Hard Rain

One of the great things about the British institution that is Test Match Special is that it can often be at its most entertaining when there's nothing happening on the field.

So it was today. England were being taken to the cleaners by South Africa when it rained. Really, really rained. And listeners in the UK were treated to the sound of Jonathan Agnew failing to suppress what sounded suspiciously like a scream of terror as a very loud clap of thunder reverberated around the ground. In the meantime Christopher Martin-Jenkins and Vic Marks compared recollections of great ground-flooding storms of the past, like The Oval '68 or The Gabba '98, while Michael Vaughan complained about the draught as the wind began to whistle through the commentary box.

The Twitter feeds of Agnew and David Lloyd reveal the life of the professional cricket commentator in all its glory - a staple diet of expenses paid cricket-watching, sunshine, travel and fine dining, interspersed with regular 'holidays' and fat-fee (if not fat-free) after-dinner speaking - so it may not have been a bad thing for them to suffer a rare bit of hardship.

High Veldt storms can be fierce and unsettling. As someone said, the thunder was so loud that 'even Daryl Harper would have heard it'.

Gift of Timing

With only one subject in town - for a couple of days at least - it's hard not to be repetitive and unoriginal when writing about the end of Michael Vaughan's career.

The first thing to say that is that it didn't come as a surprise. One of the hardest things in the world for a great sportsman to admit is that the past has gone and he has no chance of reclaiming it. But Vaughan is nothing if not decisive, and once he realised that his time in an England shirt had gone for good there was no earthly way he was going step back on to the county treadmill. The modern England captain's financial and spiritual comfort zone - the Sky commentary box - surely awaits, although, for no obvious reason, I think he might just do a little more with the rest of his life, even if it's only coaching.

Two personal memories, both of which I've mentioned here before:

His 197 against India at Trent Bridge in August 2002 was the first time he'd really loosened his shackles at international level and shown what he was capable of. I was there, and I still regard that Saturday afternoon as one of the most enjoyable of my cricket-watching life. No England batsman, except Vaughan himself, has batted with the same blend of dominance and elegance since.

The other is more impressionistic, but when Vaughan was in charge of England in the field everything seemed right with the world. Like Richard Hill, from another time and another sport, or Shivnarine Chanderpaul, you felt that that was what he was put on earth to do. He was no tactical genius, but there was a permanent air of assured command which led you to believe that if there was a particularly tough question, he would always find the answer.

By announcing his retirement during the relative lull between the end of the World Twenty20 and the resumption of the battle for the Ashes, Vaughan has shown that his gift for good timing hasn't completely deserted him.

Time to reflect on the fact that he'll be a long time gone, time also to think about a future without him.

Pear Shaped

Overall, the England selectors haven't come up with a bad series of selections ahead of the Ashes. There was no logical way to select Vaughan (so it's slightly surprising that they didn't), and, as I thought, Onions is a bit ahead of Harmison, although Ashington's finest has an opportunity to state his case at Worcester next week.

However, no announcement of this type is complete without a little bit of madness, and this time it came in the shape of Vikram Solanki. Someone obviously had the idea that the Lions side had to have at least three Worcestershire players in it to give the locals an incentive to turn up (and if that's true what does it say about the parochialism of county supporters?), and, while Steven Davies and Stephen Moore probably deserve to be there, does Solanki?

A decent, occasionally handsome, batsman, who's in good form. But someone whose unfulfilled ODI career is behind him and who is never, surely, going to play Test cricket. If they felt they really had to have another Worcestershire player then Moeen Ali would have been a better choice.

The only real point to Solanki's selection would seem to be to make Owais Shah aware - if he wasn't already - that his own short Test career is a thing of the past.

Test Squad Thoughts

In general I'm happy to go along with what most people have said about the England squad for the first Test. It certainly carries Andy Flower's stamp, and I'm pleased to see Tim Bresnan and Graham Onions given a go. Onions certainly looked the part while bowling out Somerset yesterday.

Ravi Bopara also deserves his start at No.3 - Bell and Vaughan need to do more (in Vaughan's case much more) and Shah, sadly, didn't look the part in the West Indies.

I'm not sure how much I'm going to hear about the game as I'm heading off to Scotland on holiday tomorrow morning and should be somewhere on the Isle of Skye by the time it starts next Wednesday, but I'll try to stay in touch.

I'll be blogging again in mid-May.

Art for Art's Sake

Another player whose international career seems firmly in the twilight zone now is Michael Vaughan, and it was very interesting to read here about his first forays into the world of modern art.

My impression of the finished works is that they're quite original, if somewhat stereotyped, and sadly too expensive for me.

What was even more interesting to me, though, were Vaughan's words, quoted at the end of the Cricinfo piece:

'So far all I've done is chronicle my own career, but this summer I'm hoping Straussy lifts the Ashes in August, and I can ring him and say 'Come on, let's do a five piece collection of your great moments from the series.'

These plainly reveal that Vaughan doesn't expect to be there himself. Given the fact that he hardly ever makes any runs these days, perhaps he's only being realistic, but it's one of the oldest truisms in sport (and often in life) that if you don't really believe you're going to do something, you aren't going to do it.

The King is Dead...?

Autumn Questions

Travelling back from London on the train late yesterday afternoon, with the sky darkening and the wind getting up after a truly sublime weekend's weather, it was hard to avoid the feeling that autumn was setting in. Of course, another sign that time's moving on is the fact that the English first-class season's over (and congratulations to Durham, by the way) and tour parties are being announced.

There were few surprises in the England squads; I was pleased to see Shah selected ahead of Bopara (and Swann of Rashid), and it had already been leaked to the media that Vaughan, despite his renewed central contract, was set to be 'rested'. James Foster was, of course, completely ignored. This was predictable, but still hugely disappointing. While, on balance, it looks fair enough to give Matt Prior (much the best batsman of the available keepers) another chance, should we not be looking beyond Ambrose for an alternative?

A few years ago Chris Read was in a similar position, but he at least got another chance (even if it was against the coach's better judgement) before being jettisoned for good. It seems very much as though Foster, not seen in England colours since 2002 and an immeasurably better keeper than he was then, isn't even going to get that. Foster's made the standard noises about going back to his county and working hard, and I'm sure he will, but the signs are that none of it will ever do any good.

By contrast, the news that Vaughan isn't going looks like a brief triumph for common sense, although it still seems as though the likes of Geoff Miller (whose opinion matters) and Darren Gough (whose doesn't, frankly) feel that it's only a matter of time before normal service is resumed.

But why? Might there not at least be a chance - which nobody seems prepared to admit - that Vaughan, rising 34 and with a chronic injury history, is past it as a batsman and isn't coming back?

In the Swing

A nice post by Mark over at The Reverse Swing Manifesto.

I agree with Mark's views on Vaughan. I should think that the decision to renew his England contract probably went through on the nod as those responsible wouldn't have been able to get their heads round the idea of cutting Vaughan out of the charmed circle and would have been concerned that to do so would have been seen to have sent a message that his career at the highest level was finished.

Yet that need not have been the case. If he made a shedload of runs for Yorkshire he'd have been worthy of a recall to the side, although probably not until next season, as he's running out of time to do anything this year. His big problem is that he's never made a shedload of runs for Yorkshire; he didn't do so when he was young and fresh, so he's going to find it even harder at 34 and with a dodgy knee.

As it is, the selectors are probably dead set on taking him to India, regardless of whether he's made any runs or not. Which I'm not sure is right, as it adds further weight to the justifiable allegations of cosiness which have been directed at the side this year. I'd rather see Joe Denly there.

I also agree with Mark that it might not be a bad thing if Samit Patel started to put some pressure on Monty next season; in all but very helpful conditions you might not lose too much in the bowling stakes and you'd gain a huge amount in fielding and batting terms. Not very likely, though.

As for the Stanford squad (and the game), well, I couldn't care less.

Crash Hot

With the international season over and much of the country under water, now seems like a good time to take stock of where England stand.

As most of us have observed over the last few weeks, things are obviously looking a lot better than they were, but you only have to go back to the conclusion of the Edgbaston Test on 2nd August for a time when the future looked a good deal more bleak. And the present wasn't all that crash hot either.

Allowing for what's happened since, I think a little caution is in order, as Pietersen's England are, and will remain for some time, a work in progress, but, as a few people seem to have noticed, Pietersen suddenly looks right for the team and they look right for him. Why?

I think that team success depends a lot on finding the right captain for the stage a team's reached in its development. When Nasser Hussain took over in 1999 England had been one of the poorest sides in the world for years; in partnership with Duncan Fletcher he restored the team's respectability and left it ripe to be taken over and brought to fruition by Michael Vaughan in the years following 2003. Where Hussain was confrontational, Vaughan - at least on the surface - was consensual. With Hussain having dragged the team kicking and screaming to the surface, it required a fresh - and more tactically adept - approach to bring them fully into the light.

Now, with England having stagnated and declined since the Ashes were won in 2005, a fresh approach was required again, and Pietersen's exuberance and confidence, much of which appears to have infected his players, has appeared to be just what they need. Throw in his un-English ability to defy convention and accentuate the positive over the negative, and you have a recipe for success, at least in the short term.

The challenge now is to keep the momentum going. For what it's worth, we'll find out if they can in Antigua in late October.

So Farewell Then...

Only the other week, at some stage during the three days England spent bowling at South Africa at Lord's, I was watching them in the field and thinking, as I often have in the past, that somehow things just seemed right with Michael Vaughan leading the side, even if they obviously weren't. There was something indefinably reassuring about his coolness, authority and detachment, even if it had started to look as though some of his decisions had moved beyond tactical ingenuity and towards reflexive tinkering.

Things will never quite be the same again. While Vaughan has stated his intention to remain available as a player it would be a retrograde step to take him abroad this winter, and, come next spring, he'll be 34 and fighting it out with a range of younger contenders, at least one of whom may have established himself in his absence. He'll need a lot of runs, and, as Mark Ramprakash will tell you, that's still no guarantee of anything, even if you have Vaughan's past record.

On balance there must be a good chance that he left the Test arena for good yesterday afternoon, and, if so, it's time to thank England's best skipper since Brearley and a batsman who, at his best, could do wonderful things.

The afternoon of 10th August 2002 at Trent Bridge, Nottingham, was, thanks to Vaughan, one of the best times I've spent on any cricket ground anywhere.

Cheers, mate.

Messy

Although I saw most of his 259 at Lord's in 2003 and he's also the only batsman I've ever seen score 300 in a day, I have to admit that until yesterday I'd forgotten what an outstanding batsman Graeme Smith is. The undefeated 154 with which he took his country to its first victory on English soil since the summer before I was born was a true classic, combining determination, measured strokeplay, good judgement and the priceless ability to ignore what was going on at the other end, namely that a series of batsmen were getting pinned by deliveries which they didn't see.

England, by contrast, go to the last Test of the summer in a mess. At Edgbaston Sidebottom played while clearly still unfit, something which looked uncomfortably like a mistaken attempt to avoid the embarassment of having to consider selecting Darren Pattinson again, and too many players (Cook, Bell and Pietersen in the second innings alone) got out to rash strokes, which again contrasted sharply with the discipline shown by the South Africans.

Furthermore, Vaughan's abysmal run of form continued, with the result that it's now rumoured that he's about to resign from the captaincy and possibly be dropped from the side.

And then, for good measure, you have the fact that Tim Ambrose, neat but unexceptional keeper that he is, isn't a good enough batsman to retain a place in the side and Panesar continues to frustrate. Yes, he's fundamentally still a fine bowler, but yesterday, in helpful bowling conditions, he failed once more to show enough variations of delivery and flight.

It remains to be seen what we'll get for The Oval - some or all of the questions may be answered later - but I won't be happy with much less than the replacement of Ambrose (and it's surely James Foster's turn now) and at least one fresh face among the batsmen.

Oh yeah, and a new skipper...

Indeterminate

As most observers seem to have been saying, it's difficult to know what to make of an indeterminate game which ended with an indeterminate result, but it's far to say that a few people - myself included, if truth be told - will have woken up to the fact that there's the potential for a reasonable contest over the next few weeks. The Kiwis will, though, need further big contributions from Oram and McCullum, together with Ross Taylor finding some form, if they're to hold off an English attack which ought to get better with more bowling and more help from the conditions.

From an English viewpoint it was obviously good to see Vaughan back in the runs, with some of his onside shots on Sunday reminiscent of his greatest days and a fantastic look of fulfilment and (perhaps) relief on his face when he reached his ton.

It's easy to start to wonder if James Anderson has crossed the elusive consistency threshold, although I'd be inclined to give him a few more Tests before counting any chickens. However, going back to Hoggy (when he's fit) doesn't seem such an obvious move as it did after Napier, and there's always Anderson's superb fielding to enjoy, even if the wickets aren't coming.

Finally, after his promising (and too readily-forgotten) start to his Test career last summer, I'm very pleased to see Chris Tremlett back, although he looks unlikely to play.

A little bit of consistency of selection for once? Well, maybe.

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.

Crashing Down

Touring Sri Lanka is tough, and England have been holding themselves together - often by the skin of their teeth - since Kandy. Today, though, it all came crashing down and there appears little hope of salvage over the next two days unless there's a hell of a lot of rain.

The England bowling attack, apart from Harmison, has looked insipid, although Hoggard is probably short of maximum fitness and Sidebottom has continually been let down by fielders in general, and Prior in particular. The batsmen can make fifties but can't go on to big hundreds in the way that is second nature to Jayawardene and Sangakkara. The fielding is shoddy; all the side's best specialist close fielders - Trescothick, Strauss, Flintoff - have gone from the team and we're left with the ageing (and never reliable) Vaughan, the coltish and mystifyingly poor Cook, and, of course, Prior.

When this game is wrapped up it's back home for Christmas and then off to New Zealand, by which time a few more players might find themselves out of the team.

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...

Food for Thought

I was out playing cricket yesterday and at work today, so I haven't seen much of the last two days of the Test. I was dubious about Dravid's decision to bat again yesterday, but, in the end, with England unable to make a serious bid for victory, everything turned out okay. With Pietersen knitting things together and good contributions from Vaughan, Collingwood and Bell, the game was saved with relative ease.

Both sides leave the series with food for thought; India can contemplate the fact that they've proved that they can recover from a hesitant start to deservedly win an overseas series, England the realisation that they can be undone - even at home - by a combination of their own complacency and misplaced aggression and an opposing bowling attack that really knows how to swing the ball.

I'm firmly in the camp which believes that there should have been one more Test match and about three fewer ODIs, so forgive me if I nod off during the forthcoming series.

It'll be nice, though, to see Yuvraj again. Limited overs operators don't come much better.

Not Bad, But Not Good Either

You wouldn't say that England were categorically poor on another perfect day for batting at The Oval, but they could, and should, have done a lot better.

Cook, although he made 61, is finally being forced to wake up to the fact that Test cricket is a difficult game, and his reliance on his strength, the straight-bat clip through the leg side, is becoming a weakness. Pietersen started well but his eyes lit up a little too quickly when Tendulkar came on. Vaughan was deceived, Collingwood got another bad one from Howell, and Matt Prior is having one of those games. Ian Bell, with positive footwork and, until his dismissal, good shot selection, was England's best player.

India stuck at it all day, relishing their advantage. Zaheer was excellent once again, Kumble was steady, RP was under-used and there were late signs that Sreesanth was getting mind and body together.

Now will Dravid enforce the follow-on?

Getting it Wrong, Getting it Right

Well, now. I got it a little bit wrong, but India, ultimately, got it very right.

I fell into the trap of assuming that if India were going to bowl a side out in the second half of a Test match to set up a victory, the man to do it had to be Kumble. An indolent reading of history suggested as much but in England? In the monsoon summer of 2007? At a lush Trent Bridge - which has gained an increasing reputation as a swinging ground in recent years - it was always more likely to be a seamer. And, with the way he's been bowling since his first spell at Lord's, it was always likely to be Zaheer Khan.

The fact that they only took a single wicket in the first session didn't matter at all either, with most of the side - Sreesanth excepted - patiently biding their time through a warm afternoon and the majestic quality of Michael Vaughan's century in the knowledge that the new ball could change things quickly. With Zaheer and RP using it beautifully and the below-par Kumble seeing to the tail, it did, and only a further 63 are now needed to secure a deserved victory.

India have flattered to deceive many times over the years, but, if they can win tomorrow and repel England at The Oval (and England will really come at them hard there), perhaps we can start thinking about a future in which the side can start to get a bit nearer to fulfilling the perenially disappointed hopes of its millions of followers.

The middle-order is certain to need some re-stocking before long but the bowling looks good. In Zaheer you have as mature and skilled a left-arm swing bowler as there is in the world, in RP Singh as promising a left-arm swing bowler as there is in the world and in Sreesanth as contradictory and potentially dangerous (in many senses) a right-arm seamer as there is in the world. And Pathan and Harbhajan to come back in.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. For now the onus is on Wasim Jaffer and Dinesh Karthik at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.

Everything else comes later.

A Quiet Classic

In a quiet way, the first Test between England and India at Lord's was a classic. Or at least it looked like that to an English follower starved of competitive Test cricket for most of the summer. The unique brilliance of Shivnarine Chanderpaul can only take a series so far, and it was good to see England back in a battle. A battle in which they won most of the minor skirmishes and very nearly the whole damn thing.

There's simply no getting away from the fact that England look a more positive, united and vibrant team whenever they're led on to the field by Michael Vaughan. And, with the skipper himself refreshed as a result of his extended injury layoff and showing the type of judgement, command and tactical acumen which used to be second nature, they're even better. With a series of bowlers who can all hit the cut strip with regularity and move the ball at will in their different ways, they're better still.

With those bases covered, all you need is runs. They were largely provided by a watchful, often hesitant but deserving Andrew Strauss, the renewed elegance of Michael Vaughan, and Kevin Pietersen, who, in typical fashion, progressed through the gears to the point of total command after lunch on Sunday.

England's bowlers performed with relaxed penetration. It's no more than you expect from Sidebottom and Panesar now, but it was great to see Jimmy Anderson deliver his most complete performance in an England shirt and Chris Tremlett, whose unexpected selection ahead of Stuart Broad almost had me choking on my hotel breakfast on the first morning, justified his place and dropped a few hints for the future.

India started poorly with the ball in favourable conditions on Thursday but turned things around after Friday morning's monsoon. Zaheer hinted at his Worcester form, Sreesanth ran in hard and gained a few rewards from Steve Bucknor, and RP Singh looked like a bit of a find. Runs were harder to come by though, with only Karthik and Dhoni, in the second innings, really doing themselves justice. Dravid was unusually anonymous (but will surely come back fighting), Tendulkar lacked authority (and the jury is out on whether he can find it again), Ganguly flashed with bat and mouth but never suggested permanence, and Laxman's footwork and demeanour looked a bit too diffident for his own good.

England deserved to win and were unlucky not to get the chance to finish the job, although, if they could have stirred themselves to bowl their overs a bit more quickly yesterday morning they'd probably have wrapped the game up way before the rain came. I see from Cricinfo that the otherwise admirable Peter Moores is trying to justify England's slow over-rate by reference to the need for meticulous field-placing. That's as maybe, but they could do a lot better by cutting out their latest piece of modish fielding nonsense which appears to be to throw the ball to the wicket-keeper from anywhere on the field, regardless of whether there's any point to it. If the batsman hits the ball to mid-off and is not attempting a run, then why doesn't the mid-off fielder just throw the ball straight back to the bowler, rather than hurling it to Matt Prior and then getting it back about thirty seconds later via one of the slips (usually Strauss)? Talking of which, I don't think one of the slips (usually Strauss at Lord's again) needs to polish the ball on his backside until his trousers are virtually worn away after every ball. Fifteen overs an hour should be relatively straightforward whoever's bowling, and might show that the players have given some thought to the fact that people have actually paid money to watch them play and have the right to expect to see ninety overs in a day.

India look to be going in the right direction with the ball but will need more runs from all parts of the order if they're going to threaten England at Nottingham and The Oval. And it's up to SRT to show that reports of his imminent demise are greatly exaggerated.

No Brainer

What's been happening these past few days? Well, it's been raining a lot, but Twenty20 has got underway again, in between the showers and in front of the usual fanatical crowds, and England have predictably decided that a brave new one-day world needed a new captain, and have appointed Paul Collingwood.

To me it was a no-brainer: Vaughan has never thrived in limited-over cricket and he needs to save his fragile body for the sterner challenges which lie ahead in the Test arena, and, with Pietersen ruling himself out, Colly - lacking captaincy experience but with every other quality you could wish for - was the logical choice.

With a reshuffled side, including a couple of new foreign-bred debutants in Dimitri Mascarenhas and Jonathan Trott - it'll be interesting to see how things go, even if they are still playing the West Indies, who, unless they can shake off the torpor which led them to defeat by Derbyshire today, won't offer any greater a threat than they did in the Test series.

Out Cold

After their performance at Lord's it was disappointing, even sad, but nevertheless predictable, that the West Indies, now without Lara, Chanderpaul and Sarwan, their three best contemporary batsmen by a mile, should have folded to their worst defeat in nearly eighty years of Test cricket in the frozen wastes of Headingley. The only player who seemed up for the fight (and not for the first time) was Trinidad's excellent Dwayne Bravo. As Andrew Miller said on Cricinfo, this is the worst collection of players ever to represent the islands, and it showed.

England were as efficient and competent as they needed to be in the face of the negligible threat posed by a team with a weak attack and an even weaker batting line-up, supported by weak fielding.

The batting (minus Andrew Strauss) is firing from top to bottom, the re-selection of Ryan Sidebottom, inconceivable under Fletcher, was, in retrospect, a masterstroke, and the entire side looks a different unit when Vaughan's in charge.

They look good, although, against this West Indian side it would be hard not to.

As Stephen Fleming said, when asked how you recover from the type of beating which England took in Australia, 'Play someone else'.