England Player World Cup ratings

The dust has settled and having got over the disappointment of going out early, it’s time to review the English performance and rate and slate the England players.

The Team
In all honesty, apart from the Australians, we were probably the most predictable team on show. We lost against all of the top four, but beat everyone else. In the games against the eventual semi-finalists, the Sri Lankan game could/ should have been won, we were undercooked against a New Zealand team that started well but ran out of steam at the end of the tournament, we gave Australia their biggest test (according to Ricky Ponting). Only in the South African game were we out-classed – unfortunately that was the one that really mattered.

If anything, it was probably the manner of our victories that caused the most frustration. Workmanlike rather than comprehensive wins against Kenya, Canada, Ireland and Bangladesh denied the country any sense of excitement or hope of what might be to come. Only in the final dead rubber against the West Indies was there a game to really capture the imagination, and most had given up caring by that point.

Overall, fifth almost by default. Low risk cricket, which became the trademark of the Fletcher era meant we weren’t going to be surprised, in the way that India, Pakistan and South Africa were. However, we weren’t going to do much surprising either.

The Players
Michael Vaughan – 6.
An enigma at One Day cricket. The game against the West Indies showed what he can do. However, the South Africa effort was more typical. He can be a brilliant fielder, but is more likely than most to drop a dolly. Bizarrely, the most consistent part of his game was his bowling, which was a real bonus to England and enabled us to go in with Bopara as the fifth bowler. I think if he wants to continue at One Day cricket, we should persevere with him, but the debate will rage on.

Ed Joyce – 4
Following his hundred in the Commonwealth Bank series, there was hope he could kick on. However, despite good scores against Kenya and Canada, he looked out of his depth against the major teams and is lucky to have kept his place in the England squad for the summer.

Andrew Strauss – 6
An odd winter for Strauss, who started off looking in good form without scoring runs. By the time the World Cup came along, he was out of the team, but eventually got back in as Joyce continued to struggle. A good battling innings against South Africa gave hope for the coming summer, but overall a tournament to forget.

Ian Bell – 7
England’s second best batsman – not that that is saying a lot. There were times when he was batting with Pietersen that England looked in a good position, notably against Sri Lanka and Australia. An accumulator rather than a hitter, he looks the best of the bunch to continue as an anchor in the top order.

Kevin Pietersen – 9
Probably the only player from outside the top four sides who would make it into the team of the tournament. Two hundreds, one of which gave us a competitive score against Australia, the other won us the game against West Indies, and at his best against the bigger teams. Scored more slowly than is usual for him, but this was mainly due to the clatter of wickets going on at the other end. Crucially failed against South Africa, and his presence may have spurred them onto their best performance of the tournament. The best one day batsman in the world.

Paul Collingwood – 7
A disappointing competition in the context of his Commonwealth Bank series heroics, but regularly came in needing to consolidate, and in the knowledge that he would be followed by the woefully out of form Andrew Flintoff. One magnificent match winning innings against Ireland, some tight bowling in helpful conditions and the fielding was up to its normal exceptional standard.

Ravi Bopara – 7
When selected, he was compared to Theo Walcott. At the end of the tournament, he should be seen as a regular in the team and (with Collingwood and Vaughan), part of the fifth bowler allocation. His maiden fifty came in the valiant effort against Sri Lanka batting at 7. At the end of the tournament, he was in at 3, which looks like a much better place for him to bat. He’ll be around for a long time to come.

Andrew Flintoff – 4
Nothing short of a disaster for Freddie. He lost the vice-captaincy and any hope of replacing Vaughan as permanent captain when he retires. He lost his reputation as one of the great all-rounders with a wretched series with the bat and has gone from loveable laddish hero to potential new George Best. Consistent, but not spectacular with the ball, he was still England’s best quick bowler.

Paul Nixon – 8
He would probably still be talking if knocked unconscious. A revelation during the tournament, with his ability to get under the skin of the opposition and to play unorthodox effective innings in trying circumstances. Indeed he played the reverse sweep so much, he may have been better playing right handed, but his 6 off Murali was one of the shots of the tournament. He almost got us home against Sri Lanka. He kept the momentum going against West Indies. A fixture in the England team until the 20:20 world cup.

Jamie Dalrymple -3
No runs and hardly trusted to bowl. This could have been the tournament where he blasted onto the world stage. Vaughan’s bowling shows what should have been possible. However, a wretched start saw him usurped by Ravi Bopara, and he now faces a difficult job getting back into the team. Like Joyce, lucky to have made the England summer squad.

Jon Lewis – n/a
One of our tightest bowlers in Australia before flying home injured, but not selected to play in any of the matches, despite the inadequacies of the alternatives. Left early to support his wife through a difficult pregnancy, he must of wondered why he was there at all. One of Fletcher’s failings in the latter days was his favouritism of players. In the England squad for the summer, he must be hoping for better treatment from Peter Moores.

Saj Mahmood – 3
One of Fletcher’s favourites, picked time and again for his supposed prowess in batting, bowling and fielding, he was found wanting in all three disciplines. Only two runs scores all tournament, one good performance with the ball (against Sri Lanka) and conceding runs at nearly 6 an over. Even his fielding was sloppy. He’s still young, but really needs time in county cricket.

Liam Plunkett – 3
Runs in the first game, following on from the successes at the end of the Australia tour promised of more to come. However, his bowling was even more expensive than Mahmood’s, going at nearly seven an over during the tournament. The performances of Plunkett and Mahmood make the treatment of Lewis even more peculiar.

Stuart Broad – n/a
Only played in the last game, so no rating applies. However, hitting the winning runs will help with his confidence and his bowling was tight in a high scoring match. His reputation has probably been increased by missing most of the tournament, and it would be no surprise to see him start for England in the summer.

James Anderson – 6
Played the tournament with a broken finger, but that didn’t seem to upset his bowling. He at least made sure that things were kept tight at one end at the start of the innings, but wasn’t able to take the early wickets that England needed. Along with Flintoff, he was England’s best bowler and is certainly a fixture in the One Day set up. He needs better support though

Monty Panesar – 5
The fielding and batting are no longer comical, but the joy seemed to have gone out of the bowling as well by the end of the tournament. Tight rather than attacking, he seemed to be doing an impression of Ashley Giles and, in the end, he was probably out-bowled by Michael Vaughan. He’s not played a lot of One Day cricket for Northants, and it showed.

Super Eight’s Going Home Flops

It does exactly what it says on the tin! (NB: Players must have played at least 5 games):

1. Chris Gayle WIN
Inns: 9 Runs: 212 Average: 25.33 HS: 79 Bowling Average: 56.4

- Failed to be the explosive player the West Indies needed. Simply didn't show up and even his bowling was unusually wayward.

2. Shariar Nafees BAN
Inns: 6 Runs: 31 Average: 5.16 HS: 12

- Having showed so much promise in the last twelve months, Nafees just couldn't buy a run, averaging 5 from 6 innings.

3. Michael Vaughan (vc) ENG
Inns: 9 Runs: 209 Average: 23.22 HS: 79

- The similarities with Gayle are scary. Bowling better than batting, top score of 79 in his last match! His captaincy wasn't bad, but was rather dictated by the poor performances of his team mates. Vaughan hardly set the tone for them though, at the crease or in the field. Surely the end of his ODI torture.

4. Eoin Morgan IRE
Inns: 9 Runs: 91 Average: 10.11 HS: 28

- One of very few Irish players to have played county cricket, he failed abysmally and was a real let down. Many expected a lot more of a talented player, especially John Emburey.

5. Habibul Bashar (c) BAN
Inns: 8 Runs: 105 Average: 13.12 HS: 32

- The complete opposite of confidence personified! Bashar simply got worse as the tournament progressed, failing to set an example and having a penchant for the run out. His captaincy wasn't much better, hence why he gains the acrymonious honour of captaining our flop side.

6. Aftab Ahmed BAN
Inns: 9 Runs: 128 Average: 14.22 HS: 35 Bowling Average: 38.0

- Aftab is one of Bangladesh's promising young guns, but he failed to deliver in this tournament and only just managed to score slightly more runs than his captain, a dubious honour.

7. Andre Botha IRE
Inns: 7 Runs: 62 Average: 10.33 HS: 28 Bowling Average: 36.2

- His bowling was economical, but for a middle order batsman his contributions were very poor. Not helped by injury, but Ireland would have expected more from their overseas import.

8. Andrew Flintoff ENG
Inns: 7 Runs: 92 Average: 13.14 HS: 43

- Bowling was good, if a little expensive at times. No-one will question his place on bowling skill, but number six now appears a skyscrapper too high for Freddie. Against the West Indies, Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa Flintoff contributed just 26 runs from 5 innings, that becomes 11 from 4 if you remove yesterday's effort. That is woeful form and undeserving of even eighth place in the batting.

9. Dinesh Ramdin (wk) WIN
Inns: 6 Runs: 84 Average: 16.8 HS: 52

- Failed to dispel the notion that he is not a wicket keeper batsman. In fact at times his glovework didn't even suggest he was a wicket keeper!

10. Sajid Mahmood ENG
Overs: 48.0 Average: 32.37 Economy: 5.40 Batting Average: 1.0

- Another tale of wasted talent. Has a good slower ball, can top 90 m.p.h. Unfortunately this matters little when it shoots down leg, or is a wide half volley. A batsman's best friend, he really needs a first full season, or two, in county cricket to hone his skills.

11. Jerome Taylor WIN
Overs: 64.0 Average: 51.0 Economy: 4.78 Batting Average: 9.25

- He has failed once before and been dropped. However, he was very young then. Having looked like being back to his best before the tournament, Taylor could not live up to lofty expectations once again and tailed away. Just wasn't the strike bowler the Windies needed, but he was hardly well handled by his coach.

Preview: England vs Bangladesh

The first in a run of three massive games for England takes place today in Barbados. It really is do or die for England and given the same situation in the recent CB series, they were able to raise their game. Standing in their way first up is Bangladesh. Rewind to the last time England played Bangladesh in 2005 and this match would have been all but a forgone conclusion. Now it is far from it and that is a credit to Bangladesh, who are developing into a side that is fully equipped to compete at this level.

Mohammad Rafique, Abdur Razzak, and Saqibul Hasan will be confident that they can restrict England to a below par total, especially if they can get Andrew Flintoff in against them early. However, Ian Bell, Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collingwood are fine players of spin and they will be looking to take advantage of the lack of variety within the spin bowling attack, all three are of course slow left arm bowlers.

Bangladesh's youthful and excuberant batsmen are mostly solid hitters of a cricket ball and Michael Vaughan will be very worried at the prospect of the likes of Tamim, Aftab and Ashraful getting stuck into the likes of Sajid Mahmood, who has done little to justify his selection so far. England need to raise their game for this one, because Bangladesh are confident, though past history has shown that the Bangladeshis are at their least threatening when they are confident.

Prediction: Time for England to pick it up. Bangladesh's overconfidence could prove their undoing as in the past.

Players to watch: Andrew Strauss and Mohammad Ashraful.

Preview: England vs Sri Lanka

This game is massive for both sides and especially England who have to face Australia on Sunday. England need the points more than Sri Lanka, although the Sri Lankans are conscious of the need to maintain high standards following their defeat to South Africa earlier on. Mahela Jayawardene will be banking on Lasith Malinga and Chaminda Vaas to make early inroads into the fragile England top order. That top order could be boosted by the inclusion of Andrew Strauss for Ed Joyce, although England may give Joyce one final chance against meaningful opposition, to prove that he merits his place. The other selection issue concerns Sajid Mahmood who has so far failed to look threatening against even the minnows of the tournament. Liam Plunkett is the most likely replacement and he will feel agrieved at losing his place in the first place, as will Jon Lewis.

The key battle will likely be between Muttiah Muralitharan and the England middle order of Kevin Pietersen, Paul Collingwood and Andrew Flintoff. England will be hoping for a repeat of Pietersen's reverse slog sweep for six off Murali in early 2006 and that they can maintain their excellent World Cup record against Sri Lanka, which currently stands at six victories to one. A tight contest will ensue.

Prediction: Against my head, I am saying England. I just have a feeling that if England can get Sanath Jayasuriya early then they can keep Sri Lanka under some semblance of control and hopefully he has just had his good game!

Players to watch: Kevin Pietersen and Kumar Sangakkara.

Plunkett, or Mahmood?!

Liam Plunkett can count himself extremely unfortunate to have been recently dropped from this England side. He consistantly took wickets with the new ball and got good runs with the bat in recent months. It was not his fault that England lacked a middle overs wicket taking threat against New Zealand, when England scored too few runs and against Canada, when Monty Panesar, Paul Collingwood and Jamie Dalrymple were not particuarly threatening, minus Andrew Flintoff. Now that Monty and Fred are in form, the attack is carrying Sajid Mahmood, whose idea of new ball bowling is to spray it down leg ala Harmi.

Plunkett has three wickets from two games against New Zealand and Canada at 29.66, whereas Mahmood has just one against Kenya and Ireland at 73! And Plunkett contributed a crucial (in run rate terms) 29 with the bat against the Kiwis.

Overall, Plunkett averages 26.09 at an 86.70 strike rate with the bat (best 56) and 35.22 at a 36.41 strike rate, with an economy of 5.80, with the ball.

Comparatively, Mahmood averages just 9.22 at an 86.45 strike rate with the bat (best 22*) and 42.81 at a 44.04 strike rate, with an economy of 5.83, with the ball.

Surely it is common sense. Plunkett lengthens the batting and forms a very good new ball partnership with Jimmy Anderson, both able to exploit dramtic swing in both directions. I understand what England have attempted by playing Mahmood. They hope his pace will make the difference in the middle, but it isn't just pace that brings you success in international cricket, just ask Glenn McGrath, leading World Cup wicket taker.

Hopefully Plunkett will be restored against Sri Lanka on Wednesday, or England will do themselves a diservice. The Mahmood experiement has failed, he has not taken wickets against the minnows. Plunkett was key to the CB series success down under, he earnt his place and deserves it back. The England management may worry about wicket taking in the middle overs, but I'd be more concerned about the wicket taking threat up front and Plunkett offers more of it, whilst Mahmood has so far offered very little.

Chris Pallett

In search of wickets

Having watched England's first two matches in the World Cup I cannot see them progressing any further than the super 8s unless they can take more wickets in the middle overs of a match.

They have plenty of options for the opening overs - incumbents Anderson and Plunkett or the introduction of Lewis and/or Mahmood - and at the death Flintoff and Anderson are very good.

Panesar provides top quality spin and will take wickets in the middle overs, but he has no support. Dalrymple has successfully proved the suspicion that he is simply not good enough at this level, with either bat or ball. His ineffective spin is leaving Vaughan with a serious headache and Bopara, who showed promise yesterday, should surely take Dalrymple's place.

The question is still where are those wickets coming from when the opposition are established and the ball is getting old and soft. Surely, a gamble is called for? Though he is profligate and wayward, Mahmood has an excellent slower ball and should be selected purely as a strike bowler, either with new or old ball. He may not bowl his full ten overs, but he would give Vaughan a vital option when other bowlers are struggling to take wickets.

With Collingwood, Pietersen and even Vaughan himself to make up a few overs, surely England can accommodate a potential match-winner such as Mahmood?

With this in mind my team for the next match would be:

Vaughan
Joyce
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Bopara
Nixon
Plunkett
Mahmood
Anderson
Panesar

Bell is omitted to make way for the extra bowler because he has scored few runs and frankly England need to bowl sides out or restrict them if they are going anywhere in this tournament. It's a risk, yes, but Plunkett is good enough for number eight in the shorter game, especially as Mahmood is certainly capable enough to bat at number nine.

So what did that tell us then?

It’s always dangerous to read too much into a meaningless warm up game, but I’m not going to let that stop me. What does England’s 241 run win over Bermuda tell us about what is going to happen over the next few weeks?

Selection
Michael Vaughan and Ed Joyce is clearly the opening pair of preference, and it looks increasingly like Andrew Strauss is the spare man in the batting line-up. This is a remarkable downturn in fortunes for Strauss, who England were looking to take on Marcus Trescothick’s mantle as the senior man at the top of the innings.

Vaughan looks like he is going to take the responsibility to have a go in the first few overs in the Mal Loye style, allowing Joyce and then Ian Bell to play themselves in around him. It has to be remembered that Vaughan is a naturally aggressive batsman and this approach may allow him to protect his many injuries as the chance for a longer innings is reduced. He’s clearly not 100% fit, but seems to be being sensibly eased back into the matches.

With Jamie Dalrymple now assured his place at 7, England have a pretty long batting line up and three genuine all-rounders. However, it does seem ironic that Chris Read was dropped because he couldn’t be trusted to bat at 7, and Paul Nixon will end up batting at 8.

Jon Lewis and James Anderson are the opening bowling pair of preference, with Liam Plunkett and then Saj Mahmood as cover. Therefore, I would expect England’s first choice line up to be

Vaughan
Joyce
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Dalrymple
Nixon
Lewis
Panesar
Anderson

The Pitches
If this is representative, and the Ireland – South Africa game was similar, then they are as slow as was promised. Therefore, the predictions of regular 400+ scores may be wide of the mark and scores of 220 may be closer to the norm. Dwayne Leverock was Bermuda’s best bowler taking the pace off the ball. England's most important bowlers may end up being Collingwood, Dalrymple and Panesar with Anderson or Lewis making way for Bopara.

The Minnows
Clearly Bermuda will be disappointed with their performance, which was not helped by an injury to Irvine Romaine, their captain and one of their leading batsmen. However, it must be remembered that Bermuda are one of the weaker minnows, and Ireland’s performance against South Africa gives more hope that there will be a few scares for the big boys.

World Cup squad

With England's unexpected success in claiming the CB Cup I am actually looking forward to the World Cup with some hope for once. On the generally slow and unpredictable West Indies pitches some shock results are likely and England might just be the surprise team of the tournament. If they can latch onto the momentum they've built up over the last couple of weeks they have a chance to progress into the latter stages, where anything can happen.

To win the World Cup they will need consistency in both bowling and batting, as well as a squad which can adapt to varying conditions and overcome injuries. Taking wickets is crucial, so attacking bowling options are important. The batting line-up needs stability as well as aggression, a combination England have shown in their last four ODIs.

With these factors in mind my squad would be:

Vaughan (Captain) - Though he has not been a consistent one-day player he is the leader the team has so desperately needed over the last few months. It is not a coincidence that his return saw England's resurgence. Flintoff may have carried on the good work in the finals, but it was Vaughan who inspired a seemingly beaten team. Plunkett was just one of the players who praised the positive encouragement given to him by Vaughan, which led to an unthinkable improvement in his own and the team's performance in the CB series. On his day Vaughan is still capable of a match-winning innings and is essential as England's on field leader.

Flintoff (Vice-captain) - Simply one of the top one-day players in the world and capable of immense contributions with both bat and ball. His accurate and aggressive bowling and destructive batting make him irreplaceable. He has also shown good tactical sense as a stand-in captain.

Joyce - His wonderfully crafted century spurred England's recent revival. A left-handed batsmen of elegant strokeplay, he has also shown the ability to read the game situation and play accordingly. Most surprising of all, though, has been his aggressive shots in the powerplays, which make him the ideal one-day opener and possibly the man to take Trescothick's mantle.

Pietersen - One of the best one-day batsmen currently playing and England's trump card in a rapidly improving batting line-up. The only question is whether he should bat at three or four. I would be inclined to get him in as early as possible as he obviously has the technique to deal with all types of bowling and would be equally destructive in the first few overs as he has been in the middle overs of matches.

Collingwood - Just when the doubters were turning on him he plays three great innings on the bounce, takes wickets, executes run outs and makes spectacular catches. The man in form, without doubt, and England's best finisher. Seems to play well with both the top order and the tail and will need to maintain his current form if England are to have a chance in the Caribbean.

Bell - Still a bit Jeckyll and Hyde in one-dayers, but a class player nonetheless. I don't think he should play at three, rather five or six, depending on the match situation. If he can be consistent he will be a real asset for England, as he is a wonderful fielder and offers a bowling option on slow low pitches.

Strauss - His form has been awful lattely and he has rarely sparkled as a one-day player, yet I cannot leave him out of the squad. He has class and can be consistent. I believe he will find his form if he is given a run of games in the middle order, though he would struggle to make the first team if everyone is fit. As a replacement he offers cover as opener, number three and in the middle order, and he is a fine slip fielder. It would be a mistake to omit a player of his class.

Nixon - Though the runs have not flowed from his bat, Nixon has kept well and offered a very vocal presence out in the middle. His vast experience seems to have been a good influence on the younger players around him and it would be a serious error to return to either Jones or Read, both of whom showed they are not up to the task. He is not a long term option, but should be England's wicket-keeper for the World Cup.

Dalrymple - He has not done anything amazing in recent matches, but his bowling will be suited to the West Indian pitches and he is capable of great cameos with the bat. He has also established himself as a very good fielder and part of a winning team. He seems to be an integral part of the momentum England have built up recently and should be left in the squad, though not guaranteed a first team slot.

Plunkett - Over the last few matches he has shown his wicket-taking ability, despite bowling under extreme pressure. He may go for runs, but wickets will ultimately win more matches than economy rates. if he can tighten up his line and length a bit he will be excellent - at the moment he is merely very good.

Panesar - A world class spinner, who has adapted his bowling to suit the one-day game. He still attacks and exerts pressure on batsmen, but can spear it in a bit if required. In the World Cup he could be one of the star performers and is clearly a potential match-winner. His fielding and batting have also improved, making him a first choice for every match.

Anderson - When he's fully fit he is an excellent one-day bowler, possessing pace, swing and control. England need him if they are to progress in the tournament, as their only failing recently has been conceding too many runs to the new ball.

Mahmood - Frustratingly inconsistent, but blessed with huge talent. If he can find his rhythm quickly in match he can disturb any batsman. His excellent use of the slower ball recently shows how he is learning and improving. With his armoury Mahmood must be in the squad, though he is unlikely to make the first team.

Lewis - An experienced and canny performer, who can bowl devastating spells with the new ball. At the moment he would be second choice behind the rampant Plunkett, but Lewis will be needed in England's squad for those matches when conditions demand an extra seamer or injury strikes.

Broad - Young and still developing, but possessing all the ability necessary in an international bowler. He would be last in the pecking order, but seems to have the temperament to make the most of any opportunities he is given.

Plunkett proves his worth

England somehow managed to revive a seemingly doomed tour by winning four consecutive ODIs and, in the process, winning their first major foreign tournament for almost a decade. Here are ratings for all bowlers (and Jamie Dalrymple!) who took part in the CB Series.

James Anderson 8/10
Anderson only played in four games and one victory, but he bowled with sufficient vigour to guarantee a starting place in the World Cup. His fielding was also a bright spot throughout.

Jamie Dalrymple 4
Dalrymple left the series in a highly precarious position: as the sixth bowler and seventh batsman. He chipped in with a couple of useful contributions down the order, especially an 18-ball 30 against Australia in the group stages, but his bowling, previously so consistent, regressed alarmingly and he bowled an average of only 3.4 overs an innings – if he’s not a reliable fifth bowler, what is he? While his brilliant catch in the second final will long be remembered and he remains a combative cricketer, England look a much stronger side with another batsman in his place.

Jon Lewis 7
Lewis played four games and did a reasonable job throughout, scaring Australia in taking 4/35 on one occasion. His accuracy and skilled new-ball bowling will win him a place in the World Cup squad, but he will have to hope England opt for four seamers if he is to play.

Liam Plunkett 8
Went for five and a half an over; but he bowled a fantastic number of near-unplayable deliveries, twice ripping the heart out of the Australian top order with a three-wicket burst. He also batted with great effect at number nine, fielded well and is clearly resilient character and has overtaken Lewis is in the bowling pecking order.

Sajid Mahmood 5
Well, it could have been worse. Mahmood improved as the series progressed and developed a fine slower ball, but fundamentally lacks the necessary control and will be very lucky to go to the World Cup.

Monty Panesar 7
His stats didn’t quite do him justice, but Panesar bowled – and fielded - well throughout to make him an automatic one-day selection.

Chris Tremlett 2
Many were pleased at his call-up – but Tremlett showed too little aggression and spirit with the ball, while he fielded cumbersomely. Now goes right to the back of the fast-bowling queue.

England's performance ratings

Having lost the series 5-0 at Sydney here are the marks out of ten for England's players:

Strauss - 4 Another two good starts, another two failures to progress. Again, he looked in form, but managed to get himself out when England needed big scores from him. It appears that throughout the series he has been unable to find the right balance between attack and defence, opting to play too many high risk shots and paying the price. The Australian bowlers expertly starved him of his favourite shot, the square cut/drive, and he has failed to find another way to score. Questions must also be asked of his attitude - did being deprived of the captaincy affect his game? Whatever the cause, Strauss, who batted and captained so well against Pakistan, and who has usually been Mr Dependable, failed once again at the SCG.

Cook - 3 Seemingly unable to judge what to leave outside his off stump, he was caught behind twice in this match. The Australian bowlers have had his number for most of the series and Cook has not been able to improve his technique. He will have to work on it if he is to score consistently against accurate bowlers. Though the Australian attack have been exceptional this series, particularly at Sydney, there are other Test bowlers who will have noted Cook's weakness and are ready to exploit it. A shame the young left-hander could not raise his game at the SCG, leaving England with weak foundations in both innings, as they have had all series.

Bell - 7 Batted well in the first innings, trying to give England a total that would put pressure on the Australians. It was a pity he fell short of the century his efforts deserved. In the second innings, with England under real pressure, he made an excellent start, fluently stroking boundaries. However, he played one shot too many and was unable to make the significant score that was needed. This left England in a perilous position, which they were never able to get out of. It would be unfair to criticise Bell too much for his second innings lapse, as he, unlike most of his fellow batsmen, made a score when it mattered in the first innings.

Pietersen - 5 An average performance by his own high standards, failing to convert two good starts. However, in the second innings he was left with the tail again and forced to dig in, a role which does not bring out his best. It is also clear that Pietersen played his best cricket when the series was still alive. Once the Ashes had gone he lost some of his focus and energy. In the last two matches he had the look of a man disappointed by those around him and by his own efforts to raise the team's performance. It is to be hoped that he can get over his disappointment quickly and find his old form in the one-day series.

Collingwood - 4 Showed his usual determination, but could not make a significant score in either innings. The Australians knew he would not hurt them with quick runs and were quite willing to wait for him to get out. As in the previous match there is a suspicion that his technique is not good enough against the best bowling on pitches that have a bit in them. In those circumstances a patient bowling attack knows it is only a matter of time before they get the player. Collingwood will need to either become more aggressive or improve his technique if he is to make more runs against better bowlers on faster and more difficult pitches.

Flintoff - 6 Saved his best batting performance for this match, striking his way to a wonderful 89 in the first innings. However, he threw it away when three figures beckoned and England could have got closer to 350, which would have made a massive difference to the outcome of the match. His dismissal in the second innings was a poor one, gifting Adam Gilchrist a stumping, with a lazy effort to get his foot back behind the line. It signalled the end for England and was a sad one for England's captain. His bowling was steady, without offering his usual wicket-taking threat, but his captaincy was below par, especially his field placings. Monty Panesar suffered particularly badly from this, as he was given fields which allowed Australia to milk singles, denying the spinner the chance to put pressure on them. Flintoff is an adequate captain, but should relinquish the job and go back to what he does best, being an inspirational allrounder.

Read - 4 Another fine display with the gloves, but he was brought in to bat at number seven, a task which is way beyond his ability. After showing some fight in the previous match, he reverted to type, his technique exposed by the accuracy of the Australian bowlers. Not knowing where his next run was coming from Read was a walking wicket in both innings and failed to do any better than his predecessor. The truth is that neither Read nor Geraint Jones are good enough to bat at number seven for England and a new keeper will need to be found for this summer's Test matches.

Mahmood - 3 Just eleven overs in the match and two woeful displays with the bat made me wonder why England had picked him. It was Perth all over again, except he did at least manage to take a wicket at the SCG. England's policy of playing five bowlers is just one of many errors in the series, blatantly shown up in this match. Whether Mahmood could have done better if some faith was shown in him and he had a newer ball in his hand is unknown, though he did much better at the MCG when he was given more overs. What is clear is that when the captain has no faith in his fifth bowler it would be better to strengthen the batting line-up. It is no coincidence that England performed much better against Pakistan with six batsmen and four bowlers, and that Mahmood did well as one of those four bowlers.

Harmison - 5 A decent spell from Harmison in Australia's first innings, but lacked the penetration necessary to rip through the batting line-up. Conditions should have been in his favour, but he struggled to find the right length and line consistently. Though it has been accepted that he has not been England's spearhead in this series, he should have been able to show more in what will be his last match for a while. His batting was very good - staying with Flintoff in the first innings and playing his shots in the second. Overall, though, he had the look of a player who was ready to go home, knowing he failed when he was really needed.

Panesar - 6 Bowled reasonably well considering the poor fields he was given by Flintoff. Two wickets was scant reward for his control and flight and his economy rate suffered badly, as Australia exploited the field placings, milking him for easy singles. Things could have been different for both Panesar and England if Shane Warne had been given out when he appeared to glove the ball to Read. However, it turned out to be just another example of Australia taking full advantage of a situation and England failing to create enough pressure on their opponents, as Warne blitzed 71. Panesar's improvement with the bat continued, so much so that he was given the job of nightwatchman. He applied himself well to the task, sticking around until he was run out by a superb throw from Andrew Symonds. It is clear that the young spinner has plenty of mental toughness, as well as boundless energy and a willingness to learn.

Anderson - 6.5 At last he showed glimpses of how well he can bowl, making good use of the new ball in Australia's first innings. Yet, he still served up too many poor deliveries, most of which were dispatched to the boundary, and inexplicably bowled back of a length, instead of full, which the conditions demanded and which he made his name doing. If he had been in better form and had more confidence, perhaps he would have pitched it up more and got more wickets. Either way he did a decent job of standing in for Hoggard, though I suspect the 'king of the swingers' would have enjoyed conditions immensely at Sydney. It was just another example of misfortune piling on the agony to an abject England team.

England's performance ratings

After losing by an innings at Melbourne here are the marks out of ten for England's players:

Strauss - 6.5 Finally managed to make his first fifty of the series in the first innings, but could not go on and convert it into a more significant score. He tried to play the anchor role in the second innings, showing patience as well as some of his trademark fluency. However, his efforts were in vain as he consistently lost partners at the other end and eventually succumbed himself, caught behind off Brett Lee. Even the phlegmatic Strauss must be feeling the frustration of getting so many starts and looking in good form only to throw it away or have it taken away by poor umpiring. If England are to have any chance in the last Test Strauss will need to find his form and sustain it over a long innings.

Cook - 4 After his heroics in the last innings at Perth he reverted to his previous failings at the MCG, nibbling at a ball outside his off stump in the first innings and getting bowled in the second. It should have been worse for the young left-hander in the second innings as Rudi Koertzen inexplicably turned down a plum lbw decision against him early on off Glenn McGrath. Given this life Cook played a few nice shots before being bowled by Stuart Clark. He will need to remember how he applied himself to make his century at the WACA if he is to have an impact in the fifth and final Test of the series.

Bell - 3 Two failures, both trapped lbw, made him appear more the player of 2005 than the resilient figure seen earlier in this series. It is becoming clear that number three is too high in the batting line-up for Bell, especially with the consistent failure of England's openers. He is exposed to the new ball too early and has been unable to bat through it when the ball has been moving off the seam. The three centuries in a row against Pakistan seem a distant memory. Granted they were against a weaker bowling line-up, but more significantly they were scored when he batted at number six, a position he appeared far more comfortable with.

Collingwood - 5 Showed all his usual grit and fight, but never looked like making the big score England needed. Like his fellow batsmen he failed in the crucial first innings, unable to convert a start into an innings of substance. Again questions must be asked of his ability against better bowling and on pitches with bounce or movement. His technique, so good against slower bowlers or on slow wickets, has been exposed since that magnificent double century at Adelaide. Determination and fielding prowess are admirable attributes, but they are no substitute for consistent run scoring.

Pietersen - 4 His first failure of the series and, more worryingly, signs that his head had gone down. The usual ebullience and energy were lacking in the field and the swagger had gone from his batting. Having thrown his wicket away in the first innings slogging with the tail, he played a poor shot to an excellent delivery from Clark in the second. It was a shame as Pietersen had finally agreed to bat at number four, the position he batted against Pakistan last summer, but which he had been reluctant to take in this series. That he should play loosely in his first outing at four was a bad sign. Hopefully, for England's sake, he rises to the challenge in his usual manner at the SCG.

Flintoff - 6 After another failure with the bat the captain made amends with a fine bowling performance. Taking the first two wickets in a fiery spell at the end of the second day he continued in the same mode removing the ever dangerous Ponting early on the third. As England rallied, reducing the Australians to 84 for 5, Flintoff looked like his old self, chest pumped out and vocal in the field. Unfortunately, after lunch when England desperately needed some inspiration from their captain he was unable to supply it and Australia romped away again. He has also been criticised for batting first having won the toss. This is unfair, as he would have been villified if he had put Australia in and they had scored heavily as they have done for most of the series. It was a tough call and Flintoff backed his batsmen, who failed once again. In his second innings he tried to launch a counter attack, but was trapped lbw after hitting a few lusty blows. It is better that he goes down playing shots than vainly trying to defend, but in his best form Flintoff can play proper innings.

Read - 8 The match started poorly for him as he was caught driving loosely in the first inings. However, after that he barely put a foot wrong, taking 6 catches in Australia's innings in an exemplary display of keeping. He also stood up well to Matthew Hoggard, preventing Matthew Hayden from batting out of his crease. In his second innings he showed the kind of resolve and shot selection that ought to have been true of all of England's batsmen, ending his vigil unbeaten. However, he will need to build on this display and score runs in the first innings at Sydney when England really need them.

Mahmood - 7 Given the opportunity to show what he could do this time Mahmood responded well. His bowling display was typical - wickets, but at a high economy rate. Given plenty of short spells with both the new and the old ball he extracted some bounce and seam movement, as well as a bit of reverse swing. It was a shame he could not sustain his best line and length and cut out the poor deliveries, which were ruthlessly put away. His batting, which has great potential, was abject as he bagged a pair, picked up by McGrath in the first innings and Shane Warne in the second. However, an encouraging match for a very promising player and something which he can build on in the last Test at Sydney.

Harmison - 7 His best bowling performance of the series, which deserved more of a return than just two wickets. Finally showing the control and pace that make him such a dangerous bowler, Harmison was also miserly, allowing only 2.46 runs per over. None of the Australian batsmen were able to settle against him and were forced to keep him out rather than score off him. It was evidence, if any were needed, that Harmison is a rhythm bowler, who needs overs under his belt to perform at his best. He bowled 28 overs in the innings, by far the most of any of England's attack, a testament to his stamina when he's in the groove. A tragedy that it has taken until the fourth Test for him to look like England's spearhead.

Panesar - 4 A difficult match for the young spinner, who was only given 12 overs on a seamer friendly pitch. He should probably have been bowled more against Hayden and Andrew Symonds, whose massive partnership took the match away from England. When he did bowl they attacked him, but Panesar should have claimed Symonds when he was on 52, having a very good lbw shout turned down. Like most quality spinners he likes to bowl long spells and Flintoff should have given him more overs. Promoted to ten in the batting order he unleashed some fine shots in the second innings, showing off the hard work he has put in at the nets. Once again his spirit was evident and he could be a key figure in the last Test as England try to stave off the dreaded 5-0.

Hoggard - 5.5 Bowled without luck in Australia's innings, having two excellent lbw shouts against Hayden turned down early on. He finally showed that Mike Hussey can be got out, bowling him with an excellent inswinger. As the ball got older and Hayden and Symonds started to dominate he was an increasingly peripheral figure, unable to break the big stand. Though he continued to run in and give his usual effort he could not recapture the accuracy and penetration of his first spell. The changes of pace and variety of deliveries Hoggard has acquired since his last tour of Australia ensured that he was not hit to all parts of the MCG, but he could not conjure up the wicket England so desperately needed.

Control and penetration patently lacking

Post-mortem (2): England’s bowling

The unrelenting threat of England’s four-pronged seam attack in 2005 was probably the decisive factor in their series win; indeed, Australia never passed 400. This time, however, they have pulverised the English attack in four of their five innings, averaging almost 60 runs per wicket.

It all started so ominously with Steve Harmison’s horrendous opening ball landing at the feet of his skipper. Like Phil Defreitas’ opening delivery in the ‘94/95 series, it revealed much about English anxiety. Harmison finally came good, bowling with hostility and consistency, at Perth; but, by then, England were 2-0 down and defeat was inevitable. Harmison, who has now retired from ODIs, is remarkably unpredictable and mentally frail for one who was once ranked the world’s finest fast bowler. If he fares poorly in the next two Tests, then his place will come under enormous scrutiny, especially if Simon Jones returns.

The most damning indictment of Harmison came when Andrew Flintoff opted to give the new-ball to the out-of-form James Anderson ahead of him. Anderson’s selection for the first two games was largely down to his terrific bowling during England’s Test win in India last March, but he was never able to bowl accurately, let alone penetratingly. One of the reasons for his initial selection ahead of Sajid Mahmood was seen as being his superior consistency, yet his economy rate is an appalling 4.78 an over. Once the golden boy of English cricket, Anderson has to develop consistency of line and length and threat on docile services.

There is no man better for him to ask advice on improving these facets of his game than Matthew Hoggard, who suffered a miserable time down under four years ago but has responded with greater discipline and new tricks – such as, crucially, being able to swing the ball both ways. His 7-109 at Adelaide was testament to his improvement over this period, and surely proves he is currently England’s finest seamer.

A year ago, that title was Andrew Flintoff’s. He has been hampered by an ankle injury, it would appear, yet has still bowled almost as much as is normally the case. Although wholehearted, he has lacked a certain threat. If 2005 was Flintoff’s crowing glory, 2006, in spite – or maybe because of – him being made captain, has been a disaster. He averages just under 30 with the bat but, more alarmingly, 37 with the ball, figures that barely justify his place in the side.

His Lancashire colleague Mahmood has understandably let his frustration at being continually over-looked in the last Test be known. Is his skipper’s lack of faith such that he could justify giving him just two overs from the first 73 in Australia’s innings? If so, why was he playing? Mahmood has the raw attributes necessary to be a superb bowler, but, while his Test economy rate stands at 3.79 an over, he is too much of a gamble.

Monty Panesar, apparently, was too much of a gamble too, which is why Ashley Giles appeared in the first two Tests. Predictably ineffectual, he also failed with the bat on the sole occasion his contribution was significant and dropped Ricky Ponting en route to a match-turning century, before learning of his wife’s illness. It’s all gone horribly wrong for Giles, a fighter and genuinely amiable team man. If truth be known, it is unlikely he will play Test cricket again.

But Monty Panesar will, thankfully, play both Tests and ODIs, such is the impression he made at Perth, where he took five wickets in the first innings and bowled better than figures of 3-145 in the second suggest. His loop, turn and calm when being attacked mean his place in the side is now beyond doubt. England’s seam attack was never going to be as effective as in 2005 but, had they selected Panesar form the start, they would at least have offered a genuine wicket-taking threat with spin.

England's performance ratings

Having handed over the Ashes at Perth here are the marks out of ten for England's players:

Strauss - 5.5 Hard to be too critical of a batsman who received two poor decisions in the match. In the first innings he looked in good form, not for the first time in the series, only to be given out caught when he clearly didn't touch the ball - a decision which deprived him of turning his 42 into something far more substantial. In the second he was adjudged lbw to a ball that would have gone over. True he didn't play a shot, which is always risky, but the umpire failed to take into account the exaggerated bounce at the WACA when raising his finger.

Cook - 8 A wonderful century in the second innings more than made up for his low score in the first. Showing immense patience and determination, Cook fought through the difficult times, especially the torment of Warne's wily leg-spin, to register his maiden Ashes ton and his fourth overall. Once again his maturity at just 21 was staggering and his capacity to learn and improve plain for all to see. It is a shame that he has had to learn his trade in the spotlight of an Ashes series, but it will serve him well in the rest of the series and in the bright future he clearly has.

Bell - 7 Out to an absolute peach of a delivery in the first innings, he responded with an exhibition of timing and sumptuous strokeplay in the second. Taking on Warne as soon as he come on Bell unleashed some mighty blows, including two sixes. The only shame of it was that he drove loosely 13 short of a deserved hundred. Overconfidence had got the better of him, something which would have been unthinkable just a year and a half ago. He also continued to show his prowess at silly mid-on, taking a great catch off Panesar.

Collingwood - 3 Sadly, the suspicion that he would struggle on bouncier pitches was confirmed as he followed his fantastic double century at Adelaide with two low scores here. Both times he failed to come to terms with the surface and his technique was exposed. No-one could doubt his fighting spirit, but when his team needed runs and momentum he stagnated and simply had no answers. His catching and fielding were as sharp as ever, but could not atone for his lack of runs.

Pietersen - 8 Left to play for a long time with the tail in the first innings and stranded on 60 in the second, Pietersen showed the strength of his temperament as well as his class. At times he looked like he simply could not be got out, an idea confirmed by Ricky Ponting's ultra defensive field placings. For a while in the first innings he seemed unsure how he should play with the tail, especially when Hoggard was with him, but his decision to play positively was the right one, though it ultimately led to his demise, as he played a poor shot. In the second he tried to bat time, while keeping the score ticking over, which worked for a while. Unfortunately, he was unable to protect the tail, who fell cheaply.

Flintoff - 4 A shadow with the ball throughout the match and with the bat in the first innings, he finally showed what he is capable of with an attacking cameo in the second innings. It was too little far too late and did nothing more than postpone the inevitable loss for his team. Bowling at reduced pace, presumably because of his injured ankle, Flintoff went wicketless in the match. His captaincy was okay, but he lacked inspiration in Australia's second innings which was the decisive one of the match. It may be that little could have been done to stem the flow, but it is at times like those that the best captains find a wicket from somewhere.

Jones - 2 The abject nature of his batting display in this match defied belief. After throwing his wicket away for nought in the first innings, chasing a wide delivery, Jones managed to be run out in the second because he left his foot on the line playing forward to Shane Warne. It was a sharp piece of fielding from Ponting, but a batsman in any kind of form would have managed to get his foot back in time. Add to that the desperate dropped catch and missed stumping and you have a truly awful allround performance. It is a shame for any player to finish in a such a way, but surely this is the end of the Test road for Jones?

Mahmood - 2 Underbowled in the first innings when Steve Harmison and Monty Panesar did most of the damage, Mahmood was given only a few more overs in the second to show what he could do. The lack of faith shown in him by his captain must have dented his confidence and could not have helped when he was finally thrown the ball. In the 17 overs he did bowl in the match he failed to show control of length or line and was dispatched to all parts of the field. His batting was little better, though he was under immense pressure both times he strode to the crease. It was sad to see such a talented young player on the periphery of the match, given little chance to show his ability.

Hoggard - 5 Bowled well with the new ball in both innings, but was unable to find the edge of the bat. His delivery to get rid of Langer in the second innings was superb, but it was his only wicket in the innings. As usual he gave everything, despite the scorching heat, and another day he might have had more reward for his efforts. He stayed with Pietersen for a long time in the first innings, fending off everything the Australian attack threw at him. Sadly, he was exposed in the second, bowled by a wonderful yorker from Glenn McGrath.

Harmison - 7 He finally came to the party in the first innings, bowling with fire and extracting steepling bounce at times from the WACA pitch. Yet, it was his control of length which got him his wickets as he pitched the ball up. None was more important at the time than Ponting, who he trapped lbw in the first innings for just 2. Unfortunately, he was unable to repeat his performance in the second innings, when, like Hoggard, he failed to get the edge with the new ball and was put to the sword later in the searing heat. A wonderfully fiesty 23 in the first innings showed Harmison had come to fight, but there was little he could do against Warne in the second when he was out first ball.

Panesar - 9 A stunning return to the side, claiming 8 wickets in the match, including a five wicket haul in the first innings, when he ripped through the Australian line-up. Strange to say he can bowl much better, but there was an infectious enthusiasm in his performance which carried him through that incredible bowling spell. The Australians seemed to be in his thrall as he extracted bounce and turn from the first day pitch. Even when Symonds went after him there was an inevitability that he would eventually get him out. In the second innings Panesar continued to bowl well, though the Australian batsmen were under less pressure and able to attack him. He was caught in the whirlwind that was Adam Gilchrist's quickfire hundred, which ruined his economy rate, but came out of the match as England's best bowler, justifying the cries for his selection. He even managed to show he could bat with a well crafted 12 not out in the first innings.

England's secret weapon

Sajid Mahmood is certainly an unknown quantity. Though 24, he is invariably liable to lose his radar and, as he has proved by going at over six an over during his 15 ODIs, can certainly be hit out of the attack. But he improved gradually over the summer and, in impressing against Australia at the ICC Champions Trophy, has given himself every chance of playing in the Ashes.

Mahmood, tall and with the ability to generate swing to supplement his express pace, has all the raw attributes required to be a fantastic fast-bowler. His wrist, which has been identified as a reason for his chronic inconsistency, is slowly becoming less crocked. Bowling the full length that so memorably accounted for Messrs Gilchrist and Ponting in India, Mahmood, if selected ahead of James Anderson, will fundamentally be Simon Jones’ replacement.

With England seemingly almost certain to begin the series with five bowlers, Mahmood could well come in at six wickets down. Although this is probably a place too high for him, Mahmood’s aggressive batting has sealed England’s last two victories in ODI cricket, and he could score some useful runs.

Any doubts over Mahmood’s temperament were surely put to rest when he responded to Pakistaini fans calling him “traitor” by taking 4-22 to seal series victory for England last summer. The Australian pitches certainly suit him; if he can refrain from bowling boundary balls, Mahmood will go a considerable way to filling the shoes of Simon Jones.

Tagged with: Sajid Mahmood, Simon Jones, Ashes 2006/07

Pietersen’s brilliance provides some solace

England’s Champions Trophy campaign was eminently forgettable. They went into the tournament with low expectations; they endured two meek defeats before Kevin Pietersen’s typically destructive 90* brought them a win that was near-futile: England were already out and the fringe players fighting for World Cup berths did very little. Still, played three won one sounds less depressing than played three won none.

Talking of depressing, Steve Harmison’s performances in this tournament were just that. Australia must be hopeful of inflicting damage on him come the Ashes. His replacement against the West Indies, Jon Lewis, may not have pace but he is adroit at bowling with the new ball in one-day cricket. Although he should not be trusted later on in the innings, Lewis – as he showed yesterday – can bowl his 10 overs straight through.

James Anderson bowled egregiously against the West Indies, but his showings in the previous two games are testament to the fact he is a very good one-day bowler. Playing Harmison and Sajid Mahmood in the same side is surely too risky. Mahmood – who dismissed Adam Gilchrist, Ricky Ponting, Ramnaresh Sarwan and Brian Lara in the tournament – clearly has all the attributes required to be a fantastic fast bowler. But, even given the calm head Mahmood displayed in steering England home, I would prefer to see Stuart Broad play alongside Lewis, Anderson and Andrew Flintoff in a four-pronged seam attack.

Flintoff’s five overs were not particularly good, but at least he is back bowling with 25 overs until the Ashes begin. However, his performances with the bat in the Champions Trophy displayed a lack of common sense, a trait of so much of England’s batting in this form of the game.

The belligerence of Pietersen’s hitting is well known; he is certainly England’s most significant one-day player. So his match-winning innings – his first ODI fifty in nine games – hardly told England anything they didn’t already know.

Andrew Strauss and Ian Bell both played extremely well until both were dismissed for 50. Bell is developing into a fine player in both forms of the game, though he is probably best at number three rather than opening. With a fully fit and on form Marcus Trescothick, England’s top six - Trescothick, Strauss, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood and Flintoff – looks reassuring.

The problem, however, concerns the players who follow them. Against the West Indies, England’s batsmen at six, seven and eight – Michael Yardy, Jamie Dalrymple and Chris Read – all failed to do what they should be best at – finishing the innings.

Dalrymple, though he has scored just 35 runs in his last four one-day innings, has done well in his 14 games to date, and is probably a better option than Ashley Giles. His 10 overs yesterday encapsulated the subtlety and quick thinking that has characterised his ODI bowling at this level.

Yardy’s idiosyncratic technique does not look up to the demands of international cricket; the fact he was picked for England with a List A career batting average of just 20 rather epitomises the lack of coherence in England’s ODI selections. His bowling has proved generally economical so far, but the contempt showed towards it by Dwayne Bravo may well have ended his World Cup hopes.

Read, after doing so well against Pakistan in the two Tests he played last summer, has batted diabolically for the one-day international side. The slower ball that dismissed him yesterday may even have repercussions for England’s November 23rd encounter at Brisbane.

England currently have more pressing concerns than attempting to rectify the inherent problems in the one-day side. But Duncan Fletcher, as unconvincing as the one-day coach as he is dexterous doing the job in Tests, does appear to have got one thing right: England, when they have everyone fit and at their best, do stand a genuine chance of winning the World Cup. But, should they suffer a few injuries, their chances don’t even bear thinking about.

Common sense in short supply

At 83-0 after 18 overs, England were in real danger of actually scoring something akin to a competitive total. But the controlled aggression that had built such a fine platform was soon replaced by a bizarre fusion of tentativeness and occasional spurts of aggression. The result was a typically depressing collapse and, ultimately, crushing defeat.

This game’s effect on the Ashes will probably not be more than negligible. The continued inadequacies of the ODI side, however, do not bode well for the World Cup.

England, though they are the eighth best one-day side in the world, often plan as if they are the best. A prime example was the sudden urgency of Ian Bell after the game’s first drinks break. He was probably simply following flawed instructions, but his tame dismissal, after he had begun so well, proved the start of the rot.

England, clearly, were focused on taking advantage of the second batch of Powerplay overs. Admirable as this was, they should have realised that 250 would have been an excellent score on the surface. England were going at four and a half an over – more than adequate; asking the openers to change tactics was sheer lunacy. And, even more bafflingly, Bell, rather than Strauss, who was assertive in the ODIs against Pakistan, took the lead.

Promoting Kevin Pietersen to number three did not pay off; he was undone, by the impressive Mitchell Johnson’s classic two-card trick. But at least the decision to promote Pietersen hinted at flexibility in the England camp, and awareness of the necessity to give their best batsman ample time to score a hundred. Andrew Flintoff followed him, and showed a lack of clear thinking when trying to hit the lively Shane Watson out the ground.

Thereafter, Australia, as they do, turned the screw. Intriguingly, it was Johnson and Watson, rather than Glenn McGrath and Brett Lee, who caused the most damage. England, at least, took to McGrath early on – and he did not do enough to dispel the notion he has declined a crucial little.

One could only pity the redoubtable Paul Collingwood. He has proved himself before in Indian conditions and has 100 ODI caps – yet he still suffered the ignominy of batting below the unconvincing Michael Yardy, a similar type of player but simply not as good. For the second game in a row, Collingwood’s knock was a lesson in crisis management.

For a few overs, it looked as if England might actually be able to defend their threadbare total. Sajid Mahmood’s raw but explosive bowling accounted for Adam Gilchrist and Ricky Ponting, and went a little way to explaining the continued omission of Jon Lewis, so impressive against Pakistan. James Anderson, meanwhile continued his return from injury and bowled with control and penetration.

Steve Harmison, who is supposed to be leading this attack, most certainly didn’t. For the second consecutive game, he bowled like a clueless club tearaway. Harmison did not use the new ball, so he could not use that as an excuse. He badly needs to refind his confidence before the Test series begins.

As expected, England have failed to progress to the semi-finals. Not only have they been beaten by two better sides; they have displayed a lack of common sense and, with the bat, have largely been the victims of their own downfall. Clinging onto the positives – Bell looking infinitely more assured than when he last played the Aussies, Strauss making runs and the bowling of Anderson and Mahmood – will only get England so far. The truth is their one-day side continues to be a joke.

Is that the best you've got?

It is a sporting truism that it is the reserves that really define a side’s strength. With a depleted batting line-up, England passed with flying colours in India. And now, with Steve Harmison and Simon Jones, who both missed the last test in India, joined by automatic first reserve James Anderson on the sidelines, England are about to find out how good their bowling reserves are.

All the signs point to England fielding a bowling line-up of Matthew Hoggard, Andrew Flintoff, Liam Plunkett and either Sajod Mahmood or Jon Lewis for the first test against Sri Lanka. If the first two names are now established as England two most consistent bowlers (given Harmison’s post-2004 fall from grace and Jones’s constant injuries), then the latter three are a cause for desperate concern.

It is not exaggerating to suggest Mahmood is England’s eighth-choice seamer, with not only Hoggard, Harmison, Jones and Flintoff rated more highly, but also Anderson, Plunkett and quite possibly Chris Tremlett too. In case you are wondering why Tremlett is not in contention, you need not: he is currently injured with an ankle problem.

Yet what is so intriguing about England’s selection is that there is no doubt this is a side picked with the Ashes in mind. Jon Lewis is currently the most in-form seamer in the country, and his traditional ‘English-style’ swing may well cause Sri Lanka real problems in the ‘A’ game this week. But, his performances against Australia in the ODIs last year, combined with his age – 30 - make selection for the winter tour an impossibility.

As recently as 2003, England opted for a bowler similar in style to Lewis, in Surrey’s Martin Bicknell. Bicknell, 34 when selected, proved decisive as England gloriously leveled the series against South Africa at The Oval. So, what seems clear is the England selectors do not regard this series with the same degree of respect as against South Africa. After all, it’s Sri Lanka in May, so any old combination will do. Why not give youth a chance?

Yet, although two of the mainstays of Sri Lanka’s batting – Sanath Jayasuriya and Marvan Attapatu – are both out for reasons of retirement and recuperation, England’s task is not an easy one, given the paucity of their fast-bowling resources. The nightmare scenario for England, and certainly a conceivable one, is that Sri Lanka’s innings turn into a case of ‘Flintoff & Hoggard v Sri Lanka.’

However, for the optimists amongst you all, this series represents a great chance for Plunkett and Mahmood to vie for, possibly, a place on the Ashes tour.

Plunkett’s winter offerings certainly brought hope for the future, even if his bowling was at times a little wayward. The 21-year-old has clearly been identified by Duncan Fletcher as something special, and provides awkward pace and bounce, allied to a seemingly mature temperament. And, though he has played two tests, he remains a largely unknown quantity, which will make it all the more fascinating to see how he responds to the challenge of being third, rather than fourth, seamer.

The selection of Sajid Mahmood is so typical of Duncan Fletcher, in that he is someone who, statistically speaking, would never find himself into an England side. He is decidedly pacy, favours a full length and is also tall; equally, he is something of a loose cannon who went for 6.4 an over in the ODIs against India and was trusted with only six county championship games for Lancashire last season, in which he took a mere 11 wickets. Mahmood has long been touted as a future star – by Dennis Lillee amongst others – but, at 24, he is yet to even take 100 first-class wickets. If he is to become the player so many expect him too, now would be a good time to start.

The man who would surely be making his test debut, were it not for his ankle injury is Chris Tremlett. If the other two men could be classed as ‘tall’, Tremlett is close to ‘giant’ status, towering over his team-mates at 6ft 7in. Like Mahmood, he is 24, though his track-record sets him apart, Tremlett having taken 98 more wickets at an average of 26 as opposed to 31.

Given the bounce he generates, as well as his pace and penchant for explosive spells – such as taking a hat-trick to inspire Hampshire to a brilliant 14-run victory over Notts in the championship last year – Tremlett has every chance of going to Australia, where the fast-paced tracks would appear to be so much to his liking. But his injury-record is almost reminiscent of Simon Jones’s.

Another area Plunkett, Mahmood and Tremlett have in common – and this is surely no coincidence – is their competence with a bat in hand. All could already be considered better practitioners of the art of the art of batsmanship than Steve Harmison, Simon Jones, and Matthew Hoggard, for whom the skill should be named the art of blockmanship. Plunkett has already proved he has some batting aptitude at international level, striking 56 against Pakistan in a ODI, though his batting in India suggested such a knock may prove the exception. Tremlett, again, has the best average, although Mahmood has come within six runs of a century. If any were able to take their batting onto the next level, which may prove beyond them all, and elevate themselves to the status of potential test number 8s, their path into the side would certainly be eased.

All of which leaves James Anderson’s future in the melting pot. His batting has improved too, but Hoggard land is probably the best he can hope for with a bat in his hand, though his offside driving is occasionally very sweet. Despite performing superbly on his test return in India, displaying a new-found maturity and swinging the ball viciously at 85mph, Anderson’s lack of height compared to the others may ultimately count against him. But what is surprising is that Mahmood and Tremlett are still largely talked of as ‘prospects’, while the rejuvenated Anderson is still just 23.

There are others lurching in the selectors’ thoughts too, perhaps none more so than Stuart Broad, still 19, himself with aspirations of being a bowling all-rounder. Yet the four men in contention for the status of ‘first reserve’ know at least one of them is virtually guaranteed to play a significant part in the 2006/07 Ashes series: the odds against the ‘fab four’ each surviving the entire series free of injuries or collapses in form must be extremely high.

The Ashes will certainly dominate the selectors’ thoughts, though there is the small matter of revenge with Pakistan – and a meeting with Sri Lanka seemingly so disregarded it may as well be Bangladesh – before then, with England certain of not receiving anything like a gentle ride pre-Ashes.

The selectors’ have also pledged a policy of ‘rotation’ to keep players on their toes and prevent the burn out endured by Marcus Trescothick. This will surely be especially noticeable when it comes to the fast-bowlers. All four have their merits, though Plunkett and especially Mahmood should perhaps wait until 2007 for contention, at least in tests, when everyone is fit. Which is a pretty big ‘if.’ In the meantime, Anderson would seem the best candidate on purely bowling credentials, but it may not prove enough if Tremlett, seemingly the most-suited to Australian conditions, rediscovers form and fitness. England’s fast-bowling reserve cupboard is not exactly bear, but it is thin on experience and still has much maturing to do.

England Ratings

England's marks out of ten for the ODI series in India do not make pleasant reading - unless you happen to be born in South Africa

Pietersen 8.5/10 Top scorer four times out of five, Pietersen is leagues ahead of any other England one-day batsman, combining mass run-scoring with a superlative strike rate. And, though his tendency to get himself out before 100 has attracted criticism, that says far more about the inadequacies of his team-mates than himself.

Collingwood 7 Contributed two 50s, although the 93 did come in a largely dead situation. Well-established as an automatic selection at number six and a more-than-useful change bowler.

Bell 7 Two useful innings that contributed to good opening stands will keep him in the frame. But is he ultimately too orthodox to excel in one-day cricket?

Strauss 7 Rather anonymous series, in that Strauss was neither particularly good nor bad. Still, he is a fine man to play the anchor role and may also benefit when he can once more play alongside a more attacking opener in Trescothick.

Jones 7 At one point seemed to be slipping away from the one-day reckoning rather feebly, but contributed a 49 and a 53 in his last two innings, while his glove work continued its upward curve. There’s only room for one keeper-batsman, and this series showed Jones is the better option.

Prior 3 A specialist batsman with an average of 18 and a strike rate of 65 playing throughout the whole series? It could only happen in England’s one-day team. Now Duncan Fletcher knows for certain who the better ODI keeper-batsman is, Prior’s rash, if clearly promising, stroke play will be confined to county cricket.

Flintoff 6 Terrible batting; reasonable bowling. Needs a break, and it showed. When he returns, he will aim to renew a run-scoring rivalry with Pietersen that, in the one-day game at least, has become totally one-sided.

Anderson 6.5 A touch expensive, perhaps, but usually performed admirably in a makeshift attack and now an automatic selection in one-day cricket once more.

Blackwell 6.5 For the second consecutive series, Blackwell’s left-arm spin surpassed all expectation – indeed, only Harbhajan had a superior economy rate (though Blackwell’s average was 46.) But his batting could hardly have been worse. He appears too hit-and-miss and lacks any confidence, though he must surely eventually contribute.

Solanki 2 For once, Solanki did not do just about enough to remain in the frame. His rash strokes and lapses in concentration will surely finally end his international career.

Mahmood 5 Not exactly earth-shattering, but hints of promise will keep him in the selectors’ thoughts. However, an economy rate of 6.30 suggests he should be made to wait until after the World Cup.

Plunkett 6.5 Confirmed the potential he showed in Pakistan, cutting down on the loose balls while maintaining his wicket-taking threat. The downer was that his batting appeared to regress.

Hoggard 3 Maybe if England played one-day cricket in white Hoggard would be the same as his superb test self. Clearly has a mental block when it comes to one-day cricket, and unlikely to play again.

Shah 1 11 runs in three innings – you do the maths. A huge disappointment given the excellence of his test debut, but Shah still has a chance of appearing at the World Cup.

Batty 3 He’s not Ashley Giles. He isn’t even Ian Blackwell. Out of his depth, and England are surely only too aware of the fact by now.

Ali 5.5 A strange one. One moment he was producing figures of 4-45; the next he was being smashed. That rather epitomises Ali at international level – he has proved he can take wickets, but is probably ultimately too wayward.