England Favourites … But We’ve Been Here Before

Series against the West Indies used to be entirely predictable. Viv Richards, Malcolm Marshall and Co turned up, rolled us over, tickled our tummies, and walked away with a comprehensive victory. Series sometimes finished 5-0. Glenn McGrath would’ve approved.

However, things began to change in the 1990s. After losing 5-0 in 1984, 5-0 in 1985/86, and then 4-0 in 1988 (there must have been a bit of rain around in that one), England suddenly started to get competitive. We surprised Sir Viv’s men with a stunning victory in Jamaica the following year (although we ultimately lost the series 1-2), and then we finally matched them at home in a memorable 2-2 series draw in 1991. The worm was finally turning.

Since then we’ve done rather well against the Windies. Although we didn’t win a series in the Caribbean until 2003, we more than matched them at home. We drew 2-2 in 1995 and then beat them well – a superb 3-1 series win – in 2000. Since then we’ve won 6 of the ten series played (home and away) with two draws and two Windies wins. Those two Windies successes were surprises too. England seemed to underestimate the opposition and played very poorly.

So what’s going to happen this time? The bookies are in no doubt. England are massive favourites. And I mean massive. According to William Hill, who BettingOnline recommend for cricket odds, the hapless Windies are as long as 12-1. That’s ridiculously generous in a two horse race – especially as our Caribbean friends like nothing more than pooping English parties. They ran us close the last time they were over here, won memorably at Headingley, and this time England won’t have Joe Root for the first Test.

What’s more, the West Indies and England are quite similar in some ways. Although England have the edge on paper, both teams are stronger in bowling than batting. The Windies arrived in Manchester, where they played two warm up games between themselves, with a very handy pace attack. It’s not quite as good as some pundits would have us believe – some seem to be pining for the 1980s – but it’s pretty good nonetheless.

The visitors’ attack at The Rose Bowl is likely to consist of Kemar Roach, who’s now 32 years old and as skilful as ever, Shannon Gabriel, Alzarri Joseph, and Jason Holder. They average 27, 31, 33, and 26 respectively in Test cricket. That’s not bad by modern standards.

The visitors’ fast men also complement each other quite nicely. Gabriel and Joseph provide the pace, with Roach and Holder testing batsmen’s techniques through accuracy. Their spinner, who’s likely to be Rahkeem Cornwall, also took ten wickets in his last Test match although he’s inexperienced in Test cricket.

The Windies batting, however, looks flimsier than a grass skirt. Indeed, it looks totally devoid of quality. Their top six all average in the low 30s (at best), their much improved wicket-keeper batsman Shane Dowrich has been nursing a side injury that ruled him out of the second warm-up, and skipper Jason Holder’s batting form has fallen off a cliff. He made just seven runs in three warm up innings. Oh dear.

Unless the Windies pull a surprise, their openers are likely to be Kraigg Braithwaite and John Campbell. Although the former is occasionally a pig to dismiss, the latter is a career journeyman with just one score of fifty plus in his six Tests to date. And that came in a game against Afghanistan.

The Windies No.3 is likely to be Shmarh Brooks, another journeyman who’s almost 32 years old with a first-class average of 32. How on earth do you get selected for your country with a record like that? The all-rounder Roston Chase will probably bat at 5 – unless they bolster the batting by including Jermaine Blackwood, who’s another career under-performer barely averaging 30.

The bloke I haven’t talked about, of course, is Shai Hope (who will bat 4). It’s hard not to abandon Hope altogether because he always looks so accomplished at the crease. He’s stylish, technically sound, and uber-talented. Indeed, he averages over 40 against England and has two centuries against us.

However – and there’s a big ‘but’ coming – Hope’s overall Test record is incredibly poor. He averages just 27 after 31 Tests. Although he once made a 90 against Pakistan, he’s failed against every other country. His other Test fifties (other than the ones he’s made against us) were scored against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. He’s barely troubled the scorers in every other series. He might be a world class ODI batsman but Hope is usually hopeless when it comes to Test cricket.

The million-dollar question is how a batsman so talented can underperform so badly and with such regularity? I was able to put this question to Windies coach Phil Simmons in a webinar on Friday evening and he simply didn’t have an answer. “I really don’t know … I’ll ask Shai and he can use your question as motivation” he said. So when Hope scores another century this week you can all blame me!

There is one glimmer of hope for the Windies batsmen, however. For starters, the pitches in the Caribbean haven’t exactly been roads in recent times. In fact, they’ve been deliberately injecting some pace to encourage fast bowling. Therefore it’s possible that their career statistics don’t really reflect their batsmen’s true abilities. Maybe an average of 30 isn’t too bad when you’re playing on trickier surfaces?

Secondly – and I think this has been somewhat ignored by the broader media – the aforementioned Windies batsmen have enjoyed some level of success against England in the past: Kraigg Brathwaite has two Test centuries against England to his name, both Shai Hope’s Test centuries were scored against England, and one of Roston Chase’s five Test tons was scored against us as well.

Meanwhile, one of Dowrich’s three Test tons came against the English, and Blackwood’s only Test century was scored against us too. Food for thought perhaps. The Windies do seem to find something extra when they’re facing English bowlers.

As for England, the absence of Root will certainly hurt. He’s our only world-class batsman. A top four of Burns, Sibley, Crawley and Denly doesn’t look particularly strong. I would’ve included Lawrence for the latter. There will be a lot of pressure on Stokes and Pope in the middle-order.

There’s also the crowd-factor, or rather the non-crowd factor, to consider. These matches are bound to feel a little strange. Who knows how the players will respond? Ben Stokes usually performs better on the big occasion when his adrenaline is pumping. Ditto Stuart Broad. I wonder whether these low-key affairs will bring the best out of our talismen?

Having said that, I do expect England to win. But I won’t be surprised if the West Indies make us work harder than expected. We’ve underestimated them before and paid the price.

James Morgan

17 comments

  • Agree with this assessment. I am particularly with you re Denly – naming him as the likely no4 to replace Root is an effect a v sign to Lawrence and Bracey who produced the only major innings of the warm up match, while Denly, who averages precisely 30 in what is now a fair number of test matches failed twice in said game and got the nod anyway.

    • I thought England’s selection was a mixture of good and bad for this game. I’m pleased they’ve stuck with Bess and Crawley (I believe they were itching to get Moeen back in the side but he played poorly in the warm-up). However, although Denly has done reasonably well, and there’s lots I like about his game, my gut told me this was the time to introduce Lawrence. He’s playing well and made a very good impression in the warm-up. Denly was only ever going to be a stopgap until we found a more promising player. I sense Lawrence was that player, and I think now would’ve been an ideal time to introduce him.

  • The England batting approach looks set to blunt the Windies. the thought process seems to be win toss, grind down in first 2 sessions and then if appropriate release Stokes Pope and Buttler in sessions 3-4 of the match. I get the feeling that if England get as few as 350 in the first innings then 12-1 Windies is not remotely generous.

    • It’s a big ‘if’ whether England can make 350. I think our batting looks very thin. Much will depend on the opening partnership imho. The Windies bowling is good enough to put us under real pressure and we don’t have much experience in that top 7. I agree, however, that England should win comfortably if we put decent totals on the board.

  • Considering the Windies side will be full of faster bowlers, even if they’re not exactly of the express variety they used to be, Denley and Burns, who both showed a vulnerability to the short ball against the Aussies, could be in trouble, though Root’s tendency to hook upwards could also have been an issue. Should be an interesting game if the rain keeps off as neither side is exactly full of class batting. Could be over pretty quickly if there’s a bit of pace and bounce in the wicket.
    Still not sure it should be being played, as we can’t draw any cricketing conclusions from its artificiality.
    We’re seeing with the footie how important the crowd is in motivating the players. Just playing a tape of suitable crowd noises with ludicrous cardboard cutouts to mitigate the effect of empty stands doesn’t cut the mustard with players or punters. It’s just like a training excercise and who turns up to watch those.

  • Nice attempt to obfuscate how one-sided these series are in England. The home team have won 16 Tests this century, 3 have been drawn and 2 won by WI (one in 2000 and the other that highly fishy Headingley match). WI record away to almost everyone has been dire for years. I’ve stopped watching them away and won’t be restarting. Blatant pitch-doctoring can make them competitive at home while doing nothing to tackle their long-term problems.

    England may be without Root but WI are without Bravo and Hetmyer.

    BTW the county vote has been put back a day until tomorrow because a third, supposed compromise offer is one the table with some cricket in all three formats.

  • I just hope we see Rakheem Cornwall, just to watch him try and take a quick single.

  • We almost certainly will. (Btw, the WI spinner is extremely UNlikely to be Jomel Warrican since he’s not in the squad–although he’s one of the reserves. Cornwall is the only specialist spinner in the main squad)

    • Warrican played for the 1st team bowlers in the final warm up and Cornwall played with the Bs. Not sure why they’d do that if they weren’t going to play Warrican. It was the other way around in the first warm up which suggests to me that Cornwall had fallen out of favour. The other possibility is that they won’t pick a spinner at all and just rely on Chase’s off spin.

    • Well, he still hasn’t been added to the squad–which I suspect is a better indication. I’m pretty sure that Cornwall is their first choice these days. Reifer was also switched, and I’d be surprised to see him playing this week.

      Warrican didn’t bowl at all in the first game either–maybe Holder thought that putting him in hs own team was the only way of giving him a bowl!

      • Just looking back at their last test against Afghanistan I can see that both played! However, Cornwall took ten wickets in the game so I guess it would be harsh to drop him. Warrican is more experienced (Cornwall has only played two Tests) but you’re not going to drop a bloke who took 10-fer in the match and 7 in one innings; therefore I’ve tweaked the article.

  • I think you’re being considerably too generous to England’s recent record against WI, James. In England it’s been pretty dominant, sure–the 2000 series win wasn’t really very surprising either, although it was hyped a lot at the time (mainly because it was a long time since England had beaten WI anywhere, I suspect!)

    But in WI it’s generally been abysmal. In fact, it always has: England have won three series out of 16 ever in WI, going back to the 1920s–and two of those were 1-0 wins in consecutive five-test series in the 1960s. But it hasn’t improved this century apart from one crunching win. Given the weakness of the WI team–and they’ve frequently been very poor at home as well in this period–England’s record there must rank as some of the worst series they’ve played this century.

    As for Hope (who I think will be the no.3: Brooks has batted at four so far)–isn’t this the same point as was being made about Buttler on the last thread? It doesn’t matter how much talent you exude, or convince other people you have, if you consistently can’t score runs in a format, then…well, you’re not a Test (or whatever) standard batsman. And Hope really can’t: if you take away Headingley 2017, he averages less than 23 in his remaining 30 tests, with an average even against England of…less than 23.

    I did a bit of statsguruing the other day about the WI batting, and found that in the last five years, they don’t have a single regular specialist batsman who averages the dizzy heights of 33 (Holder averages 33-point-something). Which both suggests that we could be in for some low scores and maybe answers your Brooks question!

  • I’m more interested to see what the counties vote for in the domestic season than this rather downgraded “test”series. Might watch the “highlights” but couldn’t sit through the whole thing.

  • A reminder that one top of their highest-paid players earning something like one-quarter of what England’s highest earn, WI players have had a 50% pay cut imposed on them compared to England’s 20%. Those who have the least lose the most in cricket’s NWO.

    Perhaps BLM could mount a protest about “equal pay for equal work” rather than being worried about statues of people from 200 years ago or patriarchy?

  • Not going to watch any of this as the ECB is pandering to a Marxist anti capitalist organisation in BLM. It’s disgusting that they do so, and the only way supporters can register protest is not watch, it means Sky’s advertisers are unhappy, all of which then becomes an issue for Sky, which serves them right. Virtue seeking pricks.

  • It makes no difference as such a small percentage of the population have sky anyway. Still you are reducing their figures by one.
    How is BLM Marxist?
    BTW, I believe that ALL lives matter.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting