View from the Boundary

Rite of Spring still blooms

2009-04-11T22:46:00.007+01:00

With the imminent arrival of the World Twenty20, swiftly to be followed by the small matter of the Ashes, it's hard not to feel the marginalisation of county cricket more keenly than ever. The Twenty20 Cup - the very goose, lest one forget, that spawned the golden egg - has been shifted from it's habitual June fortnight; May will see just one full round of Championship matches. Should England regain the urn in August, domestic results will be relegated to the smallest print known to broadsheets. In the far more likely case of an Australian victory, the corpse of county cricket will be dragged out for its traditional public flogging. As those who paid to witness barely persistent rain ruin the season-opener at Lord's might have felt, it can be hard to win as a county supporter.

But with the attention of the mass media elsewhere, not inconsiderable change is afoot in the domestic arena. New coaches and directors have been brought in to reawaken sleeping giants. Big names, too: Peter Moores at Lancashire, Angus Fraser returning to Middlesex, Chris Adams making what appears - though Yorkshiremen will need convincing - a lasting move from Sussex to Surrey. Moores and Adams know county success, although the needs and wants of two regional heavyweights may press them harder than seaside Sussex, where they needed and were given years to bring about success. Meanwhile, the minnows of a decade ago, now temporary wearers of what was once Surrey's unchallenged crown - rarely Lancashire's, a 'big club' akin to Newcastle United - look to build their own dynasty. A surfeit of seam bowlers, mostly locally nurtured, should boost Durham's chances of retaining their title, while their young turk captain, Will Smith, will have the support of gnarled old-pros Benkenstein and Chanderpaul and perhaps an additional weapon in Steve Harmison, to whom that description can still apply in county cricket.

Past the defending champions, the competition looks tight-knit as has increasingly been the case in the two-divisional system. Nottinghamshire's seam attack is tasty, but they look short of runs, especially if Samit Patel is required by England. Somerset are at the other pole: Langer and Trescothick continue to underwrite any batting deficit, but an attack which has still to move on from 40-year old Andrew Caddick should keep them stronger contenders for relegation than the title. Sussex have shopped shrewdly - bringing in Yasir Arafat and Ed Joyce - but the reality of Mushtaq's lost wickets began to set in last season, and there is no clear impression that they have addressed the issue. Worcestershire look just covered on bowling, but short on batting; fellow promotees Wawrickshire will have to do it the dull way, as was the case five summers ago, but look too anodyne, as exemplified by the unprepossessing acquisition of New Zealand's Jeetan Patel. Yorkshire remain too long detained by the process of bringing through youth; they will not get far unless they can identify a hardy pair of openers, a glaring deficiency in recent seasons, but otherwise the team has a nice balance, and will benefit from a refreshed Matthew Hoggard, eager to jerk the attention of the national selectors, who want to move on.

If Surrey, Kent and Middlesex think turning up will see them out of the Second Division, they could struggle. All are reasonable bets for promotion, but will be pushed hard by the more ambitious of the lower tier's accustomed residents: Essex have a bright-looking squad, albeit slightly lacking the substance for four-day cricket, as opposed to limited overs formats, where they are kings. Derbyshire too are upwardly-mobile, albeit slightly lacking experience in the bowling ranks. The remaining teams look set for continued struggle: some would say that Leicestershire and Northants, pushing the overseas quota as far as it is willing to go, deserve little better. But if some degree of predictability would be a blessed relief to county followers - being able to work out starting times for games without the aid of star-gazing equipment would be a start - the complete uncertainty across all four competitions should keep supporters interested , and the chance to witness the next generation of aspiring hopefuls - in healthy abundance despite the much-trumpeted influx of Kolpaks et al - is sufficient reason to remain hopeful however the national team fares.

Defeated England out of ideas

2009-03-14T12:23:00.003Z

Not many people would have expected England's habitually fragile batting line-up to reel off three totals easily in excess of 500; nor the West Indies, having dramatically snatched an early lead, to hold out for another three Test matches and secure a long-awaited series victory. But however surprising the result, a series which featured the odd moment of high drama among much turgid cricket confirmed rather than altered most well-held opinions. West Indies are still a mediocre side, although the excessively flat pitches played to their core batting strength, and capitalised on England's glaring deficiencies.

England possess not one seam bowler who can stride back to his mark all day with the captain's full confidence. The old guard - Flintoff, Harmison, even Sidebottom - all look finished in one sense or another. James Anderson and Stuart Broad both remain on the cusp of genuine utility as Test bowlers, although together they are a serviceable new ball pair, sorely lacking the support of an enforcer, which only Flintoff at full cry - an increasingly distant prospect - is capable of being amongst the present field. In desperation, England gave a debut to Amjad Khan, who brought no-balls aplenty, and more fire in words than deeds. As England cry out for a bowler who can bring express pace or steepling bounce, old Duncan Fletcher nostrums ring loud in the distance. Those who scoffed at his inflexibility in bowling selections, his insistence on ability and potential over domestic performance, may choke now. Look no further than Ryan Sidebottom, the darling of the Peter Moores regime, the anti-Fletcher. England had one good year from him, and in return have carried all winter a battered wreck of a bowler.

And as they finally look to have given up on long-lost causes, Steve Harmison prominent among them, England look around to find no-one ready to graduate to the highest level; somehow the prospects who should have taken flight in the two years since the last Ashes remain rooted to the ground. Where now Tremlett, Plunkett, Mahmood, Onions? Injured, discarded or ignored. Anything but cultivated. And now England are scrabbling on their knees, desperately trying to salvage the scraps of a generation they let slip through their fingers.

England now head into the limited overs segment of the tour with a captain who will don the blue kit by sole dint of the pips on his shoulder, and an acting coach who may or may not soon be permanently appointed to the post. Andy Flower is a demonstrably capable man of cricket, but his links with past regimes and the evidence of the current tour should be enough for the ECB to rule out his candidacy. A new voice is badly needed, a forced re-evaluation of common approach and attitude. The sort of cosy axis Strauss and Flower have apparently formed is ideal in prosperous times, but England in their current state require something more like shock treatment. No matter that there is little time before this summer's Ashes for a new man to make his mark; the resurgence of Ricky Ponting's Australia (that was quick) suggests that ship is well and truly sailing.

The bowling's the thing

2009-01-17T02:45:00.008Z

With the calendar rolling over into another Ashes year, English and Australian cricket inevitably turns its gaze towards this summer's anticipated contest. The first batch of pre-Ashes headlines have focused on the batsmen, and administrators: Kevin Pietersen - who, depending on how you see it, either drowned trying to bridge the sea of English mediocrity, or collapsed under the weight of his own ego - was sprung from his throne as England's captain; Matthew Hayden, the last to see he had reached Do Not Pass Go, cashed in his chips. ECB blazers and an Australian lawyer - their Chairman of Selectors, Andrew Hilditch - have come under fire for creating a climate of mediocrity for their relative teams to function in.

Little matter that the two batting units to face-off at Cardiff in six months time could be predicted without too much head-scratching; that England's committee cock-ups are ritualistic; or that it is no surprise the Australians have forgotten good selection is an art, not a process. The unsentimental Australian system will soon have forgotten Hayden; unlike an English equivalent, Michael Vaughan for instance, he will not hang around waiting to be wheeled out again. The Australians have always been rather better at moving on, the process in which they are currently engaged, not without struggle. England, on the other hand, could roll up to the Swalec in six months time with one captain and as many as four old flames.

But as much as batsmen have grabbed the attention recently, increasingly it seems that their less oxygenated counterparts will be crucial to the outcome of this year's big event. In each of the last two Ashes series, the home team has had the bowling attack to make the difference: England's famed pace quartet of 2005 was their best in years, while the combination of experience - Warne and McGrath - and relative youth - Clark and Lee - was irresistible two years ago in Australia.

Among the specialist bowlers, possibly only Mitchell Johnson on either side can call himself a settled option. Peter Siddle has made an encouraging start to his career, but lacks subtlety and variation, if not heart and heat. Stuart Clark will share the new ball if injuries have not sapped him of his potency, which is always a possibility for a seamer heading for his mid-thirties. Their troubles on the spin-bowling front continue relatively unabated, the current toss-up between the accurate, anodyne Nathan Hauritz and Jason Krezja, as much a danger to his own side as the opposition. England can claim no frontline certainties, save Flintoff in the all-rounder's berth. Monty Panesar used to be guaranteed a place by right, but will bowl himself out of the team if he does not arrest his decline in performance. James Anderson and Stuart Broad have both made strides over the last 12 months, but have further to go before they can properly call themselves Test bowlers. Then England are delving into the crocks - Ryan Sidebottom and Simon Jones- and the unreliables - Harmison or Sajid Mahmood. Both sides have six months and a handful of Test matches to work out their best options. And despite what you might hear from the rooftops, it is the team with the more settled bowling attack which will prevail this summer, whatever they think of one another.

The captain and the coach

2009-01-02T03:07:00.004Z

This is meant to be Kevin Pietersen's year. He now faces a home Ashes series he has to dominate not only as a batsman, but as captain. Then, in an electrifying prospect, he will lead his adopted country to his homeland, where he so stunningly broke into the England side four years ago. Caribbean tours, such as England will undergo in the spring, are rarely dull either, and a resurging if not quite resurgent West Indies side should not be taken for granted. Over the next 12 months, he will begin to define his place in the pantheon.

The men who chose Pietersen to lead England took a significant risk, not only in burdening their greatest asset but by placing power in the hands of an uncompliant character. It appears, with strong rumours circulating of a damaging rift between Pietersen and coach Peter Moores, that they are about to understand what having Pietersen as captain really entails. In the end he will have to have it his way; that could end up with his tenure lasting five years or five months. They should not have promoted Pietersen if unprepared to give him his head, however much that may sometimes cut against the grain. He has rarely done otherwise.

The tension between him and Moores, which has been a problem throughout and preceding his captaincy, may well end up costing the coach his job. Other than creating financial and administrative difficulties, it is hard to see how this hurts England. Moores was to have been a cheerful counterpoint to an increasingly glum Duncan Fletcher; a personable motivator; a new voice on one-day cricket in which England had long struggled. During his 20 month tenure to date, England have won just one Test match in twelve against top-rank opposition; in limited overs cricket there have been some exhilarating successes, offset by equally crushing reverses. Furthermore the impression seems to be that more players have been annoyed than inspired by his methods. With Duncan Fletcher the intentions were clear; you could agree or disagree with his nostrums, and the results, until the last year or so, encouraged the former. Moores seems intangible; he has rarely been much criticised for England's average performances, mostly because the team seems to bear so little of his imprint. Crucially, and in total contrast to Fletcher, he has failed to establish a decent working relationship with any of his captains; without the backing, overt and implicit, of the captain, no coach can succeed at this level. If that truly is the case in the current situation, Moores must be the one to lose out.

That should not necessarily entail a mad rush to install a direct replacement. With such an important year imminent, there is no time for a new face to bed in quietly. And with a captain like Pietersen, one suspects the right man may not be found easily or quickly. A simple solution would be to retain the relevant backroom staff and coaches, with respected manager Hugh Morris to act as a convener when necessary, in lieu of a head coach. Although not in keeping with prescriptive modern fashion, it would be a flexible situation which should suit Pietersen without leaving him isolated and unsupported. Unless someone who has the respect of the captain and his team can be found, it is the best recourse. By rolling the dice and making Pietersen captain, the England management showed faith in an impressive cricketer. Now they must back him.

The victory of mediocrity

2008-12-29T17:32:00.005Z

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

2008-12-23T22:09:00.004Z

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

2008-12-21T22:41:00.003Z

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

2008-12-18T18:22:00.003Z

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

2008-12-13T13:18:00.006Z

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.

Battered Australia to rise again

2008-10-22T18:29:00.003+01:00

So high have Australia flown over the last decade in Test cricket that every singed feather has been greedily seized upon by detractors, held up and proclaimed as evidence of irreversible decline. Two series defeats in India proved to be mere blips; the gloating that followed their Ashes reverse in 2005 led to a fierce recoil, and an 18 month period of concentrated, driven excellence. But even Australia, who, hydra-like, overcame the loss of Mark Taylor's entire batting unit, were never going to be able to revert to full power after the exodus that followed the last Ashes series. It was just a question of how they, shorn of the unique controlling mechanism that was Warne and McGrath, would cope with a team that no longer inhabited a higher plane, and how well opponents would rise to the challenge, something they had tended not to do well in the past.

It is tempting, in the wake of what must rank as their lowest point for two decades, to sink the boot into Australia with some confidence. There have been defeats before; they have been outplayed. But tenacity and talent nearly always dragged them back into contention, often to improbable victory. The most worrying thing for them here was the manner of defeat: once Tendulkar and Ganguly had batted India away from danger at 163-4, India never lost control of the game; worse, Australia never looked like wresting it from them. Perhaps the signs were there in Bangalore, where they were frustrated by India's tailenders and flaccid in their efforts to dismiss India on the fifth day.

Australia struggling in India is hardly news, and should not rank as a surprise, bearing in mind their record there even during their best years and India's tendency to run them hard even in their fortresses down under. The magnitude of defeat just serves to underline the point that Australia cannot now dominate as they have done. More than anything they were outbowled, most acutely by the Indian seam duo of Zaheer and Ishant Sharma, who found movement which eluded the Australians. Their mastery over the Australian top-order, continuing from the series last winter, offers hope for this Indian side to base itself on foundations other than the habitual pillars of middle-order batting and spin bowling.

But if the result at Mohali was a rude awakening, the new reality is one which bears a distinct likeness to its forerunner. Australia are still the best team around: even an unlikely 3-0 series result for India would only prove so much, and they are overripe for a changing of the guard which will weaken them as much as recent losses have Australia. South Africa, who have already begun to rattle sabres, do not have the resources to make good their talk. Past a core of Smith, Kallis and Steyn they are short on matchwinners; their commendable series win in England, which they did not have to play brilliantly to earn, reflected more on the state of the home side than anything else.

Two areas of weakness Australia need to sort are their opening pair and spin option. Matthew Hayden has struggled, but those who seek to write him off should remember that he has barely played since the beginning of the year, when Australia's top-order looked ragged in his absence. With Phil Jaques' back injury ruling him out for months rather than weeks, Australia are not yet ready to move out of Hayden's considerable shadow, and he should come again back on the familiar home pitches where he has always scored so heavily. Australia have been made to regret their reluctance to back their most credible frontline spinner, Beau Casson. The punt, Jason Krezja, was blown out of the water in a single practice match and will not be risked. Cameron White has been miscast as a replacement for Stuart MacGill, rather than Andrew Symonds, into whose shoes he would have fitted more easily. Australia went into the series with the notion that their seamers would cover the slow-bowling shortfall. That will be their working hypothesis until a genuine spinner emerges, but only Mitchell Johnson of the pace trio has proved fit and ready enough for the task.

That Australia are some way below full strength is part of their problem. With Andrew Symonds absent and Hayden and Lee below-par, they have been functioning without their three main attacking players, their batting and bowling leaders. Yet they remain formidable: Ponting demonstrated in Bangalore how far willpower can take him when he is truly focused, even if his subsequent troubles - unexpectedly against seam rather than spin bowling - have indicated his opening century was something of an anomaly on his Indian record. He leads a middle-order which still ranks alongside that any other side can offer, even if Michael Clarke has been strangely subdued on the pitches where he made an instant reputation for himself four years ago. When Stuart Clark regains his fitness, and Brett Lee his focus, they will again boast the best seam attack in the world. This tour may prove to be a write-off for Australia, and it will stand as a further black-mark against Ricky Ponting's captaincy should they not resurrect it, but it is on their results over the next year that Australia must be judged. It would be a surprise if, come November 2009, they have not emphatically proved the doomsayers wrong once again.

Monty finds the worm has turned

2008-10-20T01:41:00.004+01:00

More than ever, international players seem to be judged by the common consensus of the media. Take Steve Harmison, who, dropped after the last in a long line of insipid performances in March, was deemed, quite reasonably, to have little prospect of an international future. Six months down the line, one Test and four wickets later, Harmison has been welcomed back into the journalistic embrace as England's matchwinner. With the Harmison story no longer interesting, attention has been turned to England's incumbent spinner, Monty Panesar. When Panesar was doing well - though never brilliantly - he was England's spin bowling messiah, the long-sought missing piece. Everyone loved Monty. But all party-lines become boring after a time: his relentlessness is now mundanity; bubbly enthusiasm is irritating over-oppealing; cult-status is arrogance. Shane Warne would no-doubt be amused and delighted to learn that barely a relevant article is written without his catchy but trite assessment of Panesar's career being faithfully trotted out.

In fairness, Panesar has not made the strides he might have over the past year. Like the team, he has been successful against a weak New Zealand side and much less so when the tougher challenges of Sri Lanka and South Africa presented themselves. Yet while Panesar was a palpable disappointment in Sri Lanka, failing to either restrict or dismiss batsmen with any regularity, his efforts against South Africa were, on the face of it, reasonable. Critics point to his failure to win games in the fourth innings at Lord's and Edgbaston, overlooking the extreme placidity of the pitch at HQ and the fact that - but for an understandable umpiring error - he would have dismissed Graeme Smith at Birmingham and opened the door for England to win the game.

Invariably, in such situations, the cry goes up for Panesar to flight the ball and experiment with variations. It is generic advice for a very specific bowler. He has had success through a well-honed method: buzzing the ball in at a quickish pace, imparting heavy revolutions on it and giving it the best chance of exploiting what bounce and turn the surface has to offer. On hard, abrasive pitches, Old Trafford being the best example, he has thrived and been a matchwinner. His failings this summer have been more of control than limitation. He has dished up too many short balls, releasing any pressure built up and compromising the accuracy which has been, and needs to be, a hallmark. Panesar is a mechanical bowler, and asking him to concentrate on flighting the ball requires him to do what does not come naturally, an unhappy situation.

Comparisons are most easily made with Test cricket's other current left-arm spinner of note, New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori. Party-line here is that Panesar has much to learn from the Kiwi. And he is an admirable bowler and cricketer, a spinner of flight and guile, rather than jarring repetition. At Lord's last summer, where Panesar struggled on a flat pitch, he swept up a five-wicket, first innings haul, the sure sign of an accomplished practitioner. Yet in the next Test, at Panesar's favourite Manchester stomping ground, he was ineffective as England easily chased down 294, a scenario which had been set up by Panesar, who knifed through New Zealand's second innings with 6-37 from just 17 overs. They are two different bowlers, who prosper in different circumstances and have different areas of strength and weakness. That Vettori fits the more classical idea of a spin bowler does not make him a better one, something borne out by the statsitics, which in terms of average and strike rate are similar, slightly favouring the Englishman.

The England management have picked up on the issue fairly quickly and sent Panesar off to Sri Lanka for a month's club cricket in anticipation of the Indian Test series in December. It is a good move, and hopefully it will help him improve his weak sub-continental record when England visit India. But those who are expecting Panesar to blossom into a crafty, protean practitioner should prepare to be disappointed. If spin bowling is a form of code-breaking, his is a brute-force method, and essentially that will never change. There are subtleties to be added to his game, but they are adjustments, not redefinitions, which will come with time, of which Panesar has had only two and a half years as an international cricketer. And for those who worry he will stagnate because of a lack of comeptition, there is the comforting thought that it may be only one more season before Adil Rashid is giving Monty even more to worry about.

England ride on giant shoulders

2008-08-31T21:02:00.006+01:00

A winding tunnel with no visible way out; the occasional, illusory glimmer of light. An apt summary for the fortunes of England's one-day side prior to Kevin's Pietersen's reign as captain; likewise for the career of Andrew Flintoff following three golden, glorious months back in the summer of 2005, when he stood tall and the cricket world sat at his feet. Almost a year ago, Flintoff's career was again ruptured by injury - terminally, it was feared at the time. He hobbled around the Twenty20 World Cup, the sort of tournament he might have dominated, bowling medium pace as England toiled. His batting was a broken wreck, the confidence and eye which once sustained a suspect technique had deserted him. It could have been a crushing end to an exhilarating career.

England had to prepare for a future without their biggest star. How desolate it seemed. The batting, to which Flintoff - along with the also departed Marcus Trescothick - had once given impetus, looked listless and blunt. They ground away - fading to dust in Sri Lanka, doing just enough to hold off New Zealand. Even Kevin Pietersen seemed to be succumbing to the collective inertia, his average and stike rate sucked into the morass. The bowling too was almost devoid of edge: once good batsmen were set, England looked to have no way of dislodging them. Flintoff was missed in the field too: for his bucket hands in the slips, inadequately replaced, and his totemic, galvanising presence. Victory across two series against a transient New Zealand outfit concealed harsh truths, already apparent to a burdened Michael Vaughan, as he was to later reveal.

In the event, Flintoff's return came too late to save Vaughan, feeling his way back into an underperforming and fractious side. But when he huffed, puffed and blew Jacques Kallis down on an electric evening at Edgbaston, Flintoff was back. He was unable to sustain the intensity as England fell away, but a statement had been made; Kallis, past 50 and belatedly setting out his stall for the series, has yet to recover. Briefly, England and their supporters were reminded of the power of Flintoff, his ability to stand toe to toe with the best players in the world and be England's champion. It is an exalted level of performance they have lacked without him and will need if they are to progress under Kevin Pietersen's leadership.

But while Flintoff looked a work in progress during the Test series, the transition to limited-overs cricket has seen him return to his all-encompassing best and fire England to undreamt-of heights. While other captains might have been tempted to forget about Flintoff's misfiring batting and concentrate on his ever-reliable bowling, Pietersen took the risk-reward path. Promotion to 5 in the order had not been earned and was a gamble, albeit one covered by England's batting depth. That has scarcely been needed, Flintoff anchoring two first-innings efforts which would have faltered without him and blasting England over the line in a 20-over chase. More telling than the runs themselves is the way he has made them: as has always been the case when Flintoff is in form, it is not power but timing that underpins his batting. Just a fraction of his fearsome strength is needed to dispatch bowling to all parts and Flintoff, batting well within himself, has shown full knowledge of this. His bowling, needless to say, has been supreme.

Stumbling blocks lie ahead, most tangibly over seven matches in India where his fitness and fallibility against spin will be examined. He will also need to translate his batting form to Tests, where he has always been less at ease. England, for all their one-day strife of recent years, have still managed a good home record, and more than one series win against an overripe South African outfit will be needed to convince cynics that there truly has been a renaissance. But, for now, Flintoff is flying and taking England with him. And it is a long time since we have been able to say that.

All aboard the KP express

2008-08-23T12:35:00.005+01:00

And suddenly, it's all about Pietersen. Pietersen the master batsman; Pietersen the golden-arm; Pietersen the intrepid leader. King Midas, Nostradamus and Paul McKenna all rolled into one. It could have happened no other way. In time, salutary questions such as where the golden touch led Midas will need to be addressed; for now there is little option but to hold on tight and enjoy the ride. What must be said for Pietersen is that he has wasted no time in putting together the team he wants and thinks can be successful. Owais Shah has finally been shown to a seat at the top table after years of fighting for scraps; Andrew Flintoff's batting ego has been massaged with promotion; while Steve Harmison, the player drawn most tightly into the Pietersen embrace, is back to add snap to the change bowling.

The immediate signs are promising: Flintoff, back at 5 where he has produced his best in one-day cricket, constructed his most significant innings since his 2005 zenith; Harmison took two important wickets and was inexpensive. England, for so long lacking in one-day cricket, looked to have deep resources in both batting and bowling. Indeed so well did the specialists deliver in the first game against South Africa that all-round luxuries Ravi Bopara and Luke Wright were little more than window-dressing. One of them will be cut to make room for one-day lynchpin Paul Collingwood, who adds experience as well as balance, which looked slightly askew with so many all-rounders cluttering the lower-middle order.

Much was good about England, but even the all-encompassing figure of Pietersen could not mask all the old flaws, still mainly concerning the beginning of the innings with both bat and ball. A partnership of Ian Bell and Matt Prior at the top showsis no progress from England's post-Trescothick stagnation. In a way they did their job, Prior especially, setting up a platform for the middle-order to expand upon. The potency of Pietersen when coming in at around the 20-over mark and batting through was thoroughly demonstrated. But Bell batted too long and unwisely, before perishing slightly unfortunately to a stunning catch from AB De Villiers. Had his square cut sped away to the boundary, Bell might have gone on to make the big, anchoring contribution that is being asked of him. Certainly his fortune contrasted with that of his captain, who might have been adjudged leg-before twice before he had got going. But Bell is not the type of character to make his own luck; whispers suggest that the new regime may not have too much patience for him, either. And with England now travelling very much under the KP brand, Bell could easily find himself sidelined. Pietersen may have shown an inclination to embrace awkward characters - akin to Nasser Hussain, as Vic Marks has suggested - but there are always the faces that do not fit, and Bell may be one of those left behind.

While the return of Harmison sharpens England's attack, the new ball pairing is still a conundrum. It seems a long time since England have seen the best of James Anderson with the white ball, a curiosity considering he has begun to settle into Test cricket and has been a given in England's one-day line-up for some time. An off-colour Anderson destabilises the balance of the attack, especially when he opens alongside Stuart Broad, who will continue to have good and bad days. Ryan Sidebottom, when he returns from injury, might be needed to shore up the new ball attack, with Harmison and Flintoff either unwilling or unwise options in that regard.

More than anything, England were lucky, with decisions and the attitude of the opposition. South Africa, although reinforced with some one-day specialists, are yet to recover the focus they left behind at Edgbaston. The fielding was lax and three of their top 4 gave their wickets away, when only one needed to score big to win the game. No-one understands cricketing hangovers better than England of late; some would say there are suffering from an extended one themselves, while in the past they have benefited from them at the start of one-day series. It would be a surprise if South Africa, who are competing for the title of No.1 ODI side, do not come at them hard under the lights at Nottingham. At least England will be ready, Pietersen having acknowledged the trend when England start a series well. But there is more work to be done if a familiar tale is not to unfold.

Pietersen the inheritor of a tainted legacy

2008-08-06T23:19:00.003+01:00

In an age when it seems perfectly normal for a team to finish a Test match on the Saturday under one captain and begin the next five days later with a new leader, one could almost be convinced that Kevin Pietersen is the sane choice to succeed Michael Vaughan as England's captain. In all seriousness, the selectors had almost nowhere else to go once they had decided to unify the captaincy. If nothing else the appointment will provoke heated debate, as the man himself has never failed to do throughout his career. But those who seek to label Pietersen as nothing more than an ego with all the trimmings miss the point: none but an uncommonly precise and driven character could have successfuly completed the unconventional road to stardom Pietersen has manufactured for himself. Indeed his presence is so all encompassing that it is amazing to think he has been in the team but three summers.

One thing he will not lack is the courage of his convictions. In increasingly troubled times for English cricket he will need them. The success of the team during the Duncan Fletcher era showed what can be achieved. But it was self-contained; the lessons and policies have proved non-transferable and the connections with that team - diminishing now Vaughan has gone - must not disguise that England are at their lowest ebb for almost a decade. Fletcher's tenure was successful in navigating the team away from the mismanagement and whimsy that undermined a talented generation in the 1990s. But, towards the end of his time and ever since, they have continued on the same course unabated, drifting further away from the happy medium towards the equally capricious opposite extreme. In the batting, especially, there seems to be an unhealthy lack of competition: form needs to become an almost national issue before anyone can be axed. Pietersen cannot effect change overnight on the team ethic, but he must ensure a gradual shift in dynamic. Vaughan achieved something similar, as a sympathetic counterpoint to Nasser Hussain, whose disciplinarian regime had run its course. In whatever way he chooses, Pietersen must restore England's edge.

Even before the first 'leading out England, Kevin Pietersen' has reverberated around The Oval, he has made a statement of intent. His first team will contain five bowlers, with Steve Harmison reinstated and Andrew Flintoff back in the all-rounder's berth at 6. In one hand he has grasped two nettles: both have questions hanging over them in their chosen positions and Pietersen has prudently sought to resolve them early on. Nevertheless, the honeymoon could last little longer than a few days: his old friend Graeme Smith will have been re-energised by the turn of events, and any prospect of the South Africans relaxing in the wake of their series victory has dissolved with Pietersen's elevation.

Like any England captain he will be judged on results against Australia. At this stage, his chances look slim. After The Oval there are just six Tests to refine the line-up, focus minds and build the necessary momentum. Foremost in his priorities must be establishing the best bowling attack. Flintoff should be the lynchpin, but establishing whether or not he can fulfil an all-round role will be crucial. Whether he plays as one of three or four seamers, another strike bowler is needed: in that regard they will need to examine the relative merits of Harmison and Simon Jones. Stuart Broad adds a nice balance but cannot play a part unless his bowling has improved. With his head spinning over that delicate conundrum, Pietersen will then need to set his mind to the thorny issue of the top 3, and the hardy perennial that is the wicket-keeper debate. He won't want to forget about his own batting either. That could be important. No sweat, King Kev. Give it 110%.

Vaughan severs golden thread

2008-08-03T21:08:00.004+01:00

If cricket is a game of fine detail and small margins, two incidents defined a Test match which has ended in crushing series defeat for England and the end of the line for one of their greatest captains. One was Vaughan's second innings dismissal: a scorching cover drive which skimmed just inches from the turf and was brilliantly pouched by Hashim Amla. Then, in pursuit of a steep target, his opposite number almost imperceptibly gloved Monty Panesar through to the 'keeper but survived. Providence allowed Graeme Smith to continue on his way to a career-defining achievement; for Vaughan, whose own apogee has begun to look increasingly distant, luck had run out and with it his time as captain.

The Ashes defined Vaughan's international career - as a batsman two tours ago and as captain in 2005. The natural end to his captaincy was against Australia next summer: based on a deeply disappointing second stint as captain, he must have decided that there was no realistic chance his team could be competitive in that series. There will be mixed feelings on his departure: relief that an increasingly torturous period for English cricket is at an end; regret that England have lost a man who epitomised good leadership. Class is the word that best describes Vaughan; it shone from his every action on the field. He has also shown in it the timing of his resignation, before his own position started to become a bigger issue than the team itself.

Well as he has served England, the need to sever the links with Duncan Flethcer's era, which Vaughan never stopped representing, had becoming pressing. The team has not moved forward since the painful Ashes drubbing 18 months ago, and there was little prospect of such an outcome under present circumstances. One feels there was never rapport between Vaughan and Peter Moores, who now has the chance to form a more even-handed relationship with a new captain. That seems likely to be Kevin Pietersen, with the selectors keen to move away from the split-captaincy. If that is the case, they will fervently hope that the effect is not the same as the last time the torch was passed to the team's outstanding batsman.

But before the feeding frenzy begins over the new appointment, it is worth pausing to reflect on the achievements of the outgoing man. Along with Duncan Fletcher he managed the remains of Nasser Hussain's unit well, quickly forging a team which was undoubtedly his own. He helped establish a team ethic which sustained England through to their Ashes victory, albeit which started to become corrosive as that team was dismantled. Many of his achievements chartered territory untouched for a generation or more. The greatest pity was that he never really had the chance to build on the success of 2005: injuries both to himself and other key men crippled the team almost terminally. By the time he returned the connecting thread had been stretched too thin. But he will be remembered for his successes, and, whether or not England fans ever glimpse the perfect cover drive again, his place in history is secure.

Whose line is it anyway?

2008-07-03T18:12:00.003+01:00

Test series against South Africa must hold special significance for Michael Vaughan. It was against them that he made his debut and first led his country; on tour there in 2004-5 his team established credibility as Ashes contenders. If they are to be again in a year's time, a similar outcome will be necessary, both for momentum to gather behind a hesitant unit and to allow Vaughan to impose himself on a team which, a year into his second stint as captain, still does not truly bear his imprint. Just as he did five years ago, inheriting Nasser Hussain's transient team, Vaughan finds himself in a difficult situation. The pace guns are no longer at his disposal, rather in the hands of an unbeloved opposite number; while the broad bats seem lined up on the South African side.

England find themselves in a curious position naming yet another unchanged squad. As has happened in these series on previous occasions, it seems almost certain reinforcements will need to be drafted in at some later stage; you sense England know it too. Yet propriety ensures they must pick the same bowling attack that did the job against New Zealand, despite the creeping suspicion that the trio of Sidebottom, Anderson and Broad will be overly accommodating to the tourists. Two swing bowlers is one more than is needed for a hot mid-summer; and while Stuart Broad remains more sheep's clothing than wolf, England's seam attack will not worry the best in good conditions. Delaying the return of Andrew Flintoff is sensible; still, the South Africans will surely be relieved to face an attack containing none of Flintoff, Jones, Harmison or Tremlett. They will also fancy themselves against a batting line-up which remains unchanged and brittle. Bearing in mind that the first Test is at Lord's - South Africa's favourite venue in a country where they always seem to start well - all signs point to defeat.

Unless individuals step out of their skins, both in terms of performance and progress, England look set to concede the advantage in a series which is disappointingly no longer a five match rubber. Vaughan should have increased bowling firepower from the second or third Test, which is when England can hope to come into the series. Until then, England have at least one game to prove that there is substance to the cheerful patter which is, just now, the only obvious hallmark of Peter Moores' tenure. South Africa, despite their well-earned reputations as chokers, are not the sort of team which will be cowed by sweet talk.

Same old

2008-06-08T14:37:00.003+01:00

Since losing the first of six tests against New Zealand back in March, England have enjoyed consistency both in selection and performance. As New Zealand meekly folded on the fourth morning and England sealed comprehensive test and series victory, it would be easily supposed that the glorious Nottingham sunshine reflected England's fortunes. In one sense, it did: successive series victories are territory unknown since the heady days of 2004/5. But the caveats are unavoidable: New Zealand were the opposition on both occasions, a unit whose potency has been severely reduced by the loss of important personnel; in three out of the four victories, success emerged from first innings situations which seemed perilous, and England were reliant on two batsmen - Kevin Pietersen and Tim Ambrose- to rescue them repeatedly. New Zealand will not relish the irony of their own favourite manoeuvre - the bottom half of the batting order salvaging the wreckage of the top - being repeatedly used against them.

It is perhaps a little churlish to find fault in the manner of England's success: after all, many of the now famous victories they enjoyed in 2004-5 were achieved from similarly doubtful scenarios. Yet the question remains of how far, if at all, England have progressed and what has been learned about the team. The top order, which seemed uncertain at the end of the winter, at least appears settled for now, only Alistair Cook failing to make a significant impact on the series. The next two in, Bell and Collingwood, were the batsmen most under scrutiny coming into the final Test: their departures within minutes of each other for a pair of ducks only served to underline their shared predicament. Collingwood's situation is simple - he is a good player badly out of form and he has the one-day series to convince the selectors not to dispose of him for the South Africa series. Bell, as ever, is more difficult to rationalise. As an elegant, ethereal player, it is harder to attach the tag of bad form to him than the scrappy, unreconstructed Collingwood. He is the supreme batting technician of the side, with a style which is neither awkward nor ostensibly permeable. Often the main criticism of him has been his inability to construct big innings once past 50; after a series which did not yield that many runs in total, knives are being sharpened both in the press and, potentially, selectorial conclave. England want to back Bell, whose talent and potential is so manifest; there is a good chance that their support will extend to the next series. Whether that is the best thing for the player, as well as the team, is doubtful: it seems unlikely that Bell will suddenly evolve from his current catharsis into the match defining batsman his ability suggests he should be. A period of re-evaluation in county cricket may well be the best thing for him.

As one batting enigma continued to frustrate, England's most inscrutable bowler, James Anderson, took flight. Trent Bridge, with its recently earned reputation as a swing bowler's paradise, was Anderson's chance and he could not have made his mark in more spectacular fashion. It was Hoggard-like swing, but later and at higher speed, a combination which was too much for most of the New Zealand batsmen, as it would have been for nearly all Test batsmen. Yet even in his finest hour, Anderson's weaknesses were on show: Brendon McCullum envisaged clipping Anderson to the square leg boundary, only to find the ball speared in towards his legs curve past the closed face of his bat at the last moment. Another time, the ball would have carried on its path from hand to bat to boundary. It is not Anderson's fault that he is an attacking bowler who has to gamble on incalculable factors to take wickets. It was once the same for Matthew Hoggard: he adapted, added control and cutters to his armoury and was England's lynchpin until injuries caught up. Anderson must now do the same.

England are in a slightly curious position with their seam bowlers at the moment. Ryan Sidebottom is the pack leader, most strongly pencilled in for next year's Ashes rubber. In harness with him are the understudies - Broad and Anderson- while the experienced quartet of 2005 lurk in the shadows. England's success in forging a unit from the two distinct generations will decide their competitiveness both against South Africa this summer and Australia in 2009. Flintoff is the bowler most palpably missed, and the lack of a comparable enforcer has been shown up by the better opposition since he played his last Test in January 2007. He does not really fit into a four man attack, however, which is where his decline as a batsman, and Stuart Broad's emergence, couldbe significant. Broad has, justly, received nothing but praise for his efforts since being drafted in for the misfiring Harmison. As a batsman, in particular, he has surpassed expectations. But his bowling, for all the will in the world, is not yet at the stage where it will worry the better batsmen on flat pitches. England should not allow sentiment and Broad's youth and promise to cloud their judgement if there are better options for the here and now. Simon Jones is one such possibility: Worcestershire and England will rightly tread carefully around a player who has shown himself to be extremely fragile, but if Jones continues the devastating form he has shown so far this season, he is not the sort of player who should be left mouldering in domestic cricket for too long. A mid-series entry against South Africa probably represents the most sensible and realistic prospect for Jones, injury and form permitting.

England can take satisfaction from a conclusive end-result, although they were often anything but convincing during the course of the series. If they are to challenge South Africa, however, they must not dwell on the success and focus on what went wrong and needs to be improved. They have the essentials of a good team, with the bonus of an experienced and capable leader in Michael Vaughan. As they found out both through victory in 2005 and painful defeat 18 months later, the team which prevails is the one which brings momentum. New Zealand have given England a welcome jump start, but unless that is maintained against the South Africans, England are unlikely to match up to Australia when the Ashes rolls around in just over a year's time.

Recovering England stay grounded

2008-05-26T21:18:00.004+01:00

The three main protagonists of the final day's play at Old Trafford - Andrew Strauss, Michael Vaughan and Daniel Vettori - must have had a distinct sense of history repeating itself as England made light work, in the context of their recent and historic batting tendencies, of a target just shy of 300. Each played a part in at least one of the two similar run-chases which England executed to kick of a perfect Test summer and exalted 12 month spell back in 2004. The relative ease with which England knocked off the runs today was encouraging: rarely over the last year have they looked as convincing. But all should be wary of viewing the match as a half not a whole: possibly only West Indies and the always mercurial Pakistan could have emulated the Kiwis in trashing what appeared an unassailable position, 179 ahead on first innings with the already helpful pitch wearing.

Parallels with four years ago extend beyond just the manner and result of the games. Again Andrew Strauss was at the fore, holding together a tottering effort first up before taking hold of the run chase with a century which displayed an evolved and self-assured style. Just as was the case when he made his debut, Strauss appears to have found his level. This was a return of the player England have missed badly since he last played with comfort before the tour of Australia: the man for the made-to-measure innings. Alistair Cook played his part too on the third evening, when an early breakthrough might have sparked New Zealand and opened the way for Vettori. As it was, when he departed the target had already been whittled down from daunting to achievable: by the time Vaughan was dismissed with lunch in sight, it was England's to lose.

The form of the two senior batsmen, who as on this occasion will be integral to England's fortunes over the next year, has been heartening and together with Cook and Pietersen, the anticipated bedrocks of the batting when they have gone, they have melded into what looks a workable top order with the right mixture of experience and scope. Still, England's timorous efforts in the first innings were more indicative of recent fortunes than the assured second dig. Launching pads previously supplied by Marcus Trescothick and occasionally exploited by Andrew Flintoff are no longer attainable; England seem capable of taking control with the bat only via the scenic route, building an edifice brick-by-brick. Against the better sides they will need more than six good batsmen playing within themselves. For that to happen with the current personnel will require something of a chrysalis in Alistair Cook, who has the range of shot to become the sort of dominant partner to Strauss that Trescothick once was, even if the Essex man cannot hope to manage the belligerent dominance of his predecessor. Hopefully that will also allow Kevin Pietersen to emerge from his shell: to beat South Africa, and compete with Australia, they will need the bucaneering Pietersen, not the pontifical and burdened figure of the last six months. Ian Bell must also show progress, frustratingly lacking in the two years since he cemented his place, while Paul Collingwood, suffering from a sore shoulder and wounded pride, is most at threat, not a state of affairs he is unaccstomed to. For good or ill, the top six have again earned themselves another chance: Trent Bridge could yet be decisive, though.

Just as with the batting, the bowling is worthy but overly accomodating to the opposition. Ryan Sidebottom has continued to lead the line, even if his bowling radar has shifted rather too far to the off-side, while his opening partner James Anderson seem still caught in the vicious spin-cycle that has epitomised his Test career to date. A virtuoso performance at Nottingham, condusive to swing bowling in recent years, is a reasonable expectation: with Anderson however, that means very little in the context of the rest of the summer. Stuart Broad could do with some success on his adopted home patch as well: the strong winds and abrasive pitch made this game something of a non-starter for him and while no-one doubts his talent, he need to back it up with hard currency, something he has conclusively managed with the bat, a small piece of the jigsaw which the selectors will be loath to dislodge for now. Reliant again on Monty Panesar, who came good dramatically after a misfiring first innings effort, chalking up his 100th Test wicket with impressive haste, England lack a certitude in their seam bowling which is set to be exposed by an experienced and muscular South African batting unit later in the summer. The intimidation factor currently does not stretch much beyond Ryan Sidebottom's animalistic hair and growl, something England are reliant on unreliable bodies to remedy. Andrew Flintoff is one obvious solution; an apparently revitalised Simon Jones another. But for even one of them to appear in England's iridescent new Test kit would require an act of almost divine benevolence in which few can have much faith.

England would have hoped to arrive at Trent Bridge with two convincing wins in the bank. Instead an even series has both highlighted their deficiencies and displayed their resolve. Such a crushing blow ought to be terminal for New Zealand, although time to lick the wounds and the helpful conditions at Nottingham, second home to two of their finest ever all-rounders, mean they are in with a chance. But whichever way you spin it - and Michael Vaughan and Peter Moores will do so in a credulously positive way - England's victory at Old Trafford was a salvage job from the jaws of defeat which locked open in agonising fashion for the visitors. Potentially it is an important turning point for a team still struggling for identity a year into Peter Moores' reign. The best they can hope for now is a convincing victory to seal the deal and the hopeful return of bowling giants whose absence casts a shadow from which the team as a whole has yet to emerge.

An unwanted repeat

2008-05-08T18:04:00.004+01:00

Once, a series promising a duel between arguably the two most astute captains in international cricket; the world's newest, flashiest six-hitter; and two potentially top-class young bowling all-rounders, would have aroused a good deal of interest. In India, at least, the only acknowledgement of the forthcoming Test series between England and New Zealand is likely to come through people questioning what trifle has made Brendon McCullum unable to continue donning his plastic gold helmet and blast sixes like they're going out of fashion, which they soon will, if the old maxim concerning too much of a good thing holds true.

In fairness, encounters between New Zealand and England are rarely thrilling in expectation or reality. For England, there is little to be gained save avoidance of the leg rather obviously stretched out before them; while New Zealand's enjoyment of an upset would be rather more if the opposition were their near neighbours rather than one-time rulers. For fans there is the slightly pulse-deadening prospect of a re-run of a series they have just seen, with the classiest opposition batsman no longer around to entertain.

A year into the Peter Moores era, there is a slight feeling of deja-vu all-round. England's first engagement of the summer is one they are expected to win with room to spare, while the more significant test awaits them in high summer. The position of Andrew Flintoff is again dominating debate; while Michael Vaughan, having emerged from under the clouds of career-threatening injury, has stumbled headlong into the brick wall of bad form, a poor second leg of the winter compounded by his failure to register a significant score for Yorkshire in the first month of the county season. England are not quite in the disarray of a year ago, punch-drunk from a winter of ruthless beatings, but do not seem significantly better for the 12 months of recuperation, which have included their first loss in a home Test series for six years and the continuance of a dismal away record since 2005, only slightly alleviated by the spring surge which saw them come from behind to eclipse New Zealand in March.

The first-choice top-order from last year's West Indies series remains, with an ongoing game of musical chairs set to return affairs to the status quo of 2007, the captain reverting to his preferred position at one down. Dire predictions based on Vaughan's county form should be viewed with the habitual dichotomy between his performances for England and Yorkshire in mind. If no-one else does, he will back himself to score heavily against the New Zealand attack, while the desire to retain his position until next summer and have a tilt at becoming a double Ashes-winning captain, cementing his legacy as successor to Brearley in the record-books as well as the mind's eye, will be fierce. Nevertheless, the humours of England's top three do not quite balance, and unless things come good in unexpected fashion, something more drastic than the ordering of the same three players will have to change. Andrew Strauss, whose long run of poor returns still balances the scale against him, despite the ever-increasing recent credit column, is most in danger, while it would not be a bad time for Alistair Cook to show clarity of judgement outside off-stump and put together the scores with have, unusually, failed to materialise for Essex. Flintoff or no, the middle-order batting will remain as was, with no immediate threat to Pietersen, Bell or Collingwood, save the fact that the queue for batting places is longer and louder than for a while

When the fifth wicket in England's first innings of the summer falls and a white-clad batsman emerges from the Lord's pavilion, a lot will become clear on England's selection policy for the foreseeable future. Whether it is the trot of the diminutive Tim Ambrose or the giant stride of Andrew Flintoff will not be difficult to discern from the stands. Which decision the selectors will make, indeed which they should, is far less clear-cut. What is for certain is that there is no immediate prospect of Flintoff returning as a genuine all-rounder batting at 6, as he did in his golden period of 2003-5. The debate then shifts to his viability in a four-man attack, now apparently the balance favoured by coach and captain. As one of England's top fast bowlers, he would qualify for the seam-bowling triumvirate. Yet the question of his fitness to act as third seamer without significant back-up - as he never has for England before - both in terms of his troublesome ankle and wicket-taking ability will be questioned in light of the onerous workload he will face. Questions England need not seek the answers for at this stage of the summer, with Flintoff's bowling unlikely to be needed to overcome New Zealand and his return to first-class cricket still in its nascent stages. Better they wait until the one-day series, which should be more competitive, giving Flintoff the chance to put together the long series of games he has not since ankle problems subjugated his career in 2006, which have allowed him to take part in just two home Tests since he stood tall in the summer of 2005. That way his fitness can be realistically assessed, and his batting given a chance to regenerate, a prospect which his inclusion in the lower-order of the Test team would damage.

The return of Flintoff would strengthen England's lower order, although it would mean the selectors do not get to assess the batting of Stuart Broad in the key position of number 8 he will surely one day have to fill. Broad, along with new Nottinghamshire team-mate Ryan Sidebottom, is the only seamer guaranteed his place after he made the step up from one day cricket and played an important role in England's resurgence in the second half of the last series. His progress alongside that of similar New Zealand prospect Tim Southee will be one of the main points of interest and the series should give him the bit of extra experience at the top level he will need before facing the strong South African batting unit in July. Sidebottom, after his heroics in Sri Lanka and better rewarded exploits in New Zealand, is now England's first-choice seamer, a year after his return to Test level was greeted in many quarters as a temporary measure. And as Sidebottom has benefited from the transience of England's bowling attack, its lynchpin of recent years, Matthew Hoggard, has fallen foul of it. A victim of repeated injury since the Ashes two winters ago and the circumstances of England's predicament in New Zealand, Hoggard found himself on the sidelines when available to play for the first time in over four years. His replacement, James Anderson, has always been a polar opposite: flashy, expensive, unreliable. Hoggard made his point to the selectors with a nine-wicket haul for Yorkshire in their first championship game of the season, while Anderson has emulated him with Lancashire and may just have done enough to hold onto his place. Certainly Hoggard's inclusion for the England Lions seemed to suggest that the selectors were still asking for more from him, which he did not provide in the first innings.

New Zealand, their top-order batting the dictionary definition of inexperience, could very easily struggle to make significant runs in early season conditions, with all the English bowlers either on form or with a point to prove. Nevertheless, there is talent in the form of Ross Taylor and Brendon McCullum, while all of the putative top three - How, Redmond, Marshall - have made runs either against England previously or on the tour so far. The middle and lower order will be a significant obstacle as ever, the triumvirate of McCullum, Oram and Vettori all ready to blunt and blast tired bowlers. The seam attack is a contrast, all senior men, led impressively by the underrated pair of Martin and Mills, both of whom troubled England back on home soil. England, although they saved face in the last series, are still a long way short of where they want to be and can little afford to slip up against an opposition who have all the excuses and none of the expectation. Anything less than a series victory and the coach and captain axis of Moores and Vaughan will face the prospect of packing their bags and not to jet off in celebration of their first anniversary.

County game basks in calm before the storm

2008-04-04T18:21:00.004+01:00

Cricket may be entering an uncertain phase at the moment, with the Indian leagues and money threatening the stucture of the game as we now know it, but the portents of the English summer remain as reassuring and unmistakeable as ever. And whatever becomes of cricket in the next decade, which could be defining, one senses that nothing will ever change in the comforting sequence of the calendar flicking over to April, the clocks going forward, the new Wisden rolling off the press and the English county season beginning in the confounding mixture of brilliant sun and incessant showers that spring in the sceptred isle tends to provide.

For all that one county, Sussex, has taken the spoils three years out of the last five, the Championship remains anything but predictable. Nottinghamshire, 2005 winners, suffered relegation in 2006; Durham, who escaped the same fate that year by half a point, were Sussex's closest challengers last season. Yorkshire, miserable for much of 2006, title challengers in 07, both times finished 6th. The beauty of the competition was crystallised in its conclusion last year: Sussex won at a canter to set a clubhouse lead, only to see Lancashire make a serious attempt at the 489 they needed to steal the prize. VVS Laxman led the charge at The Oval, ever the ground of late summer, with a run-a-ball century, but Lancahsire fell agonisingly short, Dominic Cork the last man down. Another title for Sussex; another year of failure for Lanchasire; another year of glorious success for Mark Ramprakash, who plundered twin centuries in the same game to mark up a second consecutive 2000-run season.

Sussex, providing Mushtaq is permitted to play, will be contenders again, even if age and departures may stretch their well-used resources too thin. With the retirement of Richard Montgomerie, the weakness of their opening partnership is exacerbated, while Mihcael Yardy will have to take some of the strain from the ageing duo of Goodwin and Adams if they are to score enough runs for Mushtaq to play with, although the return of Matt Prior from England duty should help. Lancashire ought to compete again, with runs aplenty expected from Law, Hodge and Loye. If England are prudent, they will also have the services of Andrew Flintoff for a longer period than injury or Duncan Fletcher have allowed for much of this decade.

The relative strengths and weaknesses of the other teams make their prospects diffucult to predict. Nottinghamshire could struggle with Ryan Sidebottom and new signing Stuart Broad now in England's clutches, while Hampshire, who have tended to be strong in recent years, are without their top three wicket-takers from 2007 and much will rest on the rarely reliable shoulders of Shane Bond, whom injury has never yet permitted to fulfil a county contract.

The chancesof the top-flight teams broadly in the title mix can be plausibly talked up or down: Surrey and Somerset have the batting strength, with former internationals Langer, Trescothick, Ramprakash and Butcher likely to provide runs in bulk. Their fortunes will depend much on the bowling, which has let down Surrey, in particular, in the recent past. They have, however, recruited shrewdly, bringing in Pedro Collins and Saqlain Mushtaq to bolster an attack which has yet to recover from the loss of Martin Bicknell. As it has been for the past few seasons, the unenviable Taunton bowling duties will fall largely on the shoulders of Andrew Caddick and Charl Willoughbly. Indefatigable as Caddick, in his 40th year, remains, the support for the new ball duo looks too thin to sustain any serious title challenge, with the influence of the likes of Peter Trego and Steffan Jones likely to be dimished by the superior Division 1 batsmen.

Durham have lost Ottis Gibson, one of the stars of 2007, but should have Steve Harmison for the whole season to lead an attack which still reads like a tall English seamers production line, Liam Plunkett and Graham Onions featuring. They should hoover up wickets, while a hardy corps of international batmsen, led by Michael Di Venuto and Dale Benkenstein, with Neil McKenzie and Shivnarine Chanderpaul to feature alternately, means they should be near the top again. Yorkshire's team is built on similar foundations, with the common theme of an England bowler returning not necessarily just for April, although Hoggard's chance of a quick recall to the international fold is significantly greater than that of his old new ball partner. If Darren Gough's legs can carry him through another season, and Rana Naved comes through contractual and injury complications, the seam attack should be formidable, while Adil Rashid, who has survived the hype from his first flowering and circumnavigated the difficult second season, will have a telling influence either way. Yorkshire might be inspired in patches, as was the case last season, but a flimsy-looking middle order and general lack of batting class, Rudolph and McGrath excepted, makes a concerted title challenge unlikely. The same is probably true of Kent, who lack the sprinkling of star quality usually needed to pick up silverware, but whose strong all-round contingent and experience should make them a tricky proposition and as unlikely to descend from comfortable mid-table as they are to rise from it.

The picture is slightly clearer, although by no means defined, in the second division which, eight years on, is increasingly cast afloat from the top flight. Unusually, neither of the two teams relegated last season appear nailed on for an immediate return. Worcestershire have a reasonable chance if their younger batsmen can support the veteran brigade of Hick, Smith and Solanki, while the fitness of seamers Matt Mason and Simon Jones will be crucial. Wawrickshire, who sunk without trace in the second half of last season, have much convincing to do, and look short on class in both batting and bowling, a situation not helped by the loss of Tim Ambrose to England. Middlesex, their middle order a class above, the seam bowling a healthy mix of youth and experience in Steven Finn, Chris Silverwood and Alan Richardson, look favourites for promotion. Essex could join them and Jason Gallian looks a cute acquisition, to help guide the talented but inexperienced duo of Chopra and Pettini which went astray last season.

Glamorgan and Leicestershire might well scrap to avoid the wooden spoon, both lacking enough high class players to damage the better teams. Derbyshire are a slight wild card, their management having thrown a lot of money at some big names, with Mahela Jayawardene, Chris Rogers and Rikki Clarke all to feature. Two more Kolpak signings are also reportedly in the pipeline and, if not a good bet to challenge for promotion this season, they could be laying the foundation for the years to come. Gloucestershire, struggling in the Championship and a shadow of the supreme one-day unit of a few years ago, will require significant contributions from captain Jon Lewis and overseas duo Marcus North and Hamish Marshall to compete.

In addition to the usual array of high-class overseas players, the season also provides an intriuging glimpse of England past and future. Mark Ramprakash will be looking for a third stellar season in a row, and Graeme Hick, who will turn 42 during the campaign, remains omnipresent. While Marcus Trescothick's international retirement is grievous for England, it is a boon for Somerset and the county game, both of which should benefit from his runs and high-profile. Potential England opening batsmen and bowlers are also in plentiful supply, Joe Denly and Billy Godleman looking to add themselves to a congested queue for batting places, with their more experienced colleagues Rob Key and Owais Shah not out of contention either. On the bowling front, Liam Plunkett and Graham Onions should aim to advance from promising to consistent performing, with the younger James Harris and Steven Finn also on the march. Ultimately, with a souped-up Twenty20 competition in the pipeline to respond to the IPL and radical ideas being tabled, it is a season which should be enjoyed and savoured. It may never be the same again.

Pale England make their mark

2008-03-26T18:34:00.006Z

England's just concluded series in New Zealand was about as close to a thankless task as there comes in terms of away Test rubbers. They could have won all three games at a canter and still earned only judged acclaim. That they were forced to come from one down after a baleful effort in the opening match made the overall victory a notable achievement, but the same caveats remain: New Zealand shorn of some of their best players by retirements of one sort and another; the differing amounts of Test cricket played by the two nations; the comfortable conditions, as much a home from home as exists for England abroad. But England have learned the hard way that they are no longer in a position to turn their noses up at any Test series win, let alone one away from home, a trick which had until now gone unrepeated since before the 2005 Ashes.

It is the inevitable nature of the three Test series, fast becoming the standard, that slow starters set themselves up to be losers. And after England's capitulation at Hamilton there were plenty of hawks circling, ready to issue the Do Not Resuscitate notice. Michael Vaughan responded, with a display of the good sense of timing which has long served him well. He staked his reputation on a decision to drop not only the malfunctioning Steve Harmison, but his old partner in crime, Matthew Hoggard. Half-right, boomed the majority, a pronouncement which indirectly proved correct. And against a a home side which failed to recapture the focused excellence of their first Test performance, half-right was enough for England. The expected replacement, Stuart Broad, was magnificent: well-expressed concerns that he might not be physically ready for Test cricket were proved to be foundless as he battled through mammoth spells, maintaining control of the ball and himself, while not compromising the aggression which typifies both his bowling and attitude towards batsmen. Two contrasting contributions with the bat in the 3rd Test confirmed his reputaion as a capable lower-order player, and he has earned himself a full time role with England this summer and the chance to book his place for the Ashes in the next. James Anderson, on the other hand, did nothing to advance opinion of him, producing one devastating and three middling to seriously indifferent performances. England might persist with Anderson, to see if the cycle can be broken by an extended run; should Matthew Hoggard take a stack of wickets for Yorkshire in early season however, pragmatism might well supersede the long-term vision.

Victory in the third Test, from 4-3 on the first morning, salvaged not only England's tour and to an extent their winter, but several reputations. Andrew Strauss was teetering most dangerously over the precipice: England went over a lot of heads to bring Strauss back after he missed out on the tour of Sri Lanka. They backed a trusted man heavily and were kept waiting for recompense for the best part of three Test matches, as he alternately got himself out dabbling outside off-stump and retreated entirely into his shell. The descent of his batting average into the 30s after the second Test seemed to signfiy the end as much as his self-inflicted demise with England lurching on the first morning at Napier, where two years before England would have looked first to Strauss to play the made-to-measure innings. In view of that, his innings of 177 was exceptional: the pitch may have been placid, the bowlers tired, but nothing can have been remotely simple for Strauss with his career on the line. Hopefully, having earned a stay of execution, Strauss can now move back towards the composed excellence of his early career, and, with a modified technique which relies less on the square of the wicket options and includes greater proficiency on the drive, he will be better served to succeed in the long term should he consolidate his position with the runs he still needs.

Joining him in the second innings runletting was Ian Bell, who was under no such absoulte pressure, but against whom a whispering campagin had started to develop. . Part of the gripe against Bell was the fact that he appeared to be in excellent touch but was not making the most of it. Arguably the most stylish English batsman since David Gower, he suffers the same problems of perception, his laid-back demeanour interpreted as the sign of an unconcerned mind. Important as it was in an immediate sense, his second innings hundred tells us nothing; we know Bell can score Test centuries, but until he constructs a few more innings when the runs are needed most, he will be accused of making hay only when the sun is shining. Those rays have not dazzled on Kevin Pietersen this winter as much as he and supporters are accustomed to; his century, however, did come when the going was toughest, proving he is still England's stand out performer with the bat and hopefully something which will give him the confidence to revert to the natural attacking game he increasingly shied away from as the runs dried up.

The last throes of England's winter also suited Monty Panesar, another to suffer a difficult winter. Without having done a lot wrong, he still looked increasingly like drifting into ineffectiveness, but, as is his wont, produced the goods just as the doubts were gathering in the foothills. Bowling the team to victory in the fourth innings and collecting best Test figures is all that can be asked of a spinner, even if gnarled old finger spinners would have him vary his pace more. A change in pace is exactly what Ryan Sidebottom's career has experienced over the last ten months. It is well remembered that his place was by no means copper-bottomed certainty at the beginning of the tour: successful against the flaccid West Indian batsmen, he was worthy against India and Sri Lanka, not to mention unlucky, but finished with unflattering figures. Here he at last received due reward for his efforts, having added a yard of pace and greater nous on the angle of attack to the well honed attributes of accuracy and swing long developed in county cricket. When he returned from exile to rout West Indies, concerns were expressed that he would not be able to sustain a long career at Test level and that there would not be room for him and Hoggard in the same team. The last point has been, to an extent, proved; not many would have opined Sidebottom would be the last Yorkshireman standing, however. It goes to show how quickly and decidedly perceptions and circumstances can change, something which could work for or against England as they seek to lay the platform from which they can challenge Australia in just over a year's time.

The inertia of loss

2008-03-23T09:44:00.002Z

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.

Frightened England forget themselves

2008-03-09T09:22:00.004Z

The pitch at Hamilton's Seddon Park may have been a lifeless beast, but to England's taildiving batsmen on the last day it must have appeared a mirror. Dead, blind to seam and spin, producing a performance not favouring England. Stephen Fleming referred to the "porridge" on the pitch; stuff England must feel like they are currently wading through, with a fair sprinkling of cement powder to boot. The final innings scenario, a target of 300 in just over 80 overs which emerged miraculously from a stodgy first three days, presented England with the chance to make a statement of positive intention. After all, no-one remembers that England's 3-0 victory against the same opposition back in 2004 came by means of two tricky 280+ run-chases; they just remember that England won every Test that summer. But if England had imagined a tense afternoon duel with New Zealand's pair of finger spinners their aspirations proved to be delusions of grandeur. By the twelfth over, when Keven Pietersen raised the drawbridge to Kyle Mills, the game was up, the facade wiped clean away.

England never had as good a batsman as Pietersen in the period before the 2005 Ashes; all of England's current top 6 can boast averages in excess of 40, which only half of the old brigade could. But that team had something infinitely more precious: the knowledge of how and when a Test match is won, the self-belief to turn the game their way at those key junctures and ultimately the luck and good fortune which invariably falls the way of a team which is winning and knows they will again. That sort of ethic and confidence allowed them to stay competitive, and win games from behind such as Johannesburg in early 2005, where Marcus Trescothick battered South Africa and Matthew Hoggard rolled them all within one day to win a game and seal a series from nowhere.

There were strange echoes in England's performance of past epochs - Matthew's Hoggard's stupendous boundary catch to put the skids under New Zealand's second innings brought back memories of a similar effort by Darren Gough at Lord's in 2000 which began West Indies' slide to 54 all out. England's slow crawl with the bat, roundly criticised, started to look a bit like the Atherton-led effort at Karachi in the winter of 2000-1, increasingly as England knocked over New Zealand to give themselves what looked a fighting chance. West Indies and Pakistan in 2000: two early series victories now regarded as important stages in the road which culminated in the Ashes being regained in 2005. There was a sense of this England team striving for their own definitive moment, the moment they stop being a shadow of 2005 England and start being their own team. Yet when an opportunity stared them in the face they wilted; clearly this is a team not ready to emerge from the shadows. And when the opposition are New Zealand, who play so little Test cricket and are a nascent outfit themselves, that is a dolorous state of affairs indeed.

New Zealand, to give them their due, fully deserved what should be a series defining victory. As ever with the bat, their bottom half proved more resilient than the top: England shaded the opening day, but from 6 wickets down 200 more runs were added, which says plenty about both teams. And while England's go-slow was in part of their own volition, the run rate would not have scraped along at 2-per-over had New Zealand not tied them down with tight lines and sharp ground-fielding. Stephen Fleming was the only batsman to achieve anything on note in the second innings of either team, his 66 filled with the beautifully timed pushes, racing to the boundary with little apparent effort, that his team and Test cricket will miss when he retires at the end of the series. To bowl a team out for 110 in 55 overs was some achievement as well, and Kyle Mills earned each of his opening four wickets, a burst which consigned England to defeat.

If any positives are to be gleaned from England's performance they are the catching, excellent after woeful efforts in Sri Lanka, and the 10-wicket haul of Ryan Sidebottom, benefiting from the improved fielding where before he had been denied. Rightly, even England have been too shame-faced to allude to them. But as Sidebottom scythed through New Zealand second time around, the shadow cast by the conspicuously and consistently absent Steve Harmison loomed large. The days where he was trusted to waste the new ball are long gone, while Michael Vaughan's decision to call on Paul Collingwood before Harmison was probably the signal that he has finally exhausted the supply of goodwill which has alone sustained his position for over a year now. Even if his bowling in Sri Lanka showed signs of a resurgence it was a wasted effort; as ever with Harmison the residual benefit was nil. His speed was down, his threat negligible, even taking into account the pitch. If there is any chance of salvaging his international career it will come by England stepping away from Harmison and forcing him to present his case like any other bowler. The current state of affairs is helping neither the bowler nor the team and although Stuart Broad is possibly a season away from being truly ready for Test cricket, England will get more from him than Harmison is currently able to provide.

With the series another of the ludicrous affairs consisting of three Tests back-to-back, England do not have time to consolidate or ponder their position at length. For the third successive series they go behind with only limited opportunity to recover and this is by far the most humiliating situation, in a series they were expected to walk. From here it goes one of two ways, either jolting them into action and a new level of performance or merely facilitating a continual demise. New Zealand, needless to say, will be up for the latter, and are bound to come hard at England with the confidence that such an emphatic win gives them. England need to find a way of brooking the tide; at the moment they seem to be hanging back, waiting for one to commit himself and set the tone. One batsman needs to be bold and take the fight to New Zealand, who are efficient and committed with the ball, but not special. That indicates Vaughan and Pietersen, England's most dominating batsmen. If one of them goes big, it should inspire confidence throughout the team. Currently, England seem to be so afraid of losing games that they have forgotten it requires confidence to win them. And until they realise that a team with defeat foremost in its mind can never succeed, the current trend will continue unabated.

Discomfited England must tread carefully

2008-03-01T17:51:00.004Z

Records that defined the Duncan Fletcher era have continued to tumble in the ten months since he concluded his eight year tenure as England coach. For the first time in six years, a Test series was lost at home, which, as it did then but never again under Fletcher, brought about consecutive series defeats. New Zealand was Fletcher's next port of call after an honourable 1-0 reverse in India with a weakened squad had followed the habitual Ashes thrashing in the summer of 2001. And with Peter Moores' side having failed to win a single Test over two three-match series with India and Sri Lanka, cricket's cyclical calendar has provided him with the self-same means of stopping the rot. England shared the spoils back in 2002, a scoreline which will not be much help to captain and coach in repeated in the forthcoming series.

The task Moores has been struggling with over the best part of a year in charge is a different one from that which Fletcher successfully negotiated in the first half of his spell. The problem is less a deep legacy of mismanagement and poor results, more the shadow of tangible recent success: people find it hard to comprehend how the current team, with many of the constituent parts of what was not so long ago a brilliantly successful Test team, has none of the collective power which defined that unit. Perhaps Moores' inheritance was a more significantly tainted one than acknowledged at the time: he took over a team on the slide, engaged in an 18 month decline from its highest peak. Such a trend has been long in the acceptance, with the recent results that crytallised the reality ensuring much of the fall-out has affected Moores.

In fairness, England were unfortunate in the extreme to be denied a victory in the Lord's Test against India last July. Since then, however, they have not looked like winning a match, particularly worrying the manner in which they have often slipped so quickly from contention. Many factors have contributed, but there is a bottom line and it points to the twenty opposition wickets England have been failing to take. Bowling and the beefy five-man attack formed the main plank on which Michael Vaughan and Fletcher built the successful team of 2004-5. Not one of those five remain the same force as before, even if the old opening pair will line up for the first Test at Hamilton on Wednesday. Hoggard has been unlucky with injuries over the last 12 months and could yet return to his peak; the much greater worry is Harmison. Before every Test series the story with England's fastest bowler is the same. Whether he has been playing cricket for his county, adopted South African franchsie or none at all, he turns up for practice games and bowls with neither the control or penetration required for top-level cricket. The England management rally and insist that, with some overs "in his legs", he will recover his increasingly elusive cutting edge. But Harmison is increasingly proving himself the bowling equivalent of the National Health Service, a bottomless pit into which resources, care and attention are poured lovingly but to no end. England are going so far to accomodate and carry him that it appears he has lost the ability to make a step of his own and it is possible that only a complete severance from the current amniotic catharsis will have the desired effect. Another insipid series here might well persuade the selectors that they have no option.

Andrew Strauss has been the other contentious member of the squad; for many, nothing had changed since he was justifiably dumped at the end of last year. But Strauss is clearly someone whom England are desperate to have back in the side and his is a selection made with the next three years or so in mind. England have seen the way that the loss of cornerstone presences - Trescothick, Giles, Vaughan, Flintoff - has affected the team post-2005 and evidently they feel that Strauss was one they could not simply let slip away. It is harsh on Owais Shah, perpetually supplanted as first reserve, but if Strauss makes a successful return and is scoring runs against South Africa next summer, England's selectors will be heralded for a piece of pragmatic, long term thinking. Now headed by David Graveney's ex-lieutenant Geoff Miller, who favoured Strauss for the captaincy in Australia, the selectors probably at heart see him as Michael Vaughan's natural successor too.

Every new series for England seems to bring with it the need to consolidate, find a position from where they can begin to track progress. Eventually that becomes rock bottom, which arguably was Duncan Fletcher's starting point. New Zealand, although shown by results to be a poor Test side, will nevertheless present a threat to England, with the one-day series ample evidence that success is not to be taken for granted, even if New Zealand tend only to be a real danger when in the all-black kit of their fabled rugby team. Nevertheless, they are more than capable of wielding the knife if England continue to show the disorientation and lack of killer insticnt which has typified their recent Test performances. England need the desire and determination which can only come with realisation of their current standing; no longer can they maintain the pretence that they are suffering from a particularly nasty migraine. New Zealand stand ready to exploit weaknesses if displayed: the ambush is an easy one for England to fall prey to and the trapdoor gapes wide open.

Mad, bad and dangerous to predict

2008-02-23T11:16:00.005Z

It is New Zealand's knack to be a force more significant than anticipated, and between them maintaining a good level of performance with a changeling team and England failing to rise to the challenge consistency, the 3-1 scoreline will leave neither side feeling hard done by. In the final analysis, New Zealand probably have fewer problems than they had thought following an exodus of talent and experience; while Paul Collingwood's England probably have more than their two previous series had highlighted. Not once was a game won by the team batting first: England fulfilled that role in all but one of the five, three times at the behest of Daniel Vettori. And barring the fourth game where a belter of a pitch and a rollocking opening partership propelled England to 340 - and they were relieved to escape with a tie - the touring batsmen never imposed themselves sufficiently on the generally disciplined New Zealand bowlers to give themselves a realistic chance of series success. When they took to the field, and Brendon McCullum centre-stage, defeat was thrice administered in brutal and uncompromising fashion.

The exploits of McCullum, by a way the most successful bat on either side and boasting a withering overall strike rate of 128.57, contrasted at times drastically with his opposite number Phil Mustard. McCullum is a hitter, a clean striker of the ball; Mustard can do that too, but all too often tends to confuse that with the unrelated tactic of slogging, and the ugly smear which drew a line under his series with the bat may be the last England see of him for a while. One in five, which is what Mustard produced here, is simply not a good enough ratio, and it seems England's search to replace Marcus Trescothick will have to go on the road again. Alistair Cook notched two fifites, and no Englishman did better, but a strike-rate which is reaching out in vain for 70 looms large, not least in the mind of his batting partner, an unhealthy combination when it is the worrisome Ian Bell at the other end.

Kevin Pietersen had another one-day series when he seemed to be playing as if with a silencer attached to his bat: a strike rate of 73 reflects a batsman lacking confidence and bravado, two natural traits he has mislaid in the one-day game of late. England's captain gave increasing substantiation to the notion that the team's success reflects his own, the two games in which he contributed being the two Engalnd did not lose. Circumstances did not favour Owais Shah, as they seemingly never have in his international career, but he could equally have proved his worth in adversity. He has, sadly, in all likelihood batted himself out of contention for the Tests and with a congestion for lower-middle order places likely next summer, he may slip from the scene altogether.

It is through the bowlers that England have had much of their one-day success under Peter Moores, so it was no great coincidence that their failure to fire here met with defeat. Ryan Sidebottom alone was reliable; Stuart Broad had two excellent games and three shoddy ones. The pall was heaviest around James Anderson, who appeared to have graduated into England's spearhead after some excellent performances last summer. But he was ineffectual in Sri Lanka, and added profligacy this time around, New Zealand taking him for over 7 an over. It is Anderson's burden that he has to look either master or mug, and something which makes it hard for England to back him through a bad patch. Replacements are hardly falling over themselves in a rush to take his place however. Chris Tremlett is next in line, but the selectors might just hesitate with the memory of his last few performances. Back-up for the pace trio was sparse: Graeme Swann, the primary spinner, was given just five overs in the whole tour, and England went in to the last three games without a slow bowler. The men who came in, Mascarenhas and Wright, appeared low on favour with Collingwood, something which will probably spell the end for Mascarenhas, who didn't do much with the ball to deserve more opportunity, if not Wright, who flowered with the bat and sealed the tie at Napier conceding just six off the last over, his first.

Perhaps it is a sign of how far England have come that a series loss away from home, standard fare under Duncan Fletcher, meets with relative despondency. It does show, just in case people were getting ahead of themselves, that England still have some way to go, and there will be more talking points than the selectors would want when the one-day side reconvenes next summer. Top of their agenda will be the head of the batting order, something England have not had right for a while, especially since the loss of Marcus Trescothick. In the shorter form of the game, where momentum shifts can be terminal, how a team begins its innings is crucial. At the moment, England's openers reflect the team as a whole: inconsistent, ponderous and inclined to collapse. And that will have to change before England can become anything more than an occasional threat.

England black out in game of Russian Roulette

2008-02-12T20:11:00.003Z

A week may be the arbitary unit of time used to illustrate the fluid nature of circumstance and perception, but a mere two days of cricket, and short ones at that, have been all that was needed to effect volte-face on multiple fronts and leave England with cheeks reddened by the embarassment of two defeats crushingly ignominious even by the recent dismal standards of their one-day team. Words like dismal, detroe and rabble had begun to fade from the English supporter's vocabulary in regard to the one-day team, but two consecutive nostalgia nightmares have refreshed the memory with a venegance. And their opposition? Not all-conquering Australia, patrician India or swashbuckling Sri Lanka; all teams England have taken series off over the last year. Instead a team shorn of the flower of its talent; derided by its own press and public prior to the series; and crushed by England in the 20 over games. Little New Zealand, all tubby batsmen and dobbing trundlers; they have been far too good.

Perhaps the first defeat was explainable. Unable to roar from the blocks on a lightning-fast pitch and detach the English head from body by force, New Zealand took the achievable alternative: asphyxiation on a dead track, Styris and Oram constrictors in chief. 130 a total no more defendable than England's palpable failure to adapt to conditions they had failed to divine. But on no grounds can their performance at Hamilton be defended, explained or countenanced. Pietersen and Cook were laying a decent foundation at 90-2; then England were in freefall, the last 8 wickets falling for 68. To say it all went up in a puff of smoke would be to imply a sense of spectacle wholly inappropriate.

Assumptions and pre-allocated views have had to be hastily re-examined. Consider the contrasting fortunes of Ravi Bopara and Jesse Ryder. The former, despite a chastening induction to the Test arena, was still England one-day golden boy; Ryder, before he had raised a bat in anger for his country, was labelled a lardarse too fat to be playing international sport. Now, in just one innings, Ryder is said to embody the spirit of Colin Milburn; after two fraught, high body-count innings, Bopara awaits his first taste of the scrap heap. Perception has and always will be fickle when it comes to sport, but such paradigm shifts are faintly incredible, which illustrates the extraoridnary nature of the results. And therein, possibly, lies England's salvation. Their demise in both games has been so swift that there has been precious little chance to make a judged retreat to safer ground, a manouevre England have proved themselves neither good enough nor experienced enough to effect. And by fouling up on each occasion with the bat, they have given their bowlers, architects of many recent victories, no chance to make an impression on the course of either game. Possibly it is vain hope that England will deign to showcase the talent they have previosly displayed, which should make them New Zealand's betters. For New Zealand will continue to be good; the question is, will England continue to make them look worldbeaters?

I hear the vitriol already. English arrogance! What credit to New Zealand? Plenty, in fact. They have not only outdone England by several elongated heads in every facet of the game, but have effected a comeback only the most blinkered Kiwi tub-thumper would have forecasted after they submitted to double defeat in the Twenty20 series and England looked rampant. The bowling has been incisive, tight and to plan; twice they have given England masterclasses on batting according to conditions. More than anything, their fielding has sparkled; England have been getting precious little themselves with the bat, but that next to nothing has been given away just augments the torture. Compare with England, a tawdry mess of run-outs and dropped catches.

Repeated humiliation for England has opened up debate over issues which looked case-closed when they overcame India at the tail-end of last summer. Ian Bell, batting star of that series for the home team, no longer looks secure at first drop, having followed an anonymous series in Sri Lanka with two no-shows here. Kevin Pietersen, whom many would have occupy Bell's slot, looks in no state for the promotion and a shadow of his dominating best. The middle-order, once a lone bastion of reliablity, has been experimenting detrimentally with the binary system. A fairly inflexible 16-man squad means England are more-or-less stuck with what they've got, although Ravi Bopara seems sure to lose his place to Dimi Mascarenhas. There is equally little room for manouevre in the series, in that familiar position of two down with three to come. The management will be stressing the need for a performance in the forthcoming game; the rest are just screaming for a result. There is little left in the realm of possiblity with which England's one-day side can surprise us. Dating from twelve months ago, there have been victories against opposition as unlikely as Australia, India and Sri Lanka. Right now, they are supping from the well of despair visited in the period preceding those results and again at the World Cup. All told, a dizzying cocktail of brilliance and crapulence, and a sequence which they look unready to bring any sort of order to.

Efficiency the essence for improved England

2008-02-08T19:11:00.000Z

New Zealand can be a frustrating opposition in more ways than one. Not only does their battling style tend to pose more problems than their overall talent might suggest; but such is their nature that there are few plaudits to be gained in victory and much ridicule to be suffered in defeat. That tends to be more true of their Test side than limited-overs outfit, with the shorter, more formulaic game logically suiting their gameplan with a strong emphasis on collective achievement in the absence of any great deal of class. But after a World Cup in which they made the last four and defeated England in the pool-stages, New Zealand have been in decline; while England, who made absolutely no impression on that tournament, have had a pleasantly surprising amount of success as their Test form has stuttered.

Without Fleming, Bond and McMillan, what was a competitive, dangerous team begins to look more electrically-powered milk float than grinding four-wheel drive. Having lost Bond, who had to bear the weight of frequent injury along with the responsibility of being a lone spearhead, and with James Franklin sidelined, there remains very little in New Zealand's bowling stock which should be capable of worrying England. Kyle Mills and Jacob Oram maybe; Daniel Vettori for sure if he can shake off an ankle niggle. But the back-up of Chris Martin, Michael Mason and Paul Hitchcock looks on the innocuous side of powderpuff. Each is in his 34th year and boasts an unfavourable ODI record; they are in a way typical of New Zealand, the one country unwilling to give up on the medium-pacer. To be fair, if there is anywhere left in the world where the redoubtable trundler can prosper, it is the land of the long white cloud; but if England capitulate, there will be much vitriol from press and public and hand-wringing from players and management.

And if England had continued in the same vein after the World Cup, it would be a very possible outcome. But evidently even they have got bored of being pants at one-day cricket, and the results under Peter Moores have generally been heartening, giving the impression that England have finally started to move forward in the more proscriptive form of the game after a long period under Duncan Fletcher when they seemed to go only backwards or sideways. Bowling has been the primary reason for the success against India and Sri Lanka; James Anderson is at home with the new white ball in his hand, complemented by Ryan Sidebottom's swing and hustle and vertical and lateral movement from Stuart Broad. Graeme Swann balances the team nicely with both bat and ball, although he will need to prove his flighted and well-spun off breaks are effective away from the slow tracks of Dambulla and Colombo where he won his place.

The opening pair retain a temporary guise, with Cook and Mustard set to resume a partnership which failed to flower in some admittedly averse conditions in Sri Lanka, but which will not survive a lack of success over 5 more games. With Marcus Trescothick set never to return, England badly need Cook to become a force for them in ODIs, primarily because there is really no-one else, evidenced by the fact he has been partnered by no specialist opener since returning to the team last May. On the positive side, Mustard could be the man to give England the sort of quick runs up-front no-one bar Trescothick has recently, and maybe even tout for a place in the Test team if he hits the jackpot. At the same time, he is keeping out a very useful one-day batsman in Tim Ambrose and will not keep his place for long on the basis of strike-rate and a quick wit.

The other area of debate in the line-up is over the No.7 position, currently in possession of Ravi Bopara. He appears deserving of a place, but there remains the essential problem that, as someone who majors on batting, he is occupying a position which is the preserve of a bowling all-rounder. As it stands, he is not having much chance to influence the game with either bat or ball; England are grateful for his presence when the main batting fails, but otherwise he tends to cut an anonymous figure, especially as Collingwood's improved medium-pace means he is really a sixth bowler. Following the double success in the 20 over games, Dimi Mascarenhas has also put his name forward; his chance was long in the coming, and despite some flickers, not least smiting Yuvraj Singh for five consecutive sixes, he looked to be surplus to requirements having watched the games in Sri Lanka from the pavilion. But Mascarenhas is evidently not one to go quietly, and emphasised his case with another burst of sixes in the first game and two tight four over spells. England will have to decide if they want the batting safety-net, fielding excellence and youthful promise of Bopara or the superior bowling and boundary hitting of the Hampshire man. With Mascarenhas, the batting is more fragile, especially if wickets tumble; on the flip-side, he has the ability to accelarate at the death more than perhaps any other English bat.

It should not matter too much against what looked a baleful New Zealand outfit in the first matches of the tour. Jacob Oram and Daniel Vettori should return to increase the class and depth of both batting and bowling, but England remain favourites. Of course, no team is better than them at subverting such brash assumptions, but unless the home side finds unforseen levels of performance, a series loss would be of their own design. Hopefully those days will continue to be associated with England past rather than present, and they will record the comfortable victory the gulf in talent indicates is likely. Following impressive displays at home to India and more so in Sri Lanka, less can hardly be expected.

Defining series provides uncertain end

2008-01-28T17:19:00.000Z

It was a strange kind of a whimper to end what was the sort of absorbing and hard-fought series we have come to expect between Australia and India over the last decade. There was a needless run-out, a key batsman was forced to retired hurt and the middle-order was dismissed cheaply. Ingredients, one might think, for a dramatic collapse, echoing events at The Adelaide Oval in 2003 and 2006. But with just one wicket down in the first session, the Indians never looked threatened. Sehwag brought up his century before lunch, the team's total not far advanced beyond his own and the next highest score 11. If that suggests he blazed while others blocked, it is also illusory; by his standards, Sehwag appeared relatively sedate, tending to shun the off-side flail which both his supporters and opponents relish. The four titans of the Indian middle-order, whom Australians may be relieved never to see grace their country in Tests again, all departed subdued: Dravid to a badly-bruised finger; Tendulkar impaling himself on the horns of a sharp single; Ganguly squeezing a catch to cover; and Laxman with a diffident glove through to Gilchrist. That man, one of the most exciting cricketers ever, spent his last day in the Test arena quietly marking time behind the stumps. The Adelaide pitch, which had not failed to produce a result this decade, slept while the people demanded a thrilling end, a fitting farewell to greats and a fulfilling dovetail to the month-long contest. In the end, a series which was at once a joy, a frustration and a powerful fuel for debate unraveled to its natural conclusion, with neither side striving hard or well enough to dispute the inevitability.

This was a game for the individual: Tendulkar, in surely his last Test in Australia, striking his second century of the series, his 39th in all, ascending again to the heights at the one time home of the greatest of them all. Ponting, cussedly pushing all doubt and criticism from his mind and unburdening himself in the way he knows best. His first hundred of the Australian summer was marked as others might a half-century. The helmet stayed on, the emotion bottled up; rarely, though, can runs have meant so much. And Gilchrist, part of so many Australian victories and a crucial factor in a good portion of them, departed with a draw. One of the ironies the Sporting Gods delight in; another perhaps was Michael Clarke's shelling of a chance offered by Sehwag on the fourth evening which would have reduced India to 2-2. The man who sparked victory at Sydney spurning the chance here.

In Gilchrist another link has gone to Australia's almost unadulterated period of success over the last decade or more, while performances which did not match those of their post 2005 vintage have caused the question to be posed of how long their dominance can continue. Matthew Hayden's importance to them was reaffirmed both by his absence in Perth, where the top order lurched, and his return in Adelaide with an unerring century. Yet Hayden is now the team's elder statesman at 36, and cannot be looking far beyond the penance a good Ashes in England in 18 months time would bring him. Brad Hogg is unlikely to play much more Test cricket after his treatment by the Indians. They are, admittedly, the masters against slow bowling, but his deficiencies at this level were exposed not only by the opposition batsmen but one of his own team-mates in Andrew Symonds, whose supplementary off-breaks outdid Hogg's wrist-spin. Stuart MacGill will be hoping for one last twirl, especially if Australia tour Pakistan as planned in the spring, but there is a reasonable chance his knee will decide to retire on him before he himself is ready to call it a day. There ends the feasible list of Australian Test spinners, unless you are willing to entertain the notion of another thirtysomething leggie being drafted in, this time Bryce McGain, who spent much of his career at Victoria in the shadow of not only Shane Warne but the now disregarded bowling talent of Cameron White, who still has the best domestic bowling record of all the young(ish) Australian spinners, although it has long been acknowledged that he operates as a slow, not spin bowler.

Still, there is much to marvel about this Australian side. Brett Lee was a deserved man of the series; he has made the transition from spare part to leading man so quickly and seamlessly that it is hard to recall him as anything else than the top-drawer bowler he now is, bearing the torch not only for fast bowling in Australia but worldwide. Mitchell Johnson was unconvincing at times, but swept up a tidy haul of 16 wickets; while Stuart Clark was wicketless in Adelaide but a threat always. As a trio they complement each other perfectly, with a mixture of pace, bounce, swing and cut all bound together by a collective parsimony, Johnson the most expensive of the three this series at just 3.15 rpo. While the batting generally held up well when led by Hayden, Symonds proved the revelation, chalking up 410 runs to match Hayden as Australia's leading run scorer. Allied to his nine wickets and customary sharpness in the field, he had a series which marked his evolution from sore thumb to key cog, as he has been in the ODI team for some time.

For India, the next few years could also be a tricky period of change. Ganguly and Dravid, both axed from the one-day squad, have begun to look tired, and, at 35, may well be eyeing the Australians' return visit in October as a swansong. There was a heartening resurgence of those who have already been through the cycle of rise and fall so common with Indian cricketers in Sehwag and Pathan, who opened together in Adelaide. That is not a partnership which should last, but hopefully both players will - Sehwag as India's one proven opener, and quite possibly Anil Kumble's successor as captain, and Pathan in the all-rounder's role vacant since Kapil Dev's time.

Also impressive were the visiting seamers, who shone after pack leader Zaheer Khan was injured in Melbourne. RP Singh filled his shoes as senior bowler, his displays of swing and aggressiveness earning plaudits and a good haul of wickets. Way back in the averages, but foremost in most minds is Ishant Sharma, who managed just 6 wickets in 3 Tests but in the process humbled two of the world's best batsmen, Ponting and Hayden, with extended spells of incisive, inquisitory seam bowling, gaining the prized scalp on each occasion. One must exercise a note of caution before singing Sharma's praises to the skies. It has been said of many over the last four years that they are the answer to India's perennial prayer for a good fast bowler: Zaheer, Nehra, Agarkar, Balaji, Pathan, Sreesanth, Munaf and RP Singh to name but eight. Some have fallen by the wayside, others have been and gone and come again, while few have escaped the ravages of injury. Ultimately, there is room for only three, at a push four. On this evidence, Sharma will be a difficult man to displace. With a height few Indian seamers have enjoyed, decent pace and the ability to make the ball bounce and move off the pitch, he has all the right attributes, while his survival in the bearpit of Australia suggests he has the right temperament for Test cricket too.

When all is said and done, Australia still hold the trophy and the whip hand over other Test sides. A series of away fixtures will be telling, as they have not played a Test abroad since mid 2006. With no Test-class spinner available, they are likely to suffer in some circumstances, and four seam bowlers looked an undesirable balance. The loss of so many matchwinning players was always going to affect the Australians, and they can no longer take dominance for granted. That does not mean they will not continue to churn out series wins, just that they have inevitably slipped within reach of the chasing pack. But it is up to the other teams to bridge the still considerable gap, something India made a good fist of; they cannot expect Australia to fall to their level, and it is likely that the slackness which crept into the home side's game, especially regarding catching, will be tightened up on. So less a decline, more unavaoidable recalibration as an era chock-full of brilliant players bleeds into another whose potential is as yet unknown. All that can be said for sure is that Australia's progress over the next year will be tracked with interest, rather than the resignation which their prolonged period of supremacy had forced most to become accustomed to.

Changing of the guard

2008-01-26T12:14:00.000Z

There is a difference between leaving an indelible mark on sport and changing it. One does not necessarily mean the other; but for Adam Gilchrist, who announced his retirement from international cricket the day after taking the record for most dismissals by a wicket-keeper in Tests, they were feats very much united. Pre-Gilchrist, the definition of the ideal wicket-keeper was a top-notch gloveman who could be niggly, aggressive and unconventional with the bat. Take five of the most celebrated post-war examples: Godfrey Evans, Alan Knott, Rodney Marsh, Jeffrey Dujon and Ian Healy. Their averages range from 20.49 (Evans) to 32.75 (Knott); together, they managed 19 Test centuries in 482 Tests. Gilchrist, yet to bat in his farewell game and with a flat Adelaide pitch to look forward to, boasts an average of 47.89, with 17 centuries and a record 414 dismissals from 96 Tests. And those are figures which very much reflect a latter-day slump. As late as his 47th Test match, his average touched 60; 15 of his centuries had been recorded nearly 30 games ago, before he had played 100 Test innings. And that is not to mention one-day cricket.

When the chance arrived, success came quickly for Gilchrist; but the path to international cricket was far from the cakewalk his talent and record might suggest. He could not get a game for his home state NSW, so travelled to the other side of Australia and found a home at Perth, a journey further than London to Cairo. He then suffered the ire of his own fans for replacing the incumbent, something that he was to experience again when he graduated to the Australian Test team. Tim Zoehrer was the darling at the WACA, while he was far from flavour of the month making his Test debut on Ian Healy's patch at Brisbane. He was soon to earn their adulation. His first Test innings almost brought a maiden century, with 81 off not many more deliveries; the next game, he both chalked up his first ton and won a game for Australia, joining with Justin Langer to chase a total of 369 which had seemed impossible from 126-5. That typified Gilchrist; he was not the first wicket-keeper to act as frequent fireman, but it was the manner of his play which set him apart. He dealt not in fighting fifties, rather lacerating centuries; he could turn difficult situations into winning ones within two sessions and often did. Australia might look the deadest of dead dogs, but were never out of it while Gilchrist was yet to have his say.

All the Australian teams Gilchrist played in over a nine-year Test career struck fear into their opposition. With the bat, you could be battered from the off by Slater or Hayden; ground down by Ponting, Steve Waugh or Hussey; regally dismissed by Mark Waugh or Martyn. But not even those stellar names and reputations carried the same aura as Gilchrist. Often he seemed impossible to bowl to, driving and cutting powerfully on the off side; scooping and flicking on the leg. Spinners he swept or charged to bully straight down the ground. It was uninhibited, thrilling and utterly demoralising for bowlers and captains. Well-laid plans and carefully-set fields were frequently rendered meaningless; no better than watching and hoping, the last resort which Gilchrist delighted in bringing about quickly. For an example of his inventiveness, look no further than the first Test of the 2001 Ashes at Edgbaston. Gilchrist, a boundary away from 150, was helping his team reduce England's latest Ashes challenge to rubble just days into the series. Andy Caddick, one ball remaining of his nth over, was determined he would not be the bowler to concede the landmark. He delivered a head high bouncer; Gilchirst stepped inside, and, with a vertical bat, dobbed the ball over Alec Stewart's head for the boundary. One shot that showed all the best attributes of the man: the eye of a hawk, intuitiveness, and a sense of fun which never left him and is one reason he will leave the international stage amongst the most popular players.

If Gilchrist had never gone near the wicket-keeping gloves, he would still be regarded as an amazing cricketer. That he managed such incredible batting feats with the added burden is what places him in the pantheon of the all-timers. Indeed it is probably the recent downturn in his keeping which has brought about what seemed an unlikely decision to retire. He was never a natural, impish gloveman, but at his best he was an extremely capable and reliable one. His athletic diving catches, such as that which dispatched Michael Vaughan at The Oval in 2005, and assured handling of Warne's warheads place him above the class of the artisan, while misses, before the last throes of his career, were infrequent. It is his underplayed wicket-keeping ability which has caused others to flounder while trying to find their own model, England especially. The benefit of a century-scoring batsman at No.7 caused others to ignore the basic Gilchrist brought to the table; wicket-keeping was always the first and last for Gilchrist, as it must be for any gloveman, however crucial the runs.

Adaptability was another feature of the Gilchrist legend. He first fulfilled the opener's role in ODI cricket almost by mistake, but will be remembered as one of the finest ever to play the one-day game. It is unthinkable that any other could hold the gloves in an all-time one-day World XI. With Australia in strife against Sri Lanka in 2004 and Ricky Ponting unable to bat at 3 in the second innings, Gilchrist stepped up and made 144. Australia won by 27 runs. It was Gilchrist, not Ponting, who captained Australia to victory in the 2004-5 series in India, doing what illustrious predecessors Taylor and Waugh had failed to.

It was 2005 when Gilchrist's golden period, along with Australia's, shuddered to a halt. Cramped by the round-the-wicket line of Flintoff and discomfited by the length which made the ball bounce above the flailing blade rather than into its arc, Gilchrist's best in the 5-match series was just 49. Had he been anything like himself with the bat, Australia would have won. Unlike his team, Gilchrist never really recovered, with only two more centuries and an increasing number of chances missed behind the stumps. Occasionally his batting flared, and spectacularly, with stupefying centuries against England, at Perth, and Sri Lanka, in the World Cup final. But they were sparks from a dying light, and it is probably prudent of Gilchrist to end his career now, before the murmurings over his position had a chance to become something more concrete. Perhaps with Brad Haddin's presence in the ODI team alongside him, he has sensed the shadow lengthening, in the same way his own hastened the end for Ian Healy back in 1999. Yet again, Australia can replace the great experience of a Test player with a seasoned pro at domestic level, and Haddin will likely do a very good job. But they have lost another of their golden era, someone whose career spanned both runs of 16 wins. Moreover, cricket has lost a star, a gent, and a player who can be ranked amongst the greatest ever at the very moment he hangs up his gloves for the last time.

Sparky India short the circuit

2008-01-19T14:00:00.000Z

It will remain an imponderable whether Ricky Ponting's Australia would have extended their winning streak in Tests to 17 but for the furore rising from events in the Sydney Test. That ensured the rare break in the middle of a series was no opportunity for R+R, and Australia looked uncommonly enervated and underpowered. But perhaps the scars from Sydney were more specifically cricketing: there too, the Australian top-half crumbled to swing and seam, but produced a customary recovery from 134-6, as they have been required to do more than once in their 16 consecutive victories. It proved once too often to the well at Perth, with no way back from 163-6, in reply to a score of 330 considered under-par. Previously the Indians had found two seamers was a cupboard understocked, just as Australia realised too late this time that four was one too many. But with Irfan Pathan recalled and visibly rehabilitated, India had the bowling resources to maintain the assault; Australia, affected by the absence of Matthew Hayden more than they would have hoped or expected, could not stave them off.

This was a match when reality reared its head and crapped all over expectation. Australia, it was felt, could not lose - not at the WACA, its square restored to former glories and where India's last visit had shown them to be as sturdy as a paper wall gusted by the local Fremantle Doctor. Australia chucked the spinner and rolled out their quickest and meanest gun; blood was to be spilt on the altar of Lillee and Thomson. India's response was to salvage from the scrapheap a swing bowler who hadn't been doing much of that for a while. For anyone but to Australia to win at Perth is rare indeed these days; for one of the Asian countries, it is practically unheard of.

If man-of-the-match Pathan was an unlikely hero, one can add to that list several of his colleagues. Whence came RP Singh and Ishant Sharma; the sudden form of Rahul Dravid; the youthful abandon of Sachin Tendulkar, after years of playing like a tortured mortal? It is the preserve of touring teams in Australia to crumble in India's circumstances; the canvas down-under is not a bouncy one. But India, who have generally underachieved in this generation, have far greater gumption and guts away from home than their teams of old. They have had success in West Indies and South Africa, while series wins in England, as they managed last summer, do not come cheap, even taking into account England's recent form. It says a lot for their new captain Anil Kumble; three of his predecessors, all titans, bestride the batting order, yet the team seems vibrant and fresh. In the course of the match, Kumble took his 600th Test wicket, and now trails only the two spinners of his generation who have denied him deserved elegies. Captaincy, which he has come to late and circuitously, suits him no less than spin bowling - he is a special and underrated cricketer.

Before the series, it was the Indian bowling which was considered to be the main difference between the teams. India might score some runs, but it seemed unlikely they would run through Australia with their popgun-looking seam attack. How wrong we were. Seam and swing are the two oldest arts of bowling, but when done well they can discomfit even the best batsmen. It was those features of the English bowling which unseated Australia back in 2005, when they last lost a game. Faced with it again here, they showed that not much has changed, which is an indictment on the standard of quick-bowling worldwide as much as anything else. Again notable was Ishant Sharma, who took on Harbhajan Singh's mantle as tormentor in chief of Ricky Ponting. Moving the ball both ways off the pitch, he picked holes in the world's best batsman, giving credence to the thought that Ponting, had he played out his entire career against the much better pacemen of the Nineties, would have averaged closer to 45, as he did then, that the figure near 60 he has latterly achieved.

While India were in reasonable control for much of the game, nothing quite seemed to fit Australia's script: having done a good job cleaning up the Indian first innings, they did not capitalise on their well-earned ascendancy with the bat; they could not force the issue with India 160-6 in their second dig; and Ponting and Hussey, who might just have crafted a miracle, both fell when set in the chase for 413, and the big push never materialised. Seduced by the prospects of a lightning track, they went for Shaun Tait, who got through barely half the bowling of back-up spin-pairing Symonds and Clarke. The pitch had none of the fire promised; it emerged that it was in fact not one of the relaid surfaces. What umpiring errors there were went against them; they dropped catches. It was all a bit un-Australian, which will probably lead to questions being raised on how they have reacted to their behaviour being questioned in wake of the Sydney game. They would probably have to lose the next Test too for it to become an issue, but were that to happen it would be interesting to see whether the line that winning is worthless when you behave like yobs - easy to trot out when the team is winning - will hold when the opposite is true.

Adelaide will tell us a lot, although India's failure to see out the Sydney game means it will sadly not be a decider. Any defeat of Australia seems momentous, so rare are they, but the match at Perth was no classic; no-one made it to three figures with the bat, no bowler took five wickets in an innings. The man-of-the match gong went to a bloke who took that many in two goes and made a pair of handy contributions with the bat without reaching 50 on either occasion. It was run of the mill in every way, except Australia lost. But twinned with the game at Sydney, which India should never have allowed Australia to win, it does show that the rivalry between these two teams is genuine, which can only be good for the game. What is not good is that India had barely a day of competitive cricket before the series began and that the premier contest in world cricket has not been given a fifth Test. That would probably be too much to ask, as it was for Ponting's team to eclipse Stephen Waugh's record. They may have reached the end of that line, but it should not be forgotten that the 16 consecutive victories came off the back of the 2005 Ashes and proclamations that the Australian era of dominance was over. The response to that was emphatic; and Ponting, who takes defeat along with all other insult seriously and personally, will be looking to start again.

The thin red line

2008-01-08T17:29:00.000Z

Schism is a word which has been bandied about far too often in cricketing circles over the course of this decade for anyone's comfort. Make no mistake, the uproar which has grown out of events at the recent Sydney Test match will not bring down an iron curtain between the Asian countries, who are in possession of the piggy bank, and the rest, principally Australia and England, who would purport to be the guardians of the game. In reality, none of the Test playing countries are guardians of anything but their own bank balances; the much touted "spirit of cricket" is just that - a phantom. We have been here before in recent times - the names Hair and Denness should be sufficient to rekindle the memory of similar shemozzles which left no greater legacy than excess chip paper. But cricket has not existed as the sepia-tinted, much eulogised "gentleman's game" for a very, very long time, it that was ever the case. This year, we mark 75 years since the Bodyline series of 1932-3; other examples fall readily from the tree - Tony Greig in 1976, World Series Cricket, Gatting and Rana. The game is still here and in one piece of sorts; whether the shape of it is satisfactory to cricket lovers and fans is the point in question.

Specific issues arise from the current situation. Have the Australians overstepped the mark with their aggressiveness on the field of play; and was it an isolated example or indicative of a greater trend? What does one make of the Indian reaction, both on micro and macro levels; is that part of a pattern too? Further debate has also been sparked on two old chestnuts: the place of sledging in the game and the extent to which technology should be introduced to help cut down on the most grievous umpiring errors.

It is the behaviour of both teams, especially the Australians, which has been most closely scrutinised. Like it or not, the Australians will always play the game their way; it has ever been so, with examples as far back as the 1920s and the giant in all aspects figure of Warwick Armstrong. Ricky Ponting has not changed the goalposts, but is merely continuing a legacy begat to him by his predecessor Stephen Waugh and Allan Border at one remove. We have heard the, "all's fair in love and war, mate" party-line before and we did again this time. In almost all circumstances, it is a line in the sand which holds for them; no-one wants to be labelled a bad loser or Whingeing Pom. And, lest one forget, aggression is something which has been a characteristic of most winning teams in the modern era; from Clive Lloyd's West Indies side through to the English team whose successful Ashes campaign began with a lethal bombardment by Steve Harmison, the fielders unconcerned as the batsmen wore several hits. People chuntered at the time, but all had been forgotten as the team paraded through Trafalgar square.

But at Sydney, an under-pressure Australia showed an ugly face which Ricky Ponting has been trying to subdue during his tenure and a feature less in evidence since the Australian board made a big show of bringing the team to book in 2003 after a particularly poisonous series in the Caribbean. They happened to pick on the one Indian prepared to give as good, and who said the wrong thing to the wrong man. Whether Ponting was right to report it or not is a moot point; but there is a clear message. That is the need for the abusive side of sledging to be stamped down on; for Cricket Australia to repeat their gesture of four years ago would be mere tokenism, so it must fall to the ICC, nominally cricket's governing body, to set the tone. But anyone with even a lax grasp of cricket politics will realise that the words "ICC" and "action" are two negatively charged poles with a keen interest in avoiding each other, so what are the chances? It should not mean an end to dialogue on the field - after all, cricket history is littered with gems from some of the keener minds and sharper tongues. But those were, mostly, in good spirit, even the profane ones. What we have now reflects little of that great tradition; it is Steve Waugh's so called "mental disintegration" but a simple trade of insults, devoid of wit, exhibits nothing but mental retardation. Ultimately it must be the umpires who control the situation on the field, both by stepping in to avoid heated exchanges and reporting those who cross the line, rather than closing their ears and hoping it is all forgotten. What we see far too often is a posse of fielders surrounding one batsman, which is more than likely to end in some sort of conflict. That is when the officials should intervene and tell them to bugger off back to their fielding positions and get on with the game. Some similar admonishment for those who overtly question decisions, right or wrong, would not go amiss either.

Yet as much as the Australians trampled all over what was acceptable during the game, the reaction of the Indian board, the BCCI, has been similarly overblown. Make no mistake, India were given not only the short end of the stick but several harsh jabs in the solar plexus with it. But the subsequent actions of their board, effectively removing the umpire they disliked from the next game and engineering a situation whereby their banned player Harbhajan can play anyway, have diluted sympathy. It has revealed yet again, as if we needed reminding, that the ICC do not run the game, rather runs errands for the national boards, especially the one containing all three of its initials. Just a glance at the men in the power-broking positions reveals the problem. BCCI chief Sharad Pawar, a politician; James Sutherland, CE of Cricket Australia, a first-class cricketer but a better accountant; Giles Clarke, the ECB's new managing director, a successful entrepreneur and the man who brokered the current television deal in England; and to top it all, ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed, a lawyer specialising in litigation. That is the direction the game is headed in, if it is not there already - witness the formation of the two new leagues, ICL and IPL, two great stinking cash cows, a further development from our old friend the Champions Trophy, coming to some stadia near Pakistan this October. That is not to say the game does not need a commercial or business side and people who know those onions. But that should not be exclusive; where are the former Test cricketers, those who have a genuine love and knowledge of the game? There is so much untapped potential wisdom and know-how; you can read all about it in the press, but we need a higher proportion of minds tuned to cricket, not business, who can directly influence affairs, not just pass comment. Take a long, hard look at the current state football finds itself in - rich and popular as ever, but at what cost? Football, as someone once sagely said, will always be the most popular game because it is the most simple. And that mass of people involved and interested in the game brings money. Cricket can never hope for half the riches or support the national game possesses. And it should not lose some of the precious things it has in aspiring to achieve what it can never attain.

Next week India and Australia should be back playing cricket again. Say a small prayer to the god of back-to-back Test matches that this was the one Test anywhere in the world this winter not to be scheduled three days after the last one. Hope that the specific grievances between the teams can be forgotten, albeit with the important issues arising from them taken in hand by the authorities. The series as a contest is all but over, with Australia having retained the trophy by ensuring they cannot lose it, but that does not mean there is not the potential for some fine cricket to be played. There was plenty of that at Sydney, and hopefully the players will again prove that the game of cricket can ultimately transcend and rise above the problems it sometimes creates. It is in their hands to lift the mood; and that they can, and must.

Australia's bittersweet 16

2008-01-06T18:14:00.000Z

The just-concluded Syndey Test match, the first of 2008, was one of undercurrent and sub-plot. It was the game which the Australians had to win to equal the record for most consecutive Test victories; realistically, it was a Test India needed to win too, bearing in mind the spin-friendly surface and their precarious position in the series. But as five days of absorbing cricket, replete with displays of class and talent on both sides, were played out, other more invidious themes developed, picking away at the festering scabs of well-worn issues and debates which dog the modern game.

One of these was the standard of umpiring, which was dismal. Errors made by the officials are under ever-more constant scrutiny, especially with advancing levels of technology which allow the casual viewer or fan to act as judge and jury from the comfort of an armchair. Often their importance is overstated; mistakes they may be, but often they are no more than poor excuses for a losing team. However, so numerous were the errors of umpires Bucknor and Benson that India, against whom the majority of the decisions fell, have some reasonable grievance, which they have formalised with an official complaint. It was yet more evidence that Steve Bucknor, once the nonpareil of white-coats, has overstayed his welcome umpiring at this level. That he has been allowed to continue into his 60s baffles; more so the inability of the ICC to give him the polite but firm push necessary. If there have been hints, perhaps his hearing has been as faulty as when it failed to pick up the deflection off the edge of Andrew Symonds' bat on the first day, a noise discernible to almost all at the ground. Symonds went on to add 132 more to his total, not without several more reprieves, including a refusal by Bucknor to refer a decision on a stumping which was tight but probably out. That was the error on which the game hinged; Bucknor's incorrect execution of Rahul Dravid as India scrapped in vain on the last day just added insult.

The saga over the umpiring decisions will continue to perpetuate, but the news that Harbhajan Singh has been banned for three Test matches will promote the issue of how the players conducted themselves during the game. Harbhajan was indicted for a racist slur on Andrew Symonds, a situation no-doubt owing something to the bad-feeling created during the recent one-day series between these teams in India. Symonds was racially abused by the home crowds, and words were shared both on the field and through the press. As ever when such an issue arises with the Australians involved, the question must be posed of to what extent the exchange was conducted on a dual-carriageway, as opposed to the one-way street the ruling would suggest. The combination of Australian intensity, inclined to boil over into overt aggression when they are put under pressure, as they were by the partnership between Singh and Tendulkar; and Harbhajan, a fierce competitor totally lacking in self-restraint, was always likely to cause ructions. The fact that Harbhajan descended into the realm of the racially abusive makes it hard to defend his case, but that should not be allowed to cover-up the part of the Australians in the affair.

Indeed the game as a whole reflected badly on Ricky Ponting and his team in that aspect. They coerced the umpires into giving Sourav Ganguly out when Michael Clarke took a catch close to the ground, one of those which falls into the grey-area of uncertainty technology is unable to illuminate. Ricky Ponting might have fancied himself as a better umpire than the two poor examples on show, but that is no excuse for the finger he brandished at Mark Benson, who meekly followed suit to dispatch Ganguly. Bad umpiring may be "part of the game" as Ponting suggested after the game, but he himself could have shown a far greater appreciation of this maxim, making his displeasure at being incorrectly adjudged leg-before in the first innings clear, disregarding that he had earlier been wrongly saved by the same umpire. If Ponting is willing to indulge the human-aspect of decision making in the game's great tapestry, he would do well not to give the impression he is only happy with it being part of a game favouring his own team.

There was, lest one forget, a fine game of cricket going on amongst all the controversy. Momentum, the ebb and flow of which has ever defined Test cricket, tends to be something of a one-way thing when playing Australia: allow them to take it, and you will likely never see it again. The pleasant aspect of this game, setting it apart from the formulaic victories which formed much of the 16-game run, was the way in which control of the game changed hands on various occasions, and the match was kept interesting throughout the five days, mercifully only touched by the rain which had been expected to be a more significant blight. India took the first trick, a significant achievement considering their seam attack was down to the bare-bones with Zaheer injured and out of the series. But his understudy RP Singh rose to the occasion, knocking over the Australian openers and allowing the spinners to work away at the middle-order, rather than having to toil against an undamaged batting line-up, which was the Indians' problem in the second innings. Symonds, even taking into account his various helpings of luck, played a strong hand, with his finest Test innings, with all the other recognised batsmen back in the quaint SCG pavilion. Brad Hogg and Brett Lee were more than valuable allies, both recording half-centuries and helping Australia to a total in excess of 450 when 200 less would have been an acceptable face-saving score. The inexperience of the Indian seam duo, Singh and Sharma, was shown up as they failed to do to the lower-order what they had the better batsmen and were knocked off their stride by the poor decision making. Nevertheless, the promise of Sharma, in particular, shone through; with all fit he would be some way off first choice, but he was lively and unlucky with some nippy in-duckers to the right-handers and disconcerting bounce from a wiry frame.

Although the Australians largely wasted the new ball, Brett Lee did manage to set-up Wasim Jaffer perfectly, slipping a yorker under his bat having pushed him onto the back foot with some rib-ticklers. With Dravid still mired in the catacombs of his bad form, it looked as if a familiar story would unfold. Fortunately for India, their next man in was strolling out to his batting equivalent of the Elysian fields: VVS Laxman, against Australia, batting at 3, in Sydney. Rarely has a batsman been more primed for success and Laxman fulfilled both the expectation and the need of his team. Dainty yet lethal, his strokes lit up the SCG and enraptured the crowd, no strangers to batting of the highest class. In the age of turbo-bats and Twenty20 cricket, it was a prescient reminder of how the best batsmanship is based around timing, a golden-age throwback which could have had no more fitting stage than Sydney, still boasting it's 19th century Pavilion and Ladies' stand. The departure of Laxman and Dravid in quick succession, however, brought the match back towards Australia, and one more big effort was needed. With Ganguly and Tendulkar together, only one man looked likely: while the Little Master toiled, Ganguly flowed, showing the benefits of his recent run-scoring exploits as he floated to a half-century. But he gave it away, chipping Hogg lamely to mid-on, which Tendulkar did not. His unbeaten 154 was not quite the effort of four years ago, when he abstained from the cover drive, but it had echoes, with the maestro battling indifferent form and the loss of his old dominance. With Harbhajan, he repaid the compliment to Australia of their first-innings resurgence, raising India over 500 when Australia looked ready to finish them at 345-7.

Their chances of victory dissipated with their failure to break into the Australians early, Jaques and Hayden posting a creditable 85 on a pitch which was beginning to bounce erraticaly and offer significant turn. Hayden was the main bulwark, and his alliance with the unperturbed Hussey meant Australia could absorb the early loss of both Clarke and Ponting, for a third single-figure score in four innings. Delaying the declaration on the fifth day until the stroke of lunch appeared overkill, although Ponting can rightfully point to the eventual victory, achieved dramatically as the innocuous left-arm slows of Michael Clarke, enhanced by the now capricious surface, claimed a trio of wickets in the penultimate over to scotch India's hopes of survival. Australia will celebrate long and hard, the record equalled with power to add, especially on Perth's reviving pitch. It is an undesirable outcome for the neutral, killing a series which a fighting-draw would have brought to the boil, while the resentment will run deep for India. Cricket needed this sort of a contest, two high-quality teams slugging it out; it did not need the various indiscipline of both players and officials and steps should be taken to try and ensure that a Test match with as much potential as this one is not so significantly marred again.

Unhappy New Year

2008-01-02T16:12:00.000Z

This time last year England began the new year with the onerous task of trying to avert a situation where they had arrived in Australia as Ashes holders and would leave it only the second team in history to lose every Test of an Anglo-Australian series. They failed, setting the tone for a year in which the one-day side hit rock-bottom, failing to win a game of significance at the World Cup; and the Test side threatened to join it, winning matches only against West Indies and losing proud recent records with defeat to Inda and Sri Lanka. As the world wakes to 2008, the slightly less punishing exercise of selecting a team to tour New Zealand is at hand for the English management, although it is a duty they should not be taking lightly.

There are more problems with this England team than will be reflected in the selected 16, unlikely to be much changed from those who toured Sri Lanka. They have a 'keeper who misses too many important chances; a slip cordon of part-timers; an incumbent No.6 batsman with a Test average of 8; six batsmen who produced just one century in three recent Tests; a first-choice spinner who has lost confidence and for whom there is no viable alternative; and a pair of ill-starred opening bowlers, one in a rut of injuries, the other perpetually luckless. Expect Matt Prior to remain as wicket-keeper, his gutsy batting emphasised and the catching and stumping errors glossed over: unless he cuts the mistakes, Ryan Sidebottom might well be giving himself an economy version of that haircut he's been saving up for. Don't hold out much hope for a recall for James Foster, the most balanced alternative; his medical records have evidently not been updated since the broken arm which lost him his place back in 2002.

Ravi Bopara could retain his squad place, but it would take some serious front for him to be given another chance; Owais Shah might just retire in protest. That is the most likely change in the batting, although this would not be a bad time for David Graveney to go cap in hand to Mark Ramprakash's dancing studio. More likely is a recall for Andrew Strauss, which would be an illogical move. Unless you are of the opinion that Strauss will start scoring runs now he has had a break, nothing in his situation has changed since he was rightly axed at the end of the summer following a year without a century. England could do with his catching ability, although it would be well remembered that, at full strength, Strauss is a third slip. There is also no obvious place for him in the batting, with Cook and Vaughan looking like a happy combination at the top, which Strauss and Cook never were. Shah, by the way, is a slip fielder and will bat at either No.3 or 6, the two positions up for grabs. There is not much scope for change in the bowling ranks, with the pace trio of Hoggard, Sidebottom and Harmison all worthy of selection and Graeme Swann, despite having usurped Panesar in the one-day team, not Test match material as a lone spinner.

England are in an invidious position, and not just because of their No.5 ranking. Even if they win every Test of the six they play against New Zealand home and away in the next six months, it will not bring them much credit. Reality has dawned, finally, but expectation takes longer to recalibrate itself. New Zealand are a poor Test side too, with a paucity of high calibre players. But they will scrap hard and produce a good collective effort as they often do, especially against England. For England it must be an exercise in regaining the winning habit in time to give the South Africans a good challenge in the main event of the 2008 season. Another away win for the one-day side would be much more significant, as the Black Caps (the artists formerly known as the Kiwis) are a good one-day outfit, and will be another good barometer for England's improving side, which should be largely the same as that which surprised the Sri Lankans on their own patch back in October.

At such times it is easy and common to blame the "system", such as it is. And there are problems: in a nutshell there is too much cricket at both domestic and international level, and too many mediocre overseas players are pervading domestic cricket. But the much maligned county game has nevertheless, by one means or another, endowed England with 11 players of Test-class. There is a more than decent crop of young players too, the best of whom now get shipped around the globe to learn how to play in different conditions and develop rounded games. The ECB, blundering and money-driven as it is, does not drop the catches, make batting mistakes or bowl badly. Maybe fatigue is a factor in reduced performance. But while the other lot are holding on to the chances and outperforming them with bat and ball it's a poor excuse.

Australia again

2008-01-01T13:24:00.000Z

When comparing all-conquering teams across generations, the contention most often made is that such equations are fatuous: times, attitudes and the game itself change, evolve, making it impossible to find a completely fair or comprehensive system for judging players of different eras. How, for example. would Don Bradman have done against the West Indies quicks of the 1980s? How would the aforementioned and other plunderers of his day have fared on pitches slightly less favourable than those of the 1930s - depression years for economies; peak times for scoring runs. We shall never know, although it is fun to pontificate.

Even the best players of the same generation are hard to compare: Lara or Tendulkar? Warne or Murali? There will always be a few truly great players in the game, but it is rare that you will get two worldbeating teams in close proximity. But if Ricky Ponting's team win the forthcoming Test at Sydney, they will equal the record for most consecutive Test wins, currently held by a team led by Ponting's predecessor, Stephen Waugh. And with the similarities between the two, perhaps it is possible to judge which of Australia's Sweet 16s is the better.

Waugh's induction into the Australian captaincy was not as easy as his final record and longevity might suggest. He was denied series victory in the Caribbean by the bat of one man, Brian Lara, at the peak of his monumental powers; while rain and the Sri Lankan spinners ensured a 0-1 reverse on the subsequent tour. And it proved to be defeat, rather than stalemate, which bookended the run of victories, as India came form behind to triumph in the titanic encounter of 2001. In contrast, Ricky Ponting has suffered defeat in live games only in the Ashes series of 2005. Since, his team has won 18 of 19 Test matches, with only the South Africans holding out for a draw. So which is the better team?

In terms of appearances, these are the teams which best represent the two winning sides (Colin Miller is replaced by Gillespie, who played two fewer games in that time, in the interest of balance).

1999-2001: Slater, Blewett, Langer, M.Waugh, S.Waugh, Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne, Gillespie, Fleming, McGrath

2005/6-2007/8: Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Symonds, Gilchrist, Warne, Lee, Clark, McGrath

Five players appear in both line-ups, although with only the unimpeachable greats - Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist - in the same role. One significant player, Damien Martyn, falls between the cracks, having appeared sporadically during both runs but with the bulk of his appearances during the period in between. Symbolic, perhaps.

In terms of batting, there seems a clear divide between the relative quality in the top and middle order. The top 3 of the recent side appears far superior, with Hayden and Langer one of the best statistical opening partnerships ever and Ponitng one of the modern greats at No.3. In contrast, only Slater stands out from Waugh's side; Blewett never really made the Test berth his own, while Langer prospered most when moved up to partner Hayden. In the middle-order however, the trend reverses. Stephen Waugh vs. Hussey would make an interesting battle royale, and one dares not declare the winner on paper. Ponting and Clarke, the young buccaneers of both teams, are also well matched at the same stage of their careers. The elegant insouciance of Martyn would be a better complement to Mark Waugh's exquisite talents than Symonds' rougher edges and although the Queenslander increasingly looks like he belongs in the Test side, he does not match up to any of the middle-order trio in Waugh's team. Gilchrist is the trump card for both sides, but the latter stage of his career has seen only glimpses of his swashbuckling best, and he was a more significant presence in the first team.

In the bowling, McGrath and Warne are constants, although their relative contributions differed during the two runs. For McGrath, the years around the turn of the century were peak ones, with his pace still high and bounce and movement maximised. By the post-2005 period, he was still highly effective, but a pile-up of injuries had dulled his menace. For Warne, the same equation of age vs. effectiveness does not apply: during the years 1999-2001, he averaged in excess of 30, with a strike-rate of over 60. Despite never recapturing the high-noon of 2005, he was still near his best during his last year of Test cricket and if anything he was better for Ponting's side, although he was of course instrumental for both teams. Gillespie was in his prime during the first run; pacy and a real exponent of swing and seam, constantly threatening both edges of the bat. In the post-McGrath era, Lee has shown signs of ascending to that level, but his inconsistency for much of the run means he ranks below Gillespie. Stuart Clark continues to operate at a stunningly high-level, and shades Damien Fleming, no spare-part himself. Overall, Waugh's attack is probably superior: Gillespie's pace and Fleming's outswing were perfect foils for McGrath and Warne, and as a unit it surpasses the quartet of the later team.

What remains is to assess the quality of opposition and the relative merits of the leaders themselves. In fairness, the teams Waugh's side came up against were mostly unexceptional: 5 Tests were against a West Indies side reeling from defeat in England and the retirement of Curtley Ambrose; New Zealand and India were easy meat at home and there was a game against Zimbabwe. 11 Tests were on home soil. If Ponting's team defeat India in the forthcoming Test at Sydney, they will equal the record with the same number of home games. On paper, the more recent team's opponents have been stronger. However, the expected challenge of South Africa and England never materialised - home and away in the case of the former - while tours to Australia these days seem to bring about both injury and managerial delusion for visiting sides. Ironically, the closest Australia were pushed was by Bangladesh at Fatullah, where they conceded a first innings lead and sneaked home by three wickets.

Much derided after losing the Ashes in 2005, Ponting has since developed into an assured and successful captain. The tactical shortcomings which produced gems in 2005 such as all fielders on the boundary to Flintoff with the score at about 170-9 at Edgbaston are long gone, while situations such as his handling of Brad Hogg, nursing him through a mauling by Tendulkar at Melbourne, show how he has grown into the role. Perhaps we will never see him pressurised as he was back in 2005 and how he might cope; it is unlikely he would crack as he did then. In a tight corner you would still want Waugh, all intensity, aggressiveness and with an unbranded tattoo on his forehead that screamed WIN. People lament the inability of any other team to give the current Australian side a contest; a match between these two teams would certainly be that, and this bookie is making Waugh odds-on.

The empire strikes back

2007-12-30T16:41:00.001Z

The Edgbaston Test of 2005 was memorable in so many ways that it is hard to pick out just one, or even a couple special moments. For Brett Lee, there at both the beginning and end, the fond memories will be in short supply. There is, of course, the iconic shot of Flintoff consoling him after he took Australia to the brink in vain, but it was his part on the first morning of the Test match which was seen as significant. Marcus Trescothick, who took first ball, would have spent the build-up wondering how he was going to handle the habitual McGrath missile, kicking up off the pitch off a good length. With McGrath injured, what he in fact got was unexpected; Lee tearing in to spray the new ball to the extremity of the popping crease for a Harmisonian wide. He proceeded to be taken for 6.5 runs per over, the Australians as a whole for 5 as England blazed to 400 within 80 overs. This was, so it seemed at the time, propitious: a foreshadow of how Australia would struggle in the post McGrath era, let alone without the services of Warne, who alone kept Australia competitive that day. Now that situation is the reality, and how the Australians have responded. Having disposed of a useful Sri Lankan outfit with some excellent batsmen, they twice dismissed a glittering Indian batting line-up for under 200 in the series-opening Test at Melbourne.

And Lee, whose ability to lead the attack had been oft questioned, has been a genuine spearhead. With the ever-reliable crutch of McGrath removed, Lee has not wilted under the burden, rather blossomed into the stellar opening bowler he has not been for most of his international career. 22 wickets at an average of 16 is his tally for the Australian summer so far, but his influence has been far beyond those excellent figures. He has always had fearsome pace and big heart, but a propensity to be too generous with the freebies diluted his effectiveness. Now he has the control that has long been lacking and which makes him a fearsome prospect, as well as some useful tricks, like his slower-outswinger. No-doubt a few chats with Troy Cooley, the bowling coach who can seemingly do no wrong, have helped, but it appears that responsibility has been the real catalyst for his improvement. Perhaps we should have seen it coming; Lee's record in ODI cricket, where he has been pack-leader for a while, is exemplary. The last home series against India was not a happy one for Lee: his bowling average inflated past 30 where it has stayed ever since, and he was discarded for over a year. Four years on and he looks in the mood to set the record straight and finally bring that average back into the hallowed ground of the 20s.

But shorn of its inimitable double-act, this current Australian attack is far from a one-man show. Stuart Clark continues to squeeze the life from batsmen in a manner not seen since the mid-late 90s pomp of McGrath and Pollock. His habitual length is one batsmen can play neither back nor forward to with ease, while his consistency and ability to get just enough movement off the pitch means that taking liberties is a perilous exercise. In the first innings at Melbourne he showed another talent by giving an exemplary exhibition of reverse swing bowling, another sign of the Cooley influence. He maintains an average of under 20, an economy of 2.5 and strike rate of 45; figures for the Gods. And he doesn't get the new ball. That privilege is afforded to the tyro Mitchell Johnson, a left-armer from Queensland with a useful penchant for blasting out the big-name Indians. Despite useful early returns, one senses his Test career has yet to catch fire, and he has tended to waste the new ball a bit, bowling too far wide of the right hander's off-stump early on. But a combined economy rate of 1.66 from the Melbourne Test shows he is no leaky tug and the initial impression has been positive, although Shaun Tait will continue to breath down his neck if he can continue his excellent domestic form.

Liberated from McGrath and Warne, as was the case in 2003-4, the glitterati of the Indian batting line-up might have been sensing some heavy scoring on the same plane as that tour. But they got both their batting order and attitude wrong, errors which the Australians were only too happy to capitalise on. Poor Rahul Dravid, at his lowest ebb for a long while, was coerced into occupying the one position with which he has never been comfortable, opening the batting. Those who selected the team certainly got their comeuppance for trying to have it both ways: Dravid was beyond funereal in his approach, killing the Indian first innings and the chance Kumble had worked so hard to fashion on the first day. Yuvraj, in whose name the whole mess was contrived, flopped with a combined total of 5. Bowling Australia out for 343 was about as good as India could have hoped for, especially from 135-0. But Dravid (5 from 66) and Jaffer (4 from 27) allowed the Australians to impose such a fierce stranglehold that only Tendulkar, at his imperious best, and Ganguly, in the form of his life, could escape. Well as the Australians bowled, it was the Indian openers who placed the rope around their own team's neck. Moving Laxman to No.3 was a decisive and correct move; what a pity that the resultant shuffling of deckchairs was marshaled as if by the captain of the Titanic.

Surely Virender Sehwag, form notwithstanding, must be given the chance to inject some life into the Indian top order and take it to the Australians. With Sehwag, anything can happen, and India have a better chance in that lottery than the dirge-like predictability of their Melbourne demise. That would also give Dravid the chance to regroup at No.6: despite his bad form, he is one of India's finest ever and it is him they should be accommodating, not Yuvraj, whose only Test centuries have come on flat pitches against even flatter Pakistani bowling attacks. For if the Indians continue on their present path, Australia will both pass Steve Waugh's record and chalk up yet another whitewash in a home series. And judging by the empty MCG stands after the traditional Boxing day crush, even the home fans are getting bored by the absence of a contest.

England series ratings

2007-12-23T22:52:00.000Z

Vaughan 6: Moved back to opener, at times he recaptured the sort of elegance and poise which made him one of the few modern batsmen to dominate Australia on their own patch five years ago. But he did not manage a century, albeit in unfortunate circumstances at Colombo, and his misjudgement of Vaas' in-ducker was crass and began the slide to 81 all out at Galle. For the second consecutive series he found himself out-done as captain, and the team lacked leadership in the field. Having proved himself adept at manipulating a happy ship, he must now show some Hussain-style generalship to get his team going again.

Cook 7: Recovered laudably after he was twice trussed-up by Chaminda Vaas in the first over at Kandy. A pair of half-centuries in the next Test and finally England's first ton of the tour at the last opportunity mean he can celebrate a birthday he shares with, amongst other illustrious company, Marcus Trescothick, a man whose record Cook will hope to emulate. He will be just 23, and with his 7th century behind him is still on track for the greatness he has been long-earmarked for.

Bell 6: He seems at times a peerless batsmen; comfortable facing both pace and spin, possessing the timing and lightness of touch which make his strokeplay a joy to watch. The defence is sure, and has a calm sense of permanence. Then, from nowhere, he errs - a lazy wave of the bat outside off, a weak attempt to hit over the top or a meek run-out. And he is gone, airy dominance rudely interrupted by an unseemly downfall. Were this to occur past 150, no-one would bat an eyelid and the plaudits his lucid play deserves would flood in. But, Bangladesh excepted, Bell has never been past 150; batting at 3, he has not even made it to three figures. He should have this series, and possibly just one time is what is needed to break the mental block, if that is the problem. We will wait, for if he can achieve what is in him, it will be worth it.

Pietersen 3: Asian tours are his bugbear - the three he has been involved in are the only occasions on which he has averaged less than 40 over the course of a series. Here it was under 30 and not even a half-century to his name. Considering his improvement as a player since England's last sub-continent jaunts in the post-Ashes winter, to do worse than he had then was a major disappointment. One flaw is against the short ball, which when accurately and quickly aimed exposes his lack of a cogent back-foot game; his long levers mean he can play most bowling off the front-foot, but not even he can manage that against the fastest men. Comparisons to Viv Richards have been frequent, but one thing one cannot picture is him recreating the iconic image of Richards rocking back to hook Botham into the Oval crowd. When the short ball does not get him, it seems, over-confidence will and he failed to adapt his on-the-up style of play to the slower pitches which was the problem two years ago. He will recover, and should plunder the New Zealand seamers, while he will relish his first Test encounter with the country of his birth. But for England's foremost batsman, their best against spin and big-match player, this was one hell of a letdown.

Collingwood 4: Worked well on the fringes, but England needed more from a batsman whose low backlift and mental fortitude has made him a success on the subcontinent before. Not perfect in the slips, they miss his influence in the outfield, while his bowling could perhaps have been used more. As a senior play and one-day captain, he must shoulder some blame for the team's general direction and lacklustre performances in the field too.

Bopara 1: For turning up. 42 was not his highest score but sum total of runs from five innings. Selection nightmares are rarer than they once were, in the age of central contracts, and this was more one of circumstance than character. But to plump for a man who, despite manifest promise, has just one international half-century in one-day cricket and plays a bit-part role in that team has been shown up to be a major aberration. Still Bopara is a talented player and a scrapper, so to flop completely was surprising. He will come again, but the severity of his failure and England's need for every run in lean times means his Test career could be postponed for a while now.

Prior 5: The batting deserved 7, the 'keeping about 3. He showed his batting prowess and taste for battle with a fifty each in the first two Tests, while he held out for 100 balls at the end of the Galle match. But six chances went begging on his watch, in a series when England were stumbling across wickets like oases in deserts. With a new slip cordon bedding in, a sure catcher behind the sticks is sorely needed, and Prior cannot represent England again until he has got his 'keeping up to standard. England will want him back when he has, unless Alec Stewart's true successor pops up in the meantime, for his batting is what they need in a number 7. Sadly the 'keeping is something they could only afford were Prior pulling his weight in the top 5.

Sidebottom 5: Not only were his sins in a former life significant enough to have made him wait six years for a second international cap, but they evidently merit that the punishment should continue now he has made it back. It must have been Matt Prior's doppelganger he did terrible things to, for the wicket-keeper is costing him wickets almost on a regular basis. Still, there is a sense that he lies in an uneasy no-man's land between county and Test cricketer, and worthy toil will sustain only a short career without success. Maybe it is the bad luck, more probably he is not quite up to the task. Once again he has done enough to ensure England will want another look, but he will need to start making wickets tumble in the more favourable climes of New Zealand and the English spring. His batting deserves a special mention: in a higher position than he turns out for Nottinghamshire, he showed a remarkable application and a tenacity which also typify his bowling.

Hoggard 6: There was a glimpse of the real Hogard at Kandy, subcontinental king-of-the-swingers, as he cleaned out the Sri Lankan top-order on the first day to set up England's biggest opening of the series. Thereafter it was a case of the crocked Hoggard who has stumbled through 2007 managing just three Tests, as he missed the second with his back injury and was played, in desperation, but not rude health, at Galle. After a run of 40 consecutive Tests, the bad-luck has set in with a venegance and England will be fervently praying that 2008 finds Hoggard well. In their current strife, they cannot afford to lose him.

Harmison 6: No great deeds, but there was a noticeable fortitude in his bowling which had been lacking previously, and being shelved for the first game seemed to galvanise him, which was probably part of the idea. At least consolidated his position in the team, and he now has the prospect of some more helpful conditions in New Zealand and back home. His contribution over the next three series should be a barometer of how far he can go, but for the first time in a while, it is not a hand-wringing exercise to summarise his efforts.

Panesar 3: England's leading wicket taker with 8; their biggest disappointment too, by a more significant margin. As the lone spinner, he was expected to, at the very least, plug up one end and create pressure for the seamers. Some enticing aggression on his part would have been nice too. England got neither, just a desperately insipid set of performances, with the last two games yielding just a single wicket apiece. The pitches turned, but it is increasingly evident that Panesar needs bounce to be a real threat, and that was out of the question on these surfaces. But such a low return in a place where inferior English spinners have prospered in the recent past was a confounding experience for player and fans alike. Monty should not pass up on the chance to beard Daniel Vettori when the team travel to New Zealand, for he is at something of a crossroads, and England need more from their spinner, for whom there is no viable alternative.

Anderson 2: For the second successive winter, faith was invested in him at the beginning of a series and he showed once more that Test cricket is not his arena. Peversely he seems to be even worse when not leading the attack, as he did in the summer against India, and he is just not cut out to be a third seamer in Test cricket. Potentially there could be a time in the future when he will take the new ball and do well. But for now, his international appearances should be confined to the pyjama team.

Broad 4: Finally afforded his debut in unforgiving circumstances at Colombo, he can be satisfied despite just the sole wicket, although it confirmed he is not quite ready for Test cricket, even with his strong character going a long way to bridge the gap. The action is just too flimsy, the pace too insignificant for him to prosper as a hit-the-deck merchant. But those are things which advancing experience will remedy, and his time cannot be too far off.

Time to acknowledge reality's bite

2007-12-22T22:20:00.000Z

It is September 2005; England have just clinched a momentous and monumental Ashes series with an epic final-day innings from new star Kevin Pietersen at a sun-dappled Oval. They have a pace attack as good as possibly any English one down the years; an all-rounder who has finally cast off the Botham shadow; and an instinctive and inspirational captain. It is a young team, one which should remain together until at least the next home Ashes rubber, by which time they could well be the first English team to dominate Test cricket for decades. 28 Tests later and players, pundits and paying fans can only reflect on a dream which lies in pieces and a two year stretch in Tests which has been as bitter as dismal as the run preceding it was sweet. If the 5-0 whitewash last winter showed how good Australia were, the subsequent results have illustrated England's deficiencies. Six players remain from the 2005 team, but that dog is long dead; the only commonality between then and now is the last digit of the year which will be raked over again and again until England find more success. Just 1 win in 15 away Tests since then says it all; a fall to 5th in the rankings is a reflection of true standing. Were the teams below them not so mediocre, it would be a generous one.

In isolation, the just-concluded series was bleak for England. There are worse results than the 0-1 reverse they leave behind them in Sri Lanka, but it was achieved ingloriously and does not do justice to the Sri Lankans, deprived of a further win by the torrential showers at Galle. Only once did England bowl out their opposition, and that when the ball swung and with their key bowler Hoggard fit to exploit it. Three other times they were little more than spectators as the Sri Lankan batsmen piled on big scores, three times in excess of 400 while England's best was 350, and that on the featherbed pitch at Colombo. Fielding was beyond sloppy, with catches going down all along a makeshift slip-cordon; the team mindset seemed rooted on the back-foot; leadership was lacking. As is customary with English debacles away from home, the denouement arrived with a stupendous batting collapse - 81 all out, a veritable recovery from 33-6. Muralitharan bowled four overs, for just one wicket; Chaminda Vaas, who took four, had earlier made 90.

England's 11 representatives are not poor, untalented or unsuited to Test cricket. But they do not function well as a unit, illustrated by their shoddy fielding and general lack of useful intensity in the field; buzzing the ball back to Matt Prior whenever the opportunity presents itself does not threaten, or intimidate batsmen, especially not the likes of Sangakkara or Jayawardene. England just end up with a tired 'keeper who has a tendency to drop the important chances when they come around. Pressure is created by tight bowling, sharp fielding and ensuring that the batsman himself starts to have doubts. Almost worse is the lack of opportunism - England often put themselves in an advantageous position at the beginning of Tests - they did it here, and even in at least three Tests last winter. But they all too rarely seize on these opportunities and take control of games at crucial junctures, while that is the point at which the best teams make sure to tighten the noose. That is why they have won just two of eight series since 2005; there is no killer instinct, and, engendered by that lack of success, no belief.

In contrast Sri Lanka, who have come far since these two teams last met in 2006, almost in direct proportion to England's regression, were highly impressive. They rely heavily on a small core of players, which is why they made no impression against Australia, but after riding England's mini-wave at the beginning of the series, they soon assumed dominance. In Sangakkara and Jayawardene they have two batsmen of the highest class and skill - both are scintillating players when the mood takes them, but also have the ability, sorely lacking in their English counterparts, to bat for days at a time without playing excessive or risky shots. They do not hold the world record partnership in Test cricket for nothing, and what were by their standards brief examples of their longevity and talent were enough to dispose with England. The bowling, as ever, was led by the duo of Vaas and Muralitharan; much was made of the former's decline and it was even mooted that his 100th Test at Kandy could be his last. The best return by any seamer in the series dispelled that notion, and the good showing of understudy Welegedera in the last Test shows that his retirement, when it comes, will not mean batsmen are free from inquisition by left-arm seam.

With the coaching team having just been uprooted and a review completed last summer, England must look to themselves for improvement. They should start with the fielding, which was a major hindrance to the efforts of the bowlers, with numerous chances spurned. It does not help that they have lost all the primary members of their once-reliable slip-cordon: Trescothick who seemed never to drop one, Flintoff's bucket hands and Strauss who used the opener's temperament which makes many of his kind good close fielders. Now Ian Bell, an excellent short-leg and passable gully, is in primary position, while Collingwood is wasted in a catching position when England really need him to patrol the off-side and threaten batsmen who risk short singles. Matt Prior again, had a torrid time of it with the gloves, a pity, as he had shown his batting prowess with a pair of fighting half-centuries, and was again looking the man England have been looking for at 7. Four catches down and two missed stumpings, however, might worry a top 'keeper if accrued during an entire year of Test cricket and although England could use his batting, they cannot afford his profligacy with precious chances. That there are clear flaws in his footwork and positioning surely must mean the selectors send him back to his county to work on his 'keeping.

There is delusion throughout English sport, and cricket fans are but minor offenders when compared to their football compatriots. Even after any aspirations to be the best in the near future went for a burton with the Ashes whitewash, there was hope that they could consolidate on their No.2 ranking. Fixtures against India and Sri Lanka were excellent opportunities. England have failed twice, and must, along with the supporters, recognise their new ranking as a true reflection of the situation. It is not a time for heads to roll, but some serious admonishment is needed - no-one doubts that the majority of this team has what is needed to succeed at Test level, so it must be openly questioned why they are not, individually and collectively. What will follow is a pair of series home and away against New Zealand, themselves enduring a barren time of it in Tests and a lesser outfit than England flattened in early summer 2004. They would hope to do so again, but now is the time to stop assuming and start proving themselves . The Ashes team has gone, and England have lost time trying to recapture it. And before endeavouring to climb the mountain from which they have slid so ignominiously, they must first ensure they are pointing in the right direction.

New Australia face the ghost of Christmas past

2007-12-17T23:02:00.000Z

The status quo of Australian dominance has been established and adhered to almost unremittingly for a good decade now. What has changed over that period is the team which has looked likeliest to knock them off their perch: in the late 90s it was South Africa, who had bowling fire from Donald and Pollock, Afrikaaner grit in the shape of Kirsten, Kallis and McMillan and the inspirational leadership of the then untarnished and much loved Hansie Cronje. Yet in the first 18 Tests post-readmission they managed just 4 victories, doing no better than a pair of drawn series home and away in 1993-4. England did manage to produce a rare victory over the Australians in 2005, but their worth as rivals can be measured by the result in the subsequent series.

By far their most interesting challengers have been India. The teams of Mark Taylor and Steven Waugh suffered a trio of series losses there in the late 90s and 2000; it was dubbed as the "final frontier" for Waugh in 2000-1, the last place left for him and his to conquer. Eventually they did, in an insipid affair four years on, but Waugh could only, Moses-like, watch on from afar. But as much as the series three seasons ago failed to excite, the series preceding it were awe-inspiring, sitting alongside the 2005 Ashes as recent encounters for the ages. There was the great Indian revival in 2001 at Kolkata; the epoch-making all-day partnership between Laxman and Dravid; Harbhajan's 13 wickets; the Australian captain bitten and forever scared of again enforcing the follow-on. Back on Australian soil next time around it was the series of the bat; double-centuries all-round and mammoth totals not precluding breathtaking and tense cricket. Australia may boast forever about last winter's reverse of England's dominant position at Adelaide, but it was India who showed them the way, winning the Test there in late 2003 after the Australians had posted 550 first up. Ponting had over 200 of those, yet still lost; not to be denied, he got 257 more next game and this time won. An epic struggle climaxed in a momentous occasion at Sydney, featuring Waugh's farewell, Tendulkar's defiance of his bad form and ultimately a worthy stalemate. Four years on, it still resonates.

Hardly surprising then that the forthcoming series, beginning with the traditional Boxing Day game at Melbourne, should at least create a frisson of anticipation, even if it is muted in comparison to the grandstanding which preceded the previous encounters. On paper, there should be no contest: India are in a transient phase, caught between the titans of the previous generations and the thrusters of this one, led by a short-term captain and with several of their mainstays in questionable form. Australia, on the other hand, have won all but one of their 16 Test matches since England's summer in 2005 and are knocking on the door of the record for consecutive victories set by Waugh's Australia. Yet, convincing as their mini-series victory over Sri Lanka last month was, they still have a way to go before assuaging the doubts over their new-age team sans Warne and McGrath. Taking into account recent history, the makers of which are still numerate on both sides, if any team can probe the fissures, surely it is India.

Australia's batsmen are almost certain to make good runs, so it will be when India's take guard that the games will be decided. They have the clout to make Australia's green-tinged attack suffer, especially in the absence of Stuart MacGill. The home selectors are in a quandary over whether to bring in the next man down on the spinning list or draft in a fourth paceman in Shaun Tait. Going in without a slow bowler is always a risk, especially considering the current state of Australian pitches and India's batting stock, but there remains the thought that the wristy nous of those Indian bats would devour Hogg, who has an exemplary ODI record but averages the best part of 40 with the ball in first-class cricket. In Tendulkar and Dravid they have two batsmen of the highest talent and experience, recent form dips notwithstanding. Behind them come Ganguly, in the form of his life; the destructive Yuvraj, hard to drop after his century in their last Test and a man by the name of Vangipurappu Venkata Sai Laxman (remember the name). Laxman is one the Australians fear - he defied them with his epic 281 at Kolkata and averaged over 80 in the 2003-4 series. India should bat him at 3, where he has performed best and will carry the greatest presence, a move which would also take pressure off Draivd. Another who has worried the Australians before is Virender Sehwag, who sneaked into the touring party through the back-door but may well start anyway and probably should. Better they throw their best at the Australian's than die wondering with the likes of Karthik and Gambhir.

Pace bowling will be a crucial factor on both sides and could be the sole leaning of Australia's attack. They have a significant edge in the department, with Brett Lee looking sharp against Sri Lanka and Mitchell Johnson making a good impression. Still, they will be tested, and whatever combination they decide on, two of the four will have single-figure Test experience. India have plenty of options, although the excitable Sreesanth will not be one of them. Zaheer Khan is the pack-leader, although whether it will be RP Singh, Irfan Pathan or Ishant Sharma to back him up is up for debate. Anil Kumble should enjoy the bounce in the Australian pitches and has had some success there previously, with a pair of five-wicket hauls last time out. Harbhajan is another who has a happy history against the Australians, albeit almost exclusively at home, and is the only option as a second spinner, although that is an unlikely balance.

As ever, the collective dollar is on the Australians; India have the players to effect an upset, but probably not the bowlers and they will need a bolter amongst their secondary seamers if they are to win. More than anything, cricket needs a real hum-dinger, just as these sides have produced twice already this decade. Australians are starting to think it's all a bit too easy, and the rest of the world will watch on, hoping that the dying embers of a special generation of Indian cricketers can leave the dominant Aussies shaken and the collective melting pot stirred.

England still showing vital signs

2007-12-14T11:18:00.000Z

It is not often that one could describe as uneventful a day which featured Muttiah Muralitharan twirling away at English batsmen on a fifth-day home pitch. That he was rendered toothless in such circumstances says all that is needed about the pitch; the uneven bounce and pace which saw a combined second innings total of 155-16 in 2001 and England's third heaviest ever defeat in 2003 has gone the way of all life and the heavy roller. Not much happened over the course of five days which surprised or excited, Sidebottom's early spark and Sangakkara's swift exit excepted. England did not get enough runs first up, then conceded too many in return; Jayawardene racked up his eighth Test century on his home patch before the match fizzled out into a rain-hastened stalemate. Jayawardene might have declared earlier than he did late on the fourth day, but when he said post-match that his side would have struggled to bowl England out in two days on that pitch, he was not joking.

The focus now turns to the decisive game at Galle, which has always been the most important fixture of the tour, regardless of cricket. It will be staging its first Test since the tsunami almost three years ago wiped out the old ground along with a good deal of the South-Asian coastline. It had seen just 11 Tests over 6 years, yet was still one of the most eulogised cricket venues around the world, surrounded by the Indian ocean and famous Dutch fort, which amongst other invaders withstood the TMS commentary team in 2001 when the authorities denied the BBC entry to the ground. Unfortunately for England, the fortress is symbolic as well as a survivor of the tidal-wave - Sri Lanka have lost just twice in those 11 games. However, the pitch is a totally new one, and no-one seems to know how it will play, although England can probably expect something on the slow side. They will hope that the unsettled soil will offer something to their seamers, who should be bolstered by the return of Matthew Hoggard, bowling unhindered in the nets following his back problems.

Yet while a sporting pitch is what England need, they will not relish a minefield, which would play into the hands of the more savvy Sri Lankans and specifically Muralitharan. Michael Vaughan was talking about the necessity of first-innings centuries before the Colombo match and the theme had not changed five days later. He is the man best placed to provide one, in excellent touch after he built on a cathartic return to opening at Kandy with a pair of fluent fifties at the SSC. Vaughan's conversion rate is so good he has as many centuries as halves (17) and he will not be satisfied by letting the ratio tilt unfavourably should he get in next time. Ian Bell added a third half-century of the tour, his ninth batting at 3; his first century there still awaits him. Ravi Bopara was not afforded the luxury of a second knock or indeed a second ball to face after Malinga cleaned him out first up on day 1. England had reason to select him at the outset, although it was a close call; with his bowling rarely utilised even with the opposition racking up some big totals, England may have been regretting the omission of Owais Shah, a better bet for runs. They will probably decide against a volte-face, but at the same time the equation of Bopara's all-round usefulness versus Shah's superiority as a batsman ought to be revisited in the light of the series so far.

Elsewhere, there have been some encouraging signs for England. Steve Harmison toiled manfully on the dead pitch and in a manner many would have doubted he was capable of. England can now select him for the next game without inhibition and the help he gets from Galle's mystery pitch could be a decisive factor. In a debut match which could not have much crueler, Stuart Broad showed up well too, maintaining composure and leaving with his maiden wicket as recompense. Hoggard's expected return means he will have to wait for the more favourable climes of New Zealand or home for his second go, however. England are down to their last chance on this tour, having finally lost the 2nd place in the rankings which the last two tours here helped springboard them too. Hard work will be needed to climb the mountain again, and a symbolic victory at Galle's rebuilt stadium would be a decisive way to start.

England searching for their special one

2007-12-10T18:32:00.000Z

Duncan Fletcher had his England bubble, and Peter Moores has his buzzwords. Communication, ruthlessness, vibrancy all the sorts of words thrown about so frequently that one almost begins to long for the days of putting one's hand up, stepping up to the plate and coming to the party. Stop wasting chances might be the mantra better suited to this current tour; Nasser Hussain's team certainly didn't turn things round six years ago by waxing lyrical about the positive energy in Graham Thorpe's forward defensive.

In what all the England players and coaches have recognised as a scrap, a challenge and a sweat, they cannot afford to let advantageous positions slip as they have done so far. They lost in Kandy having bowled the home side out for less than 200 on a goodish batting pitch; they failed to make the most of a great start from the openers (not without a share of ill-luck) this game; while on a pitch which even the great Muttiah Muralitharan has lamented as a bowler's graveyard, they could not break the Sri Lankans at a crucial juncture today. 25-2 with the ultra-prolific Sangakkara back in the hutch is the sort of point at which the critical mass of a Test match changes. England needed someone to back up the sterling opening created by Sidebottom, who showed he remains a new ball threat even when the ambient conditions do not favour him. But the efforts of his colleagues were thwarted by the the assured blade of Jayawardene and the blunting, energy sapping one of Michael Vandort, who took the example of the like-minded Cook from the first day. England did not necessarily do anything wrong, or fall down on the job, but to win Test matches here, especially on such a placid surface, requires something more than fulfilling basic expectations.

With Sri Lanka still 250 runs behind there is still a chance, but the window is a narrow one and it will not help that the ball is all but 40 overs old. Once again, much will be down to the left-arm spin of Monty Panesar, who was insipid in his six overs. He returned 6 wickets to Murali's 9 at Kandy, a respectable ratio, but there is still the feeling that England need more from their premier spinner if they are going to win games here. Seamers have a big role to play on the subcontinent; they might, as Matthew Hoggard did, wreck an innings when the ball swings, but more likely, as with Sidebottom today, a gap will be opened up with the new ball. It is then the job of the spinner to work away, tease and beguile a middle-order playing without the freedom of runs on the board. Panesar is a fine spinner, and one who does not invite criticism; however, his staple diet of flat, accurate balls is too mundane for Asian batsmen on their own patch. He can spin the ball more, and should at least experiment with variations of flight and angle. Accustomed to a supporting role at home, where he is a brilliant foil for the seamers, Monty must now acknowledge that he is the main man and start bowling like one.

There were many reasons why England were able to turn around the deficit this current team is facing in 2001, not least a fierce team spirit. But they also won because Thorpe batted with psychopathic intent, Gough bowled like a Trojan and Hussain led like a man possessed. England can be invigorated, intense, focused, vibrant and ruthless like the ever-ready men their coach rightly wants them to be. But to pull it out of the hat here, someone's going to have to be bloody brilliant too.

Time for heroes

2007-12-07T22:31:00.000Z

It will be of little consolation to England that the Test match just gone, which has left them in the invidious position of one down with two to play in the series, was a rare gem, a prescient reminder of the intrigue and excitement the 5-day game can provide following a recent proliferation of dull, one-sided cricket around the world. On a pitch which suited the English seamers on the first day, Murali on the second and batsmen thereafter, England did considerably better than had been expected of them in terms of runs on the last day, doing enough to suggest that better early efforts with both bat and ball in the second innings might have swung the contest their way. They came close to repeating their escape of the last tour here, when Vaughan's century and some doughty resistance from the unlikely duo of Read and Batty prevented Sri Lanka by a single wicket from sealing victory. However, like the roof of the dilapidated Asgiriya stadium, the top order came crashing down on the fifth day, with the first five wickets going down before the first hundred runs had been posted, leaving a task which Bell and Prior came very close to surmounting until stumbling on the final block in form of the second new ball.

Unlike their last visit to Kandy, England were very much in the game, but despite nice efforts from Bell, twice, and Jayasuriya in his last Test innings, only one batsman truly mastered the deceptive conditions, playing the significant and match-deciding innings. Even in the context of the recent achievements of Mohammed Yousuf, who eclipsed Viv Richard's record for Test runs in a year and Michael Hussey, currently making a more concerted effort to deserve the title Bradmanesque than any other since the man himself, the batting exploits of Kumar Sangakkara stand out. Even before his recent rise to the stratosphere of run-scoring, Sangakkara was a highly impressive cricketer - silky batsman, skilled gloveman, and one of the most eloquent players on the international circuit. Now he has handed the gauntlets over to Prasanna Jayawardene, who himself looked an extremely nifty practitioner, one can add the fact that runs flow as freely from his bat as revered utterances from the microphone of Richie Benaud, or sensitive personal details from the Home Office. Unhindered by keeping duties, he averages 96.40 from 22 Tests (Hussey 86.18 from 18 in all, Bradman 102.48 from his first 22); on current form, he should breeze past the 1000 run mark for the calendar year in just his sixth Test, with 4 centuries and an average of 184.20 so far. The rest of the world can but offer a silent prayer of thanks that Gilchrist never considered giving up the gloves.

However, as one career blossoms and writes itself into the annals for perpetuity, another, that of Sanath Jayasuriya, his position in cricketing history long since secured, came to a dignified and fitting ending. That is to say he pummelled the crap out of England's bowlers in the second innings, took an important wicket with his left-arm spin and was generally the main pillar of support for the titanic duo of Sangakkara and Muralitharan. His statistics - Test average flush on 40, ODI one of just over 30 - indicate significant, but not special prowess; his feats however, will be remembered as fondly and seriously as those of the very greatest. Many of them have been against England, yet watching him was always a joy, regardless of the dismantling he would be effecting on your team's bowling attack. He retires as a 38 year-old who still hits the ball as hard and sweet as any player in his prime, with a sackful of memories, legions of fans and basking in the glory of one last thrash, the fitting codicil he penned for himself by slaying all six balls of a James Anderson over for boundaries.

Jayasuriya departs with a job technically only half-done, but one whose completion England can only prevent by functioning at twice their normal level of performance. Crushingly it seems they will be deprived of their slickest bowling practitioner, Matthew Hoggard, whose run of injury woe continued with a recurrence of the back problem which incapacitated him in the summer. In his absence, the England attack looks both green and threadbare. Yet, lurking in the background, remains the one link England still have to the attack which catpulted them to pre-eminence two very long years ago. Sadly since then , Steven Harmison's connection with the bowler he used to be has grown ever fainter. But England have no choice. Neither, in fact, does Harmison, if he really wants his Test career to last much longer. England have supported, nursed and defended Harmison in the face of increasing public indignation since his Ashes debacle last year. Harmison, who can be the big bully but craves the support of his cornermen, must now dig deep and find the ability to lead an attack one would expect in the veteran of 54 Tests. Sidebottom will plug away accurately, something he can be relied on for even when the wickets dry up, as they have and may continue to do here; it is Harmison who must provide the inspiration, aggression and threat. It is time he stopped being afraid of himself and the game and started instilling some fear into his opposition, as he did in his pomp in 2004.

James Anderson was unlucky in the first Test; he also went at 5.5 an over in the second innings and would be fortunate to retain his place. Stuart Broad is champing at the bit for the Test debut he has been close to since the summer; England have already backed youth in this series once by selecting Ravi Bopara, and Broad is a significantly tougher nut than his lithe frame suggests. Unless the wise-men see a pitch at Colombo which merits the inclusion of Graeme Swann as a second spinner, they must unleash twin totems Broad and Harmison. England are left with an ask which could not be much harder if Arjuna Ranatunga himself were pulling the strings of fate; they have won from here before, two tours ago, with sterling performances from the seam bowlers, spin duo and a few doughty batsmen. For Thorpe, read Pietersen; for Croft, Panesar; for Gough and Caddick, Sidebottom and Harmison. For the knowledge of that outcome and its ramifications, substitute hope and apprehension. And pray the English bats hold firm, the bowlers avoid further injury and the umpires' trigger fingers are judicious. Get grafting.

Into the fire

2007-11-29T18:03:00.000Z

Sri Lanka, often cited as the most difficult place after to Australia to tour, has been a significant stopping point for England in the recent past. The two previous tours have both in a way been beginnings for a team which eventually became a unit good enough to overcome the best in the world. The success of Nasser Hussain's team in 2001 was hugely important in giving confidence to a team which had little previous cause for it, coming off the back of success against the West Indies and in Pakistan. After misjudging his first tour to South Africa, that was the winter which set the standard for Duncan Fletcher's reign. Almost three years later, Michael Vaughan's side found themselves on the wrong end of the result; that was his first tour away as captain, and under his leadership not another series was lost in the 18 months leading up to the Ashes series. Therefore at a time when the Test team is in flux and their results have begun to flag, it seems prescient that they should return to Sri Lanka as Michael Vaughan and Peter Moores, on his first winter placement as coach, endeavour to straighten out a slightly messy situation with the spectre of Australia looming two summers hence.

England have not had much luck since their zenith in 2005. Injury has denied them the influence of many senior pros and decimated a potent bowling arsenal, the tattered flag of which can now be raised only by Matthew Hoggard on a consistent basis. However, they have not played too much good cricket either, and have done nothing particularly worthy of shouting about for the past two years. Having had a summer, which by dint of containing their first home series defeat for six years must be regarded as a disappointment, to take stock, coach Peter Moores can now truly begin to mould a team, something England have patently not been since 2005. He has not stood on ceremony, and correctly wielded the axe on Andrew Strauss, reeling from the relentless schedule and the demons brought about by a long run of poor form. Steve Harmison has also been served effective notice that his selection is now very much conditional, while the absence of the team's only genuine all-rounder Flintoff is a reality which coach and captain will probably have to learn to live with.

Nevertheless, the batting unit is fairly settled, with just one area of debate. Alistair Cook will have the chance to form a new opening partnership after his alliance with Strauss never yielded the sort of returns England had become accustomed to over recent years. It is perhaps not ideal that Michael Vaughan should vacate the No.3 position, an important slot for which a player of stature is required, but on the other hand he should relish a return to opening, where he has achieved his best for England and can set the tone. Ian Bell will aim to fill the void at first drop; now a player of relative experience, Bell has to prove he can prosper in the position which has been long ordained for him, as he has started to do for the one-day team. The middle-order will be crucial: Kevin Pietersen is England's best player of spin, Paul Collingwood the man with the best sub-continental pedigree. Both must score heavily if England are to have a chance. Leaving out Mark Ramprakash was a debatable decision, but does give England the chance to make two forward-looking calls rather than fudging the issue with a short-term selection. One of the those is allowing Bell the chance to bat up the order, the other is to open up a place for another batsman in his old position at 6. Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara are the contenders, and it is a close decision which two warm-up games has not made any easier. Shah offers experience in county cricket, a good game against spin bowling and the knowledge that another chance is probably what he deserves after an enterprising debut. Bopara impressed more in the practice matches, batting more aggressively, while his bowling also made a mark and he brings top-drawer fielding and boundless energy to the cause. Shah was ahead before the tour and probably did enough in the two games to make his name the head-on-block option. However, there is a real chance that Bopara's exuberance in all aspects of the game will win him the vote. What the selectors must consider is the relative worth of the two as batsmen, their primary role, and also the need to have a second medium-pace back-up bowler with Collingwood already filling that role.

Three of four bowling places have been already allocated, with Sidebottom and Panesar already inked in, and Hoggard bowling himself back into form, and the team to victory, in the second warm-up fixture. However the identity of the third seamer - the bouncy nature of the Kandy pitch means it is almost certain Graeme Swann will not squeeze in - will have been one argued long in the selectorial debates. Despite a good haul of wickets in his domestic stint in South Africa, is is obvious that Harmison is still in the mire which has been his resting place for a few years now. In what promises to be a real battle, England cannot afford to have Harmison and his luggage, including a back-injury which has incapacitated him again recently and means his selection would be an unwelcome risk. Nevertheless, the feeling persists that England need someone who offers his pace and bounce to have an impact on the series, and Kandy of all the grounds should suit him. With Anderson, there seems the real danger that England will field a seam attack which is short on variety; one could go on at length about the differences between the three, but the reality is that three fast-mediums often boil down to the same thing, even with one being a left-armer. Still, this seems a good time to draw a line under the Harmison saga for now and wield the axe for what would be the first time since the last tour here, when he was not selected and told to sort himself out. That barb spurred him on to real success; it appears in the wake of that the management have been too inclined to offer him the carrot and a new tack is needed. What is surprising is that Stuart Broad seems to have slipped out of contention. He offers the best middle-ground, with his batting ability to boot, and if the selectors thought he was not ready to make his debut, they should not have brought him in the first place.

Sri Lanka, like England before them, have just been sent packing from Australia, but that does not mean they are to be taken lightly. On their own pitches they are an entirely different proposition. The Asgiriya International Stadium and offers England some hope in being the venue for more Sri Lankan defeats than victories as well as housing the most seam-friendly surface on the island. It is also the home ground of a certain Muttiah Muralitharan, where he has taken over 100 of his 700 Test wickets in just 15 matches. The great man may have managed just 4 wickets in the two recent games down under, but it is very likely that he will take the 5 he needs to take the record mark from Shane Warne in just the first game. For a change, they now have some seamers other than Chaminda Vaas - fading but still a force at home - to back him up. Lasith Malinga and Dilhara Fernando will play after a serious injury to budding prospect Farveez Maharoof, who had the better of England in the one-day series, and although both were insipid in Australia, they are form and confidence bowlers. In a short series, just one spell can make a difference, and each is well capable of wreaking havoc on batting orders. England are also bound to find themselves toiling long and hard in the field, with two batsmen in particular, Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara, set to frustrate them. Those two will be the key, although England must be wary of the sucker punch - it is the contribution of lesser lights such as Dilshan and Samaraweera which has floored them on past tours. Despite their mauling in Australia, Sri Lanka start favourites, as was the case in the one-day series, a prediction which proved erroneous. It is now the turn of the Test team to confound expectations, something they must start doing now if glory is going to be anything other than a fast-fading memory.

The man time should not forget

2007-11-24T16:27:00.001Z

Australia, and particularly their batsmen, have dominated cricket, international and domestic, for the best part of two decades. The list of Australian batsmen who have been the envy of all other nations from Allan Border on seems endless: since his mid-eighties pomp, they have been able to boast the likes of David Boon, Mark Taylor, Steve and Mark Waugh, Ricky Ponting, Damien Martyn, Langer and Hayden, Adam Gilchrist, and latterly a man who is upstaging even those eminent peers, Michael Hussey. What is more incredible is the number of batsmen who have been unable to force their way into the side due to the weight of talent. English county cricket has been the main beneficiary, accommodating the likes of Stuart Law, Matt Elliott, Michael Bevan, Michael DiVenuto, Brad Hodge and Greg Blewett when Australia could not find room for them, which was often. But good and successful as those batsmen have been for their states and counties, there is one primus inter pares, a man who has scored more runs than any other in Sheffield Shield cricket and possesses a better batting average for Yorkshire than Hutton, Boycott or Sutcliffe - Darren Lehmann.

But while high-class Australian batsmen have been commonplace recently, happy endings have not, a constant throughout cricket history. And that seemed the way Lehmann's career was going to conclude, after he suffered deep-vein thrombosis followed by an Achilles injury which led to him tearfully announcing his retirement last week. But the great champion of modern domestic cricket had one last flourish left, striking joyous centuries in both his final List A and first class games, within days of each other. His state South Australia are in crisis, something which his retirement can only deepen, but he has given them a fitting farewell, just as he did for Yorkshire with 339 in his last game to ensure their survival in Division 1 of the Championship. It is an irony that Lehmann, denied the chance to spend his career lording it with the Australian Test team, has instead devoted himself to salvaging lost causes, not without success, as his key role in Yorkshire's 2001 title-winning side showed.

His statistics speak for themselves yet leave so much unsaid: a first class average of over 57, 82 centuries and trailing only Hick and Ramprakash, over 1500 innings between them, in terms of runs scored. Nevertheless, that was not enough to earn him a long-lease on a spot in the Test side, winning just 27 caps despite an average touching 45, a figure which extended over 50 in his comeback phase in 2002-4, after he had squandered his initial chance in 1998. It was in ODIs where he had more opportunities, notching up over 100 caps and playing in two World-Cup winning sides. His power and adaptability made him perfect for the middle-order and overs in one-day cricket, not to mention the handy left-arm spin, with which he gathered well over 50 wickets, averaging 27 in both Test and ODI cricket. Having stepped aside to allow Michael Clarke the chance, poor form eventually saw the end of his Test career, although the Australian selectors might have been regretting their folly months later, as the Australian batsmen struggled in the conditions which Lehmann had become accustomed to during his time at Yorkshire. Lehmann reinforced the message the next Australian summer, with his best ever season for South Australia.

But it was his personality and character which endeared him to fans on both side of the world as much as his titanic run-scoring feats. One of the dwindling number from the generation for whom fitness was a tertiary concern, Lehmann was definitely a member of the "balanced diet is a pie in each hand" brigade, and could frequently be seen on balconies indulging his nicotine habit. Now we have fitness coaches and a smoking ban - for Lehmann the booze and fags just added to his allure. And that is not to mention the sheer brilliance of his batting; hitting the ball joyously hard, treating the best spinners as he would have his own bowling, the sweetest of slashing square cuts. He managed to twin those oft unhappy bedfellows- scoring runs and entertaining the crowd. Lehmann never bored; he seldom failed.

Yorkshire had, of course, only acquiesced to the idea of overseas players (with overseas concerning the South of England as much as South Australia) in 1992, and had had mixed experiences with Sachin Tendulkar, Richie Richardson and Michael Bevan. Yet after a career short by the standards of Yorkshire legends, not even the most grudging of broad acre curmudgeons could have criticism for him, and he was duly included in a Yorkshire Post greatest ever XI, the native of Gawler standing tall alongside the likes of Geoffrey, Wilfred and Sir Leonard. Having fallen short of George Hirst's 100 year old record for the highest score by a Yorkshireman, his reaction was typical: "George was a better batsman than me anyway." For any other born outside Yorkshire to have made an attempt on the record would have been seen as heresy; yet for Lehmann, an exception would have been made. He had won over the hardest-to-please fans in the world, and for that alone he deserves his place in history.

All quiet on the Kallis front

2007-11-11T16:57:00.000Z

It is not difficult to name the almost universally agreed greatest ever all-rounder, a title which sits as easily upon the shoulders of Garry Sobers as the sobriquet of best batsman fits Bradman. Identifying the modern player whose statistics can match, and even shade Sobers, is a tad more troublesome. After all, you knew Jacques Kallis was good, but really that good? In numbers, at least, Kallis' Test career bears a remarkable resemblance to that of the great West Indian. Their Test averages differ by just 0.04, while Sobers has more wickets (from fewer games) and a better economy rate, while Kallis possesses the superior average and strike rate. There, as they say, the comparisons end, but not without serving to show just how underrated and high-achieving Kallis is in the pantheon of the modern game.

As South Africa's best batsman since re-admission, he is their top run-scorer, having just gone past 9000 Test runs with 186 against New Zealand. Only the three best seamers since 1992 - Donald, Pollock and Ntini - can better his haul of 219 wickets. Yet as neither batsman nor all-rounder has he achieved pre-eminence. Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Inzamam and Dravid are at least five who would be considered above him in an evaluation of the best batsmen since 2000, yet only the first can improve on his Test average of 57.74. He has a better bowling average and economy rate than Andrew Flintoff, his only contemporary in the genuine all-rounder capacity. Style plays some part - his strokeplay, while withering, is neither elegant nor dashing - there also lingers the suspicion that he only shows real willingness to bowl when there is something in it for him. Nevertheless, he is capable of producing good pace and movement, and four 5 wicket hauls in Tests mark him out as more than just a steady customer in the role of 5th bowler. Being from South Africa - a cricketing nation which has achieved excellence yet remained perennial bridesmaid in the modern age - is a contributing factor. Of the many high-achieving and talented South African players since 1992, stardom has only really visited itself on one, in Allan Donald, while often the focus on great South Africans is biased towards the generation to which circumstance denied the chance to make a mark on Test history.

It seems indicative of the Kallis paradox that one has to resort to endless statistics to prove his worth. With a player of his stature, this should not be necessary, but it is only in the numbers that the extent of his achievements are truly apparent. It is not necessary to know, or even refer to the Test average, or number of centuries of a Lara or Tendulkar. Their greatness is obvious on the field, the statistics fall neatly in line behind them; with Kallis it seems rather to be the other way around. To suffer at the hands of Kallis is not unexpected, yet the extent of his abilities seems only to be clear after he has made the fielding team sick of the sight of him; a knowledge which is stored at the back of the mind, rather than seared indelibly into the consciousness. Yet for all this semi-anonymity, Kallis is a singular, in ways unique player. Most of the great all-rounders have been primarily bowlers - Miller, Imran, Hadlee, Botham, Dev - who would take the new ball and bat in the lower-middle order. Even Sobers, like Kallis a batsman first, tended towards the middle rather than top of the order. Yet Kallis, who cannot offer anything approaching their bowling record, is a top 4 batsman, while his haul of over 200 Test wickets means he cannot be relegated into the batsman who bowls category.

That he is someone who profits by pillaging against the lesser teams is an accusation frequently leveled against him and not without foundation. Still, he is by no means alone in this, and all of his three centuries against Zimbabwe came when they were far from the token presence they have since become. An average of 48.53 in Australia and a mark of 64.6 in the three main subcontinental countries shows he is adaptable to all conditions. That his average is greater and he has more of his centuries away from home is indicative of his importance to South African cricket.

What is more, he has seemed to improve with age. In the second part of his career, his average has been 65; batting at 4, a position he assumed permanently in early 2002 and where he has batted for half of his Tests, that rises to over 70. Ominously, he is not yet a month past his 32nd birthday, while four centuries in three Tests this season show an intent uncommonly strong even in a man like Kallis. Next year, South Africa make their 5-yearly tour of England, Kallis' third and likely final visit. His record there is patchy, an average of just 37 with a solitary century, although he did bowl his team to victory at Headingley in 2003. Should he continue his current run of form, his contribution to the series could be vital in attempting to win the series in England, something South Africa have not done in their three trips since re-admission. Achieve that and maybe he will start to receive the sort of recognition which his talent and record deserve.

Rivals prepare for rebirth of old enemy

2007-11-04T13:13:00.000Z

As the fortunes of England during and since the period of 2004-5 have shown, it is not the ascension to the peak that takes the most effort - although that itself is substantial - but the ability to stay king for more than just a day. And that is why Australia, for whom the 2005 insurgence was a rare pinprick in a 12 year regime, will be remembered as a team for the ages, just like the all-conquering West Indians before them. Furthermore, despite the loss of their two best bowlers and 172 Tests worth of batting experience in the form of Justin Langer and Damien Martyn; the players selected for their first Test series since their zenith of the Ashes whitewash last year look perfectly capable of ensuring it is some time yet before the Antipodean empire crumbles.

Regeneration is the cornerstone of any dynasty, and it is what Australia have shown themselves annoyingly good at over the course of the last 15 years. Surely there could be none like Allan Border, long Test cricket's most capped player, highest run-scorer and most experienced leader as well as the man almost uniquely credited as the facilitator of Australia's rise to greatness. But then came Steven Waugh: more Test appearances, centuries and victories as captain than his illustrious predecessor bar the one that was Mark Taylor, who oversaw the transition from a team who could scrap with the best to one which was utterly dominant. Waugh is now long gone, but his ghost still lingers, in the hard-nosed leadership of Ponting and the steel-willed batsmanship of Michael Hussey. The elegance of his brother Mark and Damien Martyn is also now missing, but in it's place they can boast the dashing strokeplay of Michael Clarke, whose excellent Ashes series last winter confirmed the promise previously hinted at by his century on debut in India and impressive showing in 2005, when he was Australia's least experienced batsman, and often their best.

And it is personal, as well as personnel renaissance which has been a mark of this Australian outfit. Ricky Ponting picked himself up off the floor of a Sydney nightclub in 1999 and came out the other side of drink counselling to become the foremost batsman of his generation and a leader who, after an aberration in 2005, now looks every bit as formidable as the three who came before him. Matthew Hayden returned after his first stab at Test cricket yielded an average of less than 30 to become one of the best attacking openers the game has seen; in one-day cricket, he was out of the team for over a year, but came back just before the World Cup to record the fastest ever century by an Australian in ODIs, and is currently, without doubt, the best opener in the world.

The retirement of Warne and McGrath, a unique pair of bowling predators, was always foreseen as a watershed moment by those wondering quite when the Australian dynasty would tail off. And although Australia's bowling attack will lack that same incisive edge, lent as much by reputation as reality, the talent is still there to keep them top of the tree. Stuart Clark and Brett Lee will take the new ball, something both have earned, although Lee, at least, still has to convince in the role of leading strike-bowler without the crutch of the ever-reliable McGrath. With Shaun Tait's injury, something which is increasingly becoming habitual, the role of third-seamer goes to Mitchell Johnson, a rapid left-armer who has produced the goods in ODIs and is there on merit as much as promise, although his first-class returns indicate he still has something to prove. He will be given the chance, although the presence of Ben Hilfenhaus as Tait's replacement is a threatening one to all the pace attack, especially if Hilfenhaus, that rare commodity of a swing bowler in Australia, can go some way towards matching his mammoth 60 wicket haul in last year's domestic competition. Stuart Macgill has long been Warne's No.2, and has managed 40 Tests along the way, sweeping up almost 200 victims with his outrageous side-spin, although verging on 37 and with a suspect knee, it remains to be seen whether he has withered too long on the vine. Brad Hogg, whose ODI record and strong showing in the Pura Cup game which served as an audition, has earned him a squad place alongside Macgill, although the selector's preference for the leggie will probably override Hogg's superior recent record and the all-round option he offers with useful batting and fielding.

For Langer's replacement, Australia have the remarkable reassurance of being able to select, for only the third time, the left-hand dynamo Phil Jaques. He has been down the Hussey road of success in county and Australian domestic cricket, and already has 10,000 FC runs and 32 centuries to his name. It is the privilege of the current Australian selectors to replace talent and experience at Test level with equivalent long-standing in domestic competition. Still on the sidelines are David Hussey, brother of Mike and with a FC average almost identical to Jaques' and with just one less century, and Brad Hodge, seemingly destined never to secure a permanent Test position, despite his average of 58.42 from his 5 games so far. Hodge's desperate attempt to reinvent himself as an opener shows the difficulty of forcing a way into the Australian batting line-up, while a player of his talent would be long into a Test career with any other country. In view of that, Andrew Symonds can maybe count himself somewhat lucky, with rather less flattering statistics. In one-day cricket, he is the kingpin, with an astonishing record since the 2003 World Cup. Yet only twice has he broken free in Tests, smashing a 70 against South Africa before finally reaching three figures at Melbourne in the Ashes. As much as that innings is being regarded as an epiphany, it must be said that England's bowling plan to him, the theory of which was left on the floor of the pavilion bar, was horrendous, allowing him to play the innings as he would in an ODI. The idea of Symonds, as a destructive batsman, livewire fielder and auxiliary fifth bowler, is a good one, so crucial in the shorter form of the game, which is why the selectors have shown faith over equally deserving specialist batsmen. But Symonds must make his mark in the near future; Australian selectors give only so much leeway, while Shane Watson, long since earmarked as the man to fill the No.6 slot, cannot stay injured forever.

It is 9 months since Australia last played a Test, delivering the crushing denouement to England at Sydney. In the next 7 months they play 13, taking on four different Test nations. That should be a sufficient period for any gremlins which have sneaked into the system to be ironed out and the results will show to what extent the loss of Warne and McGrath will hurt them. Do not hold out too much hope for a change; this team looks set to retain the hydra like qualities which have led to such sustained success over the last 12 years and they are far from finished.

Taking aim

2007-11-03T18:49:00.000Z

It rarely does much good for a public figure to rile the media, as many a sportsman, coach and manager will lament. Exhaust your small supply of favour with them and the only protection left to you can be the shield of success. And it is as good a testament to Duncan Fletcher as any, that only now he has been six months out of the job and had his autobiography serialised, the hacks have truly bared their fangs. True, the reaction to England's Ashes and World Cup debacle last winter was vitriolic, as well it might have been, but only with the publication of his memoirs have the press truly let loose.

The main rumpus has arisen from his account of Andrew Flintoff's drinking exploits as captain. Yet while this has been largely heralded as a betrayal, in fact the "revelations" are nothing new. Immediately following the events during the World Cup, which showed he had rather lost sight of where the undrawn line of acceptable behaviour resides, rumours began to circulate about his drinking exploits in Australia. All that is new are the details which have furnished the multiple tabloid headlines on the subject. Indicting Flintoff in such a way, an act akin to pouring a bucket of cold water into boiling oil, was always going to bring criticism onto Fletcher, for he is not the national hero, yet it is his right. Unlike Mike Catt and Lawrence Dallaglio, Fletcher has left a reasonable cooling-off period, while an expurgated account of events would have been of use to no-one. Geoffrey Boycott has suggested that two years should be the arbitary waiting time, although this shows a surprising lack of awareness to the time/money ratio to one normally assosciated with commerical astuteness.

The more disturbing aspect to this issue is the reason expressed for awarding Flintoff the captaincy, essentialy that he hoped it would curb his more reckless habits; that is weak and muddled reasoning, and a fair criticism. Also interesting is his comment, "The problem was, in the absence of Vaughan, there were so many unknowns." Here he shows how important the relationship between him and his captain was. Twice he forged successful alliances, first with Nasser Hussain and then Vaughan, and it is surely no coincidence that England's slide in Test cricket coincided with Vaughan's continued absence from the scene. Some of his statements show a curious lack of certainty and leadership in one who had appeared often so confident and autonomous. He failed to deal with a divsive issue at a crucial time, and for that he must shoulder blame. However, it is still hard to escape the conclusion that the extent of the media reaction is as much down to their having been cut out of the loop first time around as the gripe itself.

His comments on certain characters have also led to a considerable response, not least from those personally singled out, some of whom have taken the opportunity to respond in kind, only serving to make themselves look as petty and grudging as they accuse Fletcher of being. He is not the first to call Ian Botham useless as a selector and damaging as an influence; Geoffrey Boycott a pest and hypocrite; and David Graveney a weak Chairman of Selectors, with his excessive desire to keep all concerned happy often ending up with the opposite outcome. Wihtout doubt, there is something of the grudge-merchant in Fletcher, reflected in the way he has gone about writing the book. Yet he is by no means the first to have gone down this road, and it seems that some of the criticism arises from personal issues people had with him during his tenure, which they did not have much scope for expressing, given the general success of the England team.

What of course gets forgotten amongst the lurid details and loud personalities, is the great work Fletcher did over the course of his first six years with England and how he helped turn England from the worst Test team to one which beat the undisputed best. His account of that is what the genuine cricket fans want to read, and, with such publicity, Fletcher and his friends at the relevant tabloid newpaper have ensured that there will be a fair number of buyers; meaning that, once again, it is Fletcher who can walk away with the wry smile.

Flawed England caught between two stools

2007-10-18T15:15:00.000+01:00

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.

All change please

2007-10-17T16:54:00.000+01:00

It is unusual to accuse any sportsman under the age of 30 of being a resident of the last chance saloon. Yet for two former England players who both today left the county which reared them it seems fitting. The reasons for the continual absecne of Simon Jones and Rikki Clarke from the international scene are, of course, polar opposites; however, both find themselves in the same situation as regards their future - a hard road with only a small chance of reward at the end.

Clarke, announced today as the new Derbyshire captain, has been living in a comfort zone at The Oval for a few years now, not the first promising player from that club to fall into such a trap in recent times. Ever since his first taste of international cricket in 2003, he has failed to make a realistic claim for a regular spot with domestic runs and wickets, and his chances have generally come when the selectors have been raking up the dregs to make up numbers in the one-day side. With Andrew Flintoff now absent and possibly never to return, the need for a pace-bowling all-rounder is keenly felt; but the call comes at possibly Clarke's lowest ebb - last term his runs came at less than 25, the wickets at over 40. From stand-in captain in the opening game, he first slipped down the averages, and then out of the team, as old attitude problems began to flare up and a move away from Surrey has been forecasted since mid-season. He is still only 26, and the chance to both captain and act the role of star player is a wonderful opportunity for Clarke to realise his multi-faceted talent and make his pitch for a role in a future without Flintoff if that should arise. Peter Moores has shown his willingness to select those who impress at county level; Derbyshire have shown faith in his cricketing skill and a personality which has been questioned on more than one occasion. Now Clarke must fulfil his side of the bargain and bring home the bacon; he owes it to his new county, and in truth he owes it to himself and the potential which is a few wrong steps away from being perpetually unfulfilled.

When Simon Jones made his England debut five summers ago, in the same series as Steve Harmison, it seemed to herald a new era in English pace bowling. He picked up 4 wickets in his first Test, not before he had blasted a quickfire 40 as a warm-up. He was still, to use the technical term, "wild and wooly", but had all the attributes to be a top fast bowler, foremost the ability to bowl at a genuinely express pace. But that same winter, the world which had appeared to be at his feet came crashing down about his ears, as he snapped cruciate ligaments in Brisbane having just picked up his first Ashes wicket. It looked career threatening, but Jones pulled through, and was finally rehabilitated on the 2004 tour of the Caribbean, as England triumphed 3-0, and the fast bowling quartet which was to be the basis for a perfect year was born. Progress thereafter was somewhat stilted; he did not hold down a place in the return series that summer, and has a largely miserable tour of South Africa with Michael Vaughan seemingly unwilling to bowl him for extended periods. As the Ashes series loomed, he was definitely regarded as the weak link in England's attack. No-one, English or Australian, could have predicted the magnitude of that series or indeed Jones' significant contribution in it. He was the creator of so many great moments in a contest littered with them, the best perhaps a massive hooping reverse-swinger to which Michael Clarke shouldered arms to give those watching the best view of his off-stump being uprooted. Cruelly, in the middle of being architect for Australia's demise at Trent Bridge, and handed the new ball for the first time, his ankle gave way. He did not bowl again in that Test, although at the time it was hoped he would recover for the decider. 26 months later, and that is still his last match for England. His ankle problem mutated into a knee injury which kept him out until the beginning of 2007, with attempts to rush him back just leading to setbacks. The season just gone was supposed to be a renaissance one for Jones; as it turned out, he picked up just one wicket in Championship cricket in 89 overs of bowling. His knee would not let him alone to bowl; by all accounts, he did not look fit even when he turned out, and had none of the zip which knocked over 17 Australian wickets in 2005. Now he has turned his back on Glamorgan, and been offered refuge by Worcestershire. Perhaps a move away from the county which is his home in every sense is the best thing for Jones now, although his chances of a full recovery seem negligible. He will take comfort from the progress of Michael Vaughan, who recovered from a similarly low ebb in summer 2006 to play a full programme of Tests the next year. And while there is a long queue of prospective Test seamers, the positions are not nailed down; there is still a place for a fully fit Jones if he can recapture his best. But that is several galaxies away as we stand; hopefully he will be able to use the winter to work on the knee and at least get some overs behind him next season. For unlike Clarke, there is only so much that he can do.

A game in flux

2007-10-15T14:44:00.000+01:00

Exits, farewells, downfalls. These have been the staple of one of the busiest ever years of international cricket, at the end of which it is hard to refute the suggestion that the generational shift which must occur in every cycle has come about, and that a mini golden-age has come to an end. Australia, as they have for the last decade or more, have led the way, both in terms of success and goodbyes. The Ashes whitewash and third consecutive World Cup title were epoch making, while the departure of Warne and McGrath marked the end for two of the supreme practitioners of their respective arts and the cessation of one of the greatest ever bowling partnerships. Other luminaries were denied the glorious ends which their careers and talent deserved; Brian Lara, his batting talent matched by none of his era and few of any, suffered a miserable denouement, a reflection on the decline of West Indies cricket over the course of his international career, which only his genius could transcend. Inzamam Ul Haq, who combined the lifestyle of a 1980s cricketer with the demands of a modern one and whose batting was a unique mixture of bulk and deft touch was given a contrived end to his 120 Test career, but fell 3 runs short of eclipsing Javed Miandad's record. The bell has also begun to toll for Shaun Pollock, dropped for the first time in 107 Tests and 12 years, while for Sanath Jayasuriya and Adam Gilchrist, an opening partnership which would grace any all-time ODI XI, 73 combined years of experience suggest the end is not too far off.

And it is not just great players who are on the way out. Captains have been on the merry-go-round, with India, Pakistan, New Zealand and England all under different leadership in at least one form of the game. Coaches too are in transit after a longish period of continuity: gone are Fletcher, Buchanan, Moody, Chappell and, tragically, Woolmer. In come Moores, Nielsen, Bayliss and Lawson. Household names none, reputations very much to be proved. Even the form of the game being played is under question, especially when one views the respective successes of the 50 and 20 over tournaments.

Perversely, it could be Australia who are hit hardest by the changing of the guard. Gone are Warne and McGrath, the magnitude and greatness of whose efforts cannot be explained ed or rationalised in words. The cold, harsh reality is that their two most consistent matchwinners are no longer available; include the retirement of opener Justin Langer, and it is well over 300 caps which have waltzed off into the sunset. Langer's position should be the easiest to fill, although the identity of his successor is open to question. One option is to promote the next opener in line, probably Phil Jaques. However, were they to reassign Mike Hussey to his original calling at the top of affairs, it would open up a middle order spot whose owner could be chosen from a larger pool, including Brad Hodge and the younger Hussey David. With Hayden probably looking no further than 2009, it might be a shrewd move to promote Hussey to the top, leaving at least one experienced hand when the second half of the modern game's greatest opening partnership calls it a day.

The composition of the bowling arsenal will spark much more debate and is the more vital issue. Warne and McGrath cannot be replaced in kind; the latter a once in a generation bowler, the former a once in a lifetime. But Australia do have formidable seam resources ready to fill the breach. Stuart Clark is at the forefront after a stupendously successful beginning to his Test career; he is not as much a McGrath clone as is generally claimed, but that does not stop him from being an extremely fine bowler, well capable of continuing to take lots of cheap wickets. Brett Lee will also have to make the step-up from support shock bowler to leading man, a role which previous experience has suggested he would be better served acting with guitar rather than ball in hand. If he struggles he could soon find himself cast aside, with his wonderbollocks reputation threatened on two fronts, gunslinger Shaun Tait and scourge of India Mitchell "magic" Johnson. English fans will have happy memories of Tait, who suffered when thrown in at the business end of the 2005 Ashes; his run-leaking spells and Kevin Pietersen's aerial assualt on his fine-leg boundary at The Oval are what will be boorishly recalled, although not to be forgotten the sort of delivery which sent Geraint Jones' off-stump on a walk long enough to warrant sponsorship for Sir Ian Botham's Leukemia Research. Less is known about Johnson, but he has turned in enough matchwinning performances in his short ODI career to put Dennis Lillee's much heralded comments about him in the valley of possibility. Alongside these sleek, flashy new motors is a relative tractor, Tasmanian brickie Ben Hilfenhaus. His state of origin may be less fashionable, the name lent less to an easy headline, but Hilfenhaus could well turn out to be the best of the bunch. His persistent outswing earned him 60 wickets last Australian season and his state Tasmania their maiden Championship, reward mostly achieved on the surfaces at the Bellerive Oval in Hobart, about the most unforgiving in the country.

And that is just the seamers. The question of who would replace Warne has been the most loaded in Australian cricket for a few years now, and still there is no heir apparent. And, conceivably, there will never be, not in this lifetime. Staurt MacGill will do a good job for a few years, or Bradd Hogg if the selectors' patience with MacGill's temperament has finally expired. But beyond the near future, no-one is poised to step into the breach. The two most likely are off-spinner Dan Cullen and leggie Cullen Bailey, both of South Australia, but neither has a particularly flattering First Class record. The simple truth is that bowling spin in Australia is an ever more difficult task, and that the Australian bowling attack will have to recalibrate itself to the setting of pace, with the spinner more an interlude than the symphony Warne continually produced.

Australia are not alone in experiencing a transitional phase. England may be seen by many as the second best Test side, but they have won no real series of note since 2005, victories against Pakistan and West Indies both mitigated by the weakness of the opposition. The attempt to meld the remaining Ashes winners with the new guard has produced a result which still shows the fissure-lines of its formation, and injuries and the absence of key players continues to drag them down. India defeated them away from home, a significant achievement, albeit with England's entire first-string bowling missing. However, the power trio of Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid have begun to look tired and out of place. A new Test captain is needed, while the one-day side has really suffered, defeated unexpectedly in England and thumped at home by Australia. Pakistan are similarly struggling to compete in the brave new world without Inzy and Shoaib, while Sri Lanka have glimpsed the future without Muralitharan and with Jayasuriya and Vaas struggling.

The uncertainty does bring some excitement to the international game, and the chance for the first time in a long time to challenge the Australian dominance. However, this will be well achieved; without Warne and McGrath they will win fewer games but defeating them will still be a formidable proposition. But, nevertheless, the new ingredients have been tossed into the melting pot, and it remains to be seen whether this heralds an exciting new dawn, or just longing for what has now been and gone.

Progressive England find their edge

2007-10-13T22:36:00.000+01:00

It might not have caused a great shock to the system of a casual fan to learn that England succumbed rather feebly in today's final one-day game in Sri Lanka. But while the eye of the sporting world hovers over England's unbelievable run to the Rugby World Cup final, the cricket team have been almost imperceptibly staging their own act of defiance. Sri Lanka do not lose too often at home, nor England win away in one-day cricket. And, despite a rather disappointing codicil to a hard fought but low key series, there is a definite sense, for the first time in over a decade, that England are well on the road to becoming a successful one-day team.

There tends to come a point in all sport when a poor team finds out that even the seemingly bottomless pit has a limit. For England, surely that time was six months ago in the Caribbean when four years of chaotic preparation and moderate results produced a team which drowned in a mulch of turgid and ill-executed cricket. The Test team found itself in a similar position in 1999, when Nasser Hussain's first series in charge ended in defeat to unprepossessing New Zealand in a summer which had also included the now habitual World Cup failure. It was Hussain who, with sheer bloodymindedness and truculent man-management, dragged England from the pit of mediocrity which had been its resting place for a decade or more and pointed the way to future success. Michael Vaughan inherited Hussain's legacy, refining the rough edges which had been necessary in the first stage of recovery and guiding the team through a year of unmitigated success, culminating in a sweet Ashes victory in the summer of 2005. England are now seemingly entering that first phase of rebirth, and in Collingwood they have a man who is well equipped to exert the Hussain-like influence on the one-day team.

Since 1992, when England last produced the goods in one-day cricket, there have been four full time England captains who have doubled up in both forms of the game. Atherton, Stewart, Hussain and Vaughan were all fine Test players who all had some influence as leaders in the longer form. But none were especially comfortable in one-day cricket, as players and consequentially, captains. And prior to the CB series steal in February, England's last one-day triumph away from the green and pleasant land had been ten years previously, in Sharjah under the captaincy of one-day specialist Adam Hollioake. And you will still find many people who would contend that Hollioake should never have been stripped of the captaincy when he was, and that he should have played and captained over 100 ODIs. Some neat symmetry then, that it is under the stewardship of Collingwood, so long a resident in the one-day specialist pigeon-hole, that England have begun to look a competitive one-day team. And while team lacked direction under the likes of Hussain and Vaughan, this side glows with the Collingwood influence; busy, effective and bristling with controlled aggression.

It is the bowlers who have been the leading figures, and, slow and tricky pitches notwithstanding, they have done exceptionally well to restrict a Sri Lankan batting order of such pedigree. Ryan Sidebottom has shown why the management were so keen to get him into the team despite him missing most of the summer fixtures. One-day cricket brings out the dog in him, and his variation and accuracy are lethal when accompanied by the quicker pace he has shown himself capable of bowling this series. James Anderson was quieter, but he remains England's one-day spearhead, and he hung in well and was an excellent new-ball foil for Sidebottom. Stuart Broad, relegated to first change, nevertheless prospered and enjoyed a considerable amount of good fortune on the way to 11 wickets. Still, it was an impressive return after he was mauled by Yuvraj in the Twenty20, and every international for Broad is an investment by England in a bowler who fits in exactly with their template with his batting ability to boot.

However, despite the excellence of the seam trio, it was the performance of the resurgent Graeme Swann which captured headlines and bathed in what little limelight the media spared for the series. Eight years ago on his first, and what seemed for a long time sure to be his last, tour with England, Swann infamously scrawled his name in graffiti on the pages of Duncan Fletcher's bad book with his brash manner and disdain at the team bus as a method of transport. It is easy to look back now, but at the time Swann was exactly the sort of character Fletcher did not need in a new-look team for which discipline became an important theme. Times have changed, though, for both England and Swann, who was included in the squad seemingly as second spinner to Monty Panesar. Panesar had struggled in the one-day game, but it was still a surprise when he won selection for the first game. England lost that, but Swann gained his first international wicket, 8 years on from being outbowled by Graeme Hick, and the notice of the attending from his very first ball on return, which spun sharply out of the rough. He continued to prosper, notably in the third game at Dambulla, with 4 wickets, rare for an English spinner in ODIs, backed up by a matchwinning knock in the tense run-chase. A deep seated irony that his success should come in the manner so beloved of Fletcher, the primary function backed up by second-string talent.

The batting unit was less at ease, and had it been surer, England would have won by greater margin and with fewer nerves frayed. The opening partnership, a continual bugbear, was once again makeshift and temporary in form and substance; Alistair Cook proved his worth in the limited situation of the anchor in the chase which sealed the series at Colombo. Elsewhere he showed that he still lacks the adaptability and nous to be the complete opener in one-day cricket. Phil Mustard, who would not have wished for the jungly surrounds and pedestrian pitches of Dambulla for his international bow, showed his ability to score at a good rate but, like his predecessor in the role, Matt Prior, never looked like making a significant contribution. With his wicket-keeping also imperfect, it will be a delicate call as to whether he is retained for the next one-day series in New Zealand. Ian Bell is now settled as England's No.3, but an absence of luck and better judgement meant that the success he enjoyed against India in late summer eluded him. Kevin Pietersen, despite guiding England home in the fourth game, still seems in the mid-life crisis of his ODI career, while Paul Collingwood was patchy, likewise Owais Shah aside from one important contribution in the second game; his 82 was the highest total achieved by a batsman on either side, reflective of the bowler-friendly nature of the pitches. Ravi Bopara never really got going, which is not too surprising considering he was played almost as a specialist batsman at 7. There seems to be an essential imbalance in the team, not helped by the unavailability of Flintoff, who would fit in nicely in Bopara' s batting position. Bopara showed his bowling prowess with a tight spell today with Collingwood nursing a sore shoulder, but even with Flintoff's absence reducing bowling options, he was hardly given a chance to bowl, and his current role seems to benefit neither him nor the team.

As for Sri Lanka, who dazzled at the World Cup, there was a surprising lack of stomach and gumption in conditions familiar to them. Without Muralitharan, the bowling suffered, and the shackles imposed on the usually free-spirited openers Jayasuriya and Tharanga seemed to encompass the whole team, with the middle and lower order often having to bail out the wreck left by the top half. The fact that fringe players Maharoof and Silva were the stand-outs reflects the general underperformance of the team. Whether this is merely a blip or a precursor to leaner times in the aftermath of Tom Moody's successful tenure remains to be seen, but it was unexpected to see Sri Lanka get outlasted on their own pitches by a still vulnerable England team.

Maybe we should not be so surprised by England's success. There is youth and talent in this team, as well as the odd old-head with a few more in reserve. The victory against India was the establishment of a new regime after short-circuiting against West Indies, while this current triumph represents progress and a real feather in the cap of Collingwood and coach Peter Moores. It is still far too early to be getting complacent about the performance of the one-day side, but for once the attention can be turned to Tests with the issue of the one-dayers lain aside happily, rather than furtively swept under the carpet.

Nascent England must distance themselves from old failures

2007-09-30T13:27:00.000+01:00

It may be perceived common knowledge that Graham Thorpe never captained England, and that Andrew Strauss made his international debut at Lord's in 2004, marking it with a century. Both statements are incorrect. but there is a link. Thorpe did captain his country, in the ODIs in Sri Lanka in 2000 after Nasser Hussain was invalided home; Strauss' first innings in England colours was not his century against New Zealand, but a slightly less auspicious 3 against Sri Lanka in Dambulla in late 2003. Thorpe's England lost all three matches; Strauss' international bow was as part of an England team which crashed to 88 all out, a total Thorpe's team failed to double in three games. Both events have been buried fairly deep in the consciousness, but nevertheless rank amongst some of the most ignominious of England's myriad one-day disasters away from home. The relevance is that England haven't had much success playing one-day cricket in Sri Lanka; in fact they have just one win, and that back in Sri Lanka's minnow days in 1982. And with hardly a moment's rest following 7 50 over matches against India, and a dismal campaign at the World Twenty20, Sri Lanka is where England find themselves facing their biggest challenge as a team under the command of Moores and Collingwood.

As last summer's "bluewash" showed, England have enough problems with the Sri Lankan ODI team at home, let alone in the country itself, one of the hardest places to tour. However, this is a very different side, and after two unexpected results over the summer - a series loss against West Indies countered by an unlikely victory in the marathon against India - it is in the heat and humidity of Sri Lanka that their true stock as a team will emerge.

It will be largely the same side which defeated India to take on arguably the second-best one-day team in the world, although Andrew Flintoff is a notable absentee. Alistair Cook will have another chance to stake his claim for the opener's berth long-term, after starting well against India and tailing off dramatically. England will need his adhesion if they are to avoid such meagre totals as on their last two visits. He will have a new partner after Matt Prior fractured his thumb in South Africa and the call has gone out to Durham man Phil "colonel" Mustard, who impressed with his rapid scoring in late summer, although replicating Chester-le-Street form in Kandy may prove troublesome. The middle order sorts itself, with Ian Bell now established at first drop, preceding Pietersen, who will want a big series to dispel some recent doubts about his one-day form., and captain Paul Collingwood, whose contribution across the board will be critical. The Asian wristiness of Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara in the lower-middle order completes a batting unit which appears more spin-savvy than previous outfits.

With the absence of Flintoff resulting in a slight imbalance, they then have to decide whether to play both spinners, which would also give the comfort of Graeme Swann's useful batting at 8, or to ask Stuart Broad to take the responsibility of coming in at 6 wickets down. The need for at least three front-line seamers and the desire to get the left-arm seam of Ryan Sidebottom into the team will probably mean that Swann misses out to begin with, as should Dimitri Mascarenhas, whose bowling will be no more useful than Collingwood's, although that would mean the England captain having to take the responsibility of a full bowling shift, something he has not always been comfortable with when it is a necessity rather than a bonus.

Their opposition will be the usual mixture of thunder, subtlety, intrigue and spin. The English bowlers can comfort themselves with the thought that this is surely the last time they will have to contend with the unique talents of Sanath Jayasuriya, although his protege Upul Tharanga is turning into a fairly fearful proposition himself. The two princes of Sri Lankan batting populate the middle order, Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene, who are both hard to dislodge as well as rein in. The lower order ballast is provided by the assured Dilshan and the more excitable and dangerous Chamara Silva, while Chaminda Vaas lurks with intent at 8. Even with Muralitharan absent for at least the first three games, the bowling will provide a stiff challenge, a seam trio of Vaas, Malinga and Fernando supplemented by leg-spin all-rounder Kaushal Lokuarachchi and Jaysuriya's omnipresent slow left-arm.

5 games and a scheduled 500 overs may seem a lot squeezed into less than a fortnight, but if England struggle as have their predecessors, then the time will pass very slowly, and their unity and collective skill as a team will be plunged into the furnace- they will have to more than double their number of ODI wins in the country if they are to emerge with credit.

2007-09-29T16:18:00.000+01:00

A recent heavy workload has made posting difficult. so here goes with a potted review of the last month...

Smells like 1983 spirit: Taking a three week break would have given scope for reviewing just the group stages of last spring's World Cup, but the World Championship of cricket's shortest format was mercifully, and fittingly, brief. Still not short enough for England to fail to depart with what seemed indecent haste, but it seems that some traditions have transferred to Twenty20, not least the South African's departing early from an event in their own country; they only lost one game, pitifully at that, but then it seems every tournament brings with it a new and more circuitous route to the exit door for them. But just as 24 years previously, it was unfancied India who swept the board, an irony considering their previously ambivalent stance to the shortened format. Yuvraj Singh was the star, his runs coming at a painful strike rate of 194.73, although it was Gambhir's three half-centuries which provided the consistency. Pakistan were twice agonisingly close to beating them, but a bowl out was never going to be in their favour in the group, while the final was evidence that nothing short of a miracle will help them beat their neighbours in a World Cup. It is, there seems that there is life after Dravid, Dada and Tendu, and, although 20-20 may be dubious evidence of this, try telling that to the 1 billion.

Misbah Ul Yousuf: There were some strange selections by a few countries for the World Twenty20. South Africa ignored Jacques Kallis, their best batsman and reliable back-up seamer, as well as Andrew Hall, their best death bowler in a game which consists of little else. England also chose to overlook Ian Bell's excellent form in the India one-day series when injury gave them license to tinker with the squad. But it was the failure to pick Mohammed Yousuf which caused the most consternation. Not a massive aberration, one might think - Yousuf might be one of the best Test batsmen in the world, but Twenty20 is a different bag. What got the goat of many Pakistan fans and pundits was his replacement - not a 19 year old trailblazer, no Pathan warrior whistled down from the Khyber Pass. Instead, the honour went to Misbah Ul Haq, 91 days Yousuf's senior and out of the international game for three years. What was to be gained, went up the outcry. Potentially the loss of their best batsman, it seemed, as Yousuf upped sticks for the ICL, which under PCB rules would have barred him form playing for Pakistan again. As it happened, Misbah was Pakistan's leading run scorer in the tournament, and the third best overall. He is now back in the Test squad, as is Yousuf, who will "do anything" for Pakistan. Never say the world of Pakistani cricket is not a strange one...

Achilles Heel: Andrew Flintoff has often seemed like a mythic figure in the second half of his England career, but the comparison to the greatest of the Greek heroes, Achilles, can never have seemed more prescient. For Flintoff is England's greatest weapon, yet is continually felled by the smallest of body-parts. Were he to have been a character in Homeric poetry, surely his epithet would be Flintoff of the unstable ankle. Briefly, at the end of the summer, England fans glimpsed his best with the ball, as he released the frustration of another season without a Test on the Indians. The purpose was there in the run-up, the accuracy, as ever, was nagging, and, most importantly, the pace and bounce were lethal. But it seems that the great talents of the man are hostage to his ankle, which duly gave out again during the World 20-20. He clearly struggled, was reduced to medium-pace against New Zealand, then played, ridiculously, in the dead-rubber. And as predictable as that decision was stupid, the announcement shortly followed that he would be unfit to play the one-day series in Sri Lanka. If there is to be any chance of England fans witnessing Flintoff on the field of play for any significant period in the future, surely the best thing now is the last resort of a total break from cricket. Should they choose to rest him from the entire winter programme, he will have 6 months of rest before the English season comes around in April. Whereas before he has either been playing, or doing heavy-duty rehabilitation on the ankle, it has never had an extended period of rest, which seems the only thing left for the medics to suggest. He is now at the second watershed moment in his career, the first having been when some sharp words from those close to him incited him to lose the weight and realise his potential; the sadness is that, this time, there is only so much that he can do.

God bestowed the greatest of batting talents on Mark Ramprakash (or genetics, if that is your perspective) and after so many years of flattering to deceive on the international stage, he has started to bat like him. With the England players limited to just a handful of games, phenomenal achievements tend to be the preserve of the overseas professional. And one of their legion, Mike Hussey, is the only man other than Ramprakash who has achieved the batting high water-mark of 2000 Championship runs in the English season since the two-divisional structure was introduced. And that achievement was a phenomenal one done once, against the inferior Divison 2 opposition. To do it a second time, against the cream of county bowling, including the likes of Clark, Hoggard, Warne, Mushtaq, Naved and Muralitharan, is a triumph beyond words. The fact that he needed over 300 runs in the final game to get over the line just augments the legend. Indeed his form merits an England recall, although that will not happen for the right reasons, and the man himself has shown little hunger for such an eventuality. With hindsight, he probably should have gone to Australia last winter, where he has had success in the past, for the one-off, esepcially bearing in mind the inexperience of the English batting unit. But Ramprakash it at a stage in his career where the "if-onlys" can be relegated to the back of his mind, something which has probably helped free him up and facilitate such success. He is contracted for two more seasons, his 10 centuries this term have made the career mark of 100 a formality, barring injury. And while some English supporters might reflect on what might have been for him on the international stage, Ramprakash and his large fan-base can look forward to more seasons, more runs, and some of the finest batsmanship you might ever see.

Singing in the rain: County cricket is dying. Attendances are low, as are standards; it is failing the national team as a producer of talent fit for international cricket. That is a precied paraphrase of any report, review or Bob Willis speech you could hope to get your hands on (or cover your ears from) when the national team is failing. But not only did the title race go into the last game a four-horse race, of which only one had seriously fallen out of contention by the last day, it went down to the last few overs at The Oval, as Lancashire made a valiant effort to secure the prize that has eluded them since the inter-war years, falling just 25 short of what seemed an impossible target of 489. It was a second successive title for the Martlets, a third in five seasons - an astonishing glut after more than a century without success. It had seemed improbable back in April when they suffered a brace of shattering defeats, but slowly things came together - hardy perennials Goodwin and Adams ground out the runs, wickets tumbled as Mushtaq rolled to the wicket. Richard Montgomerie also finished on exactly 1000 CC runs, a nice way to end a distinguished career as he leaves the changing room for the classroom and his new career in teaching. There has not been too much missing from the domestic scene this season - runs aplenty from Ramprakash, Di Venuto, Law, Trescothick and Rudolph, to mention a few; the old guard of seamers - Gibson, Gough, Caddick and Chapple - enjoying late flourishes before surrendering the ball to the battalion of world-class spinners which graced the first-class game. All the best spinners in the world were on show in England this summer- Warne, Muralitharan, Mushtaq, Harbhajan, Kaneira and Kumble for India - not to mention a few English hopefuls, notably Adil Rashid, whose bowling fell away in the second half of the season, but who still managed over 40 wicket, as well as 790 runs. His fellow leg-spinner from Somerset, Michael Munday, whom Terry Jenner reckons has the best leg-break of all the young English spinners, also caused a stir with 8-55 in his final outing of the season. And all of this despite the massive amount of rain which would have wrecked a lesser season. So there is much for the county game to cheer, and, for once, little for its detractors to carp about.

Indian Captains do not tend to do winning away. Nor do they usually depart without some sort of controversy, providing the fire for the smoke of the burning effigies. But Rahul Dravid has never fulfilled the traditional stereotypes of the superstar Indian cricketer, and the manner of his departure reflected his modest and self-effacing nature. Indeed so quiet was his announcement, deliberately timed to coincide with the much louder events of the World Twenty20, that you might easily have missed it; when his predecessor departed the captaincy, you might have been mistaken for thinking that there was anything more important happening the world over. The timing of his resignation seems strange, on the back of the massive Test series win in England, but the more one thinks, the more sensible his decisions seems. Despite their relative success in Test cricket, the one-day side has been going backwards, evidenced by the World Cup display and defeat to a still emerging England side. Dravid knows that he will almost certainly not last until the 2011 World Cup, and saw the need for the one-day side to move on from the stalwarts who have sustained it for so long, but of late have begun to stultify it. In Tests, although a successful leader, he was always something of a hesitant and flawed tactician, steady rather than inspired. His batting also, relatively, suffered - when captain, his career mark of just under 57 was reduced to 44.51. Dravid realises that if India are to have a chance of trumping Australia away from home early next year, they will need every single run he can provide; evidently, he feels that he is better able to fulfil his primary role as No.3 batsman without the weight of the captaincy, that much heavier when it is the Indian job in question. Such selflessness is rare in sport, and even more so in the ego-driven world of sub-continental cricket. Dravid would have been under no pressure to resign - he did it for the good of his team, and what is sad is that, once again, he will be deprived of the plaudits he deserves.

Battling opposites seek to tip balance

2007-09-07T22:40:00.000+01:00

Today's one-day international between England was never destined to have much importance - the 7th in what was sure to be an interminably long and tedious series, the outcome of which was largely expected to have been decided, it was scheduled on the same day as high profile matches for both the rugby and football teams and seemingly destined for graveyard levels of interest and publicity. Yet after 6 matches of absorbing and high-quality cricket, the outcome of the series will be decided in an effective final, at Lord' s, no less.

No-one, with cricket rather than coin running through their heart, wanted this series to run seven matches, your correspondent utterly unexcepted. Yet no-one could have expected some of the highlights of the 600 or so overs of cricket these two sides have contested thus far. A list of three different English century makers, the names Pietersen and Collingwood conspicuously absent; elegantly ponderous Test batsmen Ian Bell and Rahul Dravid blazing a trail with innovative, scintillating strokeplay; the still breathtaking sight of Flintoff steaming in at full tilt; the whiles and guile of the maverick, tubby Powar; Bopara and Broad manufacturing a partnership to somehow salvage a win from a cause most had long since abandoned; Mascarenhas clubbing the last five balls of an innings over the boundary rope; Uthappa's late audacious sally to snatch victory at The Oval and ensure the series outcome would remain undecided until the last.

No, turgid and unsuccessful cricket is what England fans have come to expect from their team in coloured clothing, and a one-sided series was generally forecasted. For the first four matches, this prediction largely held sway, although not quite in the way expected. England, keen in the field, effective with the bat and lent a cutting edge with the ball by the return of Flintoff, clambered all over India, who were geriatric in the field, lacked balance in the absence of a genuine all-rounder and suffered when the spinners were not bowling.

But India had too much quality to stay down for the count, and two batting efforts in excess of 300; setting a winning score at Headingley and chasing in the following game, have dragged them back to parity. And while the fielding has perked up after plumbing levels which would shame an over-40s pub team, it has indeed been with the bat in hand where India have won the games. And while the game of cricket, especially in its shorter form, has been changing all around him for the 17 year span of his international career, one thing remains constant - Sachin Tendulkar still wins games for India.

During the Test series, it was clear to see that he was a long way off his dominant best; he still had some success, notably with crucial 90s at Trent Bridge and The Oval, but it was achieved in a different manner from conquests past, and possibly with a different motive at heart. Whereas in years past, Tendulkar has been a destroyer of the best bowling attacks, here he had to work for his runs, accumulating and compiling innings. And while he had once been criticised as an insular character, now he appeared more outgoing - a team man - fielding in the slips where he had once prowled the outer reaches, ever willing to turn his arm over. And at the beginning of the one-day series, this ponderous style looked to be getting the better of him - he struggled to pierce the inner fielding ring, and twice offered easy catches to men in the middle of nowhere on the leg-side. But the latter part of the rubber has seen the return of the old Tendulkar, the dominant Tendulkar, Tendulkar the batting god. Once more the ball rockets off the bat, fielders with no more than a handful of paces to make up on the boundary are left floundering as the white missile pelts past them. The body has begun to fail him, which is why where the Tendulkar of 1996 or 2002 might have celebrated three centuries this series, he is still yet to pass three figures. But this is Lord's, this is a final, and this is the last time he will represent India on English soil. 27,000 at the Home of Cricket will be hoping, 1,000,000,000 back at home will be expecting one last flourish of genius from the man who has provided so many over the best part of two decades, and has shown in his last two appearances that he still has it in him.

And while the physically small Tendulkar is his country talisman, England will be looking for their own totemic figure, Andrew Flintoff, to return . It is a romantic vision, the injured Flintoff rising up to inspire his team to victory, and the sort of which cricket, as a sport, has the power on occasion to indulge. But likely as it is he will play, England, despite their coach's expostulations, are indeed taking a risk with his health, although it seems these days Flintoff cannot take the cricket field without risking some part of the lower body which provides the power-base for his herculean bowling. England will hope to get the ten cheap overs they need out of Flintoff and pray that this does not lead to any further deterioration. But the long term situation regarding his fitness is a more complicated one, and, although it is a matter for another day, that day must be soon, even if the answers are not those anyone wants to hear.

England have begun to turn a corner in this series; for the first time in years, the structure for what could prove an excellent one-day side appears to be coming together. And while 3-4 would have been an acceptable result at the outset, it would be a black mark to let the series slide having needed just one win from the last three games to seal it. For India, the same process is one which looms large; over the last week, there have been rumblings that Tendulkar will retire from the shorter form of the game after India's next two home ODI series; Dravid and Ganguly cannot be too far behind, and their young 20-20 squad, with MS Dhoni as captain, shows that they have already begun to consider the future without the reassuring names which have been the present for so long. England need the win to confirm their improvement as a one-day side, India so that they avoid what would be an embarrassing defeat overall and to leave England with not only the series victory they might not have expected, but the one everyone thought was theirs for the taking. What was originally ordained to be decided over the course of seven matches can now be settled in just one. The best of both worlds then, although it will be an uncomfortable place for the team who comes second.

Student fund covers shortcomings

2007-08-30T23:04:00.000+01:00

There had been enough decidedly un-English play in the first three matches of this sprawling one-day marathon to dictate that the bad old ways would soon return. And in the manner beloved of the British press, today's unlikely victory was achieved in extraordinary circumstances, with the odds heavily stacked against it - put another way, it was an excellent face-saving exercise on what was turning into a monumental cock-up. When Stuart Broad joined Ravi Bopara with England 99 adrift of victory, and just three wickets in hand, very much in the manner of Roosevelt at the D-Day landings, one assumed that captain Paul Collingwood had his defeat-speech ready in his pocket.

Despite a pitch on which the vaunted Indian batting line-up had limped to just over 200, and 7 front-line English batsmen had mustered just over 100, and even with Collingwood, anchoring the innings and the only man in dark blue to have given a sense of permanence, having got on the wrong end of a run-out, somehow England's two youngest players managed to forge the elusive partnership which the commentators declared was all England needed, and yet all the senior batsmen had failed to manufacture. Just 28 of the 99 runs they put on were in boundaries, and like another illustrious English late-order partnership of 105 years ago, Wilfred Rhodes and George Hirst, they resolved to get the majority in singles. Glides, nudges and pokes were supplemented by wristy inventiveness on the part of Bopara and the odd dominant off-side stroke from Broad, more reminiscent of his father, former England opener Chris. Bopara, of course, has been here before - in the company of another left-hander, team-elder Paul Nixon, he made an even more thrilling last stand in the World Cup against Sri Lanka, although that effort was fated to end in defeat. Today's partnership was far lower-octane - there was barely a reverse sweep in sight, and the job was completed long before one of the Indian seamers had the chance to emulate Fernando's last ball chutzpah. But, more happily, the result was an England victory; while Bopara continued to build his reputation as ice-blood finisher, Broad made the first significant batting contribution of his international career to join his ODI best figures with the ball and confirm what his bowling has suggested throughout the series, that he has now settled into this England team and is starting to produce his best.

In the circumstances of such a triumph, it is hard to strike a balance between praise for the heroes of the hour and criticism of those who put them in a situation where heroes were needed at all. It would be wrong to suggest that today's batting shambles is illustrative of England's general one-day situation, for they have batted well for most of the series. Rather it was a result of the usual mixture of potent bowling and foolish shot-selection. They were not helped by the early loss of Cook, who ideally would have batted as in a Test match and anchored the innings, but the general support for Collingwood was below poor - Flintoff has regained no confidence with the bat, while Shah is probably suffering from an inner-turmoil brought about by the fact he is being made to prove himself the series after he had been the only English batsman worthy of the description.

But at the stage in the series where the selectors can opt to alter the squad, there is far more reason to be positive than otherwise, largely thanks to the excellent standard of bowling. Gone are the much peddled sequences of wides, no-balls and boundaries which the likes of Plunkett and Mahmood amongst others have frequently dished up over the last year. Instead, James Anderson now leads the attack with his bowling and confidence appearing to grow with every passing game. He is now on the verge of being the ideal one-day pace bowler: providing wickets with the new ball, he is the sort to which Collingwood can turn to when he needs a wicket mid-innings, and some embellishments to his repertoire have meant that bowling at the death is now increasingly less of a trial. Alongside him, Broad has been as reliable as one could have hoped for a bowler of his experience: before today's game, perhaps the wickets had not come as freely as they might have, but he has been resolute with the new ball, his accuracy, nip and bounce creating pressure from one end, which his colleagues, especially Anderson, have been gleefully capitalising on. Flintoff has bowled with pace and aggression seldom seen since he last regularly played ODI cricket at home, in the summer of 2005. Doubt remains over the abilities of Panesar in this form of the game, and he lacks the variation which has made his opposite numbers so troublesome, although to his credit he produced his best one-day performance today, conceding less than 40 runs from his complete allocation of overs and taking away the scalp of Dhoni, castled by a sharp-spinner.

Almost as pleasing as the much improved bowling performances has been the excellent showing in the two outwardly peripheral areas of one-day cricket which few teams prosper without successfully executing. Australia have long been the market leaders in ODI cricket, and while the stellar names at both ends of the teamsheet have much to do with this, the high quality of their fielding is the factor which swings tight contests their way. Their current team possesses an unrivalled trio of world-class fielders in the gully/cover ring, with Ponting, Symonds and Clarke all predatory in hunting down even the best hit missiles, and deadly with the returns. England can only boast one fielder of that repute, in their captain Paul Collingwood, who has a claim for the title of best gully-line fielder in the world. But what has been apparent in this series is the way England are starting to field as a unit; alongside the captain, Bell, Bopara and Pietersen are on the way to becoming the same intimidating presence in the 30-yard circle as Australia offer. Throw in the catching and athleticism of Flintoff and the supreme arm of Anderson and you can see the potential this nascent England side has as a team in the field. Further to that, they have run excellently between the wickets, stealing singles and rotating the strike even when the boundaries will not come. In contrast, India have been slack in their running and slovenly in the field: while the experience of their batsmen is beneficial for that part of the game, having to carry their ageing legs in the field is costing India - it was something Greg Chappell identified during his now notorious spell as coach and although most involved in Indian cricket are now doing their best to forget the Chappell years, his point is an enduring one, and India will continue to struggle in one-day cricket while nothing is done.

Most of the negatives surrounding England's performances centre around the batting, although, excepting today's performance, returns have been promising. Cook and Bell delivered the centuries in the first game which the team had been crying out for. Both have continued to prosper, and although they are not fully able to exploit the powerplays in the popular muscular style, it is not inconceivable that they could continue to be accommodated. However, Matt Prior is not the right man to fill that particular sandwich - he is not a bad pinch-hitter, but rarely threatens to really cut loose or indeed progress much beyond 30, too often the victim to an ugly swipe resulting in a towering catch. Now they have the opportunity to meddle with the squad, it seems that the form of Durham opener (and 'keeper) Phil Mustard is just a bit too good to ignore: following his quickfire 49 in the FP final, he has produced innings of 84 (74 balls), 78 (40 balls) and 66 (31 balls) in three consecutive Pro40 games. Continuity is what England may bleat should they choose to pass over Mustard, but bloodymindedness is a greater sin than contravening the former.

But in comparison to earlier in the summer, these are just quibbles, and the English team and fans can take a brief moment to bask in the glory of some one-day success, in recent years about as commonplace as Saharan rain. But not for too long; despite their considerable advantage, there is still a series to win. And if it is for his bowling rather than batting that Stuart Broad continues to make headlines, then his country will be well served.

Looking for a happy ending to hard times

2007-08-26T21:24:00.000+01:00

County cricket can be a strange and capricious world, but the reality of a probable title-decider at Hove is remarkable even by such standards, considering the relative recent fortunes of the two counties. Sussex are the champions, and are seeking their third title in five season, so their presence would not be cause for any great surprise. However such an eventuality seemed unlikely back in April, as they crashed to successive innings defeats against Kent and Wawrickshire. Michael Yardy was unavailable, his finger broken in the curtain raiser against MCC; Matt Prior likewise, at the behest of the England selectors.

At that stage of the season, Yorkshire fans were in a state of delirium; Surrey, Durham and Worcestershire had all submitted to heavy defeats, while fancied Hampshire escaped with a draw. It had been a swift turnaround from the circumstances six months previously, when the club was in straits calamitous even when set against the frequent disasters which litter the club's history, ancient and modern. Darren Lehmann, who had literally preserved Yorkshire's Division 1 status off his own bat, scoring a triple century in the survive or die match against Durham, and a top-drawer overseas pro in every way, had lost the battle against ageing bones and was unable to commit to another full campaign. Joining him through the exit door was Michael Lumb, off to the greener grass of Hampshire's Rose Bowl, and, so it seemed Anthony McGrath. No-one had been more committed to the cause than McGrath, a loyal servant to the club for over a decade. But like so many Yorkshire greats of the past, the back-biting and inner machinations had tipped him over the edge and he resolved to cut his ties with the club. Craig White extended his contract, but terminated his leadership, so Yorkshire had no captain. David Byas, cause for some of the unrest, also departed, so they had no coach.

Where two had been, Yorkshire sought to fill the void with one man. Ironically enough, that was the then Sussex captain Chris Adams. Captaining the side, acting as head coach and shoring up a flimsy middle-order were the tasks assigned to him, the reciprocal being a four year contract and an enticing financial offer. Perhaps bearing in mind the job that faced him, one can understand while Adams took one look and fled back to homely Hove (stopping on the way to have his photo taken holding a Yorkshire shirt), which is why he is the still Sussex captain. But his departure left the club in a tricky situation; as ever, Geoffrey Boycott homed in on the nub of the issue - Yorkshire had spent the months where they could have found the players they now needed persuading Adams and that time had been wasted and Adams had not only left them up a creek but taken their paddle with him back to Sussex. The batting appeared to begin and end with Younus Khan; the bowling with Jason Gillespie - not an appealing prospect when his first season with the club was taken into account. Younus could not be captain, as he was going to be away the World Cup (as was the assumption), neither could McGrath as he was leaving.

But while the reaction of most Yorkshire fans to Chris Adams' U-turn ranged from anger to outright hostility, they might well now consider a pilgrimage to Hove to kiss his feet. Realising that the middle-order batting was set to resemble that of the previous year's Second XI, a mixture of hard-headed dealing from Chief Exec. Stuart Regan and Geoffrey Boycott's contacts in South Africa helped bring Jaques Rudolph to the club on a three year Kolpak deal. It was not popular, and fiercely contested by other counties, but at the end of it all, Yorkshire had secured the services of a Test-class batsman, who has proved over the course of the season to be their best. However, the captaincy options were still thin on the ground - the fact that Jason Gillespie was probably the second horse in the race is a fair illustration of the situation. Yet an amazing winter for the club had one more surprise left in it, and it concerned the nature of a two-year contract offered by Essex; it was unsigned, and the name on it was Darren Gough. With his old foe Byas out of the way, Gough did not need too much persuading to make the emotional return once the captaincy option was on the table. Gough alone would have been a significant capture, but when his signing reaped the immediate benefits of mollifying McGrath and provoking an extraordinary reconciliation as well as luring former coach Martyn Moxon back from Durham, no-one could quite believe the transformation that the club had undergone in a matter of months. And when Pakistan's dismal World Cup exit meant Younus would be available from the start of the season, optimism knew no bounds. It was cup runneth over stuff, especially when Surrey were knocked over on their own turf, leading to three wins in the first four championship games.

It couldn't last, could it? Well yes and no - despite having won just one more match since the initial spurt, Yorkshire find themselves at the top of the table, albeit having played a game more than nearest rivals Sussex and two more than Hampshire. After rain interrupted their mid-season, with none of their four matches after the 20-20 break going beyond a third innings, consecutive losses to Lancashire and Worcestershire looked to have scuppered their title chances. The latter result was a real body-blow - Worcestershire were (and still are) propping up the table, winless all season. However, enterprising captaincy from Vikram Solanki, declaring behind on first innings after the weather had taken time out of the game, gave his opposite number the chance to reciprocate, which he did a little too generously as Worcestershire chased down 337 with ease on the final afternoon.

However, just as Yorkshire looked to have played themselves out of contention, fate took a hand: as Sussex were sat in a dressing room at The Oval unable to get on the field for a single ball over four days, the Scarborough crowd were witnessing the utter destruction of Wawrickshire, who went down to a crushing innings defeat, twice bowled out cheaply and made to suffer in the field as Rudolph amassed a double-century and Bresnan his third ton of the season. Maximum points to Yorkshire; squat all to Sussex except the realisation that the title race was wide-open again.

The clash between the two teams in early September is the next Championship game for both sides, and should either one emerge as winner, the title is likely to go with them. Yorkshire have relied on their batsmen a lot this term, reflected by their mammoth amount of batting bonus points, the factor which is keeping them at the top of the table. And after the top order had begun to falter recently, they have been reinforced by the arrival of two Test captains - incumbent English leader Michael Vaughan and recently departed Pakistani skipper Inzamam-Ul-Haq, a replacement for compatriot Younus Khan. Anthony McGrath has returned to the form of last season after a shaky start, and Yorkshire will rely on him for solidity at the top, alongside Vaughan. Batsman of the season Rudolph is the fourth Test player in the top 5, and has combined well with a strong lower order, improved keeper-batsman Gerard Brophy and England future hopefuls Rashid and Bresnan, both in the runs of late. Sussex boast less international pedigree, but are nevertheless packed with experienced practitioners, Goodwin and Adams the best bets for heavy runs, backed up by Yardy and Montgomerie, enjoying his best season for years at the top of the order. The lower-order also shows up well, with Hodd deputising effectively for Prior, as well as all-rounders Martin-Jenkins and 20 over star Luke Wright.

Yorkshire's opening pair with the ball is an exciting mix of England past and present, captain Gough alongside Hoggard. Bresnan and Shahzad are the back-up seamers, while the trump card is spinning prodigy Adil Rashid. Although his season has tailed off with the ball after a turbo-charged start, he is still a serious threat. Should he be looking to learn, in his two opposite numbers there are no better examples as masters of their respective crafts. Mushtaq Ahmed has been top wicket-taker for Sussex in every season since he joined in 2003, and nothing has changed this term, 69 already having fallen victim. He is now joined by the other man who sustained Pakistani spin bowling in the 1990s, Saqlain Mushtaq: if Shane Warne saved the art of leg-spin, the same must be said of Saqlain as regards off-spin, with his invention of what is now known as the doosra, but to start off with was just Saqlain's mystery ball. The last three years have been a real struggle for him - dropped by Pakistan, he found himself abandoned by his home country, and has finally emerged with Sussex, alongside his old accomplice. With the Pakistani spin-twins, expect the Hove pitch to be conducive to turn (make that a raging bunsen), although Yorkshire can counter with not only Rashid but Imran Tahir, replacement for Jason Gillespie.

The two counties can find much in common over the last year, not least the man who could have been leading out either team. But for all that shared experience, only one team can lift the trophy, and the forthcoming match represents the best chance for one team to deliver a knockout blow. Yorkshire have the big-names, Sussex the men who know what it takes to win a Championship. Only after four days will Chris Adams know whether he made the right choice.

Directionless England set to suffer

2007-08-19T16:26:00.001+01:00

One pattern established during the Duncan Fletcher years, namely the refusal to submit to defeat in a home Test series, has already been disrupted in his successor's first summer in charge; it is now the duty of Peter Moores and his team to break another trend. Just three matches against West Indies were necessary for the ugly truth about England's one-day team to make itself painfully apparent to the new coach and captain. Not quite the dismal outfit they are in Test cricket, this West Indies team are still an ordinary outfit, albeit fast improving, in ODIs. Yet despite taking the lead in the series, once away from the heavily overcast conditions which assisted their victory at Lord's and briefly clouded harsh reality, they never looked like getting close to, let alone overcoming, the only team who at that stage were below them in the ICC rankings.

Following that defeat, England take their rightful place at the bottom of the pile and are faced with the inglorious prospect of 7 matches against an Indian side which still packs a significant punch, World Cup debacle notwithstanding, without even the habitual succour of success in the Test series to galvanise them against the expected thrashing. Moores can take some comfort from the return of some key players, including influential all-rounders Andrew Flintoff and Ravi Bopara who were absent in the West Indies series. Nevertheless, he is more likely to reflect on what he is missing, with Marcus Trescothick having ruled himself out of the winter tours and consequently drawing a line under a distinguished international career, something which Steve Harmison, who would be unavailable anyway, has already done as regards one-day cricket.

One-day cricket is all about strategy; well-thought out plans efficiently executed have ever been the basis of successful teams in the shorter form of the game. And, unsurprisingly, a 50-over innings can be broken down into beginning, middle and end, different phases which require different approaches both with bat and ball. Although the prevalence of hulking openers with equally large weapons (bats) and the extension of the fielding restrictions has persuaded most teams that all-out attack is the best way to start off an innings, it is by no means the only way, although as England found out at the World Cup, a contrary strategy can be tricky. The problem for England at the top of the order is a lack of continuity and clear-thinking. Back in the Caribbean last spring, the idea was to preserve wickets and to score the majority of runs at the end, rather than beginning of the innings; all well and good, but the problem was that theory did not convert into reality. While they should have been aiming for about 70 runs for the loss of no more than one wicket in the first 20 overs, in preference to over 100 for the loss of three, the reality was more like 80-3, too few runs scored and too many wickets surrendered. The current partnership is a classic example of England hamstringing themselves as they veer between sticking and twisting - Alistair Cook is yet to prove he can bat throughout a one-day innings, and was guilty in the last series of getting himself out after promising starts, while Matt Prior deserves a chance, but would probably be better suited to leading the charge at the other end of the innings. The squad selected is for the first four games only, and that is probably the time which Cook and Prior have to convince the selectors they should not opt for a wild-card at the top of the order, with Luke Wright and Phil Mustard having pressed their claims in the high-profile games over the weekend.

The identity of the man coming in at first drop is also a conundrum yet to be satisfactorily resolved; England are not helped by the fact that their Test match No.3, Michael Vaughan, has proved himself immiscible in the one-day melting pot, and, although not yet officially retired, is not in the primary thoughts of the selectors. The necessity for adaptability has generally pushed the hierarchy in the direction of Ian Bell is , although his one-day career is, if anything, even more frustrating than his Test one and his fortunes fluctuate from one game to another. On a given day he looks the perfect man for the job, with a well paced knock which balances the innings; the next he may scratch around listlessly, causing those watching to wonder why anyone ever let him near a coloured kit. One option yet to be assessed is Ravi Bopara filling the same position for country as he does he county; his wristy, intelligent batting makes him a more dangerous prospect than Bell in one-dayers, and deploying him at the top of the order lessens the congestion for places in the lower order.

The middle-order is at least one area where England can feel comfortable; now that the idea of batting Pietersen at 3 has finally run its course, he is settled as heart of the batting at 4, followed by Owais Shah, who earned himself the right for continued selection by being the standout batsman against West Indies, pushing captain Collingwood down a place. Unless the selectors surprise everyone by pushing Flintoff into the top 3, something which would probably be ill-advised given past experience, he should follow his captain in; his batting increasingly deteriorated over the course of the last year, and he was becoming an untenable option at 6, and it remains to be seen whether a demotion will allow him more freedom to express himself with the bat; much as they need his bowling, England could also do with Flintoff discovering the one-day batting form of 2004 and being ringleader in the dash for late-order runs.

Just as with batting strategy, bowling plans can also be divided into the three basic stages. And in the previous series, it was more in conception than execution where England's tactics erred. While the lack of ability to take wickets with the new ball is a concern, the way they approached the middle overs was the most worrying aspect of the bowling; the slower bowlers, Mascarenhas, Panesar and Collingwood, were all utilised with the intention of rattling quickly through overs quickly in the period between the power plays and the slog overs at the end. And while they succeeded in keeping the scoring rate down, they were made to pay at the death, where West Indies twice milked over 100 of the last 10 overs having kept wickets in hand. And while Mascarenhas can boast an excellent economy rate (3.5 rpo) from his three matches, he failed to take a wicket, while Panesar managed just one and a tailender at that. Hopefully the harsh lesson dealt out by West Indies will convince the English strategists that they must use bowlers who are genuine wicket-taking threats in the middle overs. The return of Flintoff gives them an extra option in that area, as well as at the end of the innings, where he is England's only proven "death bowler", having the skills which the scorecards from the last two games suggest Anderson, Broad et al are not endowed with. With regards to that, they would do well to jettison Mascarenhas's all round talents in favour of an extra front-line seamer, giving Collingwood options to exert pressure throughout the innings; if that pressure brings about wickets, it would also go some way to alleviating England's problem with bowling at the death, where damage sustained is always in direct correlation with the number of wickets preserved by the batting side. It would also allow England to see how Broad copes with batting at 8, something which could also influence future Test selection. To start off with, Sidebottom should get the nod to take the new ball with Anderson, with Tremlett to come into consideration at some point in the series.

The role of Monty Panesar is also something which bears scrutiny. Despite being an excellent attacking bowler in Test matches, his 19 ODIs have failed to bring that many wickets, with an economy rate of 4.48 which is not quite frugal enough to justify the lack of success. One obvious explanation is that he is grossly inexperienced in this form of the game, having played more times for England than Northants., whom he has represented just 11 times in pajamas. What is his strength in Tests, namely nagging accuracy and a flat, buzzing trajectory, count against him in ODIs, where batsman prosper when they know what to expect. To succeed in the one-day game, he will have to alter his approach slightly and flight the ball more, enticing batsman and, to an extent, try to buy wickets - in the increasingly batsman friendly game, the Illingworthian exhortation of "I can get him for less than six" sadly no longer holds water.

Batting in the first twenty overs; taking wickets with the new ball; taking wickets with the old ball; restricting scoring in the death overs. That doesn't leave out much, which goes a fair way to explaining why England have been such a poor one-day side, and gives an impression of the problems faced by Moores and Collingwood in what is becoming akin to a Holy Grail quest. Converesly India, despite their World Cup travails, are a one-day team bursting with all the right stuff; the collective number of caps achieved by England's putative top 6 (228) is dwarfed by Tendulkar's total, which the 7 matches will bring within 5 of 400. Not to mention Dravid and Ganguly, who boast 615 between them or Yuvraj Singh, who at the age of 25 is in sight of his 200th. The batting, possessing two of the one-day game's greatest talents in Tendulkar and Ganguly, and supplemented by the calm and eloquent strokeplay of Dravid, as well as the aggression of Yuvraj and Gambhir and outright brutality of Uthappa (ODI strike rate of 102.1) will give England's green attack nightmares; while the bowling, much of it the left-arm variety so hard to get away in one-day cricket will be a significant examination of a batting order whose future is very much in flux. Unlike in the Test series, defeat is anticipated by English supporters, and the realisation of that fear over the course of 7 matches and 700 overs would make this at least the second worst summer of the decade and be a further bitter pill in what has been an undoubted annus horribilis for the team.

Worth the wait?

2007-08-17T16:25:00.000+01:00

Not many could have foreseen back in April when the county season begun in unnaturally hot conditions that 2007 would be a summer in which rain would be a menace more persistent than even English cricket followers are accustomed to. But it appears that the rain deities managed to confuse June and July for January, in the process almost completely snuffing out the Twenty20 spark which county cricket has become almost entirely dependent on for publicity and popular presence. With this failing, the old standby of the domestic one-day final has been looked to, and, glory-be, there is a story.

Just as Gloucestershire became known by the name of their talisman Mike Procter in the 1970s, Shane Warne now has such influence over his dominion of Hampshire that a similar acknowledgement would not be remiss. And while he may in time join his four fellow Wisden cricketers of the century as a knight of the realm, the peership that only Learie Constantine from the cricketing fraternity has risen to is unlikely to ever be awarded to him, meaning that he can be Lord Warne of the Rose Bowl in the mind's eye only. And he, as ever, is a significant part of that story in what could well be his last Lord's final, 8 years after he made the best team of the tournament, Pakistan, look like impostors in the World Cup final.

15 years ago, the appearance of Shane Warne on any cricketing stage would have failed to produce much more than a passing interest. For it was back then that he was making his first steps in international cricket; around the same time, dominant minor county Durham were also starting out in first-class cricket, wet nursed through infancy by a number of fading star names in Wayne Larkins, Ian Botham and Simon Hughes, alongside combative Aussie Dean Jones and the homegrown crop. The two roads have diverged greatly since the shared point of departure: while Warne has, not without mishap, forged a path as the supreme bowler of his generation, and perhaps any, Durham have mostly been hacking through the rough, propping up the championship table and acting as cannon fodder for Brian Lara as he amassed, rather blasted, his record 501*. But as Warne's playing days reach a dignified end, and Durham taste sustained success for the first time in their history as a first-class county, the two paths cross again; it is Durham's first domestic Lord's final, as it is Warne's, and it is also conceivably the great man's last.

But just as Warne is now a totally different beast from that which managed just one expensive wicket on Test debut, Durham are no longer a team to be taken lightly, especially in this form of the game. Michael Di Venuto, whom only Mark Ramprakash has surpassed in run getting this championship season, opens up alongside wicket-keeper Phil Mustard, whose surname gives a fair impression of how he sets about opening bowlers. An international middle-order follows; Paul Collingwood, followed by batsman of the summer Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Dale Benkenstein, the South African who bucks the general Kolpak trend by being a player of the highest class and commitment. Even without the injured Steve Harmison, the bowling is far from inert; Ottis Gibson is a year older than Warne and is already on the ECB payroll as an Academy coach, although he is playing almost well enough to be representing the national team, in the form of his life after achieving the rare feat of all ten wickets in an innings last month. He is backed up in the seam department by England present and future: Liam Plunkett and Graham Onions, as well as Neil Killeen, a war-horse who has survived through the dark days to represent his home county in their finest hour. Gareth Breese provides the spin option and sustains the West Indian connection as well as supplementing a strong lower order, alongside Gibson and Plunkett. With Collingwood and Benkenstein also good value for their medium-pacers, Durham will not be short of options as they seek to restrict Pietersen and co.

On a rare jaunt for his second county, England's kingpin will be the prized wicket, although he is by no means the be all and end all for the Hampshire batting. Despite not quite being in the imperious form of the past few seasons, John Crawley is still a force to be reckoned with at the top of the order, while a lot could depend on the contribution of the two Southern African left-handers, the hard hitting duo of Lumb and Ervine, whose belligerence will be complemented by the pragmatism of Nic Pothas, quietly enjoying another excellent season while the wicket-keeping debate rages elsewhere. Stuart Clark has gone, but in his place Daren Powell has blossomed after a mixed tour with his country in early summer, and leads the seam attack alongside Chris Tremlett, buoyed by his impressive Test performances and looking to lay down a marker for selection in the forthcoming one-day marathon against India. Likewise Dimitri Mascarenhas, who will aim to restrict with ball and explode with the bat and whose position as fourth seamer is indicative of his team's bowling depth, with James Bruce an understated performer as first change. And then there is Warne; like all others, he has only 10 overs to bowl, but for the Durham batsmen, experienced as the majority are, his spell will seem that much longer - while there is always a certain formulaic nature to one-day cricket, you cannot account for a singular genius like Warne. And not just with ball in hand; the chatter will not cease from his domain of first-slip, especially when Collingwood comes to the crease. And there are few other No.8 batsmen you would rather have coming in to guide a tight run-chase; while others might hesitate, or be seized by nerves, you know that Warne will never divert from his primary setting, which is attack, and attack again until the enemy has been defeated.

Warne 15 years in the making; Durham 15 years in the waiting. It is easy to overestimate the one, and underrate the other. Hampshire, with their unbeaten record in Lord's finals, will start as favourites, although Durham's inexperience in big-game situations is as a team only, with the majority of their team well versed in the cut and thrust of the winner-takes-all scenario. It is far easier in the mind's eye to picture Warne with the trophy held aloft, but on balance the solidity of the Durham line-up is a good bet to deny him. But probability and odds only interest Warne when he is laying bets, rather than deciding their outcome, and he is one major hurdle Durham will have to surmount if they are to mark the biggest day out in their history with their greatest achievement.

England ambushed in bloodless coup

2007-08-13T19:01:00.000+01:00

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.

Old ghosts stirred as England face harsh reality

2007-08-12T21:36:00.000+01:00

Maybe it is because England have not been subjected to the series loss they are now staring squarely in the face that it is hard to remember two consecutive Test matches in which they have slipped out of contention so quickly. Even as they crashed and burned across Australia last winter, it was only at Brisbane where they were dominated from the get-go and in each of the other matches there were brief periods where they might have seized control. And as much as India endeavoured today to pull of their usual trick of messing up good opportunities for rare away vicotries, such was the advantage on first innings that even a day in which they were totally outdone did not bring England back into realistic sight of winning the game.

The match as a whole has provided an engaging mix of old and new: bearing in mind the unbeaten run set to be capped at six years, this Test has had a fair resemblence to its 2001 predecessor, where Australia racked up over 600 first up to take control of the game. The common denominator of both games has been the flat, late-summer Oval track, a positive font of runs when allied with such a lightning outfield. Yet for a period in the late morning, Chris Tremlett and James Anderson bowled well enough to coax out the ghost of mid-1990s Oval pitches on which England secured soothing vicotries against Australia in '93 and ''97 and Devon Malcolm bombed out nine South Africans in an innings in 1994.

Just as there had been six years ago, there was a major departure from the Oval stage. In 2001, it was the turn of Mike Atherton, leaving the Test arena for good, departing in the manner to which he had become accustomed, c.Warne b.McGrath, with just a wave of the bat to bid farewell to the crowds whose hopes he had often born alone. Although no less important to his country, Atherton was not on the same level internatioanlly as Tendulkar, who also has more innings to play, if not on English soil. But the mode of dismissal, stumps splattered, was definitely something which has crept into reality for the new Tendulkar, whereas of old he would not have countenanced it. Vulnerable at 11-3, India were grateful for two of the old guard to return to the styles of play which were serving both well when they made their debuts in the same match at Lord's eleven years ago. Dravid, who has since blossomed into Test cricket's foremost accumulator, with an increasing array of strokes, shrunk back into the defensive shell which his game grew out of, realising that batting time was as essential to his team as scoring runs. His predecessor as captain, Sourav Ganguly, also returned to his core strength, comprising the masterful use of timing and placement to thwart even the best packed gully and point areas and pepper the off-side boundary behind square. By the time he fell to Collingwood, India were safe once again, and a cameo from Dhoni, alongside a silky innings of 42 from VVS Laxman, another one rolling back the years, allowed Dravid the indulgence of declaring on one of the nice round numbers so beloved of cricket captains. Tremlett and Anderson bowled their hearts out in the absence of Sidebottom, laid low by a side strain (what else?). But while they enjoyed some rare response from the placid surface, Monty Panesar must now be dreading every ball he bowls at The Oval, as well as wondering how a decade ago there was a pitch on which an English left-arm spinner managed to take a ten wicket haul in a Test Match.

Despite unhindered progress from the English opening pair, registering what is for them a rare 50 partnership, even the amazing recent history of this ground does not allow for a possibility as outlandish as a successful chase of 500 on the last day. The more you try and work out the permutations, and hypothetical situations, the more ridiculous the thought seems. Realistically the only possibility left open to England is the draw, and realistically they ought to achieve it. Granted, Kumble will be a handful on a fifth day pitch, but the said surface is still excellent, and it is time the English batsmen showed the necessary fight and gumption to save a Test match, something they have proved themselves inept at in the recent past. The series is lost, but there is a world of difference between a meek surrender and 2-0 defeat and a fighting draw here, salvaging pride, as well as the knowledge that, but for the weather at Lord's, they would still have a record to boast about.

Achievement within achievement

2007-08-09T16:05:00.000+01:00

Hidden amongst the impassioned outpourings about England's loosening grip on a 6 year unbeaten run and the continuing rumbles about boorish sledging and jelly-bean related activities came another announcement. As with many of his greatest achievements in a distinguished international career, it was significant yet swamped under a mound of more trumpeted stories. The retirement of Ashley Giles from all cricket had been largely anticipated after a degenerative hip problem allowed him only two batches of two Tests following the 2005 Ashes had been largely anticipated and almost a decade after he made his Test debut alongside the likes of Atherton, Hussain, Knight and Fraser, he is now set to join them in the commentary and press boxes.

England's last two long-serving left-arm spinners were very much peas in a pod; highly talented, maverick, Middlesex men, Edmonds and Tufnell were the best slow bowlers of their time, but both managed to upset the establishment and were never firmly ensconced in the fold. Giles came as a polar opposite: less naturally gifted, his all round talents, steady slow left-arm supplemented by trenchant batting and safe-as houses gully fielding, found him favour in Duncan Fletcher's Team England. You wouldn't expect to find Giles relieving his boredom by reading a newspaper on the field, or being accused of smoking weed in a New Zealand cafe.

Another fact which differentiated Giles from his predecessors is that his career coincided with one of England's most successful periods in Test cricket for quite some time. And while that sentence seems fairly anonymous, in fact the wording of it is extremely loaded and is the nub of the argument which raged - boringly as do most sagas related to English cricket - throughout his 52 Test career. His detractors always argued that he was a passenger: untalented and utilised only to fill a hole in an otherwise seamless XI. The favourite paradigm of the naysayer was that he maintained his place only because there was no-one better, while he did little to fight their principal doubt regarding his effectiveness by pursuing a consistent over-the-wicket line of attack.

Yet a brief perusal of the greatest successes of that glory period, now seemingly at an end, reveals the name of Giles to be a constant recurrence at all the most important stages. The series victory in Pakistan seven years ago, the first major triumph of the Fletcher-Hussain axis, featured an impressive 17 wickets from the man in question, while his fellow spinner Ian Salisbury managed just 1 in the 3 Tests. And while the Karachi Test will be forever remembered for its dramatic conclusion, too easily forgotten is the the crucial contribution of Giles, namely dismissing the often immovable feast Inzamam with a peach of a delivery, the sort which he replicated several times in later years, pitching outside leg and spinning past the bat to hit off. This sparked a frenzied Pakistan collapse, paving the way for England's twilight run-chase after Mike Atherton's painstaking 9 hour century had given England first-innings parity.

As with every cricketer who played that summer, the 2005 Ashes was his crowning achievement, one which went not without his own significant influence. The reason why England will not win the Ashes is because while Australia have Shane Warne, England can only present Ashley Giles as their best spin option. That was the line most cognoscenti were trotting out while England were sweeping up each of the 7 Tests in the 2004 summer. If England could just find a really top-drawer spinner, they might have a chance. And the comparison between the two is somewhat stark: indeed Giles took exactly a quarter of Warne's monumental haul that summer, and in the previous home Ashes series, Simon Hughes became a laughing stock amongst his Channel 4 colleagues just for the intimation that Giles and Warne were similar, in that they turned the ball the same way. But England did not need Giles to be like Warne; granted, they would have gladly accepted a superior attacking leg-spinner, but Giles' role was markedly different from the Australian's. As for much of his career, he plugged away gamely at one end, restricting the scoring and creating pressure for the formidable pace attack to capitalise on. Bowlers, like batsmen, work in pairs, and while Giles may not have bagged so many scalps for his own collection, a measure of wickets he helped bring about at the other end would have him in healthy credit. And while Kevin Pietersen is rightly hailed as the hero of the hour at The Oval, acting as England's Horatius in the face of the Australian onslaught, the contribution of Giles, with a patient half-century, ensured absolute safety and the recapture of the urn. Yet again, he was playing a small yet important and ultimately overshadowed role in a major team triumph.

Between times, he showed himself more than capable of making some headlines of his own, capturing 22 wickets in the 4 match series against West Indies in 2004, including the wicket of Brian Lara memorably at Lord's, with one of his ripsnorting specials. But it was not always for his own success that Giles became front-page news. On a difficult tour of India in 2001, his bowling attack depleted, Nasser Hussain was forced to test the boundaries of his formidable inventiveness; part of this involved Giles eschewing the traditional left-arm spinner's line of attack and bowl over the wicket into the deep rough which had developed. It succeeded in locating a depth to the patience of Tedulkar, stumped for the first time in his career in an attempt to break the shackles. It also caused a hue and cry in the press and from some fans: Hussain fit the bill nicely as the villain of the piece, being probably the most determined English captain since Douglas Jardine, although the mob found it hard to place Giles as successor to Larwood. So they settled for calling him boring, bland and ineffective, a far easier pigeon hole to stuff him in

Quite where Giles truly fits in between the extremist summaries of the adoring and the atheists is hard to say. A bowling average in excess of 40 in a Test career which stretched beyond 50 games is a slight anomaly and betrays the truth that Giles was no exceptional bowler, barely even excellent. There were also occasions on which he was expected to perform in favourable conditions and failed, such as on the last day of the Old Trafford Ashes Test in 2005, where he erred constantly in both length and line and went wicketless. A batting mark of over 20 goes some way to explaining his durability, as does the continued assertion that he was a good team-man, something which is easy to discredit from the outside, but which was valued highly by his fellows.

England have been fortunate that the tailing off of Giles' career has coincided with the emergence of a greater bowling talent in Monty Panesar. Panesar is without doubt the better bowler; he imparts greater turn and is an equal of Giles in terms of control. Therefore the uproar which followed the senior man's selection for the first two Ashes Tests last winter was somewhat understandable. In the end, it helped nobody: Giles had not played any sort of cricket for a year, and had remodelled his action into an ungainly trot, a shadow of the formerly graceful wheeling approach, and indicative of his slide into sporting infirmity. Below his best, he managed just two wickets in as many games before he was forced to return home to care for his wife, suffering from a brain tumour. Sadly, the abiding memory of his tour will be the dropped catch off Ricky Ponting in the first innings at Adelaide, which time has shown was an excruciatingly costly miss. In a rather ironic reflection of his earlier career, England's fortunes spiralled with his own, just as they had flourished with him in the first part of the decade. And for a man derided as a passenger throughout his career, perhaps the greatest compliment that can now be paid is that England are struggling without him.