,221 runs at an average of 55.50. A fine effort, and his total of over 1,700 in all formats showed what a great overseas player he was for Kent. Not only is a run-scoring machine on the field, but one of the nicest and well-spoken people off it. And though these figures may not seem amazing, the Kent faithful are always quick to talk of his stint at the club, and how fantastic he was. There was an innings at Portsmouth on a turning pitch against Shane Warne. On a pitch that turned from the start, Dravid had made 70 odd in the first innings but then in the second innings he made a match-winning 137 whilst facing Warne. Telegraph reporter Neil Hallam said of his innings of 70:

“The ball turned from the first morning as Hampshire won the toss and pressed on to their second highest total of the season and all the clever money was heading their way when Warne produced a double-wicket maiden with his first over. That, however, was where Dravid took control, stifling Warne with soft-handed defence, picking off the loose stuff with fluent certainty and, whenever the spinner threatened to tighten the screw, releasing the tension with judicious ones and twos.”

Such a report highlights how statistics can only say so much. The fact that Warne considered Dravid a batsman he had a mental advantage over made it all the more supreme an effort. A fine summer, and there were more innings of note, including a 90 against Andy Caddick on a pitch that was “spitting fire”. See this great tribute to Dravid’s time at Kent. Jumping forward to 2011, a wet August afternoon at the St Lawrence Ground saw Kent set to play India in a one-off ODI. Rain meant that the game was delayed significantly, and eventually a T20 was decided upon. Dravid was present, and whilst the groundstaff were mopping up he came out at least twice to sign an endless number of autographs ( including my very own cricket ball, which now sits proudly on my bedside table). He was presented with his county cap by Rob Key, and interviewed. He played a valiant but ultimately low-scoring innings, yet due to his Test efforts, as well as his Kent ties, he was given a standing ovation as he trudged off the outfield. I was one on my feet, applauding his magnificence. He had unleashed one of his trademark cut shots, and the ball had flashed to the boundary. It almost felt like my day had been made, even though it was the first innings of the match. A glorious player. I wish I’d watched more of him, and been around in 2000 to witness his magnificence for my beloved Kent.

Dravid celebrating his century at Lord's

The main reason 2011 will be remembered by cricket admirers was for England becoming world number one, and beating India 4-0. Whilst this was nice, the calibre of the opposition marred what was set to be a hugely competitive and fascinating series. One man stood above the rest in that Indian side. I don’t need to name him. First innings of the series, Dravid made 103* from 220 balls at Lord’s, which was his first hundred at the Home of Cricket. A much deserved achievement, and the honours board is a better place for it. He carried his bat in a total of 286, and India went on to lose the game by 196 runs. What made the innings a superb one was that it was by no means an easy ride. Though he was dropped before his fifty, he continued to fight on, never losing patience – something a lot of players could learn from these days. ”He covered the swing, played late, and didn’t let the occasional miss affect him” according to Cricinfo. In the Second Test at Nottingham, Dravid opened the innings as he had done in the second innings at Lord’s, following an injury to Gambhir. He made 117 from 235 this time, in a total of 288. He showed ”impeccable discipline, courage and skill” in that innings, playing sensibly when others lost their heads, defending resolutely and occasionally throwing in a beautiful stroke to the boundary. Despite a blow to the wrist, and having to take painkillers, he did not let this affect him, and continued to fight on gloriously.  Once again he was rewarded with a fine century, and another appreciative ovation from the crowd on his departure. India once again went on to lose, but Dravid was again the only batsman in the side to pass three figures. India lost by a sizeable 319 runs.

And then, perhaps his finest hour. The Oval Test match saw Dravid open once again. It seemed none of the other Indian batsmen cared very much, and it was left to Dravid to do all the run-scoring on his own. A mammoth 591 first-innings total looked a daunting prospect, but the Great Man strode to the crease and took guard. By the close of day 3, India had reached 103-5, with Dravid 57*. He had been more positive in defence than he had in previous innings, and was again the sole competent batsman. Day 4 – 21st August 2011 – saw one of the finest batting efforts I have ever seen. Dravid made 146* from 266 balls and was not dismissed, thus had carried his bat through the innings. Not only that, but he emerged to open as India followed on. A sustained marathon of batting was admired and applauded by the Oval crowd, who knew they were witnessing a superb player showing endurance and commitment. His first innings lasted for six hours, but it was not without a few chances. Naturally, though, Dravid shook off these and continued to bat, showing superb mental strength. He hit Swann for three fours to move through the nineties, including a magnificent cut shot and a flick through mid wicket, before steering Bresnan down to third man to bring up his third century of the series. He went on to finish with 146 and received a superb ovation. Totally deserved for such a fantastic effort, as was the second ovation following his dismissal for 13 when following on. Highlights of Day 4 can be found below:

What made Dravid’s effort that series so magnificent was the sheer inability of anybody else to score any runs against England’s attack – the best in the world in my view. I’ve listed his qualities throughout, but the constant concentration, application, patience, judgement of line, length and swing, as well as superb moments of quality stroke-play, are what made that a quite outstanding effort. What’s more, he didn’t just score one or two hundreds, but three innings in conditions nobody could call favourable. That is the Dravid I will always remember. The man who stood up and was counted. The man who had the ability to resist, defend, remain at the crease, score, defend a bit more. The man who could bat in any conditions, and come out at the end with a century. Rahul Dravid was the man who inspired me, captured my imagination, showed me that you don’t have to bat like a slogger to succeed. And for that, I owe him an awful lot. The greatest Test batsman of an era. Rahul, you will be sorely missed. Thanks for the memories.

Thoughts from a chairlift

Sunday 12th February: A day in the Alps completed, and an evening that needs some substance to it. So I’ve decided to answer any questions submitted to me by the cricket-loving twitter-sphere. Despite a slow start, a late burst has seen a flurry of wickets/snow fall here, so there are plenty of questions to get through. Where shall we start…

Did England get to No 1 in the world because they were good or the teams they played in the last 18 months (Australia, Sri Lanka, India) were playing poorly? – submitted by Paul Lewis, via email.

The King Pair for Sehwag was undoubtedly a moment to savour for England fans

England reached world number one following the whitewash of what can only be described as an abject, clueless and disinterested India side. They’d previously beaten a fairly disorganised Australia side (though any victory on Aussie soil should not be taken lightly). There is undoubted quality in this England side, but are they a side comparable to the great West Indies or Australian World-beaters? In short, no. The bowling attack that England possess is one of the best they’ve had in decades, and in my view is the best in the world. But are they comparable to the world-beating attacks of old? Not quite. Also, as the Pakistan debacle showed, the batting is still very fragile, and limited in anything other than pleasant batting conditions. Flat-track bully is a term widely used these days, but I do think England house a few players who suddenly become very average when the going gets tough. So by my reckoning, I think England beat two fairly poor teams to claim the number one slot, and failed to perform adequately in defending that position. That said, they’re still a good side, but I don’t think there is a team equipped to beat any side on any soil these days. A lot of competitive teams, but no world-beaters.

At what stage does Andrew Strauss’s undoubted captaining ability not make up for his lack of runs at the top of the order? – submitted by Paul Lewis, via email. Also similarly asked by Stephanie, via Twitter (@booktrunk)

A very interesting question, this. The other day I stated that Strauss has probably got another couple of years left in him. Fearing the worst, an Ashes failure in 2013 summer could see him depart, before Cook takes over for the visit the same winter. Either way, by the end of that tour, I think Strauss will have stepped down and retired. He’s struggled throughout the past year, and his pursuit of runs is starting to draw more attention. I think that a captain can last for as long as the media let him. If his poor run continues (which I don;t think will happen, knowing Strauss’ resilient character) then it is a matter of time before the press start asking him those awkward questions. Once that doubt about a captain’s authority is called into question, it is the first step towards the exit door. So, in answer to the question, if the captain is winning games but not scoring runs, then questions won’t be asked. But if he still doesn’t score runs, and the team starts losing, don’t expect the media to sit patiently and wait for things to improve.

Why can nobody play left arm spin anymore? – submitted by @AERGilligan, via Twitter

A familiar sight these days, as KP is bowled by a left arm spinner

Good question, and I fear I’m about to mount the hobby horse that is the impact of T20 cricket. I think the case in point I’m going to use is Kevin Pietersen. He does not possess an adequate defensive stroke to play such bowling. His violent, diagonal swipe across the line of the ball, out in front of his pad, smacks of impatience. A need for the batsman to assert authority, declaring that they will be the one to dictate the terms of play. A lot of batsmen suffer from this, and it is commentators (don’t get me started on them) that make it worse. A constant need to dominate the bowling, not get bogged down, keep the scoreboard ticking over. But how did Younis Khan and Azhar Ali bat against Panesar and Swann? They blocked a lot. Patience is key. Nobody seems to have it anymore. It tends to be the lack of willing to play the ball late, as well as defensive technical frailties that have developed as the need for such a shot has dissipated from the game (due to T20). Watching the ball and playing carefully has been replaced by brash stroke-play, and I don’t like it.

Should captains have a third man? – submitted by @Bandon-Decker, via Twitter

Yes. We see an assortment of slips, gullys and other close catchers, but there’s always a mid-on, fine-leg, square leg etc. And no third man. Lo and behold, the bowler draws the edge and the reward is four more to the total. It takes at least three or four separate edged fours before  a captain decides to put a third man in. But why wait so long? You’ve got at least two protective leg side fielders there for the bad ball. But why is there no protection for the good ball? Be positive, punish the bowler for drifting on to leg, and keep the ball outside the off stump so that if the ball flies through a gap, it is not costly. I must say as a (rarely successful) batsman, a vacant third man is lovely, as you can just use the pace of the ball and take four. With one in place, and tight lines being bowled, things become a little less comfortable.

What is your favourite Trott innings and why? – submitted by Nicola Whiting, via Twitter (@taratommyjas)

I’ll make no attempt to hide it – I am a big fan of watching Jonathan Trott bat. His guard is glorious, his lack of any aggressive and ugly shots is also glorious, and his cover drive and particularly his leg-glances are sumptuous. Given that I am a similarly un-flamboyant batsman, it is no surprise I hold Trott in high regard. But how do I rank his innings? How can I possibly put one century above another, when both had me standing in my living room applauding his magnificence? Even the double hundred against Bangladesh at Lord’s was a fine effort given that nobody else bothered to get any runs. What I found amazing was that, in a Cricketer magazine survey of ‘top cricketing journalists’, only two out of fourteen had Trott in their Ashes XI for the 2010-11 tour. Despite that, he scored 445 runs at an average of 89, including two unbeaten centuries. I think that, though these two innings were glorious (especially Brisbane; the Great Escape and all that), his second finest effort was in his debut Test. On debut, second innings, with the pressure ramped up to maximum, to come out and score 119 to take the game away from Australia, and win the game and the Ashes for England, is some effort. Sadly, I cannot attribute one of the Ashes hundreds as Trott’s finest. The greatest innings he played was at Lord’s, in 2010, against Pakistan. Yes, it may have been that Test, but there was no doubt that Pakistan’s attack were on form. England had been reduced to 102-7 by a rampant Mohammad Amir, and it was down to Trott and Stuart Broad to salvage something for England. 332 runs later, Broad was dismissed for 169. Despite the magnificence of that innings, it was Trott who outlasted him. He’d arrived at the crease, with myself present at the ground (I chose to go to day one, when it rained loads and England got to 37-1, instead of day two, when he scored his runs) and proceeded to hold up an end as English wickets tumbled. But on he batted. 184 of the finest runs, which were by no means easy to come by. a superb innings given the situation, and the quality of the bowling he was up against. As you can probably tell if you’ve read this far, I’m quite a fan of young Jonathan…

I’ve reached the end of Sunday, and I’ve gone into quite a bit more detail than expected. I shall continue this tomorrow, once I get in from what promises to be another devastatingly cold day of skiing (I know, I shouldn’t really be complaining about being on holiday) as well as an unpredictable ODI between Pakistan and England.

Monday 13th February: In from skiing, manning two twitter feeds, but intent on finishing what I’ve started. England’s score of 260 seems adequate, and might even see us grab an unlikely win. We’ll see. Anyway, on with the questions…

Will Somerset win anything this year and if so, what? – submitted by Lee Hooper, via Twitter (@leehooper1)

Somerset haven't been able to win anything of late despite regular final appearances.

Somerset are county cricket’s nearly men. Last season they could have won all three tournaments, and came away with nothing. They’ve even managed to come second in the Championship on the basis of matches won, having tied on points at the top. However, undeterred (sort of) by this bout of ‘so-near-yet-so-far’ syndrome, Somerset again look a threat this season. From what I’ve seen, the best chance of winning a tournament lies in the T20 Cup. Anyone with Trescothick, Buttler, Hildreth, Trego, Kieswetter in the batting line-up always has a chance. But when you add Chris Gayle to that list, things suddenly become very scary. Not just for the opposition, but for the crowd’s general well-being and safety levels. Everyone always has a chance in the Championship, but I think the T20 Cup is where Somerset stand the best chance.

Steven Finn has taken two wickets in two balls in the third over of Pakistan’s reply. Not a bad start, that. 

Where is the farthest afield you have been to watch England? Been on any tours? – submitted by Nicola Whiting, via Twitter (@taratommyjas)

Cricket played with Table Mountain as a backdrop. Glorious.

In my 18 years on this planet I’ve managed to see England abroad once. It was in the 3rd Test of the South Africa tour of 2004-05, day 1. Hoggard bowled Gibbs early on, giving us happy souls in the Barmy Army something to cheer about. Sadly, the rest of the day saw Jacques Kallis score an unbeaten century. Despite that, the day was an entertaining one. Highlights were th constant songs coming from the Barmy Army assembled on the opposite bank, as well as the destruction of a lengthy beer snake. The snake was destroyed as everyone holding it started chucking it upwards, cups flying everywhere. It was a glorious sight. And any day of cricket played with Table Mountain as a backdrop is worth watching.

Finn apparently bowling very well. Not that I’ve got much to back that up with. A few twitter comments perhaps, as Test Match Special doesn’t work out here, and Test Match Sofa are talking endlessly about crap bands. 

Will we ever see any form of Cricket in the Olympics? – submitted via Twitter by @1CricFan. Similarly: Should T20 be an Olympic sport? -submitted by Paul Lewis via email.

I think if any form of cricket will make the Olympics, it will be cricket. Of course, it used to be in there many decades ago. But can it make a return? It would have to be Twenty20 cricket if it did, but I don’t think it should. The Olympics is not intended for professionals, and there is already plenty of cricket going on in the world. I don’t think we need another event in the Olympics when there are plenty going on already. Cricket doesn’t need the Olympics, and the Olympics doesn’t need cricket. That’s my view anyway.

Finn snares another wicket, with a great catch taken behind the stumps. Test Match Sofa not on form today, what with the absence of Dan, as well as the presence of a couple of dull people. Hope they don’t read this… Anyway, on we go.

What are the top 3 attributes to being a first class cricketer, in your opinion? - submitted by Nicola Whiting, via Twitter (@taratommyjas)

Rahul Dravid's cover drive is/was a joy to behold

Temperament, a good defence, and a couple of scoring shots are what I think a good batsman needs. That’s my style of cricketer though – somebody who can bat for a long time without getting bored, not get out and score a few runs in the process. That’s the sort of first-class batsmen I’d want to see. None of this flashy, fancy stroke-play only to see the off-stump cartwheeling backwards when the bowler sends down a straight one! The possession of a couple of beautiful shots in a batsman’s locker is also very welcome. Bowling wise? Accuracy, consistency and a surprise delivery. Consistent line and length outside the off-stump is usually enough to find the edge, but nothing worries a batsman more than the thought of a 90mph bouncer aimed at his head. Bowlers tend to try too much variation thses days (all you have to do it watch Dernbach to find that out) but the effects of that in first-class cricket are minimal. A change-up delivery has to be a genuine surprise, and that means very irregular.

Finn takes his fourth. Definitely out to prove a point to the selectors, and good on him for doing so. In other news, this is the first time I’ve ever been compelled to turn off Test Match Sofa. Not very helpful, and not very funny either. Sad times. Though the sun setting in the Alps is a rather nice thing to behold.

Has the DRS been a good thing for cricket? – submitted by Paul Lewis, via email

Generic lbw review picture

In short, yes. It means that batsmen no longer can play spin with the pad and expect a not out decision. It is forcing them to think a bit more, which is something England failed to do very well in the recent whitewash. However, all these suggestions that it is causing the game to become too lbw centric is a bit foolish. The reason there were so many wickets to spinners in the last series was that there are little other ways you can get a man out on those pitches. The ball doesn’t carry to slip; there isn’t enough pace to take a thin edge to the keeper, so bowlers resorted to bowling straight, a bizarre yet quite clever tactic these days. Lo and behold, batsmen didn’t manage to hit every ball, as they are rarely equipped with one of my three main attributes – a stout defence. As a result, we saw more wickets. But DRS isn’t perfect. The fact that boards are deciding to purchase cheap versions of the technology (Virtual-Eye being the brand of choice in Dubai/Abu Dhabi) means that a lot of oddities arise, such as balls hitting where most thought they’d miss, and vice versa. Also, the ‘Umpire’s call’ factor was a bit unpredictable too. There are problems that need ironing out, but on the whole its a good system that means the right decision is made more often. Now all we need to do is explain to the BCCI that such an outcome is a good thing.

No wicket since the last paragraph. Finn out of the attack, with figures of 4/20 from 6 overs. Required run rate of 5.75 looking a bit high, but with England bowling, anything is possible.

Does Bopara have what it takes to become a Test player (took Gatting ages to bed in, after all)? – submitted via Twitter by @AERGilligan

My most opinionated answer so far – no he doesn’t. He doesn’t have the temperament, or the technique to survive at the top level. In Test matches other than those against hte West Indies, he averages a monumental 15.23, a number that has the world’s bowlers quaking with trepidation. He doesn’t have the defensive technique, or the ability to bat for any significant length of  time to succeed at that level. By all means keep him in the one-day side, if that makes him happy, but he’s had plenty of chances and failed to take them in the Test arena. England would be better off searching for a longer-term option, such as Taylor. Which leads me on to…

Is James Taylor the answer to replace Eoin Morgan in England’s batting lineup? – submitted by Paul Lewis, via email

The diminutive (or small, if you prefer) Taylor has all the qualities to become a solid Test batsman

I think so, yes. Morgan has clearly similar problems to Bopara in that his technique is too vulnerable to succeed in Test cricket. He also struggles to bat for any great length of time, as it isn’t long before he resorts to one of his aggressive, reverse-sweep shots. Yes, they work in one-day cricket, but they won’t make you a great player. Taylor has shown a lot of promise. Though his 2011 stats were poor, it was not a great year for batsmen, especially playing in division 2 with the Tiflex ball hooping around all over the place. Perhaps it is slightly early for Taylor, given that he has just moved to Nottinghamshire. After a season for them we may well see him progress to a Test-quality batsmen, or equally he may falter. However, he possesses the ability to play spin, and also can bat time. For me, it is either him or James Hildreth that bats at 6 for the Sri Lanka tour. I;d be tempted to go for Hildreth, given that he’s a bit more experienced and likely to succeed. However, England may go for Bopara. Understandable from their point of view, but I wouldn’t expect a pile of runs from him.

Pakistan 54/5, with Samit Patel picking up the wicket of Misbah. This time an lbw that he doesn’t review. Whatever next?

17:30 CET: So ends my cricket question and answer marathon. I think I’ve got through enough. Of you’ve got this far, then I congratulate you, as well as thank you for putting up with my own views, which may be completely incorrect in your view.

The sun setting behind a mountain. Well, clouds actually, but that would ruin the happiness of the situation.

The sun sets in Les Gets, and I believe a well earned rest is in order. Thank you for reading, and I’ll be back with more writing by the end of the week.

Thank you to all who submitted questions, it was much appreciated. Hopefully the answers are satisfactory!  

Third defeat completes humiliating whitewash of England

England had already lost the series following the abysmal collapse to be bowled out for 72 in Abu Dhabi. The return to Dubai for the third Test was built up as a game where England had a chance to redeem themselves. In short, they didn’t do that.

Broad was magnificent for England throughout the series.

Initially things looked bright for England. A fantastic first day bowling performance saw Pakistan bowled out for 99, with Stuart Broad continuing his fantastic run of form with four great wickets. Jimmy Anderson assisted with three wickets, as well as two for Monty Panesar and one for Graeme Swann. England had half the day to begin their reply, and they ended it in the lead. But once again the work of the bowlers had been undone by the shakiness of the top order. Strauss managed to remain not out until the close, but ending on 104/6 was a significant swing back towards Pakistan. Cook was caught behind; Trott lbw; Pietersen lbw to the left arm spin of Rehman once again; Bell was unfortunate to be stumped, but Ajmal once again had him tied in knots; Morgan was trapped in front to Rehman playing across the line; Prior was bowled by Rehman trying to get his pad out of the way. All rather tame dismissals.

Day two saw England limp to 141, a lead of 42. Strauss was stumped playing a rather ugly swipe down the pitch. Ajmal and Rehman cleaned up the tail to finish with 3 and 5 wickets respectively. Anderson struck early with the wicket of Taufeeq Umar, and Panesar had Hafeez lbw as he tried to sweep a straight one. The rest of the day was dominated by Azhar Ali and Younis Khan, whose partnership took the total from 28-2 to 222-2 by the close, with Younis scoring a superb century (115*) with Azhar supporting on 75*. The second day well and truly belonged to Pakistan, and England would need to skittle them out in the morning if they were to have any realistic chance of chasing with their frail batting line-up.

Younis fell to Stuart Broad for 127, offering England hope of a way back into the match. But Azhar reached his patient and well deserved century, adding a further 87 with captain Misbah-ul-Haq. Once Misbah was dismissed lbw to Panesar (which he duly reviewed incorrectly, making it five lbws of his own reviewed and five decisions upheld), England seemed too far behind. However, Pakistan’s last seven wickets fell for just 34, with Monty getting his second five-wicket haul of the series. England needed 324 to win, but not many were confident of that happening. However, hope was once again offered as Cook and Strauss made it through to the close with the score 32-0.

Pietesen's defence was once again defeated by spin.

Though England made their second highest score of the series, it was once again a fairly woeful tale of batting failure. Strauss was first to fall, this time lbw to Rehman for 26. Trott then played an uncharacteristic and horrific heave off Ajmal, and was caught at deep square leg for 18, leaving the score 85-2. Pietersen then look like his counter-attacking innings could rescue England, but he was bowled through the gate by a regulation off-spinner from Ajmal. Pietersen’s violent diagonal swipe in defence the reason for many of his downfalls to spin this series. 116-3 became 119-4, and all hope seemed lost as Cook was caught brilliantly at slip by Younis off Ajmal. That left the disappointing duo of Bell and Morgan at the crease. The pair managed to add 37 before Bell played an atrocious cut shot to an Umar Gul long-hop which saw him caught at point. Morgan attacked, hitting a six and three fours, but he was caught behind off Gul, highlighting his frailty to a good line outside his off-stump. Prior played aggressively and managed to finish with a fine 48*, but he ran out of partners as Broad holed out in the deep, Swann was also caught (both off Gul), Anderson caught at slip off Ajmal and Panesar out lbw to Rehman to complete a 71 run victory by Pakistan, taking the series by an emphatic three games to nil.

A statistically-influenced Post Mortem

England tend to enjoy creating history by breaking records when they lose Test matches, and this game was no different. This was the first Test since 1907 in which the side batting first was bowled out for under 100 yet went on to win the game. It was only the 6th time this has happened in Test history, and the 13th game where a side has been bowled out for under 100 in any innings and won the game. Furthermore, England averaged 19.06 per wicket in the series, the 7th lowest ever by them, and the worst since 1890. Further misery can be seen in this tweet from Adam Mountford, the TMS producer: 

KP, Morgan and Bell finish series with 200 runs between them at an average of 11.11. On the tour they have failed to reach 40 in 29 innings.

—
Adam Mountford (@tmsproducer) February 06, 2012

Bell was dismissed five times in the series by Ajmal.

In short, England were awful. A simple look at the series batting averages shows that nobody other than Matt Prior managed to average 30, in supposedly batsman-friendly conditions. England’s bowling was excellent, and clearly not the issue at hand. The real issue is indeed the sudden frailty of the batting line-up, and the inability of most to play good spin bowling. Pakistan bowled very well throughout the series, but as the partnership between Younis and Azhar showed, it was by no means impossible to play spin on these pitches. Morgan averaged 13.66, and looked terribly out of place against spin, despite many saying that was one of his major attributes. When the going got tough, he, along with Pietersen and Bell, crumbled. KP averaged 11.16, Bell only 8.5, worse than Jimmy Anderson. The middle order contrived on at least three occasions to throw away the good work carried out by England’s bowlers. The deficiencies against spin were all too apparent, and an air of inevitability descended each innings. England were exposed too often, and it was this batting failure that cost all three matches. Pietersen has a woeful technique against spin. His violent defensive prods with an angled bat tend to end up in him being dismissed. Bell was simply out-thought and out-classed by Ajmal.

Pakistan: Outstanding

The Pakistan team celebrate the whitewash.

Despite the cloud hanging over the team following the three players jailed for spot fixing last year, Pakistan came out and played with pride. Their captain was considered and his calm manner instilled confidence into the side. The two spinners in Ajmal and Rehman were superb, with the former deservedly named man of the series. Azhar Ali in particular demonstrated why you don;t need to play yourself out of a hole with aggression, despite the opinion of many mainstream journalists and pundits. The whole team should, and will, be proud of their achievement. They have well and truly deposed England from their Number One spot, and deserve significant praise for doing it so emphatically.

Where do England go from here?

Glum faces in the England camp

Drastic changes are not what are needed for the Sri Lanka tour. They do not possess as good a spin attack as Pakistan, though they will of course test England’s batsmen with it. With Bresnan fit, there is a possibility that he returns in place of Monty, though he has bowled very well in the last two Tests. Morgan has to be the batsman to make way. He is simply not adept enough to play at the Test level. His violent trigger movement, and questionably temperament, combined with technical flaws outside off-stump make it very difficult to see how he can hold on to his place. James Taylor is a player who is a good player of spin, and one who deserves a chance to play for his country. Flower admitted that England were under-prepared for the series, and he vowed not to let that happen again. Preparation is vital for that series, as further failings against spin will not be tolerated. However, the focus now should be on salvaging some pride in the one-day series. Nothing can be done about the whitewash now, so it is important that before England play Sri Lanka they make positive steps to regain the winning mentality. Though they may only be one-day games, they can still have a significant impact on morale.

The Sri Lanka series will tell us a lot about the resilience of the side, and whether they really can learn how to play on the subcontinent. If they fail again, the batsmen should all be in fear of their places in the sides, what with such a depth of young talent coming through. If the batsmen fail dismally again, heads must roll. But all England fans hope it won’t come to that…

Suggested ICC Test rule changes for T20 fans

As England struggled to comprehend how Pakistani pair Azhar Ali and Younus Khan managed to bat all afternoon, the ICC produced a shortlist of new rules to be introduced into the Test game, in order to spice it up. The following suggestions were made:

“The ICC is concerned that Test cricket is losing its following, and that there are no fans left. In order to convert the hordes of supporters found watching T20 matches, we commend the following proposals to the MCC, in order to be considered and later implemented to the laws of the Test game:

1. A wicketkeeper may shoot a pistol at the batsman’s feet during the bowler’s delivery stride: This would keep batsmen on their toes. Literally.
   

   We want to see runs, but also batsmen fearing for their lives.

2. Fielding captain plays trump card. Each batsman has an over to hit a six or he is dismissed: Gone are the days when you can casually play out a maiden in times of crisis.
3. Go down the It’s A Knockout route. Stuart Hall to do Ravi Shastri’s job: Commentary is not exciting enough. Inflatable stumps and obstacles around the outfield would also improve things.
4. ICC rule that flock of no more than 250 chickens may be released into the outfield, but only after 1st batting powerplay: This would fly in the face of those who’d suggest it would be a clucking disaster.
5. Fielding powerplay with the 12th man allowed to also field for 5 overs? Give Something back to the bowlers for once: If we go too batsman friendly, we they won’t have anyone to face.
6. One beamer per over is allowed, and indeed encouraged: Once again, this would keep the batsman on his toes.
7. A run every 3 balls or the batsman is automatically out and the team lose 5 runs: Maidens are the work of the devil. Or ‘Rahul Dravid’ as he is more commonly known.
8. For 5 overs per innings the batting team can remove the stumps and the only way they can be out is caught: This would allow increased risk-taking by the batsmen – something we haven’t been able to encourage thus far.
9. The bowler must cartwheel into his delivery stride no less than once an over: This would weed out the old-timers who aren’t really up to it any more.
10. During the batting powerplay a bigger ball is used so batsman can literally ‘see it like a football’: Nick Knight’s commentary would be enhanced enormously by such a development.
11. There is the encouraged option of taking a grenade to bowl between the 10th and 11th overs: Explosive hitting just got explosive-er.
12. Indoor cricket rules. Double outs and the ball is always live for sneaky runs and run outs: Never a dull moment. Even during drinks breaks.
13. Any team following on can kidnap two batsmen from the opposing team to open their second innings: If we can’t bat, you can bat for us. This will be strictly enforced by also kidnapping close family, thus ensuring there is no attempt to throw wickets away. We know what you were thinking…
14. Trott, Cook, Younis Khan and Dravid to banned for life. Warner and Pietersen first two times out don’t count: What kind of players think that defensive batting entertains the crowds? Hit the ball, man!
15. No fielders in front of the wicket: They just get in the way of boundaries.
16. If an umpires give a not out decision. The fielding side should force the umpire to come bowl to see if he can do any better: For too long umpires have been mocking players for their inability to take wickets…
17. Spinners not permitted to turn ball too much: Batsmen don’t like such weird movement off the pitch. England will be particularly heartened by this proposal.
18. Every time the bowler appeals the batting team get 10 runs even if it is out: Runs runs runs please.
19. One run to be taken away from the batting team’s score for every dot ball bowled: Again, what kind of batsman wants to defend?
20. For every good sledge from the fielding team the batsmen are deducted 5 runs: Microphones need to be installed so the crowd can hear the heated exchanges. Swearing actively encouraged to add excitement.
21. The captain will receive a 1 match ban if the batting sides run rate slips below 6 runs an over: For too long we have tolerated such ridiculous behaviour from batsmen.
22. Keep spotlights on permanently and each side call on the fire dept to hose down once per inning for D/L enforcement: Light shows and rain showers, for the family audience.
23. If an appeal is unsuccessful the bowler has to remove an item of clothing. A DRS review, the captain. If successful, then the umpire does: Panesar could end up doing ‘the Full Monty’, an exciting marketing prospect.
24. The umpires are blindfolded: Adds the element of unknown during those long afternoon sessions.
25. To complete a run, the batsmen must do a lap of the Square Leg Umpire: We got rid of runners, so something needed to be done.
26. The batsman is only out bowled if the stumps cartwheel out of the ground: We want proper wickets, not those rubbish ones where a bail is dislodged in unspectacular fashion.
27. A stealth over could be introduced by using a green ball: Potent weapons for bowlers who would otherwise not consider playing, such is our love of run scoring.
    

    Class acts like Bopara must be protected in their development.

28. Every time Australia select Shaun Marsh the opposition starts with a 50 run deduction. Ravi Bopara also: We don’t want to shatter the confidence of young, up and coming, future world-beating batsmen.
29. The 4th ball of each over is bowled with tennis ball half covered in tape, so it swings dramatically and stings like hell: Possibility of forcing batsmen to un-pad for short periods of time, as well.
30. Any player who flagrantly wastes an appeal must play out the innings wearing an “All the gear, no idea” t-shirt: Clueless bowlers must be named and shamed.
31. If a batsman get’s a century he can bring on his distractor who stands by the umpire pulling faces as the bowler runs in: Jason Gillespie used to do it, so why can’t a batsman?
32. Pick your first shot out of a hat: Unpredictability is our goal.

We, the ICC, will conduct a consultation process with T20 fans ONLY in order to ascertain which rules they believe will have the most significant positive impact on Test Cricket. We must repeat that this remains a consultation process. As there are no real fans of Test Cricket, change is much needed”

So, these suggestions remain a possibility for the Test arena. Those watching the recent Pakistan v England series, as well as South Africa v Australia, will understand that it is vital that changes are made to combat the decline of what is an ultimately flawed sport.

-

Thanks to all the contributors following @TestingTimesXI’s initial suggestion. apologies if I miss some off the list, but the above ‘laws’ were provided by:
@CaptMikeYates, @TestMatchDan,  @cookmacC, @KiwiBjorn, @CawthorneCC, @kellykaywit, @Lester_P05, @lachyheel, @paulinghana, @WimboGroundsman, @PencilCricket, @the85man, @FakeHauritz, @AERGilligan, @JamesOlympics, @ukhawar, @FakeShaneWatson, @mirthspam, @hypocentre, @wilcogeorge, @Ontablets, @TheDooosra, @tomley, @unitbrown, @AlternateRowan, @CraigAPerkins, @BigSino
Hopefully you didn’t mind me compiling such a dossier. I think we might see some of these suggestions applied in the near future…

England’s batting frailties all too apparent: Review of the Second Test

The Abu Dhabi Test match was a great advert for Test cricket. It lasted four days and you couldn’t predict the outcome until well into the final of those. England again bowled exceptionally well, and if it was not for a partnership between Azhar Ali and Azad Shafiq, they might have rolled Pakistan over in their second innings and won the game. Clearly, this did not happen, and the partnership was a key contributor to Pakistan’s victory. Along with some atrocious England batting. Let the inquest begin.

Morgan fended at a wide one and was caught at slip off the last ball of Day 2.

Throughout the series England’s bowling has not been the problem. Forced into a change due to Chris Tremlett’s injury, Monty Panesar was drafted in, with England playing two seamers and two spinners. Despite my reservations, the tactic worked remarkably well. Monty came on within ten overs on the first day. His one wicket in the innings does not do justice to the way he bowled. Swann was once again amongst the wickets, picking up the first of the innings as well as ending Shafiq’s innings of 56. Captain Misbah ended the day 83* with his team on 256/7. The morning of day 2 was excellent for England, with the final three wickets polished off for just one extra run. Broad was once again magnificent with the ball, picking up four wickets in total. England then ground out the runs as Cook and Trott took the score to 166/1, before Trott fell for 74. Nearing the end of the day, it was important for the middle order to bat sensibly and not lose wickets. Of course, being England, and with spin in the attack, this did not happen. Pietersen tried to force Ajmal through mid-wicket, only managing an inside edge that looped to slip. Bell played the greatest Test innings I’ve ever seen in which the batsman has absolutely no idea which way the ball is spinning. Lasting 78 balls in such circumstances should be hailed as a miracle. He managed to last until the close. Unlike Eoin Morgan. In the last over of the day, Morgan wafted forward at an off-spinner from Ajmal, which he didn’t need to play at. He managed to edge the ball to slip, undermining the good foundations that Cook and Trott had built earlier on. At 205/7, England were still well behind.

Broad's 58* was vital for England

Day 3 saw Bell finally dismissed, not by spin but seam in the form of Umar Gul. Stuart Broad added a vital 58* to haul England up to 327 all out, giving them a lead of 70. Broad batted exceptionally well, taking the attack to Pakistan’s bowlers. England had Pakistan 52/4 early on, with Monty taking three of those wickets. His dismissal of Younis Khan was a wonderful delivery; the perfect left-arm spinner’s delivery. But then the game-changing partnership between Ali and Shafiq began. The partnership of 88 meant that Pakistan were in a position to set England a small but tough chase. Wickets were not regular enough for England, as Pakistan managed to reach 214, setting England a target of 145 to win with over a day and a half to get them. Monty finished with 6 wickets, which was well deserved given the way in which he;d bowled.

Plank. Does that refer to the stump on the floor or the outgoing batsman?

England started off cautiously. This has been criticised by many. But what harm does it do adding 21 runs without losing a wicket? Cook was the first to go, trying to turn Hafeez into the leg-side and getting a leading edge back to the bowler. Ian Bell was forced up to number three by an unwell Jonathan Trott. He was unfortunate as his defensive shot to Ajmal rebounded off his pad and rolled into the stumps. Next to go was Pietersen, who lunged at a ball from the left-armer Rehman and was trapped lbw. The diagonal nature of KP’s bat as it swipes at the ball seems to be a severe problem facing spin. He doesn’t get behind the ball. 33-3 became 37-4 as Morgan played what can only be described as an atrocious shot, going back to Rehman, not covering his stumps and pushing his bat away from his body, only for the ball to turn an uproot his stumps. A quite frankly awful shot sums up my feeling towards his position in the side. Strauss fought hard, playing a captain’s innings, but fell lbw to a marginal lbw call off Rehman. Next to go was Trott, playing back again to the left-arm spinner and being trapped lbw. And 68/6 became 68/7 as Broad tried to drive Rehman, only for the ball to spin between bat and pad and clatter into his off-stump. Swann also fell lbw on the back foot. Prior was caught trying to attack. Anderson was caught sweeping. England were bowled out for 72. Simply put, it was a shambolic batting performance. England’s last five wickets had fallen in 11 balls, the fewest in recorded Test history.

Post Mortem

What was a finely poised Test match at lunch on day 4 ended in misery once again for England, as they capitulated miserably. The ‘old friend’s return’ in the form of England collapsing is no longer a welcome comfort, but a painful presence. The shot-selection against spin has been England’s Achilles heel, as too many wickets have fallen to Ajmal and Rehman. The reason for England’s two miserable defeats is not that the bowlers aren’t doing enough, but that the middle order is hugely under-achieving. In all four innings on this tour the middle order have collapsed, with a reliance placed on both Cook and Trott, as well as Prior and Broad down the order. The reason England lost this Test can be pinpointed not just on today’s batting performance, but the late wickets in the final session on Day 2. Pietersen and Morgan gave their wickets away extremely cheaply, and gave Pakistan a way back into the game. Morgan especially is proving to be a walking wicket this series, averaging just 10.25 on supposedly ‘flat’ wickets. Pietersen is averaging 4.25, Bell 9, both unacceptably poor for the talent they have. England’s middle-order is known for having confident, flashy stroke-makers. But when the going gets tough, they disappear, and crumble under the pressure. Lower down, the attempts to take the attack to Pakistan were laughably poor, with no account made of the turn off the pitch. Leaving the stumps exposed in attack saw Broad fall, and playing back in front of the stumps saw Trott and Swann fall. England need to find a way to play spin, but they have certainly shown that standing behind the crease and playing French cricket is not the way to do it. The problem is not just a technical one, but mental also. Every time spin appears the batsmen seem to be confused, and positively hasten to hand their wickets away before dashing for the comfort of the pavilion. Application shown by Cook and Trott needs to be instilled in those who are failing at the moment, as well as a better mix of defensive and attacking shots.

Misbah has led the revival of Pakistan, proving that they could be a real force in International Cricket.

Despite all that, huge credit must go to Pakistan. Under Misbah’s leadership, Pakistan have steadied the ship and pushed on to show they are one of the top contenders in the world. The pressure they create with the spinners, as well as effective and patient batting, they have outplayed England on two occasions now. They have thoroughly deserved this series victory, as they have completely out foxed England’s batsmen, and proven that they know how to beat teams.

The series moves back to Dubai for the third Test on Friday. Where do England go from here? I would certainly say goodbye to Eoin Morgan. a good one-day player, but by no means good enough for the Test arena. His extreme trigger movement before each delivery is just one huge technical flaw he has, and there are a number of better options for England in future. Bopara is definitely not one of them. He has had numerous chances to prove he is good enough, and never taken them. There are a large number of young batsmen waiting for their chance, such as James Hildreth, James Taylor, Jos Buttler and Jonny Bairstow. the Sri Lanka tour needs to see one of these players brought in. I think Taylor would be the best option as I’ve seen him against spin, and he certainly seems more comfortable against it than England’s so called ‘specialist’ in Morgan. For the Test, I would keep the same bowling attack, as Monty has thoroughly deserved his place with the seven wickets he picked up. Morgan has to go, with my preferred candidate being Steve Davies, the back up keeper.

Whatever the team, England need to sort out their deficiencies against spin. This has to be done technically and mentally. Otherwise a third embarrassment will follow these two.

72 all out can be added to the list of capitulations by England. The day is not one that fans will be able to forget for a long time. England need to sort out their problems, otherwise there will be a serious risk to their prized number one world ranking.

England come crashing back down to earth: Review of the First Test

The build up to the first Test was substantial and thorough. Many things were said, by experts and armchair-supporters alike. Opinions were voiced. England playing two spinners was a popular argument. In the end, Andy Flower stuck with his tried-and-tested formula, expecting England to bat deep and substantially, and bowl Pakistan out twice with three seamers and one spinner. I think its safe to say that few predicted what would happen after England won the toss and chose to bat first…

Day 1

Cook edges the ball behind to trigger England's first collapse

Cook and Strauss made a nervous start, not looking particularly comfortable. Misbah-ul-Haq then brought on opening batsmen, and off-spinner Mohammad Hafeez. Cook tried to cut a delivery too close to his body and edged behind to the third Akmal, Adnan. And that kind of set the tone… Next to depart was Trott, with the ball sliding off the face of the bat as he tried to glance it off his hips, taken behind the stumps again by Akmal. Soon after, Strauss was bowled by Saeed Ajmal, attempting to pull a delivery that skidded on and hit off stump. Then first ball, Ian Bell faced an Ajmal doosra, edging the ball that turned minimally away from the bat, and giving Akmal his third catch of the innings. That left the score on 42/4. Kevin Pietersen was then removed by Ajmal, given out lbw following a review. One solitary run had been added since the previous wicket. England were in a spot of bother.

Morgan and Prior began the rebuilding job, but the former was soon to depart for 24. He tried a sweep shot against Ajmal, missing the ball which stuck him in front of the stumps on the back leg. That didn’t stop him wasting a review though. Broad then fell to Ajmal, once again lbw. As Broad is England’s most important batsmen (according to himself), he of course also reviewed his decision. Surprise surprise, it was not overturned. Prior continued to bat sensibly and put on a 50 partnership with Graeme Swann. Sadly, the recovery was ended as Rehamn bowled Swann for 34, leaving the score on 151-8. Both Tremlett and Anderson came in and out, both lbw to Ajmal, giving himself seven wickets on a pitch that offered scarcely little turn. England had capitulated awfully, and handed the initiative right on a plate to Pakistan. Prior was the only batsman that managed to cover himself in any sort of glory, with his 70* in a total of 192 saving England from total embarrassment.

Pakistan had 15 overs to bat; an important mini-session that offered England the chance at immediate redemption. Predictably, Pakistan reached the close on 42/0. The perfect end to a day they had dominated.

Day 2

Pakistan continued where they had left off the previous evening and accumulated runs in the morning session. It took England 114 runs before the opening partnership was broken, when Broad bowled a beauty that seamed away from the left handed Taufeeq Umar and hit the top of off-stump. Soon  after Broad has his second, when Azhar Ali edged behind a rising delivery to Prior. Hafeez continued on his merry was, reaching 88 before Graeme Swann refered a not out decision following a poorly timed sweep shot. That wicket left Pakistan on a score of 176/3, soon to overtake England’s fairly awful 192. Gloriously, the next wicket fell to a superb ball from Jonathan Trott, who managed to get one to seam back sharply and crash into Younus Khan’s pads, trapping him lbw. Trott had the frontline bowlers wondering how he’d managed to extract such seam movement when they had failed to.

Rehamn was bowled in the last over of the day. Akmal didn't fancy seeing the day out.

The new ball was taken with Pakistan well ahead on 231/5. In Anderson’s first over with the new cherry, he had Asad Shafiq caught behind for 16. 20 overs passed before the next wicket was to fall. Pakistan’s run rate dropped as the day progressed, largely thanks to a very watchful captain’s innings from Misbah, accumulating 52 runs from 154 balls before he was out lbw to Swann in the penultimate over of the day. And in the final over, Anderson bowled a beauty to hit the top of off, dismissing Rehman for 4. Pakistan finished the day on 288/7. England had been persistant on a pitch that offered them very little, and if they could take the last 3 wickets cheaply, there was still an outside chance they could bat themselves into a winning position over the course of the next couple of days. As it happened, things turned out differently…

Day 3

England’s bowlers started fairly loosely but Umar Gul fell quickly to Broad, flaying a loose dive to point. Adnan Akmal played an effusive and effective innings, reverse sweeping Swann for four a couple of times. Ajmal was caught at short leg off Swann, and despite the replays showing the ball hadn’t hit the bat, the third umpire claimed there was insufficient evidence to overturn the decision, and Ajmal had to depart. Akmal continued to torment England, facing every single ball in the 20 minute last wicket partnership. He was stumped by Prior off Swann to end Pakistan’s innings of 338. Time for England to prove that the first innings was just a blip…

KP played a truly hopeless shot given the situation.

The first wicket fell almost immediately, with Strauss given out caught behind off Umar Gul. Similarly to Ajmal, he reviewed but remained out, despite little evidence to prove that he had indeed hit it. Soon after, Cook was also caught behind off Gul, gloving one down the legside like Strauss had (but this time with contact made). 25-2 became 25-3 as Pietersen took on Gul, playing a ridiculous hook shot, which saw him caught at deep square leg. A very poor shot at any stage of an innings, but diabolical given the situation of this match. 10 runs later it was Bell’s turn to depart for a second time, the doosra again fooling him as he was trapped lbw in front of the stumps. He promptly wasted a review. Trott batted sensibly despite the regular fall of wickets at the other end. Morgan was the next to depart. He had the chance to prove his worth, but instead decided to illustrate to his doubters why they are probably right. His scratchy innings came to an end just before tea as he edged an arm-ball from Rehman behind. Akmal, as he had done many times in the match already, clung onto the catch. England reached tea on 75/5.

Trott got stuck in a rut on 49 and soon played a loose shot, another England batsman out caught Akmal bowled Gul. 87/6 became 87/7 as Prior departed, along with any faint hopes that England could salvage something. Prior was out lbw to an Ajmal delivery that kept unfairly low. Again it was the bowlers who batted better than the batsmen. Broad fell for 17, caught at long on taking the attack to the bowlers. Next ball, Tremlett edged one to slip to give Rehman his third wicket. Anderson and Swann kept going, taking England into the lead, an event that was greeted with cheers from the Barmy Army, and glorious cries of Jerusalem. Anderson even hit Ajmal for 6, making a case for promotion up the batting order. But England’s ordeal came to an end, when Swann was caught at short cover for 39, giving Ajmal his 10th wicket in the match. That total of 160 – miserably unsubstantial – meant Pakistan required a total of 15 runs to win. They achieved that easily for the loss of no wicket. It was time for the post mortems to begin…

Analysis (The Post Mortem)

England’s problem this Test was unmistakeably the batting. The top order froze in the face of spin, positively eager to give up their wickets, race off the pavilion to hide. The match saw a return of the Old England, the one too happy to collapse for the opposition constantly. Strangely, it is rather more entertaining to have a team so hopelessly incompetent that fans can have a right old moan about its deficiencies. English collapses were supposed to be a thing of the past, but the phenomenon we had grown to know and love made a glorious reappearance in Dubai, in the form of a double capitulation. It was a most stunning return to the roots of English batting.

Strauss cut a forlorn figure at the end of the match. Quite right, too.

Many calls were made that Monty should have played. Maybe so, but did England really lose because they didn’t bowl Pakistan out for under 100? No, I didn’t think so. It is the batting deficiencies that need sorting out. A lack of competitive cricket in the build up may have had a part to play, but the lack of any sort of coherent innings (Prior and maybe Trott aside) is a startling way in which to begin a series. The openers need to lead by example; the middle order needs to play in a calmer fashion; Morgan needs to stick to one-day cricket. The important area of focus is how to play spin. This is a problem that seems to have faced England since the dawn of (Father)  Time. Work needs to be done on picking Ajmal’s doosra, which accounted for a number of batsmen, including Ian Bell twice. Flower and Strauss are not men who will overreact in the face of defeat. Strauss noted in his interview that England ‘won’t panic’, seemingly suggesting that there won’t be changes made for the second Test.

I’m sure a lot will be said before play begins on Wednesday morning. Rest assured the spinner debate will be argued to the death, and also the controversy surrounding Ajmal’s action, which, to be fair, does look a bit chuck-ish. Safe to say that how England respond to this dismal batting performance and humiliating defeat is going to define not only the series but the year ahead.

Responding to this defeat is vital. But let us enjoy the return of the ‘Glorious English Collapse’ while we still can. A truly perplexing but magnificent event that had almost died out, only to be wonderfully resurected by this England side.

On to Abu Dhabi. Enjoy the week ahead.

Should England play two spinners?

In my series preview article I seemed rather dismissive about playing two spinners. Monty Panesar’s 5-59 in the warm-up game today, though on a favourable pitch, has rather suggested that I was hasty in judgement. And despite it being a turning pitch, Panesar still took four more wickets that England’s number one spinner Graeme Swann. According to those who witnessed Monty bowling today (sadly I am not one such lucky person) were very complimentary. So what should England do? Five bowlers with two spinners? Four bowlers with two spinners? Or four bowlers with one spinner?

The argument for 5 bowlers; 2 spinners:

Panesar celebrating one of his five wickets. Lovely jubbly Monty!

Dubai. Not renown, even in its infancy of hosting first-class cricket, for being a place that is favourable to bowlers. Playing four bowlers in such an environment would provide a tough workload. Heaven forbid what would happen if somebody picked up an injury. Conditions are expected to favour spin, as all subcontinent pitches do. This surely suggests that it would be sensible to play two spinners. Panesar and Swann offer two differing styles – one more conventional and consistent, the other penetrating and attacking. Plus they spin the ball in different directions. But if England were to go this route, the five bowler option, what impact would that have on the batting line-up? Well, on fairly flat surfaces, you’d expect a top-order of England’s quality to be able to score enough runs. Especially with Matt Prior at six, who has progressed so well I consider him to be a top-class keeper-batsman, England can rely on all to deliver. However, if Saeed Ajmal is intent on causing problems, and takes a few quick wickets, Broad at seven and Swann at eight suddenly makes England seem a bit vulnerable, certainly when you see Anderson in at nine. I would be much more comfortable with this strategy were Tim Bresnan fit to play, but alas, he is not. Nevertheless, I still feel that in such an environment, the batsmen should be able to score enough runs. I doubt Morgan would make the difference if he were to play. The two spinners offer variety once the ball gets old, the three seamers enough to rotate and keep them fresh. The problem comes when you suggest two fast bowlers: If one is having a bad game suddenly it can feel like a 3 man attack…

The argument for 4 bowlers; 2 spinners:

The main reason such a combination would come about is due to the batting line-up. If Prior at six, Broad seven, Swann eight does not inspire much confidence in the England management then they would probably slot Eoin Morgan in at 6 and shove everyone down a place. We are prone to a collapse, it is in the national DNA, present ever since cricket began all those years ago. Ever since Edgbaston 2009, where England were bowled out for 102, Flower has not risked playing five bowlers. Something tells me this is unlikely to change in the near future, though playing five would indeed be a bold and aggressive move. But four bowlers with two spinners sends mixed signals. It doesn’t fill the batsmen with confidence, but it does suggest confidence in just four bowlers to do the job. I just feel that two seamers is insufficient as there is not that variety in the attack if one is having a bad session. Which leads on to the other type of four-man attack…

The argument for 4 bowlers; 1 spinner:

Swann only took one wicket in the PCB XI's first innings.

Graeme Swann has the ability to tear through batting line-ups. This was startlingly apparent to both Bangladesh and Pakistan in 2010. Does the team really need another spinner when Swann is so reliable? Also, three seam bowlers offers that bit of extra variety, which has proved so successful over the past couple of years. Furthermore, it also enables an extra batsman to be accommodated. Why change a winning formula? The answer to that is probably because the conditions stipulate change. This series will not see the ball hooping all over the place, but turning off the surface as it deteriorates. This is why one spinner seems slightly insufficient. It becomes more of a problem if the Pakistani batsmen get the measure of Swann, and he becomes rather ineffective. So it is probable that four bowlers is not enough. Again, six batsmen should be sufficient to score enough runs. A seventh seems excessive, particularly when it is apparent that the main problem England face is taking twenty wickets to win matches.

What to do?

I shall sit comfortably on the fence at this stage by saying that England’s decision should all depend on the state of the pitch they encounter upon arrival in Dubai. Panesar’s performance has given England confidence that they can rely on a second spinner should one be required. However, what the warm-up matches have also shown is that relatively few of the batsmen have got many runs, and it might be a good idea to go with a low-risk, four bowler strategy for the first Test just to make sure there is a reduced chance of defeat. I am therefore inclined to suggest that four bowlers is the best option to start with, and then 5 bowlers from there-on in. But as I said, it all depends on the state of the pitch on Tuesday morning.

And I’m still backing the lads and predicting 2-0 England.

Accepting the Morgan Review is the worst way to ‘solve’ our current domestic ‘problems’

News this evening has emerged that the Morgan review is going to be accepted in full. Not only does this mean a cut in the number of Championship games by two, but also a minimum (yes minimum) of 14 Twenty20 games. This doesn’t solve any problems, but it goes against the most sensible solution.

George Dobell reported the news on Cricinfo earlier this evening, and posted this on twitter:

Worst decision in the history of County Cricket? es.pn/A9O2ZQ

—
George Dobell (@GeorgeDobell1) January 10, 2012

“Barring a major u-turn from the ECB, the changes will be implemented ahead of the 2014 season. Other features will include a return to 50-over List A cricket, a minimum 14 Twenty20 games per county and a cut in the level of the salary cap.”

So the Championship is cut, and replaced with more One-Day cricket.

The first problem this throws up is how do you decide which team you only play once in the Championship? It just doesn’t work. You can’t have some teams playing each other once and others playing each other twice, it defeats the object of a home-and-away league. So that doesn’t work.

Secondly, England are the number one Test team in the world. This is easily attributable to the competitive Championship we have in the country. Players like Jonathan Trott learned their trade in County Cricket, and then move into Test Cricket as if they’ve been there for years. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Leave the Championship alone.

A primary argument for the cull is that there is a large amount of fixture congestion. For 2012, a sensible decision has been made, which is to cut the number of T20 games from a ridiculous 16 to a more understandable 10. Attendances fell in 2011 as counties tried to charge high prices for a product in by no means short supply. Even simple economics suggests that by reducing games, profits and revenues will increase, as there is a reduced cost due to less games being staged, combined with fans having less of an option to pick and choose their matches. Also, last summer’s T20 Cup dragged on so much, taking up the prime slot in the summer at the expense of 4-day cricket (which has had half of its matches unceremoniously shoved into Spring for the past few years), yet delivering a result that would have been the same in a shorter group stage. So the right decision was made: cut T20 and play the group stages over a shorter period of time to reduce congestion. But the Morgan report, in order to reduce fixture congestion, stipulates a minimum of 14 group games! The best way to reduce congestion: play more games!

Championship games aren’t even the problem. A hectic T20 schedule that involves endless travelling back and forth across the country is what tires teams out. Not Championship games which have up to 4 days between travel times. So the proposals won’t actually solve any of those problems given the extra T20 it introduces. What is also more notable is the change to 50-over cricket. The main reason this is not popular is that games are usually played on a Sunday, the day after the culmination of a 4-day game. 50 over games require an early start time, creating more problems for travel between matches. Again this is counter-productive, compared to the leisurely 1:45 start time of the CB40 – which is a much better format for the spectator and player. Attempts to mirror International Cricket by playing 50 overs are admirable, yes. But should we not use the CB40 to illustrate that 50-over cricket is past it? Why not stick to our current successful format and and show the ICC that its better. What’s more, England have never been good at one-day cricket. 50-over cricket in England involves lots of swing, and not too many runs. This is not the sort of games England players need to play to improve their world ranking. The issues are ODIs abroad, and you can’t recreate conditions to improve in that by playing 100 overs on a damp Sunday in May.

We all know the real motive of the ECB. They want our money. The brainless idiots think that more games equals more pounds for them. Surely 2011 showed that it doesn’t. The novelty of T20 is wearing off. Why not use the position of England’s Test team to market the Championship as the pathway to Test Cricket? No chance. T20 is where they see the big money. Giles Clarke still wants his answer to the IPL, even though the level of T20 cricket is already playing havoc with the International calendar. This leads me on to the next infuriating point raised in the article:

“Fundamental to the changes is the scheduling of the Champions League. The tournament, which has been allocated its own space in the ICC’s Future Tours Program, will, in most seasons, be staged from mid-September. That has created fixture congestion in the English domestic season and seen the season end almost two weeks earlier than previously.”

T20 is a great format - but not in the excessive quantity that we are seeing today

Right, so the real reason for the changes is so that we are being dictated to by the ICC and their numerous (and money-spinning, apparently) tournaments. We have a World Twenty20 every other week; an endless IPL; a ridiculous Champions League; a stupid Big Bash League, and then the long and drawn out Twenty20 Cup at the height of summer. There is just too much Twenty20. So the Morgan review is condensing the season so it doesn’t overlap with the Champions League. That doesn’t ease congestion at all. It is clear, at least to me, that Twenty20 takes up too much space in the world. To the boards, it appears to be the Golden goose that just keeps on giving. To the fans, increasingly, it appears to get in the way. I mean even now there is Caribbean T20 on TV. It has just gone too far. And as the ECB started to find last summer, the money-grabbers will be found out by spectators, and attendances will fall. Even the IPL saw a reduction last year. The ICC refuses to do anything about the decline of Test Cricket because there is no money in it for them, whereas T20 offers all that cash from the sponsors. But as the last couple of months show, it is competitive and exciting Test Matches that get the fans talking.

The Morgan report does nothing to solve the problems we face in the cricketing world. It ruins a perfectly good Championship structure, eliminates a competitive and spectator-friendly competition in the CB40, and goes for broke once again to force even more T20 on us. It is just a compromise, appeasing the world organisations so that two teams can go and get knocked out of the Champions League qualifying tournament in mid-September – a time of year where cricket can be played increasingly due to warmer and drier weather. And they force the counties to play half of the Championship in Spring because they don’t care about the spectators at all. These are reasons why the Morgan review, and the ECB, infuriate me. It doesn’t solve any problems. It disbelieves the general consensus that this Championship structure has assisted England’s rise to number one. It fundamentally ignores the fact the the English spectator does not want more Twenty20. And it think that increasing the number of T20 games combined with a shorter season will reduce fixture congestion.

It’s time we overhauled the ECB. Leave our Championship alone.

Pakistan v England: Series Preview

The Barmy Army celebrates as England move closer to Ashes victory.

2011 was undoubtedly England’s year. You don’t need me to tell you about that. The Ashes victory completed in wonderful fashion at the SCG, a bizarre series against Sri Lanka where it rained a lot but England pulled an unlikely win out in Cardiff, and that India whitewash where the opposition barely even turned up. England are now sat at World Number One. And as has been said in those Sky Sports Cricket adverts, its now about staying at number 1. And that quest begins, well, now.

The series begins in Dubai on January 17th, then moves to Abu Dhabi for the second Test on January 25th, before returning back to Dubai for the third and final Test on February 3rd. England’s new and unfamiliar quest to stay at number one begins, suitably, in unfamiliar territory. The subcontinent has not been one of England’s most popular places to tour, reflected in some rather predictable yet still painfully bad results. Excluding Bangladesh, England’s last away victory against subcontinental opposition was back in 2000-01 against Sri Lanka. Although this series isn’t taking place in the subcontinent, the pitches are likely to be pretty similar. This means England, as ever, will have to focus on taking twenty wickets if they are to win a Test. I shall now attempt to talk through how England can go about achieving this.

Key Player: Graeme Swann

Hussey c Collingwood b Swann

Of course, there can’t be a subcontinental series preview without reference to spin, and this preview is no different. The ability of Graeme Swann to take wickets is the most important component in England’s series. Swann hasn’t really had the chance to bowl at any great length on a suitable pitch since Adelaide, I feel, so it is important he hits the ground running this series. We all know what he is capable of. His attacking off-spin will indeed cause problems. His variation is what gets batsmen out, but if he tries this too much there is a danger his bowling becomes too inconsistent. Andy Flower will, I’m sure, have outlined how he wants Swann to bowl. It is important that Swanny sticks to this, especially as he will be shouldering expectations on flat, spinning pitches. The other important factor with Swann is the fields he bowls too. I think it is important that there are always men around the bat. With the spin he gets, there is always the possiblity of an edge, and that means a short leg and a slip every over. In the past it could be said that Strauss has been too defensive with his field settings. Swann has been susceptible to being hit out of the attack, or forced to have a deep field. Pakistan will try to do this, and I think its important that England do not push the field back too quickly. That won’t get any wickets. Swann needs long spells that build pressure. Such spells will bring the bowling at the other end in to play…

Key Player: Stuart Broad

I was sceptical of Broad’s ability following his desperately poor showing in the 1-0 series victory over Sri Lanka at the start of the English summer in 2011. He’s always shown promise, occasionally shown brilliance – with the bat against South Africa in 08, with the ball in stunning fashion against Australia at the Oval in 09 – but he hadn’t dominated with the ball yet. That was until the India series. He took 25 wickets in four matches, with a hat-trick at Trent Bridge, regularly tearing through India’s batting line-up along with Anderson and Bresnan. Also, his batting lower down the order is of vital importance. His 169 at Lord’s in 2010 against Pakistan having come in at 102-7 was magnificent (alongside the consistently brilliant Jonathan Trott). This has convinced me that Broad is the real deal. He does have a tendency on flatter pitches to draw his length back and bowl too short. And though a full length is not the right one on flatter pitches, in the past he (and others) have over-compensated with their changes in length. Against Pakistan Broad needs to make sure that he doesn’t waste energy with lots of short bowling. Good length bowling with a little bit of seam movement, plus an occasional (and yes, it has to be occasional) surprise bouncer, Broad should pick up wickets. Also, with the loss of Tim Bresnan through an elbow injury, Broad will bat at eight. Though the batting order should contribute more than enough runs, it is not unthinkable that there is a collapse (especially with Morgan in the side) and Broad is required to bat for some time. I now believe in his ability to do this, so come on Stuart, lead us to victory!

Important Players: Jimmy Anderson and Chris Tremlett

Anderson is England’s undoubted King of Swing. His spell of bowling in Sydney culminating in the dismissal of Michael Clarke was a joy to behold. In England, he is unstoppable. But abroad in dry conditions with minimal swing, it is not unforeseeable that Jimmy will struggle. As ever, the early overs with the new ball are key for Anderson, and later on once the ball starts to reverse. The accuracy isn’t a problem; it is whether the pitches and the weather conditions allow enough lateral movement for Jimmy to take the edges. The new ball bowling will still be vital if England want to take twenty wickets, and that is where big Chris Tremlett comes in… Tremlett was named The Cricketer magazine’s player of 2011 based on their rating system. But through no fault of his own (unless his injury was self-inflicted) Tremlett has found himself slightly further down the pecking order, not quite making the side if Bresnan were fit. Of course, now that Bresnan is injured, Tremlett should be given the position in the team. His return to the side at Perth last winter, and the ensuing performances with the ball, have proved that Tremlett is an extremely troublesome bowler to face. The pace and bounce he gets is vital, and he can even swing the ball at times. This is unlikely to happen against Pakistan, but his persistence of length combined with fast pace and seam movement can cause the Pakistani batsmen real problems. It is just a case of ensuring, like Broad, that the length bowled is not too short. Oh, and that he doesn’t get injured.

Run Machines: Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott

Jonathan Trott salutes the crowd after his hundred at the MCG

Cook and Trott are not what the modern-day generation would describe as ‘exciting’ batsmen. But I do not care a jot about that. They are my two favourite England batsmen (with Bell a close third) simply because their ability to accumulate runs is fantastic. (Also, I am quite a defensive batsmen myself, and I’ve always taken some sort of pride in boring the opposition.) Cook’s 766 run Ashes series was phenomenal, not just because he destroyed the Australian bowlers, but because he just kept on going. His 294 in the summer, equally, was a great achievement. Trott’s International career has also been brilliant. When he bats he gets into a bubble, where he seems blissfully unaware of anything other than what shot he’ll play next. His ability to grind the opposition is important, because it can allow lower order batsmen (such as the punishing Matt Prior) to come in and take advantage of tired bowling. These two players in particular will be important this series as long innings will wear the Pakistan attack down. Further to this, England only want to bat once so they have the maximum available time to take the all important twenty wickets. I disagree with people when they say that Cook or Trott need to bat faster. If they tried to all the time, they could jeopardise their wicket and trigger an all too familiar collapse. Yes there are times when acceleration is necessary, but I can’t stand all the bleating about the need to bat faster all the time. It is symptomatic of the Twenty20 idiots who think everything has to happen quickly. It doesn’t. If Cook and Trott bat for 2 days and we get 550, I’ll be happy.

Captain Fantastic: Andrew Strauss

Strauss scored 110 at the Gabba last November

As eluded to earlier, Strauss’ role as captain is an important one this series. Yes, he will need to contribute with the bat, but England should (and I emphasise that word) be able to generate enough runs without Strauss having to score hundreds. The thins Strauss needs to do effectively are rotate his bowlers around Graeme Swann, come up with creative plans when not much is happening, and be a bit more aggressive. I’ve witnessed Rob Key set up three short mid-wickets for an over before lunch at Kent. Whilst this was unsuccessful, it is just a move that might get the batsman thinking. Also, having a slip and a short-leg is vital if Swann is to be a constant threat. Strauss has undoubted leadership qualities, but it is his tactical nous that will be put to the Test in this series.

Weak Link?: Eoin Morgan

Morgan is not a batsman who has a technique suited to Test Cricket. He has a particularly violent swivelly trigger movement and doesn’t get in a good position to defend good length balls outside off stump. This makes him very susceptible to edging the ball and being caught behind. I also don’t believe he has the right temperament. Runs didn’t flow easily against what was a dreadful Indian bowling attack in the summer, and I think he is too prone to trying the big shots. Steve Davies is in the squad this series as back up for Matt Prior, but I think he’d be a much better option down the order. He has a better temperament, a higher first-class average and a better technique. For me, Morgan is not the answer at 6. Davies isn’t either, but I think this tour is a good opportunity to give him some experience, so that he is ready if Prior picks up an injury in future. My choice for 6 would be James Taylor. He isn’t on the tour, so I’ll leave that argument for another time.

What should England’s XI be?

So overall, England need to bat sensibly, and take twenty wickets. Sounds easy enough. But who should actually play? You get a sense of some from the above writing.

Expected England Team: Strauss (c), Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Morgan, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Tremlett

My England Team: Strauss (c), Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Prior, Davies, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Tremlett

Just the one difference then. Davies is better than Morgan in my opinion. For the first Test, that bowling line-up is the one England should go for. We’ll see how the bowling goes before any different bowlers are contemplated for the second Test.

Pakistan

2011 will be remembered in Pakistan not because they played some promising cricket but due to the conviction of three players for sport fixing. But I don’t want to focus on that. They have recently beat Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe (despite a scare in that game) which suggest they are on an upward trend. Azhar Ali and Misbah-ul-haq are two batsmen that could prove problematic for England to remove. Similarly, Saeed Ajmal will be a tricky customer to deal with, especially with pitches that may offer turn and bounce. Despite this, they are short in the seam bowling department due to the absence of Asif and Amir. Ajmal aside, England’s batsmen shouldn’t face huge problems in dealing with Pakistan’s seam bowlers. I would go into more detail, but I’m not going to try and come across as all knowledgeable in this area, because I’m not. I haven’t seen much of Pakistan, so perhaps I shouldn’t write them off so quickly. Look what happened in Australia last winter…

Overall Prediction: England to win 2-0

England should be the team celebrating at the end of the series. Perhaps not quite as happily as above...

England have the batsmen to score the runs, but its all down to the bowlers this series. There is a possibility of a collapse, as there always is with England, but I have confidence in our batsmen (apart from Morgan, obviously). Swann should come good and take plenty of wickets, with the seamers chipping in at various points. I should point out I don’t think it will be as easy as I might have made it sound, but England have the quality and should be able to deal with what is a Pakistan side in its transitional stage. I think England will win, but you may have a different view. Get involved in the discussion below this article, and vote in the poll.

I’m hoping for a great series that is worth all the sleep I will inevitably lose. I hope you enjoy it.

Thanks for reading.

Welcome

Welcome to Batting For Hours. Here you can read about the cricket world through my eyes. Lots about Test Cricket, England, the County Championship and the plight of Kent. I hope you enjoy reading what I’ve got to say.