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).

Those Who Can, Do. Those Who Can't, Write About It

I thought this was interesting.

I agree with some of what Ryan says - Brearley and Atherton are both fine writers - but I think he might have been better off keeping his powder dry.

While it's easy to understand the professional journalist with a limited playing background being frustrated by the rapid advances of those who could really play the game - especially if they think they can't write - it seems a tad hubristic to set yourself up, as Ryan appears to have done, as some sort of arbiter of journalistic quality and taste.

For a start you leave yourself open to the sort of comment which appears after the article from someone who clearly doesn't think much of Ryan's writing either, and, if you're talking about cricket, I think it's ill-advised to get superior with an ex-Test cricketer. Because, at the end of the day, they've been there and done it (even if they can't describe what they've done very well), while you never did and never will. No matter how much cricket you've watched you're always going to come up short against someone who's played the game at the highest level, even for the briefest period. And many people who follow the game, but who may not be connoisseurs of cricket writing, will set more store by the opinions of someone they've seen play than those of someone they've never heard of but thinks they can write well.

My favourite cricket writers - Alan Ross, David Frith, Gideon Haigh, Scyld Berry, Andrew Miller - don't have a Test cap between them, but I wouldn't dream of dismissing the efforts of many of those who do, especially the superb Ed Smith.

Now, where's my thesaurus?

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.

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.