Sachin Sets The Bar

Wednesday's ODI between India and South Africa was special for many reasons. The cameo from Dhoni, the swashbuckling from Karthik or even the stunning century from AB de Villiers which, on any other day would have been a worthy talking point. India dismissed a strong South African side by posting a massive total and bowling them out, but in the years to come nobody will talk about the humbling result, they will say "I saw the Little Master make history".

Trying to say something new about Sachin Tendulkar is a thankless task. In India he can't even go out of his house without wearing a disguise for fear of being mobbed. He has been studied, almost down to atomic level as his fans and admirers seek new ways of describing a man whose achievements and conduct under extreme public pressure defy description. One almost wonders if he keeps trying to break new ground even after 20 years in the game, simply to give people something new to write about.

Wednesday's innings made him the first batsman to score a double century in limited overs internationals, and the quality of the innings from the off was such that as he reached his century that commentators immediately speculated that they might see him "double up". There are precious few batsmen in the world who could attract such speculation, but he not only attracts it, it lives up to it and thrives on it. His knock was a masterclass in precision, pacing an innings and executing every shot, either textbook or improvised. Put simply, you will not see a better innings, and there is no finer player or man in the cricket world who could reach this landmark.

On a personal note, this innings comes at a perfect time for me; a natural place to start a departure from England, both physically and in terms of cricket writing, as I fly out to Australia on Monday morning. I don't want to write on the progress of Strauss's team in the build up to the Ashes without seeing them play, so I am going to turn my attention to the Australian camp, providing up to date information on their build up as I travel around the country.

More Drama Reignites Selection Question

Graeme Onions was called on once more as last session drama in Cape Town reduced England from a position of security to 9 down. The Durham seamer faced 11 deliveries and intense scrutiny from Morne Morkel to secure the draw for his country and ensure that Andrew Strauss's men will not leave South Africa as losers of either the ODI or Test series.

In many ways it is a difficult match to write on, as there is a feeling it has all been done (and said) before. This is the third time in just eight Test matches that England have salvaged a draw from near certain defeat on the last day; asking their strong lower order to see them over the line. With this in mind I am going to use this blog to put to bed the issue which has dominated the first three blogs on this Test series. I promise that this is the last time I give it such prominence, and equally assure that this will be a broader discussion than the usual "we need five bowlers" format.

However, that is the place we will start, and a quick examination of the recent evidence will offer some support. Of the three matches where England have given their captain only four strike bowlers to play with, the opposition has been able to amass a total that allows a declaration with nearly a day and a half left to play. This means that the best England have been able to hope for going into the last day of two matches has been to draw, and this is no longer good enough because, Test match cricket is a far more even playing field than it was ten years ago.

In the days of Atherton and Hussain, the three Lions couldn't eat at the top table and as a result, two draws against a side with the talent of this South African team would be considered a major success. But England's rise has coincided with a slight decline in two of it's major rivals, largely down to the retirement of two pairs of all time great bowlers. Alan Donald and Shaun Pollock, Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne were four players who were world class whoever they were against, but often saved their very best for England. Obviously they were not alone, but they tormented the England sides at the end of the last century and the start of this one and they have proved difficult to replace.

This may seem like an odd thing to say, particularly given the South Africans boast the number one rated bowler in the world in Dale Steyn. But this is a discussion for England, and unlike his predecessors he has rarely shown us his best. Add to this the fact that England now has a much stronger all round line up than they did in those bleak days and, as shown by the recent successes over the Australians (who did boast Warne and McGrath in '05) at home and in South Africa and nobody would suggest that England haven't got the talent to challenge the top sides in the world.

So why then are we letting an average South African side dominate us. The ICC may say they are they were the top side in the world going into this series, but their top 6 has two players in Duminy and Prince who have looked like walking wickets, a spinner who can't turn it and a seam attack which hasn't looked fully fit until England's second innings in this Test. In layman's terms, they have been there for the taking...but they are not only still in the series, they have been 2 balls away from leading it.

From England's point of view, the lineup they have been selecting is actually tuned to save a draw rather than force a win. By hopefully trying to extend the time they can bat for they are limiting the number of wicket takers at their disposal, and everyone knows you need wickets more than you need runs to win a Test Match.

The theory is of course sound, but there is a practical problem that lies in a batting lineup which is failing to reach its potential. Just as in the summer, there aren't enough match winning 3 figure innings out there. England have mustered two this series, which came in the same innings and sure enough they won the Test match. South Africa have spread their four centuries over the four innings of the first and third Test matches, both games they would have expected to win going into the last day.

As a result, England find themselves trapped in an unwelcome situation this winter. They can either increase the likelihood of victory but make these match saving performances less likely, or hope to make losing as unlikely as possible and try and pick up a win when the opposition have an off day as in the second test.

Make no mistake, I expect the current selection format to be the one England stick with over the tour to Bangladesh, but I feel it is one that belongs int he days when England didn't believe they were real contenders. If winning the success of 2005 and the reclaiming of the Ashes this summer don't make them think of themselves (and select like) as a side that can defeat the best in the world then I don't know what will.

England sealed an emphatic innings and 98 run victory over a surprisingly timid South Africa in Durban. The nature of the win has, for many, answered the questions I have raised over the course of this tour about the balance of a four man bowling unit, but in this slightly Jekyll and Hyde blog the problem will be re-examined in light of the events of the last week.

However, to avoid coming across all Bob Willis it is more than a little important that the win itself is at least touched upon, and what a win it was. Andrew Strauss said it was as good a victory away from home as he could recall and who can argue with him. Victories by an innings are rare against the major cricket playing nations, but to defeat the top ranked Test nation by such a margin in their own back yard is something worth heralding.

It was a victory to which everyone can lay claim. Trott and Onions may not have got the runs or taken the wickets they wanted but Trott withstood scrutiny in fading light on the second evening when losing another wicket would have dented any chance of such a sizable total, and Onions new ball bowling provided just the challenging control that the Kookaburra ball needs before the shine quickly disappears.

On another day this win could have belonged to either of them, but instead it was four others who soaked up the humidity down by the sea and returned performances of pure brilliance.

Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann produced one of those memorable sessions of international cricket on the 4th evening which is usually reserved for the Ashes to reduce South Africa to 50 for 6. For Swann, his 9 wicket haul for the match was a fitting end to a stunning renaissance year, almost a decade on from his debut. He is a reminder to all finger spinners that you don't need to dislocate your wrists or have a doosrah in your armoury to be successful, because simple mastery of your art will still confound batsmen at the highest level.

Broad again underlined his potential, taking three Proteas wickets for a single run at one point in his spell. It is easy to forget when he produces spells like this that he is only 23, and although fans may be desperate for him to turn in performances of this calibre every innings he is still learning his craft. That said, the ability is clearly there and the more he concentrates on trying to hit the top of off stump the quicker he will develop into a strike bowler to be feared.

With the bat, the two players under most scrutiny delivered characteristically contrasting innings and got the centuries they deserved. Despite averaging over 40 for the calender year, Alistair Cook has struggled to get beyond starts and there have been a few questions raised over whether he can produce match winning innings at the top of the order. His technique has undergone some tweaking and his innings was a lesson in mental restraint as he stubbornly refused to be drawn into the airy wafts outside off stump which have cost him his wicket over the last 18 months. For much of his 118 he was far from fluent, but his gritty performance and partnership with Paul Collingwood set the perfect platform for Ian Bell.

Bell has always been something of an enigma. As exemplified in the First Test he is does not seem to be a man for the crisis, but he has shown time and again that with a suitable foundation he can get England into a winning position. The tentativeness shown when England were struggling in the First Test was replaced by the sort of easy stroke play which has become his calling card. There can be no doubt that somewhere in there is a truly quality Test batsman, which brings us once more to the question of balance.

The first and arguably most important point was raised by Nasser Hussain. Simply put, this is not an issue of whether or not Bell is good enough to play for England. In truth it never has been, Bell has a good average and has shown again over the course of this last match that he is wonderfully gifted young man with many years of top level cricket left in him. That said, he would not have been in my England team before this century, and despite this wonderful innings he would not make the cut for the first Test of 2010.

Test match cricket has one major difference to One Day Internationals, namely the wicket requirement. In ODI's you can lose nine wickets and defeat a side you lost one, as a result of having more runs. In Test matches you can score infinitely more than the opposition but without 20 wickets it is meaningless and the game will meander towards a draw. England managed to do that in this game but I do not for one second that this four man attack will produce the required results on a regular basis for the following reasons.

Firstly, you cannot expect the opposition to be as bereft of fight as the South African's apparently were. Their tentative batting did not befit the top ranked side in the world, and for three quality batsmen to be dismissed attempting to leave the ball in such short time is unforgivable. Add to that Amla's poor dismissal and you have to accept that 4 top batsmen gifted England their wickets. This was less a case of bowlers defeating batsmen than it was a case of batsmen waving the white flag.

A further point would be that the South African bowling attack may have had five obvious prongs in name, but this was at best a three man attack in combination, with Kallis and Steyn only half fit and Ntini all but anonymous. de Whet must have been sat on the sidelines wondering what on earth he had to do on debut to warrant a place in this distinctly average bowling line up. For South Africa to pick Ntini over him for the next match would be at best sentimental ignorance. As a result, England will have to work a lot harder to give their bowlers such scoreboard pressure.

The inference would be that this was not a case of one unbalanced side being defeated by a balanced one, but rather a case of the least unbalanced side triumphing. England still need to win one of the remaining two Tests to be assured of victory and their best chance of victory does not lie in the hope that Graeme Smith's men will be as bad second time around. As a result, cruel though it is I would replace Bell with a bowler rather than gamble that four will be enough.

A nod to recent history would suggest that England have their best chance of winning with a five man attack. Few would suggest that England are a better bowling unit without Andrew Flintoff, and if the selectors didn't feel four was enough with him it seems odd that they suddenly feel that four is enough after his retirement. As the last man in, Bell would be the first man out, but this does not mean international exile. Think how long Hussey, Katich and Watson had to wait to prove their class. England should be thankful to have six batsmen and wicket keeper with such batting quality, but it doesn't mean that playing them all in the same side will bring victories of this magnitude on a regular basis.

Negative England Nearly Pay the Price

Cast your minds back to Cardiff this summer and you will recall a heroic last stand between Jimmy Anderson and Monty Panesar which held the Australians at bay in the crucial first Test. It is a little surprising that at the start of the very next series England found themselves in a near identical situation as Paul Collingwood (able to surpass his efforts in Cardiff) and Graeme Onions denied The Proteas the chance to take an early advantage.

History will also repeat itself in the aftermath, as the euphoria of saving the match will be tempered by a searching examination of what put England in a position where scraping a draw was the best they could hope for.

On this occasion it seems that Ian Bell will pay the price. The selectors preferred Bell to a fifth bowler, hoping to extend the batting line up precisely to avoid the situation that they ultimately found themselves in. Unfortunately for all parties Bell collected only 7 runs in two innings, a return which was made to look worse after England were twice unable to turn the screw in the field. At both 159 for 4 in the first innings and wobbling at 46 for 4 in the second Strauss's team had the opportunity to exert real pressure and possibly put themselves in a winning position. Instead, as South Africa rebuilt around Kallis or Amla Strauss cut a frustrated feeling, casting about for a wicket, even using Jonathon Trott for a couple of overs as England listed aimlessly, awaiting reverse swing or a bit of Swann magic after the new ball had lost his hardness.

Of course their is no guarantee that an extra bowler given England a different result, but it is always true that bowlers have more chance to recover from errors than batsmen. Ian Bell made two and found himself back in the pavilion unbuckling his pads, but a bowler could have sent down two shocking deliveries and maybe made that vital breakthrough with his third. As was shown in the first innings, although neither Swann or Broad is a natural Test number 7 the combination of them at 7 and 8 can be enough to add a hundred or maybe even more. As a result England will almost certainly opt for the five pronged attack in the second Test that they should have used in the first.

The other main point of interest was the referrals system which has had some tweaks since England last came across it a year ago and to my mind it was actually a success. By allowing the umpire's decision to stand in marginal cases their authority and dignity is upheld while glaring errors can be eliminated. It is a great compromise and although Stuart Broad's ugly outburst drew headlines it cannot be forgotten that the correct decision was actually reached. The system will need to be used before a practical decision can be made on how long is too long to appeal but either way, players like Broad will have to learn to hold their tongue because I have a feeling that this system is here to stay and I for one support this progress which still upholds the finest traditions of the game.

Wright the Wrong Choice?

The big question on everyone's lips round the England camp is what the balance of the bottom five places in the batting order will be. The top six has picked itself, with captain Strauss sure to be partnered by Cook with the Englishmen by trade Trott and Pieterson looking to form a solid middle order in the land of their birth. Collingwood will retain the number five position and Matt Prior is more than good enough to bat at number six. After that, Strauss and the selectors have a difficult task.

Balance was the talk of the ODI series, with South Africa struggling to select a lineup that satisfied the needs of both the bowling and batting departments. With Andrew Flintoff now retired, England would love a ready made replacement to slot in at number 7. But Flintoff was a once in a lifetime player; a batsman with of destructive capabilities on his day, and a bowler of frightening ability even when it wasn't.

There is talk that England will try and replace him like for like with Luke Wright, a player who - like Freddie - plies his trade under the label of an all rounder. He too is a powerful right hander and a bowler capable of breaking the 90mph barrier. However, for the moment at least he is not a man capable of winning a Test match with either bat or ball and a quick recap of Freddie's finest hours of late for England explain why Wright should not make his Test match bow next week.

Although we all recall those halcyon days of 2005 when Flintoff emptied bars by swashing his buckle in that greatest of Ashes summers, in truth that was the last time he changed a game for England with the bat. As injuries blighted his career he found it easier lacing up his bowling boots than putting on his pads after extended periods on the sidelines. If you need any more proof then think no further back to Lord's when a devastating spell ended England's hoodoo at the home of cricket against the players in the baggy green.

In that series it was Broad and Swann who provided the lower order runs, so in truth Strauss is arguably only looking for a bowler who can bat, as opposed to a genuine all rounder and this must be the strategy if England are serious about building on their excellent ODI series win. Extending the batting lineup and only playing four front line bowlers would be a step back from the aggressive attitude that served them so well thus far on the tour and a step in the wrong direction.

However many runs you get, in order to win a Test match you must take 20 wickets and England's best chance of doing that is to select a fifth bowler and trust the batsmen to do their job and give them something to bowl at. With this in mind I would expect Stuart Broad to be promoted to number 7. The combination of him and Swann at 7 and 8 is far from a weak one, and although it undoubtedly draw yet more media comparison between him and Freddie on an individual basis, it would be nothing more than the most positive selection for the team.

It is a given that Anderson will take one of the remaining slots now that he has proved his fitness and Ryan Sidebottom has bowled himself into contention in the final warm up game with 5-42. The fact that he may generate rough for Swann on what is not known as a spinner's paradise at Centurion will also count in his favour. This leaves just one space and given his selection for both warm up games and the quick pitch it may be the case that Wright does get the nod. To my mind this seems like a defensive selection and I would have liked to see a fit Onions of Plunkett getting more of a run out on the tour. If England were concerned about the length of the tail then Plunkett is not incapable and both are more complete bowlers than Wright. What is certain is that this will be a real test of England's selection committee as they try and balance a side without the sizeable counterweight of Mr Flintoff.

From Insipid to Inspirational in the Blink of an Eye

England's bowlers produced two highly contrasting displays to take a 2-1 lead in the ODI series against South Africa with one fixture remaining. The Protees were able to take advantage of a poor display from the English attack on Friday, but had no answer to a more controlled and ruthless performance on Sunday.

The game on Friday had many highlights, but the match will be remembered for AB de Villiers stunning century to take his side to a total which England never looked like chasing down, even on a friendly surface. The numbers game told as the English batsmen fell to shots born out of frustration and pressure.

In fairness, South Africa also put in a very disciplined shift with the ball, quickly finding the correct length to bowl on the surface and stubbornly refusing to budge from it. The result was that the English batsmen were unable to profit in the same way that de Villiers et al had done earlier in the day, tucking into a mixture of half volleys and long hops on their way to 354-6.

However, if there was a clear contrast between the two bowling units on Friday, the difference in England's seam attack from that humiliating annihilation to their resurgence on Sunday was the equivalent of night and day. Broad, Bresnan and in particular Anderson gave away nothing, turning the screws with the grim satisfaction of a medieval torturer. Anderson will undoubtedly get the headlines for his superb five wicket haul but Bresnan once more looks as if he is growing into international cricket, and his miserly spell helped to assert the pressure which gave Anderson his victims. Broad's spell on the Sunday will also have been a pleasing sight to Flower and Strauss. After going round the park in Cape Town he looked much less ring rusty and got some good overs under his belt.

The one disappointment for England will have been Luke Wright, who in many ways sums up England's side at the moment. He is a player capable of pulling off the sublime, both in the field as he did to dismiss Peterson and with the ball, but he seems to lack the consistancy that fans and captains alike desire at this level. He was the only player on Sunday who made Friday's mistakes; perhaps spending too much time trying to outwit the batsman with slower balls and yorkers which failed to hit the mark. If this series has shown anything to both sides it is that while variations are useful, there is no replacement for a tight line and finding the length best suited to the wicket.

While England continue to put in mixed performances South Africa seem to have a totally different problem. England's issues stem from a lack of consistancy, but looking at both the team and the squad the balance seems good. As noted in last week's blog, everyone seems to be int he right position and although the personel may change both the bowling and batting units seem to potentially offer all the right qualities in all the right places. In contrast, South Africa seem stumped as to how to balance their side without Jacques Kallis. Just as England struggled when they first lost Flintoff, the Protees seem clueless as to who should play where when the talismanic all rounder is unavailable.

Many South African fans will find the decision to have a player of Herschelle Gibbs' quality carrying the drinks when the batting seems a man light is odd indeed. If he is seen as disruptive for his actions off the field then he shouldn't be around the squad, but if he is then surely he could add some steel and experience to a top order that if pressurised looks light on both. If England bowl as poorly as they did in Cape Town then perhaps it won't be an issue, but if they are able to put on a display of unified discipline as they did on Sunday then Graeme Smith's men may suffer a rare home series defeat.

Collingwood and Trott give England the Iniative

A magnificent unbeaten century from Paul Collingwood helped England defeat South Africa by 7 wickets to take a 1-0 lead in the ODI series. Chasing the Proteas 250 he shared a partnership of 162 with Jonathon Trott to place England within sight of victory before Eoigan Morgan finished the job with a swashbucking 27 from 18 balls.

England had already impressed with the ball, reducing South Africa to 165 for 6 before Peterson and Boucher had marshalled Graeme Smith's men to a competative 250. Collingwood had already caught the eye with a stunning diving catch to dismiss AB de Villiers before sharing a somewhat surprising bowling partnership with Trott. The pitch itself seemed to favour more medium paced bowling and the pair combined to return joint figures of 2 for 45 from 13 overs, capping a wonderful day as captain for Andrew Strauss who saw his bowling changes result in immediate wickets on 4 seperate occasions. To use up so many overs not only ensured that the main seam attack of Anderson (3 for 60), Bresnan (2 for 46), Wright and Mahmoood was ably supported in the middle of the innings, but also made up for the limited use of Rashid, who would have been expected to offer more than the expensive 3 overs he managed.

Bresnan and Wright were particularly impressive, having been dealt with so harshly in the Pro20 matches they were back on their metal, doing the basics well and backed up for the most part by an energetic fielding performance. Andrew Strauss's inability to hold on to 2 very basic chances were the only major blots on a England's copy book as the South African's struggled to take charge with a line up which looked decidedly light on genuine top order ability without the injured Kallis.

While England had relied on the taking the pace off the ball, South Africa didn't have anyone in the same mould as Trott or Collingwood and were unable to take advantage of the slight slowness in the track. Trott impressed at the top of the order with a well paced 87 but it was Collingwood, earning a record 171 ODI caps who guided England home with his fifth one day century.

The match as a whole was a lesson in how vital it is have a balance in your side. England only used one more bowler than the Proteas, but there was a lot more variety in their attack. Anderson and Bresnan offer swing at good pace, while Wright can hit the deck hard and is quicker than he seems. With Collingwood and now Trott bowling tight areas at a tricky medium the seam department is multi-dimensional, especially compared to the South African attack. On another day they could have turned to spin with Rashid or even Pieterson but the key in this shorter format is for the captain to have a variety of options.

In contrast, Graeme Smith will have looked at Steyn, McLaren and Langeveldt and known that even though they bowl at slightly different paces they all rely on swing and skid onto the batsmen. Albie Morkel is not yet the finished article and although van der Merwe continues to improve he does not have the depth of backup bowling that Strauss has, and as a result needs the conditions to favour his frontline attack.
The same could be said of the two batting line ups on display today. Trott's county experience as an opener showed, and throughout the middle order you saw people who knew the position they were in. Pieterson should have been England's no.3 for years, while Collingwood's experience and recent developments as an attacking force make him a natural foil for Morgan and Prior at 5 and 6. Beyond that, Wright and Bresnan are more than strong finishers as they showed against Australia in the Champion's Trophy semi-final and Rashid has several first class centuries to his name. The Proteas clearly struggled to balance their team without Kallis, and as a result nearly the entire line up looked like they were batting one position higher than they their attributes suit and Graeme Smith will be praying that Kallis is fit to bolster and balance both his batting and bowling attacks.

Both sides have time on their side before next Friday's fixture, as England hope that Swann and Broad will be fit with Mahmood and Rashid the likely players to miss out. Strauss can only hope that bringing in these players with so little match practice doesn't disrupt the balance which served them so well today.