What a grand debacle

Of all England's humiliations - and heaven knows, there have been a few over the years - their innings humbling by the West Indies must certainly figure prominently. This is rapidly becoming the ultimate Winter of Discontent. England have still not won an international fixture since they jetted off for the Stanford Series.

Australia may have slipped sharply of late, but England are increasingly the laughing stocks of world cricket; this was, of course, their first Test since they managed to rid themselves of a captain and coach simultaneously.

Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower said all the right things about increased player responsbility for match preparation, but yet again deeds failed to match words. There are few things more dispiriting in sport than the England batting collapse; here, England produced another timeless classic. It was at once unbelievable and inevitable, just as when they were bowled out for 81 in Sri Lanka 14 months ago. Considering the differences in the opposition, and the fact they finished 30 runs adrift of even that paltry total, this was in a different level alltogether. A collective failure of spirit? Or, perhaps more worryingly, of skill?

England have won only two away Tests in three years - both against a depleted New Zealand side (and even then after being thrashed in the opening Test, scene of another collapso special). A year ago, the bowlers took the blame for a batting collapse, as Harmison and Hoggard were ditched. Whilst it is clear that the bowling of Monty Panesar has become as cliched as Shane Warne's line about him having played the same Test 30-odd times, and his spark has vanished, the seamers essentially performed well enough. Graeme Swann must play in the next Test but the bigger faults, as for so long, lie in the batting departement.

Those projected mainstays of the England batting line-up for the next half-dozen years, Alastair Cook and Ian Bell, have regressed horribly in the last twelve months. Cook is a particularly problematic case; he is barely 24 and has already scored centuries in Australia, India and Sri Lanka, yet appears fatigued and incapable of capitalising when he gets in. But England have no other options in the Caribbean. Bell's is a different case, however. He has played 46 Test matches - and is he any better now than before number one? If Warne's line on Panesar is increasingly becoming the definitive word on the left-arm spinner, so Stuart Law's words on Bell - "that timid little creature" - ring true too. Time for England to send Bell back to county cricket, a season of which could yet toughen him up. Owais Shah, outstanding for England in recent ODIs, should have been handed a run in the side away to Sri Lanka - but now is better than never.

Excuses will be made in the shape of the dressing-room politics at the turn of the year. Yet the reality is England had this coming to them, just as they did in Hamilton 11 months ago. A few changes will help, and England must establish they are prepared to be ruthless with batsmen as well as bowlers. Strauss will need all his captaincy skills to get England out of this one.

What Did We Learn From That Then?

I’ll leave others to do their marks out of ten, but there are other issues that the Test part of the tour have thrown up.

1. Two tests is too short for a tour. Both teams were settling into what could have been a highly competitive series. The first test had one of the finest run chases in history (although not the finest of the last month, bizarrely). The second had a tightly fought draw, which could have been much more interesting had India wanted to make it so.

2. England’s persistence with players is paying off. Strauss and Collingwood both paid back the faith that the selectors had in them during the first test. Both have been teetering on the edge of losing their places, but with three very gritty innings, they got England into a winning position in the First Test. Ian Bell should take comfort from this, although it is only 5 tests since his 199 against the team that is now widely believed to be the best in the world.

3. Alistair Cook needs a long chat with his mentor Graham Gooch. His fifty and out habit is becoming both embarrassing and a problem for the team. I suspect it may be linked to the want to turn him into a One-Day player, or that Andrew Strauss is not the quickest of scorers at the other end. He needs to learn to be patient and build the big innings that England need of him.

4. Kevin Pietersen needs to think more as the captain. His spat with Yuvraj, entertaining as it may have been, nearly cost him his wicket at the start of an excellent hundred. Targeting a player is a well worn tactic, but given Yuvraj’s performances, it is likely that it only spurred him on.

5. England’s bowlers need to learn from history. Or at least have talked to those who have done well on the sub-continent. All out pace isn’t the answer and Flintoff apart, they didn’t pose a threat in those conditions.

6. Matt Prior will be England’s wicket-keeper for the Ashes series. Tidy enough behind the stumps despite the testing conditions and a good 50 in the first test. He looked at least a match for Dhoni in the two matches if not better

7. Monty Panesar may not be England’s spinner for the Ashes series. He was comprehensively out-bowled by Graeme Swann, who must be considered the number one option when England revert to one spinner. The emergence as Swann as an attacking force should also dampen the cries for Adil Rashid to be rushed into the test team.

8 England need to remember how to win matches. In the last two series against SA and India, they have played the best two teams in the world at the moment and have not managed to capitalise on their periods of dominance. At Lords and Edgbaston, England were in winning positions but couldn’t see it through. Likewise in Chennai. They need to discover a ruthless streak and a Plan B.

Overall, and reverting to Vaughan-speak, England can take a lot of positives out of the test series, while being disappointed in the result. After the pounding in the One-Day series and the uncertainty about the security implications, they probably should have won the decisive first test. India are an excellent side, probably second in the world on current form. England have a lot to work on before the Ashes series, but the nucleus is in place.

England rebel against the Eighties

For those of us who grew up with cricket in the 1980s, the current state of consistency in the England selection is a massive sea change. The 1988 series against West Indies saw 23 players and four captains used in a five match series, with a further 5 players in the team for the one off match against Sri Lanka. To put that into context, if you took the last 28 players to debut for England, you would be back to Rob Key’s debut in 2002 and include players such as Antony McGrath, Ed Smith and Richard Johnson, who have long left the international reckoning. From 1980 to 1988, 50 players made their debut for England. Since 2000, the number of debutants has been 39, despite the increasing demands on players

While 1988 was the nadir in terms of selection, even in 1986, 19 players were used in a three test series against India and 17 in the subsequent three match series against New Zealand. Even in the successful Ashes series in 1985, 17 players were used – a far cry from the twelve players used 20 years later. Indeed in 2001, 19 players were used as the side continued to struggle against the Australians.

One of the benefits that the central contracts have brought England is a consistency of selection. Players don’t need to fear a single poor score and the Team England ethic is very strong. Players become comfortable with who they are playing with and used to their roles within the team, on and off the pitch. However, there needs to be evolution with the selection and it was also revealing in comparing the teams for the first test against South Africa that only Andrew Strauss had played in the corresponding fixture four years ago, in the game that he made his debut. Therefore, while England have enjoyed a stable team, it has evolved into a new unit over the past four years.

There has been criticism of this becoming a cosy club. However, the benefits of consistency have been seen with Strauss, who has now formed a stable opening partnership with Ali Cook, even if they now both need to convert their starts into big scores. Ian Bell was under pressure for his place at the start of the series, but was given the opportunity to respond with his innings at Lords which took England from a precarious situation to a potential match-winning one. James Anderson is another player who is now benefitting from a run in the team.

The weakness with this system is that players can last for too long in the setup. But for Marcus Trescothick’s well publicised problems, he could well be keeping Cook out of the team. Previous incumbents of the top six have either retired at the top (Hussein, Thorpe) or had injuries that have taken them out of the team (Butcher). The current form of Michael Vaughan and in particular Paul Collingwood should possibly see them left out of the team. However, this should not be done in a way that leads back to the bad old days of the 1980s. Owais Shah, Ravi Bopara and Rob Key all remain within the England setup, either as the next players in, or as the current Lions captain. England have had success by evolution, not revolution and the long term importance of a settled, but not complacent team is paramount.

Time for Jones and Harmison?

As many had feared they would be in the first Test, England were comprehensively outplayed here. Once again, England avoided picking their strongest side. For those frustrated with the innate caution in their recent selection, the decision to select Darren Pattinson, out of nowhere, was utterly incongruous.

Pattinson did certainly not disgrace himself, and outbowled Stuart Broad. However, this will probably prove to be his sole Test, for he lacks pace, does too little with the ball and, while accurate, is not metronomic. England would have been better off selecting the in-form Simon Jones or Steve Harmison, both of whom have proved they possess the ability to get out the best batsmen, whilst Chris Tremlett, who performed so admirably against India last summer, must be bewildered as to why England seem so willing to pick him in squads, but so reluctant to pick him in the starting XI.

So the pressing question is: how can England take 20 South African wickets?
Andrew Flintoff should certainly help, and his parsimony with the ball allied to a good second- innings knock, were a reasonably satisfactory return. But, while he is probably amongst England's best four bowlers, the problem of where he should bat persists. Michael Vaughan says seven, with good reason: but Tim Ambrose is emphatically not a Test number six. The problem is compounded by Stuart Broad - while he soon could be, his bowling average after eight Tests is 49. For all his all-round promise, can England afford a man whose bowling is neither overly threatening nor consistently economical?

So the call must go out to Messrs Jones and Harmison. Jones has been back to near his best this campaign: his combination of speed and prodigious reverse swing cannot be ignored now he has gone a considerable way to allaying those inevitable fitness doubts. With Harmison, the problem has always perceived to be mental rather than physical. However, this may just be a case of journalistic over-simplification.

The disappointments of Harmison's performances over the last four years for England, with the odd exception, are well-known. Yet his failures have so often been characterised by a lack of preparation time - think of the South Africa tour in 2004/05; the '06/07 Ashes tour; and even his last Test match in New Zealand. He is a rhythmical bowler, and he has emphatically found that this season. He is the leading wicket-taker in the Championship, with 40 wickets, and has even proved frugal in limited-overs games and Twenty20. He appears confident in himself, having bowled impressively for several months. England cannot afford to ignore his pace, bounce and hostility any longer - especially in light of Morne Morkel's impressive showings - for all the fears over his waywardness.

There is also Ryan Sidebottom, England's best bowler in the last 12 months but seemingly a little jaded. Given his performances have been less impressive of late and he had to sit out the current Test through injury, England should not recall him before he produces some impressive displays for Notts.

The issue is further clouded by the fact none of Jones, Harmison, Anderson and Sidebottom are Test number eights - and are probably not even good nines - which is a major problem given the hopelessness of Monty Panesar's batting. Panesar has been disappointing this series, but England would be loathe to ditch the one clear superiority they enjoy over South Africa.

So there is much for England's selectors to consider in the bowling department. The picture is equally grim elsewhere, with the top three all provoking question marks - Strauss has scored two Test centuries in two years, both against New Zealand; Cook has scored one century in 27 innings and there are increasing doubts over his leaden-footed technique; whilst Vaughan has struggled against Dale Steyn and seems increasingly - and worryingly - vulnerable early on. Tim Ambrose, meanwhile, should be ditched now, especially if England wish to continue with five bowlers, as they probably should. Matt Prior, with reluctance given his keeping displays when in an England shirt, should be granted an extended run at number six.

All is not yet lost for England in this series. But the problems that have been apparent for some time have now come to a head. For six days solid, England have won barely a session - and it will take something special to stem the flow.

England Ratings

Here is how England's players rated in their disappointing 3-1 series defeat to New Zealand:

Alastair Cook 6
For the second consecutive series, Cook finished as England's top run-scorer. He appears to be going in the right direction as a one-day player but an inability to score a steady stream of singles mean doubts still abound. His 70-ball 42 on the final game bordered on the excruciating; while his 69 in game four, scored at a strike-rate of just 78 despite the perfect batting conditions, was also indicative of his limitations.

Phil Mustard 6
Mustard's 83 in the fourth game showed he has real promise as a pinch hitter - but he too often flatters to deceive, and was out to an aberrant slog in the final game. Encouragingly, his keeping was generally excellent - though, typically amongst English keepers, he disappointed with the gloves after making his top score.

Ian Bell 6
Yet again, the feeling is Bell too often fails to assert himself for an international number three. His 73, before being unjustly given out, was sublime, but he must improve his consistency. At least his strike-rate - 80 in this series - has markedly improved in the last year.

Kevin Pietersen 6
Pietersen's average - 33 - and strike-rate - 73 - were both disappointing. In 20 ODIs since the World Cup, he has averaged just 31 - though they were tentative signs of improvement, England need to work out why.

Paul Collingwood 8
In games three and four, Collingwood played two brilliant innings which should banish, once and for all, the misconception that he is a 'nurdler'. His bowling and captaincy were fairly impressive too.

Owais Shah 4
A very disappointing series, which showed Shah is less-than-comfortable attacking from ball one. His talent is beyond question, however, and it would be well worth giving him the chance to open, as he has for Middlesex.

Ravi Bopara 2
Looked out-of-his depth and desperately bereft of confidence. How much he has been over-hyped for one valiant, but ultimately futile, innings a year ago.

Graeme Swann 2
Unceremoniously discarded after two poor games - though it would never be easy defending such meagre totals - and should have played towards the end of the series, given the excellence of his displays in Sri Lanka.

Stuart Broad 7
Undoubtedly on an upward curve, Broad twice took three wickets in an innings but also suffered from bowling too short at times. But, especially given his batting aptitude - 52 runs for once out in this series - he has established himself as a key member of the limited-overs side.

Ryan Sidebottom 7
Now an indispensable member of the side, Sidebottom is the sole bowler with a full grasp of the virtues of line-and-length. That should not detract from his other qualities, however, and his spell with the old-ball in the fifth game was an example of pacey reverse-swing at its best.

James Anderson 2
Enough is enough. Anderson consistently bowls too many loose deliveries, allowing New Zealand's openers to get off to explosive starts - unacceptable in a side playing only three specialist bowlers. His series stats say it all: four wickets at an average of 67 and an egregious economy of 7.3.

Dimitri Mascarenhas 6
There was a major clamour for his inclusion after his superb Twenty20 performances. 29* of 12 balls in the fifth game illustrated why; but, not benefiting from an apparent lack of confidence from his captain, his 14 overs cost 93. If he cannot consistently deliver 10 overs for 50, even his amazing propensity for clearing the ropes may not be enough to claim a regular spot.

Luke Wright 8
Wright's showing was, in many ways, the most encouraging of any England player. He hit the ball hard and far, scoring 71 in the 47 balls he faced, but his clean-striking suggests a highly encouraging talent - for now, however, he should not be brought back up to open, where he failed ignominiously in the Twenty20 World Cup. And his last over in game four suggests a temperament well-suited to international cricket, and real potential as a fifth bowler.

The Verdict
After twice thrashing New Zealand in the Twenty20 games, this was a humbling series indeed for England. Their batting collapsed pathetically in the first two games, while their policy of including only three front-line bowlers is not sustainable. A more flexible batting order is another area England must work on: too often they lack adaptability in games, though Collingwood's use of Shah with the ball showed they can think on their feet. England's one-day side is considerably better off than when they were humbled by the West Indies - but it is very much work in progress.

Anderson's struggles continue

Away from the sheer madness of the Indian Premier League, there was quite a game of cricket played between England and New Zealand. Most pundits thought 340 was well out of the Kiwis’ reach; but they reckoned without some mediocre bowling, the short boundaries and some exhilarating batting. For all their problems, especially in the Test arena, New Zealand remain a combative and canny one-day international side. With that in mind, England would be ecstatic if they could salvage a draw from this series.

To do that, they will need to build on their batting exploits. At last, England managed an assertive start. Phil Mustard displayed hitting power and hitherto unimagined subtlety and selectivity in his 83, amassing 158 with Alastair Cook. Cook is undeniably growing as a limited-overs player. However, he still has a long way to go to succeed in emulating Matthew Hayden. With hindsight, his excruciating start – two runs from 17 balls, during which he was dropped – may have cost England the match. Tellingly, England scored an astonishing 227 from the 30 non-Powerplay overs, but only managed a relatively meagre 113 during the 20 overs of Powerplays. Cook’s strike-rate of 78 would be good on most wickets; but not so on the short boundaries of Napier. Still, the opening partnership of Mustard and Cook, two contrasting left-handers, is one that should be persevered with.

Unlike on numerous occasions in the past, England capitalised in the last 10 overs, adding over a century. Ian Bell, Kevin Pietersen and especially Paul Collingwood appear in fine form after failures in the first two games, while Luke Wright bludgeoned quick runs before showing an ice-cool temperament with a brilliant final over of the game.

More worrying is the oft-unfairly treated Owais Shah. His best innings for England, including his 107 against India and 82 at Dambulla, came when given the chance to play a substantial innings before accelerating at the end. He struggled under the requirement of hitting from ball one, suggesting others should be promoted ahead of him in similar situations but, as a supremely talented player who can accumulate and find the gaps with his wristy style, Shah should not be discarded.

With the ball, however, England’s shortcomings were exposed. Besides the exemplary Ryan Sidebottom, bowlers consistently bowled too short. James Anderson is 25 and has played 85 ODIs, but his control is too often found wanting. Given that he has averaged 56, with an economy rate of 5.6, during his last nine games, Anderson needs to impress in the series finale – or he should be dropped.

But what of Dimi Mascharenhas? After two scintillating performances in the two Twenty20 games, there was a clamour for him to be included in the ODI side too. But he has failed to justify the hype, bowling nine overs for 69, seemingly lacking the confidence of Collingwood, and not being given the chance to show-off his six-hitting power. In the right conditions, both his bowling and batting could be of great use. Yet in the last two games, having dropped Graeme Swann, England have been left with just three front-line bowlers, and have subsequently been over-exposed.

But after the humiliations of the first two games, it is testament to England's resilience that they can still harbour hopes of sharing the series.

Abject England, as weak as water

Having won the first four matches of their tour to New Zealand, England were expected to dominate the ODI series much in the same way as they had done the 20/20 match-ups. However, New Zealand hadn't read the script and have since demolished England in the first two ODIs.

Fans would have been hoping that the abysmal showing of Saturday had merely been a blip on the radar for this young and promising outfit. It was infact nothing, compared to the apocalyptic debacle witnessed at Seddon Park this morning.

Captain Collingwood lost the toss and England were put into bat by New Zealand skipper Daniel Vettori. A few minutes later, Alastair Cook and Phil Mustard made their way to the block to try and make amends for their failings first time around.

For six overs everything seemed to be going according to plan. The batsmen gauged the pace and bounce of the pitch much better and made an aggressive start. However, as he does too often Mustard went for one shot too many and was caught out when he could easily have played the ball along the ground through cover. With experience, Mustard is likely to cut these mistakes out of his game. Next ball, the under-pressure Ian Bell, fell for a golden duck due to an exceptional catch by keeper McCullum. Next in was Pietersen and together with Cook, they seemed to steady the ship. The pair were still at the crease when rain curtailed play for over 2 hours.

Upon the resumption of play, England fell apart. Daft shots and ridiculous run outs caused England to collapse from 90-2 to 158 all out. No dismissal was more farcical than that of Alastair Cook.

Ravi Bopara decided it would be a great idea to hit the ball straight to New Zealand's best fielder (Ross Taylor) and set off for a suicide single. Being the team player that he is, Cook tried to rescue the exigent situation and did his best to scamper up the pitch and try to prevent the loss of another England wicket. He was run out by a mile.

To make matters worse, Bopara played a painstaking innings from there on in and subsequently threw his wicket away. People will very quickly get annoyed with this laissez faire approach and the distinct lack of a sensible thought process.

On the other hand, Alastair Cook again played superbly for his innings of 53. Some would argue that he should have stood his ground and allowed Bopara to be run out. With more experience, he probably would have done so. However, he was completely innocent in his dismissal and one would only hope that Bopara later apologized for denying him a big innings. One can not be sure as to how many Cook would have gone on to make as the rest of the team hardly stuck around. However, had he stayed England's score might well have been upwards of 200; a much greater challenge under the constraints of Duckworth Lewis.

It is good to see that Cook is getting a fair run at the top of the order. He is a good complimenting opener to Mustard as he allows his colleague to take on the bowling. Despite missing out on the 20/20 matches, Cook has put in three very good performances so far on this tour and slowly his class seems to be showing through in the one-day arena. It is little wonder that he is being touted as the FEC. The man is only 23 years of age; yet he is playing with a humility and percipience that is frankly putting his senior counterparts to shame.

New Zealand's openers, McCullum and Ryder, showed no mercy whatsoever in their attempt at chasing down the inadequate total set by the opposition. England bowled very badly and the two batsmen slaughtered the bowling to take New Zealand past the winning post of 165 with 107 balls remaining. England had chances but wasted them; dropping McCullum on 0 and Ryder on 8. They finished on 80 and 79 respectively. Even so, England got what they deserved.

With the next game on Friday in Auckland, it is very hard to see how England are going to be able to pick themselves up in time. A plus for the visitors is that things really can't get much worse. Collingwood seemed keen on keeping an unchanged team for this match but after today's result, changes seem inevitable. Bell and Bopara both seem to be in torrid form and the only players who would be likely to come in for them are Luke Wright and Dimitri Mascarenhas. This would leave a probable batting order like so:

1. Alastair Cook
2. Phil Mustard (WK)
3. Kevin Pietersen
4. Paul Collingwood (Capt.)
5. Owais Shah
6. Dimitri Mascarehnas
7. Luke Wright
8. Greame Swann
9. Stuart Broad
10. Ryan Sidebottom
11. James Anderson

It is the opinion of many that Pietersen should bat at three because he is clearly England's best batsman. He should therefore be exposed to as much of the bowling as possible. On his day, Collingwood is most probably the side's second best one-day batsman, hence making him the obvious choice to be England's number four. Dimi Mascarehnas and Luke Wright both played well during the 20/20 series and would add a much needed impetus to the middle order.

England have talent, there is no doubt about that. They showed that they were made of sterner stuff during the 20/20s; yet their sudden loss of confidence is making them as weak as the rain water that disrupted play in Hamilton today. A promising, young and at times, exciting team they may be. It just seems at the moment, many of those promises are rather hollow.

Bell not quite there yet

Ian Bell is on the verge of being an excellent Test batsman for England. He has hit four 50s in consecutive innings. The problem, alas, is he invariably fails to go on, a victim of a loss of concentration, a loose shot or, as today, a slight misjudgment. Nonetheless, when the agony of England's narrow loss begins to clear, he can reflect on probably his best Test to date: two excellent, and deeply contrasting innings. But ultimately it was all in vain.

Bell displayed immense powers of concentration during his five-hour vigil. Admirably, he is developing the ability to bat at completely different tempos depending on the match circumstances: he scored at a strike-rate of 35 in the second innings, against 66 in the third. Anyone who can top score in both innings in Sri Lanka clearly possesses immense class and mental resilience. Promoted to number three, however, Bell needs to be making match-defining contributions: which means 150s.

He was on the verge of playing a match-saving innings of wonderful quality before Muttiah Muralitharan was transformed into lethal new-ball bowler. Matt Prior will also feel sickened at having failed to complete the match-saving job but, after his first innings pair, he responded magnificently. Undoubtedly, this was his best international innings to date, infinitely greater than the rather facile runs he plundered against the West Indies.

From reducing the hosts to 42-5 on the opening day, this was a game that gradually slipped out of England's grasp. Primarily, the fault lies with the batsmen, who failed to display the necessary ruthlessness to secure a first innings lead in the region of 150 and succumbed fatally to Chaminda Vaas in the second innings. The two Essex men are of particular concern: Alistair Cook's problem against left-armers may need rectifying out of the side; 'all-rounder' Ravi Bopara was Paul Collingwood's inferior with the ball and, despite some fine shots, lacked solidity at the crease; Mark Ramprakash or Owais Shah would have been more worthy picks. Borderline selection James Anderson, meanwhile, justified my concerns over his place in the side and will surely now be dropped.

In this match, England were ultimately beaten by the better team. Sri Lanka are far from infallible, especially with Sanath Jayasuriya having retired, and their batting line-up has real areas of weakness. After a valiant recovery from 90-5, England will have hopes for the rest of the series. But, unless England can find an answer to Sri Lanka's twin totems, Muralitharan and Kumar Sangakkara, these will only prove fleeting.

Coming of Age

England’s resounding victory over India at the Rose Bowl on Tuesday was not just important for morale, it also saw the emergence of two of England’s most promising batsmen as One Day International players. Both Alastair Cook and Ian Bell brought up their first centuries for England in One Day Internationals. They were two vastly different innings though and Bell was the main man in the partnership which the two shared. From the moment he strode to the crease he demonstrated the body language of a man who was in control, who knew what he wanted to achieve and how he was going to go about it. He used his crease and feet brilliantly against the spinners and he offered a chanceless innings, importantly seeing it through to the end. Playing on the centre pitch at the Rose Bowl meant that there were fairly deep boundaries on either side of the wicket and Bell used this to his advantage, superbly placing the ball between fielders in order to turn ones into twos. When the run rate seemed static he stepped up to the plate and found the boundary, once with a glorious straight six. He also finished with a healthy strike rate of more than a run a ball, a great achievement.

Ian Bell unleashes a pull shot for four off Zaheer Khan

It has taken Bell a long time to register his first tonne for England in this form of the game, this was his forty-eighth match. However, the manner of his innings suggests that it will not be his last and that now that he has broken his duck he can push on and cement his place in the side for the next decade. Bell has always had the quality to be a very good played indeed at International level. It has always been the mental side of his game which has needed the most work. As he matures with age though he looks a calm, composed and complete player and there will be many more hundreds to come from him.

Alistair Cook clips to leg for a single

Cook on the other hand registered three figures in just his sixth One Day International, most impressive. However, he did struggle to regularly find the boundary and unlike Bell played the spinners with less certainty, a pre-meditated sweep appearing on the occasions when he did score, a sign that he has been working with Andy Flower no doubt. In fact, during one over Cook struggled to score against the spin of Piyush Chawla. Showing his growing confidence in the team, Bell strode down the wicket and spoke to Cook, the very next ball out came the sweep and the strike was rotated once more. Cook will though continue to develop and learn and once he has more confidence in hitting over the top in the latter half of the innings he will be a more complete One Day player. He is certainly worth persisting with, especially if he continues to take catches like this:

The success of Cook and Bell was not all good news though. The exclusion of Owais Shah was a slightly puzzling move from England, after he had been the main success story to emerge from the games against the West Indies earlier in the summer. He has shown that he can succeed at this level and play a very important role for England during the middle overs, with his wristy play of both pace and spin alike, along with his explosive hitting. One solution would be to bring him in for Dimitri Mascarenhas, whose overs could probably be bowled by Ravi Bopara, who has been criminally underbowled and Paul Collingwood. By dropping Matt Prior down the order and moving Bell and Kevin Pietersen up, England could fit Shah in at number four. The alternative would be to drop Cook and open with Bell, but that would be a shame. One thing which Tuesday did prove, is that England do have a capable top order, that they can win without a major knock from Pietesen and that perhaps Pietersen should be coming in at number three, to maximise his effectiveness throughout the innings.

Chris Pallett

England ODI Ratings

After cruising to victory in the Test series against the West Indies, England suffered an ignominious defeat in the one-day series. They learned little new and, depressingly, there was little sign of perennial problems being rectified. Here is how they rated in the ODIs:

Alastair Cook 4
So impressive in the Test series, Cook seemed unsure of how to approach the shorter game. His ability to find the boundary was encouraging; but his inability to get off strike shows he has much work to do in this form of the game, though he must not be discarded.

Matt Prior 6
Opening the batting, Prior displayed impressive shot selection and was not, as some had feared, too rash, showing he could adapt his game depending on circumstances.

Ian Bell 5
Bell made a crucial 56 in the first game, and certainly has the qualities to thrive in ODIs. His problem is not so much his relatively slow scoring, but his apparent incapability of scoring a truly decisive knock.

Kevin Pietersen 2
Five failures, including in the Twenty20, served to highlight England’s unhealthy reliance on his brilliant batting.

Owais Shah 8
Shah scored a superb 55* in the second Twenty20 game and, from tricky situations, scored at least 40 in each ODI. His unorthodoxy, flair and sheer class are certainly meriting of a regular spot in the shorter formats.

Paul Collingwood 4
Collingwood was disappointing all round, though there is no need to panic yet. He averaged only 17 with the bat; his bowling was below par; and his captaincy looked uncertain during the last two ODIs. Collingwood’s decision to move himself from backward point was understandable, but, in future, he really must return there, where he can make such a difference.

Michael Yardy 5
International class? Probably not – Yardy’s darts may have been accurate, albeit unthreatening, but his batting is patently incapable of worrying the opposition: he is far too easy to tie down.

Dimitri Mascarenhas 6
Mascarenhas went wicketless but went for a frugal 3.50 an over with his intelligent wicket-to-wicket bowling, displaying control the envy of the young quicks. However, he was picked as an all-rounder and barely scored a run in the ODIs.

Liam Plunkett 7
Recalled after leading Durham to the Friends Provident Trophy Final, Plunkett clearly has much work still to do but he was England’s best seamer, taking five wickets in 20 overs, though consistency is still palpably lacking.

James Anderson 5
Anderson seems to have become undroppable in England’s ODI side, though he is too often wayward. As a new-ball bowler, he is adequate; but he is cannon fodder later on (he went for 47 in 3 overs in the second ODI) and is certainly not the answer to England’s death-bowling problems.

Stuart Broad 5
Broad was outstanding in the first game, taking 3-20, only to get progressively worse in the last two games. There is no doubting the beanpole’s promise – but some more county cricket would not go amiss.

Monty Panesar 5
Panesar was mystifyingly dropped for the second game and under-used in the third. Though his ODI performances have flattered to deceive to date, the left-armer should be of great use as a middle-over container.

Ryan Sidebottom 5
Sidebottom took 2-56 in the nine overs he bowled before, a little unfairly, being dropped for the decider. However, his exceptional performance in the second Twenty20 game shows he could have the control and cunning England so dearly need in one-day cricket.

Another new ODI Era

Paul Collingwood has had very limited captaincy experience, but he is an experienced one-day international player, a fine team man and a thoroughly worthy choice to lead England’s latest ODI era.

Collingwood, when asked for the qualities he brings to the side, once remarked upon his “ginger hair”; his fighting qualities have never been in doubt. He is, some would say, the safe choice but, with Kevin Pietersen having said he did not want the job, he was virtually the only choice. Collingwood’s friendship with Michael Vaughan and the fact he clearly shares the same cricketing values means, insomuch as it is possible, having two captains should cause very few problems.

His introduction will be almost as gentle as they come against a West Indian side lacking consistency with the bat and penetration with the ball.

The road to ODI success will be a long one. England will hope their overhaul of the top three begins smoothly, with the contrasting gifts of Alastair Cook, Matt Prior, who should not think of himself as a ‘pinch-hitter’ but seek to play in the attacking, yet not reckless, manner of his opening Tests and either Ian Bell or the newcomer Jonathan Trott. Trott is an unlikely selection but offers top-order aggression, while it must be hoped the supremely gifted Owais Shah is given a fair chance to showcase his talents – ideally at five, although this is where Collingwood would like to bat.

In the bowling department, Ryan Sidebottom has the chance to do what Jon Lewis has yet to be given the chance to, despite his excellent record, and cement himself as a regular in the one-day side as a stock bowler, England’s Nathan Bracken. Dimitri Mascarenhas has the attributes to be a modern-day Mark Ealham, while the highly promising Stuart Broad has made an excellent earl impression and has the temperament to thrive in the international scene. Liam Plunkett and James Anderson, meanwhile, will be aiming simply for a semblance of consistency.

England Series Ratings

England eased to a 3-0 series victory against the West Indies, but the opposition, with a few honourable exceptions, were no better than a poor county side. How did England’s players rate?

Alastair Cook 8
Two relatively routine Test centuries to take his tally to six – and two 50s to boot – were reward for a series in which Cook grew in confidence and aggression; in doing so, he showed the time is right for him to have an extended run in the ODI side.

Andrew Strauss 3
While his partner flourished, Strauss’ winter struggles continued as both his technique and previously unflappable temperament came under question. Although he made a very good 77 in the last Test, he averaged at least 21 less than all the other members of the top seven and has much to do to prove he has not been found out at Test level.

Owais Shah 1
Shah played two somewhat chaotic innings at Lord’s and, if this immensely talented player is to thrive at Test level, it will probably not be at number three.

Michael Vaughan 8
It was as if Vaughan had never been away. His comeback hundred hardly rivalled those of Boycott in ’77 and Thorpe in 2003, but, nonetheless, it was a highly fluent knock which showcased the best of Vaughan. His captaincy was an important facet of England’s three consecutive victories though both that and his batting will face tougher tests against India.

Kevin Pietersen 9
Pietersen made two fabulous consecutive hundreds, including his Test best, 226, to illustrate he has the patience and temperament to make huge scores at Test level. Despite a series average of 66, there were still a few too many moments of impetuosity.

Paul Collingwood 7
Collingwood looked worryingly troubled on occasions, but he rode some extraordinary good fortune to make 111 at Lord’s before scoring a terrific 128 on his first Test at home to cement his place in the side. At Lord’s, he also bowled well to claim the wicket of Bravo.

Ian Bell 7
Bell scored a rather facile century in the First Test, but his excellent 97 at Old Trafford made in the trickiest batting conditions England faced all series, was testament to his increased maturity.

Matt Prior 8
Prior scored a century on debut and 75 in the second Test, but it was his innings of 40 and 62 in the last two Tests, made under far more testing circumstances, that were more indicative of his qualities as a Test batsmen, although a few dismissals were born of over-confidence. His keeping, while never matching the levels of Read, was agile and is clearly improving.

Liam Plunkett 3
Plunkett took 4-60 in the match at Headingley, but this was in spite of serial inaccuracy. His action, a victim of excess biomechanics, is fundamentally flawed and if England leave him playing for Durham for the remainder of the summer it will help him realise his rich potential.

Steve Harmison 5
Harmison often seemed incapable of hitting the square, let alone the stumps, but he deserves credit for working through his problems, with the help of Allan Donald, to bowl with much more venom in the last three innings of the series. His commitment cannot be doubted, either, after bowling a spell of 17 consecutive overs to help England to victory on his home ground.

Ryan Sidebottom 8
England’s big find of the series, the shaggy-haired Sidebottom claimed 16 wickets at under 20, although he went wicketless in West Indies’ last two second innings, and also biffed impressively. Left-armers able to swing the ball both ways, as Sidebottom, a beneficiary of many years on the county circuit, proved he can, are rare and he deserves the series against India to prove he can trouble the world’s best batsmen.

Matthew Hoggard 7
Hoggard was reassuring, and most impressive, in claiming 5/86 on his return on the final Test.

Monty Panesar 9
Panesar was England’s key man; there were many occasions during the first and third Tests when it seemed as if only he could take a wicket. Although he was perhaps a little defensive in the first three Tests, he bowled with more loop at Chester-le-Street to claim 5-46. Overall, he was fantastic, claiming 23 wickets at 18 to continue his development as a spinner able to both contain and to take top order wickets even in unhelpful conditions.

What next for topsy-turvy England?

Rarely can an England team have given such an uneven performance. Six players made it onto the Lords honours board, five are probably now wishing they hadn't bothered. As the team is selected for the next test today, what are the options ahead of the Selectors, and should they be held responsible for the previous selection?

The Successful six
Alistair Cook - He has started the season on form and scoring runs for fun. A brilliant century given the bowler friendly conditions in which he started, albeit against some pretty wayward bowling. Safe from the impact of the returning stars now and will look to make up for his disappointing Ashes series

Kevin Pietersen - Admitted to still being in One Day mode in the first innings, his second inning century was a masterclass in accelarating an innings. He seemed to slip back into One Day mode towards the end of the innings, getting out to an ugly reverse sweep. His "confrontation" with Chris Gayle was another highlight!

Paul Collingwood - They say there's no such thing as a bad century, but this got pretty close to it. Being dropped twice is one thing. The fact that they were both absolute sitters is another. He should also have been given out early in the innings, when umpire Rauf gave his one bad decision of the game. Still, if you're given a chance, then you have to capitalise, and he did that. One blinding catch in the slips and probably England's best seam bowler.

Ian Bell - Another match in England and another ton. That's four in the last five home games, the missing match being the abandoned game against Pakistan. As steady and chanceless as always, he allowed Prior to play his shots, while he just calmly moved along. He is still touted as the one to make way should Flintoff come back.

Matt Prior - What a debut! The batting was brutal, although the other batsmen had taken the pressure off somewhat. In particular, 21 off 9 balls int he second innings gave some impetus that only hte weather could take away. However, it was the keeping that was most impressive. Certainly tested by Harmison and Plunkett, he was tidy and in the end unlucky to concede the four byes that he did, as Monty fired one down the leg side and through the rough. My Man of the Match, and we won't be talking about the wicket-keeping position again for a little while.

Monty Panesar - His best bowling figures, thanks largely to some decent umpiring and wonderful control rather than outrageous turn. It's a good job he showed up otherwise the West Indies innings could have gone on until Christmas.

The Flawed Five
Andrew Strauss - This is beginning to get worrying for Strauss. Two starts and two loose shots while nicely set. This started in the winter, with freak dismissals and unfortunate umpiring decisions. However, it is now becoming a habit and he needs a big score and soon.

Owais Shah - Back to county crisket for a bit I fear. He didn't look comfortable in either of his brief innings, one glorious cover drive apart, despite having played at Lords all his life. He should now be left out to accomodate Michael Vaughan. He'll be back, hopefully via the One Day team where he should cement his place and gain some confidence at International cricket.

Matthew Hoggard - If ever we needed a fit firing Hoggy, this was the game. Unfortuantely injured after ten overs and that was it. The world's best bowler at left handers, if he'd have stayed fit, the chances of the West Indies avoiding the follow on would have been greatly reduced.

Liam Plunkett - In his defence, he's probably not played at Lords much and he seemed to struggle with the slope. Howeve, for someone who periodically shows himself to be an International class bowler, this was another huge step backwards. England have to understand what they need from him. Plunkett needs to understand discipline.

Steve Harmison - The top wicket taker in county cricket this season, bowling at a place where he takes wickets regularly (Lords was his only Five-fer in the Ashes series 2005) against the team that he made his reputation. What could possibly go wrong? And who could blame the selectors for picking him? Unfortunately, pretty much everything and everyone. He doesn't do himself any favours either by claiming he "has nothing to prove" or that he was pretty pleased with the way he bowled on Saturday. Hoggard's injury could give Harmison and Plunkett another chance, but the selectors must be praying that Simon Jones, Stuart Broad and Freddie are available sooner rather than later.

The second test
Michael Vaughan should rightly return as captain. He looked in pretty good nick for Yorkshire against Hampshire before breaking his finger and Owais Shah's scratchy performance shouldn't give the selectors a head-ache.

Andrew Flintoff should only return if able to replace a bowler. Paul Collingwood's performance with the ball shows that he can be trusted in the fifth bowler role and Flintoff's batting of late shows that he can only be seen as a bowler who can bat rather than the true all-rounder he was a couple of years ago. If he is fit, he would replace Plunkett in my team. Harmison survives on the basis of his county form this season, but he is certainly drinking in the last chance saloon.

James Anderson should come in as a direct replacement for Matthew Hoggard. He bowled well with little support in the World Cup and deserves another chance.

Championship Tails – Week 1

While England finally show some decent form in the World Cup, albeit a match too late, the domestic season has got off to a bang. In unusually warm weather for the start of the season, there were runs galore and some highly impressive performances.

Division 1
Parochial, I know, but I’m going to start with Yorkshire’s win over Surrey. Runs galore in the first three innings, with Rudolph, Bresnan, Gillespie, Newman, Ramprakash (of course!) and White all hitting tons. However, Yorkshire’s bowling was the difference, with Rashid, Gough and Hoggard proving too much for Surrey to handle and the Tykes ran out comfortable winners.

Sussex also took maximum points as Mushtaq started where he left off last season with ten wickets against Kent. The Sussex batting relied heavily on Richard Montgomerie’s 175, with Naved and Kirtley also chipping in with useful 50s.

The other winners were Durham, where Steve Harmison took eight wickets as Worcester were put to the sword. Hundreds for Di Venuto in the first innings and Blenkenstein in the second, whereas the Worcester batting was disappointing, with only Jacques showing much resistance.

The match between Warwickshire and Lancashire ended in a draw. Warwicks started on top, with Loudon and Troughton scoring hundreds, Sutton doing the same in reply as Lancs were 150 runs behind on first innings. Tight bowing in the Warwicks second inning meant that the didn’t leave enough time to worry Lance, for whom Mal Loye hit a hundred as the match petered out.

Division 2
Notts were the only winners, against Leicestershire, on the back of a great all round bowling performance and centuries for Gallian and Hussey. Only Ackerman offered much resistance as Notts got home by nine wickets.

Runs galore at Taunton, with Middlesex declaring on 600 for 4 (hundreds for Shah, Godleman and Nash). Somerset then made 850 for 7 (another triple hundred for Langer, with tons for Hildeth, White and Trego). Middlesex saw the game out with little fuss (and a hundred for Ed Smith). It could be a hard year for the Somerset bowlers at home, for whom Andy Caddick has signed a contract extension – he may be regretting that if they don’t get a bit more life into the pitch.

A high scoring draw at Chelmsford too, where Derbyshire were on top for most of the game. Hundreds for Harvey, Pipe and Cook, but the declaration didn’t leave enough time for a result and Essex secured a comfortable draw.

England Players
With the World Cup on, there are a few England contenders on show.

On the batting side, Ali Cook hit another century for Essex, while Owais Shah scored had two good innings, 193 and 72 not out on a batsman’s paradise at Taunton. Relatively speaking, Marcus Trescothick should be disappointed in “only” getting 70.


On the wicket-keeping side, Chris Read was run out in the 30s in his only innings, gaining ground on Matt Prior, who scored 14 and Steve Davies who got 14 and 6, but losing out to James Foster who scored 61. Geraint Jones (if he is still a contender) was out in single figures in both innings.

The bowling does look promising, with Hoggard and Harmison both bowling aggressively and getting wickets. Coming on the back off his performance in the Sussex-MCC match, stories about the demise of Steve Harmison may have been premature.

Player of the Week
Sorry, but it’s a Yorkie. Some great batting performances this week, but the award goes to an all-round performance. For scoring 86 (in a stand of 190 with Jacques Rudolph) and taking seven wickets, my first player of the week is Adil Rashid.

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.

Time for a breather

Thursday was the day for cricketing news. The biggest news of course was that Shane Warne is retiring from international cricket following this Ashes series. Only four more times will us England fans sit there staring despairingly at our television sets as the chief magician bamboozles our batting line up.

My initial reaction was one of relief, relief that this will no longer happen and also that he plans to play on for Hampshire for a further two years. However, then I began to wonder, is international cricket about to become a whole lot more boring and the answer is undoubtedly yes. Those nail biting moments emanating from the pressure cooker environment which Warne creates are not going to be replicated again during my generation I fear. He has been the best and likely will be forever.

Thursday also brought the announcement that Stephen Harmison was retiring from One Day Internationals, just three months before the 2007 World Cup starts in the Caribbean, a region in which Harmison enjoyed his best form. This is a bold and justifiable decision by Harmison who undoubtedly recognises that he needs to play more first class cricket for his county if he is to maintain his place in England’s test side.

The Durham pace man has left England in a spot of bother though with such a major tournament so near. It is unlikely that he would have been selected for the World Cup squad anyway based on current form, but had he bowed out a few months earlier England could have conducted a more thorough search for a replacement. Now though, time is of the essence, which may have counted against Stuart Broad and his lack of experience. Whether this is the correct decision remains to be seen.

The third piece of news that broke on Thursday was of course the announcement of England’s ODI squad for the forthcoming series against Australia and New Zealand. The absence of Broad is a disappointment. However, much to my pleasant surprise I actually quite like the look of the bowling, if England select the correct five. Andrew Flintoff is a given. Jamie Dalrymple and James Anderson have probably also done enough to be in the side.

Following the dismal performance at the Champions Trophy I argued that a new approach was needed, that England needed to play two spinners in the Caribbean and that they had to play Monty Panesar. Michael Yardy looked troubled with the bat and average with the ball in his handful of appearances in an England shirt. If England are to play two spinners, one must be a wicket taker and Monty is certainly that. Four parts of the jigsaw are now in place.

Finally, I also argued that Chris Tremlett should be in the side. Surprisingly he now gets his chance following a year of troublesome injuries. However, he must play. Tremlett spent a lot of time working on the mental side of his game with Warne over the past two years and he has emerged a more threatening bowler. He will not let England down and has good control unlike Sajid Mahmood. He can also bat to a reasonable standard. Perhaps Broad could have had more success than Anderson in the Caribbean and on the current Australian pitches, but bringing in three new bowlers would have been a big change with the World Cup so near.

Ultimately, Anderson is a seasoned campaigner and knows the one day game well. Jon Lewis performed fantastically in England, but it remains to be seen whether he is up to standard abroad. Mahmood still needs more county cricket to develop, whilst Plunkett has not played for nearly two thirds of a year. In summary then I am happy with the bowling, but would have campaigned for Broad’s inclusion in the squad, along with Simon Jones when fit, for Plunkett and Mahmood.

To the batting now and I am also reasonably satisfied. Michael Vaughan will hopefully open and bring a lot to the game with his captaincy, though England must be certain of his fitness. He should though retire from ODI’s after the World Cup to prolong his Test career. I suspect that had Trescothick been fit Vaughan may have done so already. With Vaughan back there is hopefully a shot maker in the top three, with Strauss and Bell looking to build their innings more.

England will though miss the power of Trescothick and may regret not looking at players such as Owais Shah and Mal Loye. Kevin Pietersen, Paul Collingwood and Flintoff are givens now, along with Jamie Dalrymple in England’s middle order, but they must be played in that order. That means no more experimenting with Flintoff at three. He is needed for the last ten to fifteen overs. Collingwood and Pietersen are the best players of spin, hence their positioning in the middle order, whilst Bell and Strauss are the most likely innings builders at the top.

Vaughan must though play some shots to get England off to a quick start. That is likely to be the key position. Ed Joyce is a quality player but offers little different to Alastair Cook, who has performed well when involved. England are probably a bowler heavy and a batsman light, which indicates their doubts concerning the bowling attack at the moment. They may well rue the omission of an aggressive top order player though. However, all in all I am sounding reasonably happy so far.

Now we turn to the wicket keeping situation. This completely baffles me. Why England have turned back to a thirty-six year old really is beyond me. Paul Nixon is a good one day player and especially proficient at Twenty20 cricket. However, having named Chris Read as the number one wicket keeper I fail to see the point in calling up a short term player as reserve.

This was the perfect opportunity for the England management to take a look at the two academy keepers, Matthew Prior and Steven Davies. They have not done so and this is my main criticism, unless of course they plan to usurpe Read once more and play Nixon at the World Cup, which would still be a backward step. Batting at number eight though, England can afford to select the best glove man, whoever that may be.

In conclusion, England have made a better fist of selecting a competitive one day squad on this occasion. Gone are the likes of Vikram Solanki, Rikki Clarke and Michael Yardy. However, it remains to be seen whether or not they select the right eleven to take to the field and then play them in the best order. By selecting the best spinner though England have finally sent a message. They are going to look to be more positive in their one day cricket and about time too.

Andrew Strauss (vc)
Michael Vaughan (c) (Marcus Trescothick/ Mal Loye/ Owais Shah)
Ian Bell
Kevin Pietersen
Paul Collingwood
Andrew Flintoff
Jamie Dalrymple
Chris Read/ Paul Nixon (wk) (Matthew Prior)
Chris Tremlett
Monty Panesar
James Anderson (Stuart Broad)


Chris Pallett

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.

Does 2009 start here?

Well that's just great isn't it?

For the 1,000s of us packing our shorts and suncream, ready to jet off this week to the other side of the world, the scoreline we have dreaded has come about. 3-0 down with 2 to play.

Little to play for except pride and a pathetic rebuttal of the Aussie taunts from the Immigration Official and the girl in the sandwich bar.

So what does the future hold, both for Melbourne and Sydney, and for the next few years?

Before that, let's get one thing straight, this Australian side is one of the finest Test teams ever, and in Warne, McGrath and Ponting, they really do have 3 of the all time greats. One day, we will all look back and be proud to say we saw them play.

But what of England?

Let's start with the positives. Cook looks as though he's there for the long haul. Bell is a much better player for the experience of the last year. Pietersen is more than the show pony many feared he was. Collingwood won't let anyone down. Hoggard is a captain's dream with the new ball. Panesar has justified his popular choice as first choice spinner. And well...

Strauss holds his own for now on the basis of some lousy decisions received. Harmison will surely come again.

The negatives? By common consent, the nonsense of Geraint Jones being picked on the basis of being a No.7 batsman is over. Chris Read take your chance. If you don't Jamie Foster will. It's also goodbye and thanks to Ashley Giles.

Also looking over their shoulders will be Mahmood and Anderson, with Plunkett also having much to prove.

Perhaps then the 4th and 5th Tests can form the start of what we may see in 2009 at Edgbaston, Lord's, Sophia Gardens, Headingley and the Oval.

Firstly, if Michael Vaughan is fit, and he's told Boycott he is, what are we waiting for? Either he's our captain or not. Surely now is the time for him to come back. After all, he's there with the squad.

Secondly, if Flintoff's ankle is "f'd" as he reportedly said to a journalist, then get him home and sorted. If he needs a year out, so be it. He is no captain anyway, and if Vaughan isn't quite ready, then Strauss can pick up from where he left off in the summer.

Thirdly, we are simply a batsman light and a bowler top heavy. We have capable 'filler in' bowlers for the odd over before lunch and tea in Pietersen (underrated), Bell and Collingwood.

Basically, what I am saying is that we need to think about who's in the plan and who's not.

I have a vision of team for Ashes 2009 which is like this:

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan (we hope)
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Read
Panesar
Hoggard
Broad.

Clearly, circumstances will dictate whether Harmison lasts the pace, whether Simon Jones will makes it back, and if Trescothick is seen again (I doubt it). Also, don't forget that we won't see McGrath over here again nor Mr Warne (or will we?)

But for now, some of us have Boxing Day to contend with, and, before then, that blasted Immigration Official.

Lack of batting experience telling

Post-mortem (1): England's batsmen

In 2005, Marcus Trescothick and Andrew Strauss consistently got the innings of to a fine start, invariably attacking from the off. A top three consisting of Strauss, Cook and Bell were always going to seek to give England the advantage by batting time; but they have palpably failed to do that. Until their sixth innings of the series, England were always 50-2, or worse. As a result, the attacking axis at five, six and seven regularly came in with England struggling. Kevin Pietersen has majestically risen to the task, but Andrew Flintoff has seemed overburdened and Geraint Jones feeble.

Alistair Cook is a player of palpable quality, but he inevitably found an Ashes tour at 21 highly-challenging; however, his 116 at the WACA proves his worth and he will only improve. Andrew Strauss, thanks to some injudicious strokeplay and a trio of poor umpiring decisions, has failed to pass 50, although he has always appeared in fine form. Ian Bell has hit three fifties, displaying an increasing maturity and confidence, especially against Shane Warne, though his wait for an Ashes hundred continues.

Of 18 completed innings, England’s top three have only twice passed 60. Experience of Australian conditions, be it in the shape of the stylish batsmanship of Michael Vaughan, the technical class of Mark Ramprakash or the resilient qualities of Mark Butcher, has been badly missing; however, I do not think Trescothick's withdrawal was hugely significant. Given the ineffectualness of England’s fifth bowler, hindsight tells us that one of Butcher or Ramprakash should have played at three, Bell should have been moved to six, where he was so excellent against Pakistan, and Flintoff should have played at seven.

Paul Collingwood has displayed fighting qualities reminiscent of Butcher, and exceeded all expectations in making 200 at Adelaide. Nonetheless, the suspicion remains that the finest player, Pietersen, should be allowed to bat at four. Many were worried Pietersen would be unable to control his impetuosity, and would regularly be caught trying to hit sixes on the huge Australian outfields; instead, he has batted with wonderfully maturity and got the better of Warne and especially McGrath.

At six, Flintoff’s batting has been characterised by a lack of coherent thinking; until his second innings at the WACA, he was too tentative but was still dismissed to rash shots; it seems the captaincy has overwhelmed him. There was a time when he and Pietersen were considered roughly equal as batsmen; while Pietersen is fulfilling his talent, it touches the confines of lunacy to suggest Flintoff would even be considered as a batsman only – which proves he should not bat in the top six. His friend Jones has been reasonable with the gloves, but calamitous with the bat. He seems incapable of playing long, disciplined innings, and he should not be selected for England again.

There are a number of positives to take from England’s batting endeavours – Pietersen’s brilliance, Collingwood’s feistiness and genuine fight and application from Cook and Bell on occasions. Yet, they suffered one cataclysmic collapse in each Test and, from six onwards, the resistance was negligible. Duncan Fletcher, then, was right to be concerned about England’s tail. So why did he select non-bowling number eights Giles and Mahmood ahead of a sixth specialist batsman?