Balancing act...

Love this headline....!!   I hope Ballance doesn't become another victim of mismanagement by the England selectors/hierarchy and keeps up his stellar Test form when they next play the longer form.

Difficult to know what to make of KP claims

Obviously I haven't read it and I'm not rushing out to buy Kevin Pietersen's book.   But it's almost impossible to avoid the analysis of the points he raises.   The character assassination of Matt Prior is a bit of a surprise given that it's often been quoted how Prior made the first move in getting him back into the team after the textgate scandal.   And Graeme Swann has made that point in his initial view of the book as "a work of fiction".

 

Jonathan Agnew has also made the point that he wouldn't have come back into the team after textgate but for Flower's support.   So it's difficult to square the Pietersen account with the reality.   That said, my personal view is that it's unlikely to be invented in it's entirety.   We tend to assume that things remain the same within a team environment, but that's not the case.   Prior could have been a great team man during the period when he was on the up and an increasingly brooding presence lashing out at others as his personal performances dropped considerably to the point when even his greatest supporters would agree he had to be dropped.

 

And we also know that the bowlers were petulant every time someone misfielded - we all saw that from the TV pictures.   And the commentators all commented on how it was over the top.   So his comment that fielders were asked to apologise to the bowlers for mistakes doesn't seem particularly unlikely.   (Having said that, I automatically apologise to the bowler when I screw up in the field - doesn't everyone?)

 

One point that I definitely have some sympathy for Pietersen on is the question of wanting his wife and child on tour with him for the whole tour.   Everyone's different and to him it was key, so surely it was in England's interests to facilitate that for any player that wanted that.   There's no debate about how professional he was - he turned up on time and trained hard at all times - surely what he does and who he has with him outside of those times is (a) up to him and (b) in England's best interests to get right.   It's an issue that won't go away, unless of course Andrew Strauss is right and Test cricket is marginalised to such an extent that tours shorten considerably.

 

Equally, I totally disagree with Pietersen that anyone could have coached England during the period they got to number 1.   He suggested that they were that good that the coaching role wasn't important - I've always thought the opposite.   In the historical context of great teams like the West Indians in the times of Clive Lloyd or the Australian's under Steve Waugh, England were distinctly average and yet they made it to number 1, albeit for a very short time.   That was a victory for the sum of their parts rather than individuals, although Pietersen's right to point to his number of man-of-the-match awards.   He could undoubtedly win games of cricket for England that without him they couldn't have entertained thoughts of winning.

 

So the jury's out, for me at least.   Over time a consensus will presumably be reached on how much of Pietersen's book is true, how much is an exaggeration, and how much is pure fabrication.   I only hope that it's objectively assessed and that some attempt is made to see if what he says has elements of truth, or if elements of his book are entirely truthful.   If the concensus comes from what the (anti-Pietersen) majority want to think rather than the reality, that will be an extension of the bullying that he claims was so prevalent.

 

I don't believe that it's entirely fiction, no matter what Graeme Swann would have us think.   What will be interesting now is the reaction in the coming days, weeks and even months and years, as Pietersen's right - players under contract will not criticise the ECB.

 

Shot selection all wrong

Alastair Cook said to Mark Nicholas that people were probably quite happy watching the England players hook and pull when it went between the fielders.   I wasn't!   Some were more controlled than others for sure, but there were plenty of shots played that were too risky for a Test where you've got 2 sessions to bat.   So no, at no time was I celebrating those hook and pull shots Alastair.   I had my head in my hands knowing that the inevitable would happen and unless they were more selective a wicket would fall.   Little did I know that it wouldn't be one wicket, but three!

Difficult to believe...

If I hadn't watched England get out to 3 pull/hook shots in the last 15 minutes I wouldn't have believed it possible for international batsmen to use so little brain. Cook must be fuming - his captaincy is made to look particularly poor because opposition batsmen don't obligingly hit the ball to our fielders. Yet England's do.

The writing was on the wall before Prior was out. He tennis shotted a 4 from way above his head. It was high risk but came off that time. If he carried on like that it was only a matter of time before he was out, and so it proved.   If that's Prior's last England innings it was a sad way to go.

Someone needs to tell England that it is ok to sway out of the way of the short ball!

Are England trying to win this game?

I assumed that England would be trying to win this game on the basis that drawing the game involves facing more balls that could take wickets than if the game is won earlier than the planned finish.   At the moment their batting doesn't suggest ambitions of winning the game, but it's still within their grasp if Ali and Prior bat normally and stay together well into the final session.

In terms of psychology it would be almost as bad to be hanging on 8 or 9 down as losing....Cook's going to be under pressure either way.   A win would buy him the rest of the summer to prove he can score runs and captain effectively.

Softly softly for England

As predicted, Joe Root scored a hundred!   It was always going to happen.   On a sunny day at Lords against a mediocre Sri Lankan attack, it looked like a nice time to be batting during the afternoon and evening sessions.   And Prior certainly didn't look like he was struggling to get over an injury as he sprinted some needlessly close runs, which is great for England.

It was interesting watching Herath - his place is tricky to question as he has a very good recent record, but he was bowling *so* slowly and his fielding is much like mine....not as good as it used to be!

England need to set out to bat until tea if they can (I heard Vic Marks saying that par was 350 on TMS....I'm not sure it is!).   So 380 all out then.

Root sure to score a hundred, you heard it here first

 

I think I've got to be the only one questioning Joe Root's position in any of England's teams, so I trust he will go and score a huge hundred at Lords.   The cricket media appear to have him third as England's player of the year!?!   Admittedly there haven't been many players doing well, but they must be watching different matches to the ones that I've been watching.

Woakes the beneficiary of the England selectors' inconsistent interpretation of fitness

So we now know the England line up for the first Test, although the batting order is perhaps a little debatable as we don't know whether Bell or Root will bat at 3.   But presumably:

Cook

Robson

Root

Bell

Ballance

Ali

Prior

Plunkett

Jordan

Broad

Anderson

I've no problem with Robson, Plunkett, Ali or Ballance...I picked all but Plunkett myself.   I feel very sorry for Michael Carberry, but sadly he's a victim of the away/home thing (as those that debut away are statistically far less likely to be successful long-term), doubled with the fact that he's played 5 of his 6 Tests in a losing team against a very high quality bowling attack.   As Nick Knight's just said on Sky, Carberry must be gutted not to face a far friendlier Sri Lankan bowling attack in home conditions.

There's a couple of surprises for me.   The lack of consistency over fitness is strange - of Prior and Stokes I thought Stokes had done a better job of proving his fitness.   James Whitaker said that it's his lack of bowling that has kept Stokes out: "Ben Stokes is very much part of England's future, but with barely 30 overs under his belt we want to see him bowl more overs and get more stamina into his body."   It seems that Stokes is a victim of the English weather as he's only been able to bowl in 2 innings rather than the 4 he would have expected from the two Durham 4 day matches he's played in....I presume he's been bowling in the nets though?

The other surprise is Chris Woakes.   I assume he won't play, but even so it's a bit of a strange selection - you can't pick someone because he's a nice guy and for his captaincy skills when he's not going to be captain.   He averages 15 this season in County 4 day cricket with the bat, but he's been bowling well so the selectors must feel that he's the 5th best seam bowler in the country (or possibly the 6th if Stokes is ruled out due to fitness).   I can't say I agree but there have been worse selections....Woakes may well come through to be an international cricketer, but I'm not overly hopeful!

The player that I think is luckiest is Joe Root.   He's averaging 36 in his Tests to date but his highest score of 180 v Australia last summer was full of luck....Haddin and Clarke decided not to catch him in the 3rd over of England's innings.   But for that non catch he'd have an average of 30 from his 15 Tests.   For Carberry to be jettisoned but Root to get the nod seems inconsistent but, like Woakes, it's not a terrible call.   Root should be England's future....if picking him early and continuing to pick him allows him to develop into an international cricketer in the same way that Steve Smith has for Australia, then the selectors will be able to argue eventually that they got things right.

Interesting that David Hopps on Cricinfo thought that Samit Patel was very unlucky: "No player is more unfortunate to miss out than Samit Patel; even the presence of his Nottinghamshire coach, Mick Newell, on the selection panel has not been enough to win him recognition."   I thought it was only me (and after the last few days Ian Botham and Nick Knight apparently) who thinks that Patel should be playing....but also interesting that Hopps compared him to Ali rather than giving any consideration to dropping Root for Patel.   I'd have had both Patel and Ali in the side.

Given Root's selected, it does theoretically open up the chance of Cook batting 3 with Root and Robson opening but I can't see it, certain though I am that it would do Cook the world of good!

Good luck to all the starting XI....it may not have been the side I would have gone with but it's a new start so let's hope for a new result....a win.

Buttler dismissal fair enough

I can't really see any reason why England are so upset with Angelo Mathews for going ahead with the dismissal of Buttler yesterday.   He'd been warned and he was still wandering down the wicket without looking at the bowler, so not the most intelligent piece of cricket ever seen.

I agree entirely with what Jayawardene had to say:

"We gave him a fair chance," Jayawardene said. "Twice. Before the first warning, we told the umpires that he was taking too much of a lead and then he was warned again. We had to do that, because they kept doing it. 

"We analysed our game after Lord's. They took 22 twos in the last 12 overs. Ravi Bopara and him ran riot. And most of the time they were taking starts that are not legal by the written laws. We just wanted to make sure we got a fair chance. We warned them and we warned the umpires, but they didn't listen to us, so we had to take the right steps.

"We always try to play in the right spirit, but if the other team is not playing in the right spirit and not going with the law, then unfortunately we had to take the law into our hands. It was the third time. It is fair enough, I think. We all need to play by the rules.

"If the other sides are not going by the rules, then they're not playing by the spirit, so what can you do?"

I can see England's annoyance, but I wonder how much of it is frustration because Buttler was key to the acceleration they needed at the end of the innings.   In effect his dismissal ended England's hopes of a competitive score, but the issue was with the way the batsmen above Buttler batted, as well as his dozy run out.   The talk around Buttler's run out makes it less likely that people will focus on England's batting shortcomings throughout the series.

How's about this for England's next ODI match?

Cook

Hales

Bell

Bopara

Ballance

Morgan

Buttler

Jordan

Etc?

Last word on the Buttler run out from Jeff Sheldon of Kidmore End (via my Facebook feed) - it certainly inspired quite a few comments!

Jos Buttler isn't ready to keep for England in Tests

I couldn't believe it when I heard Michael Vaughan saying last night on Vaughan and Tuffers that he thought Jos Buttler should be picked for Test cricket if Matt Prior isn't fit.   And he said that picking Foster would be a huge step backwards for England.

As you can tell by the fact that I didn't even include Buttler in the list of possibles for a keeping spot, it didn't even occur to me that he could be in with a shout...his keeping just hasn't been good enough for Test cricket in ODIs and Twenty20s.   And more to the point, the man himself doesn't think he's ready, and his captain doesn't think he's ready.

It's been reported that Peter Moores thinks he's in the frame, but if you actually read what Moores said, it sounds like a coach who simply wants to encourage someone for the future.

“When you look back in history, not every player is perfectly ready when they play,” said Moores. ­“Sometimes they develop in the formats which they go to.
“I think Jos would quite rightly say, ‘I’m not the finished article’ and he wouldn’t be - not many people are. The key is whether it is the right time to introduce him to Test cricket.
“Obviously Jos has been talked about a lot and how he played the other day hasn’t done him any harm - it was a fantastic innings.
“If Matt’s fit he’s a very strong contender. Jos is improving quickly and I thought he kept well so he has certainly pushed his name forward.
“I don’t think you want to be set in stone and you never want to put ceilings on people. People do have moves. He’s improving and it was great to see him play like that.
“If that’s enough to get into the Test team, then we’ll sit down and talk about it.”

So perhaps Buttler should have been on the shortlist but I just can't see him squeezing in.   There is a precedent for "successfully" bringing in a batsman keeper when they weren't ready to keep in Test cricket and for them to improve out of sight....Mark Boucher.   He really was a poor keeper when he started but South Africa stuck with him and he was quality at his peak undoubtedly.   But, although I don't know, I suspect the difference is that South Africa didn't have a James Foster, someone with a legitimate claim to being the best out and out keeper in the world, waiting as a possible alternative.

I will despair if England pick Buttler for the 1st Test!

Your England Test team

It's like going back in time to the 90s at the moment because no-one seems to know who the majority of the Test team will be to play Sri Lanka.   But the fun of that is that we all get to have a go as selectors!

Openers

Carberry, Compton, Cook, Chopra, Lees, Robson, Root.

 

3 and 4

Ali, Ballance, Bell, Bopara, Taylor (plus any of the openers for 3)

 

5 and 6

Morgan, Stokes (plus some of those above for 3 and 4)

 

7 - batsman who bowls spin

Borthwick, Rashid or one of the other batsmen that bowl spin above (Ali, Patel, Root)

 

WK

Bairstow, Foakes, Foster, Kieswetter, Prior, Read

 

9

Bresnan, Jordan, Plunkett, Woakes

 

10 and 11

Anderson, Broad, Finn, Onions

 

Anyone you'd add into the mix?   From the above, I'm going for (having changed where people bat a little):

 

Cook

Robson

Bell

Ballance

Stokes

Patel

Ali

Foster

Jordan

Broad

Anderson

 

Onions very unlucky and 12th man, Root the spare batsman.

 

This isn't the team I think they'll go for but I think it would be mine....spin bowling turning the ball in both directions, plus not taking the chance with Prior.   Given Jordan's form in the one-dayers I can't see them not picking him and it will be interesting to see how he goes.   They'll almost certainly pick Root so it will be one of Robson, Patel and Ali who will make way I imagine, with Patel being the favourite.

 

I'd have loved to have found a way to bat Cook at 3 rather than asking him to open, but it doesn't work unless you pick 2 very inexperienced openers which doesn't seem sensible.

 

It'll be interesting to see what direction they go in....I imagine there will be a surprise or two!

Shaky start for Downton

By all accounts, Paul Downton is a good selection for the England Cricket MD position, but I can't say his immediately endeared himself to me in his position.   My memories of his playing days are hazey but in short I remember someone who was picked for his batting rather than his keeping, but generally failed to deliver with the bat.   Of course his playing credentials are irrelevant to his current position, so I was looking forward to seeing how things would go.

The subject that's worried me is Kevin Pietersen.   Not the decision itself, as Pietersen disgraced himself with the whole South Africa/Strauss incident and was lucky to get a second chance, but more the rationale behind the decision.

Downton has said that he went to Sydney for the final game of The Ashes and observed a player that was "disengaged".   I watched a fair bit of it myself and there were a few of Pietersen's colleagues who didn't appear to be 100% either....not a total surprise as they were getting beaten for the fifth time.   Graeme Swann couldn't even be bothered to complete the tour.   But most importantly, I thought the comments from Downton showed a misunderstanding of "ego" players and completely undermined Alastair Cook.   Apparently Pietersen was ok to play when managed by strong people around him, but this was a new team and that was no longer the case.   The inference was that Cook is or was too weak to handle him - not a great statement of confidence in your captain.

I also find it hard to believe that Downton didn't come across players of Pietersen's ilk when playing.   We've all played with them - players who when losing can't be seen to be trying their hearts out because that would imply their best wasn't good enough.   Instead, as it becomes clear they'll lose, those players start to lark about, trying to pass off the inevitable defeat that is hurting them so badly as a trivial event.   It's part of how they manage to stroll out to bat as if they own the stage - when they're at their best they win, they believe.   In club cricket, another trait of these players is their desire to integrate with the opposition after your team has been soundly beaten (and no other time)....it's all part of their attempts not to let a terrible result dent their confidence - they're a winner.

Nevertheless, the decision to sack Pietersen was made and, strangely, a non-disclosure agreement was made between both parties.   At this stage it's difficult to see why that was necessary as Downton says there was no one incident that caused a problem on the tour (it remains to be seen if anything important comes out once the NDA runs out, but Downton appears to be talking pretty candidly despite the NDA).   Pietersen himself has publicly stated that he was not disengaged and has also questioned comments from Downton that he couldn't find one supporter of Pietersen.   Of course, we don't know how the questions were asked as any player wanting an international career was unlikely to say anything that could go against the prevailing attitude and potentially threaten their future selection.   But we do know that two of the players who assumed their international career was over after the tour, Carberry and Tremlett, came out and said that Pietersen hadn't been a problem on the tour.

So while Pietersen's sacking was to a certain extent inevitable, and his performances in Australia certainly did him no favours, Downton's handling of things to date have made me concerned for his potential to be successful in his role.   And while he keeps saying things that are opinions only, Pietersen will continually respond publicly and the team won't be able to move on fully.   It's a pity he appears to be doing his media training on the job rather than before taking such an important role.

And back...

 

OK, so after a (relatively) brief interlude caused by a combination of work and parenting, I'll be trying to get back to my previous levels of burbling.   So there's a quantity aim, but as anyone that's read Cricket Burble in the past will know, there's no guaranteeing quality.

It's tricky to read too much into England's selections for Twenty20 and ODIs so far.   A lot of people seem to have turned against Michael Carberry - or perhaps that's just the pieces I'm reading - but I'm not sure why.   I'm all for players being given an extended opportunity to show if they can be successful.   If they're not then by all means drop them.   Carberry's been in and out of the ODI team, had one chance at Twenty20 and was no failure at Test level while his more experienced colleagues were failing all around him.

Carberry haters will all be pleased to see that he's not selected in today's ODI.   But it remains to be seen if a top 4 of Cook, Bell, Ballance, Root will have enough quality, dynamism and sheer strength to match Sri Lanka's top 4.   I can't help feeling that England go in a little bottom heavy, given that 5-7 are Morgan, Buttler, Bopara.   I'd much rather see Bopara and Root swap in both Twenty20 and ODI cricket.   

In contrast, Sri Lanka's top 4 looks pretty daunting, but interesting to see that they've gone with 6 bowlers + Dilshan, and they still haven't included Ajantha Mendis.   I can't quite see the logic, but I'm sure it will become clear!

Prediction: Sri Lanka to win with 5 overs to spare by 5 wickets.

An England win!

How refreshing to wake up, check Cricinfo, and see that England have won!!   I had a momentary panic at 5:20 this morning when I read the top headline referring to England men's battering in the latest ODI before realising that wasn't the women's result.   Thank goodness for that....I was worried when Australia came back from 30odd for 5 in their 1st innings to gain a 1st innings lead, but a great partnership in the 2nd innings between Lottie Edwards and Jenny Gunn and some inspired bowling led to a 61 run victory.

Now to consider the men's ODI team which the terrible headline on Cricinfo was referring to.   Watching the start of the match was painful from an England perspective - yes early wickets happen but Root got stuck as if in a Test match.   Those that knock Pietersen should consider what the result might have been had he been batting 3 rather than Root.   (I agree with this piece from Tom Moody saying how much England need Pietersen.)   With the squad they're allowed to pick from (i.e. missing Pietersen/Broad) for the next match I'd be going for Carberry at 3 if they insist on that balance to the side or, ideally, to drop Root for Briggs or Tredwell.   If they're worried about the batting they could drop Rankin for Woakes to ensure they bat down to 8 with Bresnan and Jordan to follow, plus the spinner.   But unless he simply can't hit the cut strip I'd give Finn a go at Rankin's expense- he can't do much worse!

England seem to have settled on the number 6 slot for Bopara in ODIs but he's an option at 3 if England rejig the order and feel there's no one else for 3.   I didn't agree with any of the pre-match chat from the commentators/experts that England were a bowler light on the weekend - Bopara is a bowler in ODIs....his record compares well to Stokes and Bresnan (although in Bresnan's case he had to bowl in powerplays, and Stokes is very light on games played, but you get my point).   Bopara's bowling stats also compare well with Woakes incidentally.

Maybe a little of the resilience shown by England women can rub off on the men - I'm not holding my breath but it would help if they picked the best side.

Early season form will be critical

As you'd expect there's been loads of debate about the make up of England's team when they next get back to playing Tests in June.   Alastair Cook, quite rightly, has not given any assurances to anyone about their position.   But nevertheless I'm with Alec Stewart in as much as I wouldn't cull all the senior players.   As the likes of Tufnell, Harmison, Hughes and Vaughan have indicated, there's a few positions up to grabs depending on who hits early season form.   So any predictions made now are likely to change but for what it's worth, here's mine:

Carberry/Compton/Root/Lees/Robson/Ali (depending on early season form)

Carberry/Compton/Root/Lees/Robson/Ali (depending on early season form)

Cook (c)

Bell

Pietersen

Stokes

Prior (although I'd be keeping a very close eye on Foakes with England Lions)

Borthwick (which makes it more likely that Root or Ali will be picked as opener to bowl some overs)

Broad

Anderson

Onions

There's plenty of others who could pressure their way in though which is what makes it interesting.   The likes of Bopara, Morgan and Buttler will be thinking that a few decent ODI performances could put them in contention.   Bresnan isn't out of the mix, and Taylor will want a few early season hundreds to force himself into consideration.   Equally, pretty much all English spinners are in with a shout - Rayner, Rafeeq, Ansari and Rashid must all be hoping for a slot.   And in the pace department Jamie Overton and Chris Jordan will be hopeful.

So it actually makes early-season weather-affected County games important which will be interesting...but, as Ed Smith points out, freshening up the approach doesn't mean a team of youngsters necessarily.

England play Ballance, Borthwick and Rankin...drop Root, Bresnan and Panesar.

Can't say I'd have gone for the team that's been selected but there we go - when a team's losing badly there is always a huge clamour for changes.   If they hadn't and still lost badly they'd have been even more heavily criticised.   Bringing Ballance in was likely and I've no problem with that - given that Borthwick has been selected, I'm surprised they didn't keep Root in rather than Carberry as he can support with his bowling (and definitely not because he's much younger which is a terrible reason that's been quoted by some of the Sky commentators - Carberry is hardly over the hill!).   But having said that the pitch is apparently so green that England may have felt Root wouldn't be needed to bowl anyway.

Assuming he's fit I'd have played Panesar - it's lovely to have Borthwick's extra batting but his first class bowling stats just don't warrant a call up for his bowling.   However he's a great talent and England will hope he can raise his game for the occasion.   My fear is that Borthwick could be more of a Steve Smith than a Shane Warne - we'll see.   We know Australia will target him so fingers crossed he has a far more successful debut than Kerrigan had at the end of last English summer.

Rankin's also a strange one.   Although a decent performer at County level he hasn't shown to date that international players have too much to fear from him.   Rather than play a tall bang it in bowler on a green wicket that seems likely to offer sideways movement, I'd have played Bresnan.   No Bresnan hasn't played brilliantly in his two matches in the series to date, but I'd argue that he'd be more likely to do well given the conditions.

Cue a great match for Borthwick and Rankin!

Given England's selection issues, interesting to see that Geoff Miller was awarded a OBE for services to cricket in the New Year Honours.   His selectorial capabilities are just part of what he has done, but I still find it interesting to see how a consensus view gets formed about someone.   Miller has overseen some decent consistency of selection for which he and his colleagues need a big pat on the back, but at the same time he was also key to Kevin Pietersen being made captain.   He and his team also couldn't seem to work out who they wanted to replace Paul Collingwood at number 6, or who they wanted to open with Cook once Strauss retired.   They went for Compton which was a surprise to many, and then having made that decision, they jettisoned him despite some decent returns for someone in his early career.   Miller's got some witty anecdotes, is clearly well liked, and I'm certainly not begrudging Miller his honour.   I just find it fascinating how perceptions of selectors and - for that matter - coaches, are often rose-tinted or unfairly harsh.

Still waiting for Rankin to bowl as I type...wide long hop to start!

Will Prior be the only immediate casualty of The Ashes debacle?

 

There will be a lot of talk, quite rightly, about whether England are playing their best team at the moment given that they've been beaten so soundly in the first three Tests.   But I'd hate to see England go back to the 90s style selections where we kept chopping and changing and - for the most part - not playing the right team.

England are doing the right thing in blooding the likes of Stokes and Bairstow, and Ballance is clearly one they hope will come through.   They've also got James Taylor that they'll be expecting to come through and Sam Robson who is waiting in the wings for his opportunity.   If you're wondering who else is being considered, take a look at the Lions squad for the February trip to Sri Lanka and add the likes of Onions and Compton. 

What should the side be in Melbourne?   (England averages here)   It won't appease those that are hurting and therefore baying for more blood than is helpful, but much the same.   I'd suggest the most likely side, assuming Broad is fit, is:

Cook, Carberry, Root, Pietersen, Bell, Stokes, Bairstow, Bresnan, Broad, Swann, Anderson.

They might look at Swann and Anderson's positions, but you do have to play 11!   (If Onions was there I'd play him).   And although Ballance is a great hope for the future, I don't think there's many people who would select him over the Root, Pietersen and Bell.   I'd like to see England consider Cook at 3 and Root to open to give Cook a little longer between fielding and batting, but that's not a big change.   Prior, sadly, has lost form with both bat and with the gloves so I think it's inevitable he'll be replaced by Bairstow.   Not that Bairstow is an improvement in either area, and he's shown that he's not a fan of pace so the thought of him facing Johnson is more than a little worrying.

England's task now is to consider carefully how to manage their transition over the next few years.   For how not to do it they need only look at Australia 2011-early mid 2013.   They'll be thinking about this sort of side in 4 years time:

Robson, Cook, Root, Taylor, Ballance, Stokes, Borthwick, Foakes, Bresnan, Finn, Mills.

Others that I presume are in their thinking are the likes of Lees, Barker, Woakes, Bairstow, Coles, Jamie Overton, Jordan.   But they're struggling for a spinner so hence going for Borthwick - a steady Ashley Giles type left-armer has a great chance of breaking through, which is no doubt why they looked at Kerrigan at The Oval last year.   

How they get through to that team is the question, rather than bringing them all in now.   And the likes of Cook, Bell, Root and Pietersen need to show why they're so highly regarded in Melbourne and Sydney.

Do or die

So England have to defy history and momentum to stop Australia taking the Ashes over the next 5 days in Perth.   5 days if England are lucky many will think.   But I'm not quite as negative as many!

Yes, England have looked shocking in the first two Tests but the primary problem has been with the batting.   You look down the side and there's only Stokes who there's any doubt about.   Cook, Bell, Pietersen and Prior are class players who, apart from Bell, have been off form.   They will regain form.   Root and Carberry are inexperienced but fighting hard.   Cook needs to win the toss, bat and lead the way.   Two hundreds in the first innings of the match and the game will be England's to lose.

It's a massive if given the struggles England have had with the bat in 2013, but if they can get runs on the board the next challenge is getting 20 wickets.   Interesting to hear the side that Cricinfo have suggested is likely- they suggest one change from Adelaide which is Bresnan for Panesar.   That's the most likely team and the one I would go for, partly because of Swann's catching at second slip.   But I wonder how much thought England are giving to a side that involves Ballance and Stokes, as Alec Stewart has proposed, but no Swann.   Stokes would have to bowl a lot more overs than in Adelaide, possibly nearly as many in a day than the 25 he bowled in the match there.   But a batting line up that has Bresnan at 9 and Broad at 10 theoretically gives England a long batting line up.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall.   I'd play Swann, but it's a marginal call and I wouldn't be too disappointed if he was dropped.   I imagine England have looked at the stats of how many batsmen are caught at slip and are weighing up the dropping of one of their specialists in that position.

The main thing is the batting - the largest partnership in the first two Tests was 111 and other than that it's 62...not good enough!   A small momentum change like Cook getting a big score after being dropped, or two of England's top 4 getting big runs in the first innings of the match could turn things in England favour - Australia's batting is pretty brittle, despite the big scores in the first two Tests.

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torment of man" (Friedrich Nietzsche).

I haven't given up hope yet but the toss is crucial!

England struggles and Australia's capitulation

 

I've started to feel about this England cricket team like I did about the rugby team in 2002 - even when they're losing I keep thinking they'll fight back!   But for Cook getting out last night I would have been confidently predicting they'd bat day 5 out, but now I'm more than a little concerned!   Is it too much to hope for a Cardiff-esque 10th wicket stand between Anderson and Panesar?   I hope not!

 

So with that backdrop, it feels a little bit rash to criticise the Aussies, but I'm English so it's essentially my job (as it is there's to criticise us Poms).   So what is going on with their batting line up?   Only Warner (just) averages over 40 other than Michael Clarke.   It really is one of the weakest Australian batting line ups to have played in a couple of generations.  

 

Interesting then the way Australia handled (or mishandled) the older guys reaching the end of their career last year.   And that's not just the Australian selectors, it's the Australian public who were right on the backs of Ponting and Haddin prematurely.   It should never have been about whether they were as good as they once were - they didn't need to be.   As long as they were in the best Australian XI they should have been encouraged to carry on playing.

 

Ponting dominating Australia's domestic cricket this season with an average of nearly 90 is interesting.   And Haddin also had a dominant year.   Can Australia really say that they have a stronger XI without Ponting?   For one thing it's unlikely that their team ethic would have slipped with him there and Clarke wouldn't have found himself so entirely alone.

 

There's even been rumours of Hussey coming back for The Ashes, such is the current disaster.   Good luck getting that top 7 ship shape in the next few months Australia - even if England bat like they have in the 3rd NZ Test they'll still be big favourites....

Will England finally drop Jade Dernbach?

 Sounds like it wasn't a great toss to lose, but England were never quite in the 4th ODI out in India.   I couldn't hear the commentary but Sharma looked unlucky to be given out so the margin could have been far greater, even though many will (wrongly) point to the fact that Raina was caught at slip and then recalled when Finn knocked the stumps over at the bowler's end in his delivery stride (again) as crucial.   [Clearly it's a nonsense to recall a batsman, or to chalk off their four, if the bails come off at the bowler's end - no player ever notices it until the umpire tells them it's happened, but that's been covered at length here and elsewhere before].

I've got one plea for the England management, which is consistent with all supporters and journalists from what I can gather.   Please drop Jade Dernbach.   Once again he was expensive - don't be fooled by the fact he got Dhoni out....it was a long hop which Dhoni kindly placed into the hands of backward point.   As I mentioned in the comments on King Cricket, why does Dernbach have to bowl so much (or at all) at the start of the innings if he does play?   His only skill is death bowling, so why use him early on?   He bowled 7 of his 10 overs before the powerplay came in over 36, so why have him in the side?