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.

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.

Pietersen to hit purple patch

Not everyone triumphs in adversity, but the former England captain is one player who can be relied upon to produce the goods when the going gets tough.

It is generally accepted that Kevin Pietersen will have no problem in returning to the ranks of the England team. This belief is based upon the fact that the former captain is well-suited to looking after his own game and ignoring the effects of the Peter Moores / captaincy fiasco. Cricket is the most individual of team sports and there is no one quite as individual-orientated as Pietersen.

The ousted skipper showed the necessary single-mindedness in his rapid ton against St Kitts XI to suggest a high volume of runs will be the proof of his rehabilitation. Pietersen claims to struggle with concentration against lesser attacks but focus will not be a problem in the Caribbean. The runs will flow faster than the drinks at the Barmy Army’s hotels.

It helps of course, that Pietersen is in decent nick. His majestic 144 in Mohali was his fifth ton in 10 Tests and so confidence, not usually an elusive run-scoring requirement for Pietersen, will not be in short supply, despite the recent rumours of team-mate back-stabbing.

The effect of confidence on run-scoring cannot be under-estimated. If the likes of Pietersen and 2008 top Test runscorer Graeme Smith can be backed to achieve in adversity, then it follows that less brash and forthright characters will struggle when the chips are down.

Two of the world’s in-form batsmen, JP Duminy and Tillakaratne Dilshan, fit into that category and probably started 2008 wondering if they had international futures.

Duminy, constantly in and out of South Africa’s One Day international middle order, endured a torrid series in England and appeared as far from a regular Test spot as he ever had been.

Dilshan, a more successful Sri Lankan version of Vikram Solanki, has failed to properly display his array batting, bowling, fielding and wicket-keeping skills. Moved up and down and in and out of the team, his confidence appeared at an all-time low during last year’s Indian Premier League.

However, both players enjoyed themselves against poor quality opposition towards the end of the year and went on to produce the best form of their careers against higher calibre bowling.

New-found confidence was the root cause of their respective renaissances and it is for this reason that Pietersen can be expected to produce his best in 2009. He has never lost his confidence, but he will now be more determined to utilise it. Watch out West Indies.

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

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.

Who Dares Wins

The working relationship between Kevin Pietersen and Peter Moores has been the subject of speculation for some time. Now, however, after a winter in which England have stumbled from one humiliation to the next, rumours suggest it has reached breaking point. Some have even suggested that Pietersen will put it to English cricket’s supremos: him or me.

It is not hard to gauge who is of more value to English cricket. Pietersen is, alongside Andrew Flintoff, the only realistic contender for a place in a World XI in either form of the game. He has shown himself to be a supreme batsman, as well as a fantastic professional, driven by a desire for self-improvement. It is striking that, whilst he has featured intermittently in the gossip columns, in almost four years in the spotlight no tabloid hack has uncovered any story of excess, of the kind Flintoff has been tainted with.

Then there is Moores. He has lost four Test series out of seven, including two at home after England had been unbeaten between 2001 and 2007. Being less obstinate and downright rude than his predecessor Duncan Fletcher may have helped a little with the media’s perception of him, but he has patently failed to impress so far. He is uninspiring in his methods, and has been criticised for aiming to improve fitness over skill levels. And in team selection and tactics he has been distinctly underwhelming, displaying excess loyalty and, especially in the one-day game, a worrying lack of innovation. He blusters the same old platitudes about the importance of keeping faith in players but tangible progress is rather more difficult to detect.

It may be harsh, but ultimately Moores owes his appointment as England coach to Mushtaq Ahmed more than anyone else. Is he the man to lead England to an Ashes victory next summer? Can he conjure up plans to rival those of Fletcher’s? Many are less-than-certain. And crucially Pietersen, whose relationship with Moores was a concern even before he became captain, appears one of them.

It would be almost unprecedented for a captain to precipitate the coach’s exit. And certainly it would provoke major worries about Pietersen’s power, and resentment if he is seen as thinking he knows all the answers.

But England have underperformed for too long, yet they show few signs of changing course, fumbling along with the same players and tactics out of misguided loyalty. Something radical – remember it is three years since England beat a side other than New Zealand or West Indies – may just be the best course. Carrying on with Moores, when coaches of the calibre of Tom Moody lurk, would smack of inertia. As Pietersen believes, who dares wins; if Hugh Morris and co chose Moores over Pietersen the ambition of English cricket would be in serious jeopardy. Whether England stick or twist is a decision that could define their fortunes in 2009.

England series ratings

Here are the series ratings for England's 1-0 defeat in India - although the ludicrous brevity of the series makes such an exercise somewhat tricky.

Alastair Cook 5
Two fluent half centuries - but he didn't pass 52 in four completed innings. His conversion rate, so impressive at the start of his career, is becoming progressively more worrying.

Andrew Strauss 9
So criticised by this blogger, Strauss produced what should have been a career-defining performance in the first Test, but was badly let down by his team-mates. Strokeless he may seem at times, but while he is so tight in defence and so adept and nudging the ball into spaces, his place is assured.

Ian Bell 2
When is enough enough? Infuriating to his core, Bell has the technique and range of shots to score 8000 runs at 50. But, now, the best thing would be to drop him - from both formats. If he is hungry enough he will return, like Steve Waugh, more battle-hardened.

Kevin Pietersen 7
Captaining was difficult, and he has received criticism for the in-out fields used in the first Test, enabling the spinners to be milked with minimal risk-taking involved. But he will be a better captain for the expereince, while his 144 was majestic.

Paul Collingwood 6.5
Another century evoked the 'gritty Northerner' cliches once more. Some doubts linger, but his willpower is unquestionable. But what, exactly, has happened to his bowling?

Andrew Flintoff 8
Yet again, Flintoff bowled better than the figures suggest, suffering through dropped catches and dodgy lbw decisions. But, at long last, he managed a Test half-century - and a cultured one at that.

Matt Prior 7
Quietly very effective - which is seldom something that can be said of Prior. His keeping looks to have improved since his horror series in Sri Lanka a year ago, while he remains a very good Test number seven.

Stuart Broad 5
Did a sound job in very difficult circumstances. Despite the mediocrity of his record, is now an automatic selection.

Graeme Swann 7
Easily out-bowled Panesar to finish as England's leading wicket-taker. Displayed much more attacking intent and ability to think on his feet (and for himself) - and deserved a lower average, but for some ill-fortune. Shame about the batting though.

James Anderson 4
Bowled skillfully at times in the second Test, whilst claiming scant reward. But overall his was a miserable tour.

Steve Harmison 4
Harmison disappointed in the first Test, save for one fine spell, but deserves to play in the West Indies.

Monty Panesar 4
A miserable series, showing a complete lack of improvement since making his Test debut in India three yeras ago. Infact, his record on the sub-Continent and against sides other than New Zealand and West Indies is distinctly mediocre. It would be a brave man who bets on Panesar playing the first Test in the Caribbean.

The Verdict
Fundamentally, England were beaten by a superior side. But they can take heart from faring a little better than Australia. Ultimately, a two-Test series can simply never satisfy.

What Did We Learn From That Then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pressure finally off England

England return to India on a wave of goodwill, which is unlikely to change regardless of the outcome of the Test series.

It is fair to say that a lot has happened in the two weeks since India and England last met and everyone involved, for a wide variety of reasons, will be relieved when the first Test gets under way at Chennai.

The match itself is still not being talked about, which shows how significant it is that England even made the return trip to India. A result of a Test match has not been so incidental for a long time.

This, it should be said, suits England. As commendable as their return is, the convincing series defeat that surely awaits them would otherwise have been heavily scrutinised, coming on the back of home Test series defeats to India and South Africa and limited overs disasters in the Caribbean and the ill-fated One Day series that preceded this two match rubber.

Peter Moores’ position is becoming increasingly unstable, with his responsibilities as coach and power in the dressing room seemingly steadily decreasing as Kevin Pietersen’s captaincy develops. Another poor showing might have hastened the search for a successor that will start in earnest if the Ashes are not retained next summer.

However, England’s chances are not as slim as they might have been. The distraction and lack of preparation of the last two weeks has been more of a factor for the home side – the ‘close to home’ phrase used by the England camp after the Mumbai attacks should really be attributed to the Indian players – and if anyone is going to be inhibited and negatively affected by recent events, it is the hosts.

India buckled under pressure and threw away a series lead in the 2006 meeting between the teams, but they are now a more experienced and rounded team that has its eyes on the number one ranking.

England have won just two of the 13 Tests they have played against India since last winning a series against them in 1996 and in ordinary circumstances would not be expected to prevail this time around. However, extraordinary circumstances should not bring an extraordinary result and England can look forward to the rare occurrence of emerging from a series defeat with their reputations enhanced.


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

Playing a different game

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

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

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

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

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

Pietersen's favouritism does England no favours

England's desire to keep faith with its players would once have been admirable; now it just makes the management and captain look incapable of making tough decisions.

England’s defeat in the second One Day International made for painful viewing. Watching the defeat, the team’s second mauling in four days, was bad enough, but the post-match interviews were the icing on the cake for England fans frustrated by their team’s performance and composition.

In the era of Team England media training and clichéd soundbites, Kevin Pietersen was never going to do anything other than defend his players and the team’s selection policy, but it would have been refreshing if the skipper referred in some way to the problems that seem so obvious to so many.

Darren Gough accused the England management of favouritism in their selection policy and it is hard to disagree. Tim has referred to the absurd preference for Alastair Cook over Dimitri Mascarenhas and the mystifying absence of Graeme Swann and it appears these choices are those of the captain.

Pietersen has been keen to stamp his authority on the job, and whilst his instinct and man-management have paid some dividends – notably the rejuvenation of Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison - his apparent omnipotence in selection is dangerous for those whose faces don’t fit.

A hierarchy has been established that makes objective decisions difficult and results in selection choices being based on factors other than form, balance of the team and conditions.

It is ridiculous that Swann is not playing. It is odd that Matt Prior is retained as opener despite scoring one half century in his 29 ODI innings. It is debatable whether Paul Collingwood and Steve Harmison should be in the team at all.

Sweeping changes are dangerous and it should be acknowledged that India are playing supremely well, but we all have our favourites, don’t we KP?

My team for the third ODI at Kanpur: Bell, Bopara, Pietersen, Shah, Flintoff, Patel, Collingwood, Prior, Swann, Broad, Anderson


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

King Kev's bright new era

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

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

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

What can't King Kev do?

Well, what to make of that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

England Dangerously Close to their Best Limited Overs Side

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


England ODI Team to take on South Africa:

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

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

Why so boring?

Kevin Pietersen's appointment as England captain in all three forms of the game stole the headlines, and rightly so - there was nothing else to talk about. For, while many believe there are profound problems within the set-up, the selectors were incredibly cautious in their squad for The Oval. There was only one change, with Ravi Bopara coming in, and even that was an enforced one.

There will be ample to discuss, as we witness Pietersen's first game as full-time captain. It promises to be nothing but intriguing. Given his lack of captaincy experience, there are so many intangibles that it is hard to make predictions over how he will do, although I am optimistic he will go some way towards reinvigorating the side, imbuing team-mates with vivacity and positivity and leading from the front, even if my first choice would have been Rob Key.

But what is truly astonishing is England's selectors still seem stubbornly in denial over England's problems. This was a golden opportunity to try out the plethora of players challenging for a spot, answer (at least partially) some fundamental selectorial questions and shake up a side that has been struggling for far too long.

My side for The Oval would have been as follows:
Cook
Key
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Harmison
Jones
(With Shah in the squad as reserve batsman. Ideally I would try him instead of Collingwood, but that would be one change too many.)

While I would, in any case, fancy this side to defeat the eleven who played in the last Test, even if they played and lost England would gain much from the match in terms of learning about fringe players.

One Test, especially a dead rubber, cannot tell you about a player's long-term durability at Test level, of course, but it is a start. With a radical shake-up to the side England would be beter able to answer a number of pressing questions, such as

Is Rob Key a beter bet as opener than Andrew Strauss? Given Key's impressive form over the last few seasons and Strauss's lack of a century against anyone other than a depleted New Zealand for two years, I suspect yes.

Can Ian Bell make the number three position his own? He has never made a century there, but he deserves to be given an extended run in what should be his natural position, starting from this Test.

Is Matt Prior a sufficiently good batsman to bat at six? And, more to the point, how much has his keeping improved in the last eight months? At least Prior's correct selection in the limited-overs squad will provide some clues to answering these questions.

Is Graeme Swann's all-round package of more value to England than Monty Panesar's? Averages of 41 with the bat and 25 with the ball in Division One, aided by his fine ODI performances, suggest this could now be the case.

Is Steve Harmison back to his best? Can he be a consistent threat at Test level? England must select him for the 4th Test, and see if Pietersen can help bring the best out of him.

Is Simon Jones good - and fit - enough to thrive in Tests once more? Most suspect the answer to the first question is an emphatic 'yes' but would answer in the negative to the second question. But, in a five-man attack, Jones could bowl, say, four four-over spells a day, being used as a strike-bowler, along with Flintoff. England utilising these two in such a capacity could help both to take 20 wickets and to keep them fit until at least the 2009 Ashes. Of more immediate significance, England will surely want to play five bowlers in India.

As it is, England will learn very little from this Test, save for a little about Pietersen's captaincy skills. It represents a depressing missed opportunity. In the big picture, it doesn't really matter how much England lose this series by. The answers to the above questions, however, are fundamental to how England can improve, but, typically and infuriatingly of the current set-up, too many will remain unasked.

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.