Stability returns to England squad as they head to NZ

Following a period of relative instability, the England selectors reverted to form in making few changes to the side that toured India ahead of the forthcoming three-match Test series in New Zealand.  

Nineteen players were called up to India at one point or another, and that group has been culled back to the normal fifteen. Stuart Meaker and James Tredwell, brought out as cover, miss out whilst Eoin Morgan, who also didn’t play is dropped. Samit Patel, who is yet to play a Test outside of Asia, has also been excluded. None of these should be viewed as surprise moves. In a slightly less anticipated move Tim Bresnan was omitted, with Chris Woakes, who has been playing first-class cricket in New Zealand, called up. Although Bresnan’s place ought to have been in doubt anyway, following an average year since returning from elbow surgery, the selectors insist that the reason for his absence is to allow further assessment of the elbow.

From the XI that played in Nagpur, nine can expect to start at Dunedin. All being well the returning Steven Finn and Stuart Broad are likely to replace Bresnan and the unlucky Monty Panesar. Some would question Broad’s return after a poor show in recent Tests, but it was only 12 months ago that he starred in the toughest of conditions against Pakistan, and this series should be a perfect opportunity to rediscover his rhythm – if he can make himself fit. Graham Onions will again be unfortunate to be on the sidelines and if injuries occur will likely be the man to step up in conditions more likely to suit him than in India.

There may also be some debate over the opening position vacated by Andrew Strauss at the end of last summer. Nick Compton’s contributions were critical in setting a platform for the middle-order before Christmas, but Michael Vaughan believes that Joe Root should be promoted. That move would, however, be extremely harsh on Compton who should get the chance to prove that he’s more than just a blocker. Meanwhile, Root seems to be relishing his role in the England middle-order – a role which he might just be able to nail down better than Morgan or Jonny Bairstow have.

The adjustments to the one-day squad, curiously named some time back but now seemingly ripped up and selected again, are perhaps more significant.

The decision to axe Craig Kieswetter is likely to mark the end of the wicket-keeper’s international career: although he is still just 25, there are a number of younger batsman who ‘keep just as well as him. Whilst he has had his moments, this England side don’t like mediocrity and that is what has ultimately cost him. His immediate successor at number six will be either Bairstow or Kieswetter’s Somerset team-mate Jos Buttler. Although Bairstow has more ‘keeping experience in the professional game, Buttler has looked perfectly adept when given the gloves thus far. A shoot-out in the warm-up games and T20s may eventually dictate who takes up what is something of a poisoned chalice.

In another change Jade Dernbach will not be going to New Zealand. The Surrey paceman has struggled with control so far in his international career, and probably needs to spend some time with his county. James Harris and Chris Woakes have been called up, despite the fact that neither of them generally excel with the white ball.  However, as swing bowlers they might enjoy New Zealand, and can be no worse than Dernbach, who is the most expensive ODI bowler of all time.

In both formats of the game England will be big favourites. England’s ODI XI will be stronger than that South Africa fielded against New Zealand, and conditions will suit England’s gameplan more than they did in India. Meanwhile, there is a clear gap in quality in the long form of the game, where New Zealand lack depth, quality and confidence.

England's fast bowling stocks a cause for concern

Just a few months ago pundits appeared evenly divided over whether England or South Africa had the best seam bowling attack in world cricket. Whilst most would have argued that South Africa’s first choice combination of Dale Steyn, Morne Morkel and Vernon Philander edged out England’s unit it was a close run thing, and England’s depth was often highlighted as a point in their favour. But in spite of the Test series win in India, and an excellent one-day international record over the last twelve months, England now have cause for concern about both the quality and depth of their fast bowling stocks.

There is no concern about the leader of England’s attack. Steyn can rightly call himself the leading quick-man in the world but any opposition batsman will tell you that James Anderson is not far behind. His average and strike rate aren’t as good as Steyn’s, but at the back end of the Indian tour he re-confirmed to any that doubted that he’s a man for all conditions. The other man now a sure-fire starter is Steve Finn. In the last twelve months or so he’s started to produce the performances to justify the faith of his many supporters. He remains inconsistent at Test level, but his hostility now guarantees him a place in the starting line-up.

Ahead of the match-up with South Africa last summer there would also have been no dispute about Stuart Broad’s place. He was the pick of England’s successful seamers against India at home and Pakistan away, and very good against Sri Lanka and West Indies. With good reason most observers thought he had finally cracked it at Test level. But then something went wrong. He lost his pace and rhythm against Amla et al., and didn’t rediscover it until being ruled out in India with a heel injury. So drastic has been his change of fortunes that many would no longer pick him in their first choice XIs. With rumours circulating that he might be a doubt for the New Zealand trip it is now far from certain that he will share the new ball when the Ashes get underway in July.

The third member of England’s seam bowling unit in the drubbings of Australia and India in 2010 and 2011 was Tim Bresnan. Although Bresnan has never been viewed as a destroyer, he was a key member of that side. As well as building up exceptional personal figures he became the team’s lucky charm and contributed with the bat. But right now even the staunchest Bresnanite finds it difficult to justify selecting him. Since elbow surgery last winter he’s been a shadow of his former self. Whilst sporadic glimpses of form suggest he’s worth persisting with in limited-overs, he surely can’t go to New Zealand with the Test side. The case for his selection has quite simply disappeared. On recent evidence he no longer offers control, penetration, runs - or good luck.

Another fast bowler who had success but would now appear to have fallen away is Chris Tremlett. After an injury-ridden period following his successful debut Test series in 2007, he came from left-field to hurt the Australians in 2010-11. He was then also named Man of the Series after bowling Sri Lanka out in a session to throw the decisive punch of a rain-affected series which followed. However, injury has returned and he would appear to have slipped off the radar for immediate selection. Tremlett hardly played at all in 2012, and whilst England are keen to keep him around the set-up, as an injury-prone 31 year-old the chances of him playing a part in England’s future are slim.

It is worth briefly considering Graham Onions. The leading wicket-taker in Championship cricket last year, he did well in the Test Match he played against West Indies at Edgbaston. But England would appear to see him as a horses-for-courses bowler. It is feared that his style of bowling is too easy to hit on flat pitches in Asia, and in one-day cricket. Hence, although it would be no surprise to see him feature at some point in the Ashes, he’ll do little to solve the current issues with the one-day side.

Indeed, it is the limited-overs teams that would appear to have the biggest problem. Given England’s schedule, Anderson, Broad and Finn are rightly wrapped in cotton wool. But the supposed depth has disappeared, and those that have come in would not really appear to be up to it.

A big concern must be Jade Dernbach. He has become a figure of ridicule lately (and not just for his horrible tattoos), but he undoubtedly has a rare skill in the way he utilises slower balls at the back end of an innings. It doesn’t always come off, but nor do Malinga’s yorkers. Nevertheless, you can’t pick somebody who doesn’t bat well in a 50-over team purely for death bowling, and for the most part he is a liability. His ‘normal’ delivery is not particularly penetrative, and often bowled inaccurately. Even Surrey fans tend to be a little surprised to see his name on England teamsheets. He may have a role for England in the future, but right now he needs to go back to his county and spend a year or two learning more about his bowling in a less pressurised environment.

Dernbach’s Surrey teammate, Stuart Meaker, has only marginally more control. His core asset is to bowl at 90 mph, which could be useful in Tests, particularly away from home. But the feeling is that in the short forms, where he has played his international cricket, he can be just a bit too predictable. For that reason he hasn’t always featured in Surrey one-day teams, and doesn’t really fill an England supporter with confidence.

Another young talent who’s been on the radar for a while is Chris Woakes. Warwickshire fans will tell you that he’s a fine all-rounder. But his international efforts so far don’t make good reading. Since taking six expensive wickets in Adelaide two years ago, he’s taken just two more in ODIs at a disappointing economy rate. He undoubtedly has talent with the bat and as a new ball bowler in English conditions. But, like Onions and Meaker, may find that limited-overs cricket is not his forte.

In sum, England continue to have strength in numbers in the seam department. But of late many of them have struggled to progress. In terms of depth, England are probably now third in this department behind Australia and South Africa. To retain hopes of an imminent return to the top of the Test and ODI ladders progress will need to made, with it unlikely that Anderson, Finn and an in-form Broad could play all ten upcoming Test against Australia. Getting Broad fit and firing will be key. But others also needs to put their hands up, particularly in one-day cricket where the young bowlers struggle for control

Too much rest for the wicked?

Over the last two days we have witnessed two Twenty20 Internationals. First, India beat England at the new ground in Pune on Friday evening, before tonight South Africa hammered New Zealand in Durban. Only one of the four teams involved was fielding anything remotely resembling a first choice XI, and even that wasn’t quite full strength. The prime reason for this is decisions taken by team managements to rest players, a practice which has become exponentially more popular over the last year. The rested list for just these two games would make a world-beating team of its own:

Virender Sehwag, Hashim Amla, Jacques Kallis, Kevin Pietersen, AB de Villiers (wk), Albie Morkel, Graeme Swann, Morne Morkel, Steven Finn, James Anderson, Lonwabo Tsotsobe

In addition to this lot New Zealand were missing a player refusing to tour because of issues with the hierarchy (Ross Taylor), and a player not picked because the hierarchy have issues with him (Jesse Ryder). Meanwhile, England captain Stuart Broad was on a lengthy injury list.

And its not just the shortest form of the game that is afflicted by this trend. England will return to India for ODIs in January without at least three first-choice players, and South Africa and Australia have also taken their best players out of action in recent 50-over matches.

Although players have been taking the odd tour game or domestic match off for years, it was Australia that pioneered resting players from full internationals. When at their mid-2000s zenith the policy kept McGrath and Warne fresh, whilst handing richly deserved international caps to the likes of Martin Love, Andy Bichel and Stuart MacGill.

It is still Australia that perhaps lead the way with their rest policy which, in the case of their quick bowlers, often verges on rotation. The key difference is that it would appear that they don’t have a set first-choice attack. Instead, they have a pre-conceived idea that bowler x will be withdrawn after a couple of Tests, to be replaced by bowler y. I think that this is proving dangerous, both for performance and for fitness. As I will come on to, resting is a good thing in moderation. But when somebody isn’t allowed to get a good amount of overs under their belt, they find themselves unprepared for the strains of playing Test cricket, where you have to push yourself for that final spell after a long day in the field. Pat Cummins and James Pattinson are both arguably victims of this policy.

That is not to say that resting players is a bad thing per se. With the amount of cricket that is now played everybody involved with the game, whether they be batsmen, bowlers, coaches or even mere punters need a break from time to time. The risk of injury and burnout ahead of the most important Test series is an unnecessary gamble to take on the very best players. It is, however, a little frustrating when people to buy pricey tickets on the premise that they will see the best players in the world in action, only to see virtual B-teams take to the field. It also takes matches out of their wider context, as whoever loses can always make the excuse that they weren’t at full strength.

So, resting must be a good thing in moderation. But too much of it can not only devalue international matches but also leave young players in particular undercooked. It is the job of team managements to ensure that they strike the perfect balance between rest and play so as that their greatest assets are fit and firing at the pivotal moments.

Test attendances in decline? Maybe, but not for lack of interest

In recent years many thousands of column inches have been filled by writers bemoaning declining attendances for Test cricket worldwide, and on that basis hypothesising about the impending death of the format. In this article I will attempt to explain why Test audiences vary so much. I will also argue that the chances of Test cricket ending any time soon is about as high as that of the Mayan prophecy being proved correct, and that there are in fact many reasons to be positive about continuing interest in the oldest form of the game.

So, what exactly is the current situation? The common conviction is that whilst grounds remain full in England and Australia, crowds are in serious and potentially terminal decline elsewhere.

The first part of that statement is largely true: most Tests in England still sell out, and large audiences are also common in Australia (although the current Test in Hobart is not a great example of that). One reason for this is that matches are played at a relatively small number of grounds, most of which have long traditions of hosting annual Test Matches. People get into the habit of buying tickets for a day of their local Test each year, and so there is less impetus to attract supporters who haven’t come along in the past. This filters down to younger generations, who first get taken along by their parents and then take on the ritual themselves. A second reason is that cricket supporters in these two countries perhaps have more flexibility to take days off work to watch the cricket than their Asian or West Indian counterparts, allowing grounds to be full on weekdays. Finally, scheduling is good on the whole, with a lot of Test Matches over the holiday season and weekends.

Those Tests which struggle to draw crowds in England and Australia are largely exceptions which prove the rule. Grounds like the Swalec Stadium, the Rose Bowl and to a lesser extent Bellerive Oval have a lesser Test Match tradition than Lord’s, Old Trafford and the SCG. Matches at these venues have also often been played off peak, and against less attractive opposition. Consequently, attendances are lower with weather less conducive to cricket-watching and people more likely to have to work. So, yes, Test attendances do remain good in Test cricket’s two most ancient dominions.

But what about elsewhere? The logical place to start is India, where a diet of limited-overs cricket has supposedly taken over, resulting in a significant in interest in Tests. I would contest this thesis. Interestingly, attendances remain highest where Tests have long been played – good numbers turned out for the recent matches at Mumbai and Kolkata, and Bengaluru also does well. Although we might not have the 100,000 that would watch at Eden Gardens twenty years ago, this can easily be explained by massive changes to Indian society. Back then going to the match was the only reasonable way for the then vast majority of poverty-stricken Indians to follow the cricket without waiting for the paper the next morning. Now, with the Internet, satellite television and an increase in wealth, less people feel the need to make the effort of spending a day at the cricket. A sufficient number still do though, particularly when England, Australia or Pakistan are in town. Despite not quite half-filling Eden Gardens, the crowd for last week’s Test would almost certainly have filled Lord’s and was almost certainly the highest in terms of total number of spectators for any Test Match in 2012. In line with the pattern identified in England and Australia, the worst crowds are at grounds in areas with no Test Match tradition – Nagpur and Mohali are key examples, both located some distance from large population areas and both experiencing large numbers of empty seats for Tests. In the recent past the BCCI have also often done themselves few favours, scheduling Tests to run Monday to Friday on some occasions, and thus robbing themselves of the days when most people attend.

The link to limited-overs cricket is worth examining in more depth. Although Indians undoubtedly have a greater love for the short formats than English fans do, it is worth considering that attendances for a Test are spread over five days. This is a simple fact which is often forgotten when commentators attempt to compare turnout for one-off ODIs and Twenty20 Internationals with attendances for individual days of a Test. The same spectator is unlikely to go to more than one day of a Test, so its surely logical that for an ODI, where all spectators have to attend at the same time, the crowd on that one day will be higher than for any individual day of Test cricket. In fact, this is far from being purely the Asian phenomena that people think it is. Even in England ODIs almost always sell out despite the perceived preference for Tests.

The pattern in Sri Lanka, West Indies and Bangladesh (a lack of recent home matches mean I’ve left out Pakistan, but they’d probably be in this group) is closest to that in India. It is in these countries and New Zealand where Test attendances are most embarrassing. However, in none of these were huge daily crowds commonplace at any point in the recent past. Economic constraints on supporters are probably the main issue here – in the West Indies, attendances are regularly considerably higher at weekends and on public holidays. But new stadiums built away from town also unsurprisingly do badly, such as the Sir Vivian Richards ground in Antigua and Hambantota in Sri Lanka. It should also be noted that even one-day matches don’t usually produce anything like a full house in these nations, so radical ideas like day-night Tests are unlikely to make a marked difference, particularly once the novelty wears off.

South Africa and New Zealand are outliers. New Zealand’s pitifully poor crowds are best explained by a pure lack of interest in the national team in a rugby mad country. It is here, more than anywhere, that you feel day-night Tests could actually make a difference. South Africa is more confusing. Their crowds are rarely as strong as England’s and Australia’s despite a good team, the popularity of cricket, and their grounds have hosted Tests for years. A potential explanation is that the Test-hosting tradition was interrupted by Apartheid, after which limited-overs cricket established itself as the fashionable format to take the family to. Economic factors may also play a part. But, overall, they also could do better.

We’ve established that crowds in England and Australia are better than elsewhere, and offered some explanations for the perceived decline. I’ll now turn my attention to why I think Test cricket has a bright future everywhere, with the possible exception of New Zealand.

Whilst the multitude of ways to follow Tests in the 21^st Century, now including Cricinfo, Twitter, Satellite TV, Digital Radio and iPhone apps might be playing a part in keeping some people away from the ground, it can only be increasing interest in the game. Some years ago most England overseas tours were given only minimal coverage, and hence received little public attention. These days we can follow them as closely as we can home Test series. I have no reason to believe that this is not the case in India and also elsewhere. One observation of mine is that many of the micro-bloggers moaning about a lack of support for Test Matches won’t attend a Test Match themselves each year, despite following the format extremely closely. I’m willing to bet that they would have done twenty years ago.

Things can be further improved. This could be done by ensuring that every Test Match includes guaranteed play at the weekend, and so starts no earlier in the week than Thursday, with the exception of matches played over holidays. In addition, Test cricket should be kept away from big grounds with no Test Match tradition. Nagpur and Mohali should thus be consigned to one-day matches. This shouldn’t mean that Tests should exclusively be played where they always have been, but new grounds should be carefully picked and not be so big that they always appear half-full or worse.

Overall, I firmly believe that Test cricket has a bright future. Any perceived decline in attendances has been exaggerated, and should not necessarily be equated with declining interest in the longest form of the game. On the contrary, I believe that Tests are being followed by more people than ever before, and that this trend is unlikely to stop soon.

Time to hang up the sunglasses

The appointment of Duncan Fletcher as India’s coach following Gary Kirsten’s decision to return to South Africa after the 2011 World Cup success seemed strange at the time. And now, eighteen months and nine Test defeats later, it appears even more misguided. With the team having got worse rather than better under his watch, it is surely time to hang up his sunglasses, or else they could soon descent into freefall.

Quite what attracted India to Fletcher is unclear. Yes, he did a good job with England, and led the team to some landmark successes. But however good his record with England was, he just seemed unsuited to the Indian job from the outset. Nasser Hussain has said that Fletcher’s greatest skills with England were ‘planning’ and ‘man-management’. Neither would seem to be key attributes for the role in India: planning is in the hands of N. Srinivasan and the BCCI whilst those, such as Greg Chappell, that have tried to man-manage India’s superstars have found that that it’s the wrong way to approach things. Fletcher was also well passed 60 when given the Indian job, and it can be argued that he belongs to an earlier school of world-class coaches than current masters like Kirsten and Andy Flower.

Whilst Kirsten and in particular Flower would appear to have a say in every significant decision that needs making, its also very difficult to tell quite what Fletcher’s done since taking charge. His press conferences with England were often caricatured as dour and uninteresting. But at least he gave them. Since taking the job he has hardly faced the Indian media; fielding coach Trevor Penney was left to take the questions after Day 2 in Kolkata. Whilst Penney’s answers might have been more interesting, Fletcher’s absence raises questions of whether he’s willing to hold himself accountable for the team’s failings. Even were he not actually to blame, a strong leader would take it upon himself to not only take his share of the responsibility, but also to ensure that changes are made to put things right.

And it’s a reticence to change things which is perhaps been Fletcher’s greatest weakness in his time at the helm. After seeing the team annihilated twice in quick succession away from home, something needed to be altered. Perhaps in personnel – it strikes me as ridiculous that Ajinkya Rahane, a 24 year-old with a first-class average of 64 is yet to make his debut. But more pertinently in attitude. A hallmark of the whitewash in England was that Indian heads dropped early, leading to some woeful fielding and village bowling. At the time they at least had an excuse for fielding, but with Dravid and Laxman gone the average age is now significantly lower, and the same problems persist. Whilst Cook and Trott were going about their business, the Indian bowlers rarely looked like breaking through – and when they did they dropped the catches. A properly motivated team keeps going hard through the tough patches. Fletcher must be held accountable for these failings in part.

Furthermore, mistakes Duncan made with England are being repeated. When England went to Australia in 2006/07, Andrew Flintoff (as captain), Ashley Giles and Geraint Jones were all picked for the 1^st Test despite having either hardly played, in the first two cases, or lost form completely in the third case. Fletcher’s India are doing the same thing. Given the depth of talent in the Indian domestic game, particularly in the batting department, it is near impossible to justify the selections for this series of Gautam Gambhir (who last reached three figures almost three whole years ago) and Yuvraj Singh (who was not first pick before his cancer battle, and had played two first-class matches since). That Gambhir has since found some form is neither here nor there – he shouldn’t have been in the team. Meanwhile, Harbhajan Singh had done nothing in the Ranji Trophy or his stint with Essex last summer to earn a recall. Rahane, Manoj Tiwary, Rohit Sharma and Ravindra Jadeja are just a few of those left on the sidelines while the pampered one-time, and often one-day, heroes add to their cap tally. It would be wrong to lay the blame for this entirely at Fletcher’s door. But a good coach should surely have enough influence to get the XI he wants from the selectors.

A tour of South Africa awaits next winter, and without change a full house of overseas whitewashes against Test cricket’s big three is on the cards. Relying on a strong home record, which is itself in the process of collapsing, is simply not good enough. What India need is a coach who can deal with the media, take the lead in team selection and strategy, and instil belief in a team in transition. With Flower committed to England, that man could be Tom Moody. Moody was a well-received coach of Sri Lanka, perhaps the next most difficult job in the world game after the Indian one. His work in the media means he’s be sure to appear at press conferences, and he understands the game better than most.

So, this writer thinks its time for Fletcher to go. He served England well on the whole, and will forever be associated with the introduction of central contracts, and a bigger coaching staff. He will also be remember as the Ashes winning coach of 2005. But his spell with India has been one long nightmare, which he desperately needs to wake up from.

No need for new era as England go to India with cause for optimism

In less than two days time England embark on the next stage of their quest to win a Test series in Asia, led by a new captain in Alastair Cook, but otherwise with largely the same personnel that went to the UAE and Sri Lanka last winter. Expectations are low, but on the face of it there should be little reason to believe that England cannot win a first series in India since 1985.

In some quarters the tour has been described as the beginning of a new era for English cricket, but in reality the switch in leadership was all about continuity rather than change. Cook has been groomed for captaincy since he first stepped into an England dressing room seven years ago, has been one-day international captain for eighteen months, and this is not even the first Test tour to the sub-continent that he’s led - he stood in for Andrew Strauss in Bangladesh, and by all accounts did an excellent job. Therefore, a change in team ethos is highly unlikely and rightly so: under Strauss England became a highly professional and effective outfit, guided by a world leading team of support staff. Expect Cook’s first target to be to ensure that this is replicated under his command.

The make up of the team will also have a familiar look to it when it is named after the toss in Ahmedabad on Thursday. The enforced replacement of Strauss with Nick Compton, and the inclusion of Stuart Broad (who was injured last spring) in place of the now crocked Steven Finn are likely to be the only two changes from the 2^nd Test in Sri Lanka, a match which England won. That reflects the fact that despite an unconvincing twelve months, there can be little dispute over who England’s best players are. The batting unit may have failed in the sub-continent last winter, but to my mind Cook, Jonathan Trott, Ian Bell and, yes, Kevin Pietersen are world class batsmen, each of whom has shown ability to play spin in the past. Cook and Trott have had success in Asia before, Pietersen has smashed Warne and Murali to all parts, and Bell has scored runs in matches played on turning pitches, albeit rarely in Asia. Matt Prior is undoubtedly the best ‘keeper-batsman in the world game. Meanwhile, a disappointing effort against South Africa aside, James Anderson and Stuart Broad have formed an incisive new ball partnership in recent years.  Tim Bresnan lost form this summer, but all the evidence from the tour games suggests he’s back in the sort of rhythm which has provided him with success against India in the past.

Nevertheless, we should not kid ourselves that this will be easy. Few teams have won Test series in India within the last decade, and all batsmen that have faced Ravichandran Ashwin in Asia have struggled thus far. It is likely that he’ll take the new ball, ensuring that England’s batsmen are put under pressure from ball one, and unable to take advantage of getting set against the seamers, as is their preference. Pragyan Ojha is also a better left-arm spinner than he’s often given credit for. These are not spinners that England can expect to bully, as they did to Harbhajan Singh and Amit Mishra in England. But it is surely not asking too much to expect top class international players, as so many of the England line-up are, to play sensibly and effectively against slow bowling.

The Indian batting line-up will present England with both hope and fear. It is hard to argue that this top seven is any stronger than the group which failed to top 300 more than once against these same England bowlers a short time ago, and Anderson, Broad and Bresnan will feel they have a mental edge over Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir and Yuvraj Singh. Gambhir, in particular, would appear to have major technical issues against the moving ball - an issue for an opening batsman. However, India’s line-up like their home comforts, and Virat Kohli is in as good a form as Amla was when England came across him in the summer. Unsurprisingly India play spin particularly well, potentially negating the effectiveness of Graeme Swann and Samit Patel.

So to the question of what England need to do differently from their sub-standard efforts over the last twelve months. Firstly, they need to take their catches - near perfect fielding was a hallmark of the team in 2010 and 2011, but that seemed to slip last year. Secondly, they must make sure they don’t panic against spin - there is no reason why any of the batsmen ought to be technically incapable of playing slow bowling so a better mental approach should do the trick. Finally, with the ball they need to finish teams off: crucial lower order runs stopped them getting away with some shaky batting efforts last year. Do all three of these things well and a series win is well within England’s reach.

Overall, England should not be daunted by this series. They are playing an opponent that suffered a 4-0 reversal at their hands last time round, and it is difficult to see how India are a better team than they were then. Dealing with the Indian spinners is a tough task for any batsman, but there is no reason why England’s line-up should not be up to the challenge technically. Therefore, if Alastair Cook’s team are able to win the mental war and replicate the professionalism demonstrated in 2010 and 2011, they stand a good chance of confounding the predictions and defending the Pataudi Trophy. It won’t be easy but its certainly not impossible.

England go with pragmatism over consistency

England selection announcements have been rather predictable in recent years, but the squad today announced for the tour of India was eagerly awaited, and did not disappoint with a number of surprises.

The omission of Kevin Pietersen grabbed the headlines, but in reality it appears that the issues between Pietersen, his England teammates and the team management are some distance from being resolved. It is believed that some members of the team are opposed to his potential return, and it has also been reported that Pietersen himself still feels that he has been treated unfairly. Perhaps the issue would be solved most easily were the ball to be put firmly in Pietersen’s court - allow him to apologise properly to everybody, including the fans, and drop his supposed demands for an investigation into the alleged involvement of England players in a parody Twitter account, before kissing and making up.

The selection of an opener to replace the retired Andrew Strauss must have been a close call, and in the end it has been decided to take both young Yorkshire opener Joe Root and Somerset’s Nick Compton.

Root is an impressive character, and clearly an extremely talented cricketer. But there must be a worry that this is a year too early for him. 2012 was the first season in which he has been a heavy scorer for his county, and his runs came in Division Two of the Championship. It could be argued that, in the absence of both Strauss and Pietersen, England need to find a Michael Hussey instead  - a batsman who can come into international cricket late, but hit the ground running straight away. Compton, who, after struggling to live up to the family name early in his career has been the best England-available batsman in Division One for the last two seasons, would be the prime candidate to offer that. Michael Carberry, who played a Test in Bangladesh in 2010, can count himself unlucky to have missed out, but in the end simply didn’t bang the door down enough this season. Root and Compton will surely both get opportunities in the warm-up matches, and it might eventually be those that determine who walks out with Alastair Cook at Ahmedabad.

The middle order places are also intriguing. Eoin Morgan has struggled for runs in first-class cricket, and did nothing of note in the small number of Championship games he played for Middlesex this year. However, England like what they see in one-day cricket and he is the closest they can get to an X-Factor player who can turn a game on its head in the absence of Pietersen. Although the tour of the UAE early this year would suggest the contrary, Morgan has a game which should be well suited to Asian conditions. He hits spin well and plays off the front foot. There may, however, still be questions about how he’ll cope defensively against Ravichandran Ashwin and Pragyan Ojha.

The inclusion of Morgan would appear to have come at the expense of two men who featured in the Test series against South Africa.

Ravi Bopara’s form crisis has been well documented, but he’s played only one Test in 2012, and, having been earmarked for a place this year before injury and then personal issues struck, is arguably due a proper shot at the five-day game. Nevertheless, in his current state of mind it would be a major risk to take him in a squad devoid of senior batsmen.

James Taylor can arguably count himself more hard done by. The Nottinghamshire batsman has long been earmarked as a future Test star and didn’t disgrace himself on debut at Headingley, where his supporting innings of 34 was praised. His omission flies in the face of England’s much vaunted consistency of selection, but perhaps he has been an unlucky victim of KP-gate and the retirement of Strauss - with Jonny Bairstow demanding a place, and Root picked at the top of the order, England have two young batsmen in the squad and a third would perhaps be a risk too far.

Geoff Miller and his fellow selectors are right to pick five seamers and three spinners. Its hard to argue with the five pace options on the plane, whilst it is a relief to see that rumours of Monty Panesar’s exclusion have proved unfounded. But the selection of Samit Patel is baffling. Patel failed to register a Championship hundred this summer, took only 14 wickets at 38 and is hardly Jonty Rhodes in the field. Yet it would appear that England still fancy him at number seven to supposedly balance the side in Asian conditions - a role he failed to fulfill satisfactorily in Sri Lanka. Leaving out Patel would have opened up a place for James Tredwell, who never disappoints for England, and could have come in handy should Swann have to pull out injured before a match where England want to play two spinners.

Looking forward to the series itself, India will start as favourites but the visitors should not be written off. England proved themselves to be a vastly superior side in England last summer and, whilst the sub-continent presents a different set of challenges, the turnaround should not be as stark as to make India nailed on victors. The first line of attack should be with the quick men - with the possible exception of an occasional pitch offering excessive turn Anderson, Broad and Finn should all play as India’s batsmen play spin exceptionally well. If the bowlers do their job, as they did last winter, then a lot will depend on the batsmen. The line-up is arguably the most inexperienced taken on tour since the visit to South Africa at the turn of the century. Nevertheless, India can be a good place to start for inexperienced batsmen and in Cook, Trott, Bell and not forgetting Matt Prior, we still have four of the best in the world.

ICC World Twenty20 Preview: Part 2 - Groups A and B

After the most sensational summer of sport one could possibly imagine, its finally cricket’s turn to step in to the global spotlight. The ICC World Twenty20 is back for its fourth edition - the third at which the women will be involved as well as the men - and it promises to offer two and a half weeks of fantastic cricket, and most importantly plenty of fun. In this second of three preview articles I analyse the prospects of the teams that make up Groups A and B of the men’s tournament - England, India, Afghanistan, Australia, West Indies and Ireland.

GROUP A

ENGLAND 

World Ranking: 1
Captain: Stuart Broad

England won this tournament two years ago, and for the most part have remained a force in the intervening years. However, as the tournament approaches it is difficult to retain confidence in the team. Kevin Pietersen is a major loss, and they have historically struggled to make an impact in sub-continental conditions. But that is not to say that all is lost. Four of the top six from 2010 are in the squad, and to that we can add the in-form Jonny Bairstow and Alex Hales, who made 99 against the West Indies in June. 

Nevertheless, the strength is in the seam bowling department which, along with South Africa, is the strongest in the tournament - you must be good to leave James Anderson out. Stuart Broad and Steven Finn will look to work over Asian and West Indian batsmen who struggle against aggressive quick bowling, whilst Jade Dernbach will be critical at the death. Graeme Swann also has an important role to play - his form has dipped of late, but after a short rest the team need him to be at his best, particularly if the pitches take the amount of turn that is anticipated.

Key Man: Eoin Morgan. In the absence of Pietersen, Morgan is undoubtedly England’s leading Twenty20 batsman. He shouldn’t have a problem with playing in Sri Lanka, and has come into some superb form in recent months. 

Prediction: Semi-finalists

INDIA

World Ranking: 7
Captain: MS Dhoni

Despite a mixed record in Twenty20 cricket, India will rightly start as favourites to win the competition. The main reason for this is their batting - Virender Sehwag remains one of the most dangerous openers around, Virat Kohli is fast becoming one of the leading batsmen in the world, and MS Dhoni is the best finisher around. When you add Gautam Gambhir, Suresh Raina and the returning Yuvraj Singh to this group it is easy to see why scores of 200 should almost always be within their reach.

However, the stardom in their batting line-up contrasts to a mediocre looking bowling attack, which didn’t cost them the 2011 World Cup but must have an effect at some point - it certainly means that whilst an England or South Africa can feel confident in defending a par score, they will always have to look higher. Irfan Pathan has found some form, and Zaheer Khan is fit again. But Ravichandran Ashwin will be the most important bowler - his subtle variations have the potential to flummox sides who are uncomfortable against slow bowling, and I’d expect him to be used with the new ball on most occasions. 

Key Man: MS Dhoni. There is quite simply no better finisher in the world game - get down to the last few overs with him at the crease and you know what’s coming. He’ll also have the important job of working out how to juggle an average bowling line-up, and is one of the best ‘keepers standing up to the stumps in the tournament.

Prediction: Winners

AFGHANISTAN

World Ranking: Currently unranked because of having played fewer than eight matches since August 2010
Captain: Nawroz Mangal

The Afghanistan story is an incredible one. They went from lowly ranked no-hopers to the 2010 World Twenty20 in little more than a year, and since then have improved further. However, the format for this tournament is unforgiving, making it difficult to see how they can advance to the Super Eights.

Although they suffer from a lack of depth, they do have three players in their ranks who would come close to a place in just about any international side. Wicket-keeper Mohammad Shahzad averages 56 in first-class cricket, and packs a punch in Twenty20 too, where he has six international 50s. Meanwhile, in Hamid Hassan and Dawlat Zadran they have arguably the best new ball pair amongst the Asian teams. Its likely that scoring runs will be the major challenge - if they do, then who knows what can happen?

Key Man: Dawlat Zadran. Demonstrated fantastic use of pace, variation and swing in the World Twenty20 Qualifier and a recent ODI against Pakistan. Could just be the find of the tournament if he comes good. 

Prediction: Group Stage

GROUP B

AUSTRALIA

World Ranking: 9
Captain: George Bailey

Much was made of Australia slipping to 9th in the Twenty20 World Rankings, and whilst that might not be a fair reflection of the teams abilities it does reflect their poor results, and the fact that they’ve got a number of issues in this format.

Foremost amongst these is the captain. Chief selector John Inverarity appointed George Bailey on the basis of his domestic captaincy record, but its difficult to see how he gets into Australia’s best XI in this form of the game. A number of other selections are also confusing. Ryan Harris, arguably Australia’s best seam bowler, has been left out and the main spinner is a 41 year-old who thought he’d retired from international cricket four years ago. Brag Hogg may yet prove to be an inspired selection, but whatever happens spin is unlikely to be a strength.

The batting, however, certainly has the capacity to succeed. Shane Watson and David Warner are one of the more dangerous opening pairs around, although they can expect to face spin up front more often than not. Meanwhile, the Hussey brothers remain dangerous Twenty20 players and Glenn Maxwell has been brought into the side after a hot run of form, and could prove a shrewd pick. 

Key Man: Mike Hussey. Mr. Cricket is in the twilight of his career, but Australia will be relying on him to make a big contribution to their run-making. He is likely to bat at three, and so will have the tough job of scoring at a good rate whilst not getting himself out.

Prediction: Super Eight

WEST INDIES

World Ranking: 4
Captain: Darren Sammy

Somewhat surprisingly the same West Indies team that were roundly beaten by England in all formats a couple of months ago are now being touted in some quarters as potential title challengers. With a look down the names on their team sheet it is easy to see why: Chris Gayle is consistently the most devastating Twenty20 batsmen in the world, Kieron Pollard hits the ball further than anybody, and nobody has yet mastered Sunil Narine in helpful conditions. The team as a whole has also undergone considerable improvements since Darren Sammy took over the captaincy.

However, consistency is required to win a tournament like this and the team are yet to produce the performances which suggest they can do that. You also feel that all-rounders like Pollard, Dwayne Bravo and Dwayne Smith can be worked out by top notch international bowlers, the likes of which are few and far between at the IPL and other Twenty20 jamborees. That was certainly the case in England this summer, when Pollard was targeted with the short ball and Bravo and Smith also struggled for runs. 

Key Man: Chris Gayle. Since his en-passé with the West Indies Cricket Broad, Gayle has turned himself into indisputably the most consistent Twenty20 bludgeoner. It would be a major surprise if he didn’t score a century in the tournament, and when he does, West Indies will be well on course to winning games.

Prediction: Super Eight

IRELAND

World Ranking: 10
Captain: William Porterfield

Ireland have been standard bearers for Associate cricket over a number of years now, to the point where they will now feel they’ve underperformed if they don’t pull off upsets. On paper they should have a chance. Paul Stirling and Kevin O’Brien are potentially as destructive as just about anyone in the world, whilst Ed Joyce and William Porterfield add the glue to the batting line-up. They also have George Dockrell in their ranks. The 20 year-old left-arm spinner has already been to two global tournaments before this one, and has become a critical cog in Somerset’s Championship side. On the pitches in Sri Lanka he’ll be vital to the team’s success.

The main area of doubt will be in the seam bowling department. Trent Johnston is not the force he was a few years ago, and Boyd Rankin prefers the longer formats of the game. Therefore, a lot will rest on Tim Murtagh, the Middlesex new ball bowler who only started playing for Ireland this summer. Ireland will also be concerned that the weather has denied them a lot of vital match practice this summer, and that when they have got on the field the team has never really got going. But they should never be written off, and Australia and West Indies will both have to take their matches against Ireland extremely seriously.

Key Man: George Dockrell. Dockrell has the potential to be a fine international bowler and has already put in some excellent displays in global tournaments. With two years more county experience since the 2011 World Cup, Ireland will hope that he can consistently offer a threat to the better batsmen in world cricket. 

Prediction: Group Stage

ICC World Twenty20 Preview - Part 1: Women's tournament

After the most sensational summer of sport one could possibly imagine, its finally cricket’s turn to step in to the global spotlight. The ICC World Twenty20 is back for its fourth edition - the third at which the women will be involved as well as the men - and it promises to offer two and a half weeks of fantastic cricket, and most importantly plenty of fun. In this first of three preview articles I look ahead to the women’s tournament, which might just offer yet more English success in the Indian summer of 2012.

Holding the women’s tournament at the same time as the men’s is a fantastic way of promoting the ladies game. As well as reducing the costs of running the event, it allows a captive media and television audience to enjoy a fast improving branch of the game, and therefore for the exceptionally talented players to take their places in the spotlight. The semi-finals and finals take place before their male equivalents, using a formula used to some success for women’s international matches in England, Australia and New Zealand. Unlike the men’s tournament there are only eight teams participating and so go straight into two groups of four and then onwards to the knock-out stages. England are joined by Australia, India and Pakistan in Group A, with New Zealand, West Indies, South Africa and hosts Sri Lanka making up Group B.

The favourites

England will undoubtedly go into this event as heavy favourites. Charlotte Edwards’s team have won their last eighteen completed fixtures and, on the evidence of this summer, are as far ahead of the field as Sarah Storey was for Great Britain in the Paralympic cycling (a long way for those that weren’t watching!). 

The team benefit from fantastic levels of funding from the ECB these days, and all of the players are now near enough professional cricketers. Like the men’s setup they have an extensive coaching team - Mark Lane plays Andy Flower and Cookie Patel fills Richard Halsall’s role - and it is clear that as a result of these factors they are comfortably the best drilled unit. Edwards herself has been a fantastic batter for a number of years as well as an inspiration to the team, whilst Laura Marsh and Sarah Taylor are comfortable with scoring at a good rate - something which some of England’s opponents have struggled with. Katherine Brunt and Anya Shrubsole form the most fearsome new ball pair in the women’s game, although with this tournament being staged on the traditionally spin-friendly ground in Galle, it is very likely that one of Marsh, Holly Colvin or Danielle Wyatt will bowl spin with the new nut. 

And if you thought that was all bases covered its not. Lydia Greenway is perhaps the one fielder in the world - male or female - to keep an eye on over the coming weeks; some of her work in the outfield during the recent matches against India would have been impressive from any male cricketer. And Sarah Taylor is not only fast becoming the world’s best batter but is the women’s games best ‘keeper too.

Overall, England would appear champions elect already. But they messed up in the last World Twenty20 - going out in the group stage after a loss to West Indies - and will know that in this form of the game anything can happen. They’ll also need to be wary of how they go in Asian conditions - the make up of their team suggests that they shouldn’t be a problem, but its true that many of the last eighteen wins have come in England, Australia and New Zealand.

The pretenders

After beating New Zealand 4-0 in a home series earlier this year, its Australia that will lead the chasing pack. Included in their ranks are Ellyse Perry, who has also played international football, and is a very useful right-arm seam bowler. Other players to watch out for include Lisa Sthalekar, an experienced off-spinning all-rounder who played a key part in her team’s 2010 success and Alyssa Healy, niece of fellow wicket-keeper Ian, who scored 90 in a recent Twenty20 International against India in Asian conditions. All being well they would expect to make the final, and they’ll be telling themselves that anything can happen after that.

New Zealand are a team in decline but can still expect to put up a decent showing in this event, and would certainly expect to win Group B. Captain Suzie Bates, who hit 168 in a Super Six match at the 2009 World Cup aged just 22 and represented New Zealand in Basketball at the Beijing Olympics, remains one of the stars of the women’s game and if she really gets going could prompt an upset in the semi-finals. However, a number of retirements have weakened the team overall, putting a lot of pressure on Bates, wicket-keeper Sara McGlashan (brother of one time Black Cap Peter) and the experienced all-rounder Amy Satterthwaite.

Shane Warne once said that Monty Panesar hadn’t played 30 Tests; instead he’d played the same Test 30 times. And that can also be said of India’s Women’s Twenty20 team. In the form of Mithali Raj, who with a superb technique would appreciate less focus on the shortest form of the game, and tall fast bowler Jhulan Goswami they have two of the leading lights of the women’s game. But as a team they constantly post under-par totals in the 110 region, and lack the depth of bowling to make a sustained impact against the best teams. Any hope for this tournament is therefore likely to rest on being the most at home in Asian conditions among the top five. Whether that will be enough to take home the trophy is highly doubtful.

West Indies surpassed all expectations in reaching the semi-finals of their home World Twenty20 two years ago. Unlike India they like to play their shots, but, on the evidence of their ongoing series in England that is unlikely to get them out of trouble. They will expect to get out of the easier Group B though, and with Stefanie Taylor, the 21 year-old batting all-rounder who has been nominated for the ICC’s Cricketer of the Year in their ranks, will have hopes of perhaps beating the Kiwis. They are a young side, with most of the squad in their late teens and early twenties, but despite their shock victory over England in 2010, it is hard to see them reaching the final this time round. 

The outsiders

Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka are perennial outsiders in the women’s game, largely because of a lack of funding from their respective boards. Given the health of South Africa’s men’s team it is probably most disappointing to see that they have failed to make any impact at all on the ladies game. Recent defeats to Bangladesh, who failed to qualify, suggest that an immediate improvement is beyond them. Meanwhile, Pakistan were roundly beaten by England in two recent matches, and also lost to both England’s Academy and Under-19 sides on the tour. Sri Lanka can at least claim home advantage in their favour but a win over South Africa must be their only realistic target. 

Overall, it would be foolish to put money on anybody other than Charlotte Edwards’s England girls. But Twenty20 is a funny old game and an upset shouldn’t be ruled out. Whatever happens the tournament is sure to continue the promotion of the women’s game, and holding it in Sri Lanka, a country without a tradition in women’s cricket, could be what is needed to accelerate the global growth of a form of the game which allows female cricketers to demonstrate how good they now really are. 

Farewell to my favourite cricketer

It was with a touch of sadness that I heard the news this morning that Andrew Strauss has decided to retire from all cricket. His emergence onto the international scene in 2004 coincided with cricket becoming an obsession rather than a background interest of mine, and his incredible run scoring feats in his debut year soon established him as my favourite cricketer. That he went on to become statistically one of England’s greatest batsmen of all time, and undoubtedly one of his country’s finest captains was therefore a source of delight.

Many of Strauss’s best performances came at critical times, when the team most needed him. The unforgettable Ashes summer of 2005 will always be remembered as the series of Freddie Flintoff and three other demon England pace bowlers. However, it was Strauss who was the only man on either team to reach three figures twice – first at Old Trafford, where without his 2nd innings 100 Australia would surely have gone 2-1 up, and then at The Oval. I would argue that his knock at The Oval was even more important than Pietersen’s in securing the urn. By the time Pietersen came to the crease on that magic Monday England were in the lead and, barring a terrible collapse, the job was done. Things would have been very different had Strauss not struck 129 first time round. He came back to bite the Australians again in 2009, when he was Player of the Series and scored a crucial century at Lord’s, his home ground.

Of course, events over recent years may have taken an entirely different course had Strauss not hit his highest Test score, 177, in the third Test against New Zealand in Napier in 2007/08. The innings followed a dreadful run of form in the preceding year and exclusion from the series in Sri Lanka in late 2007. A duck in the first innings had only added to the pressure. Had he not delivered then he would almost certainly have been excluded from England’s cricket that summer. Would he have got another chance? Maybe. Would he have been installed as England captain in 2009? Almost certainly not. In fact, with no realistic alternative at the time, I think it is reasonable to assume that had Strauss not scored that 100 KP’s demands would have been adhered to, Andy Flower sacked, and England would have been in a total mess again before they knew it.

Strauss’s hundred in Napier was an early indication of his ability to cope with high-pressure situations. He both took over and relinquished the England captaincy with the team in a mess involving their star batsman. On each occasion he dealt with the situation purposefully, fairly and effectively. From the very start, his relationship with Andy Flower brought about progress. Within a year, the team advanced from being average to world class. A large part of this was the emphasis placed on batsmen not giving their wickets away, bowlers bowling tighter lines and an improvement in fielding standards. With a different captain, standards might not have been raised, but Strauss was so highly respected within the camp that, a notable exception aside, the players always did their very best for him. Achieving that respect will be a great challenge for Alastair Cook in the months to come.

Perhaps Strauss’s greatest strength as a batsman was his back-foot play. Anything short or wide was fearsomely punished by his cut and pull, and this contributed to his fine record when faced with an underperforming bowling attack, particularly in one-day cricket. But this shouldn’t take anything away from the man’s skill. Watching him take Mitchell Johnson to pieces in 2009 was a fantastic exhibition of somebody playing to their strengths.

One-day cricket was never supposed to be Strauss’s forte – a lack of options principally being the cause of this – but when thrust back into the side as captain after the sacking of you-know-who he stepped up to the plate marvelously. Between 2009 and his perhaps premature retirement from the format after the 2011 World Cup he was England’s leading one-day batsman. The highlight of his one-day career will be his hundred against India at Bengaluru’s M. Chinnaswamy Stadium in that last World Cup. On that day his performance exceeded even the Little Master’s glittering earlier century, and ensured that England came within one run of beating the eventual champions.

So to Strauss’s legacy. Few players can claim to have led England to Ashes wins at home and away, and have won the Ashes a further time as a player. Nor has any other England captain led their team to the top of the rankings since they were introduced in 2000. Leading the team to two more wins next year would have topped things off, but he can hardly complain. As a batsman Strauss’s average doesn’t match up to the global greats of the past decade. But his final mark is better than that of Michael Atherton or Nasser Hussain, and only marginally inferior to Michael Vaughan’s. He also scored 21 100s, just one behind the national record shared by Wally Hammond, Geoff Boycott and Colin Cowdrey and the same as Kevin Pietersen’s current tally. He won’t be ranked as an all-time batting great, but is certain one of our best in the past twenty years.

The decision to go now surprised many, and I myself would certainly have liked to see him go out in a blaze of glory after leading the team to a series win in India, two more Ashes triumphs and back to the summit of the rankings. But it wasn’t to be, and if, as he said in today’s press conference, Strauss has reached the stage where he can no longer find the motivation to get better, he’s done the right thing to step aside before the slope becomes ever more slippery.

Strauss’s place in the England pantheon of greats is sure to forever be debated. But for me he was quite simply an England legend.