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.

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.