England's number one spinner is...?

The fortunes of the two leading candidates for the title of England's best spinner could have hardly have shifted more techtonically over the past week. One now stands proud on terra firma, 9 for 134 in the bag, a beard once again to be feared. The other appears to be cast adrift like a polar bear on a shrinking iceberg, also unshorn but forlorn.

So it's Moeen then, yep? Hmm, short article this one.

Well, except, no. It's absolutely not as simple as that. This is Test cricket, so it's complex and there are multiple variables.

Firstly let's look at the statistics. Now they're not definitive, even Ed Smith doesn't think that, but they can inform and in Moeen's case they enlighten.

Firstly they show a bowler far more successful on the pitches of England than abroad. At home he has take 91 wickets @ 31 with a strike rate of 50. Abroad, encompassing the varied conditions of the sub-continent (including UAE), Australia and South Africa, and of New Zealand, he has 51 wickets at 52 with a strike rate just shy of 100.

Speaking immediately after the last game, Nasser Hussain in response to this article's burning question, came out in favour of Moeen but with one proviso "number one in England".

So that's caveat number one. But pardon me Nas, I think there's even more to it than that.

Secondly, and not unusually for a spinner, Moeen's figures are superior in his opponent's second innings and far superior in the fourth innings of the match. What is striking is the discrepancy. From first innings to last his average drops from 56 to 50, 35 to 21.51. The latter figure is impressive, the former disquieting.

His economy rate is also informative. A rate of 3.77 and 3.2 in the the third and fourth innings of the match are not low but also not terribly significant. Those innings are about taking wickets, and as we have seen above Moeen does that pretty well. More instructive are his figures for the first two innings where he averages 3.98 and 3.5 respectively. Herein lies the weakest part of Moeen's game, he simply has not shown the control, or as yet the guile, to be effective on hard, true, flat wickets. And by effective, I mean offering his captain control.

We saw this most notably in Australia in the winter, but that was not an isolated incident. Batsmen bat differently in the first innings of the game, there is less or at least different pressure, it is psychologically easier to take on a spinner and hit him out of the attack when you don't have the established match situation to consider. When the attack has come, Moeen has rarely been able to respond. As a result, he has been consistently unable to perform the job that Graeme Swann did for a number of years - bowl tightly, pick up important wickets but most importantly tie up one end and allowing the captain to rotate seamers from the other. With Moeen in the side, the quicker bowlers must be pick up his slack. Of course to be fair we should note that Graeme Swann bowled as part of a four man attack rather than the five that Moeen would operate in today, and thus there is less slack to pick up but nevertheless Moeen's role and effectiveness is more limited. 

So that's candidate No.1 Moeen Ali - a leading candidate on spinning pitches in England. Evidence of ability to get good players out, and a potential match winner on fourth/fifth day pitches.

Speaking of limited roles, Adil Rashid. Brought back into the side on the basis of one-day performances (to be now known as Buttlering) he has at times, cast a lonely figure shuttling from fine leg to fine leg (Trotting), forever on the periphery of the action. But to judge his value, we must first understand the context of his selection. Rashid was picked as part of a five not a four man attack, he was not being asked, nor expected to bowl many first innings overs, nor to keep things tight when he did bowl. What he was expected to do was to take wickets, not necessarily a hatful, but important wickets at important times, and to turn the ball on pitches where a finger spinner would not.

If his current role appears at times to be nothing more than that of a high-class partnership breaker then that is not his fault. That, along with rolling over the tail, was essentially what he was picked to be. And, judged by this criteria, he has enjoyed some success. Summoned by Joe Root to remove the stubborn Ishant Sharma at a critical and tense moment at Edgbaston, Rashid did so expertly. On a Trent Bridge pitch offering little turn to the conventional spinner, and with the world's best batsman approaching a hundred, Root turned to Rashid. Kohli was soon on his way. This may be cherry picking, but Rashid's selection is a very particular one, unlike Mooen he can't so easily be judged by strike rates or averages. He must instead be judged by how well he performs the role he is asked to take on.

A last point on Rashid. He may have been picked to perform a very specific task in English conditions, but we only have to go back two winters for evidence of his ability to handle a far more complete role. In India he comprehensively outbowled Moeen Ali, taking 23 wickets at 37 compared to Moeen's 10 at 64. And the figures don't tell the whole story. Rashid began that series uncertainly but by the end cut a far more assured figure, one who at last seemed to believe he belonged in the Test arena. Poor and naive selection last winter denied him the opportunity to build on that success and surely was a decisive factor in his decision, however misguided, to focus solely on white ball cricket this year. Nevertheless, if Moeen is the number one in England, should Rashid not have a similar claim on the sub-continent at least? 

So that's candidate number 2, Adil Rashid - a limited value selection in England but will turn the ball on anything. He has the outstanding record of all the candidates on sub-continental pitches.

Lastly there is, Jack Leach, the unproven classicist. It is possible that had Leach not fractured a thumb in early May, both ruling himself out of the Pakistan series and leaving him short of bowling prior to this current Indian series, this entire spinning debate could been rendered mute. Prior to that injury, Leach was a shoo-in for the spinner's spot for the Pakistan series, his place taken by Dom Bess who performed admirably, particularly with the bat, but who does not yet merit close consideration here. Leach was the man in possession. A competent if unspectacular performance in his debut in New Zealand gave rise to hope that here, finally, was a bowler capable of filling Swann's shoes. One can only tell so much from the performance in one game but an economy rate of 2.21 is significantly lower than what Moeen or Rashid can generally achieve. A rate of 2.66 in all first class also points to Leach as bowler who can offer a captain control.

But Leach is unproven. Can he prove to be to Joe Root what Swann was to Strauss and Cook, a provider of first innings control with wicket-taking potential and a second innings threat?  The promise is there, but the evidence is not.

So that's candidate number 3, Jack Leach - unproven but promising. Has shown control and wicket taking ability at county level, did nothing to disprove this reputation on his Test debut. 

So there we have it, three candidates each with different strengths and weaknesses. One a proven match winner at Test level; one with special skills and good record in the sub-continent; another, perhaps the most complete, but as yet untested.

My conclusion is, unsurprisingly, that there is no clear winner. Moeen currently holds the upper hand but pitch conditions should still be an important consideration. In the short term I foresee more horses for courses selecting from Ed Smith both on this particular issue and generally. On flat pitches in England, logic might dictate Leach or Rashid as the best option. On turning pitches perhaps Moeen and Leach. Abroad, Rashid deserves greater consideration and in the sub-continent with Moeen likely to bat in the top 6 there is the option to play all three. A lot will depend on Leach's development, if he can prove himself to be that multifaceted Swann-like spinner then it will benefit the team and I think Moeen but not Rashid. The productivity of Moeen Ali's batting will also play a part. If he can justify selection on the basis of that particular string of his bow, then the decision making changes again. Once again Rashid, in England, would be the most likely casualty.

Oh and one finally thought on all this - my wasn't Graeme Swann a good bowler!

Forget batsmen and bowlers, England must find their best eleven

Edgbaston was a game and a finish that satisifed only the most partisan and the most short sighted.  England were ruthless (which is to their credit as they have not always been so) but the West Indies were so utterly toothless that any satisfaction was blinkingly ephemeral.

 Over the past thirty years there has been no sadder sight than the seemingly endless decline of Caribbean cricket. This was another sorry chapter. Just when you think they have reached rock bottom someone comes along with a shovel and proves otherwise. The announcement of their rebranding - no longer West Indies, simply Windies (or is it WIndies?)  - seemed as desperate as it was apt. Where there was fight there is now only flight; where once there was great substance there now seems only hot air.

 While no doubt sympathetic to the West Indian plight (Windian??) one small group who will been equally exasperated by the Birmingham stroll are the England selectors. With only this short three match series before they must pick an Ashes squad and with at least three batting places to fill they must have been desperately hoping that this First Test would bring some clarity and insight. Unfortunately as an academy of learning Edgbaston was more Do-The-Boys' Hall than Warwick University.

 As a result (and how England batsmen from the 1980's would laugh or cry at this) the failure of Mark Stoneman, Tom Westley and Dawid Malan, to prove themselves, has cemented their places for these final two Tests. Simply more data is needed. Each now has a golden opportunity at Headingley tomorrow to secure their positions for the winter (for a Test hundred is always a Test hundred) and yet each in their own way has as much to prove.

 Of Mark Stoneman, nothing can yet be judged, having received a ball of which even Malcolm Marshall would have been proud. Stoneman by name, he at least looked light and nimble in comparison to the statuesque Keeton Jennings.

 Tom Westley is an altogether more difficult nut to crack. He falls into the category of a number of recent players that have "looked the part" without ever convincingly playing it. Stylistically there is something of John Crawley, although a little less elegant in my view and certainly not in the same class in the playing of spin. Westley's tendency to hit balls on a fourth stump line through mid-on has already led to his downfall on several occasions and this, along with a tendency to play loosely at wider length balls (in the manner of James Vince) will  have been noted Down Under. As Mike Atherton has pointed out, with the Australian sure to target him in this area, he will need to employ the cut shot effectively.

 Meanwhile Dawid Malan's 68 merely takes him past Go and with it the right to receive two more Test caps. You can give him credit for surviving the second new ball as it swung compliantly under the lights but a closer examination would show that he only actually faced 21 balls from pace bowlers under these most testing conditions. So only a small credit and one quickly cancelled out by his failure to cash in fully the following day. Malan, unlike Westley, is at least on upward curve as Headlingley approaches.

 There is however, a very strong possibility that these issues will not be resolved in the next two games. Perhaps one of the three will make an unanswerable case, but any more than that is surely wishful thinking. On this basis the selectors' should already be working on Plan B. Only in my view Plan B should really be Plan A; and Plan A means picking your best eleven players. Carrying one player into an Ashes series is unwise, more than that is suicidal.

 In an ideal world this would mean choosing the five best batsman followed by Stokes, Bairstow and Ali and three other bowlers.But in England's case the aformentioned Stokes, Bairstow and arguably Ali are also amongst those five best batsmen. On the hard, bouncy Australian wickets Stokes is in the top three with Bairstow close behind. The fact that we don't have five other international class batsman need not be a weakness, picking substandard ones would be.

 Continuing the best XI principle and the option of Chris Woakes, who made his England debut at number 6, would strengthen this middle order yet further. Do the selectors believe that Dawid Malan is likely to make substantially more runs than Chris Woakes? Enough to offset Woakes' all-round value? If they do then he should play. I have my doubts though. If they decide otherwise the selection suddenly becomes a little simpler. And simpler becomes almost straightforward if Mark Stoneman were to nail down the opening position and prove a reliable partner to Alistair Cook because  this would surely encourage Joe Root to return to his best position of number 3.

 Ian Chappell argues that it is the best place to bat because you can establish the pattern of play. In his view it is best suited to a skilled stroke maker capable of launching a counter attack, rather than "the technically sound player who fights his way out of trouble after an early loss".  But there is a caveat - a player must be mentally prepared to face the second ball of the innings "otherwise number 3 isn't for you". Root has all these attributes, however there is a big difference between being mentally prepared to face the newest ball and it being a matter of course. Nevertheless with Root back at 3, Stokes at 5 and Woakes at 8, suddenly it is a side with few weak links and many strong ones. Westley and Malan or even Ballance (for balance) would now be fighting it out for one spot instead of two.

 There also remains one bowling spot left alongside Broad, Anderson, Stokes, Woakes and Ali in what would be a six man attack. It is often said that six is too many, if they duplicate yes, but not if they complement. In Mark Wood, Mason Crane (or why not still Adil Rashid?) they have the option to include someone who can do something a bit different.

 One issue that still needs clarifying is Moeen Ali's role. The first or second spinner question is misleading. His all-round ability means that he will always play, therefore he is by definition the first spinner. Where Ali falls short, and the selectors were not wrong to highlight this, is when the pitch starts out flat. If there is help for the seamers, his first innings workload should be light, and if it turns from the start then he has the attributes to threaten all but the very finest players of spin. But if there is nothing much doing (as will often be the case in Australia after twenty overs with the Kookaburra ball) he lacks the control to to tie down an end, as Graeme Swann was often able to do.

  At Lord's against South Africa the selectors strayed from the 'best XI' principle in picking Liam Dawson, succumbing in my view to the overly normative assumption that the containing role must fall to a slow bowler. In a five man attack maybe but with six, it need not be the case. Chris Woakes (not fit for the Lord's game to be fair to the selectors) would be equally capable. Fitness permitting, he should be be back in the team this week, bringing England in the process another step closer to that best XI.

 Overall, there is much to play for over these last two Tests, both for individuals and for the English team. For the West Indies it is all about pride.