Test Team of the 2000s

As the 2000s come to a close, talk of the imminent death of Test cricket is rife. Yet the decade has seen Test cricket taken to a new level: gung-ho openers, ferocious lower-order hitting, reverse swing and arguably the two greatest spin bowlers of all time have ensured there has been plenty for fans to savour.

Here is a composite XI of all those who played Tests in the 2000s. All statistics are for the decade only, not the players’ careers. The five Australian faces are reward for a decade in which, bar the odd blip, they have taken the game to new heights.

Matthew Hayden (96 Tests in 2000s, 8364 runs @ 52.93)
Loathed by many as a caricature of the worst of Australians, Hayden was a brute of an opening batsman. His muscular hitting terrified many an opening bowler, as he amassed 29 centuries over the decade. Whether waltzing down the pitch to Shaun Pollock or slog-sweeping his way to 549 runs in three Tests in India in 2001, Hayden could be relied on to score quickly with his bludgeoning bat. On the rare occasions when he was tamed, as in England in 2005, Australia’s juggernaut acquired hitherto hidden vulnerability.

Virender Sehwag (72 Tests, 6248 runs @ 52.50)
You thought Hayden was scary? His strike-rate of 60 looks sedate when set against Sehwag’s scarcely credible 80. There is no one quite like Sehwag: the hand-eye co-ordination; the blistering bat-speed; the obliviousness to pressure, the opposition and the match situation. Yet, for all that, is not Sehwag’s most impressive attribute his concentration span? He has redefined the art of 'going big', with four 250+ scores, three at over a run-a-ball, in the decade. And he has done it regularly against the best, averaging 51 against Australia. To those who say he thrives only in good batting conditions, Sehwag’s 201*, out of 329, against Mendis and Murali in Sri Lanka was a devastating riposte.

Ricky Ponting (106 Tests, 9389 runs @ 58.68)
Over the decade, there has been no wicket more sought-after than Ponting, who has scored more Test runs and centuries than anyone else. Whilst seemingly eschewing risk, he has scored his runs at a
strike-rate of 62 over the decade, dominating bowling attacks and keeping alive the tradition that a side’s best batsman and captain should occupy the pivotal spot. Ponting’s sheer single-mindedness was epitomised by 576 runs at 82.28 in the 2006/07 Ashes whitewash.

Brian Lara (66 Tests, 6380 runs @ 54.06)
Perhaps perceived more as a man of the 1990s, Lara in fact scored 21 of his 34 Test centuries in the 2000s. Throughout, that x-factor, illustrated by his idiosyncratic high back-lift and scything of bowling through the offside, remained: Lara was a man who consistently demonstrated how thrilling the art of batsmanship could be. Few performances of the modern era can match Lara’s 688 runs in three matches in Sri Lanka in 2001 – though, typically, West Indies still lost every match. There was also the little matter of his 400* against England saw him, astonishingly, reclaim the Test record score.

Rahul Dravid (103 Tests, 8558 runs @ 54.85)
Few nicknames are as appropriate as the one that has been attributed to Dravid – simply ‘The Wall’. Sachin Tendulkar is the great icon of the Indian game, but it is Dravid who has been the key batsman in their crucial victories, displaying mastery of batting’s technical challenges especially when standing out away from home. His 305 runs, for once out, to defeat Australia at Adelaide in 2003 was testament to his mental fortitude. Dravid’s finely-crafted masterpieces are a common thread linking the seminal Indian victories of the 2000s: from Headingley, to Rawalpindi and Kandy via Kingston, Perth and, of course, Adelaide in 2003, when he scored 305 runs for once out.

Jacques Kallis (100 Tests, 8552 runs at 58.97; 202 wickets @ 31.70)
Hailed by Kevin Pietersen as “the greatest cricketer ever”, Kallis’s averages for the decade - 58 with the bat, and 31 with the ball – are extraordinary, especially when considering he played 100 Tests in the 2000s. His batting is perhaps more science than art, but his steady and unobtrusive accumulation has led many a captain to despair. And, as Kallis has proved in recent times, he does have another gear. He is also the consummate fourth seamer; when occasions have allowed, as in his 6/54 at Headingley in 2003, his swing has proved devastating.

Adam Gilchrist (91 Tests, 5130 runs @ 46.63, wicket-keeper)
Gilchrist’s demoralising assaults from number seven will, for many, be the standout memory of Test cricket in the 2000s. Whether he arrived at the crease at 100/5 or 300/5, his approach was the same: audacious, clean hitting that would seize the game’s initiative, most stunningly with a 57-ball century against England in 2006. As Gideon Haigh wrote, “Gilchrist seemed to invent a new cricket variant in which, while everyone else carried on as usual, he thrashed about him with apparent impunity.”

Andrew Flintoff (74 Tests, 3695 runs @ 32.69; 220 wickets @ 32.38)
No one could conceivably claim Andrew Flintoff was a superior cricketer to Shaun Pollock. So why is he in this side over Pollock? With McGrath and Kallis parsimony personified, Flintoff can finally be unleashed as an impact bowler in short spells – like his series changing over at Edgbaston in 2005 - rather than forced into the containing role. When at his peak, Flintoff performed outstandingly in all three disciplines in the Caribbean, South Africa and India – and, of course, his 2005 Ashes performance was one of the finest all-round series enjoyed by any cricketer this decade. He was not only vital for what he himself achieved on the pitch, but the galvanising affect his deeds had on others.

Shane Warne (65 Tests, 357 wickets @ 25.17, captain)
Warne v Muralitharan has been the subject of so many pub debates over the years. And, while Murali’s statistics in the 2000s are marginally superior, he admitted that Warne “had a better cricketing brain than me.” Through sheer force of personality, the Australian could change the course of games on even the least helpful of surfaces. And, so often the symbol of the all-conquering Australian machine, his Herculean efforts in defeat in the 2005 Ashes – 40 wickets and 249 runs in five Tests – provided indisputable proof of his enduring greatness. Widely regarded as possessing the best cricketing nous of anyone who never captained his country in a Test, Warne will have the honour of leading this side out.

Dale Steyn (33 Tests, 170 wickets @ 23.70)
In an era when express pace seemed to be dying a sad death, Steyn has emerged to revive it. Bowling at speeds in excess of 90mph, he has created carnage with his devilish late swing with new and old ball alike. His yorker and bouncer alike have the capacity to destroy, and he was crucial in South Africa’s success against Australia in 2008/09, claiming 34 scalps in six Tests, including ten wickets in the famous MCG win. A more subtle and canny bowler than many of express pace, Steyn was also exceptional in India.

Glenn McGrath (66 Tests, 297 wickets @ 20.53)
It all seemed so simple, didn’t it? Plod up to the wicket, bowling with nip but some way short of express pace, hit a good line and length and perhaps extract a little movement. The most remarkable of unremarkable bowlers, McGrath could be relied upon to raise his game against the opposition’s star, and shared some memorable duels with Messrs Tendulkar and Lara. When there was a little in the pitch, as when he took 8/24 against Pakistan at Perth, McGrath was simply without peer.

With apologies to Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Shaun Pollock, Dan Vettori and Muttiah Muralitharan.

All statistics are based on Tests played from 1st January 2000 to 25th December 2009.

Flintoff muddies the selectorial waters

It's universally acknowledged that Andrew Flintoff cannot be replaced without weakening either the bowling or the batting. It's less universally acknowledged that Flintoff cannot be replaced without strengthening either the bowling or the batting.

So should England really stick with him, especially as there must be severe doubts over his capacity to withstand back-to-back Test matches?

If Flintoff plays as one of five bowlers, he leaves the batting looking a little thin. Furthermore, to compensate for this, England are forced into playing other non-specialists. Stuart Broad, for all his promise, owes a large part of his continued selection down to his run-making ability. But is he really a more threatening option than either Graham Onions or Steve Harmison?

Without Flintoff, there is no need for any compromisng. England would be free to play their best six batsman, leave Matt Prior as an excellent, counter-attacking number seven and select their best four bowlers without worrying about the runs they offer (given that Graeme Swann is one of them).

Broad will surely have a fine England career but a Test bowling average of 40 is simply not good enough for an opening bowler. Without Flintoff, his selection would depend entirely on whether England considered him one of their top three quicks.

Given their apparent refusal to countenance batting changes (Ravi Bopara should be batting at six, not three) England's side for Lord's could look like this:

Strauss
Cook
Bopara
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Prior
Swann
Anderson
Onions
Harmison

Ian Bell is a lucky man indeed - he failed twice against Australia for the Lions and his suppossed run-scoring rehabilitation this season amounts to nothing more than two centuries at Taunton.

It would never happen, of course, but England could do much worse than select a bona fida number 3 averaging 90 this season. If they selected Ramprakash (whose fielding still puts Cook's and Strauss's to shame) the batting order would acquire a much better balance. His experience would be welcome in the most important position in the batting order, where Bopara appears more than a little vulnerable. He could then move back to number six, a more suitable position for a man of his experience in an Ashes series.

More realistically, England could do a lot worse than select a third opener, the simplest answer to the number three conundrum. Stephen Moore endured a rough start to the season but two recent hundreds, including against Australia, suggest he could be the man. Moore could open with Strauss, creating a left-right opening partnership and allowing Cook to bat at three, a position he occupied with great success in 2006.

England: Ashes ladder

Three months after my previous England Ashes ladder, what's changed? England have lost a Test series they were expected to win, won an ODI series when their tour threatened to go off the rails, and are set to appoint Andy Flower as their new coach. So who's up and who's down from three months ago?


1) Andrew Strauss (-)
His position could hardly be more secure.

2) Alastair Cook (+1)
Finally ended his century drought to confirm his status as an automatic selection.

3) Kevin Pietersen (+1)
Has been well below his best of late but, providing his head is in the right place, absolutely will play.

4) James Anderson (+7)
A huge winner from the West Indies tour: advanced from being out of the side to being England's premier quick bowler, bowling with immense skill with new and old ball alike.

5) Stuart Broad (+1)
Continues to demonstrate the skill and, especially, the temperament to relish an Ashes challenge, even if England would ideally like him to be their number eight and fourth seamer.

6) Paul Collingwood (+1)
A fine tour of the West Indies, aided by the struggles of Bell and Shah, has made Collingwood a certain starter.

7) Andrew Flintoff (-5)
A disappointing Test series in the West Indies - and, more importantly, more injury worries. However, if fit, England couldn't leave out their 'talismanic' all-rounder? Or could they?

8) Matt Prior (-3)
Appears unfortunate to slip three places after batting magnificiently in the Test series in the West Indies. However, his keeping continues to be a source of great concern. And, if Flintoff is not in the side and England only select four bowlers, the need to hang onto every chance may supersede the extra runs Prior could bring. Still, would have to do a lot wrong in the next three months.

9) Graeme Swann (-)
Swann was superb in the West Indies, providing a fine example of the classical off-spinners' craft. He fully deserves his chance against Australia, particularly given their dislike for off-spinners.

10) Steve Harmison (-2)
Endured a poor tour of the West Indies - but his replacement Amjad Khan was even more disappointing. If he can start the season well, may yet get another chance against Australia.

11) Michael Vaughan (+5)
His reputation has increased hugely of late other contenders have struggled while he has been in the runs for Yorkshire - albeit in Dubai. All the signs indicate England would like him to bat at three (or why not open?) in the Ashes, providing he can show some semblance of form in the meantime.

12) Monty Panesar (+1)
Displayed some increased variations when recalled for the final Test in the West Indies, Panesar is near-certain to feature in the Ashes. But that may well be as England's second-choice spinner, providing they can recognise that is one area in which they may just enjoy supremacy over Australia.

13) Owais Shah (-1)
Given his long-overdue chance, Shah struggled. But he may yet get another two Tests against the West Indies to show he has the technique and temperament to bat at number three. But would England trust him in an Ashes campaign?

14) Ravi Bopara (+6)
A fine century in his only Test innings of the winter will have only boosted his chances, despite mediocre ODI returns. However, would England really be happy to pick such an inexperienced player to bat at number three - especially one who appears the happiest of hookers?

15) Ryan Sidebottom (-)
Played when patently unfit in the Carribean and it would be of little surprise if he never played international cricket again.

16) Adil Rashid (+1)
Were England not impressed with what they saw in the West Indies? How else to explain his non-selection over Gareth Batty? But if England, as they should, prepare turning tracks for the Aussies then he could feature as a secret weapon.

17) Tim Ambrose (+2)
Scored a fluent 76* in his only innings on tour, while his keeping was of a higher calibre than Prior's. So if England only play four bowlers, he could have a chance of selection, even if few would really fancy his chances of scoring big against Australia given his struggles against South Africa.

18) Mark Davies (N/A)
Could be coming good at just the right time, having had a strong tour with the England Lions in New Zealand. He has been afflicted by injuries throughout his career, but at 28 he should be in the form of his life. And his statistics: 232 wickets at 21 in first-class cricket are mindbogglingly good.

19) Sajid Mahmood (N/A)
Yes, yes. But Mahmood has all the raw attributes to be a destructive wicket-taker at international level. And, given how Harmison and Khan performed in the West Indies, he has an outside chance of featuring.

20) Simon Jones (-6)
Injured again. But if he could only put together a handful of impressive performances, temptation would run high.

21) Ian Bell (-11)
Dropped after the First Test debacle and not seen since. Bell will play again for England but probably not until this summer has passed.

22) Robert Key (-1)
Captain of the England Lions, and perhaps England in the World Twenty20 too, Key is a character who inspires respect. But competition for the number three spot is fierce.

23) Amjad Khan (-5)
Did himself no favours in the West Indies with shoddy fielding and wayward bowling.

24) Kabir Ali (-2)
If the England side was selected on county form from the last two seasons, Ali would be in. As it is, he isn't even deemed good enough for the Lions.

25) Matthew Hoggard (-2)
He's still hoping. But few are joining him.

Bubbling under
Batsmen: Joe Denly, Samit Patel, Eoin Morgan, Mark Ramprakash
Keepers: James Foster, Steven Davies
Bowlers: Darren Pattinson, Liam Plunkett, Chris Tremlett

What are your views on this ladder and the makeup of the England side?

Bowling deficiencies undermines magnificent Strauss

England produced a performance of tremendous resilience, but ultimately they simply weren’t good enough. In the final analysis, the twin failures of Ian Bell, Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff were vital. But what was even more so was a lack of bowling penetration.

Monty Panesar has been under considerable pressure of late, and fourth innings figures of 0-105 will only reinforce this. Patently, he has failed to develop since his debut in India almost three years ago, as also illustrated by him being dropped from the one-day side. His record remains very respectable, but it has been boosted by relatively easy pickings against West Indies and New Zealand. And in seven Tests in the sub-continent, he averages close to 60, showing an inability to thrive when denied the bouncy pitches he benefits from in England.

If he struggles in the next Test, he will be under considerable pressure for his place, especially if he is out-bowled by Graeme Swann once more. On debut, Swann looked to attack far more than Panesar, and was unfortunate not to claim more than four wickets. If Swann can score runs at number eight in the next Test, Panesar’s deficiencies in this department will also count against him.

Andrew Flintoff was skilful and wholehearted as ever, but unable to extract much reverse-swing in the fourth innings. India were able to play him out, and score rapidly off James Anderson and Steve Harmison. Anderson is woefully short of confidence, and should be dropped for the next game. Amjad Khan, with more ability to generate reverse-swing, would be worth a gamble.

With the bat, Andrew Strauss was magnificent. So often the subject of criticism on this blog, Strauss proved his quality with two masterful centuries. Displaying solid defence and the ability to manoeuvre the ball into gaps, especially off the back foot, Strauss arguably enjoyed the best game of any English batsman since Alec Stewart’s epic pair of hundreds in Bridgetown 14 years ago. Paul Collingwood has looked so out of form for so much of the last twelve months, and yet has now managed two centuries in three games.

The failings of Pietersen and Flintoff were disappointing, displaying rash shot selection and a lack of subtlety. But one would hardly be surprised if Pietersen responded with a century next match. It was, however, odd that he did not so much as bowl an over of Collingwood or Ian Bell’s medium-pace, when the rest of the attack so clearly lacked penetration.

More worrying is Bell. His ‘breakthrough’ innings – 199 against South Africa – now feels an age away, as he has returned to his old penchant for infuriating. England would be wrong to continue to ignore Owais Shah, superb in the ODI series and scorer of 88 and 38 in his only previous Test in India. He must have greeted Collingwood’s century with more than a little frustration. After three-and-a-half-days England were in an excellent position to wrap up what would have been a phenomenal win.

A great deal of credit must be paid to the magisterial, albeit immensely contrasting, innings of Sehwag and Tendulkar. If they are to earn a share of this ludicrously short series, England need their wicket-taking threat to extend beyond merely Flintoff and Swann. The bottom line, alas, is England performed admirably – and it is worth remembering that they got closer to victory than Australia managed a few months ago - but were simply beaten, and beaten well, by a superior side.

Playing a different game

India’s series-clinching defeat of England was in doubt for large portions of England’s run-chase, as Owais Shah and Andrew Flintoff valiantly hauled England back into contention. But had they seen England home it would have concealed a desperate lack of flexibility in the side’s batting – and perhaps most fundamentally, a lack of collective skill.

The decision to open with Bell and Bopara, as if it was a 50-over chase rather than a 22-over one, betrayed a complete inability of England’s management to think on their feet. Bell has shown signs of being a good one-day opener, playing second fiddle, but simply lacks the explosive hitting crucial in a match that was virtually a Twenty20.

England needed to show intent from ball one to chase down the target of 198. Instead, they mustered a paltry 21 from their first six Powerplay overs, a familiar tale. They should have done everything to ensure their best players faced as many balls as possible – obvious, perhaps, but they palpably failed to do so. Opening with Shah, alongside Bopara, and having Pietersen at three and Flintoff at four would have showed a flexibility that would have worried India. Bell’s 12 runs from 15 balls hardly constituted the flying start England needed.

Owais Shah played an exceptional innings, displaying his powerful straight-hitting and unorthodoxy: finally, he has cemented his role in the one-day side, though his best position remains the subject of conjecture. Yet had he taken England home it would only have concealed their pitiful efforts at the start and end of the innings, at their complete inability to adapt to the demands of the situation. Put simply, they appeared to be playing a different game from India, lacking firepower at the start and end of the innings and, save for Shah, Flintoff and Pietersen, the ability to hit sixes.

This side below may be the best England can muster in Indian conditions in 50-over games, although it probably still isn’t good enough:
Bell
Bopara
Pietersen
Shah
Flintoff
Collingwood
Prior
Mascharenhas
Swann
Broad
Harmison (given that Sidebottom is injured)

King Kev's bright new era

Here is how England's players rated in their 4-0 win over South Africa:

Ian Bell 6.5
His superb innings in the third game showed he has the ability to pierce the infield, and the game to be a very successful ODI opener. Still, the instances of a bewildering inability to assert himself - his 69-ball 35 being a case in point - remain too frequent.
Matt Prior 8
Thirteen catches - several of them exceptional - suggested an improved wicket-keeper, although the real challenge will come in Tests, when reserves of stamina and levels of skill are tested to the limit. He batted with intent and class at the top of the order, scoring at a strike-rate of 93, even if some dismissals were a little too reminiscent of Prior's last spell in the one-day side.
Owais Shah 7
Given the opportunity to bat in his county position of number three, Shah improved as the series wore on. His 44* in the fourth game was testament to what a fine limited-overs player he is, though it remains to be seen what is ultimately his best position. Credit must also be given for the improvements in his fielding, which will help his Test claims.
Kevin Pietersen 9
Moving back down to number four, where he is most comfortable, Pietersen did not bat like a man weighed down by responsibility. With his captaincy seeming inspired, and credited with reinvigorating Flintoff and Harmison, and his bowling crucial in the first game, journalists were incapable of writing a piece without reference to his "golden touch". And, so far, no one can argue.
Andrew Flintoff 10
After a run of dire batting form, the decision to promote Flintoff to five attracted some surprise. But it has always been his favourite position, for it allows him the time to play himself in; indeed, he has never been particularly adept at coming in during the slog overs. Powerful, destructive and yet calculated, Flintoff's batting looked back to his '04 ODI vintage. Add 10 wickets at less than 13 to his 187 runs for once out, and no one could argue that this was Flintoff's best ever one-day series. There is still a fear he unbalances the Test side, but in ODIs no such fears exist.
Ravi Bopara 4
His series amounted to two overs for 11 - and the doubts over his ability at international level persist.
Paul Collingwood 5
Essentially anonymous in his four games - but he is certainly a reassuring presence at number six.
Samit Patel 8
Marked his debut series with a five-fer and made a vital and composed 31 in his only innings. His batting oozes class; his bowling is canny but probably not as good as Graeme Swann's. Patel looks an international player, however. His selection may suggest bits n' pieces, but they are high quality.
Luke Wright 4
Another player who was inconsequential. The life of a non-bowling (apparently) number eight is fraught with danger. Wright offers destructive, match-turning potential, but should make way for the unlucky Swann in India.
Stuart Broad 8
His elevation to fourth in the official ODI rankings may seem a little hasty, but Broad's one-day bowling continues to improve, and his 5-23 may mark an important turning point in his career.
Steve Harmison 7
Showed the virtue of having hit-the-deck bowlers in the middle of the innings. While he is in this form, England are a much stronger ODI outfit for his return.
James Anderson 5
Anderson's miserable one-day international form continued, although at least his economy rate was more respectable. Still, Ryan Sidebottom and Kabir Ali will fancy his place, for all his tremendous improvements as a Test bowler.

The Verdict
A 4-0 victory over South Africa almost defies belief. There are certainly some significant caveats - like England in South Africa in 2004/05, the tourists put everything into the Tests and clearly did not care much for the ODIs, while their side suffered from imbalance and a weak batting line-up from five down. Still, England can claim a considerable degree of responsibility for this. Flintoff was obviously phenomenal, while Prior, Patel and Harmison also offered marked improvements on those discarded after the New Zealand defeat. The result of it all is England's one-day side has a pretty convincing look - the openers did well; numbers three to six have shown they are excellent players, while Patel and Swann complement an imposing four-man pace attack. If they can win in India, then the notion of England being second may no longer seem preposterous.

What can't King Kev do?

Well, what to make of that?

England beat South Africa in the first ODI - impressive enough. But to obliterate them in the second was an extraordinary display. After all the false dawns, can we finally say England's one-day side are making progress?

Kevin Pietersen can seemingly do no wrong as captain: he has succeeded in reinvigorating a side who, following Michael Vaughan's tear-leaden resignation, appeared close to crisis point. It remains to be seen whether he can make the sides consistently successful, but, suddenly, the one-day outfit has been transformed into one of the most powerful line-ups around.

Since the defeat to New Zealand, three players - Matt Prior, Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison - have returned to the side, and each has performed outstandingly to date.

With Flintoff and Harmison providing the middle-over penetration England have perennially lacked, the bowling line-up is powerful indeed. Stuart Broad today produced his best showing to date, and has been a consistent one-day performer, unlike in Tests. Conversely James Anderson, once regarded as worth his place only in the limited-overs side, has discovered consistency in Tests but seems to have regressed in ODIs. His figures over his last 18 games are damning indeed: 13 wickets at averages (56.61) and economy rates (5.37) that are unacceptable. If he does not improve in the remaining three ODIs, England should look elsewhere: at Ryan Sidebottom, who has proved a canny one-day operator with variations aplenty; or Kabir Ali, in outstanding form for Worcestershire for the last two years.

Prior has, so far, outperformed Tim Ambrose and Phil Mustard, keeping surprisingly well and batting assertively at the top of the order. While he certainly deserves a place in the side, there may be a case for replacing Luke Wright with a specialist opener (Rob Key, Joe Denly or Vikram Solanki) and moving him down to Wright's slot at seven.

Doubts persist over the suitability of Ian Bell opening - he has all the shots, but too often fails to be assertive - and Owais Shah at three. Shah performed superbly against New Zealand batting at six, but may prove a little vulnerable to the moving ball early on. Ideally, he would bat at four or five, but with Pietersen and Flintoff settled there and Paul Collingwood at number six, he should be given an extended run at three. Providing he is free to express himself, Shah should prove capable there.

From four to six England's batting has an imperious look. The remaining selectorial issues concern numbers seven and eight. Wright is on the periphery of the side, but at least provides true destructive, game-changing potential at seven - unlike Ravi Bopara, who is not comfortable attacking from the off. Perhaps the experience and phenomenal six-hitting ability of Dimitri Mascarenhas - also probably the best bowler of the three - is the best option.

Samit Patel has started promisingly - but England may be better off choosing their best spinner, Graeme Swann, who has shown he is an attacking off-spinner and has played some fine innings at number eight. It is ironic that Swann, who many felt was selected over Monty Panesar for his three-dimensional game, has now seen the same fate befall him.

Under King Kevn's reign, England have the tools at their disposal to, finally, establish themselves as a one-day force. They have a brilliant middle-order, bat deep and have a fine, four-pronged pace attack. More work needs to be done - but it is a long time since England's ODI side has had such a convincing look.

England Dangerously Close to their Best Limited Overs Side

Whilst the media circus is frenzying around the appointment of the new England Cricket Captain and his first Test match in charge, the announcement of the limited overs squad to take on South Africa has passed relatively under the radar. Whatever the rights and wrongs of who is and is not in the Test squad, it is hard to argue that the limited overs squad is far wrong, especially after the inclusion of two of the best domestic one day players in England this year, in Samit Patel and Matt Prior.

Andrew Flintoff’s return essentially allows England to replace a pace bowler with an allrounder and a brilliant one at that. More importantly though, England seem to have decided that they want an aggressive keeper batsman who can open the innings and indeed bat through it if required. The only candidate capable of this job was Matt Prior and he has rightfully been recalled. Whilst Phil Mustard is aggressive, he has not often made the big match defining innings required of a top order batsman. If Prior gets to fifty you now sense that he could go on to a hundred. There will of course be those who criticise his selection as compromising on wicket keeping ability. However, Prior’s mistakes with the gloves came in Test cricket, not limited overs cricket, where the demands of concentration and focus are not as severe on keepers as in Test match cricket, where the keeper can find himself in the field for 90 overs a day, three days out of five, as opposed to just 50 overs. Because of the very nature of the ODI and Twenty20 games there are not as many catches for keepers either and in fact there are more stumping and run out opportunities, which are Prior’s strong point as a keeper. He has also been working extremely hard at Sussex on his keeping, which has reportedly improved and he has been churning out the runs consistently.

With Kevin Pietersen now rightfully elevated to number three in the batting line-up, from where he can dictate the innings, England’s top three looks very strong, with Ian Bell acting as the foil around whom the others can bat, but whom himself can also take advantage of the Powerplay overs, with his brilliant footwork and ability to hit over the top. England need to reassess who bats at four however. Owais Shah gave a master class in limited overs batting on Monday for Middlesex against Somerset, as he essentially won the game for his side with a brilliantly paced 96. Batting at number three he rescued his side from what could easily have been humiliation and almost single handedly set a competitive target. He has comfortably been the best England One Day player over the last year and the most consistent. He has previously had to settle for late order cameos for England, coming in at number six. He is though a top order batsman and is especially adept at milking the spinners, with his wristy strokeplay. England should utilise his skills earlier and for longer and he, not Ravi Bopara, should be coming in at four.

Bopara you sense needs to settle in the side and would benefit from having the pressure taken off his shoulders for now by coming in at number six. He has played his best innings for England down the order and the nature of the position would help him to flourish I believe, as he would be capable of playing a patient rebuilding game or an aggressive cameo. The situation would not allow him time to think about what he was doing, how fast he was scoring or how much pressure he was under. A settled Bopara could then look to work his way up the order at a later date, although he looks the natural successor to Paul Collingwood long term. Collingwood himself will of course bat at number five, the position he has so expertly made his own over the last few years.

Flintoff should be scheduled to bat at number seven, although he could of course be promoted depending on the match situation. Whatever happens you don’t want Flintoff in before the last ten to fifteen overs against the spinners, or you risk losing him before the period in which he can inflict the most damage, against the faster bowlers. Doubling the power down the order, Luke Wright should feature at number eight. His best innings for England have come down the order and he could be given full license here to unleash his power in the death overs. With two such power hitters lurking down the order, the side would be well balanced and filled with matchwinners and therefore the pressure would be relieved on the likes of Pietersen and Flintoff, who would be able to perform with more freedom.

With Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann following in the order, the batting could not be any stronger, with number eleven James Anderson also far from being the rabbit he used to be. Broad would for me bat above Swann, as he has more potential and skill with the bat and has two modes of play. Both could cause damage at the end of the innings if required. So the batting line-up looks formidable, with Alistair Cook and Samit Patel on standby, along with Ryan Sidebottom and Chris Tremlett in this particular squad. Whilst Paul Collingwood is suspended I would play Samit Patel, who should remain a part of the squad to play in place of either Bopara or Wright on those pitches which offer more for spinners. He would be an able second spinner I believe.

So who is unlucky? Well, Mascarenhas is obviously one who is unfortunate to be discarded altogether, whilst Vikram Solanki is another, who after his scintillating domestic form was perhaps worthy of a look in. On the bowling front, Kabir Ali has been the best bowler in domestic cricket this year and could add another wicket taking option to the line-up, whilst Liam Plunkett, so good in Australia, is looking to prove his form and fitness. Finally, Mustard and more so James Foster are unfortunate to lose out to Prior. Foster would have been the ideal candidate to play down the order for England, as he does for Essex with such aplomb. The way England are going to play dictates that he is not in the side however.

The bowling looks stronger for the return of Flintoff for Sidebottom, whose figures (Average: 44.37, Economy: 4.86, S/R: 54.7) are hardly impressive over the last few series against New Zealand. There are also questions over his fitness. England would look threatening with three impressive and contrasting One Day performers in Anderson, Broad and Flintoff, who offer swing, seam, bounce, pace and consistency between them. The vastly improved Swann would offer the wiley spin option. Meanwhile, the fifth bowling options are plentiful with the recently impressive Collingwood well supported by the likes of Bopara and the impressive death bowling of Luke Wright. Samit Patel, when playing would offer a decent second spinning option, with Shah available if needed.

The Test match series may have gone against South Africa and it may yet be a complete disaster. However, England are making progress in Limited Overs cricket, albeit with recent defeats to New Zealand, both home and away. They have beaten Australia (a), India (h) and Sri Lanka (a) in the last 18 months, which would have been unthinkable two years ago. South Africa are currently the best ODI side in the world and for good reason. However, England have picked a squad capable of challenging them and even beating them. England are capable of beating any team in the world. Hopefully Pietersen’s brand of captaincy will encourage his charges to be bold and aggressive and play the kind of cricket we all know that they can play.


England ODI Team to take on South Africa:

Ian Bell
Matt Prior (wk)
Kevin Pietersen (c)
Owais Shah
Paul Collingwood
Ravi Bopara
Andrew Flintoff
Luke Wright
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
James Anderson

Squad: Alistair Cook, Samit Patel, Dimitri Mascarenhas, Kabir Ali.

Shambolic England On The Brink

Mickey Arthur this week denounced the recall of Steve Harmison as a desperate and short term move by England which took no account of the upcoming 2009 Ashes series. He was right. Michael Atherton tore into the selectors both in general and specifically for recalling Harmison in The Times, stating that they were sending out the wrong message about selection. He was right. Harmison would have been a temporary and short sighted pick. He is bowling well at present and would undoubtedly take wickets, but he doesn’t play ODI’s, he doesn’t travel as every Tom, Dick and Harry knows and he takes a good few matches to get into form, largely because he doesn’t put in the training which other players do. So that would make him available for the second Test series of every summer which just is not viable.

Meanwhile, “The Michael Vaughan Batting Club”, to quote a friend, seems now to be more exclusive and cosy than ever, when it’s hegemony should be in the process of being disrupted. To the untrained eye it appears as though England have imploded in a relatively short period of time. However, look a little closer and the problems have been mounting for a year. The series loss to India was unfortunate, but signalled the start of the latest period of turmoil. The embarrassing performance in Sri Lanka hit the side hard and many a mistake was made. Owais Shah, one of England’s best players of spin and slow, low pitches was bafflingly left out of the side so as to accommodate Ravi Bopara, who proceeded to have one of the worst debuts by an England Test player. And following a series of drops, Matt Prior himself was dropped, which saw Tim Ambrose take over the gloves, another compromise between keeping and batting ability was made.

To New Zealand and one poor match spelled the end for Matthew Hoggard, whilst Steve Harmison finally got what had been coming his way for the previous two years. Team England escaped with a 2-1 series win, but they had been expected to thrash the Kiwis. Tim Ambrose and Paul Collingwood looked good and Andrew Strauss appeared to be back to his best. However, the fact that the Kiwis are a very limited side was completely forgotten. On to the home series against New Zealand and England faced an even more limited side, eventually triumphing 2-0. However, they deserved to lose the second Test after yet more woeful batting and despite a Michael Vaughan revival (currently expected in 1 in 4 series). A good side would have thrashed the Kiwis twice.

Then South Africa arrived and on a placid pitch England racked up the runs, but the ease with which South Africa avoided defeat showed that the pitch had played a major role. The key point was also that only Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen made big runs. The bowling attack meanwhile lacked hostility and pace. Whilst swing may account for average batsman, good batsmen need to be tested with pace and bounce. Andrew Flintoff’s return has been claimed to have unbalanced the side. That is simply not true. He has kept this England side in the hunt and given them drive which was sorely lacking. Ultimately, the sad truth is that England are playing a very good side, a testing side and they are realising that they are just not good enough.

Alistair Cook last scored a ton ten Tests ago, but at least he has averaged 40.00 since November 2007. Vaughan is averaging 27.52 since the start of the Sri Lanka tour, with 1 hundred in 23 innings. Collingwood averages 28.25 in the same period with no hundreds in 18 innings. And Tim Ambrose’s average in down to 26.76 as it continues it’s descent. England can not afford to keep on carrying players, but that is exactly what they continue to do. The term “Michael Vaughan Batting Club” is of course meant to be comical, but it sums up this current England side perfectly. Vaughan has always been staunchly loyal to his charges and this was once a virtue, in the days after the brutally honest regime of Nasser Hussain, but it has now most certainly become a problem, with judgement now blurred by loyalty.

Andrew Strauss was out of form for an age before he was finally dropped and then recalled without hitting a single run in county cricket. Paul Collingwood was dropped for one match before being recalled for the current Test in place of Stuart Broad. The reasoning behind this seemed stupid at the start and even stupider now. Stuart Broad needed a rest, yet is playing a four day game for Nottinghamshire. The extra batsman would balance the side, yet they essentially replaced a cricketer who has averaged 55 this year with one who has averaged 8. Are the fans missing something here? The end result was obvious for everyone to see even before Collingwood had gone out to bat and once he was there it was even more painfully obvious, no less so than to Collingwood himself, whose torturous 45 minute innings was packed full of nerves and completely devoid of any semblance of confidence. His lack of confidence seems even to be effecting his fielding, as he dropped a relatively easy catch off of Neil McKenzie later on.

England need a reality check and now. They will lose this series, that is all but a certainty, barring a Flintoff inspired miracle and changes to the team. Even worse though, they will slip to 4th in the world and are likely to be humiliated in India and at home by Australia if they do not do what is necessary and change the batting line-up. If it means changing the captain then so be it. Players can only live on past glories for so long and Geoffrey Boycott is not alone in seeing Vaughan as a cricketer who is far from the man who peaked in Australia in 2002. It isn’t as if he excels for Yorkshire either and one good score every other series simply isn’t enough. Who comes in for Vaughan and Collingwood is up for debate, but the leading candidates are Ravi Bopara and Owais Shah, whilst the likes of Rob Key and Joe Denly will be watching the latest troubles of Cook and Strauss with great interest. The captaincy would have to pass to either a younger player, or the more experienced Andrew Strauss, who is statistically proven to improve his run output as captain, averaging around 15 runs more as captain for Middlesex and England (55.66). Vaughan incidentally averages 5.62 runs less as captain (36.02).

On the wicket keeping front it is probably time to go with the best keeper in the country, who in my opinion is James Foster. He will also fit nicely into the ODI side, allowing England to keep consistency of selection which they see as being crucial. If Broad has been returned to county cricket to work on his bowling then playing four bowlers becomes an easier task for England, with the current incumbents the most deserving, although Broad and Simon Jones would be pushing the likes of Bopara and Sidebottom hard for their places in the near future. It is worth noting that at the moment Broad and Jones could only play in a five man attack. Perhaps if the batting line-up could deliver the runs then five bowlers would once again be a viable option. For the moment though it is not.


England Test Batting Averages since November 2007:

Strauss 45.07
Cook 40.00
Vaughan 27.52
Pietersen 41.31
Bell 46.66
Collingwood 28.25
Ambrose 26.75
Broad 41.22
Flintoff 45.5 (3 innings, 1 not out)
Bopara 8.40 (5 innings)

Test Debuts Since 2000:

4 Wicket Keeper debuts;
10 Batsman debuts;
22 Bowler debuts;
3 Allrounder debuts.

Test Debuts Since Ashes 2005:

2 Wicket Keeper debuts;
2 Batsman debuts;
9 Bowler debuts;
1 Allrounder debut.

With Flintoff and Ambrose at six and seven, Bell can afford no let up

For all the frustration of the past two days, the first Test turned out better than many pundits had anticipated for England. South Africa began as the most hyped-up side to land on these shores since the 2005 Aussies, but patently failed to live up to their own billing.

Their bowling attack lacked any penetration, with the admirable Morne Morkel the sole exception. If the first Test was anything to go by, they have only half an attack: Paul Harris did not look Test class; and Makhaya Ntini could only muster a pitiful imitation of his brilliant showing at the same ground five years ago, one that was almost painful to watch. And with the bat, only Ashwell Prince displayed the required application and skill in the first innings, although England will be worried indeed that four of their top five have already made centuries in this series. And the exception? Jacques Kallis, Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World for 2007.

The resilience shown by South Africa's batting is compounded by England enduring three solid days in the field, especially given the modern norm of back-to-back Tests. Indeed, Graeme Smith may have had half a mind to bat on rather than accept the draw, extending England's misery further.

It is excellent news that Andrew Flintoff will be recalled for the Second Test: his return should reinvigorate the side, preventing South African momentum developing after their admirable efforts to salvage a draw. One would expect him to come in for the struggling Paul Collingwood at six, although the selectors originally planned to play him at seven, with Tim Ambrose at eight, before injury scuppered his hopes of a recall in the first Test of the summer. Flintoff has not played a Test match for 18 months, and, whatever his run and wicket tallies, he should serve to inspire England, while the South Africans, clearly would prefer not to see him in the side. It is telling that Lancashire have won three and drawn two of the five championship games he has played this season, whilst only managing two draws and a loss when he has been absent.

For all the positives of his Flintoff's return, however, there is no compelling evidence to suggest he merits batting at number six. He has struck some sort of form of late, although the cavalier nature of his recent knocks is not what is generally required from a top-order Test batsman. And it is three years since his last Test hundred.

With this in mind, have England erred on the side of selectorial caution - yet again - in refraining from recalling Matt Prior? Ambrose has an extremely limited batting technique; and against bowlers who do not feed his cut shot with regularity, it is hard to envisage him making important runs. Add his increasingly fallible glove-work and the selectors have had ample time to recognise he is not the man to end the keeping debate. Prior's keeping has many faults - just ask Ryan Sidebottom. But Ambrose's grim run of form - passing 11 just twice in 11 completed international innings - compounded by the uncertainty of Flintoff's batting, lends England's lower middle-order a real sense of vulnerability. All signs suggest Prior has a sufficiently developed game to average 10 more at number six than the 26 Collingwood has managed in his last eight Tests, while his keeping is also said to have improved markedly this season.

So England can be reasonably content with their endeavours in the opening Test, and should not be unduly disheartened by failing to force a victory, given that the previous five Tests at Lord's have also been draws. The Test will be remembered for Kevin Pietersen's superb 152 in a series that promises to be amongst the standouts of his career. Yet Ian Bell's 199 could be of more significance for the development of England as a side. He has always had a fine technique and a classy and extremely attractive game; here he showed he could play match-shaping innings against top-class opposition. With Flintoff and Ambrose directly below him, Bell will know England require more of the same.

Should England's selectors have made more than one change?

Crunch time for England

England's series with South Africa is an enticing prospect. The clash is undoubtedly the most eagerly anticipated on these shores since the 2005 Ashes, even if it is a great shame it has been reduced to four Tests. And, for several members of the home side - not just Kevin Pietersen, who will be relishing his first Tests against the land of his birth - it promises to be a career-defining series. By the end of this summer England must know the side they want to take the field for the 2009 Ashes.

Two series victories over New Zealand, during which England showed impressive resolve to extract themselves from positions of difficulty they should never really have encountered, raised more questions than answers. Of the batsmen, only Andrew Strauss enhanced his reputation. Even he is still yet to prove his return to form is durable, whilst the positions in the side of Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood appeared desperately grim after ending the home New Zealand series with a duck apiece. All the signs suggest Bell should be ditched temporarily and Collingwood for good, yet, with depressing predictability, England will play an unchanged side for the sixth consecutive Test (for sure, Chris Tremlett is only in the squad to make up the numbers). If England's selectors are trying to create a sense of calm confidence in the side, they are fooling no one.

The wicket-keeper debate, after the briefest of hiatuses following Tim Ambrose's hundred in his second Test, is again reaching vitriolic levels. Matt Prior is the only one of the keepers whose batting is good enough to bat in the top six of the Test side, as shown both by his impressive record over 10 Tests - averaging in excess of 40 - and an astounding run of batting form this season. He averages 62 in Division One, with the highlight of three centuries being a simply astounding 133* out of 212 against Durham. Yet England would probably be wise to be very careful his keeping has improved sufficiently before recalling him to the side. The only other credible alternative to Ambrose is Chris Read, a terrific keeper and averaging 49 in Division One this season. People will question whether he will ever be an adequate number seven, but he has had only four Tests in the last four years. Only in the last two did he struggle - and that against Australia after being very publicly dumped by his coach Duncan Fletcher.

Ambrose, it should not be forgotten, scored a vital 67 in the last Test. But in the one-dayers his performance was embarrassing with bat and gloves alike. Above all, there are huge questions over whether he can score runs against a side with a battery of outstanding quicks who will be sure not to feed his favourite cut shot. England's selectors must be proactive and ditch Ambrose if he looks out of his depth in the first Test.

With the ball, there is no pressing case, based on the last two series, to drop anyone. But few would suggest the seam attack of Sidebottom, Broad and Anderson is truly the best England can muster. Anderson may be the right selection for Lord's, where he has a good record, but ultimately he is virtually certain to be profligate, given his enduring inconsistency. England cannot afford a bowler who is so often a liability.

This is also a big test for Broad, who has impressed more with his classy number eight batting than bowling in his six Tests to date. South Africa would sooner face those two bowlers than any of Andrew Flintoff, Steve Harmison and Simon Jones, even if one can understand why all three have been omitted. But a pace attack of Sidebottom, Jones and either Flintoff or Harmison would have real venom. Jones, with 26 wickets at 11 in first-class cricket this season, should have been unleashed for the First Test. Harmison, with 29 Division One scalps at 23, is displaying welcome signs of a return to form and, for all his inconsistency, he is a bowler the tourists would not relish facing.

So there is much for England's side to prove as they prepare to face an imposing South African team who, whilst not invincible, rightly start as favourites. If, as on their last three tours, South Africa triumph at Lord's, then it will be time the selectors earned their corn. Because, if England fall 1-0 behind, the bewildering faith in a side who have been so unimpressive of late will look very suspect indeed.

Here is what an ‘SOS’ side picked with England trailing in the series could look like:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Shah
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Sidebottom
Jones
Panesar

Food for selectorial thought, certainly.

Players moving up, England moving forward

For those of you who are regular readers you will be all too familiar with my musings over the years about the England One Day International side. Finally we seem to be making some progress.

Firstly, Alistair Cook is no longer opening the innings, fabulous. He is undoubtedly a fantastically talented Test match cricketer, albeit slightly out of form at present, but he is just not a modern day limited overs batsman. Ian Bell has at last been elevated to the role of opener, one he has enjoyed success in before. His innings against the Australians at the last World Cup demonstrated that he could score quickly, through a vast array of strokes. Notably he has the ability to use his feet and hit over the top, something Cook patently struggles with.

Secondly, and I want to scream hallelujah here, England’s best batsmen, Kevin Pietersen, has finally been elevated to number three! Many of us have only been looking for this change for the past two and a half years, but better late than never as they say. From number three Pietersen can dictate the innings for England and spend the maximum amount of time at the crease (other than if he opened of course!). The best player in a side regularly bats at number three and it is of major importance in limited overs cricket.

Luke Wright has been re-elevated to the role of opener, a role he has yet to really succeed in for England (though his brisk fifty today is a good start). He has enjoyed success down the order coming in against the old ball, should he be left down there to do what he does best? It is a difficult question to answer. Undoubtedly he should be given the rest of this series to readjust to opening. One thing for sure is that he should be in the side. His fielding and surprisingly effective death bowling certainly add to a developing unit. We must hope that he can succeed as an opener as the alternatives are limited and once Andrew Flintoff returns, there will still be plenty of power down the order.

The lack of an aggressive opener has been the failing of the England side over the last few years. Often the wicket keeper opens as the aggressor. However, it can’t be Tim Ambrose, as he has neither the technique nor the experience for the role. Whilst on the subject of Ambrose, I wonder how effective he will prove to be so low down the order, as he plays higher up for Warwickshire and does not seem to have the game to come in late and provide a brisk cameo. His performances will be under review no doubt. As Ambrose is the current incumbent keeper, it doesn’t appear as though the aggressive opener will be Phil Mustard, especially given his woeful recent form and limited stroke play at the highest level. Matt Prior, for all his runs, does not currently have the glove work to back them up and he is having to serve more time in county cricket for the time being. Steven Davies and Craig Kieswetter, two young wicket keepers, could yet be tried in the role, but their debuts are unlikely for a few years yet.

Other than Wright that leaves only specialist batsmen. Of them, Owais Shah, Jonathon Trott, Vikram Solanki, Michael Carberry, Joe Denly and James Benning are the main contenders. Shah is undoubtedly a great player of spin and a wonderful exponent of the limited overs batting art, who is currently batting too low for his talent at six. Elevating him to opener takes him away from the spinning ball though and exposes him to the new ball, which has at international level in the past seen his downfall. He is probably best left to bat at four. Of the remaining men, Solanki is a fantastic cricketer and agile fieldsmen. He has had many opportunities in an England shirt already though and has failed to convince, but he has rarely had a sustained run in one position. Trott is another candidate, who made it into Peter Moores’ first limited overs squad, playing two Twenty20 matches against the West Indies before being discarded. He often opens for Warwickshire in limited overs cricket, has a safe pair of hands and is a capable medium pace bowler. Meanwhile, Carberry is an electric fielder, blessed with Wesley Snipes’ Blade’s turn of pace. He has enjoyed success for the England Lions on a number of occasions, most notably in India over the winter, where he averaged 47 in three First Class games and 58.33 in three List A games. He scored two hundreds and two fifties. A lefty, he would compliment Bell and leave England with that all important right hand-left hand combination. Fellow Lion Denly is young and technically sound, but he is more likely to make his breakthrough in Test match cricket at the moment. Finally, Benning, whilst a fine striker of the ball, is not the most talented and is rather predictable with his constant search for leg side blows.

There is one further possible contender and that is Graeme Swann, who has often been the pinch hitter for Nottinghamshire in the past. He would not be capable of building an innings however and would be unlikely to average in excess of 20, which at international level is going to leave you in trouble. He is also far from a certainty in the side, with both Monty Panesar and Adil Rashid eager to take his place. If Wright is not successful in the role then I would seriously consider getting a wicket keeper into the team who can open once again, with Wright dropping down the order. There hasn’t been a problem so far with having two different captains, so I fail to see the difference in having two different wicket keepers. Prior, Mustard, Davies and Kieswetter could all fit the bill in my opinion. If not, then space would have to be found in the side for a specialist batsman to open. Ultimately, most of the other players mentioned, including Wright, can do well enough in the role to make England competitive again in One Day International cricket and that is down to the new formula which coach Moores and captain Paul Collingwood have devised. Exciting aggressive multi-dimensional cricketers now comprise the squad, with Test specialists left to do what they do best.

With Flintoff yet to return, the side is shaping up nicely and furthermore it seems as if only four specialist bowlers are required, with the likes of Collingwood, Wright, Ravi Bopara, Pietersen and Shah all capable of making up the fifth and final bowler. That will leave England with a nice dilemma when Flintoff does make his comeback in an England shirt. One of Stuart Broad, Ryan Sidebottom or James Anderson may have to make way. In the last 12 months Anderson has averaged 36.14 with the ball, at a strike rate of 40.1, with an economy of 5.39 in ODI’s against the West Indies, India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand. That is not good enough and is made worse by the fact that in that time England have not once played either of the two leading ODI sides. He is most under pressure, along with Sidebottom, who whilst economical, has not taken as many wickets against New Zealand as he would have liked.

Meanwhile, Dimitri Mascarenhas can consider himself unfortunate to miss out on a place in the first choice XI, but his place appears to have been taken by Bopara, who unlike him, can bat in the top seven, though he will need to curb his penchant for a run out. Mascarenhas is a certainty for the Twenty20 side however and will still probably get the odd game in place of the spinner, depending on conditions. He will hopefully make up the selection pool, which would also feature Cook, Trott, Panesar and Anderson.

A potential England side of:

Bell
Mustard / Prior (wk)
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood (c)
Bopara
Wright
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Sidebottom

will hopefully be taking to the field sooner rather than later and challenging the rest of the world for limited overs trophies once again.

England's prospects for Summer 2008.

The ECB today announced a 26 man England Performance Squad for the 2008 Summer season. Along with the centrally contracted players and many of the usual suspects, the uncapped trio of Michael Carberry, James Tredwell and most excitingly Adil Rashid, were included in the 'EPS'. Doubtless much will be made of Rashid's inclusion; the young spinner has impressed greatly whether it be with Yorkshire or on the recent England Lions tour to India, while England have been searching for leg-spinning magic for as long as can be remembered.

Although it is clearly important to allow these young and clearly talented players to come under Peter Moores' tutelage, one wonders whether or not there are any gaps in the England side that need to be filled. Despite the absence of Harmison and Hoggard in Napier, the England team is beginning to be as settled as it has been post the much celebrated 2005 Ashes triumph, so here is an opportunity to look more closely at the players who will make up the England team in the 2008 Summer.

Alistair Cook's unflappable temperament at the top of the order has meant that Marcus Trescothick has not been too sorely missed, while Michael Vaughan and Andrew Strauss, despite recent blips complete a top three of real International pedigree. This author would suggest that perhaps there is only room for two of the aforementioned batsmen at the top of the order, and that Ian Bell as opposed to Vaughan or Strauss would be a better prospect at number three. Nonetheless it would be no surprise to see Bell taking up a slot in the middle order sandwiched between Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collingwood, both of whom are automatic selections in both forms of the game. Tim Ambrose will hopefully be given a chance to prove himself throughout the summer, and first impressions would suggest that he has a real chance to establish himself as a permanent fixture in the Test team.

Considering the hype surrounding Andrew Flintoff's return to domestic cricket, it would seem that his international comeback is imminent, though it would be interesting to see him in a slightly different role than he once filled; as a bowler with the ability to change the game from number 8, although it could be argued that this is a waste of the supreme all-rounder's undoubted talents.

That leaves the bowlers, and while Harmison and Hoggard will have something to prove in the opening county exchanges, they will be on the edge of Test match selection throughout the summer. Stuart Broad impressed sufficiently over the winter to suggest that he has a real future and it would be a tough break if he were to make way for either Harmison or Hoggard.

Ryan Sidebottom was the star of the New Zealand tour and with his flowing locks and dangerous swing back into the right handers, Michael Vaughan will be calling on him time and again throughout a busy summer. James Anderson's ability to extract regular and sometimes late swing has meant that the selectors have persisted with him for long periods of time and his will be a name on the selectors' lips throughout the summer. Monty Panesar, after bursting onto the International scene, had a largely disappointing winter, and it would be an interesting move if the selector were to plump for the winter's drinks carrier Graeme Swann, James Tredwell or even Rashid, especially as any of these three would offer substantially more with the bat and in the field.

Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara lie on the cusp of selection, but it is difficult to imagine either getting a run in the Test side without injuries to some of the more established players. Thus, even though a 26 man EPS has been named, England's side is reasonably well settled, and the competition for places is very healthy, particularly amongst the seam bowlers.

England will hope to be more dominant and assertive against New Zealand this time around, although South Africa will pose a far more serious challenge. The Proteas' pace attack is one to be feared, with Dale Steyn becoming more dangerous by the series, Makyha Ntini still a force to be reckoned with and Morne Morkel consistently bowling close to 90mph. Moreover South Africa's batting line up has been firing lately with Neil McKenzie enjoying a renaissance and Hashim Amla finally reproducing his domestic form on the International arena Graeme Smith and Jaques Kallis are seriously class acts and Mark Boucher and AB de Villiers will make consistent contributions in the middle order. England will need to be at their best if they are to compete and consistently so. The first step towards consistent performances is sending out an unchanged side, consistently, enabling the team to bond and develop an understanding as per the 2005 Ashes.

On a finishing note it is interesting to observe two notable omissions from the EPS, Simon Jones has become somewhat of a forgotten man during his recovery from injury, but this author would suggest that he can be a bowler of international class again, while the other man to miss out is the one and only Mr Mark Ramprakash, who, rather inevitably opened his 2008 Championship account with a patient century.

A long road back for Flintoff

Despite what the media would have you believe, there was more to the Surrey-Lancashire game than the state of Mr Flintoff.

The relentless talk of Andrew Flintoff's comeback is tedious in the extreme. It is a sad indictment of the media's lack of regard for county cricket that, even in a match in which he has been anonymous, taking one wicket and scoring 23, he has dominated the headlines. The story of the first day was not Lancashire twice missing Mark Ramprakash before he marched to his third consecutive championship hundred (all against Lancs). Of course it wasn't. Freddie bowled 10.3 overs on the opening day of his comeback. He took 1-26. Stop the press.

The man himself: Andrew Flintoff during his 28 overs.

The obsession with Flintoff can't be doing him or his side any good. With all the talk over this game as the first step on the road to an England return, a part of him can't help but regard it more about him than his county, no matter how wholehearted a cricketer he is. Lancs must also grow tired, much like the rest of us, that all questions lead to Fred. Neither he nor his team-mates will be enjoying the disproportionate attention he is receiving for what have been less-than-stellar deeds. Frankly, he needs at least six weeks of hard, competitive cricket for Lancashire before he can be considered seriously for England again; it would be a huge mistake to recall him on reputation alone. That doesn't mean surviving unscathed, it means making decisive contributions - scoring centuries and taking five-fors. There were tentative signs of encouragement, certainly, as he kept going admirably on a flat track, but nowhere near enough to justify the hype.

Inevitably he has totally overshadowed the noteworthy displays in the match: above all a trio of centuries from Surrey's powerful middle-order. Ramprakash was actually below his usual imperious best, but he has been so phenomenal over the past two years that, visibly, opponents are in awe of him. Bowlers often bowl worse to him than they do to other batsmen; fielders react over-eagerly to any opportunities, such is the value they put on his wicket. So, just as in the last game of last season, Lancs missed out on two chances - this time a catch and a run-out - before he had made even 20. Try telling them there is one - let alone six - batsmen in England who are better. Mark Butcher was also supremely attractive driving through the off-side in putting on a double century stand with Ramprakash.

Never mind the score...how's Freddie?

But the most noteworthy knock in the context of Surrey's season was surely Usman Afzaal's debut hundred. Butcher has spoken about providing an environment for this sometimes mercurial talent to flourish and, if this was any indicator, they have certainly done so. Pulling with authority and great power against Sajid Mahmood, Afzaal played Gary Keedy's left-arm spin exquisitely, using his feet and the aerial route. On the basis of this serene and aesthetically-pleasing knock, Afzaal will score many runs at The Oval this season. Thanks to Ali Brown's belligerent 74*, Surrey have already improved in one shocking statistic from last season, when they registered just a solitary score in excess of 70 from any player batting outside the top four, showing the extent of their reliance on Ramprakash.

Afzaal driving during his debut hundred

See, there was plenty to talk about: and that's before we even get started on Lancashire returning at the first opportunity to where they missed out on the championship at the end of last year's epic race. On this evidence they have much work to do if they are get that close again: their fielding was shoddy; their bowling lacked control, save for Flintoff, let alone any great threat; and their batting has been too loose, although the weather has been such that a draw was always the overwhelming favourite.

But the story was all about how Freddie was doing, with the score barely deemed relevant. Maybe those who are infuriated by a non-performance covering the first half of every match report are missing the point. Who needs runs or wickets for intrigue when we've got Freddie's ankle to worry about?

2008 Season Preview: Lancashire

Continuing our series of county previews, Ben Fyffe analyses Lancashire's chances in 2008.

2007 in a nutshell
Perhaps feel they should have won the Championship but the wait continues for the red rose county. 4th in Pro40 League One wasn’t a bad result but the FP Trophy performance was nothing short of poor. Reaching the semi-finals in the T20 was nothing to be ashamed of.

Best Performers
Championship
Batting: SG Law – 1277 runs @ 63.85.
Bowling: M Muralitharan – 51 wickets @ 18.66.

Limited Overs (not including T20)
Batting: BJ Hodge – 439 runs @ 87.80.
Bowling: SI Mahmood – 20 wickets @ 17.65.

Worst Performers
Championship
SJ Croft – this lad isn’t going anywhere quick, his 4 wickets came at 51.75 each while he scored 323 runs @ 21.53.

Limited Overs
DG Cork – a surprise choice but he is far too expensive to be considered a limited overs bowler anymore, 5 wickets at 51.20.

Strongest XI
Championship

PJ Horton
IJ Sutcliffe (MJ Chilton)

BJ Hodge

MB Loye (F du Plessis)

SG Law
A Flintoff (DG Cork)
LD Sutton+
G Chapple
SI Mahmood (TCP Smith)
G Keedy (SD Parry)
JM Anderson (OJ Newby)

Limited Overs
GD Cross+ (PJ Horton)
MB Loye
BJ Hodge
SG Law
A Flintoff (DG Cork)
F du Plessis
SJ Croft
G Chapple
SI Mahmood (TCP Smith)
G Keedy (SD Parry)
JM Anderson (KW Hogg).

The sides will not be especially settled, with Flintoff and Anderson likely to spend significant periods away with England (unless they are injured). Furthermore, Lancashire have a large squad and an element of rotation and 'horses for courses' is expected to give them the best possible chance of finally claiming their eighth outright Championship.

Openers: Paul Horton stepped up to the plate last season in place of Iain Sutcliffe at the top of the order. However, with Mark Chilton having resigned as skipper, expect Horton and Sutcliffe to be given the opportunity to develop their partnership.

Middle Order: Strong. Hodge and Loye are proven run-getters; and Stuart Law often looks in a class of his own against Championship attacks. Andrew Flintoff may play more often for Lancs this season in his bid to get match fit. Francois du Plessis, a highly rated Pretorian, is the only new signing at Old Trafford over the winter and will push for a place in this area. At full strength, there is perhaps no better middle-order quartet in county cricket.

Wicketkeeper: Luke Sutton will start as keeper but Paul Horton also keeps and Gareth Cross has done so as well. Sutton’s poor one day record should cost him his limited overs place.

Fast Bowlers: If he plays, Flintoff will hope to take wickets with his international pace. It seems to me that Dominic Cork is ready to be replaced in the team. Assuming England stop preferring James Anderson to Matthew Hoggard, he could spearhead the fast bowling attack this summer for Lancs. Sajid Mahmood has a point to prove, while Glen Chapple is one of the most highly respected bowlers in the league. Backup comes from Tom Smith, Oliver Newby and Kyle Hogg.

Spinners: Gary Keedy is the only recognised spinner at Old Trafford - a stern one day operator and often miserly in the Championship. Stephen Parry is a promising youngster, who may get a chance if Keedy is injured. There is no Murali though.

Key Man: Stuart Law, if he doesn’t get runs then the top order could be susceptible to collapse. He is in his 40th year, but is nonetheless still amongst the most-prized wickets in the county game. His hunger for runs continues to astound and the captaincy could yet bring even more out of him.

Rising Star: Francois du Plessis comes with praise from South Africa and if there are injuries in the middle order, he could realise his potential on English soil, with the South African selectors in town towards the back end of the season.

Captain and Coach: Mike Watkinson is a respected coach and a Lancashire man to the core, but he will be working alongside a new man. Veteran Stuart Law was a tremendously successful Queensland skipper and captained them to their first ever Sheffield Shield triumph, so he knows all about ending long waits for titles. Can these figureheads inspire the team to recover from the disappointment of last season's glorious failure?

2008 Prospects: They have a chance of winning the title of course, but this team isn’t getting any younger and there are other teams who could sneak up on the outside. Their one day prospects don’t look especially spectacular.

Will Flintoff play another Test Match?

The news that Andrew Flintoff will almost certainly not play again until the summer of 2008 hardly constitutes a shock. But, once again, it raises the question: will Andrew Flintoff play another Test for England?

By next summer, he will have missed no fewer than 13 consecutive Tests. He will still only be 30. But, after the plethora of injuries and operations, it will be an old 30. It is increasingly hard to envisage Flintoff rekindling the joie de vivre of 2004-05. Will he really be able to bowl 20 overs a day in Test?

The answer is probably no. He is a tremendously wholehearted bowler; but the downside of this is Flintoff puts huge strain on his ankle. His action, as Allan Donald claims, is flawed in that his front foot does not come down straight enough. Flintoff recently said “I'm happy with my action”. He seems very reluctant to make any major changes to it, with which he has claimed 348 international wickets. But he has to try in his extended lay-off – otherwise, even if he does return, it will not be for long. As Glenn McGrath has illustrated, however, it can be done.

Flintoff has often spoke of his desire to be a batting all-rounder. In truth, his bowling has long since been more important than his batting, which has disintegrated rapidly of late - he has simply forgotten how to build an innings. Even if he was fully fit, England could barely countenance batting him at six in Test matches. In ODIs, as he showed against India, Flintoff’s worth is still completely beyond doubt. After his latest setback, he will contemplate limiting his international future to the limited-overs game only.

England’s misuse of resources

The squad England has assembled for the Twenty20 World Cup has all the elements for success, but has been poorly managed both in terms of selection and match tactics.

The worst example of this has been the batting orders, which have failed to reflect form or common sense. Prior is not a ODI opener, much less a Twenty20 opener. He does not have the ability or the nous to fulfil this role, yet has been a permanent fixture in it. Luke Wright, though he has potential, has failed to find form so far and is cruelly exposed at the top of the order.

What is needed is someone who can hit over the top and improvise to maximise run output while the fielding restrictions are in place. To my mind there is no better hitter in the team than Mascarenhas. With only two fielders allowed out of the circle in the first six overs he has the ability to hit over the top and cause early carnage.

Even if he failed to build on a quick start, he would almost certainly score at such a rate that England would have the foundation to build a big innings or chase down a formidable total.

He could ideally be partnered by Maddy, who keeps the scoreboard ticking over as well as having the ability to hit boundaries. Solanki may have been another option, but he has not played in the tournament so far. It would be foolhardy to throw him into the competition in such a key position with England desperate for victories, though he should merit serious consideration in the middle order.

With Pietersen at three and a middle order of Collingwood, Shah and Solanki, England would be well placed to build on a quick fire start. Prior and Flintoff could add some late blasting, if required, without being under the pressure their current batting spots generate.

There can be little doubt that if England are to progress in the competition they need some ruthless pruning of their underperformers and a radical rethink of their batting order.

Can England still progress?

It’s a new format, perhaps, but England’s performance at this World Cup is much the same as their efforts in the recent 50-over ones. Above all, they struggled – just as they did in the Caribbean – with maximising the fielding restrictions.

Their policy to use Twenty20 specialists has been much discussed. I was in favour of it, but expressed reservations about the selection of Luke Wright. Wright is a potentially exciting talent but lacks the technique and experience to open against international bowlers, and it was rather perverse to promote him after a pair of failures at number three. Mark Ramprakash, in stunning form, inventive and highly effective in Twenty20, and with technical prowess, should surely have gone; with hindsight so should Ian Bell, although, when the squad was selected, he in no way merited selection. Of course, the man who could have made a real difference, and is a true match for Hayden, Gayle and Gibbs, is Marcus Trescothick.

Either way, England are stuck with Wright, Matt Prior, Vikram Solanki and Darren Maddy. Prior, as he proved yet again today, is not an international opening batsmen; his trademark is run-a-ball 20s which, in Twenty20, is simply not fast enough. By process of elimination as much as anything else, I would advocate opening with Solanki and Maddy. They have enjoyed success in this form of the game over its five seasons, and also possess huge experience. Certainly, however, Kevin Pietersen should be at number three.

With the ball, England have been a little better. Had Paul Collingwood caught Albie Morkel, Chris Schofield would not have been clobbered for three sixes and would have returned excellent figures, so it would be unfair to criticise him. On the positive side, Stuart Broad, James Anderson and Andrew Flintoff were very good against South Africa, only to be let down by some abysmal catching that cost England the game.

So England find themselves in a familiar position in World Cups: they are on the verge of an early exit unless they can get their act together and win consecutive games. Ultimately, England probably lack the big-hitting skills necessary to win the tournament, but they were not helped by the truly inexplicable decision to bat Snape ahead of Mascarenhas. As per usual in shorter cricket, England are tremendously reliant on Kevin Pietersen. But if they are to progress, their opening pair must contribute far more.

How can England progress to the semi-finals? Is this the best side: Maddy, Solanki, Pietersen, Collingwood, Shah, Flintoff, Mascarenhas, Prior, Schofield, Broad, Anderson

Broad and Bopara: England's future

The nerveless 99-run partnership between Stuart Broad and Ravi Bopara to secure an incredible victory for England contained much for fans to be excited about. The two youngest players in the side eschewed risk, and played with skill, calm and, above all, common sense. In all probability, their brilliant partnership has secured the one-day series.

Broad and Bopara embody the new England ODI era: they are young, fearless cricketers who can contribute in all three disciplines of the game. Bopara, of course, scored a tremendous, valiant 52 in England’s exhilarating World Cup loss to Sri Lanka, displaying a fine, if slightly unorthodox, technique and a relish for the big occasion. He is capable of constructing larger innings, too, and averages 62 for Essex in the championship this season. Bopara's bowling is not yet as good as Paul Collingwood's but, with 15 wickets at 23 in domestic one-dayers this season and a yorker learned from Darren Gough, he should one day be a useful fourth seamer in Tests and good enough to regularly bowl 10 overs on ODIs.

Yet Broad could be even more pivotal for the England side in the next few years. The Man of the Match has formed a terrific opening partnership with the improved James Anderson this series, and today took a career best 4-51. He uses his 6ft6in frame to get good bounce and pace in the mid-80s, generates significant movement off the seam, is aggressive and is constantly improving his control.

With the new white ball, he has done very well. Though he has sometimes proved too profligate bowling towards the end of the innings, and may be better off bowling out before the final slog, Broad is also working on his variety, as his superb yorker to Yuvraj Singh illustrated. Crucially, however, Broad is learning to walk before he can run – credit to both himself and the team management – unlike Sajid Mahmood, say.

So the maturity displayed by Broad and Bopara bodes very well for the future of England’s limited-overs and Test sides alike; both will surely make their Test debuts within the next twelve months or so. Broad already looks a good enough batsman to fill the problem position of number eight in the Test team and, given that he also made 40* and 91* in his last championship game for Leicestershire, could one day bat higher still.

Yet their outstanding partnership should not detract from the woeful display of England’s top order. It was a performance bereft of any coherent thinking; virtually the entire top order got themselves out though, as Broad and Bopara showed, all that was required was sensible accumulation. Of particular concern is the continued batting travails of Andrew Flintoff, who, in his desperation to impose himself on the opposition has lost all selectivity with the bat. He could certainly learn much from the disciplined accumulation exhibited by Broad and Bopara.

The decline of pace

One of the main factors contributing to the run soaked 2000s has been the lack of top quality Test pace bowlers. The decline has been so marked that since the recent retirement of Glenn McGrath it is hard to name one great quick bowler currently plying his trade. Shaun Pollock comes the closest, but his form has not been brilliant of late and he has a poor record against the best team of his era, Australia.

There are plenty of good seam and swing bowlers and even a few genuine fast bowlers, but none of them can be considered great, let alone all-time greats. It is a serious dearth, which threatens to make life even easier for Test batsmen, who continue to plunder runs and bolster their averages on batsman friendly surfaces.

The fast men

Of the current crop of pace bowlers only a handful can be considered fast. The best of these at the moment is, without doubt, Makhaya Ntini. His determination and enthusiasm, allied to ferocious pace, make him a fearsome prospect for most Test batsmen. Coming in from wide of the crease his deliveries often seem to spear into the batsman, forcing evasive action or uprooting stumps. Unfortunately, Ntini has a great achilles heel - his home bias. On his familiar South African pitches he averages a majestic 22.53, putting him up there with the greats, but take him away from home and the average plummetts to 38.08. For this reason, very good bowler that he is, Ntini cannot be considered great.

If his body was able to bear the strain of Test matches, Shane Bond might have achieved greatness. He has all the attributes and has used them in the 16 Tests he has played to claim 74 wickets @ 22.10. But such a short career (in terms of matches) does not yield enough evidence to know how good he really is.

Another injury plagued bowler is Shoaib Akhtar, though he has managed to take the field for Pakistan in 43 Tests. In this time he has amassed 169 victims, but has rarely been consistent through a series, let alone a season. When he is on form he can be devastating, but against the two best batting line-ups of his era, Australia and India, he has rarely found his best.

Brett Lee, who came to Test cricket in a blaze of glory, fell away badly and was dropped for over a year and a half. Since his return he has shown some good form, though mainly against the West Indies, who must now be considered one of the weaker Test nations. Despite his improvement, Lee still averages 31.60 and has a poor economy rate. He has also struggled against the old enemy, England, as well as Pakistan.

With 83 wickets to his name @ 30.73 Lasith Malinga is emerging as a quick bowler with real talent. His unusual, slinging action was used to much effect in the recent ODI World Cup. Yet he has not shown this devastating form consistently in Tests. There is surely much more to come from the young Sri Lankan, but he is still very much a work in progress.

The England duo Steve Harmison and Andrew Flintoff often bowl in the early nineties, but usually average in the late eighties. They fall somewhere between the genuinely quick bowlers mentioned above and the numerous fast medium and medium fast bowlers that ply their trade in Test cricket. Both hit the pitch hard and can extract lethal bounce, yet neither can be considered more than very good, occasionally brilliant. Harmison is too inconsistent and his average is creeping up, whereas Flintoff is wonderfully consistent, but rarely rips through a side.

The rest

There are a number of good swing bowlers in Test cricket, though most rely on conditions to help them and some can be cannon fodder when the ball fails to swing. Amongst the best is the veteran Sri Lankan, Chaminda Vaas. So often underrated this hard working left armer is always ready to give his captain another over. Vaas usually bowls with miserly accuracy, achieving the astonishing economy rate of 2.66, despite playing so many of his matches in unhelpful conditions. The only things mitigating against him are his average, just 29.21 and his relatively poor record against India, Pakistan and South Africa.

England's Matthew Hoggard is the form swing bowler in Tests. He has consistently broken opening partnerships and is particularly unforgiving against left handers. His dogged attitude and ability to bowl well even when there is little swing around has made him England's best pace bowler in recent series. But for an injury this summer he would surely have added to his tally against the West Indies and India. Only his average of 30.03 and his poor form against Australia and Pakistan can be held against him.

A couple of high class newcomers, Mohammad Asif and Stuart Clark, have the potential to stake their claim to be regarded amongst the best. Both have excellent records in the short time they have been playing Test cricket, but will need to test themselves against all opponents in all conditions before a verdict can be reached.

Of the remaining Test bowlers currently playing there are plenty of other newcomers, as well as some more seasoned campaigners, but none with track records that suggest they will be great or are more than fleetingly brilliant. When you consider how many of the best pace bowlers of all-time were playing in the 70s, 80s, and 90s it is hard to see how we have reached such a famine in the 2000s. Pitches can be blamed for some of it, but I remember those greats often taking wickets on flat surfaces. Whatever the reasons for it the sad truth is that there are few quick bowlers currently playing Test cricket who can strike fear into opposing batsmen and the game is all the poorer for it.