The inertia of loss

Various series and epochal moments could be identified as turning points in England's transition from perennial failures to victors over the world's best team in 2005. You could look back to the success early in Duncan Fletcher's tenure on the subcontinent in 2000-1; the spring series in 2004 where England's bowling attack merged into a cohesive, incisive unit at the spiritual home of fast bowling; the subsequent summer where they swept the board in all seven Tests. All crucial moments: building blocks of a confident, winning team. Nevertheless, it was arguably the series which followed the all-conquering summer of 2004 that crystallised England's ambition and worldbeating potential. For all the success in the year 2004, they had not been challenged by the best, even the better teams: South Africa, on the home soil where only Australia had beaten them since their readmision in 1991, was an acid test if ever there was.

Having easily won the first Test, England looked to have ceded their advantage on the first day at Durban. Blasted out by Pollock and Ntini for 139, they began their second innings almost 200 behind. What followed showed all that was good about England then, and what they lack now. To put it simply, when Pollock picked up the opening wicket, a customary caught behind, the score was 273. Marcus Trescothick was the victim, his demise brining about a similar fate for his opening partner Andrew Strauss soon after, as so often happens after a big partnership is broken. From a surefire winning position, South Africa were left hanging from the precipice, two wickets from going down as the clouds closed over to save them on the last evening. Despite losing the next Test, England produced another amazing recovery at Johannesburg to snatch the series 2-1. Again Trescothick was to the fore, blasting a second innings 180 to set up Matthew Hoggard's procession. Good as the Somerset man was that series, he was eclipsed by his partner, who amassed 656 runs @ 72 to neutralise Jaques Kallis' colossal contribution and bat South Africa, country of his birth, into the ground.

Trescothick and Strauss were the ultimate manifestation of England's success, which correlated almost exactly with the lifespan of their own partnership. It came together by accident in 2004, when Michael Vaughan's knee collapsed on him not for the first or last time. When Vaughan returned for the second Test against New Zealand, he had lost a batsman of 96 Tests experience, Nasser Hussain, and his own place in the batting order. All for a diminuitive left-hander, not much known outside the county circuit he had quietly been dominating with Middlesex. Just as Trescothick had four years previously, Strauss slipped in unobtrusively; success came fast and with it a sense of belonging. While Trescothick blasted opening bowlers down the ground, Strauss hung on the back foot to punish them through backward square. It was a simple, but seemingly fireproof technique. In time its simplicity, and consequent lack of adaptability, has been his downfall. After returning from South Africa England's leading series run scorers, both enjoyed fine Ashes series: Trescothick's total of 431 runs was eclipsed only by Kevin Pietersen, Strauss compensating for his failure to reach three figures with two centuries. They seemed set to dominate the world stage for years to come, as did England.

Eighteen months on from the last time they opened in a Test match, with Trescothick having officially drawn a line under his England career and Strauss seemingly slipping from the team for a second time, the thought of such a fine, recent opening partnership only serves to highlight England's current shortcomings. An England batting unit led by Trescothick and Strauss was a genuine force to be reckoned with; they invariably gave good starts, giving a sense of condifence and ease which permeated the whole team. England's current opening pair, Cook and Vaughan, are both fine players, but their parterships this series have been either non-existent or ponderous. In a sense, England have never recovered from losing Trescothick: not only have they missed his runs and safe hands at slip, but his departure has had a domino effect on the rest of the team, not least Strauss, who has scored just one century when not partnered by him, and none since they last batted together in summer 2006. England's batsmen now seem caught between preservation and the need to attack, even Kevin Pietersen severely affected, without a century all winter until he rescued England in the ongoing Test. Without the example of a natural dominator like Trescothick, to set the tone from the off, they look rudderless. Only Michael Vaughan, who continues to get out inexplicably, and Pietersen are batting leaders; the case of Strauss has shown what happens when a follower attempts to take charge.

A shake-up in England's batting is necessary and should come in the return series with New Zealand in May. Strauss, second innings exploits at Napier notwithstanding, surely cannot continue to justify a place, especially out of position at 3. Ian Bell is also treading a fine line, and a ruthless selector would send him back to Wawrickshire to focus his mind. The hopeful return of Andrew Flintoff nominally weakens the batting, although the safety net of a sixth specialist batsman can be dehabilitating , and has certainly not done England too many favours recently. From the corrosive situation of every innings being an act of self-preservation, which was sometimes the case in the 1990s, England have swung too far to the opposite end of the spectrum. Bar the odd incursion on the part of Shah or Bopara, it has been the same six names for over two years now almost exclusively filling the specialist batting positions. England line up looks too much like a closed shop and for none of the right reasons. The batting is stolid, the outlook stale; sadly there will be no return of Trescothick to blow the cobwebs away.