England ambushed in bloodless coup

Just as this England team's finest hour had arrived at the same venue two years ago, the end to a wait longer than they had themselves endured without an Ashes win arrived in fairly incongruous circumstances, the fielders jumping for joy as Matt Prior dead-batted Anil Kumble's 222nd ball of the innings to end the match in the draw which had long since represented England's best possible result from the match. 21 years and three barren tours have passed since Kapil Dev's team triumphed 2-0 over the same team which would that winter go on to register the away Ashes victory yet to be repeated since.

Considering the number of high-profile names not selected to tour, and the still reverberating impact of the World Cup disaster, the success of this Indian team came as a surprise to all, not least England. The old nucleus of batsmen - namely the decade-old quartet of Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman - remains, formidable if not quite as of old, so the doubts were harboured about the opening partnership and the pace bowling attack. The name of Sehwag was one both sets of fans were probably relieved to see missing from the scorecard, although it left a gap which it seemed unlikely Jaffer, who had looked uncomfortable on his last tour here, and Karthik, with a Test average in the 20s, could fill. Yet he finished as India's leading run scorer, and the only man to strike three half-centuries for his team; England struggled to breach his compact defence, and his application at the crease gave him long enough to show off some of the strokes which signify him as a natural middle-order player. Jaffer was less successful, but the combination was sufficient to protect the middle order from the new ball, and to mean that a modest series from Tendulkar (228 runs @ 38) and a disturbingly lean one from Dravid (125 @ 25.2) did not have a destabilising affect on the team as a whole.

Since the duo of Srinath and Prasad faded in the early part of the decade, many seamers have passed through the Indian Test team, few with any lasting impact. So when the newest cabs off the rank - Sreesanth and Munaf Patel - made their debut against England last year at Nagpur, the away side might have been forgiven for failing to realise that they were in fact witnessing a true genesis in Indian fast bowling. Patel, possibly the greatest talent, was not chosen to tour on grounds of fitness, so it was a mixture of the old - Zaheer Khan - and new - Sreesanth and RP Singh - which carried the Indian attack. Although England had had a good look at Zaheer over 4 Tests back in 2002, he was still a big surprise, his attacking edge sharpened by a fruitful season last year at Worcestershire. And while earlier in the season Ryan Sidebottom had reintroduced the art of left-arm swing bowling from over the wicket, there were shades of Wasim Akram (albeit at a significantly reduced pace), as Khan bustled in off his short run from around the wicket to further confound the English right-handers. 18 wickets at a shade over 20 made him comfortably the best bowler on either side, and an obvious overall man of the series (even if the namby-pamby administrators now insist there must be one from each team). His fellow left-armer, RP Singh, was slightly less effective, and although he faded after bagging a 5-fer at Lord's, he has much promise and, it must be remembered, only 21. Sreesanth was statistically the least impressive seamer, although he caused problems for the English batsmen with his very straight approach and ability to swing and seam the ball. And while the current trio may seem like riches compared to past attacks, there is plenty in reserve, with Patel, Pathan and the tall and talented Ishant Sharma, who toured but did not play a Test.

The nature of a three-match series is that opportunities must be seized, and after England lost theirs, not entirely through their own fault, at Lord's, they failed to regroup quickly enough and were caught cold in the crucial second game which had always represented the best chance of a result. Losing the tosses at Trent Bridge and The Oval put them on the back foot from the off in both games, yet they still managed to twice make the worst of a bad job. Few Test pitches provide excuse for a sum total of less than 200 and the Trent Bridge surface was not one of them, overcast conditions notwithstanding. Similarly, at The Oval, they were in sight of dismissing India for less than 500, which would have allowed them a road, albeit a tenuous one, back into the match.

Even so, as a unit they did not perform particularly badly, which is why the series loss comes laced with as much surprise as it does regret. The batting could have been a lot better, but did not bomb consistently, while the pace bowlers especially are hard to criticise. Only Sidebottom would have been first choice, but the performances of Anderson and Tremlett were extremely encouraging, and have muddied the waters as regards future selection. After missing the whole of last summer and looking ill at ease during the Ashes and World Cup, Anderson looks at his best since he made such an impression early on in his career before the doubt and the doctorate in the art of the drinks waiter set him back. His action looks freer than the over-specified incarnation we saw last winter, and he retains the happy knack of being a wicket-taking bowler, with his natural ability to move the ball in the air and off the pitch. Consistency left something to be desired, although the nature of a bowler like Anderson is that wickets are, to an extent, being bought, and a return of 14 was very healthy. Tremlett's story is an even more unlikely one. After he was the chosen one in 2005 and set for the highway to future success, some insipid performances in one-day cricket, along with unfortunate injuries and the emergence of the young trio of Plunkett, Mahmood and Broad had dumped him seemingly at the bottom of the fast bowling food-chain. But he became a beneficiary of Peter Moores' more pragmatic attitude to the selection of young fast bowlers when unexpectedly chosen ahead of Stuart Broad as a locum for the injured Hoggard at Lord's. With a height that sets him above the category of the tall and into that of the sub-giant, bounce is not an unforeseen ally. Crucially, he has the ability to make the ball move laterally as well as vertically off the pitch, and in patches he bowled very well indeed and provided substantitation for the continual claims of the Hampshire lobby that England were wasting him in one-day cricket. Although he will lose his place when the senior bowlers return, Tremlett has done more than enough to ensure he is one of the first Peter Moores will turn to when injuries strike. Sidebottom's figures are slightly unprepossessing, and he was not helped by an streak of misfortune which is threatening to extend itself into recurring pattern, especially where Matt Prior's rebounding gloves are concerned. Although he was statistically the least effective seamer, he may well be the only one to retain his place, and it will be interesting to see if he can incorporate some of Zaheer's tricks into his armoury. And while it would be stretching a point to say that Monty Panesar had a poor series, it was certainly a reality check after he had it a bit too easy against West Indies; the pitches were not really suited to him - two seaming tracks followed by a featherbed - and he was bowling to a middle order containing some of the most accomplished players of spin in the world.

But while the bowling attack was very much a scratch force, the same could not be said of the batting, where, barring Flintoff who on current form may well have weakened it, the first choice top-6 was deployed. After three different partnerships had prospered for England at the top of the order since 2000, the fourth attempt has failed to meld successfully. The common thread between the first three was Marcus Trescothick; for the last two years of Mike Atherton's career, he became the sort of reliable partner which only Graham Gooch and Alec Stewart out of the 15 or so tried could also claim to have been. Trescothick was also the bedrock of alliances with Vaughan and then Strauss, and England had seldom had it better at the top. Yet in the absence of Trescothick, something which seems increasingly like a permanent state of affairs, England have paired their best two openers and suffered. Strauss and Cook have never made a century partnership, and it is not for want of trying - in fact Cook has only ever opened for England in tandem with Strauss (he batted at 3 when Trescothick played last summer). Strauss's poor form is one obvious factor; the lack of difference between the two is another. Both are in a way archetypal left-handed Test openers; proficient off their legs, favouring the cut shot and essentially limited in their scoring areas. Whereas in partnership with Trescothick, who always set a brisk pace, Strauss could act as the counter-puncher, riding in the slipstream, in his absence he has found himself trying to force the pace. This has led to a proliferation in loose dismissals, edges from over-ambitious cuts and drives as well as the odd skied hook shot. It has cost him his place in the one-day side and now the selectors will think long and hard before selecting him to tour this winter. The lack of a ready-made replacement has saved him thus far, although there is no reason why Vaughan could not resume his career as an opener, something which might in itself benefit Cook.

That said, Peter Moores might be loath to part his captain from the No.3 position where he blossomed on his return to Test cricket. Before his injury, there were increasing doubts over Vaughan's worth to the team as a batsman, just a few years after he had been ranked the world's best. Throughout the summer he was imperious and both by weight of runs and the manner of their getting, he confirmed himself as the second best batsman behind Pietersen, with whom he formed a strong axis. He slightly blotted his copybook with two "millionaire" shots in the final Tests, although such lapses have always been the price paid for his otherwise exquisite batsmanship. With his second match saving century in two years at the same ground, Pietersen marked his evolution from outrageously talented hitter into master Test match batsman, who has it in him to be one day described as a great of the game. The circumstances of the two innings could not have been more different; in 2005, he was batting for the Ashes, against the best in the world, for the most sought after prize in English cricket. His 158 was suitably glitzy and, in keeping with the tone of the summer, he lived on the very edge. It was the innings of a gambler, and one which he could never hope to repeat. Today's effort was a polar opposite: the series lost, he was playing for pride only, although saving the game remained important. Suitably, his tenth Test century was, by his standards, a measured affair. Crucially, he buckled down and played the innings that the team required; some of the shots dazzled, but the daredevil hooks and slog-sweeps were not apparent. It was his fourth century of the summer and came as confirmation of what he had hinted at through those innings, namely that he has chosen the hard road, and the one that should lead him to success and a seat at the top table of batsmen in the modern era.

Past those two, however, the batting was below-par. Bell and Collingwood had very similar series - both just under 200 runs at just over 30 with 2 half-centuries - and disappointment was another shared theme. Both are Test class batsmen; Bell through greater natural talent and Collingwood thanks to his fierce fighting spirit, but there may well be a place for only one of them against Sri Lanka. Collingwood is probably the safer of the two, thanks to his fielding and improved bowling, and Bell will need to establish himself away from No.6, the domain of the returning Flintoff. The disappointment was that the batsmen failed to work well as a unit, in marked comparison to their opponents, who were superior despite the fact that their only century came from the unlikely source of No.8 Anil Kumble. Too often batsmen made starts but did not go on to register significant scores, as evidenced at The Oval, where three batsmen were out in the 60s in the first innings, and at Trent Bridge, where neither side had a first innings century-maker and India more than doubled England's sub-200 total.

And in stark contrast to India's wicket-keeper MS Dhoni, who should take as much credit as the rain for denying England at Lord's as well as putting them beyond reach in the final Test, the contributions of England's No.7 were decidedly meagre. After his 42 at Lord's, he made just 31 runs in 5 innings, a total which exceeded that of Ryan Sidebottom by just 15 runs and Chris Tremlett by 23. Runs are the currency which Prior must deal in if he is to retain his place in the long-term, and in no-one's book is 73 @ 14.6 an acceptable. Had he been faultless elsewhere, he might well have escaped with passing criticism. However, having laid himself open to reproach as leader of the English brat-pack at Trent Bridge, he then took what hindsight can see as an inevitable fall, shelling Tendulkar and Laxman as well as waving through 33 first-innings byes. In the modern era where wicket-keepers must be able to score their share of runs, England have oscillated between specialist wicket-keepers who have not justified their place with the bat and batsmen whose wicket-keeping has not met international standards. The problem for the latter category is that the wicket-keeping troubles tend to erode general confidence and consequentially batting form. For Geraint Jones this became a terminal problem, and one hopes that Prior can overcome it. There is a clear technical malfunction with his footwork when he keeps, resulting in mishaps when he dives for catches. For now, England would be advised to stick with him, and with Peter Moores, his Sussex mentor, at the helm, he will be given some leeway. Another problem is in the shifting perception of fans and critics; when someone like Prior is in possession of the gloves, the most important facet of the game is wicket-keeping - you simply cannot have a wicket-keeper who misses regulation chances. When the gauntlets are passed over to someone like Read, suddenly the batting becomes the overriding concern - no matter how good a 'keeper you are, in today's world you simply have to be a Test class No.7. The England selectors will forever be damned whichever way they go until someone nails down the place who proves himself international class on both sides of the stumps. At this moment in time, Prior is best placed to be that man, and with some work on his keeping technique and a few confidence-balming innings, the literary brickbats could easily morph back into the fan-mail most correspondants were composing when Prior made his century on debut.

What is concrete is that the series and the unbeaten record have been lost, and that England are yet to win a series of any great note since the Ashes (considering that Pakistan lacked their three first choice seamers last summer). It is not the time for the axe to be wielded in a headless chicken manner, but refinement, both in tactics and personnel are required, and a tough series away to an accomplished Sri Lankan team will be a good barometer of progress, especially if all the injured players are, as they are expected to be, available. As for India, not half a year on from what seemed like the all time low of the World Cup exit, there is not a mention of that or favoured voodoo doll Chappell to be seen as they bask in their well earned glory. England could well take heart; victory on the subcontinent this winter would represent an equivalent achievement and the path forward, although strenuous, is not insurmountable.