Tournament review: England

Continuing our tournament reviews, here is an assessment of how England did.

A plain side, batting and bowling with orthodoxy, England were nevertheless
described as the tournament’s entertainers, and that is what they were. England produced a series of enthralling games in the group stages and, in conspiring to lose to Ireland and Bangladesh, helped to preserve interests in the tournament. But their thrilling run ended with an ignominious 10-wicket defeat in the quarter-final, with a depleted bowling attack lacking in threat. In the final analysis, a lack of power in the batting and the absence of good spin options to complement Graeme Swann were hurdles they couldn’t have overcome even had they had the best preparation in the world.

Star man
He seldom oozes star quality, but Jonathan Trott produced a tour de force, with 422 runs at 60, and, though you wouldn’t know it, a strike-rate of 80. Critics of him should acknowledge he played his role brilliantly, but was let down by a lack of support.

Disappointment
Jimmy Anderson’s role in the Ashes win isn’t about to be forgotten but he lacked any control in this tournament. By the end, even his captain was saying he was burned out.

Prospects
Andrew Strauss is likely to resign as one-day skipper. His successor will find a side well-suited to English conditions but in need of more oomph with the bat and variation with the ball.

England World Cup player ratings

So, another England World Cup has ended with a humiliating defeat. However, England thrillingly defeated South Africa and the West Indies, as well as tieing with India. The ignominious ending notwithstanding, this has been England’s best World Cup performance since 1992. Here’s how all 17 players used rated:

Andrew Strauss 7/10
For so long regarded as a batsman too limited for modern ODIs, Strauss’ 158 against India was a stunning riposte: seldom has an England batsman scored at well over a run-a-ball without taking obvious risks. Yet thereafter Strauss struggled, failing to score a half century in the last five innings, and ending with a horrible innings; his first-over dismissal to Robin Petersen against South Africa appeared to weigh on his mind against Tillakaratne Dilshan’s offspin.

As a skipper he both impressed – letting Swann bowl his last over with Sarwan on strike appears a masterstroke with hindsight – and disappointed, as when appearing clueless against Kevin O’Brien and Shafiul Islam. Perhaps this simply reflects the vagaries of his bowling attack. No one would be surprised if he now resigned as ODI captain.

Kevin Pietersen 6
Pietersen’s promotion to opener, whilst an indictment of England’s lack of World Cup planning, was certainly not without promise. In three of his four innings he made starts, with his 22-ball 31 against India suggesting a man who could adapt as well to opening in ODIs as Mark Waugh. But there are now very real questions over whether he will play another ODI.

Jonathan Trott 9
Extraordinarily, Trott was both England’s most consistent player, by far, and amongst their most criticised. Yet in a tournament in which the regular 300+ scores at Bangalore were not matched at other grounds, Trott was little short of exceptional, able to score runs relentlessly, seemingly immune to the struggles around him. For a number three, whose job it is to bring solidity, an average of 60 was quite phenomenal. It wasn’t enough to impress a lot of people, especially Bob Willis, but the England management will appreciate how well Trott played his role. They simply wouldn’t have made it past the group stages without him and, by the end, he was the only Ashes winner still performing at his best, testament to his unremitting professionalism. And to this who lambast his selfishness, what of Ravi Bopara, whose strike rate was 66 against Trott’s 81?

Ian Bell 5
Forced to learn to play in the middle-order despite having a good record in the top three, Bell fared reasonably but no better. His manoeuvring of the spinners was dexterous in the tie with India, yet his form slipped badly thereafter, with innings against South Africa, Bangladesh and West Indies evoking the timid ’05 model, as opposed to the newly battle-hardened one. Promoted to open in the quarter final, where he probably should have been as soon as Pietersen flew home, he began brightly but was dismissed rather tamely. Sadly, it encapsulated his tournament as a whole.

Eoin Morgan 7
Morgan’s fleet-footed 63 against Bangladesh in his first game back was a reminder of his immense skill as a one-day batsman, and confirmed the feeling him replacing Pietersen in the squad was probably a net gain for England. Another 50 followed against Sri Lanka, albeit with some outrageous luck, and the great shame was that those around him didn’t share his penchant for using their feet.

Paul Collingwood 4
Watching Collingwood bat in this tournament, and the winter as a whole, has been a rather sad sight. He has never been attractive to watch at the crease, but it is plain for all to see that the conviction of his willow has gone, as his demotion to number 8 against Bangladesh further illustrated. Cunning wicket-to-wicket bowling helped prolong his career a little but, unless England are guilty of great sentimentality, he will remain stranded on 197 ODI caps.

Ravi Bopara 6
Originally a replacement for Morgan, Bopara’s 60 against South Africa was the sort of mature, under-pressure knock England have spent years worrying would never be seen on the international stage, but this only made his later painstaking knocks the more frustrating. With the ball he was a revelation, especially against the West Indies (2-22 off 8.4 overs), bowling as if he had absorbed all Collingwood’s experience.

Matt Prior 4
Drafted into the World Cup squad ahead of Steven Davies, who did little wrong but was felt to be deficient on slow wickets and behind the stumps, Prior has sadly not justified the faith. Tried as a finisher in the middle-order, he utterly failed to display the necessary nous. So he was then shunted back up the order – only to be dismissed brainlessly against Bangladesh – before a reasonably successful return to the middle order against Sri Lanka.

Luke Wright 6
Seemingly not trusted, Wright was given a chance when England had no more wriggle room against the West Indies – and with a mature 44 and four decent overs, he surpassed everyone’s expectations. May have been a trite offended that Swann was promoted to exploit the batting powerplay against Sri Lanka, ostensibly Wright’s great virtue.

Michael Yardy 3
Though he did very well in the World Twenty20, Yardy is a throwback to the days of Dougie Brown, Matthew Fleming and Mark Alleyne: clearly deficient with bat and ball alike. It said it all that he was comfortably outbowled by Pietersen against South Africa, but he has much more important things to worry about.

Tim Bresnan 7
Bresnan continued his fine winter with some consistently impressive performances, the highlight being a magnificent 5-48, belying unhelpful conditions, against India, though he faded somewhat in the last two games. Crucial runs against India and the West Indies also helped to prolong England’s place in the tournament.

Graeme Swann 7
At times in the group stage Swann looked like a man who had had enough travelling, but his performances held up, particularly in the crunch wins against South Africa and the West Indies. His struggles against Sri Lanka weren’t sufficient to undermine his status as the world’s best spin bowler. With bat in hand, Swann needs to learn that the switch hit is most effective as a surprise shot.

James Tredwell 7
Brought in to face the West Indies after months of drinks carrying, Tredwell was superb. Daring to flight the ball, and with some clever variations, he claimed four wickets and the man of the match award. It was inevitably tougher against Sri Lanka, but it was always going to be.

Stuart Broad 6
After consecutive five wicket hauls in the warm-ups, much was expected of Broad. But he proceeded to leak 138 runs against Netherlands and Ireland, missing the India game through illness in between. Yet against South Africa he produced a phenomenal spell of reverse-swing, winning the game with a spell of 4-15 – only to be ruled out the tournament straight after.

Ajmal Shazhad 6
Three superb deliveries should have won England the game against Bangladesh, but, those aside, Shazhad was too often erratic. Nevertheless, his reverse swinging prowess, aided to a big-match temperament exemplified by that six, all suggests we will see a lot more of him in an England shirt.

James Anderson 4
Oh Jimmy, Jimmy. What to say about a campaign in which he has averaged more than 70, leaking runs at nearly 7 an over? Just that his sterling contribution to England’s Ashes triumph should not be forgotten.

Chris Tremlett 4
Though he took an excellent catch against the West Indies, Tremlett’s World Cup was a fairly miserable affair. He seemed to quite lack the variety needed for limited overs cricket, though he was probably England’s most threatening bowler against Sri Lanka.

(England tournament averages can be viewed here)

What are your thoughts? Leave a comment

England’s Ashes ladder

April 7th marks the halfway point between the end of the 2009 Ashes series and the start of the 2010/11 one. Tim Wigmore assesses and rates the 25 Englishmen most likely to feature down under.

1) Andrew Strauss (170 runs @ 24.28 post-Ashes ‘09)

Endured a miserable series in South Africa, save for a brilliant 54 to seize the momentum in the second Test. But, after his controversial break, England will be reassured to have him back where he belongs at the top of the order. Especially if his coin-tossing form is undiminished.

2) Graeme Swann (209 runs @ 26.12; 37 wickets @ 28.72)

Swann’s ebullience with bat and ball earned him Man of the Series awards on both winter tours – all signs indicate he has actually improved since claiming Mike Hussey with the last delivery of the 2009 Ashes, with his first innings showings in South Africa particularly impressive. Australia will be well aware of Swann’s importance: currently, he is single-handedly vindicating England’s four-bowler strategy.

3) Kevin Pietersen (427 runs @ 42.70)

After a miserable return post-injury, Pietersen returned to form impressively in Bangladesh. Intriguingly, he batted at number three for the first time in the second Test. And there is a very powerful argument indeed that that is where he should remain.

4) Paul Collingwood (492 runs @ 54.66)

It now seems incredible, but Collingwood’s place was under some threat after averaging just 27 in the Ashes. He was exceptional in South Africa, making day five match-saving into a fine art. As his recent brilliant ODI form has showcased, Collingwood has expanded his game, and, at almost 34, transformed himself into a regular six-hitter. But it would be nice to know what has happened to his bowling in Tests, which will be needed if England continue playing four bowlers.

5) Jimmy Anderson (16 wickets @ 34.25)

His series in South Africa may have been typical Anderson – one very good Test and three distinctly underwhelming ones. He remains both England’s best fast bowler and one who is worryingly short of potency when swing is absent. A rest will have done him much good: the next Ashes series could define his career.

6) Alastair Cook (629 runs @ 62.90)

After a double failure in the first Test in South Africa, the vultures were circling, irked by the ease with which he was being handed the captaincy. But his 118 in England’s victory in the second Test was perhaps his best century yet. After an impressive enough start to captaincy in Bangladesh, marked by two centuries, he is looking more secure than for some time. England value his tenacity at the top, and he will get an opportunity to work on that Ashes average of 26.

7) Ian Bell (574 runs @ 63.77)

No one gained more this winter. Bell’s 140 in Durban felt like the start of a new dawn, after frustrating for 50 Tests. And his courageous and technically faultless 78 to salvage a draw in Cape Town seemed to confirm as much. A century in Bangladesh, when his form looked incandescent, even erased the oft-quoted statistic that Bell had never been the sole century maker in an England innings. Cue inevitable jibes about the quality of opposition. He can erase those, once and for all, if he takes his winter form down under.

8) Stuart Broad (79 runs @ 9.87; 19 wickets @ 37.42)

It was looking so good during a brilliant spell at Durban, when Broad relocated the full-length and late movement that had won England the Ashes. Thereafter, it was a tale of tantrums with the ball and a first international slump with the bat. England, and the man himself, still don’t seem quite sure what his role should be. Which, after 28 Tests, is something of an indictment. Some more first-class cricket wouldn’t hurt, but there is no time for him to play it.

9) Matt Prior (227 runs @ 25.22)

Though the quality of his keeping continued to improve, Prior had a winter to forget, culminating in being dropped from the World Twenty20 squad. Only twice did he pass 14 in seven innings in South Africa – although they were both very good knocks. Irony of ironies, Prior is now the keeper’s man, with Kieswetter’s batting threatening to do to Prior what Prior did to Read.

10) Jonathan Trott (326 runs @ 29.63)

A fine display in the first Test of the winter exuded comparisons with Graham Thorpe. By winter’s end, Trott had not bettered his stubborn 69 at Centurion. A resolute display as stand-in opener in Bangladesh raised nearly as many questions as answers – he took 271 minutes over 64, suggesting he can be becalmed all too easily. He will cling on for now, though his brilliant Ashes debut is a fading memory, but he will be for the chop if England think they can manage ok with only five batsmen. Trott’s madcap display in the fourth Test in South Africa was emphatically not that of a Test match number three. Tellingly, Bell bats there for Warwickshire, with Trott in the middle order.

11) Graeme Onions (8 wickets @ 45.75)

Onions will have been particularly disappointed to miss the tour to Bangladesh, having had more to gain than most from it. His near-heroic batting at Centurion and Cape Town was the most memorable aspect of England’s winter. Onions bowled well, but with unflattering figures, until being controversially omitted for Sidebottom for the fourth Test, and deserves to return when he is fit. Some variations would increase his potency on Australian wickets.

12) Tim Bresnan (91 runs @ 91.00; 7 wickets @ 32.28)

Bresnan’s performances in Bangladesh, after being catapulted into the squad following a wave of injuries, led Andy Flower to describe him as the “stand-out seamer”. The ball to dismiss Tamim Iqbal would have dismissed any of the three left-handers in Australia’s top six, while his 91 justified his position at seven, too. The consummate squad man, could Bresnan be England’s Andy Bichel?

13) Steven Finn (4 wickets @ 44.25)

Like Bresnan, Finn forced his way into the side ahead of those in the original touring party. Though obviously raw, he looked a Test match natural. On the bouncier wickets of Australia, Finn’s 6ft 7 frame could cause real damage. It is imperative workload and expectations are managed sagaciously, as has conspicuously not been the case with Adil Rashid.

14) Craig Kieswetter

His rise since qualification has evoked Kevin Pietersen’s, as a mature century in his third ODI propelled him into the Twenty20 squad. The surprise was that Prior was dropped altogether. If Kieswetter scores runs for England in the one-day game – and, as importantly, can improve his wicket-keeping – then Prior will be getting very jittery indeed over his Test place as well. Either way, Kieswetter has surely made himself England’s Test match number two in the keeping department. And one day, perhaps soon, he will be their number one.

15) Michael Carberry (64 runs @ 32.00)

A Test debut was fitting reward for a man who could easily have drifted out of the game but fought back. It was solid, but two middling scores – 30 and 34 – are criminal for an opener in Bangladesh, and Carberry will need a combination of luck and another fine domestic season to prevent it being his only Test.

16) Monty Panesar

Panesar’s winter was spent playing for the Highveld Lions in South Africa. His wickets came at a shade under 40, which is less than spectacular, but the experience of being the overseas player in an unfamiliar environment will serve him well. He needs to impress for his new county Sussex to come close to an England recall as second spinner.

17) James Tredwell (37 runs @ 37.00; 6 wickets @ 30.16)

Tredwell should be very content with his all-round contribution in Bangladesh, which included a phenomenal catch as a substitute in the first Test. But, nonetheless, the feeling persists that he would be unlikely to trouble Australia. Even at Sydney, would England really play two off-spinners? Tredwell’s only chance of Ashes action is the unthinkable – an injury to Graeme Swann.

18) Eoin Morgan

Morgan could hardly have enjoyed a better winter, playing a series of breathtaking innings that have fused calculation with inventive brilliance, culminating with single-handedly winning the second ODI in Bangladesh. But his record for Middlesex in the second division last season was abysmal – averaging just 24 – as he proved susceptible to being caught behind the wicket. Yet some players – think of Vaughan and Trescothick – have the talent and temperament to thrive in Tests despite struggling in the County Championship. If Morgan keeps producing sublime innings for England, the selectors will want to find out if he is one of them.

19) Steve Harmison

Yes, yes. We have been here too many times before. And it’s true that Harmison has a dire record in Australia, averaging 51 in 10 Tests. But his pace and bounce, if all functioning, provide a problem Australia wouldn’t like to see. He refrained from retiring from international cricket after the Ashes win, and could yet get his revenge for that ball.

20) Ravi Bopara

To his immense credit, Bopara responded to his miserable Ashes summer by playing for Auckland in New Zealand. His first-class returns were hardly spectacular – 294 runs at just 32.66 – but impressive form in the IPL earned him a recall to the England set-up for the World Twenty20. Mitchell Johnson et al would surely relish the prospect of bowling to him down under, though, and Bopara would need to provide real evidence he has improved to merit even a squad place.

21) Luke Wright

Selected for both Test squads, England clearly do not trust him, and by the end of the Bangladesh tour, most people had forgotten Wright was even in the squad. England would love a Test-class number seven, but few are convinced Wright is.

22) Adil Rashid

After a winter that witnessed four international overs at an expense of 52 runs, there have already been premature fears Rashid could become another Chris Schofield. For a player of his talent that is very unlikely, but there have justifiably been trenchant criticisms of the England management’s treatment of Rashid, with Micky Arthur calling it “criminal”. Still, how England would love him and Swann to bowl England to Ashes triumph at Sydney.

23) Ajmal Shazhad

A ‘wildcard’ inclusion for the tour to Bangladesh, Shazhad took two wickets in his first international over, against Pakistan in Dubai, but faded thereafter. With just 53 first-class wickets to his name, Shazhad is emphatically ‘raw’, but his ability to reverse swing at pace and to score quick runs means he should not be discounted completely.

24) Ryan Sidebottom (2 wickets @ 49.00)

Surprisingly selected for the last Test in South Africa, Sidebottom in fact bowled pretty well. But then those perennial injury nightmares struck yet again, leaving his glorious 12 months as attack leader in 07/08 looking further away than ever. Still, he was selected for England’s World Twenty20 squad, though faith he can last five days every again must be thin.

25) Robert Key

England’s nearly man will probably never add to his 15 Test caps. But an average of 50 in Kent’s promotion in 2009 ensured Key remains on the periphery. Rumoured discontents when he was in the World Twenty20 squad in 2009 will not have helped his cause, though.

England could surprise South Africa

Four years ago, England’s Ashes triumph was not the springboard to an era of dominance, but proved the prologue to a period of prolonged mediocrity. As they embark on their long tour of South Africa – they don’t fly back until January 19^th – Andrew Strauss will be determined to build on the Ashes win. It would be a depressing indictment of English cricket if beating a side now ranked fourth in the world 2-1 at home represented a glass ceiling.

By any measure, the series in South Africa appears an even sterner challenge. For all their perennial choking in ICC limited-overs tournaments, the Proteas are ranked the best Test side in the world. Though their only series of the year so far saw them lose at home to Australia, in 2008 they recorded a formidable set of results: drawing in India; winning in England, and seeing off Michael Vaughan in the process; and finally a famous series triumph down under.

However, the Tests do not commence until December 16^th, by which time the sides will have contested five one-day internationals and the drawn Twenty20s. England have almost invariably been something of a joke in the shorter formats of the game since reaching the 1992 World Cup final. New depths were plummeted in the 6-1 home thrashing by Australia. But then. Something happened.

England went to South Africa for the Champions Trophy perceived as no-hopers, and ended up reaching only their second semi-final in 12 global tournaments dating back to 1992. But more importantly the rhetoric from the camp was for once matched by deeds. England pledged to play a new brand of fearless cricket, after embarrassing themselves in consistently scraping to 220 against Australia. And, in two upset victories before reality kicked in, they managed it.

The triumph over South Africa was brought about by what Andrew Strauss called the best England ODI batting performance of his career. England shelled their inhibitions and trusted their hitting ability, hitting 12 sixes – the most they have ever managed in an ODI innings. Yet the two men together responsible for 11 of those face vastly contrasting circumstances. The diminutive Irishman Eoin Morgan will be given the opportunity to cement his position as England’s finisher. Possessing all the shots in the MCC coaching manual – and a load more developed courtesy of his ingenuity and the dexterity of his wrists – Morgan is a special talent indeed, as anyone who witnessed his 34-ball 67 in the Champions Trophy, or superlative 85* in the first Twenty20, would attest to. But so is another man who will be nowhere to be seen in South Africa.

While England talk bravely of the need to hit sixes in limited-overs games, it seems astonishing that the man who plundered six en route to a brilliant 98 in that game has since been dispensed with. Owais Shah may not be the world’s greatest fielder or runner, but he is England’s highest run-scorer in ODIs since the 2007 World Cup. No one else in England, save for Kevin Pietersen (and Marcus Trescothick), can play such destructive innings.

But his absence does provide an opportunity for Jonathan Trott. Back in the country of his birth, just like Pietersen, Trott has been accused by Michael Vaughan of celebrating with the South African side after they sealed the Test series in England last year. Trott will face scrutiny, for sure, but what really matters is his qualities as an international batsman. He displayed a fine technique and temperament in amassing 119 on debut in the decisive Ashes Test, and will occupy a position in the top three for the ODIs. It is also a big series for Joe Denly, whose international start has been full of style but not substance. The same is true for Luke Wright, fortuitously called-up to the Test squad as a Flintoff-lite.

South Africa have historically been a far better limited-overs side than England, yet in games between the two countries in the 2000s, they both have ten victories each. If England are to continue this impressive run, they will need to contain a batting line-up leaden with power, from the formidable Graeme Smith downwards. The battle between Jimmy Anderson and Smith is of huge significance for the ODIs and Tests alike. If the ball swings, Andersons represents England’s best chance of success; if he is profligate, then expect South Africa to amass huge totals.

With Steve Harmison omitted – something the home players profess to be delighted about – England run the risk of being exposed on flat tracks. The vivacious Graeme Swann will face wickets that are notoriously unconducive to spin. Stuart Broad and Graeme Onions will make up the first-choice pace attack, but opportunities abound for two men discarded after the Duncan Fletcher era. Sajid Mahmood and Liam Plunkett have had three seasons in county cricket to learn the game after having proved that international cricket is no place for on-the-job training. Mahmood is in the ODI squad as England search for middle-over penetration; Plunkett features in the Tests, after a crucial role in Durham’s Championship triumph.

South Africa emphatically start all three series as favourites. In Smith, Jacques Kallis, Jp Duminy and Dale Steyn, they have a quartet of exceptional players. England’s best hope lies in blunting Steyn’s 90mph yorkers, which could then expose a bowling attack that is over-dependant upon him – Makhaya Ntini is ageing and Morne Morkel too erratic. Then there is Ab de Villiers to contend with: good enough to have represented South Africa in several sports, he settled on cricket and averaged 75 over the six Tests with Australia last winter.

The tour promises some intriguing cricket – as England-South Africa clashes invariably do - and will provide a real guage for England’s progress under the Strauss-Flower team. Losing the ODIs 3-2 and drawing the Tests would constitute an impressive result. For even this to be possible, the onus will be on two men with South African connections – the current and former skippers, Strauss and Kevin Pietersen. The two players of proven class in England’s batting line-up, both enjoyed extraordinary tours during England’s visit five yers ago. If they can come close to repeating those displays, England should be able to score a lot of runs.

Patience with Pietersen wears thin

It’s time to have a word, skipper. If Andrew Strauss hasn’t had a strong chat with Kevin Pietersen already, he urgently needs to do so. Pietersen is currently doing more damage to the England cricket team than good, which is remarkable considering his batting talent.

Pietersen has previous loose-tongued dealings with the press. Some commend him for straight-talking, but he is really inflammatory and unprofessional. He does not think about others before he speaks – did it cross his mind that team-mates and supporters would feel let down by his recent comments?

His unnecessary and hypocritical attack on Shivnarine Chanderpaul was poorly judged and another example of why Pietersen is not, and never has been, the right man to lead England. He exhibits few of the characteristics necessary for good leadership.

Pietersen’s selfishness is hurting England. He is constantly complaining of the hurt the ECB caused him, with no apparent regard for the damage he himself has done to the team; he seems to think a strong conviction condones subsequent action, when actually nothing excuses the back-stabbing of the team’s coach and the development of a dangerous persecution complex.

His successor as captain must feel Pietersen’s jealousy. He bleats about Strauss having everything he wants as captain – really Kevin? The split dressing room, the temporary coach, the sulking star player. Exactly what a new skipper requires – and shows no desire to move on for the sake of the team.

The replacement of Pietersen with Strauss was seen by some as the installation of a ‘yes man’, a unifying presence unable to take on authority. The opposite is true – Strauss is the stronger character, able to drop established players but still improve dressing room harmony.

Pietersen is the frailer character whose famous drive and ambition goes only as far as his own career. The right man is in charge, but he has one remaining task to perform before he makes the position his own, and that is to put his troublesome predecessor in his place.

England player ratings

Here are the series ratings for England's 1-0 defeat in West Indies.

Alastair Cook 7
Finally hit his eighth Test century and, along with three half-centuries, allayed any doubts over his position in the side.

Andrew Strauss 9
Thrice hit centuries on the opening day of a Test to put England in control, batting with a new-found positivity to confirm his remarkable rejuvenation as a Test opener. And he convinced as skipper, in tandem with Andy Flower, although he will live to regret the timing of two of his declarations.

Ian Bell 2
Dropped, at long last, after the first Test, Bell should be kept well away from the side until the end of the summer. At which point this supremely talented technician may have found the mental resolve to do justice to his great talent.

Owais Shah 4
Given his chance at long last, Shah sadly disappointed. His running between the wickets was indicative of his confused mindset; how he will regret his run-out when crusing on 57. May yet be given another chance - although his best position, as remarked upon well before this series, is not at number three.

Kevin Pietersen 7
He will be disappointed 15 centuries were posted before his brilliant final Test hundred. But he slipped back into the side with minimal fuss, to his immense credit. With the challenge of the captaincy taken away from him, how about trying your hand as England's number three, KP?

Paul Collingwood 8
Two centuries and a 96 constituted a hugely impressive series. And the doubters, whom Collingwood seems to take such pleasure in proving wrong, have no reason to question his place any longer. His sublime catch almost proved the catalyst for England to level the series - although some of his other fielding, like his bowling, was below his normal standards.

Ravi Bopara 8
Took his opportunity wonderfully with an assured century after an early reprive. But even if he plays 100 Tests, he may not score an easier ton, so it would be pressumptious in the extreme to hail him as the answer to England's problems at number three, as some have rushed to do.

Andrew Flintoff 5
In the two Tests he played, Flintoff disappointed with the bat - yet again - while bowling with his usual parsimony. But the days of him batting at number six have surely passed.

Matt Prior 7
Nine for his exceptionally impressive batting; five for his improved, but still too shoddy, wicket-keeping. But if England want to pursue a strategy of five bowlers, then Prior simply must play and bat at six.

Tim Ambrose 7
Dropped on nought, Ambrose compiled a fine, attacking 76* in his sole innings, to go with some impressive keeping. Prior's place remains safe, however, unless his keeping completely disintegrates.

Stuart Broad 7
Bowled manfully, and with developing variations, on lifeless services to cement his place in the side.

Graeme Swann 8
In any vote for 'man of the tour' Swann would surely win hands down. Unjustly dropped for the first Test, Swann kept his spirits up and responded magnificiently when given his opportunity. he may lack a doosra but impressed with his variations, aided by control and a willingness to toss the ball up in search of wickets. His spell on the series' final day was exceptional.

James Anderson 6
The figures do him scant justice, but Anderson's magnificent reverse-swing bowling in the final Test almost saw England share the series. At times he seemed unable to believe his illfortune - but he emerges from the series as England's new King of Swing.

Steve Harmison 5
Disappointed in his two Tests, without being so poor as to completely burn his bridges. Should have been given one final opportunity ahead of Ryan Sidebottom in the Fourth Test, but he is clearly holding onto his international career by the tips of his fingers. The ODIs are of huge important for his future.

Ryan Sidebottom 2
What was he doing playing when so patently unfit? Wholehearted but sadly toothless, his international career looks over after his 12 months in the sun.

Monty Panesar 5
Poor in the first Test, after which he was rightly dropped. But his return for the final game suggested he has learned new variations and subtleties. England's best chance of beating Australia lies with playing two spinners. After his exploits this winter, however, Swann is the senior twin.

Amjad Khan 4
Playing the final Test, Khan delivered the priza scalp of Sarwan. However, he was weighed down by a serial no-ball problem, and lacked any real control. The next Simon Jones he does not quite appear to be.

The Verdict
England ended the series in funny shape. They suffered a desperately disappointing and unexpected series defeat. And yet there were clear reasons to be cheerful.

Reasons to be Cheerful?

So in the end it all came down to an aberration in the first test match. Despite getting Oh So Close on two occasions and making the running for most of the series, England were unable to force a victory to level the series. However, being the glass half full man that I am, there is plenty to build on from this series, as well as an equal amount that needs to be learnt quickly.

Positives
1. The dropping of Monty Panesar has resulted in him coming back with more variation than he has shown in his test career to date. He still needs to learn that his appealing is costing him wickets, but he could again be the match winner England need, rather than the stock bowler he had become.
2. Graham Swann as the other spinner is also a potential match winner and we could see the start of spin twins playing even in home tests.
3. Stuart Broad has tightened up his economy and found a way to take wickets on the flattest pitches imaginable. I seems inconceivable that he and James Anderson won’t get the new ball for the foreseeable future.
4. Speaking of Anderson, he seems to have come of age as the senior quick bowler. He bowled with no luck whatsoever, but almost forced the final victory. He had a much better series than his statistics suggest.
5. Matt Prior is a test match batsman. Could he also be the answer to our problems at Number 3? It should certainly make sure that Andrew Flintoff goes back to being the number 7 batsman he is clearly more comfortable with.
6. Although tempered by the flat pitches, most of our batsmen did cash in on the runs available. Only one batsman missed out, and more on him later (3 below). In particular, Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood not only scored runs, but did so in a positive fashion that hadn’t been seen for a while.

To be learnt
1. The dropping of Steve Harmison last year hasn’t had a long term effect on his bowling and along with Ryan Sidebottom, whose body is stopping him from bowling with any zip, his days as an international cricketer should be at an end. This leaves a space in the England bowling attack for someone to break into if England don’t go down the two spinner route.
2. England should take note that their best bowling performance was in the last innings when they had adopted a hugely positive approach to getting a win. Their batting put the WIndies on the back foot and they were able to create pressure and momentum which threw the opposition off kilter.
3. Owais Shah is not a test player. It gives me no pleasure to write that, but he looked out of his depth on the most batsman friendly pitches he will ever play on and his fielding is a liability. England (as ever) have an issue with their number 3 batsman. Ian Bell clearly looks more comfortable when he bats down the order, as does Ravi Bopara. This may leave a space for Michael Vaughan, if he rediscovers his form in county cricket or we may have to look for a more radical solution (see 5 above).
4. Matt Prior is not test class as a wicket-keeper. His batting is as good as any wicket-keeper since Alec Stewart. However, he still needs to work on the keeping side of things.
5. If England are going to go into a series so underprepared as to throw the first match, then they need to learn how to win on unresponsive pitches. In fact, England just plain need to learn to win again.

My fervent hope from this series is that it marks a renaissance of West Indian cricket. They clearly have some talented players and with Dwain Bravo to come back into the fold, they should be a more successful team than they are currently.

From an England point of view, from the South African series onwards, there have been a catalogue of missed opportunities. The results have not matched the performances, but it is the results that the team will be judged on. This needs to be addressed and quickly.

Captaincy and the art of batting

I write at lunchtime on day one of the fourth Test at Barbados and the Test Match Special team is busy admiring the change in Andrew Strauss’ batting. The consensus that the captaincy has brought a new dynamism to his strokeplay is hard to disagree with, which again poses the question of how captaincy affects the form of batsmen.

This issue is topical given the recent runscoring feats of skippers Mahela Jayawardene and Younis Khan (although the conditions they encountered at the Karachi National Stadium means their high scores can hardly be attributed to the responsibility of captaincy).

The sustained good form of Ricky Ponting and Graeme Smith since taking on their respective captaincy roles is more telling. Of course both are top class batsmen, but there is little doubt leadership brings the best out of their batting.

Indeed, most current international skippers seemed to have improved their output since taking charge, but statistics tell only part of the story.

Strauss’ transformation from shot-restricted accumulator to fluent stroke-maker is the most marked change of style, perhaps along with MS Dhoni and Chris Gayle’s transformation in the other direction.

Full analysis of Strauss’ new dominating approach when in charge should be delayed until he faces tougher attacks on spicier pitches, but his productivity when he stood-in as skipper in 2006 suggests he likes to lead from the front.

That wish to set an example is what unites all captains, which means the responsibility of leadership often exaggerates players’ individual traits. Mike Atherton and Steve Waugh became more stubborn; Ponting seeks to dominate even more; Jayawardene is fuller of concentration.

It doesn’t always work out that way. The responsibility of captaincy can often weigh heavily, with the implications of bad form exacerbated by the duty of leadership. Atherton at times appeared consumed by his status as most prized wicket by the opposition, whilst Nasser Hussain and Mark Taylor, who generally revelled as their teams’ figureheads, endured horror runs that brought their place in the team into question.

All England supporters hope Strauss stays in the productive captaincy category. He has just lofted Sulieman Benn for six to reach a century in consecutive Tests, suggesting we might have to wait for the introspective spell that threatens most batting captains.

Written by Philip Oliver, an online sports writer who blogs about Test match cricket.

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.

Strauss can end England's dependency culture

Well, what to make of that then? Just with Australia finally displaying major signs of weakness, English cricket slumped into a fresh bout of crisis. The twin departues of Messrs Moores and Pietersen were truly embarrassing. Pietersen clearly deserves the vast majority of the blame - though perhaps not so much for his complaints against Moores as the manner in which they were made so public.

Moores is hardly a great loss as coach. And Pietersen, somewhat tactically naive - as even he himself acknowleged - clearly suffered from a complete lack of captaincy experience. Had he continued to be captain, it would have been intriguing to see how his style developed. He does undeniably have a brilliant and instinctive cricketing mind, but the manner in which he sought to advance his favourites - none more so than Michael Vaughan - at the expense of true meritocracy left an uncomfortable taste.

England have not lost a great captain or great coach. Whether they lose a batsman of rare brilliance will determine the ultimate damage from the affair. But if, somehow, Pietersen slips into the ranks as unobtrusively as his character will allow, and the forthcoming Ashes serves to galvanise the squad and make them forget past frictions, then England may yet come out of the whole affair rather well.

No one can argue with the appointment of Andrew Strauss as captain. Intelligent, articulate, calm, experienced and with a resilient temperament that has allowed him to respond admirably to being dropped 15 months ago, he would never be caught in such an ugly public spat. He has been called the archetypal 'safe pair of hands' - actually he is a highly-regarded tactician and a self-assured leader. His quiet determination will allow no one an easy ride; and ensure a meritocracy in team selection that has been conspicious for its absence of late.

Together with Andy Flower (whose appointment as temporary coach only needs to be rubber-stamped) Strauss can offer England something much overdue. Ludicrously overburdened with backroom support staff, England have been big on talk and short on action. Superficially they are the most 'professional' side England have ever possessed. But what is needed, above all, is a more understated approach. Players must take responsbility for their own actions and end the unhealthy dependency culture that has spread within Team England.

Pietersen's personal problems become public property

Kevin Pietersen paid the price for letting his personal issues with Peter Moores lead him, although perversely England are perhaps now better-placed than they were when the crisis hit.

Much mystery surrounds the current England crisis. The Moores – Pietersen furore developed from the fact that the pair did not see eye-to-eye. We don’t know exactly what that means and due to the outgoing coach’s reticence in talking about the affair, we will perhaps never truly discover what made the protagonists’ relationship so unworkable.

How can a coach and captain clash so catastrophically? It should be taken as read that both want what is best for the team, so it follows that neither should take umbrage at how this is achieved.

I cannot believe that there were sufficient ideological differences between Moores and Pietersen as to how the team should be coached, trained, organised and selected to justify the obvious bad blood.

It is reported that Pietersen did not like the coach’s harsh fitness regime and took exception to Moores’ challenging of senior players. The former grievance could be resolved by sensible discussion; the latter prodded the captain’s ego. And this is the crux of the matter; make no mistake, this fallout was personal.

Why else would Pietersen demand a long meeting with the coach to confirm they were ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’ before accepting the job? He simply did not rate Moores as a coach (probably due to the modern obsession with having coaches who played at the top level) and more significantly, did not like or trust him.

Some culpability must lie with the ECB for failing to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each man, but Moores and Pietersen should have found a way to make the relationship work. That they couldn’t reveals much about their shortcomings in their respective roles.

Man-management is often mentioned as a key responsibility of the modern sporting coach and Moores was clearly lacking in this area, with some players (although not as many as was thought) reporting he had ‘lost’ the dressing room.

Pietersen – perhaps as unmanageable as they come – was even less proficient in working with others. The fact that he did not receive universal team support in his anti-coach machinations will come as a massive shock, revealing a lack of judgment to go alongside his characteristics of arrogance, tactical naivety and disloyalty – a checklist for constructing a bad captain.

England are therefore not as badly off as it appears. Andrew Strauss is more than just a safe pair of hands – he is, and has been for three years, the best candidate for the job and has the experience and nous to heal the dressing room rifts, which are at least now out in the open rather than bubbling away under the surface.

Concerns over the One Day captaincy and the prospects of a split role are secondary – England’s limited overs planning was as poor as it ever has been in India and there is hardly anything to throw away in again starting from scratch.

Pietersen will do just fine back in the ranks, as there is no batsman around better-suited to concentrating on his own game and prospering against a wave of Australian sledging.

The team will be better off without a coach that could not help player development and a leadership axis that could not put personal differences aside in the quest for co-operation.

Written by Philip Oliver, a sports writer who blogs about cricket betting.

2008 Season Review: Middlesex

Continuing our season reviews, here is an assessment of Middlesex’s season.

Final placings:
Championship Division Two – 3rd;
FP Trophy – 3rd, South-East Division;
Twenty20 Cup – Winners;
Pro40 Division One - 8th

How to judge Middlesex’s season? It was one in which they lost two captains, never looked like getting County Championship promotion and saw a members’ revolt. But they also ended 15 trophyless years with a pulsating win in the Twenty20 Cup – earning riches unprecedented in county cricket in the process.

Still, for all the excitement of winter trips to Antigua and India, deep problems remain. A batting line-up that appears one of the best in the county game is still prone to alarming collapses; all too often, it fell to the line-up’s less-vaunted members, wicket-keeper Ben Scott and Shaun Udal, to repair the damage wrought by injudicious strokeplay.

Underachieving batsmen
In Andrew Strauss, Billy Godleman, Owais Shah, Eoin Morgan, Dawid Malan and Eds Smith and Joyce, Middlesex possess an array of supremely talented stroke-makers. Yet too often the side proved less than the sum of its parts. Where in the Twenty20, there was a relish for responsibility – witness Owais Shah’s sublime innings in the final and Malan’s breathtaking quarter-final century against Lancashire, from the depths of 21/4 – it was a sadly different story in the Championship. Consecutive wins to end the campaign secured third, but no one was fooled.

In between England duties, Strauss was much-improved upon last season and Shah played a few magnificent innings, though a CC average of 42 was still disappointing. Godleman struggled at times, but, still not 20 and with 35 first-class games under his belt, a long future in the game looks assured.

Further cause for optimism came in the pair of young left-handed stroke-players Malan and Morgan, both of whom are in the England Performance Programme Squad. Morgan looks well set to follow Joyce in representing both Ireland and England. His limited-overs batting is fearless and highly innovative – perhaps overly so at times – and an ODI debut cannot be too far away. But he also possesses a temperament and elegance that are well-suited to the first-class games, as three hundreds (the first, against South Africa, being his first for Middlesex) and an average of 50 are testament to.

Captaincy troubles
However, things were less rosy for Messrs Smith and Joyce. Smith’s campaign was injury-ravaged. Joyce did superbly to steer the side to Twenty20 glory, but he struggled with the bat and as captain in the other formats of the game, leading him to pass the reins onto Udal, who oversaw the encouraging end to the season. Whilst signing Udal out of retirement proved inspired, as he batted terrifically and bowled with tremendous nous, especially in Twenty20, it is decidedly uncertain whether the Eds will begin the 2009 season in the Middlesex ranks.

The mainstay of the bowling was Tim Murtagh. Indefatigable and increasingly canny, he took more wickets all told than anyone else in the land. The support was rather mixed, however, owing much to injuries. Alan Richardson did very well after coming back from injury, but Chris Silverwood barely played. Young tyros Steven Finn and Danny Evans both have bright futures, especially the beanpole Finn, provided they are not overbowled too young.

Middlesex’s foreign imports were something of a mixed bunch. Dirk Nannes proved an excellent recruit, fantastic in the Twenty20 and averaging just 20 with the ball in his five Championship games. Tyron Henderson is a superb Twenty20 player, but failed in other competitions. Locum overseas player Vernon Philander was uninspiring, whilst Murali Kartik, so outstanding last season, failed to repeat his success, though he too was crucial in the Twenty20 win.

As they prepare for an exciting winter, Middlesex have many issues to be resolved – a permanent captain being the most pressing. But with Twenty20 riches to boost the club coffers and a band of immensely promising youngsters, Middlesex are in better shape than for many years.

Player of the season:
Tim Murtagh is the only realistic choice after taking 104 wickets this campaign, including 10 wickets in a match for the first time. An increasingly skilful operator and handy lower-order biffer – how Surrey must regret letting him cross the Thames.

Most disappointing player:
It may seem harsh but Murali Kartik’s 16 wickets at 34 from seven Championship games was a pretty woeful return for a man recruited to be a match-winning spin bowler who could lead the club to Division One.

Highlight:
Tyron Henderson holding his nerve, when all others were losing theirs, to win the Twenty20 Cup. With 11 wins from their 13 games, no one could dispute Middlesex were the tournament’s best side.

Lowlight:
Losing consecutive Championship games by an innings and 10-wickets just before Twenty20 finals day, virtually ensuring another season in Division Two.

If you're interested in writing a season review for your county (we still need reviews for Somerset, Sussex, Lancashire, Warwickshire, Derbyshire and Gloucestershire) or contributing in any way please email cricketingworld@hotmail.com

Rob Key: next England captain

Well, well. After fumbling along for so long with faults prevalent but the cosy set-up in denial about these, there is finally a shake-up within the England side. Michael Vaughan, who won more Tests than any other captain, has resigned; Paul Collingwood has seemingly been pushed from the one-day set-up.

There are two obvious candidates to replace them. Kevin Pietersen is well established as a star in both forms of the game for England. Captaincy could help rein in his impetuosity, which reared its ugly head when trying to launch Paul Harris for a six to bring up his century. During the last one-day international, when he was stand-in captain, his choice of bowlers seemed a little less formulaic than Collingwood's has been. He clearly has a fine cricketing brain and under-rated tactical acuman. Making your best player captain is, in many senses, the most logical step. However, he still has a worrying lack of captaincy experience - doubts exist over his ability to handle disparate characters within the side.

There may be calls for Andrew Strauss to be handed the job on the basis that he should have led England to Australia in 2006/07. But that is no sound reason. His current form is grim and he has scored hundreds only against New Zealand in the last two years. Add to this that he is not in the ODI side and it is clear England must look elsewhere, for all his captaincy credentials.

But where? The next England skipper should be Rob Key. He has led Kent with distinction for almost three seasons, winning the Twenty20 Cup last season. This year, they were one shot away from retaining the trophy; they will play Essex in the Friends Provident Trophy final; and they still have a very realistic chance of Champuionship glory. At 29, he has developed tremendous cricketing nous and commands respect. Key is a phlegmatic character, outwardly relaxed but alo fiercely determined. His status as an 'outsider' - he has not played for three and-a-half years - is surely a benefit, given the deep malaise England currently find themselves in. New ideas, which have clearly been very successful at Kent, could reinvigorate the side.

But what of Key the batsman? For a captain's authority is undermined if there are doubts over whether he merits his place in the side, as Vaughan is striking testament to. Key did reasonbly in his 15 Tests, but is a better player now, who knows how to get the best out of himself - and has also lost plenty of weight. Though not outstanding, he is having another good season, averaging 51 in first-class cricket (it was 56 last season), including 178* for Kent against New Zealand. Given the batting woes of the top three, he fully merits a recall even if his captaincy skills are ignored. Whilst it is true he was out-of-his-depth in his brief ODI career to date, his limited-overs game has developed wonderfully of late, as he has learned the art of pacing innings - and even developed a paddle over fine-leg. So he merits a place in all three forms of the game on current form. Add in his know-how and captaincy pedigree and Rob Key stands out as England's best choice.

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.

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.

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.

Prior Knowledge

The England ODI side to face New Zealand in one Twenty20 International and five ODI’s is announced later on today. It is rumoured that there is to be a surprise or two. After reviewing the Friends Provident Trophy matches so far this season, I have tried to identify who is deserving of a place in the side.

The first surprise is that Andrew Strauss is being considered for a recall. Whilst Strauss has clearly worked hard to reinvent himself and is deservedly reaping the benefits, there is no doubt that he is not what England need in the ODI arena, especially given the rise of whiz bang cricket and ever higher run rates. Strauss would be best left to focus on Test cricket and constructing solid innings as in the last Test match. He plays best when he isn’t under pressure to score. From this readers could be forgiven for assuming that Alistair Cook would be my pick at the top. Sorry again. Whilst Strauss isn’t going to be taking Cook’s place, somebody else will! Alistair Cook, very much like Strauss, plays best when not under pressure to score. Neither are Marcus Trescothick and playing them in the hope that they one day will be is sheer foolishness. And a Trescothick is exactly what England need up at the top of the order. Cook tried initially, but looked unnatural and kept on getting out attempting to hit over the top. Then he played his way, which brought more runs, but did nothing for the run rate in comparative terms. His first ODI hundred against India at The Rose Bowl was indicative of Cook’s problem. Whilst he did compile a brilliant innings, England could have unleashed the fury much earlier in the match, but Cook was seemingly unable to do so. Indeed, Ian Bell, his partner in crime, was able to do so to a greater extent. Once again England fell short of the mammoth score which they should have made. Of course, it wasn’t a problem in that particular game, but it could well be in the future.

England have also tried to replace Trescothick, most recently with Phil Mustard, who has also taken over the wicket keeping duties, with limited success. Mustard came to prominence during Durham’s run to the Friends Provident Final last season, which ultimately culminated in them winning their first trophy. His exciting brand of cricket was compared to Adam Gilchrist, always the bench mark for a wicket keeper it seems, no matter how unfair. At international level though, and I say this after his limited appearances, he doesn’t appear to be able to convert starts in to the bigger fifties and hundreds which win matches and are the backbone of any limited overs side. His form in domestic cricket this year has also been far from impressive, as those of us with him in our fantasy sides can testify! Jeremy Coney, after his first sighting of Mustard, described him as a leg side bully. It is hard to disagree at times, although he clearly has more to his game than this. Ultimately though, after ten matches, he is averaging 23.30, with only a solitary fifty to his name.

The change which I therefore wish to see and which looks increasingly likely, is the recall of Matt Prior to the ODI side. Whether this be as wicket keeper or not doesn’t really bother me. He clearly has the ability with the bat to cope as a top six batsmen. Whilst he too only averages 22.90 after his return to the side last year, scoring the one fifty, he is without doubt a better batsman than Mustard. He averages 40.14 in Test cricket and is so far the leading scorer in First Class cricket this season, with 473 runs at an average of 67. He has only failed to pass fifty once in fact and in Sussex’s most recent game scored both a hundred and fifty, whilst nobody else was able to even get past forty. His efforts won the game. That record clearly deserves rewarding. What of his wicket keeping though? Well, it is often the unreported facet of the game. Without being there it is hard to judge. Some reports suggest improvement and this would be understandable, away from the scrutiny and pressure of the international arena. In his favour is that he played well as the keeper for England in limited overs cricket and did not make the same volume of mistakes as in Test match cricket, mistakes for which he was rightly dropped. His keeping will need to be at a much higher level before he returns to Test cricket. However, a return to the ODI side will enable him to ease his way back in, set about keeping successfully through fifty overs, rather than two hundred or more over five days.

If Prior is to come in for Mustard, then I may well bat him down the order, where he operates so well for Sussex. He could also open of course, a position he has yet to convince in at international level. Vikram Solanki is the only other real candidate for the opening role, yet he has been in and out of the side over so many years that I doubt he will be selected, despite his excellent limited overs form. My definite opener would be Ian Bell as I feel he is the player England should look to, to bat through the innings. His best ODI innings for my mind was against Australia when he opened. His promotion would allow Kevin Pietersen to bat at number three, where he could better dictate the game for England. This could be the fresh change with Pietersen needs in order to reinvigorate his own game and focus on his strength, being positive. At four would come Owais Shah, as I believe that too much of his ability against spin is lost down at number six, plus England now have better options down the order. Usman Afzaal and Samit Patel could also be in contention for this position in the future, given their impressive allround performances for their counties in the FP Trophy thus far this season.

Five would be the captain, Paul Collingwood, in his familiar role. At six I would have Ravi Bopara who is enjoying a good start to the season. At seven would be Luke Wright (if Prior were to open, it may be worth swapping the two around at some point), as he has so far played his best cricket for England at the death. Eight would be Andrew Flintoff when he returns, until then Dimi Mascarenhas would be a sound choice and the only near replacement which England really have. Nine would be the ever improving Stuart Broad, who looks more at home in the ODI side than the Test team. Ten would be the ever reliable Ryan Sidebottom.

The batting depth of this side would allow England to play Monty Panesar at number eleven should he develop more variety. It can be argued though that he needs the experience of playing in order to develop that variety. His rivals are Graeme Swann, Adil Rahsid and James Tredwell, all of whom could comfortably bat at number nine, or possibly higher if required. For me, building for the next World Cup and given his success against New Zealand thus far, I would choose Panesar, with Rashid as the second spinner.

James Anderson would be the standby seamer and could also play instead of Mascarenhas until Flintoff’s return if deemed necessary. He is still far too inconsistent though and that is why he does not make the final XI. Even in Test match cricket he still bowls a lot of four balls and doesn’t seem to be able to maintain consistent pressure on the batsmen.

I believe that England are working their way towards building a successful and positive limited overs side. The introduction of more positive players has led to an improvement and will continue to do so.


THE XI:

Ian Bell
Matt Prior (wk)
Kevin Pietersen
Owais Shah
Paul Collingwood (c)
Ravi Bopara
Luke Wright
Andrew Flintoff (Mascarenhas)
Stuart Broad
Ryan Sidebottom (Anderson)
Monty Panesar

The Reserves:

James Anderson
Adil Rashid
Dimitri Mascarenhas
Alistair Cook

FP Trophy Weekly Round-up

The domestic limited overs season got off to a cold, miserable and pretty soggy start this weekend, not that the sides who emerged victorious will have minded! The elements did for Lancashire vs Derby, Leicestershire vs Northamptonshire and Warwickshire vs Nottinghamshire. There was though play elsewhere and a couple of entertaining matches.

Nowhere was there a closer match than at The Riverside, where Durham narrowly came out on top over Yorkshire. Put into bat, Durham were in trouble early on, with young seamer Ajmal Shahzad particularly impressive (1-30). Phil Mustard (25) was once again guilty of getting in and then out, courtesy of a leg side hack. He will need to go on more often if he is to stay in England’s ODI side. Despite the wickets of Shahzad, Tim Bresnan (3-51) and Deon Kruis (2-37), the Dynamos crept their way up to 220 all out with four balls remaining, recent overseas arrival, Neil McKenzie, top scoring with a well paced 77. It was a good total on what was a seamer friendly wicket and Yorkshire soon slipped to 57-5 and then 140-8 in reply, largely thanks to an impressive opening spell of 2-19 from 8 overs by Neil Killeen. However, the holders were given a scare by Shahzad (33), this time impressive with the bat and the ever improving Bresnan (55). The Dynamos closed out the game though, just, with Graham Onions (1-40) having Bresnan caught in the covers with 6 needed off of 2 balls. It was a wonderful advert for the game and as far as England player watch is concerned, Liam Plunkett bagged 1-32 and Steve Harmison 2-40. Adil Rashid meanwhile bowled just four overs and was run out for a duck.

Elsewhere, Essex and Kent served up a run feast at Canterbury. Essex were stuck into bat by Rob Key and the decision backfired spectacularly with the Eagles amassing 317-5 from their fifty overs, captain Mark Pettini (119) and Ravi Bopara (99) the standout performers. There were two wickets apiece for Yasir Arafat and Ryan McLaren, but the bowling figures were generally expensive and England hopeful James Tredwell returned a less than impressive 0-52 from ten overs. Kent got to 286-9 in reply, but Martin van Jaarsveld (124) was the only Spitfire to get beyond 30 odd. Meanwhile, Bopara pitched in with a wicket and there were two apiece again for Andre Nel, Chris Wright and James Middlebrook.

To The Oval and Surrey vs Middlesex. More runs aplenty here, with Middlesex registering 315-6, Andrew Strauss hitting a career best 163, ably supported by Ed Joyce (42) and Owais Shah (55). Chris Jordan and Jade Dernbach each took two wickets, but with economy rates of over six. In reply, Surrey made a good start with Scott Newman (65) and James Benning (47) giving the Brown Caps hope. However, youngster Danny Evans (3-36) and debutant Gareth Berg (4-50) were impressive and only Mark Butcher (46) offered any real further threat.

Somerset meanwhile opted to field first at Taunton against Hampshire and the Hawks struggled to 221 all out with four balls left and were indebted to Michael Lumb (47), Nic Pothas (55) and captain Dimi Mascarenhas (53), who were the only real contributors. The returning Ben Phillips (3-47) and wily Steffan Jones (2-29) were the standout bowlers. 221 was never enough at Taunton, even in April and although Somerset suffered an early scare, slipping to 91-4, with a run a ball rate need from the last 20 overs, Ian Blackwell (86*) and John Francis (48*) saw them home with 14 balls left, Blackwell particularly destructive, which will undoubtedly have registered on Peter Moores’ radar. Mascarenhas (1-26), Shane Bond (1-33) and Chris Tremlett (1-39) each took a wicket and ended with tidy figures, but the back up bowling just wasn’t there.

The final match of the day saw Gloucestershire canter to victory over Worcestershire at a lively Bristol. Put into bat, The Royals made 221-8, Ben Smith (75) and Daryl Mitchell (63) the main players. The pace bowling trio of Jon Lewis (2-48), Anthony Ireland (2-43) and Steve Kirby (2-19) exploited the conditions well. In reply, Kadeer Ali (63) and Hamish Marshall (57) laid the foundations, while Craig Spearman (64) finished off the game, Chris Whelan taking two uneconomical wickets for the Royals.

Player of the Week: For a career best 163 off 130 balls, with 23 fours and 4 sixes, it has to be the resurgent Andrew Strauss. Ian Blackwell gets an honourable mention as do Neil McKenzie and Tim Bresnan.