Tuesday 5 August 2008

Why so boring?

Kevin Pietersen's appointment as England captain in all three forms of the game stole the headlines, and rightly so - there was nothing else to talk about. For, while many believe there are profound problems within the set-up, the selectors were incredibly cautious in their squad for The Oval. There was only one change, with Ravi Bopara coming in, and even that was an enforced one.

There will be ample to discuss, as we witness Pietersen's first game as full-time captain. It promises to be nothing but intriguing. Given his lack of captaincy experience, there are so many intangibles that it is hard to make predictions over how he will do, although I am optimistic he will go some way towards reinvigorating the side, imbuing team-mates with vivacity and positivity and leading from the front, even if my first choice would have been Rob Key.

But what is truly astonishing is England's selectors still seem stubbornly in denial over England's problems. This was a golden opportunity to try out the plethora of players challenging for a spot, answer (at least partially) some fundamental selectorial questions and shake up a side that has been struggling for far too long.

My side for The Oval would have been as follows:
Cook
Key
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Harmison
Jones
(With Shah in the squad as reserve batsman. Ideally I would try him instead of Collingwood, but that would be one change too many.)

While I would, in any case, fancy this side to defeat the eleven who played in the last Test, even if they played and lost England would gain much from the match in terms of learning about fringe players.

One Test, especially a dead rubber, cannot tell you about a player's long-term durability at Test level, of course, but it is a start. With a radical shake-up to the side England would be beter able to answer a number of pressing questions, such as

Is Rob Key a beter bet as opener than Andrew Strauss? Given Key's impressive form over the last few seasons and Strauss's lack of a century against anyone other than a depleted New Zealand for two years, I suspect yes.

Can Ian Bell make the number three position his own? He has never made a century there, but he deserves to be given an extended run in what should be his natural position, starting from this Test.

Is Matt Prior a sufficiently good batsman to bat at six? And, more to the point, how much has his keeping improved in the last eight months? At least Prior's correct selection in the limited-overs squad will provide some clues to answering these questions.

Is Graeme Swann's all-round package of more value to England than Monty Panesar's? Averages of 41 with the bat and 25 with the ball in Division One, aided by his fine ODI performances, suggest this could now be the case.

Is Steve Harmison back to his best? Can he be a consistent threat at Test level? England must select him for the 4th Test, and see if Pietersen can help bring the best out of him.

Is Simon Jones good - and fit - enough to thrive in Tests once more? Most suspect the answer to the first question is an emphatic 'yes' but would answer in the negative to the second question. But, in a five-man attack, Jones could bowl, say, four four-over spells a day, being used as a strike-bowler, along with Flintoff. England utilising these two in such a capacity could help both to take 20 wickets and to keep them fit until at least the 2009 Ashes. Of more immediate significance, England will surely want to play five bowlers in India.

As it is, England will learn very little from this Test, save for a little about Pietersen's captaincy skills. It represents a depressing missed opportunity. In the big picture, it doesn't really matter how much England lose this series by. The answers to the above questions, however, are fundamental to how England can improve, but, typically and infuriatingly of the current set-up, too many will remain unasked.

6 comments:

Rob said...

I would get rid of Ball and Collingwood -- if they really are good enough they will force their way back in by shear number of runs (hey, it worked for Ramps). Shah/Bopara/Key to replace them (Shah+Key being first choice).

I am not convinced by Prior, I am still in shock over the poor display he gave in Sri Lanka (as is Sidebottom).

Swann for Panasar is interesting and well worth a go. I like Panasar as a bowler but he is a complete liability in the field and with the bat. The catch he dropped at Edgbaston was a sitter (even I might have caught it).

Not convinced by Harmison, mainly because I cannot see where we would go after the Oval -- he has let the side down badly away from home.

Rob said...

Ball? I mean Ian (199 does not make a summer) Bell.

Chrispy said...

I am not going to spend much time talking about Cook again! But Bell is doing significantly better than him! Bell went back to county cricket and scored a double hundred, came back to the Test side and got 199 and a fifty. I have no worries about him in either side. I think like you say Tim it is time to give him more responsibility. Key in for one of the openers would be a fair move. I would definitely like to see Shah in for Collingwood though. I think England can play two sides in test cricket depending on how many bowlers they want:

Cook
Key
Bell
Pietersen (c)
Shah
Prior (wk)
Flintoff
Broad
Anderson
Jones
Panesar

OR

Cook
Key
Bell
Pietersen (c)
Shah
Bopara
Flintoff
Foster (c)
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar

Mark said...

Here's a question for you - who deserves a central contract right now? KP and Flintoff certainties - but beyond that?

Probables - Broad, Cook, Monty (though someone needs to tell him his fortune) Sidebottom (as long as he stops playing when he's injured) and that's about it.

I really can't think of anyone else - do they HAVE to give out 12?

Richard Lake said...

In answer to your questions:

1, I doubt it. Given Key's previous struggles in test cricket and Strauss's burgeoning relationship with Cook at teh top of the innings, I don't see the need to change this.

2, I hope so. His Lords innings which stared under great pressure as England struggled has not led to the kick on in scores that I had hoped for. I expect him to bat at 3 on Thursday

3, That he's a good enough batsman is beyond doubt. His keeping will come under scrutiny inthe One Day internationals. Ambrose has done little wrong with the gloves and is more likely to take the cahnces to take 20 wickets in a test match.

4, I can't see Swann bowling teams out at Test level. Monty has had a poor series by his standards, but he is still our best spin bowler by a country mile.

5, No because he won't travel. we've had false dawns with Harmison in county cricket before. And also, James Anderson has been one of England's most consistent and best players over the summer. Why would you want to discard him?

6, I hope so, but you would need 5 bowlers.

England will learn plenty from this test as it is. What we should learn most of all is that a return to the policy of a new team for each test that we had in the 80s is not the way to build a cricket team.

Tim said...

Interesting comments guys.

Ultimately I think Shah is more likely to score runs that Collingwood in the next 12 months, for all the guts of is 135, but understandably Colly is relatively safe once more.

Given the correct decision to play five bowlers, it does rather pave the way for Prior slotting back in at six, as long as he does ok in the ODIs.

Re the central contracts: hadn't thought about it but good question. KP, Flintoff, Bell, Broad, Sidebottom then probably Anderson and Cook. But that's it!

Monty's record against the 'big' sides is now very worrying. If he does poorly in India I think the axe may loom sadly.