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

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.

A new era

Anyone doubting whether Andy Flower really would provide a fresh start need only look at his first Test squad.

It is a squad which has scant regard for reputations and says form is everything. Michael Vaughan, Ian Bell and Steve Harmison will not be done any harm playing more county cricket to prove they deserve to play in the Ashes.

Of all those omitted, the one for whom prospects look bleakest is surely Owais Shah. Given his long-awaited chance in the West Indies on some of the most batsmen-friendly pitches you're ever likely to find, he was undone by a penchant for suicidal runs and his own cramp. The selectors seem to have decided he is neither fit enough nor calm enough for the demands of Test cricket. It is a hsrah call, certainly: he is a man who should have been given his chance much, much earlier so to jettison him after three bad Tests is ruthless. Ultimately, he was probably unfortunate that it was the number three vacancy that he was given his opporunity in; Shah's brand of wristiness and quality against spin is such that he could have become a fixture at five, say.

So Ravi Bopara will have the opporunity to solve England's perennial troubles at number three. He is a man high on confidence, having scored a century in his only Test of the winter and, in stark contrast to the other Englishmen (bar Dimitri Mascarenhas) has made a positive impression in the IPL. Has he got the technique and experience to bat at three, however? Bopara has been nothing more than mediocre during his spell as an opener for England in ODIs. It is asking a lot of him to score centuries at three in the Ashes - the feeling persists that Andy Flower could do a lot worse than set Kevin Pietersen the new challenge of leading the way from number three.

Graham Onions and Tim Bresnan have both been on the periphery of the England set-up for a few years and, given their excellent starts to the season, it makes sense to give them an opportunity. The new England have said a lot by who they have selected; they have probably said even more by who they have left out.

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.

England's Ashes ladder

With the 2009 Ashes only six months away, who can expect to play a part for England? Each player has been ranked according to who is most likely to play in the series, from most likely to 25th.

1) Andrew Strauss
The new skipper has returned to form and England will be after some stability at last.

2) Andrew Flintoff
The obvious caveat is injury. But he has responded leaner and fitter since his comeback. His bowling, at least, is as good as ever.

3) Alastair Cook
Indicative of the malaise in the England side, even number three is not quite a certainty. But he did well against the West Indies before and, having invested so much time, England are very unlikely to dump him prior to the Ashes.

4) Kevin Pietersen
Pietersen, surely, would not miss this for the world. But if he plays the IPL instead of the West Indies home series, he might just have to.

5) Matt Prior
May appear a little high for someone whose current Test stint has lasted just two games, but Prior is a fine batsman, vital with England seemingly favouring the five-man attack that served them so well in 2005. Whether they are right to remains another matter.

6) Stuart Broad
A man averaging 45 with the ball in Tests should not be this high. But, with doubts over so many bowlers, his excellent batting makes his selection very likely for the balance of the side.

7) Paul Collingwood
Forever fighting for his place, but Collingwood has hit two hundreds in his last four Tests. His grit is such that England would like him to play, but worrys over his troubesome shoulder - and batting technique - linger.

8) Steve Harmison
Conditional upon him reproducing something like his Durham form in the West Indies. But on his day Harmie the attributes to strike fear into batsmen. Despite his disastrous last Ashes, Australis would probably sooner face James Anderson.

9) Graeme Swann
Monty Panesar's decline is becoming increasingly worrying. The feisty Swann will not be intimidated by the Aussies, should enjoy bowling to their left-handers (who will form at least three of their top six) and will certainly outdo Panesar in his batting and fielding contributions.

10) Ian Bell
Like it or not, Bell has an excellent chance of playing next summer. For all his undeniable class, averages of 25 against Australia - and 19 in his last ten Test innings - suggest England would be better looking elsewhere.

11) James Anderson
It isn't always exactly clear why, but Anderson has played the last 11 Tests. Where swing is expected to play a part then, barring a huge loss of form, he will probably feature.

12) Owais Shah
The perennial drinks-carrier has established himself as England's second best ODI batsman (after Pietersen) but has played just one Test in the three years following his 88 on debut in Mumbai. Not lacking in self-belief and in the form of his life, England must now hand him a run in the side. May, however, live to rue the ODIs coming after, rather than before, the Tests.

13) Monty Panesar
Will be close to selection, if he is not actually in the final XI. If only he could regain his joie de vivre and appear more comfortable thinking on his feet.

14) Simon Jones
Why does a man who has not played for England in almost four years feature so highly? Frankly, it's hard to see which other quicks possess more of a threat. Took 42 wickets at 18 last summer and should have played the Second Test against South Africa, Jones need only have a few good first-class games before the calls from for his inclusion. The king of reverse-swing will not play all five Tests, but, fitness - as ever - permitting, has a very good chance of playing a couple of games. Temptation to pick him will be mighty strong.

15) Ryan Sidebottom
It seems incredible to think now, but in 2008 Sidebottom claimed 47 Test wickets (mainly Kiwi) at just 20 apiece. Has since been ravaged by injuries, however, and has not featured since limping through the Edgbaston Test. But will do everything in his power to come back.

16) Michael Vaughan
Not recalled for the West Indies tour but if he can finally get some runs for Yorkshire he will become, at least, first reserve in the event of a top-three injury or critical loss of form. One last crack at the Aussies and into the sunset?

17) Adil Rashid
As long as he continues his impressive progress, he has a good chance of making an appearance, especially at The Oval and especially if England are struggling.

18) Amjad Khan
A late call-up for the India tour, Khan can generate reverse-swing and has a fine first-class pedigree. Could be finding favour at just the right time.

19) Tim Ambrose
Still the second choice Test keeper, apparently, though no one is quite sure why. But few would fancy his chances of scoring runs next summer. James Foster, in particular, would feel aggrieved if Ambrose is preferred.

20) Ravi Bopara
So far the hype has nowhere near lived up to the international performances. But he remains a talented player and his ODI appearances should keep him in the frame.

21) Robert Key
Passed over for the England captaincy, Key had a bad season for Kent last year at the worst possible time. But he is nonetheless a fine player - England could do much worse.

22) Kabir Ali
Has been in superb form for several seasons - but didn't even make the Lions squad. A far better bowler than when he last played for England - but just doesn't seem to tick the selectorial boxes. Perhaps the new regime will see differently.

23) Matthew Hoggard
It's not going to happen - and an average of 39.72 in his last 13 Tests says why. But a Test at Headingley will keep him hoping.

24) Chris Tremlett
Has seemingly vanished completely from view, and worries about his fitness and temperament have put his impressive series against India three summers ago to the back of everyone's mind.

25) Mark Ramprakash
'Failed' in only averaging 60 last season; a two-match disciplinary suspension hardly helps his case either. But with England's chronic problems at number three his would be an intriguing selection. The romantics should not be hopeful, however.

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

Compiling this list, it is striking how few players truly inspire confidence. The fast bowling area is particularly problematic. And I should add that I have been trying to read the selectors' minds - this is what I think their list would look like, not what my list would be.

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.

England need Swann, amongst many things

It was as if the incredible 4-0 thumping of South Africa never happened, as England endured a humiliating loss in the first of their seven ODIs in India. England were excellent against South Africa; but they paid the price for stubbornly sticking to the formula that was so successful then. In vastly different conditions, different approaches are needed.

Most fundamentally, England blundered badly in failing to select Graeme Swann. Swann had a very good series against New Zealand in the summer, was extremely unfortunate to be dropped for Samit Patel, and his stats show he should be regarded as England's premier one-day spinner. that is not to say Patel does not have a role to play; but, despite his five wicket haul in the third ODI against South Africa, he is a batting allrounder who should be regarded as the fifth or six bowler. England need both Swann and Patel in these conditions.

Though Ravi Bopara gave a long overdue reminder of his talent, it is bewildering that there is no place even in the squad for Dimitri Mascharenhas. He offers remarkable six-hitting capacity at number eight, canny bowling that could be well-suited to these wickets, smart fielding and a shrewd cricketing brain. Mascharenhas is a fine cricketer and has already done enough to suggest he could have a vital role to play for England.

The opening partnership of Matt Prior and Ian Bell excelled against South Africa, but it feels knee-jerk to critice it so soon on the tour. But, in Indian conditions power hitting, of the sort exhibited by Virender Sehwag, is needed from the off. Prior, the supossed aggressor, may be better utilised lower down the order. But England, having injudiciously selected Cook as the reserve batsman, have few options. They must adapt to survive - select two spinners and show a willingness to tinker with the batting order.

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.

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?

Ambrose and Collingwood: why they have to go

It sounds more than a little callous, but for England's long-term development it is excellent news that the 'right men' failed today. Lavish praise is merited for Kevin Pietersen's exhilarating 152; Ian Bell's 199 - the innings that showed him as the classy, technically proficient and aesthetically-pleasing batsman we all know exists, but, unlike on so many other occasions, able to dominate an innings; and Stuart Broad's wonderfully mature 76, indicative of a man who may soon be a viable option at number seven. However, the twin failures for the two most vulnerable members of the side helped to clarify England's selection issues if, as expected, Andrew Flintoff returns for the second Test.

Paul Collingwood has looked desperately out-of-form in the Test side for some time, for all his scrapping qualities: he has averaged 33, 33, 41 and 11 and in his last four series. Whatever the evidence of a double-hundred against Australia, ultimately Collingwood may lack the technique to be a long-term success at Test level. Recently, he has not just failed but - in stark contrast to Bell's typically classy, but too often brief, knocks - appeared out of his depth, lacking the confidence to attack or even defend with authority, his innings characterised by a certain timidity. Even in CC cricket, he has been desperately short of runs. At 32, and with a pressing need for a shoulder operation, this could conceivably be his final Test. That would be a great shame for such a tenacious player, but his shortcomings have been painfully exposed of late.

Tim Ambrose barely had time to celebrate his superb, counter-attacking hundred in his second Test before the murmurings over his place began to appear. An inevitability of being any English keeper in the post-Stewart era? Perhaps. But, though this is only his seventh Test, the time is right to dispense with him: not only is he low on confidence but his batting technique seems fundamentally not up to the challenges of international cricket. His technique is fragile when denied the opportunity to feed his cut shot, as international bowlers have realised since his Test century: repeatedly, he has been dismissed playing half-heartedly, often with a closed face, to balls outside off-stump. In 12 international innings since that century, he has passed 11 only twice and 31 once - and even that when New Zealand's bowling was extremely loose. Add in the cracks that emerged in his keeping in the ODIs and it seems that Ambrose is the worst of both worlds. If you want someone who can score heavily for England, pick Matt Prior; if you want someone who can snaffle virtually every chance pick Chris Read or James Foster.


So a balanced side England could look to develop prior to first Ashes Test next summer is:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Sidebottom
Jones
Panesar

Championship Review - Week 9

Back from the 20:Twenty break and it’s the same old story. We have new leaders in Division 1 (again) as last week’s leaders lose (again) and Ramprakash’s wait still goes on.

Division 1
Leaders Yorkshire were put into bat by Durham and this looked to be a good decision as the home side made just 184. Durham were also struggling in their first innings at 161 for 7 until a stand of 143 between Phil Mustard and Liam Plunkett took them to a total of 347 and a healthy first innings lead, despite Tim Bresnan’s 5-fer. Yorkshire then recovered from 13 for 2 with a stand of 138 between Michael Vaughan and Adam Lyth. However, despite some late hitting from Darren Gough, the total of 273(Callum Thorp taking 5-fer) meant that Durham only needed 111 to win. Matthew Hoggard reduces them to 8 for 2 but they reached the total with no further losses and yet again, the league leaders lose.

Given recent history, I would thoroughly recommend backing a Nottinghamshire loss next week as they moved back to the top of the table. Hampshire batted first and made 293 despite most batsmen getting a start. Notts replied with 354, Mark Wagh and Matt Wood putting on 149 for the 2nd wicket. Hampshire’s second innings was much like their first, with most batsmen getting into double figures, but no-one going on. There total of 248 was helped by a Chris Tremlett 50 but meant that Notts only needed 188 to win, which they reached for the loss of just four wickets. Notts go top, while Hants are in the relegation zone and beginning to lose touch.

In the same boat as Hampshire are Surrey, although they have the benefit of playing the league leaders next week! With Mark Butcher injured and Mark Ramprakash struggling to get past 99 centuries, they were reliant on Jon Batty’s hundred to get them to 397 against Kent. This was enough for a substantial first innings lead as Saqlain took 5-fer to restrict Kent to 270, despite Martin van Jaarsveld’s hundred. Van Jaarsveld then turned bowler and took five wickets as Surrey were skittled for just 130 leaving Kent needing 258 to win. At 28 for 3 they were struggling but another van Jaarsveld hundred got them over the line with four wickets to spare and Surrey, like Hants, are struggling.

All eyes were on the returning Andrew Flintoff as Lancashire took of Sussex. However, it was Saj Mahmood who took the early honours with five wickets as Sussex made 253. Stuart Law (and unbeaten 158) and nightwatchman Gary Keedy put on 160 for the fifth wicket as Lancs made 392 for a substantial lead. It was Glen Chapple’s turn to outshine Flintoff in the Sussex second innings, with 6 wickets as Sussex made 245 leaving Lancashire 108 to win. Flintoff hit an unbeaten 62, his highest score in 18 months to win the game for Lancs with 8 wicket in hand.

So Notts have a 13 point lead at the top while just 6 points separate Lancashire in 2nd and Somerset in 7th place.

Division 2
Gloucestershire made 336 against Warwickshire, thanks in part to a ton from Hamish Marshall while fellow Kiwi Chris Martin took five wickets. However, this total began to look far too low as Ian Bell made a career best 215 and Jonathan Trott an unbeaten 164 in Warwickshire’s 528 for 8 declared, the pair of them putting on 221 for the 3rd wicket. Unfortunately for the Bears, the weather played a part and Gloucestershire had just about seen of the deficit at 189 for the loss of four wickets when the game came to a close.

The weather also put paid to Middlesex’s chances of closing the gap of the leaders. Batting first, Dawid Malan scored an unbeaten 132 in the Middlesex total of 340, Johan van der Wath taking five wickets. Rob White made a ton as Northamptonshire replied with 377. However, a ton from Tony Scott and good support from Eoin Morgan got Middlesex to 401 in their second innings, despite seven more wickets for van der Wath ,leaving Northants needing 324 to win. At 33 for 3 Middlesex were favourites. However, David Sales and Lance Klusener then put on an unbeaten century stand as weather brought a premature end to an evenly poised game.

Worcestershire had a chance to make up some ground on the leaders, particularly after skittling Leicestershire for just 120, with Simon Jones continuing his good recent form with five wickets. Vikram Solanki then hit a century as Worcester made 379 for a substantial first innings lead. Leicester, thanks to 94 for Paul Nixon did at least make Worcester bat again, scoring 346. However, the Pears only needed 88 to win which they made without the loss of a wicket.

Finally to Chelmsford where Ryan ten Doeschate’s ton was the highlight of Essex’s first innings 404. Derbyshire replied with 271, Ravi Bopara mopping up the innings taking the last four wickets for four runs. Bopara then made 71 as Essex made 238 to set Derby an unlikely 372 to win. This time it was ten Doeschate’s chance to prove his all rounder skills with four wickets as Derby made just 226.

Warwickshire are still clear at the top, although they have played more games than anyone else. Behind them, just five points separate Middlesex, Leicester, Essex, Northants and Worcester for the second promotion spot.

England Player watch
Only Andrew Strauss missed out as Michael Vaughan, Paul Collingwood, Ian Bell and Ali Cook all got some useful time in the middle. Owais Shah also missed out while Ravi Bopara got a half century as did Andrew Flintoff, after a torrid time with the bat recently.

The England bowlers were given the week off. Flintoff bowled well, but without wickets, while Matthew Hoggard again lost out to Tim Bresnan in the battle of the Yorkshiremen.

Player of the week
One absolutely outstanding performance this week. Ian Bell’s double hundred, 12 wickets for Johan van der Wath and the all round performances of Essex’s Ravi Bopara and Ryan ten Doeschate don’t even get a look in. For two centuries and a 5-fer as Kent came back to beat Surrey, the Player of the Week has to be Martin van Jaarsveld

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.

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

What to do from here?

How many times have we said that recently? The first 5-0 Ashes defeat for over 80 years? Failing to win a live game against a major Test-playing nation at the World Cup? Losing at home to India? Getting bowled out for 81 in Sri Lanka? Being timidity personified in Hamilton against an admirable but not overly threatening attack, against whom England batted for 173 overs, but scored at a soporofic two-an-over, and then subsiding pathetically in the second innings for 110? Coming on the back of New Zealand being decimated by the IPl and ICL, to whom they essentialy lost half their side including their most valuable player, Shane Bond, that would take some beating.

And yet England have managed it. Scrapping over the follow-on target against the Kiwis at Old Trafford was just about as depressing as it comes. Dan Vettori has bowled with mesmerising guile (much better in fact, than he bowled in New Zealand), while Ian O'Brien has been fantastic. But England have been diffident and pathetic, showing no inclination to hit bowlers off their rhythm, allowing themselves to be trapped in their crease meekly, barely able to hit a run and just wait for their inevitable dismissals. If New Zealand have been fantastic, it is in large part because they have been allowed to be.

With the ball, England were far too loose, once more unable to exploit fairly helpful conditions. The bowlers seem incapable of thinking on their feet. While Ross Taylor played a phenomenal innings, testament to his rare talent, England totally lacked discipline or skill. James Anderson is far too erratic for Test cricket, and must immediately be dispensed with. Monty Panesar's downward curve continues; he is symptomatic of England's struggles when the opposition do something unexpected.

A damning indictement of this side is they have not learned from their feebleness in Hamilton, and have repeated all the same mistakes. The batting was abject once more. It is an oft-quoted statistic that all the top six average over 40, but those averages have been in decline for some time. Furthermore, the averages are boosted both by feasting on minnows and today's generally easier batting conditions. 40 is clearly no longer the mark of a top-class Test batsman. The batting lineup seems fundamentally flawed, and rejigging the pack cannot disguise it. Men of skill and desire, such as Owais Shah and Rob Key (and, given the desperation of the situation and the need to win the next game, rather than plan for some mythical date in the future, perhaps even Mark Ramprakash or his captain Mark Butcher, enjoying the purplest of patches), should be brought in, not just for the quality they possess but for the message it would send. The decision to drop Andrew Strauss and simultaneously hand him a new central contract was a half-hearted signal at best; and he got back in without making a run.

The skipper led by example, eeking out an agonising 133-ball 30. He often talks of helping his players "express themselves"; yet he himself was patently incapable of doing that. Ian Bell's innings surprised no one - a painstaking start followed by a somewhat half-hearted waft outside offstump.Paul Collingwood, for the second consecutive innings, looked out of his depth. He maximises his talent, certainly, but is painfully out-of-form - he has hit just 39 runs in seven innings this season - and, ultimately, is simply perhaps not good enough at Test level, whatever an Ashes double-hundred may suggest. The most depressing innings, however, was played by England's best batsman.

Kevin Pietersen has gradually gone from being a maverick, and a genius capable of decimating the bowling with his idiosyncratic brand of fearlessnes, into a man seemingly lacking faith in his own ability. The transformation was inevitable in some respects (as I have discussed before), and is not without its benefits. Maturity has brought some positive aspects, of course, but it is grim watching the contrast between him and Taylor, surely no more talented, on the same pitch in the same match.

This is, at last in part, an indictement of the England set-up. Are players so well-rewarded, that they are so desperate to cling onto their places that they are paralysed by fear? The culture appears to gradually suck the individuality out of players; they are spoon-fed by legions of support staff, and subsequently have lost the ability to think for themselves. This extends even to the captain and coach, who refrain from indulging in horses-for-courses of any sort - the merits of which were reaffirmed by O'Brien's sterling endeavours here. The stability of central contracts has clearly gone way too far: it appears easier to get into the side than out of it. What to do? Sack the lot of 'em? England need a shakeup of sorts, even if it has the whiff of '90s short-termism about it.

Thoughts on Wisden 2008

With a reassuring clunk, it's arrived again: the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack of 2008. A treasure trove of statistics and of considerable literary value: toilet reading of the highest order.

The Five Cricketers of the Year are Shivnarine Chanderpaul; Ryan Sidebottom; Zaheer Khan; Otis Gibson - all certainties - and Ian Bell. Bell can count himself fortunate: while he was Man of the Series in the ODIs against India, 2007 was neither his breakthrough year nor a year of stunning personal achievement. While it is true that there were not too many other candidates for this year, there must have been a good case for Glen Chapple, a county pro par excellance who took 49 CC wickets at just over 20; or Stephen Fleming, who averaged over 50 in the Notts side he skippered to promotion. Fleming, for this and his career as a whole, would have been a worthy choice.

More intriguing is the Leading Cricketer of the Year: the first man on a world XI teamsheet, based on his performances from 2007. It is Jacques Kallis, though Brett Lee, had he not missed the World Cup, could well have won it. After a year in which he found a new-found ability to dominate, and averaged 86 in Tests and 58 in ODIs, he is pretty hard to argue with. Hard to love, yes, but he is an outstanding batsman and more-than-handy in the other two disciplines. Kallis has 30 Test hundreds, with the promise of many more to come in the increasingly impressive South Africa side. A great, indisputably, and a worthy recipient of this award.

Feeble England make Mascarenhas into a demi-God

The first thrashing was unexpected but far from shocking: England began their ODI tour of Sri Lanka with a similar shocker, and still won the series. Today's 10-wicket humbling, however, was something else. It is amazing how a side who recorded two consecutive series victories can appear so inadequate and hopeless, lacking in the most basic cricketing skills. For all the talk of England's revival as a one-day side under Paul Collingwood, which seemed palpable only four days ago, there are deep problems with the side.

Phil Mustard is still yet to pass 30 in seven ODI innings, but there are some signs of encouragement in his opening partnership with the contrasting Alastair Cook; 41 in 5.5 overs today is the sort of opening stand England too seldom enjoy. Patently, the problems exist beneath them, in the middle-order previously regarded as one of England's strengths.

With 420 runs at an average of 70 and strike-rate of 90 in the series with India, Ian Bell appeared to be maturing into a very fine one-day number three, capable of dictating the tempo of England's innings and possessing new-found assertiveness. Well, rubbish to all that. Bell has not reached 50 in 11 ODIs (plus two Twenty20 games) and seemingly lacks a coherent gameplan. So much time has been invested in him; and he has promised so much. There is no conceivable alternative at number three for the remainder of this series; but, if he cannot avert his slump with some intelligently constructed knocks soon, he will have to be replaced. Credible alternatives are dificult to find, however.

Kevin Pietersen, once the best one-day international batsman in the world, is undeniably facing the first major slump of his career. He is losing some of his aura following a poor run, as he has succumbed to opposition plans and, on occasions, the fallibility of his concentration. England need him back to his best soon; Pietersen must pay the opposition the respect they deserve and there were fleeting signs of that today. Owais Shah, meanwhile, is still a man who offers much to the side even if he was guilty of serious misjudgements between the wickets in the first game. It would be hard to say the same for Ravi Bopara, however. Over-hyped following a fine innings in the World Cup in which he nonetheless faltered when it mattered most, he has only made one contribution of note since and, following a nightmarish debut Test series, both his technique and mind would clearly benefit from a break.

Replacing him must be Dimi Mascarenhas, who should never have been dropped following the Twenty20s, as many others have said. He is becoming a better player with every game he misses, though, and he will not solve England's ODI problems at a stroke. It is hard to overly judge the bowling after the limp batting displays, but James Anderson, whose control of line and length is astoundingly unreliable, should perhaps be replaced with Chris Tremlett, even if there would be a feeling of 'change for change's sake'.

What is undeniable is England have been utterly inept in their opening two games. Their batting is bereft of a discernible game-plan, too prone to brainless run-outs and collapses, simultaneously lacking assertiveness and caution. Give or take the odd selection, this is more-or-less the best side England have. That is perhaps most worrying of all.

Will you be staying long Colonel?!

The outright exclusion from England’s Test, One Day and Lions squads of Matt Prior was this weeks’ big news. Whilst Prior has shown an aptitude for scoring runs at the highest level, against the highest calibre of bowler, the bread and butter business of taking catches has let him down. Many people worried when Prior was first given the gloves that England had another Geraint Jones on their hands, neither good enough with the bat or the gloves to hold the position of England’s wicket keeper. I personally never doubted his ability to deliver the runs. His showings for the ODI side in Pakistan and India were never a true reflection of his ability. Unfortunately though, Prior is not the best wicket keeper in the country and further more he is not even currently in the top five when it comes to catching the ball.

To begin with though, it seemed as though exposure to International Cricket would bring the best from Prior and it served as a boost to his glove work. His performances in the crucial ODI series victory over India were faultless and a few mistakes in the preceding Test matches were seemingly forgotten and forgiven. However, then injury struck. Phil Mustard took over, but he simply proved the fact that brilliant county form means nothing at International level. Whilst he got starts with the bat against Sri Lanka he was far from the player he is for Durham and that was to be expected. So Prior soon returned for the Test match series in Sri Lanka and performed admirably, along with Ian Bell, in the first Test match, prompting the likes of Sam Lyon, Alec Stewart and Jack Russell, amongst others, to declare the arrival of England’s wicket keeper for the next decade.

Oh how the mighty fall though. Less than one month later and Prior has been jettisoned. Eight drops off of Ryan Sidebottom and crucial misses off of Mahela Jayawardene proved to be too much for England’s selectors. Yet his demotion need not be for good according to David Graveney, who has stated that if Prior can improve his glove work away from the media spotlight, then he can reclaim his place and fulfil his undoubted potential as England’s future wicket keeper batsman. It is unlikely that Prior’s replacement will average 40.14 from 17 Test Innings against West Indies, India and Sri Lanka away. However, they will hopefully hold on to more catches, which is the primary job of the wicket keeper. If they do not make runs though, you can guarantee that England will struggle because of their brittle tail and the wicket keeping debate will return to the discussions between cricket lovers up and down the Land once again.

So Colonel Mustard finds himself able to make the first move on Prior’s old job. He will keep wicket in the ODI’s in New Zealand and should he succeed he should in theory be given a chance in the Test series which follows. If not, then Tim Ambrose, once Prior’s deputy at Sussex, will step into the void and become England’s sixth wicket keeper in the space of a year. Whilst all this is ongoing and the likes of Geraint Jones, Chris Read, Paul Nixon, Prior, Mustard and Ambrose are mulling over their International careers, whether past, present or future, there is one player who goes quietly about his work at Essex, continuing to excel with the gloves and perform well with the bat. He is of course James Foster, once the man in possession, discarded because of injury and now seemingly forgotten about. With every passing wicket keeper, his stock grows. However, until he averages more with the bat on a home ground which is often one of the most conducive to batting in the country, he will it seems remain on the periphery of the England set-ups' radar. One further candidate exists, Steven Davies of Worcestershire. Demotion to Division Two will not help his cause, but the young man will be expected to come of age in the next year or so. Let the merry-go-round continue…

The England Diagnosis: Batting

In many ways, whether England manage to save the 3rd Test is irrelevant. If they are able to do so, it will be in large part due to the rain that has engulfed Galle, and will not in any way disguise their patent faults. Though they fought on more-or-less equal terms with Sri Lanka for large parts of the first two Tests, ultimately no one can deny they have been out-batted, out-fielded and out-bowled by Sri Lanka (even discounting Murali). They are now ranked fifth in the world. After two series wins out of eight, England must now accept they have regressed alarmingly since their golden run on 2004/05. What can they do to improve, or is it simply a case that the best England have are not good enough?

Batting
Excuse me for harping back to my perennial cause celebre, but when Mark Ramprakash was ignored for this tour I wrote that "England are a mid-table Test side; are they really in a position when they can afford to refrain from picking their best XI in the hope of building for some mythical date in the future?" Peter Moores has shown a worrying tendency to support promising 'kids' who have not proved up to the task - Luke Wright during the World Twenty20; and Ravi Bopara here, whose much-hyped 'x-factor' constituted a penchant for being dismissed for a duck.

As Australia constantly prove, the only game you need worry about is the next one, and England's inability to score hundreds is crying out for someone possessing the depths of concentration and capacity for longevity of Ramprakash at the crease. To date, England have scored 10 fifties but no centuries in this series. Even if they go some way to rectifying that, the stat illustrates England have a lot of perfectly competent Test batsmen, but cannot make the big scores that Messrs Sangakkara and Jayawardene batted England out the series with. Curiously for a side in the midst of such a slumber, there is probably only one man - Bopara - for whom the axe is around the corner.

Ian Bell often looks in supreme form at the crease, as he did in the first Test, while failing to really capitalise. As such, he has not yet making the runs to justify batting at three. But with Kevin Pietersen being unfortunate with umpiring decision and snorters alike, and with Vaughan's innings consistently ended by impetuosity, there has been no one to grind the Sri Lankan attack into the dust. Calls for a recall for Andrew Strauss should be laughed off given his form in the past 15 months. That would leave Ramprakash, in an ideal world, to replace Bopara and move up to number three, with Pietersen four, Bell five and Collingwood at six and Owais Shah, once again, next cab-off-the-rank. Most likely, that top six would score big against a Kiwi attack top-heavy with medium-pacers. Whether they could consistently make first innings scores of 400 against the sterner Tests that await, however, would have to be doubtful - but do England have anyone else?

Bell not quite there yet

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

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

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

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

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

Coming of Age

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

Ian Bell unleashes a pull shot for four off Zaheer Khan

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

Alistair Cook clips to leg for a single

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

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

Chris Pallett