Tests v India

And chopping off the heads of infidels.

But we shouldn't be making jokes like that. It will be probably be in the Tory manifesto at the next election!

The BCCI, that most humble of organisations, still relentlessly seeking the truth:

www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-india-2014/content/current/story/767091.html

Rather than considering the effect on relationships we should be looking at this incident as characterising the very nature of that fractious relationship. BCCI is extremely nervous about the new power base formed by ECB and Cricket Australia, and is seeking any opportunity to subvert it. Equally the ECB is quite determined not to be seen by anyone - least of all its new partner, CA - to bow the knee to BCCI in this new world order. Hence the rapid development of a casus belli from unlikely beginnings, the swift mobilisation of flying lawyers from Dubai, the dark hints of negotiated tit-for-tat sanctions and their withdrawal.

Its as if they'd all been studiously re-enacting the history of a hundred years ago, from the obscure assassination of an unloved colonial oppressor-in-ordinary in a provincial backwater, through the diplomacy of secret tretaies and media exploitation, all the way to the guns of August. Fortunately it appears to have stopped short of trench warfare, but I wouldn't put money on Anderson and Jadeja playing soccer one on one on Christmas Day, just to satisfy the egos of Clarke and Srinivasan.

It is interesting that during  'Pietersengate' two years ago, both Swann and Broad were the primary suspects for that fake KP twitter account, yet little was said about Anderson. One wonders how much he had to do with that summer of discontent.

England unchanged for the Manchester Test, so another chance for Chris Jordan to prove himself. He does seem to be a rhythm bowler and admits himself that he needs the stimulus of regular bowling to bring out his best form. I hope he finds it, and I hope that commentators such as Mike Selvey in the Guardian don't get too picky about his run up: if it works then don't make him change it.

On edit: and a wicket just before lunch to reinforce the excellent start to the match by England and to enhance his own claims.

They are not recalled, though I'm not sure how fit either of them are. Obviously I've felt for Jordan: wished him to do well as a talented individual, although knowing that a stellar performance would ensure his future as a contracted player, and therefore deprived to Sussex except for a few supervised practice games. He hasn't really shown consistently what he can do, just flashes now and then, and has been as unlucky as he has been at Sussex with edges going for four that could so often have been slip or gully catches. And yet, he doesn't quite convince, doesn't seem to have the concentration necessary to keep the right line consistently. I don't think it is an issue created by his run up or the action resulting from it; I think he perhaps still lacks a little faith in himself and perhaps the longer he stays in the England set-up there greater chance there is for him to develop that sense of being in his proper place. Much depends on the coaching atmosphere. on how he is regarded and what is beiung done to help him fulfil himself.

I've yet to see in Woakes anything that suggests he is other than a very useful medium pacer, and perhaps his England value may come in a year or two as a middle-order batsman who bowls stock spells. I was disappointed that he got the new ball in prefernece to Jordan when Broad was injured, and I really think that the current attempt to portray him as someone who can lift his pace magically is misguided, and unhelpful to the player.

Woakes did not really trouble anyone. At the Ageas he looked as if he might, and I agree that Jordan seemed full of nerves there; at Manchester, Woakes was competent, lacking in pace, predictable for the most part in his swing. If either of them were to be given the new ball it should have been Jordan, the faster, bouncier bowler. As to whether either of them are long-term solutions, it really depends on what the problem is that they're meant to solve: successors to Anderson in a year, Broad in 2 or 3, or some other issue. I think theat is where England's bowling coaching lacks definition: what is Saker meant to be doing? Is it to inspire new bowlers to some fresh level of achievement, or to develop competent support bowlers? The near-meltdown of Finn gives the lie to the first one, and the redeployment of the Plunkett Mk 1, now relocated from its Durham silo to a new state-of-the-art bunker at Headingley doesn't argue much for the latter, except for a very limnited piece of short-term thinking.