3 Test series tactics

[Owzat]

After England's disastrous tour of UAE, and now West Indies being 0-2 down going into this Test match, it begs the question of when to make changes. While I have little time for 3 Test series because they purport to produce a result by being odd numbered, yet all too often this leads to 1-1 or 0-0, they are played and so I'm curious how sides should tackle them.

While players can need time to settle in and find form, if you have a disaster in the 1st Test, go 0-1 down, and stick with the same players then if you go 0-2 down in the 2nd then there is nothing you can do, it's too late.

But if you change the players and don't give them time to settle in and find form, then you might end up dropping players who could conceivably have scored a hundred or taken a 5wi.


So I ask, do you think there is a way to get round this dilemma? On the one hand the 2nd Test at 0-1 down becomes pivotal so you have to get your team right as changes in the 3rd Test at 0-2 down become meaningless, on the other hand the players who failed in the 1st Test might come good in the 2nd. Besides the best answer which is to scrap 3 Test series, is there a way around this or a good answer?

 

[angryangy]

It's not a dilemma, it's just planning. Making unforced and unplanned changes means you prepared poorly. The best solution is to prepare better.

 

[sifter132]

Scrap the 3 Test series? And replace it with what??

Anyway, my answer is that unless you have a player who is horribly exposed by a particular opponent eg. Phil Hughes vs Chris Martin...then you should be keeping the same XI throughout your 3 Test series, even if you lose the first. If your XI was the best XI a week ago, does one loss really change that? One or two bad innings? I'm a believer in changing teams between series not during them. The only time I'd change it is like England and West Indies have done here, dead rubber Test. Then give players a rest, try out some younger guys etc.

 

[Phen]

Three test match series aren't the problem for some countries, we almost never get 3 matches! We would love an extra test match each series.

As far as tactics, I basically agree with Sifter132.

 

[Owzat]

Scrap the 3 Test series? And replace it with what??

4 Test series. Despite many believing that even numbered series gives a greater chance of drawn series which simply isn't true let alone logical (given not every game produces a win), these are solid series. The only downside is that we try to fit two series in a summer along with ODI series and some T20Is.

Anyway, my answer is that unless you have a player who is horribly exposed by a particular opponent eg. Phil Hughes vs Chris Martin...then you should be keeping the same XI throughout your 3 Test series, even if you lose the first. If your XI was the best XI a week ago, does one loss really change that? One or two bad innings? I'm a believer in changing teams between series not during them. The only time I'd change it is like England and West Indies have done here, dead rubber Test. Then give players a rest, try out some younger guys etc.

But the fact of the matter is you're trying to win a series, and if you don't change things during a series you're just resigning yourself to that fate. It is possible to realise, a la UAE series, that you've got someone out of form and it all horribly wrong.

And what if you need to win that 2nd Test at 0-1 down, even assuming the pitch is the same type you are telling me you can afford to go in with several batsmen/bowlers who performed poorly in the 1st Test?!?!?! I'm not talking about singling out one individual who has a bad game, I'm talking about an unmitigated batting/bowling disaster. I don't buy it that you'd sit back and send out a side that failed to make 150 twice in the Test and accept a probable series defeat.

As for the "horribly exposed" bit, our batsmen were "horribly exposed" by Ajmal. Bell scored a whopping 51 runs in the series, starting with 0 and 4. He was Ajmal's bunny FOUR times in the series, both innings in said 1st Test.

1st Test vs Pakistan (in UAE)

Strauss 19 & 6
Cook 3 & 5
Bell 0 & 4
Pietersen 2 & 0

That's an awful lot of "faith" to go into a 2nd Test with (out making a single batting change) England put on their Bon Jovi, kept the faith, and while the 1st innings wasn't too bad the side was bowled out for 72 in the 2nd innings of the 2nd Test to lose by as many runs. Who could have possibly seen that kind of collapse coming? Someone who looked at the above list of 1st Test scores and then saw Cook 7, Bell 3 and Pietersen 1 in said 72 all out perhaps.................

I'm not entirely surprised, England have stuck with batsmen like you advocate before, we've also collapsed quite a lot in recent years.

79 all out (2002 vs Australia away)
81 all out (2007 vs Sri Lanka away)
51 all out (2009 vs West Indies away)
72 all out (2012 vs Pakistan away)

May not seem too bad if you call it four times in 158 Tests over 12 years, but the truth is no decent Test side should be bowled out for under 100, even if the pitch is terrible then you should be able to muster 100. Three times in the past five years is not clever.

So the point of the above is simply that sticking with players doesn't necessarily help. It's a nice theory to give batsmen a run, I agree with that, but I think blindly just ignoring what has gone before is asking for trouble and that's what England got. By the end of the 2nd Test it was too late to do anything, like leaving two key defenders on the pitch very early in the game on yellow cards and then having to play the last hour with nine men. You might hope they don't get a second yellow, but if they're struggling against a particular player (or just spin in UAE) then maybe you're better off just hauling them out.

So in the UAE series I would have made at least one batting change, if not two. And it isn't just based on scores, it can also be based on how much they struggled in the balls faced. Of course two additional/alternative solutions are better preparations in warm ups, although those are not often good indicators, and playing that extra Test which means even at 0-2 down you get a chance to recover the series while getting two Tests to see where the problems are.

 

[angryangy]

I don't think there's a case to have dropped Morgan mid-series that couldn't have been made before the first Test.

I think selection was never a part of tour match process and they knew that all their players really needed the time in the middle after a long spell. Bopara never got the slightest chance so we'll never know if he could have helped.

As bad as the collapse was in the 2nd Test, that was a game I think they could have won in the first innings. Dropping Misbah was expensive and chasing 71 might have been realistic, not to mention an epic result.

The third test was the most ridiculous and it really didn't serve too much purpose to go in with the same side there before making bigger changes in Sri Lanka. Nevertheless, they needed to win one of the first two Tests for any 3rd Test change to be considered tactical.

The batting also appeared to get progressively chaotic. Many writers had a jolly old time paying out on their sweeps and bad footwork, but the first game saw them mostly just done by the odd ball bouncing a bit weird. They got very stupid after that. By the time Sri Lanka rolled around, you had players like Trott and KP saying it's important to play your own game. Well duh.

Now the Sri Lankan wickets might have been a little different, but the difference in their game was far greater than the difference in conditions or opponent. You can waffle on about Saeed Ajmal if you like, but England played Abdur Rehman badly. They played Mohammad Hafeez badly. They even played Umar Gul pretty badly. Ajmal was a key problem, but England wouldn't have held any advantage over Pakistan unless they somehow found an Akmal to bowl.

The overarching problem for any England player during that period was that they were desperately overdue for some experience in those conditions. It really does come down to preparation. In a 3 match series, if you're not going to win the first, you've got to win the last two and while there might be a trend to be seen out of two or three Tests, it's a dangerous game to chop and change for every Test you lose. No team thrives on that. It's far superior to work hard on your plans and know from the outset what you're going to do well.

 

[sifter132]

I'm not entirely surprised, England have stuck with batsmen like you advocate before, we've also collapsed quite a lot in recent years.

You're also the world #1 - deal with it

I can see the general argument though sure, and some players will really get a motivational kick out of being dropped after a bad game. But you have to weigh up how that's going to affect the team as a whole, not just the guy you're dropping. Speaking as an Aussie fan,we've been juggling fast bowlers for the last few years and one of the issues from my POV has been chopping and changing selections meaning that the bowlers were bowling for themselves ie. trying to take wickets every ball to impress selectors who might drop them after one or two bad games. That's not the kind of attitude you want to breed in your team and it can happen when players are looking over their shoulder after one bad innings.

But here's the thing, Bell faced a whopping 9 balls from Ajmal in that 1st Test. You're saying that 9 balls (at most) of failure is enough to cancel out the last 2 years of work? Bell had the highest average of anyone in 2011, and was 3rd on the run list. He was in the top 5 on the ICC batting ratings going into the series and was SUPPOSED to be one of the England's best vs spin. If he'd been dropped after a match where everyone else failed too - who could possibly be safe at the selection table??

I feel the pain though, because it would have been incredibly harsh to drop the batting lineup that had just killed Australia, India and Sri Lanka after one bad game, but 2 bad games and you've lost the series. The answer lies not in the selection...but PREPARATION!! Either have the batsmen in better form before the series starts, or have them exposed as frauds and replaced with someone who can handle the conditions better.