Sounding Off

With the World Cup looming it was interesting and in some ways pleasing to have the clock turned back to the autumn and to hear that Chris Read had spoken of his disappointment at the way he was treated by Duncan Fletcher in the early stages of England's tour of Australia. Perhaps the only surprise was that he hadn't done so already, but then again it was hardly likely that he would start sounding off while the tour was still going on, especially as he did, eventually, make it back into the side at the expense of Fletcher's long-time favourite, Geraint Jones (and whatever happened to him?).

However, the relative moderation of Read's language (he gave a typically quietly-spoken and articulate interview in which he used the word 'bewildering' to describe his treatment) pointed to one of his central problems and perhaps the major reason, together with his batting, why he (and, in all probability, Jones) is history at Test level - the fact that, unlike the blessed Paul Nixon, he isn't (so those in authority doubtless think) quite voluble or aggressive enough. For weeks now the media's been full of the choicest cuts from Nixon's repertoire of sledges, and there's been little wrong with that, other than the fact that one likes to think that there should be a bit more store set on how well you can keep and bat, rather than how well (how crudely, how bluntly) you can wind up the opposition. This said, Nixon has ticked those boxes well enough too and appears to me to be nailed on to start the 2007 English season as England's Test keeper, unless something goes drastically wrong in the West Indies.

Unlike a good many people I was relatively ambivalent about the selection of Jones at the start of the Ashes series, mainly, I think, because I couldn't see Read functioning very well with the bat in Australian conditions and also because I reckoned that Fletcher never really liked Read anyway and seemed to have a bit of an obsession with Jones. To me the recall of Jones for Brisbane seemed inevitable, so perhaps, subconsciously I felt it wasn't worth fussing about it. With hindsight, though, it was a glaringly disrespectful piece of man mismanagement and Fletcher still stands condemned as a result of it.

True, the late victories in the CB Series have bought him some time but I'll still be surprised if he's not gone before the end of the year, whether or not (and it will surely be not) England win the World Cup.

Chris Read seems a very level-headed and sensible man, probably the type to forgive and forget as he resumes the county career which will probably be his main source of income well into the future.

I don't think, though, that he'll be inviting Duncan round for tea anytime soon.

Fletcher Must Go

Typical. You take a few days off from the blog to get ready for Christmas and let the dust settle after the end of the Ashes and, far from settling, it continues to swirl around you like the fog that's been blanketing much of Britain this week. The past, present and future of English cricket is debated to death, and, just by way of variety, another crackpot squad emerges from the brains of the England selectors. Oh, and Shane Warne retires.

Virtually everything you can think of (and a few things which you can't) has been said about England after Perth. And most of it carries a fair bit of truth. They were under-prepared, the Brisbane and Adelaide teams were badly selected, Australia have wanted to regain the Ashes more than England have wanted to retain them, and Fletcher has reached his sell-by date. All that and a one-day squad with Paul Nixon in it.

One of the better analyses of England's situation came from Christopher Martin-Jenkins in The Times earlier in the week, which allowed for the fact that England have played some good cricket at times by pointing out that the genesis of England's defeat lay in one really bad day in each game - the first in Brisbane, the last in Adelaide and the second in Perth - but also mentioned the older but more far-reaching errors which conspired to put England in a position from which retention was going to be much more difficult than redemption. The loss of Troy Cooley to his native Australia, the failure to prepare properly, errant selection, going back to the inclusion of Giles and Trescothick in the original squad ('an element of trying to recreate the old rather than trusting the new'), the decision to make Flintoff captain 'just as Strauss had grown into the job'.

It was a balanced critique and I agreed with most of it. It appeared to stop short, however, of calling for Fletcher's head, as most of the British tabloids have been doing, and, having thought over the series, while not denying how well England have played in parts or Fletcher's seminal influence on the improvements shown by the England side since 1999, I'm inclined to feel that we need to look elsewhere when the dust really has settled after this winter.

Justification? Well, we'll leave Monty out of it and return to the old Jones-Read debate. Thanks to Fletcher's misplaced confidence in the increasingly hapless Jones, we're now left with a situation where, if Read returns to the side in Melbourne (and, such is Fletcher's apparent obsession with Jones, I'm still not convinced that he will), he will do so in the knowledge that his own coach doesn't rate him at all, which can only have a negative effect on his confidence. So, we'll be left with two keepers who know that they're not first choice, a fact which was emphasized further yesterday when England's squad for the post-Christmas ODI series was announced. It contained the name of Paul Nixon, the elderly Leicestershire keeper who went on an England tour a few years ago but was generally felt to have dropped off the radar. I'll leave my favourite, Steven Davies, out of it for once; he's been with the academy in Perth and may not have done as well as was hoped. But what about James Foster? He was looking absolutely excellent late last season and is a hell of a lot younger than Nixon. Madness.

And then you have the inclusion of Vaughan. Okay, he's standing up, but he's only got three failures against Western Australia seconds behind him and his record in one-day cricket isn't very good anyway. Another example of trying to clutch at the straws of 2005 rather than moving on.

Past readers of this blog will know right well that, although I've known about and watched Chris Read for a long time, I'm not one of those people (most of whom live in Nottingham, I find) who think that he's the best keeper who ever drew breath. I even sought to try to understand Fletcher's selection of Jones at the start of the series (mainly because I just wasn't suprised), but, with hindsight, I was wrong.

With everything else left aside (Giles v Panesar is history), for his utterly shameful treatment of Read and his clumsily mistaken faith in Jones alone, Fletcher must go.

We'll look at this again when it's 3-2...

A Different Feel

Well, I said on Sunday that the series now had a much more even feel to it. That was premature, but it certainly has a different feel now. It feels like Australia are 2-0 up and an odds-on bet to regain the Ashes.

After following the action from the early hours via radio and television I'm too tired to come up with anything massively analytical or coherent, but I did see enough to realise that, well though Warne bowled, a series of England players (notably Pietersen, Flintoff and Jones) contributed to their own downfall and the humiliation of their side with poorly-conceived and badly-executed strokes.

It's something Flintoff does again and again. It's a habit he must kick (and fast) if he's not going to seem more and more like an outstanding seam bowler who can slog a few rustic runs on a good day, rather than the pedigree all-rounder he is capable of being.

Jones we know all about. He's chiefly in the side because of his batting. Which is a pity, as his batting continues to plough the furrow of mediocrity which it has occupied since the Lahore Test a year ago. But he needn't worry. It's clear that his place in the side is safe for as long as he wants it. Which, of course, is part of the problem.

And it's best not to get started on the team selection. Jimmy Anderson currently has two wickets in the series at an average in excess of 150. I reckon Monty would have done a bit better than that.

Try telling that to Fletcher, though. Who, of course, is part of the problem.

Digging In, Getting Out

A better day for England, with Collingwood and Pietersen both making runs impressively enough to concern Australia a bit, if not about the prospect of defeat, about the prospect of what their media will say if they fail to win.

At the risk of sounding like Geoff Boycott, who's doing a very good job of sounding like himself on Test Match Special, I was disappointed with the way in which Collingwood, and especially Flintoff, got out.

Boycott regularly bemoans the fact that nobody is prepared to play the type of long, attritional innings which is required to secure draws in Test cricket from the type of position which England found themselves in after the third day, and the way in which Collingwood and Pietersen were playing when I got up (with Collingwood on 92) seemed more in keeping with the later stages of an ODI.

It all looked a little bit too frantic and it wasn't that surprising when Colly got himself stumped on 96. Which brought Flintoff to the crease. Having got to 16 with the aid of some superb shots (one cover drive on the up off Lee was vintage Freddie) he carved an ugly hoick to Langer at long on off Warne. For a player with his talent, Flintoff remains depressingly prone to this type of dismissal, and it seems to me that he needs to become a bit less prone to it if England are really going to compete in the series.

With all that said, they have at least shown that they can compete, and, with KP still there on 92 there's a wafer thin chance that they can get out of Brisbane with a draw tomorrow.

But the new ball beckons, and so does England's fragile tail, so it's still odds against. Time for young Geraint to produce the runs which Duncan always seems to be expecting?

Debate Or No Debate?

I haven't been around for a few days and already things have moved on. As anyone with enough interest in cricket to be here will know, England duly lost to John Howard's team in Canberra and have since moved on to Sydney where they are currently making a slightly better fist of a three-day game against New South Wales. I don't think it was necessary to lose too much sleep over the Prime Minister's game as it's normal for England touring sides to struggle in the early stages of tours, although, as the preparation time before the first Test in Brisbane is so short (with just four playing days left), it's been good to see that things have gone better at the SCG.

I was amused to hear Andrew Strauss's sideways reference the other day to the fact that 'Gatt's team' (the successful 1986-87 party led by Mike Gatting) were described as having only three things wrong with them before the first Test of that series - 'they can't bat, they can't bowl and they can't field'. Strauss used this as an example of the type of jibe that's traditionally wheeled out by the Australian press when England teams arrive on their shores but he had clearly forgotten (or, as he was just nine at the time, probably never knew) that that famous aside was penned by an English journalist, Martin Johnson, who made his name with The Independent in the late eighties by employing a deft range of sarcastic wit.

But that's beside the point. Of far greater significance in the overall scheme of things is the fact that Fletcher came out and confirmed what most people had assumed already, namely that an early decision had been taken that Geraint Jones was going to go into the series (and doubtless finish it) as the England wicket-keeper. I wouldn't want to say that I told you so, but I always had the feeling (and wrote so here) that Chris Read was selected for the final two Tests of the English summer despite rather than because of Fletcher, and I always felt that Jones would be back for Brisbane. Of course, the fact that Jones is felt by Fletcher (and apparently Flintoff) to be the better batsman has been advanced as the reason, but it seems unfair to judge Read on his poor displays with the willow in India when he actually batted quite well (and at least as well as Jones had been doing for the previous year) when he played against Pakistan at Headingley and the Oval. Also, although Jones was ostensibly sent away to score runs for Kent, he didn't do so. This said, I agree with Will Luke at The Corridor that Read's keeping wasn't that great, especially in India, although part of the problem is that a myth grew up around him when he wasn't in the Test side that he was a really exceptional keeper when, although he's a conspicuously more natural gloveman than his rival, he's not, and never will be, a Jack Russell, let alone a Bob Taylor.

I also agree that Jones's more orthodox technique and experience of growing up in Australian conditions make him more likely to make runs in the series.

It's a huge vote of confidence for Jones but he'd better make damn sure he keeps as well as he can and makes some serious runs, or I can see the whole debate starting again by Christmas (although I have no doubt that, in Fletcher's mind, there's no debate). Either way, I tend to take the view that they're both just keeping the seat warm for Steven Davies and, if Jones fails in the Ashes series, we may be seeing him in the side sooner (against West Indies next spring) rather than later.

In the meantime we'll be able to amuse ourselves by going back to thinking about Giles and Panesar. With those two you just know that in Fletcher's mind there is a debate, whereas in the minds of most England followers, there simply isn't.

This Way Madness Lies

Well, it all starts tonight. Somewhat unexpectedly Sky are carrying coverage of England's game against the Prime Minister's XI from Canberra, so I reckon I might tune in to some of it. Come to think of it, it's not that surprising, as Sky have been hyping the Test series for weeks and, as this represents the start of the preliminaries to the first act of the main event of the most eagerly-awaited Test series since the dawn of time (and possibly before), I suppose they were always going to be tempted to show something that may well turn out to be just another one-day match. It would be nice, though, for England to start with a win, in which case it probably won't seem like just another one-day game (as England usually lose those).

Is it just me, or is anybody else currently filled with foreboding about what the series may bring? It's been built up to such an extent that reality seems bound to fall short of expectation, and Australia, from where I'm standing, currently look like firm favourites.

Even more so if England do what Fletcher seemed to be pondering earlier in the week - playing Ashley Giles instead of Monty Panesar to strengthen the batting because an extra bowler will be required to cover the fact that Flintoff's not going to be fit to bowl his share of overs, at least in the early part of the series. Tim de Lisle marshals the arguments against doing this very well here.

All very hard to argue with, unless, of course you're Duncan Fletcher. It's hardly a secret that Fletcher has his favourites. Ashley Giles is one, Geraint Jones another.

What price Panesar and Read for Brisbane?

Central Contracts

There were some obvious decisions among the new round of England central contracts announced today - deals for Cook and Panesar for starters - but also some wishful ones - Simon Jones and Michael Vaughan - and a downright odd and potentially counter-productive one, which is covered very well by Tim de Lisle here.

As I've said all along, despite Read's generally excellent keeping and batting in the last two Tests against Pakistan, and the fact that Geraint Jones has made very few runs since he's been back at Kent, don't be surprised if Jones lines up in Brisbane. He will always be Fletcher's favourite and I can't see him being properly removed from the scene until Steven Davies can't be held back any longer.

Davies for Read for Jones?

Spent a few hours this afternoon watching the Pro 40 game between Worcestershire and Derbyshire on Sky. Some good fielding from both sides and a comfortable win for Worcestershire to go top of the Second Division. The Derbyshire side was very young, including one sixteen year-old, Daniel Redfern, who looked like the youngest person seen on an English first-class ground since India brought Parthiv Patel (17 going on 12) over in 2002.

But what was really notable was the performance of Worcestershire's twenty year-old wicketkeeper-batsman Steven Davies - a smooth half-century, some sound and occasionally brilliant keeping and a couple of personable and blandly articulate interviews. Atherton, having not seen him before, was clearly impressed, and even Bob Willis got a little bit excited at one point.

All in all a pretty handy package, and one can't help feeling that Read and Jones are both just keeping the England berth warm for him. I reckon he'll be in the England side within three years and will stay there for a long time.

You didn't hear it here first.

Read for Jones

Well, having wanted Chris Read to replace Geraint Jones for much of the last two years, I've got mixed feelings now it's finally happened.

Jones's keeping has been a lot better this season and he was virtually flawless at both Lord's and Old Trafford. His batting, though, has become increasingly hesitant, and I felt that his inability to get a shift on at an important time had a lot to do with England's delayed declaration at Lord's. As Geoff Boycott, in his characteristically compassionate and understated way, said on TMS during the Lord's Test: 'He's gone from being a batsman who can't keep to being a keeper who can't bat'.

Truth is, he's now a pretty good keeper who's simply going through a very bad trot with the bat, and I feel slightly sorry for him, having worked so hard to improve what was (correctly) perceived as his weakness, only to find that his form in the stronger part of his game has deserted him.

The timing of the change is surprising. With only two more Tests before the resumption of the battle for the Ashes, I had largely given up hope of seeing Read recalled, and, considering Jones's improvement behind the stumps, the more conservative move (and how frequently do English cricket selectors spurn the conservative option?) would have been to stick with the Kent man.

I doubt if it was rationalized (or even discussed) in these terms, but the move smacks of an attempt by the selectors to settle the argument once and for all. Time for Read to put up or shut up. Avoid any fatal errors with the gloves and make a few runs and you'll arrive in Brisbane as first choice, fail in either department (but especially with the bat), and you won't. Come back Geraint, all is forgiven.

As I've said before, I've got a natural affinity with Read as I've watched him since he first got into the Devon side at the age of sixteen, but I've become slightly concerned about some of the stuff that's been written about him in the press, which may have led people to believe that he's some sort of cross between Alan Knott, Bob Taylor and Jack Russell.

He's a good keeper - but not a great one - and he's always been able to bat, an area of the game which unquestionably let him down during his previous flirtations with the Test side. He's worked on that, made plenty of runs, and deserves a go. But the pressure will really be on.

This is Chris Read's big opportunity. I just hope it's not too big.

After Lord's

Walking back to my hotel through the sun-blasted back streets off the Edgware Road, I tried to work out what I thought about the First Test between England and Pakistan. It wasn't easy, but that was as much due to the savage, brain-addling heat as to the fact that the match ended as a draw in which neither side was obviously superior.

As Mike Atherton said during the presentations, 'the pitch was the winner', with Mick Hunt's strip proving too good for two depleted bowling attacks, but the batsmen of both sides were only too happy to fill their boots. The game also represented a missed opportunity for England, who, although victory without Flintoff was always unlikely, would have given themselves a better chance by pushing on and declaring before the close on Sunday. Their caution betrayed their lack of confidence without Flintoff and you have to hope that he remains fit well into the future, both for his obvious qualities with bat and ball and because he'll hopefully prove a less cautious captain than Strauss. Then again, you can only captain with what you have, and captaincy will always be made easier for Flintoff by the fact he'll have himself in his side.

There was much to enjoy throughout the five days, beginning with the partnership of contrasts between Paul Collingwood and Alastair Cook on the first afternoon. Cook the public schoolboy whose gilded progress to the national side has followed an apparently inevitable path since he was a young teenager, Collingwood the gritty and self-possessed man of Durham who's conquered the doubts of many to carve a niche for himself in the Test side to go with his indispensable slot in the one day team.

I just like Cook. Although his hundred was quite a scratchy affair, aided by a series of dropped catches, there's something reassuring and utterly classical about his presence at the crease. His best strokes - especially the on-drive - bear the mark of a very special player indeed. While it's certain that his career will hit the rocks at some point he seems likely to go to Australia as England's number three and I'll be happy to see him there.

Although a long-time admirer of Collingwood's durable temperament (never better illustrated than by his vital innings in support of Pietersen on the last day The Oval last year), I could never really see him as a Test batsman. I'm very happy to have been proved wrong (for the time being at least), and, although the Pakistan attack was never very menacing, his 186 was an innings full of well-selected and executed strokes until he got slightly bogged down prior to his dismissal after lunch on the second day.

Also, as Will Luke quite rightly says here

he must be the finest fielder England have ever had. I remember Derek Randall well, and, while he was quicker over the ground than Colly and perhaps a slightly more accurate thrower at the stumps, Collingwood's ability to stop virtually anything on the ground and consistently take catches which defy belief give him the edge.

Having spent most of Friday watching from in front of the pavilion I happened to choose the minutes prior to the first two wickets of the Pakistan first innings to walk round behind the Warner Stand to buy an ice cream. While eating said ice cream I watched the game from the back of the stand and had a more dramatic view of Collingwood's latest brilliant catch than I would have had in the pavilion. However, I was further away, and at first I wasn't sure who had taken it. I can't think why, though, as he seems to do things like that all the time.

I also enjoyed Ian Bell's hundred immensely. He's someone I've consistently supported, even when he was struggling against Australia last year, and while he often appears diffident and lacking in the inclination (but surely not the ability) to really dominate an attack (although he was just showing signs of opening up when Strauss ran him out in the second innings) he's worth having around the side for the beautiful purity and adroitness of his technique. Although he'll probably lose his place once Flintoff returns, he's put himself ahead of Key and Shah in the race for Australia.

Strauss batted as well as we know Strauss can on Sunday, which is very well indeed. His captaincy was okay, although, as I've said, I would have liked to have seen a much earlier declaration and more confidence in his use of Panesar in both innings. I feel that England have a potentially world-class spinner in Panesar and both Strauss and Flintoff have occasionally appeared reluctant to give him the really long spells from which he would surely benefit. This is even more surprising given how insipid much of England's seam bowling was, especially on the last day. Harmison bowled well at times in the first innings (and is Harmison, after all), so he can be allowed some latitude, but Plunkett was disappointing. All that can be said about him is that the raw material in terms of physique, action and temperament appears to be there (as well as the odd excellent delivery), but he's probably suffering through having to 'grow up' as a bowler in Test rather than county cricket. Let's hope for better.

Finally, I'm happy to acknowledge that Geraint Jones kept very well. But he still didn't get any significant runs, and his understandable lack of confidence conspired with the Pakistan attack and Inzamam's field placings to reduce England's momentum on the fourth afternoon, just when they needed somebody to increase it. However, the longer he stays in the side the more certain it is that he won't be dropped. With the number of injuries that have afflicted England over the last year this feels increasingly like a period of transition, and, as Jones is now one of the more experienced members of the side, the selectors are less and less likely to want to replace him before (or in) Australia.

On the Pakistan side, Mohammad Yousuf, for so long someone you took for granted in their middle order, was neat, tidy and majestically classy. Amazing what a change of religion, name and shaving habits, as well as a huge stack of runs, can do for you.

Inzamam never changes. I first saw him bat live when he made a superb 148 on the first day at Lord's ten years ago, and he simply has more time to play than virtually anybody else I've ever seen. One day he might actually fail to reach fifty against England.

Also, although his figures show how difficult he found bowling at Lord's, I was quietly impressed by Umar Gul. There wasn't a huge amount going on at the business end of the pitch, but I love the smoothness and rhythm of his approach and have a feeling that more may be heard of him, providing he can retain his place in the Pakistan attack once Shoaib, Naved-ul-Hasan and Mohammad Asif are fit.

All in all it was a game with a slightly old-fashioned tempo, but it was no less enjoyable for that. Mind you, I'm not sure whether the bloke who spent some (but not much) of his time sitting next to me on the first day would agree. Turned up at 11.30. Sat down. Watched the cricket for five minutes. Checked his Blackberry. Watched the cricket for ten minutes and applauded a few Andrew Strauss fours before quipping that 'They'll have 200 by lunch at this rate'. Checked his Blackberry. Disappeared for two hours. Came back, watched about twenty minutes' cricket and left.

There's no pleasing some people.

Read It and Weep

So Chris Read made 150* for England A against Pakistan, surely bringing him into contention for a recall to the England Test side when it's announced tomorrow. Well, er, no.

Sure, I'm biased towards Chris Read - I first saw him play for Devon when he was 16 and I've always rated him as a keeper (although he's not quite as good as many people seem to think).

Everything suggests, though, that hell will freeze over before Duncan Fletcher will countenance the dropping of Geraint Jones, who, even if one charitably admits that his glovework has improved, must be one of the worst keepers ever to play for England, and who, now that his runs have dried up, has lost his main reason for being in the side.

Go on, Duncan, surprise me.

And, if you don't (as I'm sure you won't), perhaps Geraint can surprise me by scoring some serious runs (and keeping well) at Lord's. England might need them.