Month: January 2021

‘Sambulance Rescue’ Act

An account of today’s BBL10 ‘Knockout’ between Thunder and Heat and a few comments about issues relating the tournament that were in the spotlight today.

This post is devoted to today’s #BBL10 ‘Knockout’ game between Thunder who finished third in the group and Heat, who finished fourth and then beat Strikers in the ‘Eliminator’.

THUNDER’S POOR TACTICS

Thunder got away to a slow start, only managing 22-1 in their four overs of Power Play. The seventh and eighth overs of their innings were both big ones, yielding 13 and 14 respectively. Khawaja fell in the ninth to make it 62-2. At the end of the tenth Thunder were 68-2, and in need of a big second half to their innings. The second half started slow, and the dismissal of Ferguson made it 74-3 at the start of the 12th. It was 78-3 at the end of 12th, and then 11 came off the 13th over to make it 89-3. At this point the Power Surge should certainly have been claimed in a bid to maintain the momentum, but Thunder did not do so, and a wicket fell in the 15th, with the Power Surge still unclaimed. At the three-quarter way stage Thunder were 107-4, and overs 11-15 had yield 39-2, respectable, but not enough after the slow beginning. Thunder still refused to claim the Power Surge, and by the 18th they were 134-6, and now had to use the Surge for their last two overs. They had a nightmare start to this final phase, losing wickets off the first two balls. The rest of it went OK and they finished with 158-8, nine runs less than the Scorchers had spectacularly failed to defend at the same ground yesterday. The Power Surge overs had yielded 24-2, but they would probably have managed that many from overs 19 and 20 even without them being the Surge overs, so basically because they were scared to take the Power Surge early they did not benefit from it at all.

A SLOW START FOR HEAT

Heat lost two wickets, including the man with the best twitter ‘meme team’ in the business backing him, Joe Denly. 10 off the fourth over saw them end the Power Play at 25-2, three runs ahead but one wicket behind Thunder. Overs 5-10 were slow going as well for the Heat, and that the half way stage they were 56-2, needing 103 off their last 10 overs for the win. They were building towards a good moment to take the Power Surge when Labuschagne was run out for 30 to make it 70-3 after 12 overs, 89 needed off eight overs to win. Sam Heazlett who had come in at the fall of the second wicket and was already going well was joined by Jimmy Peirson, setting the stage for…

THE ‘SAMBULANCE RESCUE’

After 14 overs Heazlett reached 50, having taken 37 balls to get there, with Peirson going nicely as well, and the score was 96-3, 63 needed off six. The 15th over went for 15, taking the score to 111-3, four runs and 1 wicket ahead of Thunder at the same stage, and now Heat managed something that had proved beyond Thunder: taking the Power Surge at a sensible time (I would have gone an over earlier, if not two, but at least they did take it with Heazlett and Peirson both still there). Heat took 26 off their two Power Surge overs without losing a wicket (only two runs more than Thunder, but two fewer wickets lost, and crucially a net gain of approximately ten runs compared to two non-surge overs at the same stage of the innings), and with three overs to go they were 137-3, needing 22 off 18 and now heavy favourites. Ten more runs of the 18th reduced the ask to 12 off 12 balls, and the match was practically unloseable. The 19th over nearly finished it, but the final ball of it, with scores level, was a dot, leaving Heazlett on strike for the start of the 20th, to complete the ‘Sambulance rescue’. The first ball of the 20th was put away for four by Heazlett – no deliberate wides this time! Heazlett had scored 74 not out of 49 balls, and his supporting act Peirson had 43 not out off 24 balls. Their match turning and ultimately match winning stand had produced 92 runs in 7.1 overs. Heat face Scorchers on Thursday, with the winners to take on Sixers in Saturday’s final, and given yesterday’s events I will be rooting for the Heat, who if only for their better handling of the Power Surge thoroughly deserved their win.

ISSUES OF BBL10

This game showcased several issues relating to the tournament as a whole:

  • X-factor subs: Heat were able to effectively get in an allocation of five overs – Bartlett bowled one over, a maiden that should have been a wicket maiden, in the first ten and was then replaced by ‘x-factor sub’ Morkel, who bowled his full four overs. The fact that the decision can only be made precisely at 10 overs into the first innings heavily favours the side who field first – they can replace a bowler either as Heat did with another bowler, or with a batter if they feel the need for extra batting depth, while the batting side can only justifiable opt to strengthen their batting, for example if they lose early wickets. I personally think this innovation needs to be abandoned completely, and certainly it cannot continue in its current form.
  • Umpiring: for some unknown reason DRS has not been used in this tournament, and some of the umpiring has been very poor. There were at least three, and possibly four poor decisions today: In the Thunder innings three LBWs were turned down, and all looked absolutely stone dead (I commented about the first of them that had it happened in a match with DRS and been given out not even Shane Watson would have bothered to review it), while the run out of Labuschagne may have been harsh, as the keeper may have dislodged the bails with his gloves before the ball was in his hands. DRS and the usage of all camera angles is a must for #BBL11, and some of the umpires need to smarten up their act or find a new job.
  • Catching: the standard of catching in this tournament has been woeful, and another cartload of chances went begging today. Guys, when a ball is hit in the air towards you, you are supposed to catch the damn thing.
  • Power Surge: I dealt with this in the main body of the piece, and also covered it yesterday, but today was a perfect case study. Simon Mann, who was part of today’s commentary team, labours under the bizarre delusion that the final two overs of the innings are the best in which to take it. Today blew that one sky high – Thunder did precisely that and effectively gained nothing from having the Power Surge, while Heat timed the taking of the Power Surge well, if not quite perfectly, and used it to move from being in a close fight to being in cruise control, a position they never subsequently relinquished.

PHOTOGRAPHS

My usual sign off…

Scorchers Shamed

An account of today’s BBL ‘Qualifier’ between Sixers and Scorchers, including a disgraceful incident involving AJ Tye, and thoughts about the Power Surge.

The title of this post, devoted to today’s #BBL10 qualifier is dual purpose, relating both the Scorcher’s overall performance today and to the incident that ended the match.

SIXERS SLAM SCORCHERS

Scorchers batted first and started slowly, Roy falling in the third over for a nine ball three. They finished their Power Play overs strongly, taking 25 off the last 11 balls to be 30-1 after four overs. The second phase of their innings was solid, overs 5-10 inclusive yielding 44-1, to give a halfway score of 74-2, with two well set batters, one the very dangerous Colin Munro, together at the crease. It was a situation that demanded an early use of the Power Surge to launch the second half of the innings, but Scorchers did not take the opportunity, and they paid for their voluntary surrender of the initiative lest the Surge cause a fall of wickets, as the third quarter of their innings was an unqualified disaster, yielding them 24-2 to reach the three-quarter way stage at 98-4. At that point they did take the Power Surge (leaving it any later would have been truly appalling). They made superb use of those two overs, scoring 34 off them, a gain of at least 20 on what they would have scored from those overs in ordinary play. They then kept the momentum going to finish their 20 overs with 167-6, a defensible looking total. Their top scorer was Josh Inglis, a wicketkeeper, who as Yorkshire-born Aussie may potentially follow in the footsteps of Hanson Carter, the best Aussie keeper between Jim Kelly and Bertie Oldfield, who was also born in Yorkshire.

Sixers started brightly, taking 13 off the first over of the reply, and being 43-0 at the end of the Power Play, 13 runs and one wicket to the good. They lost Philippe late in the first half of their innings, but still had a superb overs 5-10, scoring 61-1 in that period, 17 more than Scorchers had managed, in what had been a good period for them. I would have thought an early Power Surge was called for, but Sixers did not go for it. By the the end of the 15th Scorchers were 151-1 and the only question was whether James Vince, by then on 89, would reach a ton before the end. Although Daniel Hughes hit a boundary to level the scores with Vince on 98, he then avoided scoring off any of the last three balls of that over. The 18th over began with the scores level, setting the stage for…

AJ TYE’S ABJECT ASSAULT ON THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET

Tye, an experienced and successful bowler, bowled to Vince with the scores level and Vince 98 not out. He produced what was blatantly obviously a deliberate wide, a mean and petty ‘dog in the manger’ type gesture that denied Vince any chance to complete a century that would have been thoroughly merited. I have umpired a few games at a low level, and temporarily donning my umpire’s hat, I would have been tempted to tell Tye loudly that I was not going to oblige him by calling a wide and that he better bowl the next one straight. I certainly think the Scorchers should drop Tye for their next game, which will be against the winners of the match between Thunder and Heat, and the winners of that will take on Sixers in the final. I will certainly be rooting against the Scorchers when the time comes. Is my dim view of this just because the offender is an Aussie? No, and I offer as evidence to back up my own criticisms the fact that one Richard Thomas Ponting, not normally known for Aussie bashing, is on my side as well. Very little in cricket is new, given the game’s long history, and there was an incident in a long ago ODI when David Gower, called up to bowl by way of a concession of defeat, again with a batter, this time Greg Chappell, on 98, bowled a deliberate no-ball. Gower’s behaviour then was marginally less inexcusable than Tye’s today because he was a non-bowler and one can understand him not being impressed by being made to act as a sacrificial offering.

THE POWER SURGE

I have stated my thoughts on the taking of the Power Surge before, but I am going to extend on them here. Firstly, I am more and more convinced that one should have a good reason for not going early, rather than allowing caution to dictate. Scorchers paid for their failure to go when in a perfect position to do so, and it was only Sixers utter dominance that enabled them to get away with delaying their own surge. The extra point about the runs from the surge overs is that is not just a question of how many do you get from them, it also a question of how many would you have scored anyway from those overs even without the surge, and that is where leaving it late is a definite loser – you will be throwing the bat at pretty much everything in the closing stages of a T20 innings anyway, so would be scoring faster than at other stages of the innings. Scorcher’s surge was worth about +20 to them compared to two ordinary overs at that stage, because they did make it count when they finally took it. Had those two overs been, to take the extreme, the last two of the innings, then they would have been maybe +10 had they scored the same 34. However, had Scorchers gone in overs 11-12, when they had two top batters together, including the potentially devastating Munro, those same 34 runs would have had them 108-2 with eight overs to go and a total of 180 a definite goal, with more a distinct possibility. As it was, timing it when they did, even that huge surge only brought a total of 170 on to the horizon, and in the end they were just short of that. Here as a reminder is a Power Surge inforgraphic I created earlier:

PHOTOGRAPHS

My parents are in King’s Lynn because my aunt is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to be kept company for 24 hours. They arrived yesterday, and we had a chat over my back garden fence, and I took delivery of a glass vessel which bears my name, and is now the only one of what was a pair, due to a recent accident, and it dominates today’s photo gallery…

  • The front of the glass vessel
  • The back of the glass vessel.
  • Finding a niche for it…
  • …In my ‘Cabinet of Curiosities’.

A Game That Neither Side Deserved to Win

An account of today’s BBL10 ‘Eliminator Round’ between Strikers and Heat, some suggested changes to the format of the tournament, and an acknowledgement of Pakistan’s victory over South Africa.

Before getting into the meat of today’s post, which deals with the ‘Eliminator’ round of BBL10, between Strikers and Heat, a word of congratulation to Pakistan, who completed a convincing win over South Africa by seven wickets. South Africa lost three wickets just before the close yesterday, as 175-1 became 185-4, and today they continued in that vein, being all out for 245, a lead of 87. Although Nortje bagged a couple of early wickets Pakistan were never in serious trouble, and fell appropriately to Fawad Alam to make the winning hit. His form since his recall to the colours makes one wonder how his team overlooked him for 11 whole years (not a record – George Gunn was called up by England after a lapse of 17 years between games, while in first class cricket there is the bizarre case of William Caesar who played two games in 1920 and four more in 1946, with nothing in between).

OVERKIND QUALIFICATION
SYSTEM EXPOSED

It is rare the a pom gets an opportunity to call Aussies soft with any hint of justification, but BBL10 has provided it. A qualification system that allowed five teams out of a total of eight to make it to the knock out phase (in the Vitality Blast eight teams out of 18 do so, while in the 50 over contest it has been six teams out of 18) look questionable from the get go, and today’s match was powerful evidence for the prosecution, as Strikers took on Heat in the ‘Eliminator’.

Heat have been at their most vulnerable this season when faced with a run chase, so the Strikers were correct to choose to bat first. However, even if you make the correct call, you do then have to play decent cricket, and this was where Strikers slipped up. All seemed good when they were 18-0 after two overs, but overs three and four went for only six runs between them, giving a Power Play score of 24-0. In Overs 5-10 Strikers failed to gain any momentum, as first Carey and then Head pottered about, barely managing to achieve a scoring rate of one run per two balls (Carey 13 off 22, Head 12 off 21). At the half way stage Strikers were 53-1, way below par, and they immediately claimed the Power Surge, also using the ‘x-factor sub’ rule to bring Wells in for Worrall in an effort to jazz up their batting. One wicket fell in the Surge, but Strikers also scored 16 off those two overs, and they seemed to be maintaining the momentum, although bizarrely Renshaw came in ahead of ‘x-factor’ man Wells, when they were 94-3 after 15, having scored 41 in the third quarter of their innings. A big finish was needed, and did not materialize. In the end Strikers finished with 130-7 from their 20 overs, with only Weatherald, Salt, and at the death Wes Agar having shown anything like sufficient intent.

Heat made an even worse start than Strikers had, not scoring especially quickly and losing the big wickets of Lynn and Labuschagne early. A third wicket went down in the fourth over, and Heat’s Power Play had yielded 24-3. In overs 5-10 Heat scored 44 without losing a wicket, being 68-3 at halfway, 15 runs ahead but two wickets behind Strikers at the same point. They declined to take the Power Surge, holding back, and in the 14th over Denly was out for 41 to make it 92-4. At the end of the 15th Heat were 98-4, needing 33 of five overs, and the 16th was economical as well. Then however Travis Head blundered, giving himself a second over when he could have had Siddle and Agar bowl through. It revived the Heat, as they were 110-4 at the end of it, and that point they finally did claim the Power Surge. They got eight off the first over with it, reducing the ask to 13 runs off two overs, and then Agar, who had had a fine tournament with the ball, cracked under pressure, the winning runs being accrued off five balls of his over. Jimmy Peirson finished unbeaten on 47, a fine knock, which earned him the Player of the Match award.

Strikers made a huge mess of their own innings, with as I have said, Carey and Head especially culpable. Heat were barely any more impressive, getting their tactics badly wrong and being saved by Head’s inexplicable decision to give himself a second over. Heat should have claimed the surge when Denly and Peirson were together and they could have had two set batters use it. Also, their selection of Heazlett backfired – the left hander was picked to counter Strikers’ spinners Briggs and O’Connor both of whom turn the ball away from the right hander’s bat and was out before he got to face either.

Tomorrow sees Scorchers and Sixers do battle, with the winner going straight into the final, while the loser whill face the winner of Sunday’s game between Heat (their reward for winning this one) and Thunder. I would guess that if they followed today’s action Thunder will be licking their lips at the prospect of Sunday’s game.

This was a game that neither side deserved to win, and that had the qualification system been sensible would not have been taking place – 4th and 5th out of eight have no business making it to the knock out stages of a tournament, and it looked every inch a contest between two moderate sides neither of whom really know how to win.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES

I have already indicated what I think the qualification system should be: three teams qualify, group winners into the final, second vs third for the right to join them, with 2nd having home advantage.

I also feel the tournament would benefit from being more compact. A lot of the time there is only one game per day, with a few days featuring two games. With 14 rounds of group games I would play four fixtures per day, thereby having all eight sides in action, with a day off between rounds, meaning that the group phase would last 27 days in total, and then the two knockout matches would take place on successive days after two days off, making the whole length of the tournament 31 days – and it being an Aussie tournament I would make game day 1 Boxing Day, and the final to take place on Australia Day.

PHOTOGRAPHS

My usual sign off…

All Time XIs – Double L v Double T

An ‘all time XI’ post that continues the double letter theme from a couple of days ago. A team of players whose surnames contain a double L are pitted against a team of players whose name contains a double T.

After my recent post about cricketers with double letters in their names I am exploring the theme further with a team of players all of whom have a double L in their surnames taking on a team of players all of whom have a double T in their surnames.

TEAM DOUBLE L

  1. Roy Marshall – right handed opening batter. He was part of the 1950 West Indies team that toured England, and there were those who reckoned that in terms of pure talent he was the equal of any of the three Ws. However, his main distinction was a brilliant overseas player for Hampshire, including playing a key role in their first ever County Championship.
  2. Bill Woodfull – right handed opening batter. He averaged 65 in first class cricket, 46 in test cricket. He once went two whole years without being out ‘bowled’ at all. Although both were right handers he represents a good contrast to Marshall as he was a blocker, while Marshall preferred a more flamboyant approach.
  3. Graeme Pollock – left handed batter. A test average of 60.97, including a highest score of 274.
  4. Jacques Kallis – right handed batter, right arm fast medium bowler. A man who averaged over 50 with the bat and in the low 30s with the ball. Just as Woodfull was a blocker to accompany Marshall the hitter, so Kallis’ approach is much more staid than was that of Pollock.
  5. *Clive Lloyd – left hander batter, captain. 7,515 test runs for the Guyanese giant. He scored the joint second fastest first class double hundred ever, reaching that mark in precisely 120 minutes v Glamorgan, thereby equalling Gilbert Jessop who reached 200 in the same length of time for Gloucestershire v Sussex. He made a century in the final of the first ever men’s cricket world cup (the women had taken their bow in this format two years previously).
  6. Keith Miller – right handed batter, right arm fast bowler, occasional off spinner. Australia’s greatest ever all rounder, and one the two individuals in whose honour the Compton-Miller medal was named. He once took a seven-for in his secondary bowling style, on a Brisbane pitch (uncovered in those days) that had been turned into a mud heap by heavy overnight rain.
  7. Ray Lindwall – right arm fast bowler, right handed batter. He scored two test centuries with his batting, while has bowling record was outstanding.
  8. +Don Tallon – wicket keeper, right handed batter. Rated by many of those who saw him (including Bradman) as the greatest of all keepers, and a capable batter.
  9. Malcolm Marshall – right arm fast bowler, useful lower order batter. An all-time great of fast bowling.
  10. David Allen – off spinner. The Gloucestershire bowler took his first class wickets (over 1,200 of them) at 23.64, and was unlucky that his prime years coincided with those of Titmus and Illingworth, which limited his test exposure. I opted for him over Illingworth because he was a slower bowler than Illingworth, contrasting nicely with my other front line spinner who was notably quick for a bowler of his type…
  11. Bill O’Reilly – leg spinner. He bowled his leg breaks at a briskish medium pace and had a well concealed googly in his armoury. Although the pair famously did not get on Bradman rated O’Reilly high enough to include him in his all time World XI, covered in detail by Roland Perry in “Bradman’s Best”.

This team has a stellar top five, a legendary all rounder at six, a great bowling all rounder at seven, an all-time great keeper who could also bat at eight and three quality bowlers to round out the order. Only David Allen, included for reasons of balance (apologies Mr D K Lillee, four fast bowlers plus Kallis with only O’Reilly as a spin option just doesn’t look right). could be considered other than great. Another fast bowler who could not be accommodated on similar grounds was big Bob Willis. Phil Tufnell might have had the second spinner’s berth, but his successes were too sporadic to make him eligible as far as I am concerned.

TEAM DOUBLE T

  1. *Len Hutton – right handed opening batter, captain. Take a look at his outstanding record and then consider that he missed six years of his prime due to World War II, from which he also emerged with one arm shorter than the other following an accident.
  2. Charlie Barnett – right handed opening batter. Again combining a blocker and a hitter for our opening pair. In the Trent Bridge test of 1938 he was 98 not out by lunch on the first day, opening with Hutton. There is a story that a spectator once arrived a few minutes late a Bristol and saw that one over had gone and the score was 20-1 – Barnett had hit five fours and then been dismissed by the sixth ball!
  3. Jonathan Trott – right handed batter. From 2010 to 2012 he was a superb no3, including scoring two centuries in an Ashes series in Australia, the first to help save the first match at the Gabba and the second to bury Australia at the MCG after the hosts were dismissed for 98 on the opening day.
  4. Mike Gatting – right handed batter, occasional medium pacer. A combination of a very slow start at international level and the fact that he played on for too long at the end makes his test record look ordinary, but for the second half of the 1980s he was superb at that level.
  5. George Ulyett – right handed batter, right arm fast bowler. A test best score of 149, and he also had a seven-for at that level.
  6. Albert Trott – right handed batter, right arm slow bowler. He made a sensational start to his test career, taking 8-43 in one innings of his debut match and also scoring 110 undefeated runs in his own two batting innings (38* and 72*). He also featured prominently in his second test match, but was surprisingly overlooked for the 1896 tour of England captained by his brother Harry. He travelled over anyway, signed for Middlesex, and was a few years the best all rounder in the game. Even after his star had faded he had occasional spectacular moments, such as the devastating spell in his benefit match where in a short space of time he took four wickets in four balls and followed up with another hat trick to finish things, unfortunately to the detriment of his financial well being. He played three times for England against South Africa, and his test record from five matches played shows a batting average of 38 and a bowling average of 15 (26 wickets, including two five fors, but no ten wicket match).
  7. +Alan Knott – wicket keeper, right handed batter. One of the greatest of all glovemen and he tended to score his runs when they were most needed.
  8. Tom Emmett – left arm fast bowler, left handed batter. At a time when such were much scarcer than today he was good enough with the bat to score a first class hundred, and his averages at that level are the right way round – 14.84 with the bat and 13.55 with the ball. Test cricket came too late for him (he was already 35 when he played in the first ever test match, the first of seven such appearances).
  9. Albert ‘Tibby’ Cotter – right arm fast bowler. Had a fine record for Australia in the first decade of the 20th century.
  10. Clarrie Grimmett – leg spinner. 216 test wickets in 37 matches at that level, and more first class wickets (1,424) than anyone else who never played in the County Championship.
  11. George Dennett – left arm orthodox spinner. 2,151 first class wickets at 19.82 and never played for his country. Against Northamptonshire in 1907 he had match figures of 15-21, only to see rain save his opponents in the end. Gloucesterhsire scored 60 all out in the first innings, Northants then crumbled for just 12, Dennett 8-9, Jessop 2-3, Gloucestershire then made 88 at the second attempt, and set 137 to win Northants were 40-7, Dennett 7-12, when the rain made its final decisive intervention.

This side has depth in batting, with everyone down to Emmett at eight capable of making a significant contribution, a superb bowling attack with Emmett, Cotter and Ulyett to bowl fast, and Grimmett and Dennett two great spinners.

PHOTOGRAPHS

I have a fine collection of photos for you, including swans demonstrating synchronized diving:

Test Cricket Returns to Pakistan and England Spinners

Looking at the resumption of test cricket in Pakistan and at the question of England spinners, as news arrives of a potential test recall for Moeen Ali.

This post contains two parts, a look at current goings on in Pakistan and a look at England spinners ahead of the upcoming tour of India. The feature infographic provides a brief version of why I less than impressed by news of a possible test recall for Moeen Ali, and I will cover it more fully in the second part of this post. All player details come from cricinfo.com.

SOUTH AFRICA IN TROUBLE

The first test match to be played in Pakistan for some considerable time is under way. South Africa, the visitors, batted first, and did not make a particularly good fist of it. No one in their top six scored less than 13, but only Dean Elgar with 58 managed to get beyond 23. It took a late 35 from George Linde to get South Africa to 220. Five of the top six (where most of the runs should come from) getting into double figures but not even reaching 25 suggests carelessness, and reports I have read of the wickets confirm that more of them were given than were taken.

Pakistan looked to faring even worse when South Africa reduced them to 33-4 by the close of the first day. However, Fawad Alam dug in, and found some good support from the middle and lower order. Alam ground out a determined century, with no8 Faheem Ashraf (fairly new to test cricket, but averaging 31 with the bat and 27 with the ball in first cricket) scoring 64. By the time stumps were drawn at the end of day two, Pakistan were 308-8, a lead of 88. I don’t think it will happen, but personally just for the psychological impact of telling the opposition “you had us 33-4 and now we reckon we have enough of an advantage to win” I would recommend an overnight declaration. It was not all bad for South Africa today however – their women recorded an impressive win in an ODI against Pakistan, Laura Wolvaardt scoring 58 – perhaps the men should give her a bell, as their top order could do with a bit of stiffening.

ENGLAND SPINNERS

Leaving aside Simon Harmer, now technically eligible for England but apparently not in the selector’s minds, England have a number of spinning options they could look at, and Moeen Ali, touted for a test recall in some quarters, is not in my opinion one of them. He pays 36.59 per wicket in test cricket, a marginal improvement on his first class bowling average of 37.94. His batting, which his supporters turn to next demands two retorts: firstly picking people for bowling slots based on what they can do with the bat is flawed, unless they have very similar bowling stats to someone with much less batting skill, and secondly at test level it does not pass muster anyway – while his first class batting average is a respectable 36.72, his test batting average is 28.97, at the good end of ‘bowler who bats’ territory but definitely nowhere close to all-rounder status. In other words England are thinking of recalling someone whose bowling is in the ordinary range of ‘batters who bowl’ (Hammond, who averaged 58.45 with the bat at test level took his wickets at 37.80 for example) and whose batting is at the good end of the range for ‘bowlers who bat’.

Dom Bess, one of the current incumbents, pays 29.46 for his first class wickets, and just over 30 each for his test victims. Sophie Ecclestone, a very successful bowler for England Women, averages 26.28 across the three international formats (the women play so little long form cricket that one has to look across the spectrum) – and yes, I would certainly rate her a better option for a spinner’s berth than Ali. Jack Leach pays 26.06 a time for his first class victims, and averages just over 30 per victim in test cricket. Matt Parkinson, yet to be given his chance at test level pays 25.22 per victim at first class level. Liam Patterson-White has played just five first class matches to date, but has 20 wickets in them at 21.00 a piece. Amar Virdi has paid 28.08 each for his 91 first class wickets. Finally, if you absolutely insist on someone with all round qualities, Lewis Goldsworthy had an excellent under 19 world cup, though he has yet to play first class cricket (it would not be entirely unprecedented for someone to make their first class debut in a test match). Moeen Ali sits firmly in the category of proven failures at the highest level, and any of the players I have listed would be better selections than him – all are young enough to improve, whereas he is not. My personal vote would go to Parkinson, the leg spinner, to support Jack Leach, with Bess coming in if the pitch looks it warrants three spinners (Bess takes wickets when the ball turns, but when there is no assistance for him he leaks too many runs for comfort due to his tendency to bowl the odd loose ball). Whatever the right answer is, it is most definitely not an ageing player who cannot be deemed worthy of a place with either bat or ball.

PHOTOGRAPHS

My usual sign off…

All Time XIs – Double Letters

An addition to my ‘All Time XIs’ series, this time taking double letters as its theme.

The role of players with a double o in their names for England in recent times got me thinking about a team of players who all featured that combo, and I then started thinking about other names with double letters in, resulting in a new post for my All Time XIs series.

THE DOUBLE O XI

  1. Graham Gooch – right handed opening batter, occasional medium pacer. Scorer of 8,900 test runs, and player of the best test innings I have ever personally witnessed – 154 not out in an innings tally of 252 vs West Indies at Headingley in 1991, with Ambrose running riot on a pig of a pitch.
  2. Alastair Cook – left handed opening batter, scorer of more test runs than any other left hander – 12,475 of them in all.
  3. David Boon – right handed batter, started as an opener, but moved down to no3 to enable the formation of the right-left Marsh-Taylor combination and enjoyed tremendous success in that latter position.
  4. Joe Root – right handed batter, occasional off spinner. Arguably England’s finest batter of the 21st century, Cook’s achievements notwithstanding.
  5. *Frank Woolley – left handed batter, left arm orthodox spinner. The only player to have the treble of 10,000 first class runs, 1,000 first class wickets and 1,000 first class catches, and indeed the only person to have taken 1,000 catches as other than a wicket keeper. In first class cricket he averaged 40 with the bat and 19 with the ball, and his bowling won at least one test match for England. I am sufficiently impressed by his tactical thoughts, as expressed in “King of Games” to name him as captain even though as a professional of that era he never had the job.
  6. Major Booth – right handed batter, right arm fast medium bowler. Major was his given name (he was named in honour of a respected Salvation Army figure), not a rank. He would certainly have played many times for England but for the first World War (he lost his life during the battle of the Somme). In the late stages of the 1914 season he and Alonzo Drake, another cut off in his prime by the outbreak of war, bowled unchanged together through four successive first class innings.
  7. +Josephine Dooley – wicket keeper, right handed batter. One of the successes of the most recent edition of the Women’s Big Bash League.
  8. Bill Lockwood – right arm fast bowler, useful lower order batter. He was one of the first fast bowlers to develop a really effective slower ball.
  9. Harold Larwood – right arm fast bowler, useful lower order batter. The list of visiting fast bowlers to have blitzed the Aussies in their own backyard is a short one, and the Notts express features prominently on it.
  10. Fazal Mahmood – right arm fast medium bowler. Pakistan’s first authentically great bowler, he took 12 wickets in their first ever test victory at The Oval in 1954. He was known as a master of bowling cutters, often wreaking havoc on the matting pitches which were standard in his homeland at the time.
  11. Poonam Yadav – leg spinner. The tiny Indian causes huge problems with her craftily flighted slow leg breaks. The greatest demonstration of her ability to change the course of a match came in the most recent World T20 when Australia seemed to be coasting as she began her spell and were obviously beaten by the time she had finished.

This team contains a strong top five, an all rounder at six in Booth, a keeper who can bat at seven and four great bowlers with plenty of variation. Woolley is an excellent second spin option with his left armers, and Gooch and Root might also contribute with the ball.

THE ANY DOUBLE LETTER XI

  1. Jack Hobbs – Right handed opening batter, occasional medium pacer. The Master, scorer of 197 first class centuries in total, 12 of them in Ashes tests. He achieved all that in spite of losing four years of his cricketing prime to World War 1.
  2. Herbert Sutcliffe – right handed opening batter. First class average 52.02, test average 60.73, Ashes average 66.85. When the going got tough, he got going. He formed the most successful opening pairing in test history with Hobbs, their average opening stand being 87.81.
  3. Graeme Pollock – left handed batter. The South African averaged 60.97 before his country’s international isolation ended his test career. I opted for his left handed stroke play in preference to having a third right handed opener in Hutton occupy this slot.
  4. Walter Hammond – right handed batter, occasional medium-fast bowler. 7,249 runs in 85 test matches at 58.45, and that average only ended up below 60 because he returned to test action after World War Two, when into his forties.
  5. Everton Weekes – right handed batter. He had a similar average to Hammond in test cricket.
  6. *Frank Worrell – right handed batter, occasional left arm medium-fast bowler, captain. He averaged 49.48 in test cricket, and was one the most successful captains ever, taking the West Indies from also rans which they had been for their entire history to that point to being champions by the time he finished.
  7. +Alan Knott – wicket keeper, right handed batter. One of the game of cricket’s most noted eccentrics, and also one of the greatest keepers ever to don the gauntlets. He also averaged 32.75 with the bat, and tended to score big runs when the team most needed them.
  8. Malcolm Marshall – right arm fast bowler, useful lower order batter. Arguably the greatest fast bowler of the golden age of West Indies fast bowling.
  9. Dennis Lillee – right arm fast bowler. The Aussie was for some years test cricket’s all time leading wicket taker, and his 164 Ashes wickets is a tally surpassed in the history of those contests only by Shane Warne who finished just short of 200.
  10. Clarrie Grimmett – leg spinner. The New Zealand born Aussie who having moved country to better his cricketing prospects had to then cross two state boundaries before establishing himself in first class cricket at the third time, and did not make his test debut until the age of 33 still became the first bowler ever to take 200 test wickets, capturing 216 from 37 test appearances – nearly six per game at the highest level. His Aussie team mate Bill O’Reilly, who was second choice for this spot, was adamant that Grimmett, then 46, should have been selected for the 1938 tour of England.
  11. Mujeeb-ur-Rahman – off spinner. A bit of a gamble on this one – left armer George Dennett with 2,151 first class wickets at less than 20 a piece could easily have been named for this spot, but the young Afghan off spinner has impressed most times he has had the ball in his hand of late.

This team features a very strong top six, one of the all time great keepers, and four great bowlers. I consider that Hammond and Worrell between them make up for the lack of a genuine all rounder. There are too many honourable mentions to name, but before moving on to the next section I would just like to say that if you have someone who you think I have missed please indicate which of my selections should be dropped to make way for them.

OFF THE FIELD

Clive Lloyd, a near miss for a batting place in the ‘any double letter’ team can be match referee, a role he also filled with distinction. In the commentary box we can have Alison Mitchell, Lizzy Ammon, Dan Norcross and Simon Mann, with expert summarisers Mark Wood (not too far off a bowling spot in the double o XI) and Isabelle Westbury (Middlesex and Holland).

PHOTOGRAPHS

My usual sign off:

The Group Stage of #BBL10: A Retrospective

A look at the 56th and last group game of #BBL10, an analysis of the qualification system, a look at the innovations in this year’s BBL and some photographs.

The graphic which heads this post is the final group table of BBL10, screenshotted from cricinfo.com. In this post I look back at the 56th and final group game, analyse the qualifying system in place for this tournament and offer final views on the three innovations. I would like to say at this point, in case the rest of this post gives a wrong impression, that I have enjoyed the tournament, and my criticisms are offered in a constructive spirit.

STARS STUFF UP SEES THEM CRASH OUT OF BBL10

With Heat beating Scorchers to secure a qualifying place and Renegades final act of the tournament being to eliminate the Hurricanes the 56th and last group game, commentary of which was broadcast on five live sports extra presented a stark situation to the two combatants: Stars needed the full four points (three for the win and one for the Bash Boost) to qualify (with a sensible qualifying system they would already have been gone – more on this later). Sixers meanwhile needed the Bash Boost point at minimum to win the group, and a victory of any sort to do so outright rather than on net run rate.

With Stars needing all the points they had to get big runs in the first ten overs of their innings, but they failed to pick up this message. Nick Larkin, a known slow starter, was sent in at number three, and in this case provided the expected slow start and then failed to go on (11 off 16 balls). Then, at the end of the tenth, setting the Bash Boost target, Nic Maddinson came back for a second on the penultimate ball rather than leaving the big hitting Maxwell on strike. Two more accrued of the last ball of the tenth, leaving Stars on 72-3, and a modest target for the Sixers to claim the all-important first point of the game, which would ensure no Melbourne participation in the final stages (Renegades’ win had not altered their final position – last).

Overs 11-15, which included the Power Surge being taken for overs 14 and 15 were the best part of Stars’ day, as they scored 52-1 in that period to reach 125-4 at the three-quarter mark. They lost a little momentum in the closing stages, but three sixes in the final over boosted them to 177-6, a respectable total, though not very relevant as their poor handling of the first ten had likely cost them any chance of qualifying.

Faced with the situation they were in Stars should have front loaded their batting with all their biggest hitters, realising that their 20 over score would only be truly relevant if they went big in the first ten. Nick Larkin as a known slow starter should probably not have been picked for this match at all.

Sixers lost a couple of early wickets, but by the end of their four over power play were 43-2, 11 runs ahead of Stars at the same stage. They also outscored Stars in the second phase of the innings, albeit only by two runs, being 85-3 at the halfway point, and having already won the war, securing their own status as group winners and the elimination of the Stars, although a Pyrrhic victory in the final battle remained on for the Stars.

Overs 10-15 did not go especially well for the Sixers, who reached the three-quarter way stage at 126-5, 1 run ahead, but one wicket behind the Stars. They picked things up in the final quarter however, and in the end a boundary struck by Dan Christian of the penultimate ball of the match ensured that Stars would not even have a Pyrrhic victory to finish. Sixers deservedly topped the group, and I for one have no sympathy for the Stars, who made a complete mull of their approach to this game, and who in the words of Anne Robinson “Leave with NOTHING.”

A FLAWED
QUALIFICATION SYSTEM

Although it lent a few of the final group games an interest they might not otherwise have had, a qualification system that allows five teams out of eight to progress to the knockout stages has to be considered flawed. Firstly, in order to reward each qualifying team according to their placement the knockout phase is byzantine in the extreme. Secondly, it means that average teams are being rewarded – the teams in the 4th and 5th qualifying spots each recorded seven wins and seven losses, which does not deserve to be enough to progress. Tournaments that are organized on part league part cup lines should reward only teams who are exceptionally successful in the league phase – and losing as many games as you win is not exceptionally successful on any definition. My own preferred method for an eight team tournament would be as follows: three teams qualify for the final stages, the group winners going straight through to the final, while the second and third place teams play off for the right to join them, with the second placed team having home advantage by way of reward for doing better than the third placed team. This would make the tournament more compact by reducing the number of knockout matches, although they also need to have more days on which multiple matches are played in the group stages, and would ensure that only teams who are clearly better than the rest get to play in the knockout matches.

THE THREE INNOVATIONS

BBL10 featured three innovations this year: the Power Surge, reducing the opening Power Play from six overs to four, with a two over Power Surge to be claimed by the batting team at any point after 10 overs, the Bash Boost point, awarded to the team with the better score at the halfway stage, and the ‘x-factor’ sub where specifically at the halfway stage of the first innings each team may swap out one player for one of their designated ‘x-factor’ subs. I am a huge fan of the Power Surge, though a number of teams have misused it, being wary of going early and ending up without front line batters to cash in on it, and would like to see it adopted in other T20 competitions. The Bash Boost point has overall been a success, although a combination of the importance it assumed today, and Stars’ flawed approach caused it to spoil this particular game somewhat, and again albeit under a different name, it might well be worth other T20 competitions adopting it. The ‘x-factor’ sub rule belongs in the circular file, and has in my view contributed nothing to the tournament. If you need to alter the balance of your side after the start of the game, the one valid reason for using such a sub, you should have got it right first time.

PHOTOGRAPHS

My usual sign off:

A Great Turnaround

My account of an astonishing final day of the Sri Lanka v England test series in Galle, complete with England player ratings and an acknowledgement of Lasith Embuldeniya.

This post deals with the events that unfolded in Galle today, which started with England very much second favourites.

ENGLAND FIRST INNINGS

England resumed 42 runs adrift with one wicket left in their first innings. Five runs were accumulated, four of them by way of a reverse sweep from James Anderson before the end came. Embuldeniya did not add to his seven wickets, but his day was far from done…

SRI LANKA SECOND INNINGS

Sri Lanka started their second innings with an advantage of 37, and plenty of time to build a daunting lead. Unfortunately they lost their heads rather dramatically. Jack Leach and Dominic Bess, bowling much better than they had in the first innings and assisted by some kamikaze batting from the Sri Lankans picked up wickets quickly. By lunch Sri Lanka were six down, and two more wickets fell soon after. There were two splendid catches, Crawley doing well to hang on to one that was hit out of the middle of the bat but straight at him, and Anderson getting underneath a swirling mishit. Embuldeniya, barely rested from his bowling stint, proceeded to play an innings that shamed most of his supposed betters with the bat, producing a first class career best 40 chock full of common sense. He succeeded in having Bess removed from the attack, but then he and no11 Asitha Fernando fell to successive Joe Root deliveries, leaving Sri Lanka all out for 126, and England facing a target of 164 to win.

ENGLAND 2ND INNINGS

Crawley did reach double figures for the first time in the series, but then honoured protocol by falling to Embuldeniya for the fourth successive time. Bairstow made a small contribution, Root failed, and Lawrence played a poor shot before he had given himself time to get a proper sight of the ball. At that point the score was 89-4, and England were by no means safe. Embuldeniya had three of the wickets, giving him ten for the match. Sibley was grinding away at one end, and was now joined by Buttler. Buttler batted sensibly, keeping the scoreboard ticking, although Sri Lanka were not doing nearly enough to make things difficult – singles were regularly there for the taking. As England closed in, Sibley completed a 50 which was worth more than a century on a flat track would have been. He had his good fortune, with a couple of close LBW appeals being turned down and being labelled “umpire’s call” by the DRS. However, the second of the two had hit him above the knee roll, and he is quite tall, so one can understand why it was considered too high by the umpire. Also, all fortune, good or ill, to one side, he showed an immense amount of character after a very poor series up to that point. Buttler just missed out on what would have been his second fifty of the match, but he was there at the end as England won by six wickets, to take the series 2-0.

THE PLAYER OF THE MATCH AWARD AND EMBULDENIYA

England’s win by six wickets effectively ensured that Joe Root, who had a second successive great game, would be player of the match. Had Sri Lanka bowled England out a second time and emerged victorious Embuldeniya would have been a deserving recipient, and even had the margin been three wickets rather than six he would have merited consideration. As it was a margin as comfortable as six wickets really did mean that someone from the winning team had to be chosen, and with all respect to Anderson and to Sibley for his gritty second innings effort Root was the only serious candidate. Root was also the Player of the Series, which was an absolute shoo-in. Embuldeniya’s combination of 40 and a 10 wicket haul got some of us thinking about other notable combinations of runs with big wicket hauls, and here are six of the best from test history:

  1. Melbourne 1883 – Billy Bates took seven wickets in each innings, including England’s first ever test hat trick, and scored 55 in England’s only innings
  2. The Oval 1902 – Hugh Trumble scored 64 not out and 7 not out and took eight first innings and four second innings wickets, but as with Embuldeniya could not win it for his side, England sneaking home by one wicket. Trumble had the best match aggregate for Australia with 71 runs, and bowled unchanged through both England innings for his 12 wicket haul.
  3. Alan Davidson 1960 – He took 5-135 in the West Indies first innings of 453, 6-87 in their second innings 284 and contributed 44 to Australia’s first innings 505 and 80 to their second innings 232, having to settle for a place in history as part of test cricket’s first ever tie, rather than a win.
  4. Ian Botham, Bombay 1980 (it was not called Mumbai in those days) – 6-58, 114 not out when no one else even topped 50, 7-48 in an innings victory.
  5. Imran Khan, Faisalabad 1982 – 6-98, 117, 5-82 in an innings win over India
  6. Richard Hadlee, Brisbane 1985 – 9-52 in the first innings, an all time test record for an out and out fast bowler, a blistering 54 (four of each kind of boundary) which enabled skipper Coney to declare with two full days in hand for Australia to be dismissed a second time, and six more wickets to finish the job.

ENGLAND PLAYER RATINGS

Dominic Sibley – 7/10. His gritty second innings saved a dire series for him, and spared England some potentially major blushes, sending him and them on to India in good heart.

Zak Crawley – 3/10. Two horrific failures with the bat, but he did hold one fine catch during the Sri Lankan second innings.

Jonathan Bairstow – 5/10. stabilised the ship in the England first innings after both openers had gone cheaply, but did then get out first thing on the following morning. A modest contribution to the second innings. Although he batted well at times he never did so for long enough in this series, as evidenced by a highest score of 47.

Joe Root – 9/10. 186 in the first innings, a couple of wickets to end the Sri Lankan second innings, but a failure at a crucial moment in the England second innings blotted his otherwise stellar copybook, costing him one mark.

Dan Lawrence – 3/10. A double failure with the bat this time, and his second innings shot was quite awful. He did take a catch in the field along the way.

Jos Buttler – 7/10. A fifty in the first innings, just missed out on that mark in the second, but played a crucial role in seeing England home. A competent effort with the gloves.

Sam Curran – 4/10. Largely unthreatening with the ball, though he did bag a wicket in the first innings, he hung around briefly with the bat, but did nothing to alter the impression that no7 is a place too high for him in a test batting order.

Dominic Bess – 7-10. His first innings bowling was largely unthreatening, he played a fine support knock in England’s first innings, and bagged four wickets in the second innings.

Mark Wood – 5/10. Three first innings wickets, none in the second. His shot near the end of day three was a poor one, and an absolute shocker in the circumstances.

Jack Leach – 7/10. Toiled through 36 overs in the first innings, getting no wickets. Bowled well in the second and was rewarded with four wickets. He now has more wickets in Sri Lanka than any other England bowler.

James Anderson – 8.5/10. Without his bowling in the first innings England would have been buried – SL would have had over 500 on the board. In the second innings he did not get among the wickets but did take a fine catch, doing well to get under a swirling mishit.

This is England’s fifth successive away test victory, their best run on foreign soil since they followed victories in the last four matches of the 1911-2 Ashes with another three to start the 1913-4 tour of South Africa. The bowling spearhead then was another right arm fast medium with Lancashire connections, albeit more to league cricket than to the county, Sydney Francis Barnes, and he was just a shade older than Anderson is now, being past 40 by the end of the South African series. India will be a much tougher tour – this Sri Lankan team are not used to winning, and that manifests itself in an obvious lack of killer instinct at key moments, whereas India surmounted huge difficulties to best the Aussies in their own backyard.

PHOTOGRAPHS

I end as usual with some photographs…

Hotting Up In Galle

A look at day three in Galle and a couple of issues raised therein.

This post looks at day three of Sri Lanka v England and at a couple of issues the arise from today’s play.

ROOT VS EMBULDENIYA

Although others contributed a fascinating third day in Galle was dominated by two players. Joe Root of England confirmed that he has rediscovered the art of going seriously big, as it took a run out in the day;s last over to dislodge him, by which time he had moved to 186. The other overarching performer was Sri Lanka’s left arm spinning find Lasith Embuldeniya who took his haul for the innings to seven wickets, Other than the impertubable England skipper the only person to play Embuldeniya with any great comfort was Jos Buttler who made a decent half century. The other significant batting effort on the day came from Dominic Bess, who came in with England staring down the barrel of a three-figure deficit on first innings with Sri Lanka to bat last. By the time he was dismissed the difference between the sides was under 50, and England were looking in the hunt. Unfortunately the odd looking decision to send the flamboyant Wood in ahead of the adhesive Leach with the close of play approaching did not work out well, and then there was the freakish run out of Root which ended the day, leaving England 339-9 in reply to Sri Lanka’s 381, with Leach and Broad to resume batting tomorrow.

ENGLAND’S BALANCING PROBLEMS ABSENT STOKES

Sam Curran looks a place too high in the order as a test match number seven, and the reason he is there is because on flat wickets England need to equip themselves with plenty of bowling options, and with Ben Stokes not available for this series they did not have their great x-factor player to turn to, which left them to choose between lengthening the batting or the bowling. Rightly in view of the conditions in which this series is happening they opted for the latter. There is strong evidence to support the view that if having to choose between batting and bowling strength the bowling strength is more important:
Surrey won seven county championships in the 1950s with an average batting side that possessed a stellar bowling attack, Yorkshire won seven championships in the 1930s, and again the key ingredient of their success was a devastating bowling unit, spearheaded by Bill Bowes and Hedley Verity. Finally, in the first decade of the 1900s Yorkshire won five titles, although only one of their batters, David Denton, was good enough to be chosen for England purely on batting skill in that decade, with the key again being an awesome line up of bowlers, headed by the Huddersfield area trio of Hirst, Rhodes and Haigh. Sussex in that same decade had a very deep batting line up, but limited bowling resources, and never came seriously close to winning the title. However, a batting line up with Curran at seven does necessitate those at the top coming to the party and so far this series only the skipper has done so – without him England would undoubtedly be staring a 0-2 defeat in the face rather than being favourites to win the series.

THE ROLE OF DOMINIC BESS

England are desperate for Dominic Bess to establish himself as a test class spinner, because he is a splendid fielder and a capable bat as well. Currently in first class cricket he averages 23.77 with the bat and 29.41 with the ball (137 wickets in 48 matches at that level). In test cricket he averages 24.77 with the bat and 33.37 with the ball (27 wickets in 11 matches). The bowling average and the low wickets/matches ratio – just below 2.5 – both point to the issue: as much he offers outside his main role, barring one good series against South Africa he has yet to deliver in his main role, with the ball.

Today he contributed 32, and looked like he was handling the bowling as well as any of his team mates save Root. It may be that ultimately the way forward for Bess as an international cricketer is to concentrate more on his batting, and aim to be picked as batter who bowls, rather than a bowler who bats. Garry Sobers and Steven Smith were both originally selected at test level as spinners (Sobers was at no9 on test debut, Smith at no8) and ended up making their biggest marks with the bat, although Sobers continued to bowl, whereas Smith has all but given up that aspect of the game. Going back further, Wilfred Rhodes was the best spinner in the world early in his career, and batted no11 for England, and went on to tour Australia in 1911-12 as one of the designated opening batters, hardly bowling at all (he would pick up his bowling after World War 1, and return to the top in that department, finishing his career as once more a specialist bowler, as his sight declined – he would go blind during his retirement – and he could no longer bat). At the moment Bess is always likely to get the nod if England want two front line spinners, and the main in more danger of losing out is Leach, who bowled 36 overs in the first innings here without causing any great problems for the batters, but do not be surprised to see Bess moving up the order in the not distant future, as he seeks to find a more secure niche than ‘bits and pieces guy who gets selected when two spinners are needed’.

PHOTOGRAPHS

Today’s gallery starts with seven pictures on the theme of ‘red sky in the morning, shepherd’s warning’, although today’s weather in King’s Lynn, while far from pleasant has not really borne out that saying:

Sri Lanka In Control In Galle

A look at day two of the second Sri Lanka v England test and some of the issues raised by it.

This post deals with day 2 of the second Sri Lanka v England test match in Galle, and tackles a couple of related issues.

ANDERSON AND THE REST

England achieved their first goal of removing Mathews early on day 2, for 110, but Dickwella who just missed out on a maiden test hundred and Dilruwan Perera with a fine half century took Sri Lanka to 381. James Michael Anderson finished this innings with the following figures: 29-13-40-6. Mark Wood, bowling consistently fast, took three wickets, and the other fell to Sam Curran’s left arm. Both front line spinners, Bess and Leach, were therefore wicketless, and neither posed much of a threat.

EMBULDENIYA’S BUNNIES

The England innings started almost on repeat from the first match, left arm spinner Lasith Embuldeniya being entrusted with the new ball, in company with veteran seamer Lakmal on this occasion. Sibley was first to go, pinned LBW (he reviewed, an effort bad enough to be almost worthy of the adjective ‘Watsonian’ in “honour” of the legendary Shane Watson, but the decision was correctly upheld), and then Crawley snicked one into the slips and England were 5-2, and in three innings to date Embuldeniya has now dismissed both openers all three times, without a double figure score from either. Root and Bairstow steadied the ship, and reached the close at 98-2, Root 67 not out. I was actually involved in a video conference at this time, so did not catch this passage of play. To give themselves a chance, given that the ball is already starting to turn, England will need to bat all day tomorrow as a first requirement. To do this they could do with someone other than Root producing a major performance with the bat. Looking ahead, England go to India next, and although Ravi Jadeja is injured, the Indian squad named for this series features Axar Patel, like Embuldeniya, a left arm spinner, and there is a strong case for India giving him the new ball alongside Bumrah, now recovered from his own injury. This strategy of pairing a left arm slow bowler with a right arm fast one at the start of an innings is nothing new. It used to be considered standard just over a century ago. Kent had their greatest period, four county championships in seven seasons, with Arthur Fielder and Colin Blythe, just such a combo, as their new ball pairing. Lancashire had a decade earlier used Mold and Briggs to similar effect. In the 1912 Triangular tournament England more than once used Syd Barnes and Harry Dean as an opening pair, and on one occasion Barnes and Frank Woolley did the honours. Australia’s lowest ever test innings score of 36 all out was made in the face of Rhodes (SLA, 7-17) and Hirst (LFM, 3-15) at Edgbaston in 1902. Sri Lanka’s reinvention of the cricketing wheel is working well for them.

ENGLAND OPENERS

The disastrous time Sibley and Crawley are having at the hands of Embuldeniya has naturally raised the question of whether to continue playing them or not. Whatever the correct answer is, I know what is not correct, though it is being advocated by various people: a recall for Keaton Jennings, a man with a Brearleyesque batting average and without the captaincy skills. For the India series Burns will be available, and he will fill one of the openers slots. I would revert to the Sibley, Burns, Crawley top three and hope it works. For the second innings of this match there is a potentially bigger problem, but it is hard to see a tactical adjustment of the batting order working, as Embuldeniya will surely be called up for a bowl as soon as either Sibley or Crawley appear.

There are some good young top order batters in county cricket, and I would rather look to them than to a never-really-was like Jennings.

THE ‘BRANDERSON’ ISSUE

England’s stated policy is rotate the two veterans, James Anderson and Stuart Broad, but they may well have to rethink – to leave Anderson out after his performance here would look odd to put it mildly. At home against New Zealand and India both should play, while for the Asheis it will depend on form and fitness, but I would be looking as follows: Brisbane – Broad, Adelaide – Anderson, Perth – neither, if all are fit I would go with the outright pace of Archer, Wood and Stone, Melbourne – both, Sydney – Anderson.

PHOTOGRAPHS

My usual sign off: