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.

Time to trust Shah

While England have been getting routinely thrashed on their travels through India, there has been one ray of solace. Owais Shah, for so long underperforming and untrusted, has most certainly come of age. At 30, he is sure of himself and his game; in Kevin Pietersen, he appears to have found a captain who trusts him, even if it is bewildering that Shah continues to be up and down the order, from six to three, and back again.

The statistics for Shah of late are exceptional. Since the start of the English summer, he has played 13 innings, and scored 514 runs at an average of 47 and a strike-rate of 97. With his ability to manouevre the ball into gaps aided by his phenomenal hitting down the ground, the product of supreme batspeed, Shah has established himself as one of England's two best one-day batsmen, probably second only to his skipper Kevin Pietersen.

Pietersen showed great faith in Shah and promoted him to number three for the home series with South Africa. Many felt he was better off lower down the order, where his unorthodoxy and power hitting has proved so effective, but Shah hasn't exactly failed at three during this time, averaging over 40 in six innings. However, perhaps tellingly, his two best innings at three were in much-reduced matches, suggesting he is better when he knows exactly what is required of him. The argument does not completely hold up, though, given he has batted in the top three for Middlesex for years.

Clearly, England are confused over his best position. In the second game of this series, Shah made a somewhat slow 58 batting at three. He was promptly moved back down to six, scoring a useful 40 at nigh-on a run-a-ball. In game four, with England having only 22 overs to bat, many were mystified when Pietersen moved down from three, and Shah back up there. But Shah is probably England's best Twenty20 batsman, and proved as much with a fantastic 72 from 48 balls, treating the spinners and seamers with disdain, especially with his trademark flat-batted straight drive. Had he taken England home with a century, as seemed possible, Shah would have been a hero, but he nonetheless reminded all of his limited-overs skills. So it seemed bizarre when he was moved back down to six for the fifth game in the series. He seemed unflustered, however, providing England's innings with late-order impetus en route to 66*.

England seem convinced that Shah must bat at either three or six. But this seems ridiculous. Pietersen, as England's skipper and best batsman, should bat at three. Shah, not the out-of-form Paul Collingwood, should bat at four, where his dexterity against spin and at the end of the innings can be exploited, and he can be shielded from perceived weaknesses against the new seaming ball.

Owais Shah is playing the best cricket of his career. England seemed in danger of squandering a fine, albeit sometimes infuriating talent; after scoring 88 and 38 on Test debut in India two years ago, he played only three ODIs in the next fourteen months. Most bewilderingly of all, Ravi Bopara, then with just one ODI 50 to his name, was preferred to Shah for the series in Sri Lanka a year ago. England can't keep having Shah as their spare batsman. He is in form, knows the conditions and deserves a run in the Test side at last.

Through sheer force of runs, Shah has established himself as an indispensable member of England's one-day side, one of the very few players able to take the game with conviction to the opposition. Paul Collingwood may have struck a brilliant, career-saving hundred only two Tests ago. But, given their vastly contrasting form, who would India rather bowl to in the Tests?

Rob Key: next England captain

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

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

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

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

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

England rebel against the Eighties

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

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

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

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

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

Shambolic England On The Brink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


England Test Batting Averages since November 2007:

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

Test Debuts Since 2000:

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

Test Debuts Since Ashes 2005:

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

Team England; Consistently Confused

In what can only be described as a bizarre twenty-four hours, Darren Pattinson somehow found himself in the England Test starting XI on Friday of last week. From being consistently stupid to just plain stupid could be one way of describing the situation. Consistency had been the word of the moment whilst England were just about beating New Zealand in two series. Unfortunately consistency had nothing to do with those victories, the limited skill of the opposition played the major role. Whilst players like Paul Collingwood and Tim Ambrose were contributing nothing, they were nevertheless assured of their places and were it not for the return of Andrew Flintoff, Collingwood would undoubtedly still be playing today despite series averages of 32.83 (India (h)), 33.00(Sri Lanka (a)), 40.66 (New Zealand (a)), 10.66 (New Zealand (h)) and 7.00 (South Africa (h)) which is plainly not good enough (cumulative 30.71, HS 66). Michael Vaughan though tells us that the whole squad are disappointed that Collingwood is not in the XI, perhaps because they now fear for their own places given their own dwindling averages. Consistency must be applied, but needs to take into account form.

Nevertheless, the message of consistency indeed vanished for this particular test match, well for the bowlers anyway, but then that always seems to have been the case with the England side of late. Batsmen have all the time in the world, bowlers do not. Darren Pattinson was on Thursday afternoon called up as a replacement for James Anderson should he not be fit for the game. Chris Tremlett, who has been following both the Test and ODI squad around all summer, was already on standby in case Ryan Sidebottom came up short on Friday morning. Friday morning came and Anderson was fit, but Sidebottom was not, in you step… Darren! Utter madness! Whilst the Australian roof tiler, albeit raised for six years in England, has had a good county season with Nottinghamshire so far, he has played just 13 first class games and only 6 of them this season in England. He doesn’t even play his cricket at Headingley, the location of the second test.

I have no problem with the fact that he is a self-confessed Aussie through and through, but the usual pattern is that you are born abroad, move to England, confess your love for the motherland and qualify, rather than move away for two decades, immerse yourself in the culture of another country, then come back for a summer and strike lucky. That may sound harsh, but strike lucky is exactly what Pattinson has done. A quick glance at the first class bowling averages for this season will reveal that Matthew Hoggard (22 at 24.31), Simon Jones (32 at 16.03), Steve Harmison (40 at 23.10) and Jon Lewis (20 at 24.85) are right up there with England’s newest addition who has taken 29 at 20.86. These are proven international and domestic performers who for various reasons were sent back to county cricket to prove their fitness and their form. Not one of those can be accused of not having done that. All of the above, bar Harmison, are swing bowlers. Surely one of them should have been given the chance instead of Pattinson if swing was what England were truly after, rather than shock and awe. Even the likes of Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett, Kabir Ali, and Tim Bresnan must be wondering what the hell is going on.

As for poor old Chris Tremlett, what can you say. If Anderson had been injured Pattinson would have played, if Sidebottom had been injured (which he was) Pattinson would have played. They were the two injury doubts from the end of the first test, so what was the point in dragging Tremlett around the country if he was never going to get a look in? I know that Moores as a Sussex man doesn’t like Hampshire but come on, the guy is missing out on form boosting cricket and is being consistently dealt mental setbacks! To make matters worse it was Morne Morkel, exactly the Tremlett type of bowler, who did best in this test match.

The batting woes were the most apparent problem however. Michael Vaughan has averaged 29.52 since the tour to Sri Lanka. His series averages are 35.83 (Sri Lanka (a)), 20.50 (New Zealand (a)), 50.00 (New Zealand (h)) and 11.00 (South Africa (h)). He is forever searching for form it seems and for every good series he has had recently he seems to have had two bad, which can not be sustained forever. His captaincy may be a major positive of his presence, but he needs to score the runs consistently as well. Alistair Cook seems to have forgotten what a hundred is meanwhile. The last four times that he has passed fifty he has been out before reaching 61. Given that he offered very little against the Australians last time round, England must be getting twitchy about how he will fair against them come this time next year. The current top three looks very samey and pretty weak. Tim Ambrose meanwhile is surely on the brink. It is quite comical to think that if you are out of form you should be stuck higher up the order, in a more pressurised position, against a newer ball. He has averaged just 18.78 in 9 test innings since making his maiden test hundred in his second test in New Zealand. His career average is 27.16 and falling after eleven test innings. Even worse, in ODI’s he has averaged 2.50 in five innings and one of those was a not out! Add in the fumbles and is this really the man to take England forward? You would have to say that England in attempting to find a balance between batting ability and keeping ability have found neither and indeed now have the worst of both worlds.

England’s problems are back to the fore it would seem and they need to act fast. If they are going to persist with a five man attack then quite simply Matt Prior has to play at number six. Otherwise the team looks unbalanced and bottom heavy. Only by playing four bowlers can England afford to play the best wicket keeper at number eight, which means either of Chris Read or James Foster. However, given Read’s little trip to the ICL over the close season I doubt India would welcome his inclusion come this winter’s tour. Foster seems to tick more of the boxes in terms of what England are looking for in their keeper, a batsman who can bat low down the order in limited overs cricket and a glove man who can snaffle all of the chances which come his way in test matches and who can offer a score with the bat. Prior on the other hand is not going to take all of those catches, but he will offer the chance to play five bowlers without embarrassment. What England need to decide is if they want less chances, but more takes, or more chances and less takes, I’m glad I don’t have to make that call.

Let’s end on a positive note however and the continued improvement of James Anderson in test match cricket. It will be Stuart Broad and Ryan Sidebottom who will be jittery about the next England team selection, with support growing for Jones and Harmison, but given recent events anything could happen.

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

Players moving up, England moving forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A potential England side of:

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

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

England getting there at last...but what of Mascarenhas?

Just as the 50-over game is being increasingly overshadowed by Twenty20, England appear to be getting to grips with it. For 15 years from 1992, England were playing an archaic form of the ODI game. Since the partnership between Peter Moores and Paul Collingwood has begun, however, things have palpably improved. England's performance in the first game of this series was exceptional: convincing with bat, ball and in their team selection.

Kevin Pietersen's elevation to number three was probably a couple of years too late. He is such a feared batsmen that it makes sense to give him the maximum time to develop an innings, for all his batting genius at five against South African in 2005. Equally, it means England's top three boasts two genuinely attacking players, in Pietersen and Luke Wright (even if he failed to convince today) and Ian Bell, who is far less one-paced than given credit for and has a vast array of strokes. Dispensing with Alistair Cook, whose strike-rate in the '60s is positively 20th century, is a wise move. The only question in the top three now is whether Wright can transfer his Sussex form into the international arena. So far, he has performed terribly opening and only had success coming in lower down the order, but deserves a full series opening.

Owais Shah's brilliant 49 - off 25 deliveries - was testament to his tremendous talent. However, for all the skill he displayed at six, a batsman of his quality deserves the chance to build an innings from number four. Shah is undeniably supremely talented and, as a wonderful player of spin and a good improviser, should not be kept as low as six, as his 107 at The Oval against India last summer, and a superb 82 in Dambulla, illustrate. Since he has emerged as a vital member of the ODI side - at least the squad - in 2007, he averages 33 with a strike-rate of 80, both fairly impressive figures. Yet on only three occasions has he been allowed to bat even at five, when he averaged 46 against the West Indies. England need to get the most out of Shah, and in batting him as low as six they are failing to do that.

Ravi Bopara endured a traumatic winter but after a phenomenal start to the season for Essex, including 201* in the FP quarter-final, fully deserved a recall. Yet given Shah's superior pedigree at this level it would be prudent to swap their batting positions, moving Bopara down to six.

England's bowling performance was impressive enough too, even if Jimmy Anderson and Ryan Sidebottom were below par. The jigsaw pieces are fitting into place nicely for England's ODI side. They have finally rid their top six of 'plodders' like Cook and Michael Vaughan - Bell, who has often been labeled as one, has a strike-rate of 82 since the start of the India series.

The only real conundrum is how to fit Dimitri Mascarenhas into the side. It is no exaggeration to say there has never been an Englishman able to clear the boundary with such regularity in ODIs. In 30 balls he faced in New Zealand (in Twenty20s and ODIs), seven cleared the rope. And, while his bowling may look little better than that of Collingwood and Wright, an economy rate of 4.4 from his ten ODIs to date is surprisingly effective. England need a man with such six-hitting capacity and destructive ability in their lower order, especially with Wright seemingly set to open. How to fit him in, however, is a problem that can wait while England display such ruthlessness.

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.

England Ratings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain Colly shows the way

Paul Collingwood's side have rightly been lambasted for a pair of aberrant performances in this ODI series. But it is to his great credit that he led by example in the third game, claiming three wickets and scoring a rapid 70* to put England back on the right track.

Collingwood's pride has palpably been damaged by the first two games. Under his captaincy, the impression that England do not care for one-day cricket has gradually been eroded, as anyone who witnessed the jubilant celebrations upon winning the series in Sri Lanka would conform. Apathy has been a major problem for England in this format; too often, they have been blown away in series that have followed the Tests, with the players all seemingly longing for a return home. That is no longer the case, for Collingwood has made it his mission to make England a respected one-day outfit once more.

His performance today illustrated the good cricketing sense he has come to be associated with. His bowling in this format of the game continues to improve; canny and with plenty of guile, his brand of cutters and slower balls are well-accustomed to Kiwi wickets. With the bat, he was audacious and a little lucky but superb: his 70* from only 50 balls made a nervy run chase into a cakewalk, as he ruthlessly targeted New Zealand's band of medium-pacers after seeing off the brilliant Daniel Vettori.

While they have regained some respectability, it would still represent a major surprise if England produce two more similarly impressive showings. Clearly, they need Phil Mustard to make a significant contribution at the top; breezy cameos are not enough. But, at last, their much-vaunted middle-order lived up to the hype, with Ian Bell playing a fine innings and Kevin Pietersen, though far from his best, making a timely contribution. Collingwood's combativeness evoked the tenacity and skill he displayed in the incredible CB Series win last year. After their thrashings in the first two games, a turnaround England series victory would come close to that for shock value.

What now for the 3rd Test?

England’s surprisingly easy passage to drawing the 2nd test must give some heart to the team looking to come back from the disappointment of the first. But for the freak dismissal of Michael Vaughan and a couple of “unfortunate” decisions to remove Kevin Pieteresen and Ali Cook, England could have been looking at a formidable first innings score of their own. However, on a slow and dead pitch, only Murali was the only bowler likely to cause major problems and England saw him off with relative ease.

The pitch at Galle will be an unknown quantity. This is the first game at the ground since the Tsunami and its behaviour will be interesting to see. England need to win to square the series, in the same situation as in India two years ago, where Shaun Udal surprised everyone and gave Andrew Flintoff his greatest moment as England captain.

There is a case for looking at the second spinner in the party this time round too. Monty Panesar has had comfortably his most frustrating series in his short England career and is struggling to gain control over the batsmen let alone look threatening. Graeme Swann should during the ODIs that he is an attacking spin bowler and in a game where England need a positive result, he may be a short term solution. He would also bolster the batting, which could be important as I would also drop Stuart Broad from the team that played the 2nd test if Matthew Hoggard is fit to return.

The other change I would make is to replace Ravi Bopara with Owais Shah. I initially supported the inclusion of Bopara as I felt his bowling would be a crucial extra dimension. However, Vaughan has been so reluctant to bowl him that his inclusion over Shah does not seem warranted, as Shah is clearly the superior batsman. However, Bopara has done enough to suggest that there is a big talent there, and Paul Collingwood should be beginning to feel under some pressure for his place in the side.

My team for the 3rd test
Vaughan
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah
Prior
Swann
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Harmison

England ODI Ratings

Here is how England's players rated in their 3-2 win over Sri Lanka:

Alastair Cook 6
Cook played the decisive innings in the fourth game, scoring a fine 80. However, as shown by his series strike-rate of 57, doubts remain over his ability to score at a run-a-ball on flatter pitches.

Phil Mustard 5
Though he only averaged 18, at least Mustard scored his runs at an excellent rate - 10 runs per 100 balls more than any other top seven players on display - in testing conditions to give England good starts. His glovework was excellent, too, but overall he probably did not do enough to displace Prior.

Ian Bell 2
A top score of 25 was a huge comedown after Bell's superb series against India. He has now gone nine games without a ODI 50, but, aided by his fine fielding, his place is not under immediate threat.

Kevin Pietersen 6
Pietersen struggled on the slow and tracks, often getting out when trying to force the pace, but scored a crucial 63* to seal the series. Will undoubtedly benefit from a rest now.

Paul Collingwood 7
Collingwood was excellent as captain, imbuing his work ethic and combativeness upon the side and utilising his bowlers cannily, although at times he underused the front-line seamers during the middle-overs. With the ball, he used his variations to great effect, reaffirming that he is good enough to regularly bowl his 10 overs. He played two important gritty innings, but failed three times, and only averaged 17.

Owais Shah 6
His 82 at Dambulla was the highest score by any batsman in the series, testament to his unorthodoxy, wristiness and dexterity against spin. Elsewhere there was a series of failures, including a mad swipe in the third game - but also the wicket of Sangakkara.

Ravi Bopara 4
At times Bopara appeared almost a playing 12th man, contributing no innings of note at seven - either failing in a crisis or surviving in hopeless causes - and not bowling at all in the first three games. Under pressure for his place.

Graeme Swann 8
An outstanding return to the side. Swann was ebullient throughout, turning the ball appreciably, displaying excellent one-day nous, fielding excellently and playing two vital cameos at number eight. A terrific all-round package at number eight, he has emerged, for now, as England's No 1 one-day spinner and, surely, the No 2 in Tests.

Stuart Broad 8
Broad responded magnificently after suffering the ignominy of being hit for six sixes in the Twenty20 World Cup. He displayed increased guile with the ball, with his slower-ball being much improved, and claimed at least two wickets in every game, although he had his share of good fortune. To top it all, his 20* in the third ODI was the second time he has taken England home in two months, testament to his batting aptitude and all-round temperament. How long until he plays his first Test?

Ryan Sidebottom 9
A quite phenomenal series. Sidebottom bowled with tremendous control and subtlety, proving very difficult to get away even when there was no swing. He deserves to play the first Test against Sri Lanka. His average - 14 - and economy rate - 3.4 - show why he was named Man of the Series, while he also helped England to victory in the third game.

James Anderson 5
After such an impressive few months, Anderson regressed somewhat here. Though still reasonable, he was too inconsistent and lacked the guile of his opening partner.

Monty Panesar 6
Panesar did well in his solitary game, but the overall ODI package offered by Swann is much greater.

The Verdict
It was a low-key series, certainly, and not played on typical one-day wickets, but that should not detract from a superb result for England; most fans would have probably accepted a 3-2 defeat at the start of the series. On admittedly helpful wickets, their bowling was superb, with Sidebottom and Swann outstanding. Conversely, England's one-day batting remains a worry; once again, the top three are a cause for major concern, while Pietersen's best one-day form has deserted him since the World Cup. Even allowing for a pair of thrashings, there are real signs that England are improving as a one-day side.

England’s misuse of resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coming of Age

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

Ian Bell unleashes a pull shot for four off Zaheer Khan

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

Alistair Cook clips to leg for a single

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

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

Chris Pallett

England ODI Ratings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another new ODI Era

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

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

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

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

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

Who should England pick for Twenty20?

With the Twenty20 World Cup looming in September, it is time England assemble a strategy to win the tournament. Considering the amount of domestic Twenty20 played, England should be genuine contenders for tournament victory – but not if they dogmatically insist on playing an identical side to the one utilised on one-day internationals.

Here is the side they should pick:

Marcus Trescothick
The powerful left-hander has long since proved himself a superb international player, and has a game perfectly suited to Twenty20; indeed, he averages 55 in the three international games he has played to date.

Mal Loye
Mastered the art of the slog sweep off quick bowlers, an idiosyncratic shot which infuriates bowlers and has been extremely effective, even during his brief ODI career. Loye’s aggressive, fearless style has worked terrifically well to date in this form of the game.

Darren Maddy
Dubbed "Mr Twenty20" by David Lloyd, Maddy was the key man in Leicestershire’s two Twenty20 triumphs, opening the innings to great effect and scoring a match-winning 86* in last year’s final.

Kevin Pietersen
The world’s best ODI batsman is a must pick if England choose to treat the game with the respect it deserves.

Paul Collingwood (captain)
Collingwood is seen as a nudger and nurdler but, as he showed with a 26-ball 46 in the Twenty20 game against Australia in 2005, is very adept at improvising to hit boundaries. He also possesses an ice-cool temperament and his accurate medium-pace bowling has much Twenty20 potential – his 4-22 against Sri Lanka are the best international figures in this form of the game.

Andrew Flintoff
An extremely destructive hitter when his mind is uncluttered, Flintoff’s accurate and fast bowling would surely prove very effective in Twenty20.

Paul Nixon (wicket-keeper)
Matt Prior has done terrifically in Test cricket and is a big hitter but, at the death in the claustrophobic environment of Twenty20, Nixon, with his resilience under pressure and penchant for the reverse-sweep, is an ideal man to have coming in – and his relentless sledging could also be worth a few wickets.

Ian Blackwell
Monty Panesar could prove too predictable in Twenty20 cricket, but Blackwell has fared well with bat and ball in this form of the game. His excellent ODI economy rate – 4.27 – suggests he could tie top quality batsmen down; regulars at Tauntan know he has copious destructive batting potential.

Mark Ealham
Snigger if you must but Ealham’s brand of frugal medium-pace bowling and uncultured hitting have earned extraordinary success in Twenty 20: his strike-rate is a phenomenal 174; his economy rate a mightily impressive 6.8.

Darren Gough
Gough was never granted a satisfactory international farewell but, in Twenty20 cricket, his love of the big stage, fantastic yorker and late-order biffing are deserving of one final international crack – remember he claimed 3-16 against Australia in 2005.

Stuart Broad
Broad revealed his big-match temperament with some sterling exploits in Leicestershire’s Twenty20 triumph last season, taking 3-13 off four brilliant overs against Kent in the quartr-final. An immensely promising quick, he can also bat reasonably well.

Other squad members:
Owais Shah
Shah has done disappointingly for England in ODIs, but he is a richly talented player whose unorthodoxy and flair have come good in Twenty20 - he averages 35 and has a strike-rate of 147.

Ravi Bopara
A Collingwood clone, albeit more obviously talented, Bopara had an excellent World Cup and, despite a modest Twenty20 record, is well suited to this format of the game.

Jeremy Snape
Snape’s nerve and willingness to bowl extraordinarily slow balls - known as 'moonballs' - have served him brilliantly in Twenty20; he has captained Leicestershire to their two titles and also averaged 25 with the bat.

Ryan Sidebottom
Sidebottom brings variety, in that he is a left-armer, control and the crucial ability to swing the white ball. These have certainly stood him in excellent stead in the helter-skelter of Twenty20: his economy rate is an exceptional 6.6.

If Trescothick were unavailable, Shah would replace him - he would bat at three and Maddy would open.

If Flintoff were unavailable, Snape or Bopara would replace him.

On the periphery: Mark Ramprakash, James Hildreth, Matt Prior, Michael Yardy, Dimi Mascarenhas, Monty Panesar