Testing times: Cricket and the Twenty20 Squeeze

Stepping back from the malaise and inquests into English challenges against spin bowling or the form of their middle-order during their 3-0 drubbing by Pakistan, the series has highlighted worrying trends in worldwide Test cricket; namely the increasing prevalence of erratic results, mismatches, batting collapses and the spectacle ending prematurely.

It recalled South Africa and Australia bowling each other out for 96 and 47 respectively on a tranquil Cape Town pitch in November, Sri Lanka’s collapse at Cardiff, or India’s whitewashes at the hands of England and Australia.

Since the First Test of The Ashes in November 2011 there have been 51 Test matches played around the world. 76% (39) have seen results, only 24% (12) drawn. This compares to an all-time average of 65% versus 35%, a hefty difference and does not even account for timeless Tests running until 1939. The 100 Tests prior (July 2008-November 2011) saw a ratio of 70-30.

While not advocating drawn matches, more disturbing is the lack of Tests extending into a 5^th day, the hallmark of a mismatch or low-scoring affair. A full 51% of the last 51 Tests failed to enter the 5^th day, 12% not even reaching the conclusion of a 3^rd day, with the worst offenders being Australia, New Zealand and India.

Saeed Ajmal was chief tormentor of England batsmen in the UAE. Source: paddynapper

Perhaps most alarming is the sheer amount of comprehensive defeats inflicted across the board. These 51 Tests saw 13 innings defeats and 10 more of between 8-10 wickets or by over 250 runs.  Thus a full 45% of Test matches since November 2011 were essentially non-contests. This is no time to blame the so-called ‘minnows’ of Test cricket. Those predominantly on the receiving end were India, Australia and Sri Lanka.

Is this the ‘Twenty20 Effect’ in action?

A number of exciting recent Test matches (the India-West Indies tie or New Zealand defeating Australia by 7 runs with no side scoring above 233) cannot disguise the fact that Test cricket is being affected by techniques and temperaments increasingly more suited to shorter formats.

Andrew Strauss aired his “concerns about the state of test cricket” in October, declaring, "The administrators are trying to recognise the primacy of test cricket, but there is a real difference between saying it and making sure your actions follow it.”

The balance between the three codes is currently out of kilter, as the diminution of England’s 2012 series with South Africa to three Tests demonstrates. The Test Championship was jettisoned due to ICC Champions Trophy broadcast rights. As Twenty20 competitions take root, from the Big Bash to the IPL, the gradual yet distinctive encroachment of shorter-form cricket is clearly influencing Test batsmanship.

The Test calendar is being squeezed by Twenty20 tournaments such as the IPL. Source: SandFlash

The squeezing of the cricket calendar to accommodate more Twenty20 tournaments and ODIs brings reduced preparation time before Tests and difficulties for batsmen in adjusting between different codes within ever-shorter series. Too many good sides are being dismissed for low scores on decent pitches by generally solid bowling units. In the past 51 Tests, teams have been bowled out for under 200 on 33 occasions.

The shot selections of English batsmen in the First Test in Dubai pointed to a lack of application. As Geoff Boycott thundered, “their brains went out of the window” with only Matt Prior and Jonathan Trott demonstrating intent to “occupy the crease, show a great deal of patience and accept that runs arrive at a slower pace.”

Similarly Michael Clarke summed up Australia’s woeful collapse to 47 all out in Cape Town stating, “Our shot selection was disgraceful…Apart from numbers 10 and 11, who else even lasted 20 balls?”

Simultaneously we see selection of players for Test cricket originally identified by national set-ups for shorter forms or earmarked as “Twenty20 specialists”. One name stands out, David Warner. The young Australian opener has much to prove, but a phenomenal exhibition of hitting in his 69-ball century against India was a statement of intent. His early success could convince other nations to fast-track limited-overs stars into the Test side.

David Warner. The future of Test cricket? Source: paddynapper

The flip side of the coin is Eoin Morgan, whose selection followed a similar path to Warner’s, but is currently exhibiting the dangers associated. His unorthodox techniques, tailor-made for Twenty20 cricket, are being questioned and his response has been to attempt to manufacture his game into something it is distinctly not, a “traditional” Test player.

India’s successive 4-0 whitewashes away to Australia and England serve as a warning. They have called into question not just the enduring class of their stellar batting line-up, but the quality of the next crop of Indian Test stars raised in the cut and thrust of the IPL. As obdurate Indian batsman Aakash Chopra recently argued, the IPL created a collapse in technique and concentration and “quite bafflingly, became a parameter to judge a player for national selection”.

Cricket is witnessing the first generation of Test players who have spent the majority of their careers playing one-day and Twenty20 cricket. The squeeze is starting to be felt.

First written for All Out Cricket

England are number one, but the real test is ahead

Tough battles on the Subcontinent and with the South Africans will be the true measure of this England side

English cricket is scaling dizzy heights. The England cricket team are now officially ranked the best side in the world. They are currently demolishing the previous holders of that position, India, in a manner so ruthless and comprehensive that it is scarcely believable to an English media and public unaccustomed to watching such scintillating performances.

Listening to post match interviews following the 3^rd Test at Edgbaston, the England players were at their media-trained best, although the joy was evident. However, it was Kevin Pietersen who offered the most revealing insight, when he implied that England must learn the lessons from the 2005 Ashes and not allow this summer to be a high watermark before a fall.

The England team cannot afford to, nor are they likely to, get caught up in the hype, which will inevitably go into overdrive. To justify claims of being “the best England side ever”, or to be mentioned in the same sentence as the West Indians of the 1980s or the Australians of the Taylor/Waugh/Ponting eras, this England side must maintain their current dominance and form for at least the next 18 months. They must beat Sri Lanka and India in the Subcontinent and overcome the mighty South Africans at home, all significant tasks confronting them.

Strauss is still a long way off emulating Ponting. Source: pj_in_oz

It would be much easier to assess where exactly this England side rates at the present time if Sehwag, Gambhir, Harbhajan Singh, Yuvraj Singh and Zaheer Khan had all been fit for the entirety of this series. Regardless of the problems of the Indian side, the England bowling displays have been magnificent, the fielding generally top class. Borderline faultless. Nevertheless some concerns still remain with the batting, particularly against quality seam bowling.

It seems to have been quickly forgotten that during two of their first three innings this series, England had collapsed to 62-5 and 124-8 in the face of good seam bowling from Khan, Kumar and Sharma, before Broad and Prior came to our rescue. Cook, Strauss and Morgan were all struggling and not many would have been predicting a 4-0 series whitewash.

While you could argue that the fact we won from these positions shows the best qualities of this side, it is hardly a case of complete domination. In fact, it should raise concerns about how we fare when South Africa and their attack of Morkel, Steyn, Kallis, Parnell and Tsotsobe arrive here next summer. Let us not forget that the only series we have not won in the past nine was in South Africa. And we escaped with a 1-1 draw only when Graham Onions twice held off the South African pace attack with the South Africans requiring only one more English wicket for victory. Anyone remember Friedel de Wet in Centurion?

 The last time the South Africans toured in 2008. Source captainsticky

This is not to advocate any changes, far from it. England must stick with their trusted players and formula for success. It is only to serve warning that everything might not be so rosy against Pakistan or South Africa in the coming 12 months.

To highlight some key examples. Alastair Cook, England’s most prolific batsman of the past year and now 3^rd in the ICC Rankings, still has some problems in home Tests when the ball is swinging, as exhibited against Pakistan last summer and against India in the first two Tests. It seems bizarre to say this in the aftermath of a wonderful 294, but it comes as no surprise that Cook averages 55 away from home in Test cricket as opposed to ‘only’ 45 in English conditions. The South Africans may well see Cook and Strauss as presenting good opportunities to strike early.

Eoin Morgan, a class act against spin and when the ball is more than 30 overs old, will have a testing 12 months ahead of him. He has scored well in less pressurised periods (a similar charge to the one Ian Bell faced for a number of years), but is not as prolific against the new ball, either after a spate of early wickets or at the 80 over replacement mark, as was witnessed by two ducks and Kumar dismissing him with his second ball after a new ball was taken at Trent Bridge. Andy Flower would no doubt like to see a big innings under pressure when England are 30-4.

England have a testing 12 months ahead. Source gareth1953

Although these seem minor issues, there is just a small sense that the wonderful bowling and fielding performances have masked over the fact that the English batting has been under pressure at key points. Pakistan will be a big test this winter (I can see a number of low scoring matches, with the ball dominating), as will playing in the tough conditions of Sri Lanka and India (and how we fare at accommodating a second spinner).

Yet it is South Africa next summer that should mark the time at which we are either confirmed as the best cricket side of a generation and worthy of comparison with great sides in history, or a side that reached its high point during 2010-11.

Class is permanent. Form is fickle. A cricketing tale.

England must stick with their under-performing Test stars Broad, KP and Strauss

Friday 20^th August 2010. England v Pakistan. The third day of the Third test at The Oval. Alastair Cook is on 23 and playing for his England Test place. Wahab Riaz runs in and finds the edge as Cook plays a terribly unconvincing shot. 

Alastair Cook is caught at 2^nd slip and trudges off the field following another failure.

Successive scores of 8, 12, 17, 4, 6 and 23 finally convince the England selectors to make a change with only one more Test before the Ashes squad selection. Cook is dropped and not included in the squad to Australia. In his absence Jonathan Trott moves up to open, with Eoin Morgan brought into the side. In the event, England lose the First Test of the Ashes in Brisbane, falling 221 runs behind after the first innings and despite a valiant effort, are eventually beaten by 6 wickets. Australia ultimately retains The Ashes with a 3-1 victory.

Except this is not how events transpired. Cook’s loose cut outside his off-stump to Riaz dissected the slip cordon at easily catchable height with 2^nd and 3^rd slip leaving it for one another. I recall this moment very clearly as commentator Ramiz Raja wryly observed, "Shouting 'yours' is really not much use in the slips”. But more importantly, there was a real sense that something important might just have happened.

Arguably this was the most important ball in world cricket in 2010. Cook went on to score 110.

Image: cormac70

The rest is history. Cook went to Australia and produced one of the finest series displays of batting in history. He scored 235 not out in the First Test and dominated the Australian bowling attack from the outset, doing more than anyone else to secure a famous Ashes victory with an astonishing 766 runs and a world record time batting in a five Test series, 2,171 minutes (36 hours).

This immediately raises plenty of questions on form, class, belief in ability and confidence, and their relative importance in all team sport, not just cricket. If ‘form’ can be re-discovered as a result of a moment of lucky escape, should we not place more faith in long-term class? If confidence can be restored on the basis of one display, should we not place more faith in constant selection and loyalty?

Indeed, what is form? There is an argument to suggest, “form does not exist”. A player is either good or bad, form is fickle and one moment can change an entire notion of a player being in form. Perhaps this is too far, though I would advocate that maintaining confidence and technique are more important factors to focus on rather than any idea of ‘form’, especially for a player with the undoubted ability to have already reached the top level.

Cook is now relentlessly setting about breaking English cricket records. 67^th consecutive Test, a record. Youngest Englishman to 5,000 runs. Four centuries away from England’s record centurion-makers.

 Resurrection. Image: stuandgravy

The esteem with which our new ODI captain is held in by the England fans, media and selectors is a far cry from 12 months ago. Before his career-saving Pakistan century, the Daily Telegraph was running polls entitled “Can England afford to pick Alastair Cook for the Ashes tour?” The Evening Standard asserted that “If Alastair Cook fails one more time, then selectors must drop him” and message boards were awash with fans calling for Cook’s head.

Surely the example of Cook’s resurrection is a lesson to be learnt. Yet a similar level of clamour for dropping an England player has recently surfaced with Kevin Pietersen and the spotlight is currently fixed firmly on Stuart Broad and even more worryingly on Andrew Strauss. All are under pressure to justify their places in the England Test side.

Yes, these players have been slightly out of form, but not to the extent Cook was in 2010, and certainly not enough to warrant being discarded. Key to the success of this England team has been the consistency of selection and fostering of a strong team ethic.

Lessons should not only be learnt from the Cook case but also from comparison with our vanquished Australian opponents.

Australia chopped and changed through 17 players during The Ashes, particularly unsettling their bowling attack. Doherty, Beer, Smith, Harris, Bollinger, Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus – only Siddle was an ever-present and it showed. England on the other hand, made only one non-enforced change, when Bresnan came in for Finn prior to the 4^th Test.

 Australia in trouble. Image: piesgardiner

It has always struck me as a universal truth that the best teams in sport, and particularly cricket, are those who keep faith with their chosen men and build a winning side with a strong team mentality. 

Continuity, a winning mentality and a strong unit breeds success. The Australian cricket team of the 1990s and early 2000s was characterised by an almost unshakeable faith that an under-pressure player would come good. Players should only be dropped when performances and technique are dire or a young pretender is making strides impossible to ignore. Too often media and fans leap on to the next out-of-form target for criticism overly hastily.

Class is permanent and worth persevering with, as Alastair Cook demonstrated. The England cricketers deserve support for the entire summer series with India and the chance to finish off a spectacular 12 months.