The case for Strauss

A gritty 60 today on a slow turner against Sri Lanka's canny but limited attack should be enough to allay some of the recent media and supporter pressure for Andrew Strauss to make way. But is it fair that he was under this pressure to begin with?

Firstly leave aside the captaincy - a separate case can be made for carrying a great captain who is out of form or not up to making the starting XI in his own right; we don't need to go there with Strauss.

I can remember a few years ago, in the period just before Strauss was given his first taste of captaincy in the summer of 2006, remarking to a friend that the problem with Strauss was that he was clearly not one of England's best two opening batsmen. At that time, Michael Vaughan was slotting into the side at three or four in order to accommodate him, Alastair Cook was beginning to hint at his prodigious future and Marcus Trescothick hadn't yet given up the ghost of international cricket. At that time, I would still say I was right.

But Strauss was probably the most consistent and temperamentally strong of these players at that time, and has, barring the last tour of Sri Lanka, when we tried Vaughan and Cook and he played state cricket in New Zealand, made the position his own since. He is closing in on 20 Test centuries and 7000 runs, which puts him in the very top bracket of England's test batsmen. Captaincy brought him back for two years into England's ODI side and he transformed himself into arguably our most consistent ODI batsman in the period between the summer of 2009 and the 2011 World Cup.

Strauss hasn't scored really heavily in a series since the 2009 Ashes, when he was the leading runscorer on either side. He did have a pretty strong 2010-11 Ashes series but hasn't scored a hundred since and his career average has been gently sliding towards 40 over the last three seasons. Nevertheless he has not been abysmal - he has scored important runs on occasion but got out when set, previously something which didn't trouble him. This winter he has been below-par, averaging about 30, but in the context of the rest of England's batting order that has been steady. Only Trott has done better. He is under more pressure than Pietersen and Bell, who have done far worse, because:

a) he is 35;

b) he has had a prolonged period of mediocrity when the others had great triumphs as recently as last summer; and

c) as a Test specialist he is judged solely on Test innings so he lacks the opportunities the others have in the other formats.

Strauss deserves to stay. This is mainly because he is one of the two best openers in my book. If he was injured, Trott would move up to open and if he retires this is probably what England will do in the short term. Doing this has risks. England have become quite dependant on Trott's solidity at three - even when Strauss has not been scoring heavily he has been spending time at the crease and keeping out the new ball. The second big reason for keeping Strauss is that, once England's winter of failure against spinners on helpful (but by no means dustbowl) surfaces is over we will be facing the West Indies, against whom he would surely back himself to thrive, and the South Africans, who boast Steyn, Morkel, Philander and De Lange. Negotiating the new ball will be a totally different challenge to that presented by the three sub-continental teams and it will be in helpful conditions. This is when we will really see Strauss's worth, or be in a position to judge whether he still has it in him.

The lack of strong candidates to come into the team and open is worrying. James Taylor may be used to open at his new county, Notts, in the same way that Alex Hales has in recent years. But although Taylor looks to have a technique capable of doing this he is still essentially a middle order batsman. Yorkshire's Joe Root might be another option, and the slightly journeyman Hampshire pair of Michael Carberry and Jimmy Adams could both be stop-gaps. Warwickshire's Varun Chopra, who used to open for Essex with Cook, is the other obvious choice and seems to be fulfilling some of the promise of his U19 days.

There is a host of middle order talent: Tom Maynard, now of Surrey, looks class, Jonny Bairstow and Joss Buttler have both been bred in the pyrotechnic world of T20 but have the capacity to bat in the longer forms of the game. Rory Hamilton-Brown, again of Surrey, looks a natural leader should Cook fail to inspire.

But no-one to challenge Strauss this season. You can have a separate debate about whether England would be better off if he stayed in the team but gave up the captaincy but I don't detect any desire from the team or its management for this.

Read more...

Be patient, for the world is broad

Broad cutting a typically frustrated figure.

Is Stuart Broad's form with the ball a problem for England?

The superficial statistics would say yes: even including a very successful summer series against Pakistan last year, where he took 14 wickets in the low twenties, his average since the turn of 2010 is over 40, dragging his career average comfortably the wrong side of 35. For a four man attack, this causes problems. This period has however been one of the most successful in England's history - why?

James Anderson has led the Test attack brilliantly in this period, and has become the incisive, consistent spearhead that we on this blog hoped he could be. Barring injuries, he should be able to lead the attack for the next few years. He's been sharing the new ball with Broad when they've both been available and whilst Broad has been economical, Anderson has been making the breakthroughs.

Graeme Swann has also played a huge role, consistently taking wickets and rarely being dominated, he has made a four man attack possible.

These two mainstays have been well supported by a succession of good reserve seam and swing bowlers: Chris Tremlett, Tim Bresnan and Steven Finn have all contributed effectively to a four man attack when needed. Although Broad did not bowl badly in the first two tests of the Ashes, this attack was improved by Tremlett.

Career records of England's current fast bowlers (before Third Test v Sri Lanka)

Bowler Tests Wickets Average Strike Rate Economy

James Anderson 58 215 30.98 56.8 3.26
Stuart Broad 36 105 35.97 68.4 3.15
Steven Finn 12 50 26.92 41.4 3.89
Chris Tremlett 8 38 26.84 53.7 2.99
Graham Onions 8 28 31.03 51.0 3.64
Tim Bresnan 7 25 28.28 59.2 2.86

So the solution to the Broad "problem" seems obvious: when everyone's fit, replace him with better bowlers until he can prove he's more effective. If this is the solution, then why do England still so obviously regard him as a guaranteed selection in all forms of the game, a view reinforced by his appointment as Twenty20 captain?

I think it is because, perhaps subconsciously, the selectors and management have glimpsed his true value. He has latent talent with the bat, having played several genuinely top class innings, capped by his spectacular century last summer at Lord's against Pakistan. He looks a proper batsman when he bothers to build an innings. He also has the aura of a matchwinner, and has produced some bowling spells of real quality to swing big games in England's favour, more often in ODI cricket, but also famously in the Oval Test in 2009. So even though on paper he has not taken the wickets to justify inclusion, they cannot bring themselves to put someone so clearly talented, capable of taking 5fers and scoring tons, on the sidelines. Despite having played a lot of cricket already, he's still only 24 years old, one of the youngest ever to do the Test double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets.

This is the right instinct, but will hinder England unless they change their structure. They should back this instinct, and move Broad up the order, in my view to six, at the expense of their sixth batsman. This would then allow for the inclusion of a fifth bowler, and lessen the pressure on Graeme Swann. I think it would also help Broad. If he could be largely entrusted with holding an end up and going for under two runs an over, he would pay a really valuable role. His bowling tends to fall apart when he stretches for magic balls. He is capable of real pace, but should rely on his height to bowl a Pollock/McGrath line; fractionally back of a length on or outside the top of off-stump. If he can achieve this consistently, he will be able to throttle back his pace and bowl long, economical spells.

We should be brave enough to do this: England's top four has never been stronger in my memory, Bell has found his feet at five, and Prior staying at seven is a great insurance policy. The lower order, with Bresnan and Swann potentially at eight and nine, also compares very favourably to recent, successful, years.

So to answer the question I set myself, Broad's lack of wicket-taking recently should be pushing us towards taking the opportunity to move to a five man attack. Opponents of this view will point to our successful track record with four bowlers in the Strauss-Flower era. This is valid, but if we really want to be the number one side in the world then this is the sort of move we need to make. We seem to be entirely wedded to the Australian model in the Waugh and Ponting eras - this was obviously a successful four-bowler formula but was successful only because two of the bowlers were McGrath and Warne, and came about because the Australians have not produced a genuine Test standard allrounder for several generations.

Having a genuine quick bowling allrounder also paves the way for playing two spinners when we need to without unbalancing the side - crucial to England's prospects on the subcontinent...

Read more...

Fantasy all-time England Twenty 20 team

As the rain pours down on the first day of the oldest format of the international game at its latest venue, my thoughts turned to players from the past who might have graced T20 cricket. I've placed extra weight on power-hitting, the ability to improvise shots, good athletes in the field, variety of bowling and bowling depth. I've chosen three out-and-out bowlers, but backed up by two high class all-rounders and a further two useful change bowlers to give the captain up to seven decent options for his twenty overs.

None of the players I've picked is a natural captain.

Here's my pick for a fantasy England XI:


1. Marcus Trescothick

Should still be more of a reality than a fantasy, but Tresco would be an incredible asset to the team, with his calm, powerful hitting and ability to regularly dominate all types of bowling. He plays proper cricket shots by and large, and relies on the clean strikes of a straight bat. Other than Chris Gayle and Sachin Tendulkar, no batsman has been more consistent at the top of the order in the T20 era. He would just edge out another modern batsman, Graham Gooch, for me.

2. Wally Hammond

Particularly earlier on in his career, Hammond was one of the most relentless attacking batsmen we've seen, murdering bowling through the off-side as no-one else could. Although he later abandoned some shots in order to minimise risks, he also started as a dangerous on-side player, and his power and poise would have allowed him to capitalise during powerplays. Would be an extremely handy fifth or sixth bowler, capable of genuine pace and swing for short spells, and often used (not least by Jardine on the bodyline tour) as a containing bowler. Also one of the best athletes English cricket has seen. Because of his power and versatility, he edges out Jack Hobbs and Len Hutton, two truly great English openers whose careers overlapped with his before the second world war.


3. WG Grace

Arguably the greatest cricketer ever, although comparisons with the modern game aren't straightforward. Again a great athlete in his youth, Grace proved adaptably prolific in all forms of the game, not just first class cricket. The father of modern batting in many ways, he had a capacity to innovate his technique to dominate whatever bowling/conditions he faced; the key requirement to success in T2o batting. As with Hammond, and probably more so, he would add an effective change option to the bowling and another gun fielder. In the absence of any real contenders on merit, he captains the side because he's about 40 years older than the others.


4. Denis Compton

Compton was a superb innovator, capable of inventing shots as he played them, and his ability to cut, glance and sweep the ball at an almost infinite degree of angles would drive any fielding captain to distraction in the middle overs. He would be a terrific finisher in a T20 game, as well as someone to set the platform for big scores. He nicks Kevin Pietersen's place, who narrowly misses out.

5. Gilbert Jessop

Jessop would be the powerhouse in my (for some reason rather Gloucester heavy) batting lineup, providing impetus and hard hitting - his records for fast-scoring at all levels of cricket beggar belief. As well as being able to hit boundaries, he was a rapid runner between the wickets (his 76 ball ton against the Aussies at the Oval in 1902 included an all-run five!). Until he had been overbowled a few years into his career, he was a rapid bowler, and a lightning quick fielder either in the covers or in the deep. If he'd been born a hundred years later, he would have been one of the most valuable cricketers on the planet. A country mile ahead of his nearest competitor for this slot, Allan Lamb.


6. Eoin Morgan

A pick more on promise than achievement, although he's had a fair amount of that, Morgan would bring an almost Comptonian ability to manufacture shots and, for a slight man, to hit shots with a suprising amount of power. His steely temparament is ideal for someone who might come to the crease in the final over needing to slog a few boundaries, or might need to resurrect and finish a run chase. The only current England T20 player in the side edges out stalwarts like Paul Collingwood and Neil Fairbrother.


7. Andrew Flintoff

A difficult pick to put him ahead of Botham, but Freddie just takes it for me. Beefy's limited overs batting never really lived up to its promise, although he was arguably a slightly better limited overs bowler than Flintoff. Freddie's power with bat and ball swing it for me. The side is also possibly already over-filled with egos (Hammond, Grace and Barnes) and the addition of Botham would probably sink the team!

8. Alan Knott

Knott edges out Les Ames, probably a better allround batsman, on the genius and neatness of his keeping (with such a premium on missed chances and unnecessary extras) and his ability to find awkward runs whenever they were needed in tough match situations.


9. Harold Larwood

A tough pick, with a couple of standout fast bowlers, Fred Trueman and Brian Statham, each missing out by a whisker. Larwood was famed for his relentless accuracy, and is possibly the quickest bowler we've produced (competing with the more fragile Frank Tyson). Bowlers like Dale Steyn and, to a lesser extent, Shaun Tait and Brett Lee, have shown the value of having a genuine express option in the opening and closing overs. There hasn't been a better bowler of this type than Larwood.


10. Derek Underwood

The choice of spinner isn't straightforward. As out and out bowlers, Hedley Verity and Jim Laker are right up there with him. Deadly Derek Underwood has the advantages of a terrific understanding with Knott, and his incredible economy rate in the ODIs he did play. Other than Compton, and occasionally Hammond, he's the only spinner I've picked. On the subcontinent, I'd be tempted to drop Morgan and replace him with a high class spinning allrounder, like Frank Woolley. As it is, the final bowler would be just as likely to exploit any turn in the pitch....


11. SF Barnes

From what you read, Barnes was a unique bowler, operating at medium-quick pace, he could cut, seam, swing and spin the ball at will, and combined incredibly prolific wicket taking with an iron will and quick bowler's selfishness which meant he just didn't bowl bad balls. I think in some ways as a professional he was ahead of his time (he could give the WIPA a few lessons about negotiating a contract) as he was acutely aware of his market worth and did not quietly tolerate exploitation. He would have been tailor made for the IPL.

Read more...

India-England: My England Player Ratings

What a shame we only had two Tests!

This match would have had a different dimension if 1-0 wouldn't have been enough to kill off the series. Nevertheless after the horrors of Mumbai, we've all been treated to some great, competitive cricket.

The result is a deserved win for India by a head. England have plenty of positives to draw upon though.

ENGLAND RATINGS (out of ten)

1. Alistair Cook

121 runs at 30.25 hardly represent disaster, but he will be frustrated that his apparent slide from world class opener to mediocrity seems to be continuing. A revealing statistic is that in his first 18 months, he scored 6 centuries and 5 half-centuries, becoming in the course the youngest player in Test history to get to 6 tons. In his last 18 months, he has only scored one hundred, but 11 fifties. You would expect players' conversion rates to improve in time not to decline.

A player who used to average 50 now rests at a shade above 40. His fielding, which had improved after a slow start, is also looking dodgy. Badly needs to re-find the knack of scoring big if he is to have an impact in the summer.

At Mohali, his fluent 50 was key to getting England back into the game after a terrible start.

RG's rating: 5

2. Andrew Strauss

Cook in reverse. A player who seemed to have reached his peak in his first year of Test cricket reacted brilliantly to being dropped last winter. He came back with fewer shots but more resolve, and has scored hundreds in each series since. The only England batsman to top 1000 runs in the calendar year (India had four) he is now our mainstay at the top of the order and the only member of the top three currently up for the battle with tough opposition. Always displayed a cool head, allied to some terrific physical stamina in searing conditions. After Gambhir, he was the second highest run scorer in the series with 252 runs at 84. His back-to-back tons at Chennai meant that he was desperately unlucky to end up on the losing side.

His return has greatly strengthened England's slip cordon. With two other specialists in Swann and Flintoff, it slowly starts to look like a great unit again (albeit not quite as good as it would be with Trescothick).

RG's rating: 9

3. Ian R Bell

Ian, Ian, Ian. I'm a tremendous backer of his and really expected him to be prolific in Indian conditions but I am now slowly reaching the inescapable conclusion that he is in need of a Strauss-like kick up the arse. His final average for the series was a shade over 15, and this was doubled by his not out runs today when the game was dead.

He is batting with about as much intensity and conviction as I imagine Bruce Forsyth would bring to playing Lear.

His giant ton against the Saffers aside, throughout 2008 he has looked in great nick but got out for 30 or 40 odd in both forms of the game. Now he looks out of form, devoid of confidence or presence at the crease. Gets a point for his brilliant fielding, but with Michael Vaughan hovering in the wings I expect him to be dropped for the Windies tour. It might be just what he needs- I'd keep him in the ODI side, and let him score buckets of runs for Warks before considering him again. I'd like to seem him come back in a year with a point to prove. He has the game to be great but is running out of time.

RG's rating: 2.5

4. Kevin Pietersen

Deserves a lot of credit for his leadership in bringing England back to play which was the right decision.

This has been the first time in his fledgling captaincy career that he's encountered reverses. Having thrashed South Africa in ODIs, he received an equally emphatic drubbing from the Indians, and was narrowly but clearly the loser in the Tests. As I suggested on his appointment, it will be through his reactions to defeats which will show his mettle.

Although he was almost statesmanlike in taking the team back to India, his behaviour in the series has at times been completely childish. Stirring up Yuvraj was clearly a tactic, but leave it on the pitch. Clearly if anyone's game was affected by the sledging, it was Pietersen's- his suicidal attempt to smash Yuvraj out of the ground from ball one in England's first innings was playing into Dhoni's hands. If he'd got out, England would have lost 2-0.

There were also a lot of times when I felt he didn't really support his bowlers. Some of the fields he set to Panesar were frankly odd, and didn't work. It didn't help that he clearly (understandably) favoured Swann, but I think Panesar might be quite damaged by this tour.

It would be churlish to dwell on the negatives. He has remained positive as skipper throughout and his batting in Mohali was magnificent- toying with the bowling and the fields. If he could bat like that all the time (which he looks like he could) he would be better than anyone else playing the game today. All in all he scored 149 runs at a shade under his career average of 50. England will still (just) be favourites for the tour to the West Indies and it will be an opportunity for KP to build his side. Some tough choices will have to be made, but England look just short of being good enough to beat good sides. Lots of fixtures against the Kiwis and the Windies might give us a decent win percentage but we are clearly short of the top three Test sides in the world. We are probably closer to Australia than the others and KP will have a real opportunity next summer to be a hero. If Vaughan is back, I actually think that can only help his captaincy.

RG's rating: 7.5

5. Paul Collingwood

I'm still unconvinced that he should be a long term fixture in the Test team. He's older than Owais Shah, and a lot older than Ravi Bopara. His ton at Chennai, though initially valuable, ground to a halt and lost England all momentum to give India a sniff at winning (even then it took something special from Sehwag). I can't escape the (probably unfair) impression that ever since he came within a whisker of being dropped in the summer, he has been batting for himself. Overall he, like most England batsmen in recent times, got his average this series.

I suspect he will be kept on at the expense of Bell, but on English pitches he will struggle badly against Lee, Clark and Johnson. Bopara should be a fixture at number five for me- he has a far more multi-faceted game at this level.

RG's rating: 6.5

6. Andrew Flintoff

Terrific bowling througout the series- lion-hearted and constantly in excess of 90mph, he led our attack from first-change. He used his invaluable previous experience of two tours of India. If he stays fit, England compete with (don't necessarily beat) everyone in the world. If we can get three more years out of him that will be a tremendous result.

He played a superb knock at Mohali, and it was disastrous that the nightwatchman (Jimmy Anderson) decided to give him the strike in fading light in the last over of the day. Had he been at the crease when the fog lifted the next morning, England might have had a sniff at levelling the series.

Fully rehabilited in the England side following the Fredalo episode.

RG's rating: 8.5

7. Matthew Prior

A very solid series. Kept tidily but unspectacularly and batted well, scoring 88 runs at 44. One grumble is that he seems unable to change gear when batting with the tail. Consistently alternated between blocking and giving the bulk of the strike to the tailender (including Panesar). Looking at the likes of Sehwag and Yuvraj, in both the ODI and Test series, you'd have to say that England lack enough players who can clear the ropes when needed.

Prior is clearly established as the keeper for the next few series. After the Ashes I'd like to see us blooding young Steven Davies, who should be nearly ready to step up.

RG's rating: 7

8. Graeme Swann

I'm very glad that he finally got his chance (after he was left out of the ODI side I feared we might go with just one spinner) and he didn't disappoint. Joint leading wicket-taker with 8 and bowled more overs than anyone else (100.3). His final stats aren't spectacular but he was consistently turning the ball, attacking batsmen of the highest calibre and refusing to be over-awed. KP clearly saw him and Flintoff as the most dangerous bowlers in all conditions.

Swanny is also a great character and a multi-dimensional cricketer with decent batting and fielding. He's probably done enough to edge Panesar out of the starting eleven for the Windies tour.

RG's rating: 8

9. Stuart Broad

Like Swann his statistics aren't incredible (he only took two wickets from his single Test) but the manner of his bowling was impressive and a notch above Harmison's contribution to the first Test. As he's getting older, he's physically developing and is now bowling consistently at 88-90mph. He's maintaining that pace over long spells.

I think this experience will be good for him- we look a much more balanced side in both forms of the game with him and he should play every Test next year if fit.

RG's rating: 7

10. James Anderson

Another bowler who was better than his stats. However Sehwag took him to the cleaners at Chennai and concerns over his temperament will not go away. Showed character to come back well by bowling consistently good and hostile lines at Mohali but can we afford the luxury of Jimmy? I'd keep him in the side, but be wary over having both him and Harmison in the side at the same time. Both 'daisy' bowlers.

I'm against nightwatchmen but he has developed into a reliable one (clanger in Mohali notwithstanding) and he is an honest, hard-working cricketer.

RG's rating: 6

11. Monty Panesar

The only England bowler who probably got better stats than he deserved (6 wickets at 50). He's going through a prolonged dip in form and may benefit from a break to concentrate on developing his variations of pace. He still has a perfect action but will struggle unless he can add to his armoury. In the mean time, if we're picking one spinner, Swann has made a compelling case for selection.

With Adil Rashid, another multi-faceted cricketer and a better batsman than Swann, waiting in the wings, Monty might find the road back into the side tough.

RG's rating: 4

12. Steve Harmison

With Stuart Broad returning from injury, it is telling that England opted to drop Harmison. Like Anderson he fell apart in the face of Sehwag's onslaught. Again he had moments of hostility, but the pitches and conditions didn't suit him greatly. Pietersen's reluctance to bowl him on the last day at Chennai (when if there was any variable bounce, you'd expect him to find it) was telling.

RG's rating: 4.5

RG'S COMBINED SIDE:

1. G Gambhir (361 runs at 90.25)

2. AJ Strauss (252 runs at 84.00)

3. SR Tendulkar (156 runs at 52.00)

4. KP Pietersen (149 runs at 49.66)

5. Y Singh (212 runs at 70.66)

6. A Flintoff (84 runs at 28.00, 7 wickets at 29.42)

7. MS Dhoni (capt, wkt*) (82 runs at 27.33, 5 catches)

8. H Singh (69 runs at 34.50, 8 wickets at 35.00)

9. GP Swann (8 wickets at 39.50)

10. Z Khan (8 wickets at 21.00)

11. I Sharma (6 wickets at 25.16)

12th man: PD Collingwood

*In ahead of Prior on captaincy.

Read more...

Surly Sourav....

"There are players who haven't scored in the last three series for India, even for the last one year. There are some who have changed their hairstyle more than they have scored for India.”

So said Sourav Ganguly on the eve the test series with Australia, as he explained his decision to retire once the series ends.  He remains brusque over his teammates to the last. 

The barnet jibe must be aimed at Dhoni.  But who are the ‘haven’t scored in three series’ miscreants?  Gambhir is an easy target, and Sehwag aside, all golden oldies have struggled recently.  Including Ganguly, without a century to his name since the third test against Pakistan last December.

Ganguly seems to thrive on controversy, but can such a gruff assessment help India beat the Aussies?  And can we think of a more negative opinion of ones team-mates uttered by a cricketer before their retirement?

Read more...

War & KPs...

It seems a long time since Kevin Pietersen played That Shot in the third test against South Africa this summer. His subsequent promotion to captaincy produced such an upturn in the fortunes of the English team that, valid reasons for the poor South African performances notwithstanding, the celui qui commande ended the international summer as something of a saviour. Whilst the challenges ahead remain stark, KP has certainly done all he can thus far to silence the doomsayers.

Yet at 5.30pm on the third day of the third test, a KP-led England team seemed a long way away. Looking to hit Paul Harris for six over long-on, KP was caught by De Villiers at mid-on. He was on 94, with England only 136 ahead and four wickets down in their second innings. The shot produced incredulous responses from several critics: Agnew described it as an ‘irresponsible’ shot that must have ‘ruled him out of the [captaincy] reckoning’; Paul Weaver called it ‘foolhardy’. Critics smitics.

The castigation of batsmen for playing one particular shot has long been a bugbear of mine, because the margin of error in test cricket is so narrow. I’m minded of elements of Tolstoy’s War & Peace; the successes and failures of empires are not driven by the actions of their leaders, but by myriad factors that influence the surrounding environment and the people therein. Such a theory can be applied to cricket: the ‘myriad factors’ – variable turn, bounce, swing that can result from identical balls from the bowler – can make the actions of the ‘leaders’ (batsmen) irrelevant, with the result that a ‘good ball’, one that does something a bit different, can take an edge and a wicket. Such balls look exceptional when a batsman plays a defensive shot. But when a batsman plays an aggressive shot, he will look irresponsible.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing that the batsman has no influence over his fate – unlike the 'leaders' in Tolstoy’s world, batsmen will succeed or fail predominantly on the basis of their shots. But when you look at an individual shot, the difference between a 'dominant well timed cut through point' and a 'loose shot outside of off-stump' could just be a function of the factors above.

The point is this: that batsmen should not be overly praised nor criticised on the basis of one shot. There is too much uncertainty, too much that can happen between the ball leaving the fingers and reaching the bat or stumps to warrant it. Batsmen must be appraised over the nature of their performances (which includes but doesn’t limit itself to an assessment of their stats) across a period of time that reduces the influence of these ‘myriad factors’ (since they affect all batsmen).

So, let’s get back to that Pietersen ball. Yes, it was the first ball from Harris from around the wicket. Yes, it was at a delicate stage of a game that Pietersen was taking away from South Africa. Yes, Smith had set a field for the shot and was preying on KP’s ego. But if he had made it and reached his century, as nine times out of ten he would have, can you imagine one person calling it an ‘irresponsible shot’? Or, as when Collingwood reached his century later that day with a six, hit over - yes you’ve guessed it – long on, would the terms ‘dominant’, ‘gutsy’, and ‘convincing’ have been used?

Get out when in the nineties playing the sort of aggressive shot that you’ve been nailing all day and you’re 'rash'; slow down and play cautiously – against you’re nature and better judgement – and you’re 'tightening up in the nervous nineties'. The line between success and failure in this manner is unfairly fine. KP was right to play that shot because he felt it was the shot to play.
Read more...

Bye bye Dazzler

At the ripe old age of 38, and with more comebacks than Tom Jones (otherwise an entirely similar bloke) behind him, Goughie has finally called it a day.

Many say a glittering career in TV is ahead of him. That remains to be seen, I have a horrible sense that he might turn into a cricketing version of Ian Wright. What I think is unarguable is that he leaves behind him a career which glittered throughout and which changed English cricket.

With Graham Thorpe, he was our best and most consistent match-winner in the post-Botham era. But whilst Thorpe usually played quiet effective, significant innings, Goughie was pure Barnsley bragadoccio. Chest puffed out, arse swaggering to the crease he was quick, skiddy, aggressive bowler, happy to trade jaffas with boundaries. He relished the contest. At times, he was the lone spearhead against quality batting. He found partners in crime at times: Gus Fraser and Andrew Caddick both provided the contrast, if not always the consistency, to put genuine pressure on batsmen. Although his record is similar to both of these bowlers, his explosive, effervescent element will mean that he will be remembered longer.

Despite outward appearances, he was also a thinking bowler. I remember him working Lara out with a three ball trick in 2000, and varying his pace, line, and type of delivery cleverly throughout England's successful tours of Pakistan and Sri Lanka the following winter.

At that stage of his career, he was the best "death" bowler English one-day cricket has had, and remains the best one-day bowler. The likes of Flintoff and Broad will no doubt overhaul him in terms of one day wickets, they will be better bowlers from having developed watching and bowling with him.

Read more...

An evening of Beef and Lamb

On Thursday I went to a cricket legends dinner organized by the British Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong. Apart from the free booze, the main reason for going was to hear some good anecdotes and they didn’t disappoint.

Beefy was slicker and a more experienced speaker than Lamby and opened up with the tale of how he ran Geoff Boycott out in New Zealand. Considering how many times he must have told this tale, he managed to make it sound fresh, and his appalling Boycott impression was worth the entrance fee on its own.

Lamby had some good gags, including the infamous Glenn McGrath-Eddo Brandes biscuit sledge and also reminded the audience that Pietersen and Tony Greig aren’t the only Saffers to captain England (Lamb captained England for three tests, without much success).

We were invited to write questions for the speakers, and, while some of my table’s ruder ones got filtered out, we still got some good questions in. In response to “Who is the most annoying person to commentate with and why?” Beefy answered Bumble when he’s in one of his darker moods. Apparently Nasser is ok now that they have got him to relax a bit and new boy Athers has no sense of smell and sometimes forgets to wear deodorant, which is tough on the other people in the studio!

The great Derek Randall also featured regularly in the anecdotes. Apparently the poor guy once got to the middle during a test match only to discover that Ian Botham had filled his batting gloves with condoms. I forget what he had done to deserve this.

When asked whether he would rather be stuck in a lift with Ian Chappell or Peter Roebuck, Beefy replied that he wasn’t sure because: “One’s gay and complicated, and the other’s just thick”.

It was also amusing to watch the charity auctioneers struggle to persuade Hong Kong’s bankers to part with their cash on one of the worst days for the stockmarket in many years.

Read more...

Do cricketers improve with facial hair?

Once again England are looking like a decent one-day side (SA 167-8 as I write), forcing me turn to the blog in confusion

I see that Steve Harmison has again bowled well, removing Hashim Amla, the only South African batsman to really get going. He is also sporting a fairly trendy goatee, as he likes to do now and again. Maybe it’s just me, but I think he bowls better, and more menacingly, when he has a beard. I also find Corey Collymore with a beard is a few miles quicker and a bit more intimidating than when clean shaven.

And this got me thinking that, Cricinfo, for all its statistical brilliance, does not break down cricketers’ careers into periods when they have facial hair and periods when they don’t. This is a shame. I am convinced that facial hair improves a cricketer’s performance and that Steve Harmison and Corey Collymore's figures would back this up.

I’d be interested to know if this theory holds true elsewhere. Did David Boon or Merv Hughes ever have clean-shaven phases to their careers? How did they perform? Read more...

What is the Champions Trophy for?

To avoid the confusing scenes on the TV of England looking like a half decent one-day side (SA 26-2 when I started), I thought I’d jot down a few thoughts on the “postponement” of the ICC trophy.

1.Personally, I think the tournament should have gone ahead. The terrorist threat has been exaggerated because cricketers (and maybe administrators?) don’t want to go to Pakistan. I’ve never been to Pakistan, so I am, like all bloggers, speculating here. But why would terrorists seeking to further their cause in a cricket-mad country like Pakistan think it was a good idea to blow up international cricketers? Try to imagine a terrorist organization dedicated to the cause of English independence aiming to attract support by bombing premiership football matches. Unlikely.

2. It is not a postponement, more of a delayed cancellation. Michael Clarke and Cricket Australia’s comments after the announcement make it pretty obvious most of the players didn’t have the slightest intention of going. Australia haven’t toured Pakistan since 1998, and, assuming Pakistan do manage to prove the security situation has improved, Australia would need to postpone a series against India to play the Champions Trophy in October 2009. Hell will freeze over before that happens.



3. Once again the small nations are getting screwed over. Pakistan is not going to play a test this year and the team is going rapidly downhill. Osman Samiuddin has written a great article for Cricinfo about the wider significance of the decision. Assuming the powers that be do find a way to force Australia, England, South Africa etc to play in the Champions Trophy there in 2009, the West Indies will then be forced to host yet another CT in 2010 (I can see the empty stands now). After all that we will then move on to the 2011 World Cup, which will be held in the four Asian nations (security conditions permitting). Do we really need three identical 50 over tournaments in a row? Which lead me on to point four:

4. Why not just use this as an opportunity to get rid of the trophy? What is the point of having a tournament that exactly mimics the World Cup? The ICC’s website gives no clues, stating simply: “The ICC organises a second 50-overs per side event in addition to the ICC Cricket World Cup called the ICC Champions Trophy, which takes place every two years.” Apparently it is officially known as the “ICC knockout”. The ICC could kill the tournament off and use the space created to put a longer 20-20 Champions League in place. Or just give the players a rest, for once.

Anyway, enough depressing blather. South Africa are now 45-5. Broad is the new McGrath. Now I’ve got another reason to be annoyed the Champions Trophy has been postponed: England would clearly have won it!

Read more...

My Favourite Cricketing Monikers

1. The King of Spain

During Ashley Giles’s benefit year at Warwickshire, he commissioned a couple of hundred mugs bearing his own mug and the catchy logo “Ashley Giles: King of Spin”.

An inspired error in printing the logo led to his staking an unusual claim on a Bourbon dynasty, Il Rey de España was crowned. The moniker stuck and competed with Henry Blofeld’s rather cruel (but apt) suggestion that his run up resembled a wheelie bin being trundled to the crease. The unlikely charm of both somehow fitted an enduring cricketer, who despite never winning the purists over produced match and series winning performances with the ball- often took us over the line in run chases and was one of the safest gully fielders we’ve ever had. Viva Ashley!

2. ‘Creepy’ Crawley

John Crawley was one of the best players of spin-bowling of his generation and third to Ramprakash and Hick of the great English batsman to be prolific at first class level but not to play a full part at Test level. However despite playing fewer Tests than either of the others, his Test stats were respectable in his era (1800 runs in the mid 30s, and a masterful hundred against Murali) and whenever he was in the side he was one of our toughest batsmen to dismiss.

Expected to follow Atherton from Cambridge great to England great via greatness at Lancashire, he now plies his trade as a veteran run-machine for Hants consistently scoring big on an unforgiving Rose Bowl track. I don’t think there’s any particular story associated with the nickname, I just love it.

3. Tugga and Afghanistan

Born four minutes apart, the Waugh twins started their career competing for one slot but both ended up with stratospheric careers for the baggy greens. Stephen “Tugga” Waugh was one of the great Test captains (or more uncharitably captained arguably the greatest Test side of all time) and arguably the most durable batsman of his era. His positivity as skipper, armed with Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Ponting and Hayden helped to accelerate the transformation of Test cricket into a faster scoring, higher-octane sport.

In the era in which they played, Tests were unarguably the blue riband format for the Aussie public- thus Mark ‘Afghanistan’ Waugh could be compared to the ‘forgotten war’ of the early 80s. If both had been starting their careers today Mark, with his explosive one-day batting, great fielding and deceptively good off-spin, would have been an ideal Twenty:20 player and their prominence might just have been reversed.

4. Aloo

“Does he not like potatoes?” This was an inspired piece of crowd sledging by an Indian fan during an ODI in Canada of all places. So incensed was the comfortably proportioned Pakistan skipper Inzamam ul-Huq that he left the field of play, threatening the fan with his bat. I’ve yet to see an other cricketer wound up by being compared to a vegetable- perhaps this could be an area where the Barmy Army might just give us an edge. I’ve often thought gangly young Indian pacer Ishant Sharma looks a little bit like an Asparagus…

5. The Shermanator

Shane Warne’s sledge from second slip to Ian Bell during the 2005 Ashes was brilliantly inventive because like all great nicknames it had a kernel of insight to it. Bell physically resembles the ginger nerd from the American Pie franchise but he was also a callow youth in that series. The Aussies would have seen his technique and potential to score runs against them, but Warne also looked into his soul and saw a scared youngster, new to the side, insecure of place (he was effectively playing at the expense of England’s best batsman at the time, Graham Thorpe) and unsure of how to approach the two greatest bowlers in cricket. Boy did it work, a class player made little impact on the series, and it took tours playing the generally less ‘in your face’ bowlers of South Asia for him to rebuild his game.

Even now, a veteran of 40-odd tests often looks worryingly insecure. You get the sense he actually works on trying to have presence at the crease. If he’s thinking about that, by definition he will be lacking. England desperately need him to flourish. If he does, he will be one of the top batsmen in the world, and we’ll need a new nickname. I’ve always thought “tinker” would be good.

Read more...

A settled Jimmy....

Is this the summer that finally cements James Anderson’s place in the England side? Throughout the recent series against South Africa he demonstrated real verve leading the attack, swinging the ball both ways and achieving, dare I say it, some consistency. Since his debut back in 2003, Jimmy has been a fairly peripheral figure; the ‘fab four’ of 2005 left him sidelined, and when opportunities arose they were usually spoiled by either injury or a wayward performance. His uncanny knack of following magical spells with frustratingly woeful garbage was legendary, exemplified by contrasting performances only five months ago - a sparkling outing at Wellington which turned to pure dross in Napier. Form seemed irrelevant. ‘Jimmy No-Aim’ would rear his ugly head without warning and without reprieve.

Fast forward five months, and there can be are few English players as satisfied with their performances this summer. Jimmy took the new ball in each match and bowled with aplomb, causing the South African batsman real problems with his testing lines and late swing, and finishing the series as England’s leading wicket taker. With Matthew Hoggard struggling for pace at Yorkshire and Ryan Sidebottom’s back proving a shaggy-haired question mark, Anderson’s place in the side for the next 12 months looks as assured as his bowling. Let’s hope it remains so. Because with Simon Jones getting back to his best and plenty of attacking options for England to choose from, Jimmy needs to maintain this consistency to maintain his position....

Read more...

England's Ashes obsession

It doesn’t take much to get England players and fans optimistic about their chances in an Ashes series. One victory in a dead rubber after badly losing a home series seems to be enough.

While Kevin Pietersen barely put a foot wrong on the field, his immediate declaration that his team was good enough to win back the Ashes was misguided. Obviously there is nothing wrong with pundits such as Ronnie’s Ghost looking ahead to the Ashes, but you would expect the England team to know better.

Australia had exactly the right response: silence and then some brilliantly patronising comments by Tim Nielsen. The telling quote for me was: “We've got a couple of big series coming up that are taking up most of our thinking at the moment.”

Isn’t that the case for England as well? If I’m right England have a Champions Trophy one day competition (if they deem Pakistan safe enough), an opportunity to avenge last summer’s home defeat against India, a series against the Windies and then a potentially very tricky series against Sri Lanka, who recently moved above England in the ICC Test Championship, can beat all comers at home and now have a mystery spinner. Given that England once managed to make Paul Adams look like Shane Warne , we should be a bit worried. All that remains is for people to start excusing poor performances by Harmison on tour by saying “it will be different during the Ashes” and another 5-0 defeat becomes a real possibility.

Two other points stand out for me in this opening round of Ashes speculation. First, the idea put forward by Andrew Millar on Cricinfo today that Pietersen as captain is the Aussies worst nightmare doesn’t make much sense to me. Usually in a test series the Aussies target a team’s captain and best batsman. Haven’t we just made their life easier by combining the two? Plus there’s plenty of opportunity for sly digs about his nationality.

Second, a few weeks ago the ECB was complaining about the fact that India’s cricket board had denied the fans the chance to visit some of the country’s great cricket venues during their tour. But why should India bother putting England in the decent venues if our tour there is nothing more than an insignificant warm up for the Ashes?

We could, possibly, win the Ashes, but it’s not even vaguely likely at the moment. We would need our entire team to be fit, and to have the kind of luck we had last time (McGrath’s injury, Ponting’s bad call at Edgbaston, Gillespie losing his mojo etc etc).

Most importantly it is vital that we start the Ashes after notching up a long sequence of victories. And we can only do that by taking each match as it comes, which is the cliché Pietersen should have used after the Oval victory. Read more...

A blow for Jones....

Simon Jones has spent the summer proving all the obituary writers wrong by taking over forty wickets for Worcestershire at 18 runs a pop. With talk of an England recall abound, Jones was selected for the England Lions squad to play two one day matches against South Africa starting this Thursday. However, this morning he pulled out with a hamstring injury.

Time is pressing for Jones to make his England case in time for the Ashes. With plenty of fast-bowling options available, he needs a stand-out performance against the likes of South Africa to prove to the selectors that he is really back, and can rediscover the devastating form of 2004-5. He has one thing is his favour: the memory of the reverse swing he produced throughout the summer of 2005 will still haunt the Australian batsmen. They will not want to face him in similar form next summer. Jimmy Anderson (for the 2007 Ashes and THAT over in the 2003 World Cup) offers them much happier memories....

Read more...

CMJ: rights and wrongs of selection

There is an interesting piece on the cricinfo website on the selectors' views of County Cricket:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/364841.html

Christopher Martin-Jenkins makes a decent case for the view that England's selectors (particularly those tasked with following the county game) which can be summarised as "to a man they seem to me to take too much notice of a bowler's speed and of any cricketer's age, picking too often on potential rather than performance".

He highlights two cricketers in particular: David Sales of Northants and Mark Davies of Durham.

Seven or eight years ago, the Fletcher-Hussain (Graveney) approach to selection took shape. In the 1990s, I would argue that good performances at county level would be enough to ensure a player got at least a couple of England caps. This was (is still) talked about as "recognition" as a box to be ticked as part of any good county player's career.

F-H (G) took a different approach. As CMJ says, they went for potential, and backed their ability to pick talent. Players with often middling first-class records were identified (usually at the age of 25 or younger) and picked when more senior, consistently successful players were probably "due a bit of recognition".

And it worked. Marcus Trescothick, Michael Vaughan, Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones and Steven Harmison all had unspectacular county records but obvious potential to take the Test side forward (be it technical, physical or temperamental) and all of whom have produced world (rather than first) class performances.

To return to CMJ's core criticism, I think he wants it both ways. There is a strong case for saying that under Peter Moores and Geoff Miller, we have returned to valuing county experience to a greater degree. This has met with success, particularly in two cases, both a key part of the title-winning Notts side from a few seasons back.

Ryan Sidebottom is a better bowler now than when he played against Pakistan in 2001, but Fletcher, having disgarded him then, failed to monitor (or listen to the reports) of Sidebottom's improved pace and ability to swing the ball back into the right-hander. Secondly Graeme Swann, taken on tour in 1999-2000 and written off as indisciplined, has been a very consistent performer with ball and bat for Northants and Notts, done well on England A tours and was brought back into the one-day side last year. Even under Fletcher there was occasionally scope for picking a good county pro (Martin Saggers, Shaun Udal), and Swann could be in Udal's slot in the Test side as second spinner this winter.

The Mooresian/Millerian fondness for in-form county performers has also led to some odd-ball moves. The selection of Pattinson (in the wickets at Trent Bridge, which, like the Riverside CMJ demands is taken in context) attracted criticism from most quarters (including CMJ I believe). Last year's Twenty20 world cup saw players like Darren Maddy and (eeek!) Chris Schofield getting a run out, as well as more deserving cases like Dmitri Mascheranas.

What I am getting at (eventually) is that neither approach is without fault and a balance between the two (which M&M are close to) must be struck. The danger of having a too dogmatic selection policy is that it might ignore a young genius unmotivated by the grind of county cricket and equally might ignore an older player who has improved through hard work and experience into a test class player. Predictably the Australians have it pretty much sorted. With the admittedly easier task of selecting from a smaller, higher level pool of domestic first-class cricket, they are able to bring in players like Mike Hussey, Darren Lehmann and Stuart Clark, but also to give the likes of Michael Clarke, Mitchell Johnson and Luke Ronchi a go early in their careers.

CMJ's two examples (Sales and Davies) are different cases. Sales, as readers may recall, had a particularly prolific period of scoring from about 1999-2002, which included several double hundreds and at list one triple. He was on the 'A' tour and a dark horse for selection in the winter of 2002-3 (I think) when he was badly injured playing beach volleyball. This was pure misfortune, and despite solid scoring ever since, I think he's missed his chance. This could be pure prejudice but a look at his physique these days does not inspire an image of an elite athlete. In fact he makes Rob Key look like Peter Crouch.

Davies is a little younger than Sales, and has an exceptional first class record with the ball. But, as CMJ concedes, he is bowling at the Riverside (where admittedly he has a better record than England bowlers Harmison, Plunkett and Onions) and he is definitely medium pace. It is telling that when Durham have all bowlers available he rarely gets a start at the moment, partly down to his own injuries in recent years. He has merited a place on the A team in the past but I think (and this is pure prejudice) that he is emblematic of the good pro who would be outgunned at Test level. Gentle, even though it is accurate, medium pace on flat pitch just doesn't bowl sides out any more. If he was playing on the English minefields of the 90s I would seriously think about picking him but he is not. Plus he can't bat.

Ultimately selectors are supposed to be able to identify talent on an individual basis to fit the current and future needs of the team. We have to back them to do this or sack them. No need to crack them.

Read more...

Gayle's guide to staying captain

While everyone in England has been focusing on Michael Vaughan’s resignation and KP’s appointment, over in Jamaica Chris Gayle has shown the level of political skill needed to stay captain.

After a reasonable test series against the Aussies (2-0 defeat but every match ran to 5 days) and a disastrous one-day series (5-0 loss), Gayle decided not to hang around and wait for the sack. Instead he resigned and let it be known that he was doing it because he disagreed with the Board's selection policy. I guess he was referring to the way spinners such as Amit Jaggernauth are picked and discarded more or less at random.

He timed it well, as the Windies cricket board was in the middle of a scandal. It’s not clear exactly what has been going on, but it’s something to do with details of the president’s house in St Lucia being leaked, leading to a few sacking and suspensions.

The result? Today Gayle has graciously decided to reconsider his resignation, after talking to players and fans etc etc. Presumably he now has a greater say in selection as well. Definitely a politician in the making. This tactic probably wouldn’t have worked for Vaughan, as the ECB is a stronger organization, but under-pressure Pakistan captain Shoaib Malik could consider trying this tactic.

This about-turn could also be further evidence of the IPL influencing cricket boards. Chris Gayle is a high-value IPL player and he may have threatened to walk away from the Windies altogether unless he was given more power as captain. There was also a lot of speculation last week that Pietersen’s appointment as England captain was designed to stop him defecting to the IPL. It will be interesting to see if other countries start following England and the West Indies' lead by appointing their best 20-20 players as captains. If so then we could soon see Misbah-Ul-Haq as captain of Pakistan and Brendon Mccullum in charge of New Zealand. Andrew Symonds captaining Australia would be fun, but is probably a bit of a long shot.

Read more...

England's fast men for the Ashes- finding the right combination

What is the ideal combination for next summer? Here are what I think are the unarguable facts:

1. If fit, Flintoff bats somewhere in the top seven (with a wicket-keeper batsman) and is one of a three or four man pace attack. Collingwood or Bopara is also in top six to offer a fifth bowler if needed.

2. Barring spectacular loss of form, Panesar plays.

Otherwise, we don't know much. A potentially hard winter in India (with mainly one-dayers) is followed by a nice tour of the Caribbean (which might be harder than we think) and a summer start against a potentially very weak Sri Lanka side. Then the Aussies.

To my mind, there are currently 10 bowlers fighting for a maximum of three slots. In no particular order:

1. Steve Harmison

Showed us what he can offer in this Test. Only Mahmood can offer the same combination of extreme pace (consistently high 80s, occasionally ~93mph) and awkward bounce. Over 200 test wickets in the bag and still the right side of 30. When firing, and in favourable conditions, he is arguably the best fast-bowler in the world.

What has he proved by his comeback? I would actually say very little other than, like Andrew Caddick before him, he needs many overs under his belt in order to be in any sort of rhythm. I was staggered by how badly prepared he was in Hamilton- on an admittedly sluggish pitch (although Chris Martin was 10mph quicker) the ball never got up past 78mph. Harmy's body language was shot, and his mental state obviously brittle.

Perhaps he has done enough to merit a starting place on the India tour but: a) with no serious four day cricket for England after today he will have to get some games under his belt under his own steam, and b) the Test pitches (Mumbai and Ahmedabad) are dustbowls- Harmison might come into it, but we are definitely looking for two spinners in both.

If we are looking solely at the Ashes, there might be an argument in picking GBH anyway, and relying on the good memories of touring Windies (let him take the wife and kids) and the confidence boost of beating up some young Sri Lankans on juicy early season pitches to go into the series brimming with confidence. The Aussie top order is not what it was in 2005, and even then a fired-up GBH was too much for the
m.

Verdict: Needs to tour, but needs to know it is his last chance. If being dropped is the wake-up call he says it was, and he can put in the necessary work, he still adds much needed hostility to the one paced (Anderson, Sidebottom, Broad) and swing reliant attack we've used this season. Good enough to take twenty wickets against NZ but not India, SA or Oz. If he plays, it is important he has the new ball.

2. James Anderson

Along with Ian Bell, Jimmy is one of the two cricketers I've been championing for the past 5 years or so. At his best (which he has been consistently close to this summer), he bowls 85-88mph, swinging the ball late and both ways without massive changes in action. We haven't had a bowler like that since Botham in his pomp and there hasn't been one in world cricket since pre-beard Jason Gillespie (ironically the closest two are the junkie Asif and our own Simon Jones).

This summer, I have been really impressed with his fitness. He has bowled more overs than any other paceman (Broad and Sidebottom have both faded with the workload) and has maintained his pace and action (and subsequently direction) on flat pitches over long spells. This is what he was missing in previous years, and something he needed to develop. He was Troy Cooley's standout cock-up in the Ashes-winning era, a natural but potentially crippling action was remoulded and he lost his zip and late swing.

Verdict: I think he has earned the right to stay with the new ball, and with his outstanding fielding and improved batting, has demonstrated that he deserves a starting place on tour. There's still time for him to mess it up though, and being a key component in both ODI and Test attacks may mean we need to rest him for some of the ODIs in the next 6 months. He's just gone past 100 wickets, and at 26 should be just entering his peak years as a bowler.

3. Ryan Sidebottom

Carried the pace attack for a year from the middle of last summer to the middle of this one. I think he did an excellent job filling Hoggard's boots and went through a luckless period, only to reap massive rewards against New Zealand, who could not play him.

Throughout that period, his pace was up in the mid-high 80s, which allied to his probing lines and ability to bring the ball back into the right hander as well as away, made him a very difficult proposition for any-right hander. Left arm pace also adds variety to an otherwise samey-attack. Sidebottom at Notts was always capable of bowling at this pace, but generally saved it for one or two spells per match as it resulted in back pain. In his eagerness to impress at Test level, he maintained that pace throughout, but it now looks as if he's buggered his back.

At a reduced pace of 78-83 mph (as he has been against South Africa) I simply don't see him being effective against good batsmen in Test cricket.

Verdict: Benefited from injuries and loss of form by the established bowlers and took full grasp of a well deserved opportunity. Now needs to prove his own fitness to get back into the side. If he can get back to full pace without knackering his spine then he needs to be back in the side. Otherwise other bowlers have a better claim to the new ball. The imminent recall of Matt Prior may affect him as well. Despite years of keeping to the (slower [my pace Pete]) Lewry at Sussex, he struggled to keep to Siddy and dropped or missed eleven chances off his bowling over an eight Test period.

4. Chris Tremlett

The new Jimmy Anderson. Perennial twelfth man when it would be much better bowling for Hants. The fact that horses-for-courses Pattinson (who doesn't make this list) was included at Headingley suggests that the management still don't trust a man who has been prone to breaking down mid-game over the years.

Last year we saw glimpses of why he is so highly regarded. A more consistent bowler than Harmison, if slightly slower, his 6'8'' frame has added significant muscle and an extra yard of pace. He is a clever bowler with a lot of pedigree and did well against India last year. However he is clearly fairly low down the pecking order and will be lucky to make the Test tour if everyone else is fit.

Verdict: In trying to fulfil the ever-expanding tour schedules, it is vital that bowlers like Tremlett are given experience, at least in the ODI side. If Harmison and Broad are both injured, we need a reliable tall bowler in the side and he fits the bill. He has shown some talent with the bat and if he could develop it he might strengthen his case.

5. Simon Jones

In the wickets this year for Worcester and will have the opportunity in a week's time to unleash himself on the South Africans when he plays them as part of the Lions team.

The best exponent of reverse swing bowling outside of Wasim and Waqar, he is a magically gifted strike-bowler on his day and his spells in the summer of 2005 were some of the best I've seen from an England bowler. If he can prove his fitness he surely comes back into the side. I haven't seen him bowl this year but apparently he is back up to pace. He and Flintoff resuming their roles as change bowlers by next summer would send shockwaves through the Aussies.

Verdict: We have missed him enormously since the Trent Bridge Test in 2005. His presence (combined with the development of Panesar in the intervening years) would add greatly to England's ability to threaten a batting line-up throughout 80 overs. He will have to be handled carefully. If he is not going to play in the Test side in India (where he would be very useful) then he should tour with the Lions rather than being a twelfth man. As with Harmison, the Windies tour in 2003 was the making of him, and it might provide the best opportunity for a come-back.

6. Stuart Broad

The future, but is he good enough at present? A boy who only started bowling seriously four years ago, he needs to decide what kind of bowler he wants to be.

I think he should focus on being a McGrath or Pollock-like metronome with the new ball. He is still trying to hard and struggling for pace he doesn't naturally have. Too often in spells his radar goes awry when he looks for a magic 90 mph snorter and produces a 84mph long hop. Good batsmen earn their crust dispatching balls like that at this level and he will go for lots of runs if he continues that approach.

Tellingly, he has been a much more effective one-day bowler to date. Where economy is its own reward, he has been content to bowl back of a length in the corridor outside off-stump and let the pressure of slow scoring generate wickets. If you have a strike bowler at the other end, this approach will also reap reward at test level.

His batting has to be taken into account. He is easily England's best bowler batting at number eight (discounting Graeme Swann) and has shown great promise. The selectors should and will ignore calls to push him up the order. He's generally scored runs against the old ball on flat pitches (and shown up the incompetence of the top order). Brett Lee and Stuart Clark would be licking their lips to see him in at six or seven.

Verdict: Definitely worth his place in the ODI side, but I don't think he'll be the finished article by the Ashes. Post 2009 he is one of a crop of talented youngsters (with Bopara, Davies & Rashid) who England should be looking at in order to try to become the dominant side in world cricket. I think he will end his test career with over 4000 runs and over 400 wickets but he has time on his side.

7. Matthew Hoggard

Two indifferent Tests and Hoggard, our most consistent bowler in recent years is junked. Definitely was very harshly dealt with, but would he be back into the side on merit? I was disgusted that Pattinson got the nod at Headingley when Hoggard. However I saw him bowling for Yorkshire the other day and his zip was gone. When I saw him bowling live against New Zealand for the Lions, he and Graeme Onions had taken the new ball and were bowling to Aaron Redmond (on 130odd) and Chris Martin (on nought). Hoggard didn't trouble Martin! As much as I hate to say it, I think the combination of Anderson and Sidebottom both offer things Hoggard doesn't, and unless he can find another gear he looks finished. He can look back on a fantastic career, but it will be with understandable bitterness when he sees the myriad of chances given to no-hopers like Paul Collingwood among the batsmen.

Verdict: I hope I'm wrong, but he didn't know it was over til it was too late. Now if we ever needed him, would he be there?

8. Graeme Onions

Good, nippy, nice high action. Looks decent, but doubt he has the weapons to hurt a good side on a flat pitch. Does get both swing and seam movement, but only away from the right-hander. Compared with Jimmy and Siddy, this may not be enough...

Verdict: Obviously well-regarded by the selectors and has come close to making his debut. Like Tremlett is probably a good guy to rotate.

9. Sajid Mahmood

Incredible potential, still young. At times he has carried the injury-hit Lancashire side this year, and is capable of reversing the ball at lightening pace as well as getting Harmison-like bounce off a length. When he and Harmison demolished the Pakistanis at Old Trafford two years ago, it was one of the most destructive England bowling displays of recent years.

However he struggles with consistency, and struggles when batsmen go after him. In the same season, I saw Jayasuria and Tharanga climbing into him at Lords and finding it very easy to take him apart.

Verdict: Needs to learn from his county colleague Jimmy Anderson. Needs to demonstrate his frighteningly great skills week in, week out, but is a player who could potentially add a dimension to the side in years to come.

10. Liam Plunkett

Just a year ago he was occupying Stuart Broad's place in both test and one day sides. At times produced extremely effective spells and was very unlucky to be jettisoned for the 2007 world cup. Still very young, and with a text-book action, which should allow him to add a yard of pace if he puts more time in in the gym. Off the field discipline looks tricky- he is a boozer and it has caught up with him a number of times.

Verdict: I think he will come back, and offers a great combination of nagging bowling, lightening fielding and useful hitting to the one day side. Could be a dark horse for 20:Twenty in the next year or so.

Bowling attack for the Ashes:

New ball: Harmison and Anderson (unless RS recovers fully, and he or Broad come in for GBH unless he has a good tour of India)
Old ball: Flintoff and Jones

NB. There are other bowlers who may force their way in through the shorter formats- Luke Wright, Tim Bresnan and Graham Napier are all long-shots to getting a place as a hard-hitting bowling all-rounder.

Read more...