England 330. India 87-4. Stumps.
Yesterday’s talking point was whether England’s score of 199-5 was any good. Even the experts on Sky and TMS were divided. Nasser Hussain thought it was ok, but gave India the advantage because he expected their batsmen to bat better on the slow surface; Sir Ian, on the other hand, lived up to his cockeyed optimist tag by declaring anything in the region of 250 a great score.
You could see where both men were coming from. Naz is a naturally cautious chap and was concerned about England’s ability to take wickets on a surface that’s as about as responsive as a German nun to a dirty joke.
Beefy was chuffed to bits with England’s position, and said it would be nigh on impossible for Dhoni’s boys to play aggressively on this surface and set up a winning platform – and if they did try to accelerate, they’d lose wickets regularly.
We now know who was right. It was Mr Botham. There’s a first time for everything I suppose.
Overnight most of us would have been happy with a score of about 300. To get 330 was therefore a result. On this slow surface, with an outfield that’s even slower, we reckon that’s worth about 400. Not bad huh.
Of course, there were still a few doubts. It might be cliché, but you really don’t know what a good score is until both teams have batted. We know this only too well after the Australians used to rack up 600 against us on what appeared to be a complete road, then skittle us for 200 on what suddenly turned into a minefield. Why? Because their change bowlers were Jason Gillespie and Shane Warne, whereas ours were Mark Ealham and Nick Cook.
To see James Anderson running in to bowl like a greyhound – bowling quicker than he has for about five years – was therefore a joy. He got more out of the surface than India’s bowlers and reduced the hapless hosts to 87-4. Suddenly England’s total of 330 looked like the equivalent of about 500.
It was such a joy to see Anderson steaming in. This is what those of us who keep going on about five bolwers have been craving: yes, England are technically playing four bowlers in this game, but when two of them are spinners who will share the majority of the workload, our seamers can run in and give it their all. None of this conserving energy rubbish we’ve endured for so long – the strategy which has turned Stuart Broad into a medium pacer and lost us the series against South Africa.
Fast bowlers operate best when they can give a spell everything. That’s exactly what Anderson did today. It’s how England will get the best out of Steve Finn in the future too. In this age of back to back test matches, when bowlers get injured and suffer fatigue, the workload must be shared; or at the very least, rotation is necessary. If England finally realise this they’re more than captable of reclaiming their number one test status (especially when Jacques Kallis retires). The potency of a bowling attack is everything.
The other standout performance of the day was that of Joe Root. We don’t like to say ‘we told you so’ but we can’t resist: ‘we told you so’. The bloke is absolute class – a cut above Nick Compton for sure. Even though he had to start his innings against spin rather than taking on the new ball, he looked totally assured. His technique looks rock solid and his temperament is highly impressive.
Graham Thorpe, the Lions batting coach and a man whose opinion I respect enormously, raves about Root. Now everyone can see why.The critics said he was too young; that he was only going on the trip for the experience; they were wrong. England don’t give free passes to young guys unless they deserve it and have a realistic chance of contributing.
Personally, I thought Root would open in this series (on the basis that Alastair Cook also made his debut in India at a very young age and came up trumps). We now know he was more than capable of doing so. Opening in India is probably the easiest time to bat.
Root might be just 21 years old, but he played like a veteran. Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s a lot to like about Jonny Bairstow, but how many times have people argued against Bairstow playing because ‘there aren’t many pitches like these in the Yorkshire leagues’. Well, Joe Root is from Yorkshire too. This fact speaks volumes.
Compton and Ian Bell must be rather worried about their places. Root has definitely given England some options. Suddenly the batting cupboard doesn’t look so bare.
James Morgan
James, Root’s technical skills and temperament were suited to the pitch, the bowlers and the situation. Don’t go overboard. His current ability is okay but needs a lot of improving. For example he would not average above 20 on a Perth wicket.
And how many wickets are like Perth? One. Root is at his best in the conditions he was brought up in ie English conditions. English batsmen have traditionally struggled on slow low surfaces, the likes of which 50% of test matches are played on – India, Sri Lanka, UAE, Bangladesh. What’s wrong with celebrating the potential emergence of a young player who can thrive in alien conditions? I agree its important not to go over the top. Root still has much to prove, but the signs are good. However, to attribute his success to a fictional notion that he is somehow only suited to the conditions like Nagpur seems a bit unfair.
Root does look like the real thing. He will never have played on a pitch like Nagpur, so is obviously adaptable. The fact that he managed to adapt to, playing a long way forward with head over the ball, is not an argument for him being unable to handle the bounce at Perth, since he stands tall at the crease, and also plays comfortably off the back foot. In this one innings, he has certainly moved clear of the Taylor/Bairstow/Patel group (Morgan being a special case, rather than a member of this group). Bell should worry more than Compton; on the evidence of this tour, only one of them now has any powers of concentration.