Ready, Able?

The one pleasing aspect of England's loss to India was that cricket pervaded all social media. Sure it was unanimously negative and a universal lambasting of our national team's display, but it is nice to know that cricket is more popular than most perceive.

But with this large audience comes a large amount of opinion; an opinion that seems to regard any loss as a prompt for change, and wholesale change at that - previous performances forgotten amidst a cavalcade of resentment and anger.

It is true to say that the 'new era' has so far been a failure. It is also true to say that the senior players whom this future was based on have underperformed - Alastair Cook averages 16.4 with the bat in Tests this summer, Ian Bell 25.5 and Stuart Broad 37 with the ball. Lastly, it is true to say that England have yet to replace Graeme Swann as their spinner, and with Cook's form becoming more of an issue and Matt Prior stepping aside, they also have a wicketkeeper and maybe an opener to find.

It is easy to say the statement 'we need a better X', but the reality of finding that player is much more difficult.

'The answer is obvious! Look to County Cricket!' - fine. Chris Jordan took all the column inches in the early season, averaging 19.27 with the ball and looking head and shoulders above every other name. Yet In Test cricket he did not seem ready, too often spraying the ball down the leg side; going wicket-less at Headingly. Chris Woakes is also a stand-out with 34 wickets at 18.62, but was made to look like a club cricketer on his Début last year.
The batting tells the same tale of a lack of depth - Ian Bell romped to 500 runs in just 4 games, Sam Robson averaged 51.4 and Matt Prior smashed a 100. All those selected gained their place on the back of dominance at Domestic level, and now the public cries for lesser players?

Knowledge can also be feigned. Former players-turned-pundits pick names out of a hat, then call for their inclusion with no evidence on which to base their opinion. How many overs has Andrew Strauss seen Adam Riley bowl? How many sessions has Piers Morgan seen Jos Buttler keep through? And how many times has anyone seen Adam Lyth bat?

Apparently accepted arbiter of cricket Piers Morgan made a name for himself in the world of sport through commenting on football. Yet cricket is not like football. In football, players can make a multitude of mistakes yet be judged on one moment of brilliance. Conditions are also fairly uniform, and opposition fairly similar - a goal is a goal. Yet in cricket, one ball on a green deck may end your day, much the same as a hundred on a flat deck may not reflect true quality. People would do well to remember this during his next uninformed 140-character rant.

I do believe in a meritocracy. Players should not simply be selected because of who they are, or how well they get on with the captain. Yet at the same time, it has to be considered if the grass truly is greener elsewhere.

People rarely leave their current job unless they have an obvious replacement lined up. So is the same with England. Is their an obviously replacement for Matt Prior? Is there an obviously pick for the role of sole spinner? And is their an absolute, 100% guaranteed opener out there that justifies dropping one of England's most successful ever players?

The answer to all these is no. And until there is, I want less knee-jerk reactions, and more thoughtful, rational analysis... Maybe Twitter isn't the right place for me.

Bigmouth Strikes Again

There can be many grievances taken from tonight's T20 game of Surrey vs Middlesex, not least the fact that the North London team are making their third appearance on TV in as many weeks - despite being bottom of the table.

But the moment that made me literally shout out with anger came in the form of commentator Michael Vaughan. In his new role as SkySports pundit, he heaped superlatives on the 'back in form' Steven Finn, exclaiming after one ball which rose off a length 'that's what I like to see from Finn, pace and bounce!'. Fair comment, yet the ball was 85.8mph. In the winter, Vaughan denigrated the performance of James Anderson, claiming he had 'lost some pace' despite bowling at speeds upwards of 91mph in Perth.

This is just the latest in a string of contradictions and criticisms from the former Test Captain.

Recently he has become some what of a multi-media presence, commentating on the radio for Test Match Special, writing for the Daily Telegraph, and working as a studio voice for ITV during the IPL. He has crafted a style that combines the flippant and laconic ramblings of David 'Bumble' Lloyd, whilst at the same time parodying the Yorkshire born-and-bred nature of Geoffrey Boycott, setting himself up as a sort of man of the people - a lovable everyman.

Fine you may say, he had a prestigious England career and now wants an easy life as a personality in the media, what is bad about that?

Nothing. But the fact is, he has more layers to him than first meets the eye. He is like a man wearing three hats, yet only wants to be judged on his haircut.

First is his role as an ambassador for gambling company Betfair. In a time of mass corruption being unveiled, it is easy for him to write column inches on the disgraceful nature of match-fixing, but at the same time he picks up a sizeable cheque for perpetuating the very industry that forces the game into dispute.

Next there is his role as a partner at 'International Sports Management' - a talent agency. Again, on its own this is a respectable cause for a ex-player, but when you consider they manage the likes of fringe and current England players like Joe Root and Jos Buttler, the waters become muddy. His vicious articles attacking Jonathan Trott's mental breakdown, set alongside his joining with Piers Morgan against Matt Prior, show the possibility that his seeds of influence can sow doubt upon settled side members, in order for his own contracted players to take their place.

So then we come full circle, back to his journalistic platform. From an affable, facetious, 'I love Yorkshire' rent-a-quote, to a seriously invested talent agent, using his powerful cricketing voice to change the way the national side is run from the outside. Can someone so well connected and biased genuinely be allowed to occupy positions that require independence and open-minded thought?

Yes, apparently. I am surprised he has not already joined the ECB. Then he can follow their trend of putting all self-serving propositions in the open. Although, that would mean actually standing behind all your words, something Vaughan has so far struggled with...

Keeping Up Appearances

'You are always a better player out of the team than in it.'

A adage that sums up every mention of player X being ready for England, a label given to many in recent months. After arguably the worst international winter in history, only two or three Test places seem safe, with the roles of opening batsman, No.3 and spinner all up for grabs.

But it is the absence of a wicketkeeper which for me is most worrying. Matt Prior has once again succumbed to the Achilles injury that has plagued him for years, and cannot even play for Sussex as a batsman, let alone keep. Therefore a series of likely lads are once again trotted out, circa 2006. Craig Kieswetter, Steven Davies, Jos Buttler, Johnny Bairstow and even Middlesex's Jon Simpson have been talked up.

But are any of them really good enough?

Simpson's mention merely proves the confusion and unpredictability surrounding the current England team selection. Meanwhile Bairstow, 'the man in possession', has only kept for Yorkshire twice following a broken finger, and showed in the Ashes his glovework is no way near Test level. Buttler is very much seen as the heir-apparent, but he also missed some big stumpings over the winter, and needs time to develop at his new County Lancashire.

Davies and Kieswetter may be good choices. Both posses good batting records at First Class level, and both have had a taste of international cricket, without managing to cement a position. Yet they pose the same problems that picking Jos Buttler would - are they good enough behind the stumps? Why gamble on a 27 or 26 year old, when you could equally gamble on someone who is 23? The pressure either one would be under is ridiculous; always having a younger man on their heels, looking for a call-up after every good ODI knock.

Therefore, a keeper selected may well be a stop-gap. In his last stewardship, Peter Moores selected Ryan Sidebottom to take the new ball for England. It was clear that James Anderson and Stuart Broad were the future, but neither were yet ready, so Sidebottom stepped up with a wealth of County experience behind him, and lead England's attack terrifically until the young guns came to maturity.

I would suggest the same tactic with a keeper now, until Buttler is good enough. My candidate - James Foster.

Aged 34, he is still in his prime, and would be an absolute banker behind the stumps (anyone watching Essex's highlights reels will see that). He is captain of his County side and has a background in nurturing young talent, whilst at the same time creating a good environment to play in - something England desperately need. He will also be an older head in a dressing room short of experience - Bell and Anderson are the only current players over 30. If Brad Haddin taught us anything last year, it's that a keeper essentially acts as a second captain - why not choose someone who has been doing that role for years?

There will be the same questions asked of his batting that have kept him down for years: Not enough runs at County level, a technique not good enough for the international game, and any runs he does get are written off under the moniker 'Second Division'. Valid arguments all.

But do England at this stage really need a keeper that will average 40? With a team that will include two if not all of Ben Stokes (Only Hundred in the Ashes), Moen Ali (1375 First Class runs last year) and Chris Jordan (Opened for Surrey), can we not for a short period return to the old way of a 'proper' wicketkeeper? And it is not as if he is a genuine number 11  - he has a First Class average of 37.33, and already has an 80 and a 90 to his name this year.

Maybe his selection would be a backwards step, a pointless short-term solution for a team looking to start a 'new era'. But in his call-up, we would know what to expect. And certainty in a massively uncertain time is a valuable commodity.

In Defence of Tim Bresnan

On a cloudy morning in early May, the Sky TV cameras rocked up at Chester-le-Street in hope of some entertaining action. What they received was mediocre bowling from the home side on a flat deck, which allowed visitors Yorkshire to rack up 589-8 Declared.

After a loose opening stint from Brooks and Sidebottom at the new Durham batsman, the familiar figure of Tim Bresnan stood at the end of his run. Unselfishly not taking the new ball, he preceded to bowl a spell of 6-2-7-0 with metronomic accuracy, and the kind of control that once made him so valuable at Test level.

It is easy to write off Bresnan. He had a poor winter, lacking penetration in the Tests against Australia, before losing his reputation in the limited overs side due to an inability to bowl yorkers.

He appeared to be carrying a few pounds, and never looked fully fit...because he wasn't. Rushed back from an operation after cries of desperation from the England management, he was allowed only one warm-up game before being thrown into a losing Ashes side, bowling on batsman-friendly pitches against a team gaining more and more momentum. He was needed so urgently that he scarified his own physiological health to try and contribute.

It is therefore harder to suggest his replacement. Chris Jordan is untested at the highest level, Stuart Broad and Ben Stokes are currently injured, and James Anderson is finally showing signs that years of carrying the seam attack are getting to him. Graham Onions proved in this game against Yorkshire that he lacks the skills in unfriendly conditions that make he so usually dangerous, not to mention his frequently mentioned 'lack of nip' that Ashley Giles commented is 'never going to change. And leading Championship wicket-taker Steven Finn is by his own director of cricket Angus Fraser's words 'not ready for a return' to the top level.

With the team likely to be comprised of five bowlers, including the presence of less front-line spin options in the form of either Moen Ali or Joe Root, England will require someone to bowl long, economical spells in order to produce wickets at the other end - a job so brilliantly done by Graeme Swann and Bresnan himself in the past.

His late order batting may also be needed in the probable seam friendly conditions of early June. Whilst it has been average to say the least in recent times, his form with the bat can arguably be said to suffer from same under-practice and a lack of time to heal from injury that afflicts his pace - his bowling has being so publicly denounced by the media, that it must be hard for him to put down the ball and work on his back foot defensive.

Yes, in an ideal world England would have a young all-rounder setting the County stage alight, ready to join the 'new era' of English cricket in the way a Sam Robson may for the batting. But realistically Bresnan is still ahead of the likes of Chris Woakes in the pecking order, and given time away from the ODI set-up, he may be able to once again find the form that made him the bane of Shane Watson's front pad.

I am not his biggest fan. Yet in a side lacking experience, he could be the short term solution England need to get back to winning ways.

Smith - Return of The Pro.

As visa regulations are tightened and the push for young players becomes ever more dominant, the sight of the overseas pro has become a rarity. Yet in this game, Graeme Smith is proving they still have their place in the County game.

The argument against them found it’s voice a few years ago, when not only could Counties field two overseas players, but also the regulations for those players with an EU-passport loosened, leading to an influx in Kolpak players. It was deemed this reduced the prospects and chances of young English players, and would weaken the national side in time.

So now we have a system that actively discourages Non-English involvement on the domestic scene. Trent Copeland, arguably the reason Northamptonshire were promoted last year, was unable to return this season due to a declined Visa, on the grounds that he wouldn’t offer enough to English cricket. He tangibly did offer huge amounts to England, not just in terms of revenue for his County, but in the experience he gave other teams in facing high quality bowling.

Graeme Smith is now proving that again for Surrey. In this game he has tutored the Essex attack, making England fringe players Graham Napier, Ravi Bopara and Tymal Mills bowl better in trying to get him out, and learn from their mistakes when he easily slaps them to the boundary. His 65 today served as a reminder that old and foreign players can still offer quality given the opportunity.

He has also taken on the responsibility of captaining the side. Here he is given the young cricketers around him the opportunity to learn from his knowledge and leadership, motivating them to emulate his global success. He is clearly doing work behind the scenes as well, most notably with his opening partner Rory Burns whose technique now closely resembles that of the ex-South African skipper.

Smith is also mirroring the good work done by Chris Rogers at Middlesex. Rogers also captains his side, and has had a massively positive influence on his opening partner Sam Robson, who is widely being tipped for an England Test debut this summer.

Surely it is time for the ECB to take a better look at the rules and laws surrounding outside involvement. It is one thing to not want Counties to resemble teams in the Premier League with only one or two English names in a squad, but if that means completely shutting out excellence in all its forms, is it worth it? Many at Northants, Middlesex and Surrey would argue not. 

Britain's Got (limited) Talent.

With the English Domestic season underway, all eyes are on the next coach of the England cricket team. Realistically, you would think it would go to an Englishman, given the pattern of recent years of a solid County coach (doing poorly) followed by a Left-handed African - David Lloyd to Duncan Fletcher, Peter Moores to Andy Flower. Whoever takes the job is arguably just a stop gap until the ECB can convince Gary Kirsten to take the role. So who are the candidates:

Ashley Giles. 
You would imagine his copy book is blotted with a large, Netherlands-shaped flag. Having taken Warwickshire to the title in 2011, he was rapidly moved up the leadership ladder, taking control of the Lions team first, then the Limited-overs sides. Despite leading England to the final of the Champions Trophy, I can't see him escaping the horrors of this winter - his appointment would remind me of the way Peter Moores was earmarked as the new leader despite not really having the right credentials or enough experience. Maybe it's time to put Giles back on the shelf and see if he matures with time, much like Moores has. Which neatly brings us to...

Peter Moores.
As previously stated, he was picked early as the successor to Duncan Fletcher having taken Sussex to the Championship title. Highly regarded and seen as part of the new 'modern' set of coaches, he was given the tough task of rebuilding a side decimated by the 2006/07 5-0 Ashes. In such circumstances his short stint wasn't a total failure, but is largely remembered for the KP bust-up (Deja vu) and subsequent return to County Cricket. True he won the County Championship with a unspectacular Lancashire side full of local players, but he also had that same side relegated the following year. Paying big money for two overseas stars to win the Division 2 title hardly makes his claim undeniable. It has also been widely agreed by pundits and fans alike that England require a more upbeat dressing room - I can't see Moores, with a litany of backroom staff, providing that.

Mick Newell. 
The Nottinghamshire stalwart has put together a very impressive side since taken over in 2002. It is comprised largely of players who are just on the fringe of international cricket, giving it stability along with the necessary talent. The likes of Taylor, Lumb and Patel have all dabbled with the national side, whilst names like Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann ascended to regular Test places after joining the County. Newell clearly has the pedigree, but is seen by many as an 'old school' type of coach. He may not be able adapt to the modern approach taken by England in recent years. There may also be parallels between him and former Tottenham manager Harry Redknapp - able to get results when allowed the option of buying in extra talent from other clubs, something not afforded to national coaches. His time may have already past...

Mark Robinson.
My personal choice. Robinson took over the Sussex job after Peter Moores joined the England set up. He has in recent years created a nurturing environment on the South coast, with Sussex being seen as a place of healing for wounded and mistreated County players. James Anyon, Rory Hamilton-Brown, Jon Lewis and England hopeful Chris Jordan were all battered and bruised from their previous employers, but found new life under Robinson's stewardship. It's this quality that I believe England are looking for - after the mauling they took in the winter, they need a less cold and fearful atmosphere in the dressing room, and more room for enjoyment where they can truly express themselves. Robinson may be the one to provide this, and like Flower managed to do in 2009, create a solid base from which the England 'new era' can build.

Formulaic Predictions.

It is unwise to predict future events in any form of life, least of all in sport. Thus, I will brilliantly and unequivocally say that Sri Lanka will win the World T20, based on them ticking the boxes of a set check-list, formed by past winners.
2007/8 - India
2009 - Pakistan
2010 - England
2012 - West Indies
The criteria is based on having players in the following roles:

The Rock - The batsman whose job is to stay in, score runs, and allow others to build a total around him. They will usually bat in the top 3, and end up as one of the tournaments top run-scorers. India had Gautem Gambhir in 2007 (227 runs), Pakistan had Kamran Akmal (188 runs), England had Kevin Pietersen (248 runs), and West Indies had Marlon Samuels (230 runs). Sri Lanka this year have the evergreen Mahela Jayawardene. Second highest run scorer last tournament, highest the time before, and overall leading scorer in all World Cups; he has the potential to yet again take his side to the final by providing a base for the lower order hitters to flourish.

The Gun - The big name, the hitter, the player everyone pays to watch. Normally an opener, their sole role is to get the team off to a good start, or finish strongly. India went for the late order option in Yuvraj Singh (194.73 strike rate) - everyone will remember that Stuart Broad over, Pakistan had the mercurial Shahid Afridi, England had the unorthodox Craig Keiswetter, and West Indies obviously had the behemoth figure of Chris Gayle. For Sri Lanka, they are spoilt for choice at the top of the order with both Kushal Perera and TM Dilshan. Perera is the reincarnation of Sanath Jayasuriya - still only 23 he has the exuberance of youth on his side, not to mention a first class best of 336 made off only 275 balls. And Dilshan? What more can be said about him. Possibly his last tournament, he will hope to end with a bang.

Marquee Spinner + Reliable Spinner - At it's birth in 2003, Twenty20 was seen as the death sentence for slow bowlers. Jeremy Snape instantly proved them wrong, as has every single World Cup since. The combination of a wicket-taking spinner at one end, and an economic one holding up the other is the guideline for all tournament victories - with the competition being held in Bangladesh, spinners will play even more pivotal role. India had Harbajan and Yuvraj Singh (9 wickets), Pakistan had Ajmal and Afridi (23 wickets), England had Swann and Yardy (14 wickets), and W.I had Narine and Badree (13 wickets). Sri Lanka now have a great trio in the Mystery of Ajantha Mendis, the economy of Sachithra Senanayake, and the reliability of Rangana Herath. A daunting task for any middle-order opposition.

A Death Quicky - The staple of any limited-overs side, someone who can bowl yorkers at pace and halt the late-order precession of sixes. India has RP Singh, Pakistan had the unbelievably accurate and twice leading wicket-taker Umar Gul, England had the revelation of Ryan Sidebottom plus Stuart Broad, and West Indies had Ravi Rampaul. Sri Lanka have the unmatchable, unorthodox and downright unplayable Lasith Malinga. Holder of the most wickets in World Cups, his ludicrous action has become world renowned, as has his prowess in the closing overs. Mind your toes gents.

So there you go, Sri Lanka for the cup. Many will point at Pakistan's varied, experienced and quality bowling line-up, or Australia's hard-hitting top 3, but I feel they are very weak in other areas. India are the favourites with a good balance in their team, possessing much the same side that won the Champions Trophy in the summer. But Sri Lanka have already beaten them a warm up game, and before that in the Asia Cup (albeit in a 50 over game). In favourable conditions, could this be their year? Only time will tell, but it is surely worth a cheeky fiver...

Y Failure?

As England slump to yet another embarrassing T20 series loss, it's hard to avoid looking at the habitual and underlying issues which lead to their constant failure.

It's an easy out to say 'none of our players play in the IPL!'. No, but our top 3 of Lumb, Hales and Wright all recently played in the Big Bash, and did fairly well. We also won the World T20 cup four years ago despite only having one player in the squad playing in an overseas competitions (who has since been banished from the team #BringBackKP).

I believe the real problem is one of culture. Our players are told to 'express themselves' and 'play your natural game', but only if that means doing well - fail and you're out. A recent example of this is Ben Stokes. One of the brightest talents in English cricket plays one (admittedly awful) shot, and is dropped the next game so that Luke Wright could bat lower down the order, having scored 1, 0, 0 and 7* thus far in the Caribbean.

The call-up of Ian Bell further exemplifies this notion that England would rather have someone unsuitable to a position play and fail 'well', than someone who will try something different. He is obviously a wonderful player, but is he really going to score you a 25-ball 50 like a Kevin Pietersen might? Probably not, but he won't get caught at deep mid-wicket, so in he comes.

Dwayne Smith's innings in Barbados for me truly highlighted the contrast between the two sides. His knock included a six over third man from a wild slash, and another maximum from a filthy slog, dragging a ball from outside off over long-on. But his 30 off 16 balls set up the game for West Indies to cruise home, with the adage of 'they're all the same in the scorebook' ringing around the stadium. Could and will Smith get out in the first over playing like that? Sure. But is it not worth the gamble, to have even one player just throw the bat and see what happens?

Jos Butler and Eoin Morgan are constantly being praised for their innovation and ingenuity, and that is because they don't let failure put them off. Butler was bowled three time against Pakistan trying to play the flip shot, and yet he still plays it most games because he knows the benefits of it outweigh the possibility of it not working. Morgan is the same; he got out today playing the sweep, but you can put your house on him trying the shot again.

It's time England genuinely embrace 20-over cricket for the exhibition that it is, and allow players to not be afraid to fail. Because frankly, they are doing that anyway - they could at least entertain us in the process.

Hack Ashes 2006/07 vs 2013/14 Part Deux: The Position.

People seem to forget what a state English cricket was in six years ago. Not two years after this was the Pietersen-Moores stand-off, and the 51 all out vs the West Indies. So maybe, things aren't as bad as they appear. Obviously the 2006/07 Ashes team was one of the best ever put onto a cricket field, and so the 5-0 smashing was more justified than the one just handed out by Darren Lehman's boys. But eerily the problems faced by England are much the same as those presented back then. I'll go through the First XI, then hopefully formulate an answer as to which position is worse - 2007 vs Present day.

1. The Experienced Opener: Strauss vs Cook - Strauss had a terrible tour. Granted he had a few atrocious decisions go against him, but even so he looked vulnerable outside off stump, and demotivated after losing the captaincy. If it wasn't for his magnificent career saving hundred against New Zealand in 2008 the following year, he may have been discarded. Cook too has had problems, both outside off-stump and inside he head. Pietersen-gate may well be the start of the end for his captaincy career, but you would be mad to right him off as a batsman. 0-1

2. The New Opener: Cook vs Carberry - Cook largely struggled in 2006/07, with McGrath and Clark's consistent probing highlighting many technical flaws. His hundred at Melbourne however proved his talent, and marked him as one for the future. If Cook was a question mark, then Carberry is a hole-punch. He looked well equipped but didn't kick on after many starts. His age will also be against him in this 'new era' of English cricket being brought in by Paul Downton. There are names in County cricket, but at the moment that's all they are. 1-1

3. The Young Number 3: Bell vs Root - Ian Bell bulked up mentally and physically for the 2006/07 series, even seeing a psychologist to help combat Shane Warne's sledging. He scored 3 accomplished fifties, and although only averaging 33, he shed his previous 'easy cricket' image after some tough hundreds against Pakistan the previous summer. Joe Root on the other hand is still a 'prospect'. His 87 at Adelaide was possibly England's best knock of the series, but his technique looks all but decimated, with his range of shots so prevalent in India,  becoming worrying lacking. Back to County cricket for some runs I feel.  2-1

4. The Star: Collingwood vs Pietersen - Easy choice, as Pietersen has been dispensed with. Collingwood's grit was the backbone of England's rise to prominence must as Jonathan Trott's has been recently. He piled on match-winning runs in the ODI's and looked (and was) a staple of the national side for years to come. Pietersen has left a big hole, which is frantically trying to be plugged by Eoin Morgan. His First-class average of 32 for Middlesex last summer may suggest the vacancy has yet to be filled. Can you find a replacement for a genius? 3-1

5. The Talent: Pietersen vs Bell - An interesting one in that both reached peaks at these similar junctions. 2006/07 Pietersen smashed an imperious 158 at Adelaide and averaged 54. Bell's finest hour was in the summer's previous Ashes series, and looked mentally weary in this series, but still has his best years ahead of him. Both players faced the question of whether they should move up the order, with Bell actually being forced up to number 3 due to lack of other options. I feel Bell however is the air apparent for the number 4 slot, similar to Pietersen, as a naturally aggressive player who is equally good against both spin and pace. For me however, 2007 takes this one - KP is a genius after all. 4-1

6. The All-Rounder: Flintoff vs Stokes - Flintoff's captaincy was fairly poor in the 2006/07 series, and probably wasn't the right man for the job. He was a talisman, a game-changers, and a great player. But with his injuries, I feel most people knew he wouldn't be around for long. Arguably his best spells came after this series (2008 vs Kallis, and in the 2009 Ashes), but he was never again a permanent fixture of the side. Stokes was a ray of light in an otherwise dark ashes series, and seems to have it all - he's 22 and athletic, with a good batting technique and 90mph bowling. How England manage him will be the real determinant of his future, but at the moment it looks bright. 4-2

7. The Discarded Keeper: Jones/Read vs Prior/Bairstow - Post-2007 onwards saw a constant wicketkeeping battle, with the question of what was better, a 'proper keeper' or a keeper-batsman. With the likes of Chris Read and James Foster queuing up, it was a fair argument. Batting won however, and Prior was given a chance. Now I feel we have the same question, but with none of the choices. Not to say this is a bad thing, merely that the game has changed - players like Steven Davies and Jos Butler are proper batsman with an added string in their bow. Butler needs time but he looks a mighty fine prospect, and I believe we have not yet seen the last of Matt Prior. 4-3

8. The Retired Spinner: Giles/Panesar vs Swann/Panesar/Borthwick - An obvious one, but not closer than people may think. Panesar was obviously a rising star back in 2007 compared to now, but quickly found himself out in the cold due to lack of mystery. You only need to look at selected names like Alex Loudon and Jaime Dalrymple to know that England didn't have a clue which spinner to pick. Even Graeme Swann's selection was initially bemoaned as old-hat, at a time where the Murali hype was still massive and mystery spin was being called for. However, new county regulations have made the experienced spinner a thing of the past, with players like Simon Kerrigan, Danny Briggs and Scott Borthwick all possessing raw talent, but lacking the years necessitating an experienced bowler. Part-timers such as Joe Root and Moen Ali could become more in vogue for a few years, complimenting a reliance of green seaming wickets during English summers. All in all England's spin department is currently looking bare. Time will hopefully bloom a new flower, or this may not be the last series they lose overseas. 5-3

9. The First Change Seamer - Anderson/Plunkett/Mahmood vs Bresnan - In 2007 England didn't have a clue. Any guy that could spell 'reverse-swing' was being asked to fill Simon Jones' massive boots, leading to the selections of James Anderson, Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood, then subsequently Ajmal Shahzad, Darren Pattinson and Amjad Khan. All failed and left with a handful of test caps, different actions and damaged careers, with only Anderson really recovering (because he went back to his non-Kevin Shine given action). Tim Bresnan is reliable. He came into this series under-prepared and shrugging off a recent surgery to put in the hours for the team. All criticism has been incredibly harsh in my eyes. He does the job England ask of him time and again, and given a bit of time off to get fit he will be his usual miserly self again, grabbing key wickets at the right time. 5-4

10. The Leader: Hoggard vs Anderson - Both were/are over-relied upon, and both have bowling averages that indicate this. Anderson is perhaps England's greatest ever test bowler, and for this reason will be harder to replace than Hoggard. In 2007 there was Ryan Sidebottom who put in a few incredible years, while Hoggard was forced out by Anderson himself. This time around though, there isn't an immediate succesor in County Cricket to the swing bowling crown. When Anderson's impressive injury-free run comes to an end, there will be some serious head-scratching from selectors, and his retirement is a dauntingly close prospect. 6-4

11. The Height & Pace - Harmison/ vs Broad/Tremlett/Finn/Rankin - Clearly, England didn't have a replacement for Broad in the recent series, and so gambled, put all their eggs in one giant basket, and selected all three bowlers in the county over 6'6. Compared with the lack of options in England during the 2006/07 series, this may not be a negative - Harmison was so pivotal to England's success that the whole nation gasped when he lost it. Similar shock-waves were not felt when the same felt befell Steven Finn. However, I still feel it was an absolute crime that Graham Onions wasn't brought on the 2013/14 tour. Stuart Broad, the main occupier of the spot with 238 test wickets, is still young at 27 and will be around for years to come. With emerging players like Mark Wood and Toby Roland-Jones on the horizon, England look a lot healthier than in 2007 at what was for a few years a baron pace-wasteland. 6-5

2006/07 - 6
2013/14 - 5
In summary, there isn't too much to choose between the two lows of recent English cricket. Back then no one foresaw the development of Stuart Broad and James Anderson into world-class bowlers, the maturity of Ian Bell, the prolificness of Alastair Cook or the emergence of Graeme Swann and Jonathan Trott. This summer will be big for the young batters around the country, with the likes of James Taylor, Sam Robson and Jos Butler all likely to get their chance. Hard years may again follow, but given the right management and a bit of inspiration, there's no reason why England can't again rise to the top of world cricket.

Hack Ashes 2006/07 vs 2013/14: Mirror Image.

It's an obvious and hack thing to say that the recent calamitous Ashes is a repeat to that of six year ago, not least because the score lines are the same (it's probably more hack to write a blog post about it). But given a closer look, the similarities are even scarier. I'm going to list them, then try to compare England's position now to 2007.

The most prevalent similarity is the removal of the once deified coach. Duncan Fletcher turned England around, brought in stable central contracts for players, and won the first Ashes series victory in 18 years. By the end of the 2006/07 tour he was being torn apart in the media and was essentially banished from the country. Andy Flower will leave on more harmonious terms, but may not be remembered as the coach to bring England's first global limited-overs trophy or climb to Number 1 in the test rankings, but as the one who ruined said great team.

Both series also saw the stagnation/ending of numerous bowling careers. An injury plagued 2006 meant that players such as Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood were thrown in at the deep end far too early, with only a handful of tests each under their belts. Both suffered, both failed, and particularly in Mahmood's case, never regained top form. Tremlett and Rankin were the unlucky ones this time. Picked for their height and apparent pace, both appeared undercooked. Tremlett's plethora of injuries seem to have finally taken their toll, where as Rankin simply looked like the drinks carrier he was for most of the series.
Matthew Hoggard was shadowed by James Anderson in being the over-worked leader of the pack, both putting in the expected good performances, but were all too often the only choices for their respective captains. Hopefully Anderson's career won't be halted only a year after this series like Hoggard's was, wrongly in my opinion.
Stephen Harmison was also paralleled by Steven Finn in getting 'the yips', allegedly not being able to hit the cut strip in the nets; and everyone will remember that first ball at Brisbane by Harmison. He managed to regain his place and play a role in the 2009 home series, so hopefully the younger Finn will be able to do the same.
Last but not least in the bowling department, both series saw the departure of the previously reliable spinner. Both Giles and Swann came into the series after operations, and both found the flatter Australian pitches harder to bowl on, struggling to contain aggressive batting line-ups. Both were dropped (yes Swann was about to be dropped) mid-series, to make way for the same player in Monty Panesar. It was with expectation and public outcry that forced cult hero Panesar into the team at Perth in 2006, compared worryingly with the last-chance-saloon feel that accompanied his (potentially final) appearance last month. Even more worrying is that the same bowler played both times with no discernible improvement - it was noticeable how flat Panesar bowled in Melbourne with no spin being generated, alongside many bad deliveries akin to a less experienced bowler. I think in the future the national side will be faced with similar spin department struggles that 2007 England faced.

In the batting, both series saw the return of the good old fashioned English collapse after periods of relative stability in Tests. The 2006 Adelaide test is still the most ridiculous and unprecedented toppling of a team i've seen in cricket. Unfortunately, most of the 2013/14 series will be remembered for Mitchell Johnson scarring the batting technique out of the majority of tail-enders. There were also less highlights this time around, with batsman supposedly at their peak falling to rash shots, lacking the grit given by Paul Collingwood six years ago. Jonathan Trott's tragic departure due to mental illness also brought back memories of the tough time endured by Marcus Trescothick. I join everyone in wishing Trott all the best, and hope he can find peace and return in the way Trescothick and fellow sufferer Michael Yardy both have. The current England team certainly have a lot more question marks over them, which will no doubt be answered in the upcoming English summer.

Finally, Both teams saw a switch in their keepers after Perth. Chris Read took over from the ever declining Geraint Jones after his poor form became embarrassing. Prior suffered a similar if not more meteoric dip in fortunes. Read was a more obvious replacement, having virtually hammered down the door after years of consistent brilliance in County cricket. Bairstow on the other hand is not a keeper. He is barely a test batsman, and I feel his future route into the team will be via the top six, unless his glovework drastically improves. Ironically, the long term solution in both circumstances could still be Matt Prior. He is only 31, and given some runs and a bit of confidence may return to the team and offer much until a youngster like Butler or Kieswetter is good enough to take over.

Most importantly I feel that both series highlighted what un-preparedness, arrogance, and undue expectancy can do in sport. 2006 England had half their best XI out injured but still expected to rock up and win, with the 2013 group, not having played on any bouncy surfaces in 2+ years, still high and cocky from their recent win. Let's just hope the next time England find success it won't be followed by them going half way around the world and thinking nothing's changed...for a third time.

'The Best'

Last week saw the retirement of Jacques Henry Kallis from test cricket - the greatest allrounder, if not player, to ever play the game. Kallis? The best player ever? Nonsense, what about X when they smashed England everywhere, or Y when they tore through Australia's batting?

Kallis is not only the third leading run-scorer (ahead of Brian Lara and Alan Border), the proud holder of 292 wickets (more than the likes of Michael Holding and Richie Benaud), and 200 catches, second-highest in the outfield (ahead of Mark Waugh and Ricky Ponting); he also saw a rise in South African cricket from a country recently re-introduced to test cricket, to the number one side in the world, nurturing talent such as A.B De Villiers and Hashim Amla to mirror his technique along the way. He has been a rock in a sea of flamboyance, and his allround contribution to cricket is unparalleled and statistically will never be matched.

My only hope is that he continues into the coaching profession so will may see something that remotely resembles him, be it a perfectly executed cover drive, or a solid defence in the face of adversity.

The reason that he will never be truly spoken of as the phenomenal player he was, is that he didn't excite the way other players did, never completely dominating the opposition in the way a Viv Richards innings could, or a fiery spell from Curtly Ambrose. As testament to this he scored his first double-hundred aged 35, because once he had got to a 100 his job was done and he didn't need to showboat anymore. He was every bit a team player whether people remember that or not.

Anyone however can write an ode to Kallis. What is highlighted to me is the comparison between his career, and England's brief stint as the No.1 ranked test side. They got there by playing sensible, at times attritional, cricket. Bowling dry and batting time, typified by the success of Jonathan Trott and Tim Bresnan. Nothing flashy, just getting the job done.

Yet when they reached the summit of the cricketing mountain, they were told to 'play like champions'. To quote Gore Vidal 'It is not enough to succeed, others must fail'. Suddenly it was not enough to simply be better than the opponents, they now had to irrefutably show it. Kallis proved this a fallacy, yet England players that didn't meet the new, unprovoked, entertainment criteria were lambasted and disposed of (see Nick Compton and James Taylor).

England must learn from Kallis and stop trying to imitate others, but simply play like themselves and hope winning is enough for everyone else.

Accomodation

This week has been possibly the most hyperbolic week in the history of sports media coverage, ever. Quotes such as 'worst English display' and 'lowest point in English cricket' have been banded about as though the 2006-07 series never happened. And although England's second innings in Melbourne was dreadful, it was nothing compared to six years ago at Adelaide, when the whole team fell onto a Shane Warne shaped sword whilst batting on the M1.

Worst of all the criticism in my opinion, is that being thrown at Kevin Pietersen. Yes he may be having an average series, but he is one of the few England players that occasionally looks comfortable against a fine Australian attack. And yet these same denouncers of character seem to think Joe Root is the ultimate answer, and should be yet again moved down the order to accommodate his shortcomings.

Now obviously the caveat must be stated - Root is the brightest prospect in English cricket, and has already shown that talent at international level. However, the stats will show he has the lowest average in the top six, and apart from a great innings Adelaide has looked defensive and vulnerable. And now column inches are being dedicated to the idea of him dropping down to five with Ian Bell moving up the order to shield Root from the new ball. Madness.

There are few sides in the world that would sacrifice a performing Senior player in order to possibly help a struggling Junior. Ian Bell, like Michael Clarke, bats better at five, is good against spin and will inevitably move up to four when Pietersen retires. It would be foolish to risk him against the new ball and impart further woes onto an already struggling batting line-up.

Joe Root should not be mollycoddled. Alastair Cook faced similar problems to Root early in his career; being predominantly a back-foot player he struggled (and is struggling again) with the full ball outside off-stump. But he was definite in his status as an opener, and so figured out a technique that allowed him to be the great player his is today. Root has been given the option of an easier life coming in later, and so constantly has a scapegoat, the excuse of 'well i'd be better down the order'.

He needs to adapt, or be replaced until he can fulfil the role England need him to fill - that of a top order player. There is time for him and easier opposition to come, I just hope England replace the right man, and don't put all their eggs into a soft future basket.

'The new...'

Last night, at the embarrassingly late time of 4am, I found myself awake and watching the live coverage of the England XI vs Cricket Australia Chairman's XI game played on an Aussie Rules Football pitch. It was a fairly dull affair mainly due to the slow outfield, poor standard of bowling and general lack of any aptitude from a despondent and downtrodden England side.

Despite this, I did find myself briefly engaged due to one man - Ben Stokes. With a carefree walk to the crease and a nonchalant swinging of the arms he reminded me of a young, incredibly burnt, Clive Lloyd. Unfortunately that was as far as the comparison went, with his brief innings of 28 starting and stalling until he was well caught at short leg. The more time he spent at the crease, the more it lead me to another comparison with much more commonality than that of a West Indian legend - that of Andrew Flintoff.

Like Flintoff he started his career as more of a batter; hard-hitting, belligerent, and showing immense power and presence at the crease even at a young age. Also like Flintoff, he was perhaps the wrong side of the fitness line, 'high skin fold percentage' as the Australians would say. And even more like Flintoff, he had the hint of a reckless side - he was sent home last winter from an England Lions tour due for repeat offences of late-night drinking.

The disgrace of being sent home appears to have been the catalyst he needed - He has become bigger, broader and leaner, allowing him to develop his bowling and clock speeds of 90mph last summer, taking 42 First Class wickets at 26.57. His batting is still developing, and while he does have a propensity to be rash at times, his inclusion in the Ashes squad shows there is clearly enough to suggest he can succeed at test level.

I noticed him yesterday for none of these reasons, but solely due to his swagger and body language. After the absolute trashing England received at Brisbane, it was refreshing to see someone who looked confident and assured in the middle, as though he was above the bowlers and wanted them to know it.

It's easy after a heavy defeat to look for quick answers, a miracle cure. The selections of certain recent Australia players has shown the folly of this. It is also easy to look for 'the next...' and 'the new...' - every allrounder in the 90's was dubbed 'the new Ian Botham', and England are still searching for 'the new Andrew Flintoff'. So for any new allrounder, this may have to be an albatross they wear around their neck.

But in my opinion, Ben Stokes may be that man, and is worth a try for the next Test at Adelaide. He doesn't have the scars that Johnny Bairstow has, nor the timid look occasionally conveyed by Gary Ballance. Will he be the difference between the two teams? Probably not. May he fail miserably? Quite possibly. But the aggression and attitude he could bring to the team is something England are currently lacking.

The whole England team may be sent home in disgrace from this Ashes tour. But, there is a still a possibility that this new man on the horizon, could be the catalyst England need.

Moneyball

The best-selling book and subsequent Hollywood film ‘Moneyball’ is based around the tactics of the Oakland A’s Baseball team. They changed their outlook on player recruitment, moving away from tradition scouting methods based on appearance, and looking more at statistical analysis and how certain players can fill specific roles within a team.

We can already see these changes happening within cricket. Northamptonshire Chief Executive David Smith and Coach David Ripley had a tiny budget to work with, but managed to win this year’s T20 by making solid signings of previously under-appreciated players, and bringing in some relatively cheap overseas talents that might not bring in the crowds, but did put in performances.

 James Middlebrook and Matt Spriegel had both been released from big counties, but formed the vital spin attack that bowled economically in the middle overs to squeeze opposition. Kyle Coetzer was released from Durham, but opened the batting for Northants and in a similar vein to Jonathan Trott for Warwickshire, batted through the innings and provided the platform for the hitters later on. Steven Crook was also released from Middlesex, but bowled with pace and offered explosive lower-order batting.  The previously unknown Azharullah was the tournament’s leading wicket-taker, bowling reverse swinging yorkers in the final overs. And Cameron White and Richard Levi, two proven t20 players but not necessarily marquee signings, scored six fifties and a hundred between them. All of this alongside local talents like David Willey and Alex Wakely took Northants to the title, beating the likes of Surrey, Essex and Somerset along the way.

What this tells us is that cricket is not all about appearances, regardless of what our current system may dictate. Richard Levi wouldn’t get a sniff at a contract if he were a young pro today yet has scored the fastest international t20 hundred. Samit Patel has been left out of the England ODI set up because of his weight, despite averaging over 50 in List A with the bat this year.  And James Taylor (First Class average of 56.20 this year) is seemingly not in the Test side due to his shorter stature and unorthodox technique, compared to the preferred Johnny Bairstow who ‘looks the part’.

It is time that English cricket adapted. Just because a player is released doesn’t mean he’s useless, and just because they look the part doesn’t mean they are. In-depth selection is needed if we are to move forward, and should go further than what county a player is at, or how they compare in a photograph. 

Ireland.

If international cricket were a village club, Ireland would be the young, second team medium pacer. Not yet developed enough to warrant a elevation, or as talented as those currently in the higher tier, Ireland has a lot to learn and is trying hard. Not as old or as established as the cocky first-teamers, they are making waves with some notable performances, demanding attention. Their neighbours England will give them the occasional net as a nice gesture, albeit begrudgingly and with no real thought towards their long-term promotion. But in the big games they are doing what any medium pacer must do - they are asking questions.

Ireland's humble beginnings are well and truly a thing of the past. Today's game in a fairly impressive Malahide stadium proved the quality of some of it's individuals (not least the two Irish players in the England side) and may have made the ICC sit up and pay attention. Players like James Taylor and Luke Wright have dominated county cricket this year with averages of 77.57 and 62.75, but were made to look out of their depth on a slightly slow track (but one that produced nearly 550 runs in the day). Indeed James Taylor looked like he was making up his technique on the spot, with 39 year-old Trent Johnston squaring him up so many time he might as well batted front-on. Surely the team they put out today would give the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, and maybe even the West Indies a good contest?

However there are still many roadblocks in the path to Test status. One such block is their lack of a first-class system in Ireland. This is a must before they are eligible for test status, but it also means they will continually lose players to the England set-up. Many critics bemoan the fact that England 'cherry pick' the best of Irish talent, but who can begrudge them or indeed the players for trying to play as high as they can. County cricket also allows the develop of players, helping them succeed at international level - how good would the likes of Ed Joyce and Niall O'Brien be if they were confined to hometown club cricket? It's precisely why a first class system needs putting in place - to mould future players into true international stars.

Another problem is their global attractiveness. Countries with lower GDP levels such as Sri Lanka struggle to sell out test matches against England - how likely is it that locals who won't pay to watch the likes of Pietersen and Bell, will part with their hard earned cash to watch Paul Mooney bowl some tight lines at 70mph, or will queue up to see William Porterfield score a backs-to-the-wall 50? Not very.

The steps Cricket Ireland are taking are undoubtedly in the right direction. It just needs to keep focusing on developing grass roots cricket in order to have local popularity and ultimately professional status. It also needs to keep increasing the Ireland brand all over the world - the likes of Kevin O'Brien playing in the West Indies Premier League being a good start.

But like all club medium pacers, if it keeps improving and churning out results, it will be hard for the first team to ignore them.

One Root in?

Joe Root has been the poster boy for the current England development system. Identified at a young age, he played for England Under-15's and 19's before selection into the Lions team, and finally promotion into the full test team. With an average of 40.23 and 2 hundreds all ready to his name, you can sense there are brilliant and better things to come. It's pat on the back time for all those backroom staff, the scouts and coaches who nurtured and propelled him to his current excellence.

It is an undeniable success story, but does it come under the moniker of a self-fulfilling prophecy? And more importantly, does it highlight an inflexibility within the England set-up of not being able to move outside these young chosen few?

As any coach will tell a child who is left out of a team, some players develop later than others. For me growing up around the Northamptonshire age groups, the example was Mal Loye, who apparently wasn't selected for representative cricket until he was 16, and then played 2nd XI cricket by the time he was 17. This late development is usually prevalent in players from the smaller counties, who won't get a look in for higher selection due to their lack of 'involvement' at a young age. David Willey is a great example of this. Having only played briefly for the England Under 19's off the back of his inclusion with Northants, his career is really starting to pick up momentum. Yet even after a amazing game in the T20 final and a 167 off 101 balls today, he still isn't really being talked about, where as players like Jade Dernbach and Johnny Bairstow from the bigger and more attractive counties can fail time and time again without ever having to look over their shoulders. Chris Woakes is also a man earmarked at an early age, and despite a string of disappointing one day performance, he gets even higher elevation into the test team.

If England are going to invest so much time and money into the Lions team and give them ever more fixtures in an increasingly congested calender, they should be looking at new players and ones who are performing consistently well, not just those that play for the right clubs, and have the right ties to current England management (e.g. Warwickshire and Yorkshire). Otherwise you might as well scrap twelve of the counties and just play tournaments between the six biggest to see who can out-spend who.

I Give It a Year.

On a gloomy night at the Oval, on a pitch where even Kevin Pietersen can't time the ball, in walks débutante Chris Woakes. Looking like a cricket action figure fresh from the box, he caresses his first ball in test cricket through the covers for four. The crowd erupt in partly ironic, partly jubilant applause at this rare break from the two run an over boredom that preceded it. 15 not out at the close including a beautiful back-foot straight drive, and Woakes already looks the business. It would be premature to dub him the next Flintoff/Botham/W.G.Grace, but after his brief innings today I think it confirms why England have been interested in him for so long.

However, the first two days of play cannot be forgotten, and neither can the way Shane Watson dismissed him around the park. He may be a 'batting allrounder' as all the commentators and pundits continue to say, but his route in the team will undoubtedly be decided by his ability to bowl economical spells and get wickets on flat decks. With his involvement in the ODI team almost a guarantee now Bresnan is injured, it will be tough for him to get the necessary first class games and experience in before the Ashes down under, or even before next year. But what is clear is that he needs strong guidance from the England management. It would be easy for them to say ''go and get some wickets and runs'' then turn their backs and watch the statistics, but what I believe is key will be the way in which he gets his wickets and the sort of lengths he bowls. Opening for Warwickshire he can bowl an aggressively full length to get some swing and extract the seam that Edgbaston offers, whilst bowling just back of a length with the older ball. However as Watson proved yesterday and on Wednesday with punishing straight drives and front-foot pulls, there is little margin for error in Test match cricket. This winter and next year will be massive for him, and needs to be spent specifically and wisely.

The man Woakes harshly replaced, Johnny Bairstow, can feel hard done by. All the batsman so far at the Oval have got starts, and he will probably feel he deserved a go in this last test, just to prove himself before the away leg. But for me his batting won't be the deciding factor in his England future. James Taylor is amassing some serious runs for Nottinghamshire in Division One, and on the green seamer that is Trent Bridge - no amount of second division runs will alter England's perception of Bairstow. However, Matt Prior has had a below par series and may possibly be attracted by IPL and Big Bash riches, and with no immediate or obvious plans to include Kieswetter or Butler in the test squads, I would feel wicketkeeping is Bairstow's route to future success. Alec Stewart was once considered an opening batter who kept a bit, but with perseverance and hard work became England's number one with the gloves, as can be said for Matt Prior who was frankly awful when he first donned an England shirt (e.g. Sri Lanka 2007). For me this winter should be about Bairstow the wicketkeeper. It's most likely he will retain his place for the Australian tour given England propensity to leave James Taylor on the sidelines, but this shouldn't serve as an excuse to stop developing his skills behind the stumps. Learn from the proximity with Matt Prior, talk to Adam Gilchrist and Ian Healy who will be around with Channel 9, and come back to county cricket in 2014 not just as a dashing number 6, but as a top-order player who can hold his own against the likes of Steven Davies. Otherwise he's just another batsman with a test average of 30.

At the moment though, these two are both fighting for the same place at number 6. Ironically it could be ODI cricket that decides the winner.

Too Early?

The question on the minds of most England fans this morning was "what's going on?" and maybe a few "who's he?". In Andy Flower England have had a coach that has foregone the old 'one test and see' mentality of the past, and instead built his regime around consistency of selection and giving players a run of games to prove themselves. This morning however, Johnny Bairstow was discarded after a fairly innocuous series to be replaced by Chris Woakes, with Simon Kerrigan coming in to replace the injured Tim Bresnan.

Chris Woakes was a fairly surprising pick if not one that was always on the horizon; he has spent time with England in the ODI's and has been on their radar for some time, fitting in with the current trend of players that can 'bowl dry', and is a virtual like-for-like replacement for Tim Bresnan. His stats in First Class also justify his selection - an average of 37.67 with the bat and 25.48 with the ball represent those of a brilliant up and coming allrounder - why not play him here on a flat pitch and see how he handles it? It will be interesting to see how he handles it and will act as an indicator for the upcoming Ashes in Australia and his test future in general. Regardless of how he goes and has gone at the Oval, I am sure he will be around for a few years yet.

For me the odd pick was Simon Kerrigan. It was a marquee selection, a grand statement to Australia showing the depth in England's spinning department, and to me seemed a fairly harsh slap in the face to Monty Panesar - 'You could be playing here mate if you hadn't had a mental breakdown'. However, today's play has shown this may have been a step too far and too early for the young Lancashire spinner. He relishes the turning pitches at Old Trafford, but on decks that don't offer as much assistance he has been found wanting on a number of occasions, and has a propensity to lose his action and pitch the ball short as highlighted last year against a rampant Kevin Pietersen at Guildford, and in the recent Lions match at Northampton. There his tormentor was Shane Watson, and history repeated itself today when Watson dispatched Kerrigan for 28 in 2 overs, peppering the midwicket boundary with a multitude of pull shots. Comparisons may be drawn between him and former England player Chris Schofield who had similar problems with a low/absent front arm. Kerrigan seems a far greater player than Schofield and may well come out in the second innings when there's a bit more rough around and take five-for to win the game, but to me that will prove my point exactly - he currently needs help from the pitch or he's in trouble.

It's easy with hindsight to say the Kerrigan pick was a premature one and indeed that of Chris Woakes, but now that they have been made it should send a message to the England establishment - Work in progress. Like Johnny Bairstow and Steven Finn, these players need time to work out their games and be ready for the top level when it next comes, not thrown in at the deep-end and written off as it would appear James Taylor has been. And although it may seem like short-termism to play the likes of Chris Tremlett and Nick Compton, I feel giving them a year or two in the side whilst the younger class graduate is a far better ploy than playing promising talent after promising talent and never seeing the rewards. Hopefully Panesar will serve his penance with Essex and be recalled for the next Ashes series, so that Kerrigan can go out with the Lions and get some good game experience, the kind that you just don't get when you are carrying the drinks.