What next for England?

With the England-Sri Lanka series slowly meandering to an end, it feels like the time is right to see where the England team is currently at, and what personnel changes are set to be made. In this blog I’m taking a look at the openers, the Stokes v Woakes ‘situation’ and the all-important number 3 position. I’m going to reserve a separate blog (which I will post this week) about the spinner, whether it be Ali or Rashid and how England should look to fill the position going forward.

The Openers

While Cook’s spot was never under threat, as it never should be, Hales was under the spotlight coming into the series. After a number of shaky showings against South Africa, Hales’ temperament as an opener as well as his ability to take the shine off the ball was seriously questioned. Three matches later, with scores of 86, 83, 11, 18 and 94, Hales has at minimum bought himself another series or two. Hales still has a clear weakness against spin, whereby he looks to take it on as if he’s still in T20 mode. This will be something which Pakistan will undoubtedly be aware of and look to target – particularly Yasir Shah should be find his place back in the starting line-up.

Woakes for Stokes, Stokes for Woakes?

Ben Stokes is currently ruled out with a knee injury and faces a battle to be fit for the first Pakistan Test on July 14^th. This could actually pose some problems for the selectors. Chris Woakes has come into the team in place of the injured Stokes and has been a more than adequate replacement. Firstly, he has a number of good showings in the Championship this year, including a century against Notts and a 9-fer against Durham. Since coming into the team, Woakes has proved to be a very useful foil for Anderson and Broad. When they struggled to make the grade in the second Test, it was Woakes who stepped up and found the all-important spell to unsettle the Sri Lankan line-up. Woakes has also proved that he knows how to handle the bat, better than most number 8s out there. Strength in depth, in both bowling and batting is one of the things which has set England apart from Sri Lanka over the last number of weeks. Even if Ben Stokes does regain fitness in time, it would be unlikely that we would see Woakes dropped straight out of the team. Quite simply, he has earned an extended run in the squad. While he is in form, it would be foolish to change things up.

The Number 3 Spot

After a difficult series, and a difficult 2016 overall, it looks like Nick Compton has worn the England jersey for the last time. While it is never nice to see any player struggle so much, across five international games and four domestic games Compton has a top score of 45, including 8 single-digit scores.

Who will fill up the number 3 spot now? A number of options exist – James Vince may be given a chance at number 3, however his showings at number 5 have been poor, with a top score of 35 across 6 innings simply don’t cut it at international level. Bayliss has openly admitted his desire to have Joe Root bat at number 3. In theory this might be a viable solution, with those above him dropping down the order. This would also free up a spot for Jos Buttler to re-join the side and take over the gloves, with Jonny Bairstow batting at number 5 as a specialist batsmen.

The more likely option seems to be a recall for Scott Borthwick, the legspinner turned batsmen. A number of media outlets have reported that Borthwick is the hand-picked replacement for Compton. Borthwick has notched up 574 runs this season at an average of 82, with a top score of 188*. It doesn’t hurt that Borthwick has picked up 10 wickets, and would provide a possible back up for England’s frontline spinner. Pakistan would undoubtedly prove a very difficult test for any new player, but if Borthwick is thrown into the firing-line and manages to prove his worth, he may be one to fill the number 3 spot for the foreseeable future.

What do I think the solution is? A lot will depend on the pitches. Root at 3 might not be the best idea considering his value at number 4, but it is really up to the selectors to decide whether any other players make the grade. In theory, the groundsmen will and should look to produce pitches which negate spin somewhat (Pakistan’s fast bowling stocks aren’t too bad either though).

Two scenarios make sense to me:

XI: Cook, Hales, Borthwick, Root, Bairstow, Ali, Buttler, Woakes, Finn, Broad, Anderson

XI: Cook, Hales, Borthwick, Root, Bairstow, Stokes, Ali, Buttler, Woakes, Broad, Anderson

Please drop me a comment or even a tweet (and follow me) at @craigjirwin if you have any comment or just simply disagree with me!

The Time For Change: Part 2

In what is very much a follow up to my previous blog, are we experiencing a revolution in Test cricket? With the announced two-tier Test system and with day-night Tests being announced (it looks like we’ll see one in Kolkata soon enough), it looks like the ICC are finally moving into the 21^st century. In this post, I want to take a quick look at the ‘other issues’ which exist in modern Test cricket, including pitches, the toss, DRS, tour preparations and the length of Test matches.

Just to make one thing clear from the outset, do I think Test matches should be shortened to 5 days? No, simply no. The modern 5 day structure encourages results. While it does mean that teams can gradually tick along at less than 3 runs per over for more than 100 overs, is that really a problem? After-all, this is Test cricket. Sure lots of matches finish up in 4, but the last thing we want to see are more draws. This will become even more interesting with the prospect of the two-tier almost league system; teams will be motivated to push for results. The more difficult it is to draw a game, the better.

While some liberty exists in producing pitches, whether they be fast tracks that we experience in Australia (particularly the WACA) or those which produce a bit of uneven bounce and favour the swing bowlers in England, some form of pitch standardisation is needed. Across the world it will be very difficult for pitches to all be identical, but that isn’t what we want to see. While I love seeing Test matches finish up inside 4 or even 4 and a half days, this should be as a result of one team out-performing the other, and it shouldn’t be because the groundsman has simply defeated the (often) visiting team. The clearest example of this problem was seen last year when South Africa visited India and were absolutely pummelled. They weren’t defeated by the Indian team as much as they were by the groundsmen. The pitches were awful, offering up near unreadable spin from the first ball. Of course, both teams had to deal with the same problems, and while the South African’s knew that spin would play a big part in the tour, none expected each pitch to be a birthday present to Ravi Ashwin. Simple not good enough. On the flip-side, no one wants to see a flat track that provides nothing for the bowlers. Again, I love seeing big scores being posted. Jonny Bairstow’s rich vein of form has been a treat to watch lately, but he has earned though runs, rather than being gifted road pitches to play on. The onus is on the ICC to encourage some sort of balance. Teams will still have some liberty to tailor the pitches to their own liking, but not to the level that was seen last year in Nagpur. The easier way to prevent this is to impose fines, or even points deductions whereby such pitches are produced.

Probably one of the more ‘controversial ones’ – largely because we love a bit of a gamble. Cricket is a game of skill, but there is often an element of luck. The luckiest man is the one who calls the toss correctly. But what if we eliminate the toss? This is something which has been trialled in the English domestic game. Take away the toss, and let the away team decide whether they want to bat or bowl first. This is probably one of the best ways to also incentivise better 5-day pitches. If the away captain wakes up to a lovely cloudy morning, then they bowl. Sunny skies and a chance for big runs? Well bat of course. By allowing such an option, it would provide a better template for an even contest. The home team will still undoubtedly be able to read the conditions better, but the gulf between the teams would be seriously reduced. Something which has more so been proposed for the shorter format, it’s unlikely to see such a change in the near future of Test cricket. It’s certainly one which is worth a few words though.

Three words which are very unpopular with the BCCI – Decision Review System. DRS is great, but it isn’t perfect. The ICC need to invest, and invest seriously. Currently tests are being carried out in MIT to effectively shore up the currently system. Get some top class DRS technology and make it mandatory for all series. Not just that, but if DRS is going to be used, it has to be the same across every series – hotspot, snicko and ball-tracking. One thing which popped up yesterday during England’s first innings saw Jonny Bairstow being reprieved because only 49.9% (so Michael Holding tells us) of the ball was going on to hit the stumps. ESPNCricinfo reported last night that the ICC were looking to review this and reduce the burden to 25% – good, great even. Too often the game is tipped in favour of the batsman. If the ball is going to cartwheel the stumps, the batsman should be walking back to the dressing room. Kumar Sangakarra made his views pretty plainly – ‘high time the ICC got rid of this umpires call. If the ball is hitting the stumps it should be out on review regardless of umps decision.’ In reality, there around about 20 other things with DRS which could be talked about, but it’s probably best if we leave it there!

‘That’ Jonny Bairstow decision – source: http://www.ozaccess.com/sports/cricket.html

The last thing which has become clear over the last number of months is the need for better warm up matches. This was a complaint of the Sri Lankan team leading up to the on-going series against England. A possible solution would be to have two or three matches prior to the beginning of a series against an ‘A’ team. England’s current ‘A’ team or the England Lions as they are known have a very good pool of players who aren’t too far off an England call up. This would allow players who are on the fringe of the Test team to show their worth against a Test nation, while ensuring that the visiting team is given the best chance to familiarise themselves with the conditions against quality opposition. There needs to be a way to ensure that visiting teams face quality opposition and not simply a ‘second XI’ of one of the domestic teams.

While I don’t see the ICC or even the collective boards waking up tomorrow and making these wholesale changes, I do think they are discussion points which are becoming more and more important to move the international game into the 21^st century. It’s all about balance – trying to keep things fair between bat and ball, the home team and the visiting team. Hopefully this will see more and better contested cricket in the future.

Thanks for reading!

The Time For Change

The Revolution of Test Cricket?

Test Cricket is undergoing a revolution at the moment – of sorts. The future of Test cricket is constantly being talked about, as well as the changes which are needed to ‘save’ the format. In this blog I want to take a look at two areas which have received a lot of press of late – the proposed two-tier Test structure and the introduction of day-night Test cricket.

 

Two-tier Test Structure

Last week ICC Chief Executive David Richardson made a number of announcements unveiling the ICC’s plans for the next number of years. The most significant of those plans or proposals was that of a new two-tier or two-division Test structure. The plan looks to reduce the number of one-sided or near uncontested series, improving the overall standard of the cricket played while looking to increase the number of teams playing the most elite format of the game. While the ICC have previously taken steps to almost push the Associates into the dark (reducing the number of teams in the World Cup; moving the World T20 to a 4-yearly tournament), the new announcements look to reverse the trend somewhat.

A two-tier Test structure would likely see a 7-5 team split. Based on the current rankings, the top tier would consist of Australia, India, Pakistan, England, New Zealand, South Africa and Sri Lanka. What stands out about this immediately is that storied rivalries and series such as the Ashes, India-Pakistan and the Trans-Tasman would continue to exist (at least they would for now). The second tier would therefore be made up of West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and two Associate nations. Issues do exist around Zimbabwe at the moment, having not even played enough matches to be ranked in the longest format of the game. Their board seem completely unwilling to promote the longer format of the game (or pay their players), driving a number of players away, including their former captain and one of their best ever players in Brendan Taylor.

Generally speaking, the two-tier system has been well received. However, with every proposed change, criticisms and problems will exist. Financially, playing second division cricket would be problematic for the likes of West Indies, who rely on series against the larger nations in order to make a profit. There are also questions as to whether players would be driven away from Test cricket if they are demoted to second division cricket. For the likes of Bangladesh and the Associate nations, I don’t think this would pose a problem at all. For Zimbabwe, well it’s near impossible to know where Zimbabwean cricket will be in 12 months’ time. The real problems lie with West Indies, who are already struggling to retain their best players in the Test arena.

More specifically, the new proposals have drawn criticism from the likes of Dwayne Bravo and Mark Wood. While Bravo believes that the short format is the only way forward, with youngster recognising the more lucrative benefits as well as the lesser time commitments. Wood’s point-of-view is a little bit different. His problem with the new proposal is that it will prevent players from facing every Test playing nation. This isn’t entirely true however, as the relegation and promotion system would ensure that the divisions don’t stay stagnant. But do we really want to see every country facing each-other? What if this just results in one-sided series like we’ve seen between Sri Lanka and England over the last two weeks? I personally don’t believe that Sri Lanka in their current state match up to the top teams (at the time of writing, they are giving England a little bit of trouble in Lord’s – of course). I’m more interested in seeing Test series between England, South Africa, Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand and India.

While I am biased of course, I’m also hugely in favour of growing the game internationally. The Associate game rarely has its chance to shine, largely relying on the major ICC tournaments to get any TV time. The Intercontinental Cup has allowed a lane-way to Test cricket for one country, but that’s all it is. A laneway. It’s narrow and dark and we really don’t know what lies at the end of it. In 2016, that simply isn’t good enough anymore. A two-tiered Test structure which includes Associates? Yes please!

 

Day-Night Tests

No matter what, no matter how good it is for the game, people will always be critical of any changes to the game. That said, any cricket follower will know that one of the more unique aspects of cricket is that it is always in a state of flux. Rules and regulations seem to change every few months, tests are carried out on DRS and equipment rules are introduced on the regular; sure even the weather can change the landscape of a game in minutes. What about day-night cricket? The shorter-format of the game relies on day-night matches. People can tune in or attend matches after work or school, meaning larger crowds at the matches and more people tuning in. Day-night cricket has now been trialled in Test cricket. Yes, the most traditional elite format of the game is experiencing some very big changes.

After the inaugural day-night Test in Adelaide, both captains praised the success of the match, while the media were very much on board. Financially the benefits are clear – more people at the matches, more eyes on the screen. Brendon McCullum stated that day-night cricket was ‘here to stay’, and the recent announcement of a day-night Test between Australia and South Africa solidifies that.  The second day-night Test match will be held in November of this year in Adelaide once again. While I’ll happily watch any match between Australia and South Africa, this is definitely one that I will be more interested in. While Cricket Australia are keen to boast the profile of the game in such a manner, will day-night cricket become the norm? In the ideal world, day-night Tests will become a part of every series, even if just for one match. Such a Test will always receive added attention and scrutiny simply because change is scary. This all makes sense. This extra attention only adds to the intrigue and excitement around the game. While neither Alastair Cook nor Steven Smith believe a day-night Test will feature in Ashes cricket any time soon, Cricket Australia are keen to make the change.

Again, with every problem, critics will pop up and proclaim that this change is the worst thing to happen in cricket since Sourav Ganguly stood topless on the Lord’s balcony – a travesty indeed. The problems associated with day-night Tests surround the quality of the ball and how well it holds up. Again, this is an on-going process. While the ball isn’t exactly the same as the traditional red ball, it still held up pretty well in the Australia – New-Zealand match. The only way to solve this is to keep looking to improve the balls, to play matches and to line them up beside red-ball tests. Changes will exists, but how significant are they? If the ball is falling apart after 30 overs it’s clearly as issue. If such changes aren’t happening until over 60-70, well the issue isn’t quite as extreme. Dare I suggest that the ball could be changed earlier? No of course not! The other significant problem related to conditions, how the ball behaves and how the conditions change as the match progresses. In some respects, this is something which is out of our hands. If we wake up to cloudy skies on day one of a Test match which sees James Anderson swing the ball around corners, there isn’t much we can do. Players will, with time, become better and better at reading the conditions. It will become more difficult to bat later in the day, naturally. That will be something for players to hone their skills to different periods in the day, and it will also see captains needing to make tactical decisions regarding declarations, which bowlers to bowl at what times and so on. So what do I say to day-night cricket? Bring it on! The more, the merrier. It’s impossible to make everything perfect, but we can slowly but surely work towards it. Cricket Australia is leading the charge, and hopefully with time they can drag the old-boys to the front of the queue.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that Test cricket needs to change to survive. Test cricket in its current state can’t compete with the faster T20 format. For fans, T20 cricket makes more sense – it’s easy to sit and commit a few hours too, it’s all over TV and doesn’t cost an arm or leg and people can tune in after work or school. For players, T20 cricket boasts lucrative opportunities that Test cricket can’t. With the exception of England, Australia and India, Test cricketers aren’t very highly paid. The clearest example of this is the demise of West Indian cricket, with players preferring domestic T20 tournaments such as the IPL, the Big Bash, BPL and even the Blast to international series.

While a two-tier system and day-night Tests won’t solve every problem, it will help to finally move the game into the 21^st century. If there are any lessons that can be learnt from the more popular T20 format – the game needs to and can grow with the inclusion of more teams. The elite-boys club of the past doesn’t really work anymore.

 

*I’ll get another blog up tomorrow about the ‘other problems’ which exist in modern Test cricket, including pitch standards, DRS, the toss, tour preparations and the length of matches.