The margin of victory was a decisive 330 runs. That’s basically an innings (or an innings and a half if you’re Pakistan). For all the furore surrounding Alastair Cook’s refusal to enforce the follow on, England won and they won bloody well. The victory didn’t vindicate the decision, as England obviously didn’t need the extra runs they scored, but it renders the debate irrelevant. It’s hard to complain when you’ve bounced back as emphatically as England did in Manchester.
The main question now is to assess how England were able to turn things around so quickly. From where I’m sitting – and for most of the test match that was somewhere just south of Orleans – there were four main reasons. I’ll list them in order of importance. As always excuse the subjectivity involved here.
1. The Conditions: After the slow, relatively low, and dry conditions at Lord’s (England must wonder why they bother playing there) the pitch at Old Trafford was much more to the home side’s liking. Meanwhile, Asian teams dislike bouncy pitches with a bit of carry almost as much as I dislike David Warner. And that’s quite a lot.
It was always going to be difficult for Pakistan’s batsmen to flourish in the circumstances and so it proved. Meanwhile, Alastair Cook was in his element. Everyone knows that he loves to cut and nudge his way to big scores and the undisciplined tourists were happy to oblige. What’s more, because the pitch didn’t turn much, Yasir Shah was nowhere near as threatening as he might have been.
2 The Toss: Given the conditions, the toss was absolutely crucial. Had Pakistan batted on day one, when there was about as much movement as you see at a geriatrics’ disco, they might have reached a competitive total and set up the game nicely. As it was, however, Pakistan were batted out of the match completely.
Given Pakistan’s tendency to be what the Australians call ‘downhill skiers’ (thanks to Kevin Framp for this label) the result was essentially a foregone conclusion after two days. The tourists are a wonderful cricket team to watch, and boast plenty of talented players, but they tend to play a lot better when they’re winning. When things start to go wrong, they tend to deteriorate rapidly.
3. England’s All-Rounders: It didn’t matter that three of England’s specialist batsmen (Hales, Vince and Ballance) failed because our lower middle-order is probably stronger than our upper middle order anyway. Woakes, Stokes and Bairstow all made a few runs and Moeen wasn’t even needed. Pakistan, on the other hand, are in deep poop when half their top order fails. They don’t have a tail capable of extracting them from faeces creek.
England’s plethora of all-rounders was also decisive in the field. Cook always had someone to turn to when he needed a wicket. Conversely Misbah was forced to overbowl Yasir Shah, whose fingers must have become extremely tired after bowling 54 overs. Even leggies get tired and become ineffective you know.
4. Joe Root: He’s a little bit special is our Joe. Coming in a 25-1 after seven overs, this was something of a test of Joe’s credentials as a number three. Although we shouldn’t read too much into his performance, as the pitch didn’t offer much assistance for the Pakistani seamers with the new ball, Joe did exactly what Trevor Bayliss wants his number 3s to do: play positively and take the initiative away from the opposition much like Ricky Ponting used to do for Australia. After looking good all summer but inexplicably giving his wicket away at crucial times (Joe’s conversion rate is one of the few things he’s got to work on) it was really pleasing to see him score a Grand Daddy hundred.
Root has now scored 3875 test runs in just 80 innings. If he can reach 4000 runs in the next test match, and I wouldn’t bet against it, he’ll become the 14th fastest player in history to reach the milestone, and the first Englishman to do so since Ken Barrington back in 1964. In the process he’d beat Kevin Pietersen (83 innings), Javed Miandad (84), Rahul Dravid (84), Sachin Tendulkar (86), Graeme Smith (89), Kane Williamson (89), Kumar Sangakkara (92), Justin Langer (94) and Alastair Cook (96). Here’s a full list.
Although I’ve not mentioned him above, credit should also go to Alastair Cook the batsman. I’ve long argued that Cook is a very good but somewhat overrated opener (based on the fact that this technique is imperfect, his record in England is fairly unremarkable, and that the majority of his test hundreds have come against relatively soft opposition) but there’s one thing you can never take away from him: if a hundred is there for the taking, Cook is absolutely brilliant at cashing in. Cook’s powers of concentration are absolutely magnificent. He makes so few errors. If I had to choose one batsman in world cricket to score a hundred on a flat pitch to save my life I might very well choose Cook.
One year ago Cook’s test career could be summarised thus: whopping great averages against the weaker attacks (West Indies, Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh) and not so clever ones – in other words, below 40 – against the good attacks (Australia, South Africa and Pakistan). However, during his last five tests against Pakistan his average against them has risen from the mid-30s to over 50. Yes, his big scores have generally come in benign conditions (particularly the one in Adbu Dhabi), but it’s an important part of a batsman’s job to take advantage and ground the opposition firmly into the dust. That’s what the skipper does better than anyone else in England’s recent history. Well played, Alastair.
Finally, I’d like to give another special mention to Chris Woakes. Although Joe Root was the star of this particular test, Woakes continues to be the story of the summer. In some ways, Chris’ recent performances are somewhat reminiscent of Graeme Swann’s early test career: it’s uncanny how often he takes a wicket in his very first over, or the first over of a new spell. Every time the team needs a wicket, Cook tosses him the ball and he invariably delivers. Long may it continue. It’s good to see a smile on a Villa fan’s face for a change.
James Morgan
Good stuff, and (mainly) an accurate summary. I went to the first day, and it was clear there was some early swing (take a look at the over Amir bowled to Hales, and bowled him with a jaffa on the last ball), but it soon went. Not sure I entirely agree about Cook either: his record in India suggests he likes slow pitches (or Indian bowling). However, conditions (up to tea) were ideal for batting (and watching).
Chris Woakes has had a phenomenal summer: averaging 55 with the bat and 14 with the ball over 4 tests. I’d like to see Rashid play in the next few tests, with a secure place, and see if he can make that kind of impact.
I assume Cook batted again because the conditions were muggy, and his bowlers were tired. Plus he didn’t want to face Yasir on a wearing pitch (and the spectre of Ade**ide still looms over English cricket, perhaps). However, had Pakistan batted better in their second innings, I don’t think there would have been anything like a full day’s play today.
Whatever the whys and wherefores, this sets the series up nicely.
Thanks James. Cook is brilliant on Asia’s slow wickets, but he’s also good on harder tracks where he can cut and pull with freedom. What I meant is that he sometimes struggles when there’s movement, as his technique isn’t quite as watertight as a traditional opener’s should be (classically speaking). I guess few players are perfect!
Take your point on that, particularly the ball angled across him. I think McGrath would have enjoyed bowling to Cook. If you bowl length on or just outside off to Cook, you’ll get a nick eventually.
Yes I agree. Michael Holding has always said he’d fancy a bowl at Cook. Ryan Harris used to do exactly what you describe above. Alastair has countered this by often refusing to play anything full outside off stump. I don’t know why more bowlers don’t settle for this stalemate. A batsman can’t leave the ball indefinitely as the game would grind to a standstill and the team would never score quickly enough to set up a winning position. Eventually the batsman has to attempt a drive.
Good article. I reckon England would have still had a handsome win if they’d lost the toss, but it certainly helped. Also it might be a slightly “binary” oversimplification re Cook (helpful vs unhelpful pitches) but it’s certainly true he offers next to no opportunities when the ball isn’t doing so much. A gulf when comparing him and Root with Vince and Hales in that respect.
Woakes is solving all sorts of problems for England as the best bowler of the summer and a very underrated bat; this takes pressure off the entire team. Good on him; he’s worked hard to get where he is and will surely take the new ball once Anderson moves on.
Re the latter, I think with England’s all rounders they have the luxury of prolonging Anderson’s career as much as possible. If they can blood Rashid they could conceivably have six bowlers for the foreseeable fuure, with options for all conditions and match stages, minimising Anderson’s workloads to those lethal new ball assaults.
The final hurdle could then a new opener; worth giving Duckett / Bell-Drummond a go I reckon. Some might say it’s too soon and could be to their detriment, but I would argue the opposite and say that some test exposure at this stage could be the best thing for them. There is becoming a real precedent now for players having a run with England, going away to work on their flaws, and coming back the stronger for it (Root, Bairstow, Woakes).
I think Woakes is benefitting from not feeling that each Test might be his last. I’m very pleased to see it; his bowling has become much more threatening, and his batting is a pleasure to watch.
James, you said in a earlier thread that the lower middle order is so strong that we could dispense with one of the “batsmen” and play another spinner (Rashid, presumably). I totally agree, but I wonder how the balance will be altered by Stokes’s unfortunate injury?
I think Stokes’ injury will indeed make it more challenging to drop a specialist batsman. Long term however, I think playing 2 spinners is a definite possibility – especially this winter.
I think (and hope) it is only a one game issue at most. I pull a calf muscle every couple of years and even at my advanced age (60s) I play a week later on a slightly stiff calf and find it completely healed in 10 days. If you have to pull a muscle it is the one to do as it seems to heal faster than others.
You mentioned in a previous thread that England were ‘batting heavy’. Is it also possible to be a bowler heavy?
Obviously we don’t know the deal with Stokes and whether they’d bring in Rashid, but is it possible as a captain to have too many options if you have 4 seamers and 2 spinners?
Hi Hamish. Hope you’re well. I wasn’t really advocating 6 bowlers as a necessary or even particularly desirable or deliberate strategy, I’m just trying to say that we might end up with all these bowlers (almost by accident) simply by picking the best batsmen available.
At the current time, I really think Woakes and Stokes actually look better batsmen than both Vince and Ballance, so there’s scope for moving them up the order. What I’m basically advocating is selecting the best top 6/7 on merit, and not really worrying about whether they’re ‘specialist’ batsmen or not. Suddenly, if Vince is batting as low as 7 or 8 on merit, is there really any point in playing him ahead of someone like Rashid?
I don’t think it would be a hindrance to have a surfeit of bowlers. The more options the better. The captain isn’t obligated to bowl a particular bowler just because he’s in the side, so I don’t think it would be a problem. Individual bowlers would just have to accept that they might not play as full a role as they might otherwise have done in the past. However, with the fixtures coming quick and fast these days, perhaps the bowlers might appreciate a reduced workload?
Although I agree with a lot of what you said I tend to look at the bigger picture. We are SO reliant on Root and Cook providing runs that we are just about able to get away with it against the average to good sides but against top class oppo at home and oppo friendly conditions away this problem will be magnified. The selectors need to think about the middle order and also the openers spot alongside Cook because I’m convinced against the Aussies etc Hales’ technique will be found out. I’m sure that Vince and Ballance are good players but the selectors need to be more adventurous. Thoughts?
I agree that the form of Hales, Vince and Ballance is a real worry. Our strong lower middle-order is frequently getting us out of trouble. The problem is, I really don’t know what we can do about it – other than picking another all-rounder of course. I actually think alternatives in county cricket are a bit thin on the ground. I rate the likes of Joe Clarke very highly, but I’m not sure they’re ready for test cricket yet. The last time I saw Daniel Bell Drummond he looked very raw and I wasn’t convinced at all. However, that was some time ago.
What worries me – and I’ve articulated this before – is that I don’t necessarily trust our selectors. They’re attached to particular counties, so they don’t get around the grounds as often as they should, and I feel there’s possibly a subconscious bias towards Notts and Middlesex players. For example, I find the fact that Nick Compton (first class average of 42 with 24 tons) has played 16 tests yet James Hildreth (first class average of 45 with 38 tons) hasn’t played a single one utterly inexplicable. Hildreth is slightly younger too.
It’s odd about HIldreth but he’s largely a middle order bat isn’t he? Whereas Compton’s window of opportunity was when the top order position opened up.
Arguably Hildreth would be a very viable option now, but I’m guessing they’ll look to someone younger. Unfortunately he overlapped with a period in which the middle order was largely sewn up.
I’ve always had an inkling, maybe incorrectly that a career batting at Taunton has hindered Hildreth. Perhaps his runs just haven’t been tough enough.
The comparison to Compton is interesting imho as he was first picked for England as a Somerset player himself – on the back of one good season rather than Hildreth’s several tidy seasons. Compton was considered ok for a recall so Hildreth (who is slightly younger) should also be considered. But I agree with above that they’d prefer someone younger. It’s a harsh but understandabl view, although quite a few players have started international careers late and some pretty well. Hussey and Voges Spring to mind.
Having banged on about Woakes since 2010 (and received much abuse, especially on the BBC site), I do find the comments from the likes of Cook and Boycott very funny. The reason he did not set the world on fire in his early tests was nothing to do with changes he has made since then. He was played for odd tests usually on feather beds. He was never given a run and only played once on a helpful wicket (against India) – so unlike the treatment given to Stokes. It is rubbish to ascribe the change to his increase in pace. When he bowled at 82/83 he achieved more movement and ran through test bats in county cricket. He was also bowling (then) at the speed we see today from Anderson and (usually) Broad. The best explanation lies in James comment about favourable treatment for players from certain counties. This is exemplified in Woakes case by Collingwood’s comment in 2011 that he did not know Woakes could bat, and Cook’s comment in the Times yesterday that he had doubts that Woakes would make it at test level. That is the sort of mindset you get from establishment figures who only watch their buddies. Perhaps Hildreth has suffered a similar fate?
On the issue of the middle order, the main question for me is who might offer good technique against spin, given the forthcoming tour. I am finding it hard to come up with a single candidate but am inclined to think experience may count for more than the future promise of a young player when touring the sub continent. Perhaps this is the time for Hildreth.
Finding batsmen who play spin well in county cricket is extremely difficult because domestic batsmen don’t come up against quality spin very often (if at all really). If anything, the Lions batsmen are better equipped because they’ve had extra coaching from the likes of Thorpe and Flower and might have toured the subcontinent with other aspiring youngsters. It’s really, really tricky. Personally I have no idea how well Hildreth can play spin because I’ve never seen him try to play someone like Ashwin. Maybe he’s someone who can work out his own effective method (like Thorpe himself did) or maybe not. So hard to tell.
Personally I expect the next cab off the rank to be someone like David Malan. Why? Because he’s a decent player, the right age for a test call up, has been involved with the Lions … and he plays for Middlesex (so he’s had more opportunity to impress Fraser). C’est la vie.
By the way, just for the record, I think there would possibly be a slight Warwickshire bias if Ashely Giles was still involved with England. For example, I severely doubt Ian Bell would have been tossed aside so decisively . I think he would have been given a chance to have a rest, recharge the batteries, refocus and come back into the fold – especially as he’s still a much better player than Vince and Ballance and has scored more county runs this year.
Similar-ish comments might well apply to Rashid, who really needs a decent run – and a decent number of overs, rather than being an afterthought for the captain – to show whether or not he has what it takes.
And it’s no wonder we don’t have batsmen who can’t play spin if we refuse to encourage spinners.
A good piece James bringing forth many interesting comments and conversations. I love your blog. It’s always a pleasure to read. Thanks very much. ?
Thanks Jenny. Too kind.
What Jenny said.
that was the Nice Comeback for England Cricket team after losing the first match. Joe Root make 254 that will help England team to gives the huge Score.