England water-treading batsman

It’s so easy to dislike English batsman. English conditions breed cautious, accumulators that seek to defend their wicket and poke the singles. A well-fought four-hour 32 is a significant achievement. A ten-minute 32 is “airy”. The net effect, of course, is the same, but somehow, in England, longevity has a gravitas denied to quick, if effective innings. This is why Marcus Tresocothick, arguably England’s best batsman of modern times, dipped below the radar.

So, anyway. We have a number of grinders. Alastair Cook, Paul Collingwood, Jonathan Trott and even Andrew Strauss. They all scratch away and their places are perennially under question. However, they are all still class, god dammit, and have an infuriating habit of scoring a century just on the cusp of being dropped. This buys them a few more opportunities to nurdle out a string of painful 20s.

England’s “consistency” approach allows for these sort of players to exploit a failing in the system. The principles of England enlightened selection policy is to pick on the basis of long-term performance, not immediate flashes in the pain. Players positions are awarded on the basis of performance over a number of games, allowing occasional failures in return of significant contributions elsewhere.

But, this is not so. When a player comes under threat, we take a long term approach, but, when he’s scored runs, and specially scored one more run than 99, then we take a short-term approach, and all before is forgotten.

So, players that consistently under-perform, but will occasionally produce runs, will be secured of a long-term position in the team. Half of England’s top-order have averaged under 40 during 2010. Yet, they just about do enough to stay in.

I agree with the consistency policy, but perhaps it should be shaken up once in a little while?

England "do a Mandleson"

Peter, sorry LORD Mandleson had an interesting political career. Often
attributed with the transformation of Labour from a political party
with values to an all-conquering media machine, he has significantly
impacted upon British politics. It is alleged that he “spotted” young
sproutlings Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – by which we mean that he
leached onto them and devoured their life energy once they became
powerful. Rather like a red-socked wearing parasite investing in elephant stocks.

Anyway, once power was achieved, Mandy had a hilariously insecure grip
on his position. After a series of riotous failures, he was in and
out of Government like a window cleaner. However, a final scandal saw
him banished again, and he was sent to the backwaters of Brussels -
the political equivalent of the county cricket scene.

Only now, in Gordon’s last desperate hour, after his Lordship has
excelled in Europe, has the Prime Minister hit the panic button and
recalled Mandy for a third time. Now Mandleson is akin to a GOD. There
are no limits to his powers, or titles. His influence in the country
is second only to that of Alan Sugar.

Mark Ramprakash, it seems, may also consider another brief spell to the top
of the tree.

Ramprakash has outclassed all that he has faced for the past three
years. His county-level success is Bradmanian in scale, Mandlesonian
even. And thus, in England’s current intoxicating crisis, are we
considering a return Blair’s Britain.

Unfortunately, the England cricket team didn’t do under Blair. In
fact, As a general rule, England tend to do better under Conservative
governments.

But that we are panicked enough to deep into the dark days of Puffa jackets, Teletubbies and Dana International is signs of a serious collapse in confidence.

Everyone is chipping in with potential number threes. Potential number threes are sounded out to discuss their opinions on their potential. Past number threes are urged out of retirement to give their views on their potential.

At some point someone will be advocating Stephen Fry for the number
three slot. I don’t know why. People always advocate Stephen Fry to do
everything. Apparently, his being on the telly every five minutes
isn’t enough. I don’t know why.

Forcing form

England’s line-up has consisted of a number of figures that justify their position purely for reasons of stability and consistency for the broader team.

Ravi Bopara, not only has he suffered from the premature spotlight that comes with over-promotion, but retains his place only because of the wider desire not to upset the batting order.

Graeme Swann, although feisty in the field, and with the bat, has also underperformed. Until Headingley, Stuart Broad was a liability with the ball.

There are mixed lessons for the England management. It has taken three Ashes tests before Broad performed. And all four have been scotched as far as Bopara and Swann are concerned.

But, there is this assumption that stability breeds success: That a settled side has the confidence as a functioning unit to think about the long term.

Underlying this, is a second assumption, that this team unity will pull flaggers upwards and convert stragglers into battlers.

The depleting effects and resentment that comes with carrying passengers aside, on the basis of the evidence of this series, there is little evidence to suppose that this thesis is correct.

Of course it is true, and no one wants to return to the disastrous chop and change strategy of yore, there is a balance to strike.

Continual failure after the opposition has worked you out, can worsen your prospects if you don’t have the character to fight back with continued exposure.

In any case, England have dug themselves into a hole now. So blatant is the batting order’s weaknesses, is that some form of panic button pressing is inevitable.

Confidence from the top to the bottom is so shot that new blood is vital to fight back. Otherwise, the fragile line-up of goons that England has constructed will implode again.

Ian Bell: will the mouse roar?

I doubt it.

Ian Bell has been various described as the “most talented batsman in the country”, “Atherton-esque” and “complete shit”. And his test match record raised more questions than Aunties.

The general consensus in the mono-glot press is that Bell only does well on milkruns. Much has been made of his centuries at six – all coming when more responsible players grafted 100s above him.

This may be right, and I have generally shared the view that Ian Bell looks most at home when he is at home.

The problem is that there really isn’t anyone of the same authority in the English game who can replace Kevin Pietersen. Bell’s extended and underperforming run at three crowded out any other player, and blocked the emergence of potential county stars. Where would we be had Ravi Bopara been giving a long run a year ago?

But we are where we are, and there is, at this moment, quite honestly no alternative to the rat-faced bimbo.

At the moment, the line-up is looking decidedly Atherton-esque alright. Strauss, Cook, Bopara, Bell, Paul Collingwood, and Pratty Prior. It’s a wonder that they didn’t bring John Crawley and Simon Jones out of retirement (and/or death).

Although, Australia’s attack also finds itself competing against England’s former stars. Could Peter Siddle out-bowl Gavin Hamilton? Could Mitchell Johnson out-long-hop Chris Schofield?

Such questions might give England’s tart at number four new hope.

England finally reach the Bell End

It took a lot of hinting, cajoling and physical coercing, but the England selections finally gave in to our desires, to show that they know what to do with heads, and satisfying released exactly what we all want to see: a white paper of real substance.

Although, in its usual desperate search for branding with which it could use to “sell” to the “media”, England’s line-up has already been branded as the “new face”, the “future” on our happy march towards the “next era”.

A completely novel era where the bits and pieces player that doesn’t really excel at anything have been given central importance. Let’s look at England new vanguard:

Ravi Bopara – bats a bit, apparently bowls, but the ECB FORBIDS him from doing so.
Paul Collingwood – see above.
Tim Bresnan – although his medium pacers aren’t good enough for international level, he bats a bit, so that’s ok.
Stuart Broad – see above.
Graeme Swann – see above (ish).
Matt Prior – his keeping is rubbish, but…

In fact, the only players that actually appear to be good at anything are Andrew Strauss (whose seems to be alright at batting at the moment) and KP (whose brilliant mind games have surely won England at least eight matches in the past).

It’s as though the Englanders looked at New Zealand and collective thought “oh yeah, that’s where we’ve been going wrong – let’s pick the crap players.”

Ah well. Spare a thought for Michael Vaughan though – his chances were smote by the Yorkshire weather. Not for the first time has a promising career been suppressed by Northern precipitation.

Welcome to the defensive era, where we succumb the Ashes before it begins and seem to be meekly comply with the Australians demands for whatever debauched designs they have for us. It’ll be all over our faces before long. And I’m telling you, knowing Australians, it won’t be very long at all.

England pick a suprise choice for third test

With the unexpected rubbishness of England's mystery selection for the second test, the selectors have began to look further afield for a player with shock value.

Fortunately, with the recent discovery of Radovan Karadzic, the perfect choice has fallen into their laps.

Rumour has it that "Kraddo" has an excellent record of running through line-ups. His low-flying mystery ball is almost impossible for batsman to pick up.

Apparently, he is from a new age school of spin bowling, with some interesting holistic approach to solving England's problems.

It is expected that he, like most people, will be better than RoboPatt.

Pick me for the team, or there will be....trouble

I've realised, most suddenly, why Dazzo Pattinson is in the England set up.

He scared them with his huge gun.

And with his ability to take plenty of hits without changing his approach.

Whooooooo are you? Who-Who? Who-Who?

Now then. Watching your side lose to another side is generally a miserable, if familiar, experience for most England fans.

Watching them destroy all national pride in under five days, whilst you are thousands of miles away is, strangely, no less tolerable.

In fact, having English cricket conveniently timed between dinner and bed in India is like some sadistic stab of fate. You would have thunk that prime time cricket was a wonderful, fantabulous gift.

No.

No it is not. It is a curse on the soul. A dark, England selector shadow in the heart. A beating on the bum.

The pain is amplified by England’s wilful stupidity. You see, at the moment, there are few, reasonably good contenders for quicks around the county circuit.

In fact, it would be difficult to pick a team. Hard but possible. We pay clever people to do that for us. Like lawyers: no one in their right mind would ever want to read the law, we just want give heaps of cash to some intelligent-sounding bloke in the suit who will smooth over everything.

But the England selectors were not suave, or clever. Although they did try their hardest. Only, they smoothed like a slug smears against the road whilst interfacing with the wheel of a ten-tonne autorickshaw.

Imagine my joy when I emerged, rosy-cheeked and cheery after finding one of the few bars in Mysore, when at the bottom of England’s scorecard displayed the following name:

N.O. BODY

Who? What? What is this? Why have I never heard of this person?

The anger began to take over. Some bed linen was thumped and, I am ashamed to admit, a dirty sock was thrown in rage.

This gormless roof-tiler comes from Australia’s dodgiest state: Victoria. He was born in England’s dodgiest slum: Grimsby.

He is a trundler. A trundler from Grimsby and Victoria. He only learnt to play cricket two years ago.

What are they doing?

Really.

WHAT ARE THEY DOING?

Why aren’t they picking Chris Tremlett? Tremmlers is great. He has bounce. He does stuff. He offers loads of things. Things like the ability to take wickets. At the moment, with these collection of feckless goons, taking twenty wickets is harder than getting a nights sleep in Bangalore.

RAH’BISH

Hoggy betrayed

So England have not selected the Hogster for the first test against the Kiwis. Instead, they picked James Anderson, who is cricket’s answer to trouser burns.

Normally, watching England cricket is enough to land you in a self-harm clinic, but there is some hope that England might beat the Kiwis in their first crack at the New Zealand lads in ages.

Do you remember, if you can caste your mind back long enough, the press feelings before the last test? Do you remember? Well, in case you are not 80, like I am, I shall remind you: The media was convinced that we going to crush the Kiwis by an innings in every game. Including the one-dayers.

And what happened? We won some games here. They one some games there. It was like watching two lobotomised quadriplegics trying to play “flip the coin.” Of course, there could only be one winner in such a contest: the coin.

And so the ten pence piece was awarded a Man of the Series award and later attempted to bring down a government. The coin seems more successful in its meeting objectives than Anderson.

In any case, the series was not an over-whelming display of skill.

It is worth noting, however, that the rightful captain of England can exculpated from this comedy of errors, this farrago of farces, this fete of fakes, this festival of farts. He wasn’t there at all (if you completely ignore his presence).

And yet despite these cast-iron and only slightly wrong facts, the England selectors have picked some goon that can’t even decide which side of the wicket to bowl his long-hops.

Ah well, one last opportunity for Anderson to prove to us all that he’s really not right for test match cricket. Besides, there’s no way that he’s captaincy material.

Bring back Hoggy.

The trouble with Strauss

As many young, embittered economists have discovered, the real world rarely conforms to the neat axioms and models you create. You say that if X, then Y. But, in reality, X results in seagull. So, no Nobel Prize for you.

Andrew Strauss encapsulates this dynamic nicely. After England’s pisspoor first innings performance in the third test of their series against New Zealand, English fans wanted change. We wanted blood. Batsmen’s blood.

First on our list was Straussy. Sure, he was a class act, with a proven track-record against strong opposition, but that was then, this is now. It’s like putting your 14 year-old child into a little sailor’s outfit; it would have looked cute ten years ago. But things have changed: he’s into drugs and girls now – not cuteness.

It was in this context of the sailor suit of death swinging perilously over Andrew Strauss in which he had to prove himself. He was not long for this world. We began to make plans: Surely Owais Shah will be the next Don Bradman.

Then Strauss hit a big score. He held England’s innings together with a massive 177. Indeed, he saw out the third day on 173 not out. It was a masterful and professional performance.

This irritating success, coupled with the rather un-English and frankly greediness of the unnecessarily large hundred, has buggered up all our lovely plans about a perfect future of no Andrew Strausses.

No one is sure what to do now. We can’t really have a go at the ECB, they selected a player who made a substantial contribution. That he has done so is annoying as hell, but it is sort of the point of the game.

I’ll just have to find a secondary, rather irrelevant point and take out my anger on that. WHAT! YOU DIDN’T HAVE AN EXTRA COVER FOR JIMMY?!?! YOU BASTARDS! I’LL KILL YOU ALL.

Strangely, that does feel better. In any case, well done Straussy. Please don’t get crap again.

Hoggard and Harmison dropped

So, in a not-at-all knee-jerk reaction, the England selectors have dropped both Matthew "I'm great" Hoggard and Steve “I’m useless” Harmison.

To me, this is madness.

Obviously, England wanted Harmison out.

I think the penny dropped when Michael Vaughan only gave four overs to Harmless during the second innings of the first test.

Captains, when touring, act as a final arbiter of who gets into the team, and clearly Vaughan lost all confidence in Harmison.

Nevertheless, I thought that Harmison would be retained for another match because he was not alone in the Rubbish Gang in the last match. Half the England team were members in that game. If they dropped Harmison, they’d have to drop others: like the Hoggler.

My reasoning was correct, but I got it wrong.

The England management were showing their players that THEY HAD BALLS and were MEN, REAL MEN.

On the surface, it seems fair: you play badly you get dropped; Harmison is being treated like everyone else.

But, in reality, this isn’t fair at all. Harmison is bowling in the same form as he has done for the past three years. He bowled slow and wide. He didn’t bowl as many wides as he did against the West Indies, so perhaps he’s even showing signs of improving.

Matthew Hoggard, on the other hand, has been consistent for England for years. He’s usually England leading wicket taker, and our chief threat. Last week he was under-prepared and had a one-off bad day.

He was dropped in favour of James Anderson by, in Vaughan’s words, “a gut feeling” and because “he apparently bowled well.”

“It’s a very tough call on Hoggy but we’ve gone with that and hopefully it will be the right decision”

Damn right it’s tough. Although the decision looks meritocratic and even-handed, it reveals an obvious bias in the England set-up.

How one bloke can persistently under-perform for years and still retain his place, whereas our best bowler, after one bad game, is dropped immediately and without hesitation, is astonishing.

You know what, sod you England. Sod you and your bloody press conferences.

Harm him

It has not great to be a me this weekend. First off, England’s cricket team refound their inner cretin. Then our rugby team were humiliatingly awful. And this was all capped off with my ancestral football team, Bristol Rovers, receiving a severe kicking to knock them out of the FA Cup.

But from all this gloom emerged a positive development: everyone is saying how much they dislike Steve Harmison and they seem to mean in. Tim says he looked like a little boy (only a six foot five inches boy). JRod thinks that “drastic action” should be taken.

Even David Gower thinks that Harmison should be put down and killed – “for his own benefit”.

I have long gunned for Harmison. He seemed to be in the side because he was tall and Andrew Flintoff liked him. Whereas Ryan Hairybottom, a superior bowler for years, could not get into the team because he was slower.

But it’s what you do with it that counts. And Harmison sprays it around like adolescent porn star. We don’t want that; we want to see accuracy throughout the session.

The Sunday Times has published some interesting figures on the earnings of England’s players. As you could imagine, the captains and KP come out on top, with a yearly income over £400’000 ($807’520). I’m sure these inflated salaries are well worth it.

Interestingly, Harmison, on “Band B” earned £231’760 ($468’202) last year, which the Sunday Times calculates at £9’656 ($19’507) for each of his 24 wickets.

Under my calculations, the public purse could have invested this money into the National Health Service, and would have afforded four heart bypass operations or two hip replacements for each of Harmy’s scalps. However, it is worth noting that nearly a quarter of million quid has significantly improved the health of many batsmen around the world.

Harmison has been useless for years. In this test, he claimed that he was searching for the “million dollar ball.” How he thought that 80 mph wide long-hops was getting close to this target, I don’t know.

Indeed, his captain only trusted him with four wayward overs in the second innings. This is frankly shocking in a four-man attack.

Clearly, his potential has been over-indulged; Harmison is not going to do it. However, I am willing to bide my time. Other players, including Matthew Hoggard, had a poor much. Give Harmison one more game and once he fails again, be done with him.

It is prophetic that another talented player, long cosseted by the ECB, was given his last chance in New Zealand some years ago. Despite his obvious talents as a batsman, he averaged in the 20s, and kept many capable players out of the team. His name? Mark Ramprakash, of course.

Strauss is the new Harmsprakash

Some time ago, I invented something truly original. Something so monstrously unique that the whole world was forced to run away in terror and ignore it. Such was its originality that it was as if no one had ever heard of it.

But I knew better. I knew the truth.

Now, I resurrect that concept and apply it to modern cricket:

Andrew Strauss is the new Harmsprakash.

This beast, or medical condition, if you will affects cricketers who have extreme talents. These specimens are capable of scoring unusually high number runs or taking a chronically high number of wickets.

Mark Ramprakash and Stevey Harmison are two such examples. But their afflictions have spread to young Straussy.

This young Wing Commander took to international cricket like a swarm of ducks to a vulnerable old women’s bag of bread. He scored a century on his debut at Lord’s, propped up England’s batting in South Africa, did the business in the 2005 Ashes and generally looked a cert to take over England’s position as Our Only Good Player.

Then, when his temporary office of captain was given to a pisshead Northerner, he fell to pieces like a shaggy flannel in the wind.

The ECB, acting the part of a benevolent and deluded uncle, offered to give Strauss a rest and let him back in gently into the tour of New Zealand. But Strauss hasn’t really done anything since his spell of rubbishness to prove that he’s now a superstar again.

In the current match against no one in particular, he took 17 balls to slog five, before being caught out by How. HOW?

In fairness, no Englishmen distinguished himself in the match, but, the others don’t need to.

Strauss hasn’t really done anything to suggest progress at test level. And given his current medical condition, it might be a rather cruel thing to push him back into the international arena when his clearly isn’t capable of holding a bat, let alone swooshing it about in a productive fashion.

I rather suspect that selecting Strauss here could end his career.

Monotone work experience kid appointed National Selector

After the rampant matches between Australia and India, I am slowly moving down the pecking order to England’s level. Although, rather like deciding to watch “Alien vs. Predator”; I feel it is rather demeaning.

But I suppose I should: Old whathisface, David Graveney, was sacked. After ten years, I think Graveney can look back at his decade in office with some pride.

I mean, if you’ve only got potatoes, you can only make a pie…a potato pie. Right?

A central, and I hope persisting, policy in Graveney’s approach to selection was to turn the decision to select into a long term commitment. Graveney backed his players over an extended period, based on the enlightened premise that it takes time for a player to mature into international class.

This didn’t always come off. Look at Geraint Jones – the GoJo who wouldn’t go. Steve Harmison – the incompetent magician’s monkey that would never disappear. But he got it right more often than not.

His departure now is much like the recent Barbadian election: the current lot were solid enough, but people just fancied a change.

And what a change. In a brave move, they have brought in Ashley Giles and James Whitaker. Whitaker has been out of the game for three years – after being sacked from an administrative role in Leicestershire. And Giles is the newly appointed Director of Cricket at Warwickshire – but only 13 months out of professional cricket, his coaching/administrative/strategic skills are unproven.

More worryingly, however, is the appointment of Geoff Miller as the new “national selector”. Miller used to be Graveney’s “assistant”. I’m not sure whether a PA would make a good selector, but the ECB are game to find out.

Miller may at heart be a confused economist. Here’s a statement from the office junior:

“We are in a transitional period now in both kinds of cricket but the curve from 2000 has been pretty good. It has been an upward curve.”

There you go, young Miller, if in doubt, start talking incomprehensible jargon, like “natural games” or “curves”. It’s amazing how much you can pick up during work experience week.

Come on, Tim!

In a rather surprising development, Matt Prior has been dropped. Generally, I don’t like Matt Prior; he’s a bit of a twat, really. But paradoxically, I’m not too keen on this decision.

I’m in agreement with Angus Fraser when he says:

“It is easy to call for Prior’s head and those who do would have little idea of how physically demanding it is to keep wicket in such heat in back-to-back tests… Prior is a very capable cricketer and he deserves one more opportunity to show that he can do it.”

Indeed, he certainly proved himself with the bat: scoring the fourth highest in the recent Sri Lanka tour. Overall he averages over 40 and scored a century in his debut.

OK – he dropped about a million catches in Sri Lanka, but he’s not exactly the only player to under-perform in difficult conditions.

Compare Prior’s treatment to Geraint Jones’. Jones scored a century early in his career, and that, despite uncertain keeping, got him about three years of ECB support. Prior, who looks dominant with the bat, gets the boot after about half a year after one dubious tour.

Harsh, unfair and, frankly, arbitrary. Choosing Ravi Bopara over Owais Shah was another mistake. But why, when with even my dodgy foresight, did they not see the overwhelming argument in favour of Shah’s inclusion. Why so? I wonder if these “brave decisions” might have anything to do with the Selectors having to apply for their own jobs again? Justifying your existence with feck-brained decisions may not be the best approach to secure your position.

Anyway, who’s this young Tim Ambrose fellow? He averages in the mid-thirties with the bat, and not as many drops as Prior with the gloves. He first rose to prominence with a double century against Cobden second XI last season. He seems competent enough but, to be honest, I don’t think he’s going to much different.

The England keeping debate will not find resolution for some years. There are a lot of “quite good” keepers at county-level, but all of whom are only “mediocre” at best when playing test matches. May as well stick with one and hope he improves, you would think. Oh no. Let’s drop the bugger and try another one for three months.

Anderson or Broad?

After the weekend’s embarrassing antics, I felt that some worthy and boring pieces about selection policy should redress the balance. So bear with me whilst I indulgence my ego.

Mercifully, the England management broke into Steve Harmison’s room at night, and attacked his spine with hammers. This injury should keep him well clear from temptation and ensure that we should have proper bowlers in the set-up. For a while, at least.

The remaining places should go to Matthew Hoggard (who’s great), Ryan Hairybottom (who has Done Enough) and Monty Panesar (who is like whelks to the gulls). There is one more spot, but two bowlers: James Anderson and Stuart Broad.

Who should take it?

This is an awkward one, because, unlike the Shah/Bopara debate it’s not a simple matter of old vs. young. They are both young players, and we should hope that they’ll both be in the side when the two old swing bowlers retire to the big swingers’ party in the sky.

So, as bowlers, what do they offer? So far this season, Anderson has taken 14 wickets in three matches (averaging just under five wickets a match), although in 2006/07 he was less impressive: averaging nearly ninety runs per wicket. Plus, he’s yet to take a wicket during this tour.

Broad, on the other hand, extracted wickets and some bounce from the slow Lankan pitches. Although, the difference isn’t great; both offer a similar package. At test level, it seems sensible to assume that Anderson is the incumbent and, as he has not performed terribly, should retain his place in the interests of stability and fair-treatment.

The issue may be decided, however, not by bowling, but by this “three dimensional cricketer” nonsense. As you can see from the picture, but Anderson is not a natural batsman.

If Anderson was picked, Hairybottom would have to come in at eight – leaving a very long and vulnerable tail. If you are picking Owais Shah at six, as a specialist batsman, and Matt Prior as batsman-wicket keeper at seven, you might consider this ample protection for a weak tail.

I’m not convinced by this line.

This may be negative, but in Sri Lanka you must look to extract the maximum from your squad. Furthermore, given that neither bowler offers an obvious edge over the other, then it is reasonable to bring in this additional factor, and consequently, we must side with Broad.

Pick Broad I say.

Shah or Bopara?

According to Peter Moores, the England coach, there is one batting space available in their up-and-coming Test series against Sri Lanka. There are two candidates for the spot: Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara.

As always with this sort of decision, it is not easy. Shah is an established international batsman, and has a strong track record against Sri Lankans in Sri Lanka. Bopara is packed with talent, and famously took England to the brink of victory against them during the World Cup.

Bopara is certainly one to watch. Scoring heavily when so young augers for a successful international future. Also, he has an old head and a proven performer in pressure situations. He also can wobble up with some “handy” medium pacers.

Shah seems to be on form. Having scored a handsome century in the home ODI series against India, and single-handedly saved one one-day match in the recent games in Sri Lanka. His test record is harder to read. He started with a bang, scoring 88 in his first match, and then falling to pieces in his return this summer.

Also, unlike Bopara, he doesn’t have time on his side – at 28 he’s no spring chicken. Whereas Bopara is young, full of potential and certain to have a long England career ahead of him. But, I do not feel that age is a good indicator for selection.

Look at Australia: they have been picking geezers for years and have consistently been wiping the floor with the world. Perhaps English selection policy should re-adjust to reflect the fact that cricketers take a little longer to mature, and most batsman peak during their early thirties. As such, Shah’s best years are still ahead of him, and we’re about to get the best out of him now.

So, on balance, I would back Shah. He is a stylish batsman and an excellent player of spin. Bopara’s record, although superb, is not quite so accomplished as Shah’s and, to be honest, in terms of a test future, it is now or never for Shah.

Runs lower down the order

This blog was founded on bile. The very first post vented its spleen against Duncan Fletcher and his ridiculous policy of dropping Monty Panesar because he wanted runs at number eight. That post began the ill-informed, typo-ridden, poorly constructed rants that characterise Ayalac to this day.

However, not wanting to go back on my word too much, England have a problem. Namely: runs at number eight.

As Graham Gooch pointed out on TMS, England are stuck with four number ten batsmen – each operating inter-changeably at eight, in the same ineffectual manner. The TMS boys had a very good way of putting this problem: although England have to pick their four best bowlers now, this is not a sustainable weakness in the long term.

Moreover, when Andrew Flintoff eventually returns at six, the batting line-up will look increasingly vulnerable.

Under Fletcher, England played an understandable, if limited, strategy of effectively picking three all-rounders: Flintoff, Geraint Jones and Ashley Giles. This lower middle order all contributed with the bat, and help underpin England’s innings.

Matthew Prior, although a prat, seems more a more dependable batsman than Jones. But who fills Giles’ role? The stats feature thing in cricinfo points out that the average for each of England’s last five wickets has fallen from 20 in 2005 to 15 since. Only Bangladesh and the West Indies have a comparably low average. It is questionable whether the pressure on the upper order that this entails can be continued in test cricket.

One would hope that Stuart Broad and a Liam Plunkett renaissance might reassure Fletcherians of the future. But the potential return of Steve Harmison and Matthew Hoggard will not sure up the tail-end.

If England are genuinely to think long-term, they wish to pick players because of a future potential. This will entail hard decisions. How far can we expect Ryan Sidebottom to go? Should he be dropped in favour of Broad on the basis of age as well as runs? Should we pick Plunkett instead of James Andersen, irrespective of bowling performance?

Flecther’s bottom four may look something like this:

8. Broad
9. Plunkett
10. Panesar
11. Hoggard

This won’t terrify many batsmen. Perhaps we need to re-jiggle the order. Select Flinoff as a specialist bowler, and forgo the all-rounder. How about:

7. Flintoff
8. Prior
9. Broad/Anderson
10.Monty
11. Hoggard

Arguably, the second line-up offers the same total runs as the first list, but a bit more penetration in the bowling line-up. Obviously, you would lose a bowler. But four should be enough.

Re-jiggling: the way forward.

Harmsprakash

Steve Harmison and Mark Ramprakash are like gods on the county circuit. This season, Ramps is already averaging over a hundred, on top of the 2’000 runs he scored last year. Harmison has nearly 500 first-class wickets, and frightens the pants off most county sides.

Yet, despite these men’s colossal status at the domestic level, they have failed to realise this ability in the international arena. Both men also have amazing dancing abilities.

The general consensus for Ramprakash’s international failure is his mental frailties, but also the management’s inconsistency in picking him. He was regularly in and out of the England side throughout the ‘90s, despite some fine performances. However, the “in-out” policy was well-set for the ECB at this point, it was for the players to force their way into the national side and to keep their place. Ramps was unable to secure his place.

Harmison’s career has developed in a different environment. The selector’s revolving door has been replaced by a long-term commitment to improve players, giving them a fair run over a number of series. (More or less.) Consequently, Harmison has remained in the side, despite his obvious failings.

The treatment of these two players is obviously very different. Yet the outcome is the same. The fault, therefore, is not with the ECB, but it lies elsewhere.

Moving individual responsibility aside, the next candidate for blame seems to be the county system itself. It has managed to identify and enhance the skills of two fine players. But it has not mentally prepared them for the rigours of international cricket. So I point the finger at the counties. Which is actually quite hard using only one finger.

By way of counter-example, one could highlight people like Paul Collingwood, a product of the county system, who has succeeded because he can rely on immense mental toughness. But it is interesting to note the Collingwood refined his abilities in Australian Grade Cricket.

Indeed, looking at Australian cricket in general, at all levels we see an intensity to the game, but most importantly, we see mental strength ingrained into players at State level. Conversely, if you watch a county match, you’ll wander about a pleasant ground, chatting to the bloke at fine leg. There is a completely different character to the game. It's nice - not tough.

This is not necessary because Australians are naturally unpleasant people – although this is a strong explanation. The mental aspect of the game can be enhanced, through re-designing of the county game, correct deployment of incentives, etc. But all these changes requires deep, structural reforms, not the technical, meaningless tweaks suggested by the Schofield Report. This serious failing of the county system needs to be addressed.