England overcome spirited Tamim

A comfortable win in the end for England against Bangladesh today, by six wickets with four overs remaining, but if Bangladesh had managed to muster a single batsman to stick with the ever-improving Tamim Iqbal, the total would've been far more challenging.

Tamim's 125 off 120 balls was stroke filled, and he was particularly harsh on Ryan Sidebottom, who to my mind has his best days behind him and no longer belongs in an England shirt. A second spinner in James Tredwell, or perhaps Ajmal Shahzad who has more pace, would've been the better solution.

Bangladesh raced to 67-1 off their opening 10 overs where England failed to contain their aggressive tendencies, but thereafter England came back well. This was largely down to some brilliant bowling from Graeme Swann who finished with 3-32 from his 10 overs. Bangladesh had to make do with 228, which never looked enough.

Cook raced out of the blocks and hit a rapid half century, Kieswetter looked less assured, looked to get down the pitch to almost everything before Naeem Islam had him stumped all ends up. Pietersen looked ill at ease and only made 1 before being caught behind off Shakib al-Hasan.

Collingwood then came in and with intelligent shot selection and running finished Bangladesh off with 75 off 100 balls, Prior and Morgan both chipped in with 30s. I am increasingly of the mind that there is no other individual who brings so much so often to their team as Collingwood does to England.

For Bangladesh, Naeem and Shakib bowled well but Abdur Razzak is a not quite the bowler he was 18 months ago, likewise Mortaza but he is still feeling his way back in to international cricket. Shafiul was only entrusted with 2 overs.

For the next game I'd like to see Sidebottom dropped, and probably Tredwell in althought Shahzad might be a more future-focussed selection. Whatever the selection though, on the evidence of today, England should have no trouble in completing another win.

How has limited overs cricket changed tests?

There has been a lot of talk over the last few days of how limited overs cricket has changed the character of cricket, this comes in light of Sachin Tendulkar becoming the first man to breach the 200 mark in a 50 over match.


Sachin Tendulkar's 200 - highlights

So how has the advent of the limited overs game impacted on test cricket?

I've looked at the last 110 years of test cricket and the fluctuations in the average run rate decade by decade, and whilst a compelling case is not necessarily revealed, it would seem that since limited overs cricket came in to play a more uniform trend has emerged.

In the 1900s the run rate was 2.82, and in the 1910s it was 3.10, a 10% increase in the scoring rate from one decade to the next. However in the 1920s it dipped by a sizeable 14% to 2.66, before clawing back 1% to 2.71 in the 1930s. The 1940s saw half as many tests as the 1930s, for very obvious reasons, and the run rate dipped again by 3.3% to 2.62. In the 1950s we see a marked dip, of 12.2% back down to 2.3 runs per over.

However, moving into the 1960s we see an 8% increase to 2.49 and thereafter it is an upward trend. In the 70s we jump another 8% to 2.69, 6.3% up in the 80s to 2.86 before, interestingly (honest), it flatlined in the 1990s and stayed at precisely 2.86. In the 2000s we see it move up again, by 12% to 3.2 and then in the nine tests so far this year we've seen an 8% jump to 3.45.

If I haven't sent you to sleep by now, I'm doing well. You could argue that limited overs cricket has changed nothing, because the rate in 1910 (3.1) is not as substantially different as you might expect to now (3.4). However its pretty clear that run rates have been on the up ever since limited overs cricket was introduced.

Ever since the first ODI was played in 1970, the run rate in test cricket has increased by about 35%, that's a pretty big difference. Interestingly if you look at the run rates for ODIs alone, they've increase by almost exactly the same amount, but I suspect some of this specific increase could be accounted for by the introduction of fielding restrictions and power plays.

I must say though I was expecting a more marked increase in run rates since ODIs were introduced from one decade to the next, and I can't account for the fact that players are only scoring a bit faster than they did in 1900, but an interesting exercise nonetheless!

Update: It occurs to me that its probably worth noting that the volume of ODIs in the 2000s was significantly higher than in the 1990s, and likewise from the 80s to the 90s. There were just under 1,000 ODIs in the 1990s, but 1,500 in the 2000s, so the maintenance of an increased run rate over 50% more matches makes it a bit more marked I suppose.

Tendulkar: The Don?

There's a poll on the Guardian today asking 'Is Sachin Tendulkar the Best Batsman Ever?', and the results so far have surprised me enormously.

As it stands, 91.5% of voters think the Little Master is the finest batsman to ever grace a cricket pitch, can this be right? I expected it to be marginally in favour of him, partly because its 24 hours since he scored the first ever double hundred in ODIs, and partly because Indian fans are so fanatical about him. But more than 9 in 10 people thinking he's the best ever?!

His numbers are staggering, make no mistake, 31,045 international runs, 240 scores of 50 or betters in 608 matches, that's a fifty every 2.5 matches over a twenty year career - so surely he's the best ever?

One thing is for sure, he's the best batsman of the modern age, whatever that means, let's say the last 40 years. Lara was a great, so too Richards, Ponting likewise and a few others, but Sachin is better.

I'm going to reveal a massive cop-out here - it doesn't make sense to compare Tendulkar with the likes of Bradman and Hobbs. Bradman and Hobbs played in the era of uncovered pitches and both averaged more than Tendulkar in tests, Bradman averaged 99.94 and Hobbs scored 199 First Class hundreds (100 of them after his 40th birthday!).

Tendulkar is playing in the age of professional cricket, indeed he is the ultimate professional, he has played against some of the greatest spin and pace attacks ever (Walsh and Ambrose, Waqar and Wasim, Warne and McGrath, Murali) and has displayed probably the finest longevity of any living cricketer.

Bradman and Tendulkar played in such utterly different eras of cricket that it makes no sense to compare the two. They are both legends of the game and we should be very grateful that we're living to see one of them at the very peak of his powers.

Note: Before he died, Bradman said he thought Tendulkar was the batsman most like himself and it is said that after watching him in the 1996 World Cup Bradman never missed a Tendulkar innings, high praise indeed!

Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar

Whaddaplayaaaaa! Incredible, there are almost no words to describe his innings of 200* today, but I imagine I'll have a go at waffling a few hundred myself.

The groundsmen said before the match today that this was a 300+ pitch, and he wasn't wrong, but I wonder if he expected India to post 401, with 50% of them coming from one Little Master? Half of the total scored by one man who faced less than half the balls in the entire innings. Unbelievable.

I haven't seen the innings yet, and thanks to the entirety of India logging on to Cricinfo, I very nearly missed the moment he went to 200 as well, but from what I've read and looking at the numbers from the innings, it was out of this world. Just three sixes in an innings of 200 from 147 balls is remarkable - the previous record of 194 held by Saeed Anwar and Charles Coventry contained five and seven sixes respectively.

Tendulkar has never been a power hitter, he carresses the ball and he was clearly at his carressing best throughout today's knock. It is somehow appropriate that the man some would argue, myself included, that the greatest batsman of the last 30 years (at least) should have become the first man to breach the 200 mark in One Day Internationals.

There is simply no one to touch him in this format: 17,500 runs, 46 hundreds, 93 fifties, nearly 2,000 fours and 134 sixes, an average of 45 at a strike rate of 86 from an incredible 442 matches - and the small matter of 154 wickets before injury stopped him from bowling his leggies or whatever they were.

I was absolutely gutted when Sachin got out for just one in the only match I've seen him play - England v India at the Oval in 2007, I also then had to sit through Rahul Dravid set the world record for the slowest 12 in test history (96 balls in case you're interested).

He is truly one of the greats of the game, regardless of the format, but today cements his place in history as the first man to score 200 runs in a One Day International, and that will never be taken away from him.

Will the IPL ever fulfil its obvious potential?

The start of the third IPL tournament is a little over two weeks away and there's a seemingly endless stream of stories appearing to question whether it will go ahead with its full gamut of global superstars.

Reg Dickason, the England security consultant who was so prominent in the aftermath of the Mumbai terrorist outrage in 2008 - and indeed instrumental in getting England's players (rightly) to go back to India to complete the series, has written a report seriously questioning the security of players if they go to the IPL.

A group called the 313 Brigade, apparently an off-shoot of al-Qaeda, has issued a specific threat to the tournament and has advised other countries that their players are not safe if they travel.

This comes off the back of last year's tournament being moved to South Africa at the last minute because Indian authorities could not guarantee the security of players with an election taking place at the same time. Does this litany of security concerns fundamentally undermine what is clearly an excellent event?

I don't necessarily think it does, there are security concerns at every international tournament so we shouldn't balk at the first sight of danger. However it does, like it or not, constantly leave a question mark over the tournament and that can't be good for its future development.

This isn't just bitterness because England are perceived to be outside the tent attempting to piss in where the IPL is concerned. I think its pretty obvious for all to see that there are constant question marks hovering over Lalit Modi's Twenty20 behemoth. Unless the security concerns can be put to bed once and for all this will in my opinion only detract from what its meant to be about: cricket.

KP "I'll bat at number three in Australia"

Fiiiiiinally!!! I have been saying, since time imemorial it feels like, that England's main man, Kevin Pietersen, should bat at number three. Its the trickiest slot in the order, you have to be able to see off a new ball and play within yourself, or you could have to come in an maintain the momentum built by a substantial opening partnership. You have to be a quality, confident batsman.

That's exactly what KP is for England, he's our most talented batsman and by some distance our most confident batsman! Ok, so Kallis doesn't bat at three, neither does Yousuf or Tendulkar, but I personally think that is due to their advancing years, all of them should bat at three.

So when I saw this Pietersen interview with Lawrence Booth in the Daily Mail, I was absolutely delighted. He's actually putting his hands up and saying he'll bat at three for England. Of course he couldn't just switch there for the Ashes tour, so Andys Flower and Strauss should call his bluff, put him at three for the Pakistan series and tell him he needs to get ready for the Ashes!

Is Kevin Pietersen back to his best?

Kevin Pietersen's ultimately futile 62 from 40 balls today against Pakistan was superb, filled with some really brilliant shots. A couple of massive sixes and a few proper cricket shots, the bottom line is he scored plenty of runs very quickly. Razzaq's faintly ridiculous 46 off 18 aside, no one else really looked like scoring runs as easily as he did, which is a mark of just how good an innings it was.

So is he back to his best? He was hitting the ball exceptionally hard today, the one that Shahid Afridi 'dropped' must have come at him at a million miles an hour. That's a good sign, he's had a bit of time in the middle now and he was certainly middling it.

During Sky's coverage they showed a graphic which listed the top ten Twenty20 International scorers, Pietersen lies second in that list, with a significantly better strike rate than the man above him - Brendon McCullum - and that's some achievement in itself.

He's a vital player for England across all forms of cricket and if indeed he is back to himself then it might not be so far fetched to think that England could challenge for top honours in the World Twenty20 in May....

On another note, I think its time to try England's 16th opening pair in Twenty20 cricket, Denly looks a bit out of his depth at this stage and today Trott seemed either unwilling or unable to change gear. Lumb and Kieswetter, that's the pair we need I reckon.