Bizarre

I'm not a huge fan of Jonathan Agnew; he's obviously a nice bloke, loves his cricket, but he's often a bit bland for my liking and sounds as though he's auditioning for a part as the new 'Johnners'. However, it was good to hear him coming down strongly against the selection of Darren Pattinson when I walked in this evening, as I agreed with every word. Where his critique really hit the nail on the head was in his focus on what the selection would say to the range of English bowlers who could, indeed should, have been picked ahead of him.

It was a bizarre decision on a number of levels. Consider this:

a. To all intents and purposes he's Australian.

b. Before today he'd played in eleven first class matches and is almost thirty years old.

c. He'd only ever bowled at Headingley once. In a Twenty20 game.

d. His captain had only seen him bowl once. In a Twenty20 game.

e. Regardless of his ability - and the stats speak of a decent bowler with some promise although probably a bit old to ever fulfil it - it was asking a huge amount for him to take his place in a side in which he'd never met or even played against most of his team-mates, on a ground he didn't know, and produce his best form.

A penny for the thoughts tonight of Steve Harmison, Matthew Hoggard, Simon Jones and Chris Tremlett.

Predictable

Well, Andrew Flintoff's side strain meant that that the England selectors had a slightly easier job than they would have done. I myself felt that Flintoff ought to be left with Lancashire until the South Africa series, and, while he was clearly bowling very well, his total lack of runs with the bat confirmed my view, and I suspect that some of the panel shared this opinion.

So, the team for Lord's is a fairly predictable one, with both Jimmy Anderson and Matthew Hoggard named, and I wouldn't be surprised if they both play, although, if the exceptional weather continues, conditions might favour Monty a bit more.

Harmison and Hoggard: The Future

Well, in the end, the football injury didn't amount to much and Anderson managed to get through the last day and a bit without any trouble, although he was apparently rattling around the pitch as a result of the number of painkillers he was taking. It didn't matter too much, as Sidebottom and Broad did most of what was necessary and England were worthy winners, moving on to Napier as favourites to win the series.

The news of the day in some quarters seems to be the fact that Moores has pointed out that it'll be hard for Harmison and Hoggard to reclaim their lost places. Stating the obvious, I would have thought, as long as Broad and Sidebottom keep bowling well, although history shows that there's at least as much chance of a vacancy occurring because of injury as loss of form.

Obviously both Harmison and Hoggard will need to be bowling well to put themselves in the frame for a recall, but, if they do, will the selectors want them?

Hoggard: A probable yes, on account of his ability to bring similar qualities 'to the party' (as Duncan Fletcher would have said) as Sidebottom; swing, control, competitiveness, heart.

Harmison: Very possibly a no, based on what's becoming too long a history of technical inconsistency and temperamental vulnerability.

With Hoggard you just know he'll be busting a gut to get back in. With Harmy you can't help but have your doubts. And, if he's not sure how much he wants it, you can be sure that the selectors won't be sure how much they want him.

The Axe Falls

I've just woken up to discover that Steve Harmison and Matthew Hoggard have been dropped by England for the second Test against New Zealand in Wellington. In Harmison's case it was expected, but I'm surprised about Hoggard. He bowled poorly in Hamilton but he was among England's better bowlers in Sri Lanka before Christmas and has been hampered more by injury over the last year than poor form.

With the dropping of Jonny Wilkinson from the England rugby union team for the first time since 1999 yesterday there's the obvious feeling of eras ending.

This may or may not be true; at this point in time I'll be surprised if Hoggard isn't back in the side and bowling well before long, but I'm much less sure about Wilkinson and Harmison.

Time will tell.

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.

Treading Water

After a couple of days of tracking down the Colombo close scores in the internet cafes of New York City I returned home to see the second Test played to its ultimately rather dreary conclusion. Peter Moores sounded optimistic this morning - it's one of his strong points - but, although England were good value for their draw in the end, they look to me like a team that's treading water. Enough batsmen are in form but the hundreds (with Bell, as usual, especially culpable) won't come, and the bowling attack is solid but lacks penetration. If they can get Hoggard back for Galle it will help, and, with the wicket expected to take spin, Graeme Swann's name may be discussed. You also have to wonder about the selection of Bopara when he's doing hardly any bowling.

So, for Galle it has to be a won toss, hundreds from any two of Cook, Vaughan and Bell, and some penetrative spells from Harmison, Hoggard and Panesar.

Should be easy...

Immaculate Control

I don't know why I got it into my head the other day that Stuart Broad was 'nailed on' to make his Test debut in Kandy. He wasn't and he isn't, although I did get the bit about Ravi Bopara right. England, though, did very well without him, their disciplined bowling and fielding performance on the first day being firmly based on Matthew Hoggard's immaculate control of line and movement and tidy contributions from all the other bowlers.

It looks a benign track with plenty of potential runs in it, but then no pitch is ever truly benign when Murali is bowling on it, and he'll be doing a lot of bowling tomorrow.

Worth getting up early for, I reckon.

Bopara and Shah

I haven't been posting much recently, for which apologies. Something to do with spending time rearranging my house, standing on a freezing touchline watching thirty public schoolboys attempt - and largely fail - to play rugby and toasting the past cricket season over several pints of Otter and some food with some mates from my club.

During the past few days, when I've been in, I've had the first India-Pakistan Test on, but never managed to watch much of it, which meant that I was left with a pretty sketchy idea of what went on. It was good to see Munaf back, even if he didn't pull up any trees, and there was penetration with ball and bat from Kumble, Laxman, Ganguly and Jaffer. India looked worthy winners of a tight contest, which augurs well for the rest of the rubber.

England, meanwhile, continue an uneasy build-up to their first Test in Sri Lanka, with the most interesting sub-plot for me being the contest between Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara for the final batting place. While seeing the merits of both, I always felt that Bopara was likely to nudge in front because of his youth and ability to bowl (if not his 'bowling ability'). Having scored 47 to Shah's 26 today and taken two wickets with the new ball after Harmison and Anderson went lame, you have to feel that the deal is all but done, however high Moores' regard for Shah.

Ravi seems sure to be there, but who (apart from Hoggard and Broad, the most nailed-on debutant for years) will do the rest of the bowling?

Predictability

The England squad for the first Test against the West Indies, announced earlier this morning by David Graveney, was quite predictable, even though it contained a couple of players who I'm sure wouldn't have been there if Duncan Fletcher had still been in charge.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, I always had a feeling that Matthew Prior would secure the wicket-keeper's spot ahead of Paul Nixon, chiefly because of his past links with Peter Moores. In a sense it's hard on Nixon, who did everything that could have been asked of him (and more) during his short time in the side, but, at 36, he was never going to be there for very long. Of course, there are no guarantees that Prior will do any better than any of the other glovemen who've been tried over the last four years but he probably deserves a go, if only on account of his first-class career batting average which nudges a heady forty. I've seen very little of him - and nothing live - so I'll be interested to see how he goes at Lord's.

As a break with the past it's also good to see Owais Shah in the squad, although he'll only play if Pietersen isn't fit. While his stilted ODI career has been a largely hesitant affair, both with the bat and especially in the field, he's always been a potential Test player of quality, something which he fully demonstrated in Mumbai last year. It's nice to know that Moores recognises his quality in a way that I don't believe Fletcher did.

Liam Plunkett takes the fourth seamer's position ahead of Anderson and Mahmood, which will do for the time being. Mahmood in particular looks like someone who could do with playing a bit more county cricket (perhaps a whole career's worth) and there are still doubts over Anderson. However, Plunkett himslef needs to start producing his best with a bit more regularity if he's to prevent the selectors looking towards Broad and Onions.

I'll be at Lord's for the game and if the weather allows enough play I expect an England win well inside five days. The West Indies will be lacking practice against the red ball (they're not goung to get any play at Taunton today as it's pouring down) and they usually seem to lack motivation these days. Harmison and Hoggard are both bowling well and England also have plenty of batsmen in form.

New Maturity

It was good to see that Hoggard got his five wickets. In fact he made it seven, extracting more life from a moribund surface than any of his colleagues.

Nice also to see Michael Clarke make a century. At times on the 2005 tour it was easy to see why he was so highly regarded in his homeland, but the period since then has been difficult for him, with his repeated failures to convert good starts and flashy half-centuries into match influencing hundreds leading to his eventual omission from the side. The word is that he displayed a new maturity in this knock and it seems certain that he will stay in the side for Perth, probably at the expense of Damien Martyn, if Shane Watson is fit to provide the extra bowling option which Australia feel they need. Not that England will lose any sleep.

At some stage in the early hours Christopher Martin-Jenkins said on TMS that Michael Clarke reminded him of Kim Hughes. This struck a chord, partly because there are certain clear similarities, but also because Hughes is a bit of a forgotten man, regarded as a representative of Australian cricket's darkest years and chiefly remembered for resigning the national captaincy in tears. I saw plenty of Hughes in England in 1980 and 1981 and he was a stylish, aggressive and individualistic batsman. Perhaps a bit more spontaneity and flair than Clarke, but I have a feeling that Clarke will end up doing better in Test cricket.

With England finishing the day on 59-1 the draw still looks the best bet and would probably be a fitting end to a match played on a pitch too bland for the bowling attack of either side. The game has reminded me a bit of the Lord's Test between England and Pakistan last July - plenty of decent batting to enjoy but not enough of a genuine contest between bat and ball.

More pace at Perth, please (time was, you wouldn't even have to ask).

Hoggy

A quick mention for Matthew Hoggard, who bowled superbly today.

He had a very tough tour of Australia in 2002-03 and is now demonstrating how much additional skill and maturity he's acquired in the intervening four years.

Here's hoping he gets his first five-wicket haul against Australia tomorrow.

Emerging Themes, Changing Times

Three days down in Adelaide and certain themes are emerging. Australia had a better day on Sunday, with Ponting and Hussey again knitting their reply together, but Hayden and Martyn both failed, as did Langer the previous evening. This, together with the hammering which Warne and McGrath took at the hands of Pietersen and Collingwood, has started to get the world's hacks and bloggers questioning whether this is the beginning of the end for this great Australian team.

I think some of the comments, especially those directed at the bowlers, are premature, but they do highlight the fact that, slowly, inexorably, the times are changing for Australia. I didn't see many people questioning McGrath after he took 6 for 50 in Brisbane, and he's clearly not fully fit in the current game. I think there's probably still plenty of bowling in both him and Warne and some runs in the side's senior batsmen. Where things are on the turn is that, in this match, each of them has come up against a younger opponent with too much vitality and commitment (Flintoff), skill and persistence (Hoggard) and sheer effervescent genius (Pietersen) for them to handle. In itself it's a sign of how quickly and effectively England have turned things round after the Gabba and of how difficult a transition Australia are going to have to go through over the next few years. Warne is clearly irreplaceable and so to is McGrath (though Stuart Clark and perhaps Mitchell Johnson will try). In the batting ranks Phil Jaques will be one new opener and Hussey could move up the order, Michael Clarke may consolidate his position in the middle order (perhaps starting tomorrow), but there are few other candidates demanding immediate inclusion. Some dark days lie ahead.

This Test still seems most likely to be drawn and Australia to go to Perth one up. The series, though, has started to have a much more even feel to it, and, if England could manage to pull off a win, they would hold a considerable advantage going into the remaining games.

Maybe it won't be over by Christmas after all...