Timing

In cricket - and the higher you go in the game the more important it is - timing is everything. For a batsman it involves moving the feet into the right position to play the chosen shot, then introducing bat to ball at precisely the right moment. For a bowler it is the co-ordination of the range of unnatural movements which go to make up a bowling action, with the synchronisation to ensure that the ball goes in the intended direction with optimum pace, or swing, or spin. To some it comes naturally. Others have to work.

But there are other kinds of timing too.

The many eulogies to Andrew Strauss that have been published since his retirement have concentrated, rightly, on the balance, modesty and understated toughness of his temperament, together with the cool rhythm of his best batting. And in this, while never a great player, he had the timing - especially with a straight bat through the leg side - of the best. As The Crap Cricketer wrote, in one of the most thoughtful and original pieces about Strauss I've read, he was in some senses a limited player but the sum of his parts - his batting, his captaincy and his personality - made him a figure fit for the English post-war pantheon.

Strauss's impeccable sense of timing extended to his retirement itself. The form of his side - partly but far from exclusively due to his own decline - has crumbled over the past year and things are not about to get any easier. In November and December India, although they have crucial vulnerabilities in the form of Sehwag, Gambhir, Tendulkar and Raina, will be gunning for England. Before the year is out Strauss may be reflecting on the fact that batting against Ashwin or Ojha, or deploying his bowling resources to counter the varied qualities of the purposeful Pujara or the lyrically brilliant Kohli, is easier from the comfort of his armchair.

If, as they very well could, things go badly for England in India, he would not be human if he failed to breathe a sigh of relief and feel that he got out at the right time.

Sachin Tendulkar has never had to think about timing. For the last twenty years and more it has just been. Now though - as a result of a succession of dismissals to full deliveries, the three most recent of which have seen his stumps shattered - there are renewed signs that his omnipotence may be fading a little. One of the most familiar sights in international cricket over the last two decades has been the hunched figure of Tendulkar working the ball through the leg side for runs. Across the line, sure, but, in the old days it never seemed to matter. Now, increasingly it does.

For years now Tendulkar's demise has been anticipated, even perhaps welcomed by some who relish the warm reassurance of predictability. The idea of an Indian Test team voluntarily taking the field without Tendulkar remains - just about - unthinkable. So, when the Ahmedabad Test begins, Sachin Tendulkar will be far from his armchair. He will be where he is happiest, among the sweat and the dust. He will be looking to recapture his timing, while knowing that, if he cannot, he may have to think about another sort of timing.

The post-cricket road is a long one for anyone who has spent the best years of their life playing the game, let alone a 39 year-old who has been playing international cricket for more than half his life, but, as Strauss would happily acknowledge, its inevitability cannot be avoided for ever.

For Tendulkar the four Test matches which will be played between India and England before the end of this year could make him or they could break him.

During his retirement press conference Andrew Strauss said something about watching what happened from here on with interest.

He will not be alone.

The End of the Road for England

In a low-key press conference at Lord's this morning, attended only by a few ECB employees with little else to do, some bloggers trying to make up for the absence of the regular press pack in the Indian sub-continent and a man who'd only come to service the air conditioning, Hugh Morris, the Managing Director of England Cricket, made the momentous announcement that the England team is going to retire from all one-day international cricket.

'There has been general agreement that this winter's tough schedule has put a huge amount of strain on our players, and this was reflected in our poor showing at the World Cup. As there's no chance of the amount of international cricket ever being reduced, we have decided that the team should retire from one-day cricket so that it can concentrate on the five-day game.'

'In making this announcement now we are showing what a caring and sympathetic employer we are. We have protected our over-worked players from another major source of stress. It won't be necessary for Paul Collingwood or Andrew Strauss to agonize about whether or not they should play on as we've helpfully taken the decision for them. The same goes for the younger lads, although some of them - sorry, Luke - would never have been seen again in blue pyjamas anyway'.

'We've had a forty year career in the one-day game and it's high time we cut down on our commitments so that we can prolong our Test career a bit. Without this we would probably have given up on Test cricket sooner rather than later, but this should enable us to retain the Ashes on another couple of occasions before retiring from the game completely and taking up a position in the Sky Sports commentary box'.

Happy Birthday

Andrew Strauss was 34 years old yesterday. I hope he lives to celebrate many more birthdays. One drawback: For the rest of his days, once a year on March 2nd, he'll think of Bangalore and a big Irish bloke with funny hair hitting his team all over the place.

Happy birthday, mate.

Keep Calm and Carry On

One of the chief qualities of limited-over cricket is the way in which it compresses and intensifies the pressures which the participants are under, while one of Andrew Strauss's impeccable strengths is the ability to look calm in the field when all logic would suggest that his head should be about to explode. Take yesterday: The greatest batsman the world's seen in many a generation going well on a Bangalore shirtfront with a potent range of supporting actors at the other end, and the job of trying to stem the flow of runs is down to you and your bowlers. That, in a cricket context, is real pressure, but with Strauss it rarely - if ever - shows.

Then, just when you might fancy sitting with a towel on your head for a couple of hours, no such luck. A twenty minute break and it's down to you to mastermind the chase: All but seven an over under lights, with a partisan crowd willing you to fail. So you make a superb 158, the only fault being the fact that you don't quite stick around long enough to assure the victory which should really have been your ultimate reward.

It's difficult to be sure who will take most from yesterday's epic. England should have won and still have form and selection concerns, India's bowling and fielding doesn't look what it needs to be. But, with weeks and weeks to go, there's plenty of time for teams to find form, lose it and find it again. And it still might not be enough.

We rarely use the word 'great' around here, but what we can definitely take away from yesterday is that Andrew Strauss is a very, very, good cricketer indeed, and not just in the game's longer forms.

It's a pretty safe bet that he'll need to show how just how good again if England are still going to be in with a shout when April comes around.

Welcome to Australia, Welcome to Sleep Deprivation

The start of Ashes series can be captivating, exciting and emotional. This can lead to a strange type of nostalgic reflectiveness.

As I climbed into bed this morning, three overs in, Strauss already gone and CMJ broadcasting to the world, I found myself thinking about the fact that I'd been doing this sort of thing since before anyone from either side was born. When England pitched up at Brisbane to be sacrificed to Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson in November 1974, satellite television hadn't been invented and radios were still sometimes called transistors. I loved it. Still do.

Conclusion: I started bloody young, I'm getting older, and it's a good job I wasn't playing. There are many reasons for this - not least the fact that I'm not a very good cricketer - but also the awareness that too much emotion can affect the way you play.

It's hard to say whether this was a factor in what was, for England, a poor day, but if anyone had become even slightly carried away with the favourable predictions and lavish publicity, today's events will have brought them sharply back to earth.

Australian sides come, and Australian sides go, but they always, always, compete very hard. Today Peter Siddle was the embodiment of this attitude - fast, direct, immune to pressure and frequently successful. No matter what you have going for you (and England are currently very fortunate to have Ian Bell), going to Australia and winning Test matches is never easy.

Judgement is suspended until both sides have batted once, but, with one day gone, Australia hold the aces.

Put to Bed

As ever, the modern cricket world moves rapidly on. With Australia and Pakistan locked in what looks like it has the makings of a decent match at Lord's, I'm going to hark back to the way in which England secured their short ODI series with Bangladesh on Monday, especially the contribution of the England captain.

Not very long ago many people were questioning whether Andrew Strauss continued to merit his place in the England one-day side - too one-paced, too conventional, not innovative enough outside his natural scoring areas - but his 154 at Edgbaston showed how hard he's been working to develop his game. Several magnificent lofted sixes were coupled with the usual drives and cuts and a leavening of reverse sweeps to comprise an outstanding innings, regardless of the relative weakness of the Bangladesh attack.

At 78 his ODI strike-rate is, without being outstanding, highly respectable, and it's obvious how highly his team-mates respect him.

Any doubts about his place in the side should have been put to bed for the time being.

Moving On

Opinion seems to be divided about Andrew Flintoff's apparent decision to become the first (although surely far from the last) international cricketer to 'go freelance', something which people have been predicting since the IPL and its accompanying piles of cash first hoved into view.

I'm fairly relaxed about it and feel that Andrew Miller hits a pretty good note here, although there are, of course, significant imponderables which we won't know the answer to for many months yet.

Can Flintoff regain even the level of fitness required to sustain his putative lifestyle of travelling the globe bowling four-over spells and biffing a few boundaries (and perhaps throwing the stumps down from mid-on occasionally)?

And, if he does, will he be able to go the extra mile for an England ODI team in which more will be demanded of him in terms of both duration and responsibility?

And, if he does, will England want him to do so?

I think the assumption of both Flintoff his agent is that they will, but, while his absence from the current series has obviously not helped England's prospects (although I think KP has been missed more), I'm sure that Flower and Strauss will only want him back on their terms rather than his. Flintoff, once he's fully integrated into the life of the international cricketing cavalier, might not want that.

And, with Stuart Broad around, will they feel that they need him?

With his retirement from Test cricket and now this decision, Flintoff has partially moved on. Sometime England are going to have to do the same.

Stick to What You're Good At

English cricketers like football. Indeed, there was a time a few years ago when it started to seem as though most of them liked it more than cricket. I remember one or two (Michael Vaughan was certainly one) giving the distinct impression that they were only playing cricket for a living because they weren't good enough at the game with a bigger ball. When Freddie Flintoff pointed out that his famous shirt-wheeling celebration in India in 2002 wasn't influenced by football celebrations because he wasn't all that interested in the game, it came as a refreshing change.

So far so harmless, but, like most people with half a brain, I can see that there's no valid reason for international cricketers to warm up by playing football. Injuries, whether serious or not, are an inevitable and demonstrable consequence (just ask Mark Wagh or Jimmy Anderson or Joe Denly), and, as Tuesday night's events at Old Trafford showed, international cricketers never want to put themselves in a position in which they can get injured. Sure, it may be less 'boring' than just running around the ground, but in the general scheme of things I can't see that as a problem. If any of the players had to step out of their bubble and do an ordinary job for a day or two they'd know all about boredom (although I, of course, love my job and am never bored (ha ha)).

I've ranted about this before, and it's clearly one of those subjects that brings the old colonel out in all of us, including Mike Atherton and, more satirically, The Old Batsman.

Strauss made some noises last night which indicated that England may start to re-consider, and it's about time they did, before someone's career is ended by a pre-match kickabout.

Best stick to what you're good at, lads (or something like that).

Been There, (Not) Got The T-Shirt

As the Andrew Flintoff Farewell Tour gathers momentum (someone really should produce a T-shirt), it seems like a good time to ponder on a few questions which England's performance threw up.

Firstly, while we can see how well Freddie is coping with his rebellious body (and, God willing, he'll make it to The Oval, although you certainly wouldn't bet on it), what of KP?

In the latter stages of his second innings he was struggling to run, and you could sense Collingwood's frustration as he tried to up the scoring rate. This didn't, couldn't, happen until the superb Prior came in, following which Collingwood himself was the one struggling to keep up.

Furthermore, Pietersen's 44 in the second innings was among the scratchiest efforts of his entire England career, raising the question of whether his continued lack of fitness has begun to affect his form with the bat. For perhaps too long England have regarded him as indispensable - and, at his best, that's obviously what he is - but you've got to wonder how long it'll be before someone on the medical side of things starts to question the wisdom of repeated injections and simply advises him to stop playing.

And then, while Andrew Strauss's form with the bat over the last year has been as good as that of any opener in the world, his captaincy at Lord's, with a lead of more than 500 in the bank, was often disappointingly defensive. Outstandingly though Clarke and Haddin played on Sunday afternoon, their partnership was allowed to gather momentum by Strauss's insistence on placing men on the square boundaries on both sides of the wicket, seemingly relying on the batsmen becoming frustrated by the relative difficulty of hitting boundaries. While this might work in county cricket, it's hard to see it working on players with the technical rigour and nous of Clarke, Haddin, Ponting or Katich.

But this is, perhaps, churlish. The correct way to do things - and the best way of slowing the scoring rate - is to try to get people out, and Swann and the majestic, irresistible, Flintoff did a pretty good job of that yesterday morning.

It was an uplifting, almost moving, experience to be there, with the rapid finish allowing a reflective afternoon in one of London's best pubs and the welcome discovery that cricket was back on the front pages.

Happy days.

Received Wisdom

One of the oldest pieces of received wisdom about Andrew Strauss is that while he's a fine Test batsman, he isn't much of a one-day player. But this ignores the fact that, like a number of other players, he first cut his international teeth in the limited-over game and has played more than one outstanding innings in that form of the game at county level.

Yes, that's county cricket, and it's probably true to say that while an out-of-form Strauss (of the type seen throughout 2007) could muddle through in Tests (not least because he was allowed to) he could never have hoped to do so in the one-day arena.

But at the moment he's in the best form of his life, and the superb display of flair and judgement with which he piloted England's victory in Bridgetown last night was the best innings of its type I've seen from an England player for quite a while.

Over the past two years Strauss has shown his mettle in a range of ways. Firstly by stripping his game back to its basics in order to counter the run of poor form which led to him losing his place in the side in late 2007, and then, with his defence sorted, going back to his strokes and playing with as much style as he's ever done in an England shirt. What's more he's done this at the same time as he's captained a side that's far from at ease with itself.

Under the placid, conventional, exterior this is a man who's very skilled, very tough and, right now, pretty bloody outstanding.

We're lucky to have him.

Same Old, Same Old

So, again, England came, saw and were thrashed in a Twenty20 international. As more than one person pointed out this morning, they're still waiting for their first international win of the winter and any resemblance to a unit with a coherent one-day strategy is purely coincidental and probably illusory.

As Mark Tilley said on The Corridor last night, what on earth is Strauss even doing in a Twenty20 team?

Australia must be quaking in their boots...

Walking Wisden

It took England from 1969 to 2000 to win back the Wisden Trophy, a prize which, for much of that time, seemed to have passed permanently into the hands of the West Indies. It's taken just a further eight and a half years and four series for it to be lost again, a result which would barely have been foreseen a year ago but which points accurately to where the two sides find themselves in the early months of 2009.

Despite the subsequent conservatism of their approach, West Indies just about deserved to win, if only because, in Jamaica, they were the only side to strike a conclusive blow against the pattern of batting domination which defined the series. What is more, there are clear signs that they're finally achieving levels of fitness, discipline and steel which have eluded them ever since their great years ended in the mid-nineties. For this there's little doubting the influence of the two Australians, John Dyson and especially Brendan Nash, whose gritty ballast in the lower middle-order has been an utterly vital element in their improvement. Then, of course, you have the fact that the players so obviously want to play for their captain, you have Sarwan achieving sustained excellence for the first time, you have Shiv just doing what he always does and you have Denesh Ramdin growing into his international shoes in a way no young West Indian keeper has done in living memory.

England continue to look like a side failing to add up to the sum of its parts. The bowling acked penetration, some of the decision making (especially around the Antigua second innings) was clumsy and destructive, the number three position, with Shah conspicuously failing to take his overdue opportunity, remains unfilled. Strauss, with the bat, was brilliant, Pietersen was Pietersen and Graeme Swann showed the type of wit and competitiveness which will stand him in good stead as he goes forward, for the time being, as his country's number one spinner.

England will have an excellent opportunity to regain the Wisden Trophy again within a few months, but, with Australia rediscovering their poise in South Africa, a much sterner battle is sure to follow.

Making the Running

In the end, having made the running throughout the game, England will have been very disappointed not to have completed their first victory in Antigua since Tests there began in 1981.

However, while Sarwan, Chanderpaul and their lower-order associates deserve a lot of credit for batting out for the draw in a manner which their side would never have done a few years ago, England didn't help themselves. Not necessarily in failing to enforce the follow-on - although they would probably have won if they had - but in failing to bat with enough urgency, the mad decision to use a nightwatchman at the end of the third day, and an over-cautious declaration, which owed much to what happened in Chennai before Christmas.

Not that you'd want to criticize Strauss too harshly just yet. The signs, both from 2006 and now, are that captaincy brings out the best in his batting, and he didn't half play well on the first day in St.John's.

A Touch of Irony

As England set themselves up for what should develop into a huge total today, comfortably the most enjoyable part for me was watching Owais Shah. Denied a proper opportunity to display his qualities at Test level under successive coaches, Shah batted with the spiky assertiveness of someone who was keen to make up for lost time. However, someone could have done to have told him that he didn't necessarily have to try to reach his century by the close of play; if they had he might not have run himself out in such a clumsy manner and could still be there today with power to add.

That said, he's surely assured now of a place in the side for the rest of the series, and, with a bit of luck and a following sea breeze, some really big runs could follow.

Meanwhile, at the other end, his captain was playing what was probably his best attacking innings for England, and, in the manner of the usual tone of English media discourse, it only falls for me to declare that the slide to 51 all out can be safely forgotten and all in the garden is rosy once more.

In fact, bring on the Australians...

Strauss

Despite their defeat - and the questions which will have to be asked of certain members of the attack, Monty very much included - England can take at least one very big consolation out of the first Test - the return of Andrew Strauss to something approaching prime form.

Strauss's form has been affected by various issues over the last couple of years. He was disappointed not to be chosen to lead the side to Australia in 2006 and I've always felt that the loss of his original opening partner, Marcus Trescothick, led to some confusion in Strauss's mind about the type of role that he was required to play without the scoreboard-ticking assurance of a really attacking player at the other end. And then there's the fact that the analysts of the international circuit - and their bowlers - got to work on his technique, identifying and exploiting a weakness around the off-stump, especially when driving.

Despite his centuries at Napier and Old Trafford earlier this year, this was the first time in a long time that I've felt as though he was back to something like his best. He's changed, though - the spinners are almost exclusively played off the back foot and the loose drive is eschewed in favour of the type of judicious leave which can break bowlers' hearts - and his batting looks all the better for it.

His twin centuries in Chennai were the work of an experienced, skilful and mentally resourceful international opener, and, at 31, he hopefully has several more years in the side ahead of him. starting in Mohali later in the week.

Striking Fear

For me, the highlight of the D'Oliveira Trophy series was Graeme Smith's epic at Edgbaston, while I also really enjoyed the contributions of Prince, de Villiers and Amla. South Africa were worthy winners and will surely provide us with some rich entertainment when they take on Australia over six home and away Tests later in the year.

For England, despite a well-constructed win at The Oval, the prognosis is more dubious. Strauss's place once again appears vulnerable, while Ambrose's has surely been lost. Monty - stereotyped, apparently going backwards (from the lowest of low bases) with the bat and in the field and vitally lacking competition - is becoming a concern. As, of course, is Ian Bell. The evidence of the last three matches was that I and a few other observers (not to mention Bell himself) were wrong in thinking that his Lord's 199 meant that he'd finally cracked Test cricket. Much of Bell's batting after Lord's hinted at a man who'd sunk straight back into the complacency which often seems to hover just below the surface of a unit which - notwithstanding Collingwood's ultimate renaissance - still seems a bit too cosy.

Two final parting thoughts:

1. It's clear (as if it wasn't before to most people apart from Duncan Fletcher) that Steve Harmison just needs to bowl and bowl and bowl. It's anyone's guess what'll happen abroad during the winter but, for next summer, just let him bowl as much for Durham as he needs to (if there's any space between the Tests). You know it makes sense (and so, hopefully, does he).

2. For the first time in my cricket-watching life (thirty-plus years and counting) England have a specialist batsman capable of striking fear into any side in the world at any time. David Gower was a genius, albeit of a more fragile cast than KP, but he never quite seemed to have Pietersen's extra determination, self-certainty, improvisational flair and sheer balls.

Christ he's good.

Not Losing Sleep

It was rarely easy to see enough of the England-New Zealand series - most of the action took place in the middle of the night here in the UK, and I just can't handle cricket-related sleep deprivation the way I used to - but I saw enough to know that it was an occasionally captivating contest between two relatively mediocre sides. However, the suspicion remains that New Zealand, certainly at Hamilton, played above themselves, while England, at Hamilton and early on in both Wellington and Napier, did just the opposite. Certainly, if England were as good a side as they'd like to think they are (and are probably capable of being) they would have won all three matches without having to lose too much sleep themselves.

In the short term England can congratulate themselves on the way they bowled after the landmark decision to dispense with Hoggard and Harmison was taken. As I've written many times before, Stuart Broad's potential is as outstanding as it is obvious, Sidebottom's resurrection has been remarkable and Monty, despite some shaky days earlier in the winter, still has everything he looked to have in 2006. He needs a bit more - notably in the flight department - but that will come. Anderson, consistent only in his utter inconsistency, remains a problem, and, if anyone's going to allow Hoggard back in it'll be him.

Their batting, despite the multiple late advances in Napier, was often disappointing. Vaughan was poor, Cook underwhelming, Strauss lucky to be there. Pietersen and Bell were largely below their best, although, as his enigmatic career continues to frustate those of us who can't help admiring him, it remains hard to tell what Bell's best really is. The eternally-reassuring Collingwood was often excellent, but he needs to find his way to three figures rather than two. With Broad at eight to extend the tail, he may stand a better chance of doing so in the future.

With Ambrose it's still much too early to tell. He'll start the home series against New Zealand as the man in possession, but let's see where we are when both the Kiwis and the Proteas have come and gone.

For New Zealand, despite the emergence of Taylor and Southee, things look increasingly gloomy. With Fleming's name added to the long list of players they've lost over the last year, their spring trip to these shores is likely to prove a difficult assignment.

These were two sides who were more evenly matched than they ought to have been, and the series was all the better for it. However, if England, with home advantage, don't pull away from New Zealand with ease over here, some serious, and worrying, questions will have to be asked.

A Mess

In an interview on Radio Five Live here in Britain the other day Geoff Boycott was asked whether England were simply an under-prepared side or a genuinely poor one.

He opted for the former, but, with another heavy defeat under their belt, I'm far from sure that the latter isn't the case.

New Zealand must be given full credit for their win; they played throughout with a togetherness, intensity and clarity of purpose which England never matched and their relatively unheralded seam bowlers, Kyle Mills and Chris Martin, drove a stake through England's hearts on the final day.

But, with the exception of their catching, England currently look a mess. Strauss is back in the side for no apparent reason and with no apparent form; Pietersen seems to have retreated into a self-imposed shell within which he finds a range of ways of getting out; the occupant of the wicket-keeping position remains uncertain. Turning to the bowlers, with the exception of Sidebottom and Panesar, they look unprepared, as they seem to do for almost every tour they go on. This is particularly true of Harmison, whose range of mental frailties don't help, but Matthew Hoggard, normally so reliable, looked thoroughly under-cooked in Hamilton.

It's deeply depressing to see England, so vibrant and successful between 2003 and 2005, sliding back towards the bad old days, but, with every series defeat, that's what they're doing.

And, until they start being given proper preparation at the beginning of tours and until one or two people start to realise that they need to both respect their opponents properly and strike a balance between circumspection and forthrightness, that's what they'll continue to do.

A Slow Game and a Revelation

I'd spent the last few days thinking that I really ought to write something about the Hamilton Test this morning, but not really knowing what, other than that it's been, by modern standards, a very slow game, partly due to the pitch and partly because of England's first innings caution.

Having listened to some of the 'action' overnight before it got interesting, I was shocked but pleased to wake up this morning to find that Ryan Sidebottom had taken a hat-trick and that England had worked their way back into some sort of contention thanks to him, Panesar and some excellent catching from Cook (again), Strauss and Hoggard. I find it hard to believe that they'll be able to get very near the total they'll need on the last day, but at least they've got a chance.

With most of England's other seamers - especially Harmison - suffering, once again, through lack of preparation, Sidebottom confirmed what a revelation he's been since he returned to the side last spring. Good fitness, a consistent line, plenty of ticker and both conventional and reverse swing as and when required.

A few years ago I raised my eyebrows when I saw that Mark Ramprakash had named Sidebottom as one of his most difficult bowling opponents. Ryan Sidebottom? That bloke with all the hair who'd played one Test years ago?

Now I can see what Ramps meant.

Round in Circles

I always enjoy listening to what Mike Selvey has to say, and I remember him warning on TMS, very soon after Matt Prior's debut century for England against the West Indies at Lord's last May, that it would be a good idea for everyone to wait and see how good his keeping was before deciding that England's wicket-keeping problems - in response to which the selectors have been going round in circles ever since Alec Stewart retired - had been solved.

Wise words, because, less than a year on, the England selectors have decided that, however well he's batted, Prior's keeping simply isn't good enough to keep him in the side and he's been dropped completely from the England side to tour New Zealand.

It's fair enough with me - I dislike Prior's cliched on-field hardman persona - and I suspect that Ryan Sidebottom, who, used to the support of Chris Read's superior keeping, finally blew his top at Prior in Sri Lanka, won't be losing any sleep either.

As to his replacements, well, it's no real surprise, given his Sussex background, to see Tim Ambrose in there, but James Foster has once again been very unlucky, and, with Phil Mustard also in the party it's certain that England will go into their crucial series in New Zealand next month with a Test match greenhorn wearing the keeper's gloves. A big ask for either of them, I reckon.

Elsewhere in the party Andrew Strauss returns, if only in the hope that his proven record of scoring Test centuries and taking slip catches will shore up two of the areas in which England were most vulnerable in Sri Lanka. He's fortunate to be there, though, having played no cricket since his omission from the Sri Lankan squad, and, to me, a probable and unwelcome knock-on effect of Strauss's return will be to ensure that the harshly-treated Owais Shah will still find it very hard to get into the side despite the dropping of Ravi Bopara.

From a parochial viewpoint it was good to see James Hildreth's selection in the 'England Lions' squad to take part in the Duleep Trophy, and it was also good to see Panesar's inclusion, as any bowling in favourable conditions, however different they are from those he'll encounter in New Zealand, will stand him in good stead. But Mike Yardy as captain?

Not sure about that, but then he too, plays for Sussex. Enough said.