Bopara so so unlucky

Having talked about an Aussie who is clearly very unlucky not to get picked for his country, now we come to Ravi Bopara of England.   I couldn't quite get my head around it when I heard that he'd been left out of England's ODI squad for the India series, as we start the run in to next year's World Cup.   I thought it was very strange to rest a key player with so few matches to go before the competition.

As I checked for why he was left out (was he carrying an injury?) I was amazed to read that he was dropped.   The England selectors don't think he's good enough apparently.   But they do think that the likes of Woakes and Stokes are good enough.   I'm at a loss.   Ashley Giles seemed surprised too, but there was very little in the way of an outcry.   Why not?

For me Bopara is a solid ODI player whose place shouldn't be in doubt.   He's a player who with different handling could have been playing in all 3 formats for a decade, but sadly things haven't worked out that way.   He gets shoved all over the place in the order and in his latest slot around 7 he often batted when England were all but out of the game needing 12 an over, or didn't get in.   His bowling has often been better than his specialist team mates, despite the fact that batting is his primary skill.

So I'd be picking him every time in the Collingwood role batting 5 or 6 and bowling most or all of his 10 overs.   His ODI stats stack up very favourably compared to Stokes and Woakes - don't believe me?   Check them out below:

Ravi Bopara 

Batting av 31, strike rate 78.

Bowling av 37, economy rate 4.88.

Chris Woakes 

Batting av 23, strike rate 73.

Bowling av 37, economy rate 5.66.

Ben Stokes 

Batting av 14, strike rate 72.

Bowling av 31, economy rate 5.7.

Bad luck Ravi.   I hope you get back in for the World Cup or otherwise we won't be playing our strongest side.

And back...

 

OK, so after a (relatively) brief interlude caused by a combination of work and parenting, I'll be trying to get back to my previous levels of burbling.   So there's a quantity aim, but as anyone that's read Cricket Burble in the past will know, there's no guaranteeing quality.

It's tricky to read too much into England's selections for Twenty20 and ODIs so far.   A lot of people seem to have turned against Michael Carberry - or perhaps that's just the pieces I'm reading - but I'm not sure why.   I'm all for players being given an extended opportunity to show if they can be successful.   If they're not then by all means drop them.   Carberry's been in and out of the ODI team, had one chance at Twenty20 and was no failure at Test level while his more experienced colleagues were failing all around him.

Carberry haters will all be pleased to see that he's not selected in today's ODI.   But it remains to be seen if a top 4 of Cook, Bell, Ballance, Root will have enough quality, dynamism and sheer strength to match Sri Lanka's top 4.   I can't help feeling that England go in a little bottom heavy, given that 5-7 are Morgan, Buttler, Bopara.   I'd much rather see Bopara and Root swap in both Twenty20 and ODI cricket.   

In contrast, Sri Lanka's top 4 looks pretty daunting, but interesting to see that they've gone with 6 bowlers + Dilshan, and they still haven't included Ajantha Mendis.   I can't quite see the logic, but I'm sure it will become clear!

Prediction: Sri Lanka to win with 5 overs to spare by 5 wickets.

An England win!

How refreshing to wake up, check Cricinfo, and see that England have won!!   I had a momentary panic at 5:20 this morning when I read the top headline referring to England men's battering in the latest ODI before realising that wasn't the women's result.   Thank goodness for that....I was worried when Australia came back from 30odd for 5 in their 1st innings to gain a 1st innings lead, but a great partnership in the 2nd innings between Lottie Edwards and Jenny Gunn and some inspired bowling led to a 61 run victory.

Now to consider the men's ODI team which the terrible headline on Cricinfo was referring to.   Watching the start of the match was painful from an England perspective - yes early wickets happen but Root got stuck as if in a Test match.   Those that knock Pietersen should consider what the result might have been had he been batting 3 rather than Root.   (I agree with this piece from Tom Moody saying how much England need Pietersen.)   With the squad they're allowed to pick from (i.e. missing Pietersen/Broad) for the next match I'd be going for Carberry at 3 if they insist on that balance to the side or, ideally, to drop Root for Briggs or Tredwell.   If they're worried about the batting they could drop Rankin for Woakes to ensure they bat down to 8 with Bresnan and Jordan to follow, plus the spinner.   But unless he simply can't hit the cut strip I'd give Finn a go at Rankin's expense- he can't do much worse!

England seem to have settled on the number 6 slot for Bopara in ODIs but he's an option at 3 if England rejig the order and feel there's no one else for 3.   I didn't agree with any of the pre-match chat from the commentators/experts that England were a bowler light on the weekend - Bopara is a bowler in ODIs....his record compares well to Stokes and Bresnan (although in Bresnan's case he had to bowl in powerplays, and Stokes is very light on games played, but you get my point).   Bopara's bowling stats also compare well with Woakes incidentally.

Maybe a little of the resilience shown by England women can rub off on the men - I'm not holding my breath but it would help if they picked the best side.

Selection issues for England

 

Unusually for England over the last decade there doesn't seem to be much consistency in selection lately.   In Tests, Jonny Bairstow had the first chance of the summer before Ravi Bopara came in and when Bopara was unavailable for personal reasons, James Taylor was given a chance ahead of Nick Compton, who was also overlooked when Pietersen was left out with Bairstow preferred.   Now the Test touring squad for the winter includes neither Bopara or Taylor, but includes Bairstow and Compton...and Eoin Morgan who hadn't featured all summer.

 

Then in the Twenty20 they're all over the place.   The late selection of Luke Wright over Bopara at 3 has proved a huge success, but they continue to chop and change with Patel and Briggs, Bresnan and Dernbach, while also changing their keeper to Bairstow today.   Whatever happens in the rest of the tournament I find it hard to work out a circumstance in which Dernbach should be picked over Bresnan on merit.   And I felt Patel had every right to be annoyed, which he apparently was, when he was left out of the New Zealand match....Briggs then performed fine and was dropped for Patel today.

 

It's not brilliant tactical thinking...it's a muddled strategy and, although Twenty20 is to a certain extent a lottery, it would be a huge surprise if England qualify for the semi-finals, let alone get further than that.   If that leads to Broad's removal as captain then that would at least be one change that - in my opinion - would increase England's Twenty20 prospects moving forwards.   Anyone (else) who can keep a level-head under pressure would be good!

England's ODI side

Watching Cricket Writers on TV with gritted teeth given that Michael Henderson's on it.   Not someone who's views I agree with or who's consiliatory enough to share a pint with.   He seems to think there is only his view!

They've been discussing England's ODI line up in the absence of their most talented batsman.   Personally I'd go for:

Cook

Bopara

Trott

Bell

Morgan

Bairstow (wk)

Patel

Bresnan

Broad

Swann

Anderson

Also in the squad: Finn, Stokes, Buttler, Briggs.

I feel a bit sorry for Bopara getting shunted around the order again, but I think it's needed and he can be told he has until the next world cup there to make his mark.   I did consider Carberry opening and Bopara remaining at 4, but England will feel Carberry is a little old.   I'd have no problem if he played though and Bopara batted 4 rather than Bell - I'm not sure if England will feel that Bell has had enough chances and he'll get omitted, but they need a bit of experience in there.

Your thoughts?

What does the drubbing in India mean for the future?

Never good to lose 5-0 but doing it in a meaningless series a long way before the next World Cup is probably the best time. In some way's it's probably no bad thing - even if the England team themselves weren't getting ahead of themselves, the English media certainly were. England have some talent coming through it appears, but the Twenty20 loss to West Indies and this series demonstrate that there's a way to go.

So what's been learnt from this series? There seem to be some players that aren't quite there yet. England have sent players away from Test cricket to go and find form again, and it's worked with the likes of Strauss and Bell. I think they need to do the same with a few of the ODI team that played this series. Who are the prime candidates for a bit of a regroup in County cricket?

Jade Dernbach - I know many say that if you lose faith in him then the investment in him to date is lost. But frankly he's not proven good enough. Let him play international Twenty20 and learn in the lowest form of cricket and then if and when he's proven a world beater in that arena, give him another try in ODI cricket.

Jonny Bairstow - I don't want to say I told you so, but I told you so! He may be good enough at some point as an international batsman but making his first full series an away one against Indian spinners was always a throw of the dice too far. And he should never have batted above Samit Patel. He could get a chance with the gloves though depending on where England go with....

Craig Kieswetter - I think he'll come good but his mistakes behind the stumps in this series, not to mention a less than inspiring batting performance, means that he needs to go back to Somerset for a bit. For now, internationally, he's a Twenty20 specialist.

Ravi Bopara - I'm saddened to say I think he needs to go back to County cricket (again). He has serious talent and his bowling is handy but despite seeming to come on last English summer, he couldn't produce an innings of substance. He may well get another opportunity but I wouldn't make it England's next series.

So what does that mean for the rest of the England side? I'd like to see them put faith in Pietersen to open and Patel to bat 6 (I've given up on Collingwood being considered, although wouldn't it have been handy to have a class fielder who could bat and bowl out in India instead of the middle order we put out?!). Finn was a real success story (although he still needs to bowl more yorkers at the death) so he's pushing for a place in the bowling attack, (presumably) occupying positions 8-11 in the order.

So Cook, Pietersen, Trott, Bell, Morgan, Patel, AN Other, 3 seamers and Swann. The question is who keeps and bats 7 or 8 depending on whether Bresnan is playing and is considered better than them. I say that because the best keepers in England could well bat below Bresnan, but they're unlikely to be picked. They may feel they want to go with Bairstow as he can clear the ropes, although I think Prior must be thinking he will get another opportunity....time will tell.

1st Test of the summer

Typically after weeks of sunshine it looks like it might rain today in Cardiff, but if it doesn't I think it will be a good contest. England playing at home go into it as favourites, but I expect Sri Lanka to play well. Maharoof probably playing strengthens their team I reckon.



For England Morgan can now cement his place in the team and all credit to him for claiming the one chance he had to make the team in the Lions match. I'm sure Bopara was lined up prior to that innings and would have made the team more balanced, but Morgan took his chance superbly. Let's hope he can show the same kind of form in the Tests.

With a bit of cloud cover I'm also hoping that James Anderson is back to his lethal best...fingers crossed!

Anderson and England make life difficult for themselves

Looking at the scorecard from England's match against Bangladesh I assumed that Strauss had done his usual and set defensive fields when England needed to take the final 2 wickets, and made a mistake in not letting Collingwood bowl out. It wasn't quite as bad as I feared, but it would be great if bowlers like Bresnan don't have to plead with their skipper to have a slip, as happened in the 48th over. Although there were no attacking fielders in the closing overs, Strauss was quite attacking by his standards as there was a slip in when Raqibal Hasan was bowled by Shahzad and again when Swann bowled Shakib. And taking Collingwood off, even when he was bowling economically, was the right move too. So still some way to go but a slight improvement I reckon.

But what is the skipper meant to do when players let him down with poor performances? Prior cost England several runs with missed attempts to take the ball behind the stumps and, with Prior's help, the bowlers racked up 23 wides. James Anderson's 7th over was one of the worst of all time, and swung the game in Bangladesh's favour....with Broad out England desperately need Anderson to find his range, but it's not looking hopeful. And to make matters worse, Shahzad dropped his caught and bowled and Trott missed a stop at 3rd man as things got tight....Strauss must have been tearing the hair he has left out.

Elsewhere in England's group Ireland felt the cost of dropping Kieron Pollard in the 20s and Asoka de Silva's inability to remember that the batsman can't be out LBW when they're playing a shot and are hit outside the line. England should still qualify if they beat West Indies, but the way they are playing, and with Pollard in form, I can't say I feel confident!

I'd love to see Bopara opening rather than Prior, and Strauss to attack (much) more but, more than anything, Anderson needs to bowl properly and byes, dropped catches and misfields need to be a thing of the past. Strauss had some good company today in going defensive - Dhoni suddenly lost his bottle at the end of India's game against South Africa and suffered the consequences. Harbajan had to bowl one of the last 2 overs with 17 needed and South Africa having 3 wickets in hand. But instead he turned to the expensive Nehra with 13 needed from the final over, and he went for 4,6,2,4 to allow South Africa to win the game with 2 balls to spare.

Will England make it through?

England improving...

England couldn't finish the job having got themselves into a winning position but England supporters can take heart from the main part of the batting display which was perfectly paced. As an Englishman I'm used to match-changing collapses and the arrogant way that the likes of Botham, Hussain and, to a lesser extent, Atherton, assumed England would walk it - with Bell and Strauss batting well going into the final 10 overs - grated.


Sure enough two wickets in two balls saw England's set batsmen depart and the game started to slip away from England. The powerplay worked against the in-coming batsmen (not that it exactly helped the set ones), with Prior in particular drilling the ball straight at fielders inside the circle, and England couldn't have made more of a mess of the part of the game that's meant to work to their advantage. That's where they can make huge strides forwards in their future games. Losing 4 wickets in the powerplay was disasterous, especially when India had to return to their less experienced bowlers once it was over as Khan and Harbajan were bowled out.


The powerplay out of the way and with nothing to lose, Swann and Bresnan belted sixes off the Chawla over that England surely must have been waiting for and expecting big things from. But just as England were getting themselves into a good position Bresnan got bowled leaving 14 required off the final over. England managed to get 15 off the Chawla over but only scored off 4 balls. Shahzad displayed his cool with a straight six in the final over (hopefully England can learn from that - a low risk maximum rather than a swish across the line), and in the end England will feel they could have won given 2 needed off 1 ball. But with 29 needed with 2 wickets in hand and 11 balls to go, they'd have taken a tie every time.


Where does this put England? In a far better position than they were going into the match. Their bowling and fielding still has a long way to go, and I'm sure a level-head like Flower will be able to point out the shot selection issues as the pressure came on in the powerplay and at the end. That's good news - they aren't even playing that well and yet they tied with the tournament favourites.


It would be great if Strauss could show a little more flexibility in the field and to get the best side on the pitch he and Flower need to work out if they have confidence in Collingwood as a bowler. If you're going to give him just 3 overs rather than allow him to take the heat off Anderson given his off day then it is questionable whether they should pick Collingwood at all. On batting alone, Bopara is the more fluent so Collingwood should only be playing if they consider him an all-rounder and Strauss will give him the ball on days like today when one of his bowlers has an off-day. Only Strauss can answer what's going on in his mind in the field, but his batting has been fantastic and long may he remain top run scorer in the competition.


So take heart England supporters - loads of room for improvement and still tieing with India - it could be worse.

England's selection and batting order

I'm a little confused by some of the discussion about England's batting order - I thought the top 7 picked themselves in whatever order....Strauss, Pietersen, Trott, Bell, Bopara, Prior, Collingwood. But several observers seem to be missing Bopara from their potential team - Michael Vaughan seems to be expecting Bopara to miss out. And others don't seem to think Collingwood gets in.

When Bopara came in as a better 6th bowler than Trott, I thought it would mean that doubts about the selection of the top 7 would be banished, but apparently not. I can't quite work it out - the home sides all use all-rounders to fill the 5th bowling slot and many use up to 8 bowlers in a match. England can do the same using Pietersen, Trott and Bopara as necessary.

I have faith that Andy Flower will get this right, but we'll have to see!

KP as an opener?

That's not something I saw coming - using Pietersen as an opener. It didn't really work today with Pietersen making a start and not converting (no change there then), but it will be interesting to hear from England after he match whether this is the plan for the World Cup when it starts.

Stuart Broad played in the end, despite not being well, although why England felt they needed to ask the ICC for dispensation to play Tremlett (who's not in the squad) in a warm up game confuses me. It's up to them what they do isn't it - other sides have even fielded 12 or 13 players!

Disappointed that Bopara isn't in the side, as I imagine King Cricket might be given their Bopara piece yesterday - I thought the top 7 picked themselves and it was just a matter of working out what order to bat them in....

Australian and England selection dilemmas

Having pretty much ignored cricket news for a couple of days (due to work), it's been amazing to catch up. Australia seem obsessed with the idea that they need a left-arm spinner to get Kevin Pietersen out...that's surely the only conclusion given the inclusion of Michael Beer, a man with an average first class record over just 5 matches. Nathan Hauritz has again been mysteriously overlooked, despite a very decent home Test bowling average of under 30. He produced a good allround performance for his State last week where he took 3 second innings wickets and scored a hundred. The match before, he took 7 wickets in the match at next week's Test venue, the WACA. The only conclusion can be that the selectors fear they will look stupid if they recall someone only 2 matches after they jettisoned him. But then again there is Mitchell Johnson and Ben Hilfenhaus who have been recalled after just one match out.

While I've found myself defending Ponting and Clarke this week, I think Hauritz has suffered from muddled captaincy from Ponting and a lack of selection consistency from the Australian selectors. The likes of England and South Africa have demonstrated what needs to happen when you don't have a world-beating spinner available. Ashley Giles and Paul Harris are/were no world-beaters but their role in their sides was/is well thought out. Australia need to do the same with Hauritz.

Marcus North's time has run out and presumably Brad Haddin will move to 6 with Steven Smith will bat 7. There's huge pressure on Smith's bowling though and it will be interesting to see how he responds after he was taken apart when England played Australia A earlier in the tour. Introducing him as the side's one spinner would be very risky but that could be the direction the selectors are going in?

England on the other hand have just one spot to sort out and none of their second-string seamers have exactly covered themselves in glory during the latest tour match. While he may not be a world-beater I think I agree with Jonathan Agnew who thinks that England should pick Bresnan. Bresnan has been in and around the side for a while now and represents the more logical selection choice, rather than Tremlett who has only joined the current squad at the start of this tour. Needless to say, Bresnan's batting will be useful at 8 too. I wonder how many readers of Cricket Burble realise that he averages over 40 in Test cricket (admittedly over just 5 matches), compared to Broad's 27.

England have also selected the ODI squad this week, where Bopara is out and Chris Tremlett and Chris Woakes are in. I still find it hard to believe that a trier like Luke Wright gets the nod over someone with so much talent as Ravi Bopara, but it's no doubt the right call for now and hopefully Bopara will come back in a better player for this. I still see him as the long-term successor to Paul Collingwood (in the ODI team at least) - I'd love to know if the likes of Geoff Miller and Andy Flower feel the same.

Enough about ODIs for now. The far more important and interesting action starts again at the WACA next Thursday and it will be riveting. If England can win the toss and score 500+ in their 1st innings they will feel they have all but retained the Ashes, no matter what they might say publicly until they've completed the job....

Ian Bell in form, Ijaz Butt out of form

Apart from punching the air after hitting boundaries before the end of the game on Saturday, it sound like Ian Bell's innings was pure quality and given the form he's in, it seems inevitable that he should be brought back into England's ODI side. So who makes way? If Bell plays, it looks like they need one from three in Collingwood, Bopara and Wright. They'll be reluctant to drop Collingwood given his fielding and (strangely) they seem to have more confidence in his bowling than Bopara and Wright's. But Wright played a handy little knock in the last match while his team mates fell at the other end. It'll be interesting to see which way they go, but the great news is that England have a squad with depth for next year's ODI World Cup.

Sadly it was inevitable that people might question England's surrender at The Oval given their collapse from a seemingly comfortable position. But for it to be the Chairman of the PCB, Ijaz Butt, and a public statement that England threw the game is somewhat worrying. His position has been called into question many times but knowing how to conduct himself as a public figure is surely a prerequisite for the job, so for cricket's sanity to return, he needs to go. And that remains the case even if the unthinkable happens and England are found to have thrown the game.

Bopara has chance to shine

It will be interesting to see how Ravi Bopara goes today, assuming that he comes into the England side and bats at 6 given Bell's injury. I appreciate that I'm in a minority, but I see him as Collingwood's ultimate replacement whenever the ginger ninja decides to retire - a completely different approach but a batsman who can bowl a bit and is also a good fielder - he should start his career batting at 6 and then move his way up the order to 4 as he gains confidence and is successful just like Collingwood has done. And let's not forget, he was one of the successes of the 2007 World Cup for England, only to fade away again.

He's been in good form for the England Lions, winning one match in which he got 150+ and 4 wickets almost single-handedly, although as always he's been a bit hit and miss. But he should be confident given that he scored a hundred for Essex yesterday in the Twenty20 with the next highest score from his colleagues being 21.

Slow start for Australia

Good to see England get off to a decent start in their warm up against Bangladesh, especially compared to Australia who lost to Zimbabwe (not that it will make any difference when the real tournament starts). The fact that the Zimbabwe win has got almost no coverage just proves to me how much of a lottery Twenty20 cricket is - any team can win on any given day - and observers seem to realise that. Brett Lee's injury got far more coverage. If Zimbabwe had beaten Australia in a 3-day warm up for a Test the reaction would be very different....


By the way, how on earth did Bopara get himself run out with one run needed to win and plenty of balls left?!?

Flintoff and left handers

Very interesting article analysing how Australia could react to the fact that Flintoff has been far more effective against their left-handers than their right-handers. I've got to say, it's made me think about Hughes further - I'd still pick him but they must be sorely tempted to move Hussey up to open and bring in Watson in the middle-order. Either way, moving Michael Clarke, who Flintoff has never got out in an Ashes Test, up to 4 looks to make good sense judging by this analysis.

England have gone for Bell batting 4. I would have preferred Collingwood up to 4 and Bell at 5 because Bell bats better lower down and that splits Bopara and Bell up, but hopefully it won't make a huge amount of difference if Bopara can come good....

England selection - bold but risky

So it's Bopara, Bresnan and Onions in, with no place for Bell, Shah or Vaughan. In many ways it's a bold move from the selectors trying to move forward and I'm not against Bopara playing as I think, ultimately, he'll be quality. I hope he has the temperament to bat at 3 in Tests, unlike Bell (so far). But it is a gamble and the selectors will get feedback - positive or negative - at the end of the summer based on results.

As you know, I would have picked Vaughan. Out last night for a curry with my Steyning team mates the general consensus was that Vaughan is the most feared by oppositions - often a near perfect guide to who should be selected. But Bopara offers the possibility of Pietersen-style talent to take the game away from the opposition, so if Vaughan was to miss out I'm glad it was to Bopara.

I'm pleased they went for Onions. He's unproven but worth the risk - he's far more consistent than Harmison. Where I disagree is Bresnan.....that's not to say he can't be a success but what exactly is his role? He's not as good a batsman as Broad leaving Broad to step up to 7, but I fear the England management see a player who averages less than 27 in first-class cricket batting at 7. Neither Broad or Bresnan should bat above 8 yet, but as one of them will have to, I think Broad shades it. The real question is about Bresnan's bowling? He's started the season well undoubtedly, but a first-class bowling average of 31+ indicates that he's not fit to lace Hoggard's boots (he averages less than 27 in first-class cricket and less than Bresnan's first-class average in Tests at 30.5).

I fear that Bresnan got picked because he can hold a bat, rather than consideration of the best 4 seam bowlers in England, irrespective of their batting abilities. And I have a sneaking suspicion who West Indies and Australia would least like to face of the two - it's not Bresnan! And 2 unproven bowlers is a greater risk than 1, on top of already playing Bopara at 3. The selectors are hitting the gamble button and I hope they get the plaudits if they're successful, but also the criticism if they aren't.

England selections soon to be made

The 3 England squads are just about to be announced to it was good timing for Vaughan that he scored 80odd for Yorkshire today in their one-dayer. As this piece by Steve James suggests, it would still be a bit of a leap of faith for the selectors to pick him, but James would go for him I'm pleased to say. Of course, the injury to Flintoff allows the selectors to cover all bases and include Vaughan, Bell and Bopara in the squad if they want to, allowing them a little more time to assess their options.

The Twenty20 captain is also to be announced and it seems that it's going to be Collingwood. That sits comfortably with the set up at the moment - safe, workman-like, Collingwood is cut from the same cloth as Flower and Strauss. The more daring appointment would have been Mascarenas who has been a great success in the IPL, along with Bopara, but conservatism is the way to go in the aftermath of KP.

Gutted for KP and Bopara

He's said some stupid things lately, but the one thing you can say for Kevin Pietersen is that he doesn't shy away from challenge. When we need him, he scores runs as a general rule - the polar opposite of Ian Bell.

So I'm gutted that from what I can tell (following it online rather than watching it) Pietersen wasn't out and the catch was grounded. A KP hundred would have been the way to answer his critics, and I nearly posted that would happen....but I didn't want to jinx him!

Bopara had the chance to dominate and really play a match-winning innings having got himself in. But once again, he's got himself out after a start. It's so frustrating as a big supporter of his, but I hope England stick with him somewhere in the top 6. He's not an ideal opener but he's an ideal partner to Strauss ahead of Mr Bell, who I've realised that I've just criticised twice in one post! Nothing against him....I just think that Bopara is equally as talented and will prove, ultimately, to go on to bigger scores.

I just hope that Bopara can prove me right in the coming months and years. And that KP can get some loving from his Mrs and then dominate the English summer....

Adjustment in rain reduced games

We're now all familiar with Duckworth Lewis rules even if we lack the mathematical brains to work them out and adjustments to the number of overs after rain interruptions that each bowler may bowl and in the length of 'power plays'. But why did they have to have a new ball after 14 overs last night as opposed to the usual 34 - it won't have got dirty any faster. Bet Bopara was pleased too-he got out to the first delivery with the new one.