The victory of mediocrity

Forget Michael Vaughan, whose omission from the Caribbean tour is as acceptable as his selection would have been. It was not so much the identity of the new face that mattered, rather that there be one. Continuing to select Ian Bell as a first XI player, and Owais Shah as patsy, shows that the England selectors have faith in their batting unit. Which has remained virtually unchanged for the last two years and repeatedly failed to attain the benchmark of 400 against the better sides. The latest selection sends out several messages: to the incumbents that they are doing fine; to the challengers that there isn't much point. Neither is healthy or conducive to success. Shah could play, but his hope expired long ago holding its breath. Rob Key, one of few genuine top order options, continues to be fobbed off with the captaincy of the A team. The brave new world of Peter Moores, where the doors of the closed shop were to be thrown open, has been exposed as a fallacy. Australia look increasingly ripe for the taking next summer, but England will get nowhere standing still.

England look back to the future

Victory may have finally eluded them, but there was more encouragement to be had for England from two well-contested Tests in India than any number of facile conquests - as they have enjoyed recently over New Zealand and West Indies - could ever provide. In the end, the tour which might never have been worked out well for England. It saw the resurgence of their contrasting Andrews - Strauss and Flintoff - who were so pivotal in 2005 and will need to be again next summer should England engineer a repeat. That Matt Prior's return to the team went almost unnoticed will be satisfaction enough for him, and there was further evidence of the value his trenchant batting adds. Stuart Broad, recalled for the second Test, looked to be hitting the pitch that much harder than this time last year, while the mix of a functioning outswinger with the new ball and discpilined lines with the old one gave indications of the bowler he should become.

While some quietly pushed themselves forward with solid work, the contrasting distress signals were more obvious. Ian Bell and Monty Panesar come most readily to mind: Bell simply does not look possessed of the stature to occupy the pivotal No.3 position yet, least of all against Australia. Exclusion, rather than demotion, would serve him better in the long-run, and also give England the chance to experiment with their top order, with the opening partnership of Cook and Strauss a case of good players in imperfect harmony. Cook could easily slip down the order to accomodate either Michael Vaughan or Rob Key at the top. Panesar, too, struggled: more worrying than his much chronicled mundanity as a bowler was his failure to maintain the basic tenets of his method, continually erring in length, a spinner's cardinal sin. With Graeme Swann looking combative, and Adil Rashid increasingly prominent, Panesar must now fight for his place.

England will now look forward, to the spring tour of the Caribbean, and, inevitably, next summer's Ashes. As much as it is important to focus on the matter at hand, the team for the West Indies should be selected with Australia in mind. This requires a the selectors to set aside some of their favoured notions of entitlement and security. Well as Paul Collingwood played in Chennai, England are well aware of what he contributes to the team; Owais Shah is a less-known quantity at this level, but one who could benefit England next summer. Accordingly, Collingwood should be stood down for the Caribbean in Shah's favour. England must gain a greater awareness of their reserve strength, and it is salutary that the batting line-up which played in India is identical to that which toured two years ago. This suggests a greater stability and consistency of performance than has been the case. The protected world of central contracts has made consolidation too easy an option for selectors, and they drift increasingly towards damaging inflexibility. As it stands, highly talented batsmen are in danger of being forever wasted through selectorial indifference.

As ever, the bowling attack remains more fluid. Anderson and Broad look the safest long-term bets and Steve Harmison is bound to tour the Caribbean with his history there and permanently alluring abilities. Without Harmison, or with him bowling badly, England lack potency once the new ball has lost its shine. Flintoff and Broad are steady; and while the big all-rounder retains his capacity to be outstanding, he has never been a consistent wicket-taker. Extreme pace and bounce or reverse swing are a seamer's three main old-ball weapons. The latter was England's trump card back in 2005 and has enjoyed an extended vogue since, best demonstrated of late by the Indian duo, Zaheer and Ishant. England have strived increasingly less successfuly for it since 2005, Flintoff included. Such shadow chasing has brought England back towards the mercurial Sajid Mahmood and rushed to prominence a Kentish Dutchman, Amjad Khan. Either could feature in the near future if England's mainstays prove too plain. One name which is synonomous with speed and swing is that of Simon Jones, who remains tantalisingly out of reach, if not mind. Only the doctors would want to write him off at this stage, and England will keep a hopeful eye out. The team may finally be moving on under Kevin Pietersen's leadership, but Vaughan and Jones, England's old alchemists, may yet hold the key to Ashes success.

Smith bridges South Africa's Rubicon

Defeating Australia has been something of an obsession for South Africa in the years since their re-entry into international cricket. The challenge broke a leader as strong as Hansie Cronje, who crumbled on the unsuccessful tour a decade ago. Graeme Smith suffered similarly on his first tour there, forced to swallow his own brash predictions. The Australian outfit his team faces now is significantly reduced, cripplingly so in the bowling ranks, their former failsafe means of controlling the flow of the game. Yet to defeat them on home soil, not least chasing over 400, remains a profound achievement. South Africa, as they had many times previously, sparked early, but looked like being worn away as the Australian lower order, an as-yet unquenced force, twice rallied. Late wickets on the fourth evening also seemed to drag the game back in the hosts' favour. But for once in such circumstances, Australia were outdone: at the crucial moments they blinked; having stacked the odds in their favour they could only watch as their throne was swept from under them.

As is necessary for such a victory, South Africa produced a collective performance built on many individual pillars. AB De Villiers was a deserved man-of-the-match after he guided them home with a fifth-day century. But the undoubted champion was Smith, his two important innings the least part. He has always been a special player: those who captain their country at 22 and score consecutive double-centuries opening the batting in England tend to be. But back then, both his batting and PR were crass; as quickly as he won success he earned enemies and an unenviable international reputation. As a batsman and a captain he has grown immeasurably over the last few years: his technique is now less likely to collapse at the first sign of a swing bowler; following last summer's defeat of England, he spoke with humility and gravitas, in distinct comparison to his counterpart Kevin Pietersen. A bullying figure has become a towering one; beyond all expectation, a desperate punt has turned into a unifying force, encompassing the myriad problems of South African cricket - the tension of racial quotas, the aftershocks of Cronje's disgrace, worrying dips in performance . There is still much work to do for South Africa to make good what remains a single result; Smith should ensure they are not distracted. And if he leads his team past the ailing hosts, he will have helped to heal South African scars not only over Australia, but Cronje.

The greater game

In the wake of England's much anticipated, ultimately crushing defeat in the first Test, the criticism has ranged from the contribution of the opening bowlers to that of the captain and his senior spinner. All have had prouder days than the last two in Chennai; but if England bear psychological scars they should be worn lightly. Conceding a fourth innings total as large as 387 looks criminal: a fairer way would be too look at the target less the damage done by Virender Sehwag on the fourth evening. Only in allowing him a running start did England disgrace themselves. Following his dismissal, they kept themselves in the game with necessary wickets, before, as will happen with around 100 of a large total needed, the pendulum made its fatal swing. All told it was a classic Test match of its type, the subcontinental slow-burner. Skilful bowlers, notably Zaheer Khan and Andrew Flintoff, found reward from a pitch which looked more helpful than proved the case. The batsmen with the strongest minds, and the most outrageous skill, were the significant ones, and six outstanding innings were played. In the end it was subtle momentum shifts - the lower order partnership between Dhoni and Harbhajan; England's catharsis on the fourth afternoon - which proved crucial, allied to a brutal one effected by Sehwag. Best of all, it was a Test match which lasted almost the full five days, yet never looked like finishing a draw.

-----------------------------

While India have been all-conquering on home soil this winter, it has been despite, rather than thanks to two of their greatest players, Mahendra Dhoni's predecessors as captain. Indian fans will hope that, between them, Anil Kumble and Rahul Dravid have drained the chalice of its poison: both careers fell from the sky following a muted handover, which seems all the more significant in view of Dravid's subsequent plight. He has a diminishing handful of chances to rescue his career, while Kumble has already gone. There were already signs in the last Test that his kicking-horse legspin is missed, with the skilful Amit Mishra a bowler who can be attacked in a way few would have tried with Kumble. He chose the right time to depart, and increasingly it seems Dravid should follow him. And the hurt that will have been suffered by the pair over their own waning skills should be tempered by the realisation that India, as they would not have done a few years ago, are winning without them. Their ability to hold direct influence over results may have now dwindled, but the legacy of those two courteous competitors is rich.

Polar opposites alter critical mass

Their paths into international cricket - Lord's via Johannesburg versus a tough apprenticeship with an infant county - could hardly have been more different; likewise their initiation into the top level, the opener who began and went on faultlessly and the spare-part derided as England's first specialist fielder. Yet Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood have shared a common fate over the past year: each has made a century with their career on the line; both travelled to India with a weak hold on their starting positions. But when three quick wickets threatened to dissolve England's well-earned supremacy in the 1st Test in Chennai, it was the unlikely duo who came together and steered the team back to high ground. In cricketing terms the two have more similarities: both favour shots square of the wicket, mainly off the back foot; steady accumulation is a shared purpose and sharp running a common trait. Each played his keynote role: Strauss constructing the innings apposite to the circumstances and Collingwood steeling himself in the face of a potential crisis. Within a few hours, the two most dispensible players made themselves necesary again, and England look set fair for an unlikely victory.

Come in, No.3

As Strauss and Collingwood take their leave from the last-chance saloon, the spotlight turns to Ian Bell, with enough ability for the three of them but sadly lacking the capability to capitalise on his gifts. Two innocuous dismissals will not have helped the cause of a career on which perception
weighs heavy, and Bell, albeit just two games into his latest run at the crucial No.3 position, again looks unsure in and of his place. One view is that a dead-rubber and a Test under unusually stressful circumstances are no way to judge a player's true worth. The other is that Bell has proved once again that he does not have the mettle for a primary role in international cricket, and should be relieved of his duties. His fate is one bulky issue, but just part of the even weightier problem that is England's No.3. Nasser Hussain and Mark Butcher, two doughty fighters, did valuable service there and latterly Michael Vaughan had some success moving down from the top of the order. But when compared to their rivals, who have boasted the likes of Ponting, Sangakkara, Dravid and Kallis there in recent times, England look lightweight. Bell does not currently possess the stature to be England's batting fulcrum, while Kevin Pietersen will not (fairly) promote himself, and Owais Shah, although he bats there for Middlesex, is mainly viewed as a middle-order option. Of options from the counties, Rob Key will always be pushed in some quarters, and his inclusion would allow the possibility to re-jig what remains an unbalanced top order. It would be trust in his calibre rather than recent contributions that would propel Key, however, after an underpowered summer. Which leaves Michael Vaughan, the elephant still unwilling to leave the room; it has always seemed likely that the Caribbean tour would be his one chance to prove himself in anticipation of next year's Ashes contest. And Bell's travails may well have opened an unlikely door for him.

Emperor's old clothes

Meanwhile the arrival of South Africa has been proclaimed as a further test of Australia's fallen stock. One wonders whether the home support will be more amused by the tourists' confident predictions or the news that they have turned to Duncan Flethcer to give them them new ideas about how to win down under. New seems to be what is lacking from this South African outfit: they bring a batting line-up almost unchanged from their last visit, and one which has of late been carrying as a passenger its former driving force; on the bowling front, dependence on Pollock and Ntini has become dependence on Steyn, who will be targeted by the home batsmen. Australia have problems of their own, with uncertainty over the two giant Queenslanders, Hayden and Symonds, and of course the spinning option, but this is neither the place nor opposition to expose them. As their last recourse there remains the possibility that South Africa might, in time-honoured tradition, bottle it, but it will be a surpirse if they get close enough.