Flawed England caught between two stools

With the volume of one-day cricket England have been involved in over the last month or so, it seems quite a long time since they last played a Test match. And for what must be the first time in a significantly longer period, there is greater confusion over the composition of the Test, rather than one-day side. Since the Ashes victory in 2005, their Test record has been distinctly average, bordering on poor. Away from home, just one Test has been won since the tour of South Africa in 2004-5, while seven out of eleven have ended in defeat. Even at home, where until this summer they had not lost a series for six years, results have suffered: in addition to the loss against India, they failed to put away a Sri Lanka side in the springtime climes which are as unfamiliar and unfair to the islanders as the conditions this England side will be facing in the forthcoming series. Wins were achieved against West Indies and Pakistan, but the former was against such inferior opposition as to render it a non-achievement, while Pakistan were unable to field their three frontline seamers while the series was at stake.

England still, just, rank as the second best Test team behind Australia, although that gap is as cavernous as their margin over the chasing pack is slim. It seems fitting somehow, that they should find themselves in Sri Lanka at the crucial stage, scene of one of England's greatest modern triumphs as Nasser Hussain led a team comprising the talented yet misguided bunch who had suffered repeatedly througout the 1990s to a series victory after a thumping defeat in the opening match of three. That victory, along with the earlier success that winter in Pakistan and the previous summer's demolition of West Indies, was the high-point for an underachieving generation and can be seen as the genesis for much happier times in the first half of this decade. And while Hussain's legacy was converted by Michael Vaughan into an elusive Ashes victory, the ill fortune surrounding that team has meant that, while it should still be that same unit powering towards the next home Ashes in 2009, only four players will go to Sri Lanka guaranteed a starting place.

Where England have struggled is bringing together the remnants of that team and the new faces to form a team capable of beating all-comers, as was the 2005 vintage. Far from the smooth transition as envisaged and planned for by Duncan Fletcher and Michael Vaughan, injureis and loss of form have meant that new players have had to be thrown in. Some, notably Alistair Cook and Monty Panesar, have prospered and nailed down places. However, such a situtation meant an inevitable painful struggle for some; Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood are two such- extremely talented bowlers, neither was anywhere near the level required for Test cricket. The raw material was there, but they had been given no time to develop consistency and nous, two of the more crucial weapons for bowlers in the era of flat pitches and turbo-charged bats.

Indeed the composition of the bowling attack will be casuing most headaches for David Graveney and his selection panel as they thrash out the options for the touring squad to be announced tomorrow. In 2005 the balance was perfect, with Flintoff's presence at 6 allowing a five-man attack with variety in the seam bowling and the stoicism of Ashley Giles combining to form a potent arsenal. Since then, that unit has disitegrated almost completely. Flintoff and Simon Jones, the two stand-out bowlers in 2005, are both hostage to a chronic injury and conceivably neither will play another Test match. Harmison's form has dropped off markedly; no longer can he repeatedly find that awkward length to make the ball rise at the batsman's chest and throat and more worryingly he has lost his line as well, essaying the leg-side far more often that is expected of an experienced international bowler. Hoggard alone remained unbowed in the period between Ashes series, but since even he has fallen foul of injury, which permitted him to play in only the most meaningless Test of the seven last summer. Harmison, after a shocking start to the West Indies series in which he improved but did not assuage doubts, was also injured for the India tie, meaning that England fielded an attack with not a single Ashes winner, the varied success of which has made picking a four man attack a minor nightmare now old opening pair Hoggard and Harmison are back fit.

A quick perusal of the domestic averages might persuade one that the old allies should be instantly re-united. Harmison comes in at 3rd, his wickets at 16; Hoggard 7th with an average of 20. However, especially in the case of Harmison, there are statistics which come under the auspices of damned lies. Most of his wickets came early season, which paved a way for him to lead the attack in the early summer Tests. Yet for the large part of the four match series he was hopeless, and with injury claiming the latter half of his season, he has no form behind him. To address this, he has signed a short-term deal with a South African province, which will give him two first-class games in which to make a point. His reputation and central contract should guarantee his place in the touring party, but his form does not justify a starting place, and he has much to prove. Less so Hoggard, who has made a habit of not letting England down, and is an automatic selection as the most consistent seamer as well as the most experienced and successful in the subcontient. The focus then shifts to the trio who held the fort well against India: Anderson, Sidebottom and Tremlett. Sidebottom, who had the worst series statistically against India, is nevertheless at the head of the queue, in view of his excellent one-day series and the variation he offers with his left-arm bowling. Tremlett and Anderson are then left in a scrap with Harmison for the third seamers slot, should that be the balance chosen. Anderson has a good claim both as leading wicket-taker against India and in vbiew of his consistent performances with the one-day side and recent experince of the conditions. However, what may count against him is the wish to play one of the skyscraping seamers, which also brings Stuart Broad into the equation. He would add batting prowess, but his bowling still appears too fragile for Tests, especially in Sri Lanka as part of a four-man unit.

Monty Panesar will take care of spinning duties, although the excellent performances of Graeme Swann on international recall have guaranteed his selection in the squad. Ideally, as is their wont in Asia, England would like to play him as second spinner. However, previously there has been a pace-bowling all-rounder - Craig White then Andrew Flintoff - allowing a good balance of spin and seam. Opting for two spinners out of four bowlers is a high risk strategy, as Pakistan recently discovered to their cost, and the reality for Swann is that he will be reserve barring injury to Panesar or extreme conditions. That is sad, as Swann is an attacking off-spinner, capable of giving the ball a good rip, and would also give the batting security at no.8, the Giles- sized void yet to be filled.

And while the composition of the bowling attack is a puzzle, the batting positions are also far from decided. Five players - Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood - can feel safe, although the identity of the last man in will have significant bearing on how they line up. Andrew Strauss has not missed a Test match since the tour of Pakistan in late 2005, and that was compassionate leave to allow him to be present at the birth of his child. Since his astonishing debut in summer 2004, when he ended the career of one stalwart, Nasser Hussain, and displaced the captain Michael Vaughan from the opening slot, his place has never been directly threatened. However, following his turbo-charged entry to Tests, encompassing the summer and an amazing debut tour, averaging 72.88 in South Africa, his results have depreciated. He has not averaged 40 in a calendar year since 2004, and this year he has not managed even 30 and has gone without a century in 8 Tests. Much has been written on the causes and reasons for such a slump, not least on this blog; what remains to be said is that he has expended the period of grace given to a player of quality without justifying the faith shown in him - nor has he made his case through county cricket, scoring his runs for Middlesex at 35 in 7 Championship games. What is more, he has failed to establish a successful alliance with Alistair Cook, and with Cook having runs and youth on his side, Strauss will lose that battle, and in all likelihood his place in the team and possibly the squad.

There is no shortage of players fighting over the final batting place. Owais Shah looks to be the best bet; he backed up success with the ODI team with runs for Middlesex, and is a cert for the party of 16, if not the starting XI. Ravi Bopara also made a case with an excellent summer with Essex, while his bowling would be a bonus in the absence of Flintoff. But it is the situation regarding Shah's former county team-mate Mark Ramprakash which has caused the most recent debate. His county form, with two 2000 run, 100 average seasons behind him is historically unmatched. What counts against him is his age, 38, and his Test average, 27, a figure reached after 52 Test matches of struggle over the course of 11 years. The first figure can be partially disregarded; despite his advanced years for a sportsman, he is still a consummate athlete and his Surrey contract takes him up to the summer of 2009, judgement day for this current England side. It is a Test average, which he has doubled in first-class cricket, and faulty temperament which are harder to explain away. His demeanour at The Oval over the last few season suggest a man who is significantly more relaxed, and he attributes that and a small change of technique to his monumental run-scoring. There is a good chance that Ramprakash, if recalled, would succeed, and it would be a nice symmetry for one of the most precocious young talents in history to make a comeback in his cricketing dotage and have the dominance once expected of him at Test level. However, it seems unlikely that the selectors will take a risk on a 38 year old, and although sentiment would dearly love Ramprakash to return and succeed, cold logic seems set to carry the day, and that is probably the right decision.

The wicket-keeping slot is an area of debate (of course), but on this occasion it seems an area which the selectors are unwilling to make a battle-ground, and Matt Prior should get the nod after missing out through injury in the ODIs. Phil Mustard did not make much of his opportunity in his stead, while he was never ordained to be a Test player anyway. The likes of Tim Ambrose and Steven Davies will bear consideration at some point, but for now it seems best to stick with Prior, who deserves at least the winter Tests to prove one way or another whether his century on debut was the sign of things to come or a false dawn. And at the midway stage between two home Ashes series, England's thoughts will be very much on the same lines.