Standing Out

In his classic football supporter's memoir Fever Pitch, published exactly twenty years ago, Nick Hornby wrote about a young player who first represented Arsenal in the mid-1980s named Gus Caesar. Gus Caesar had a promising start to his career at the club before finding that, at the highest level of the game below international football, he couldn't cut it.

The point Hornby was making was about the way in which football has a series of levels, of standards. Local park, county league, regional semi-professional league, Vauxhall Conference (as it was then), Football League (as it was then). Now, at the head of everything - and it has been so for exactly the same twenty years - is the FA Premier League. At each and every level there will be players who have been outstanding at the level below, but who, when they step up to the next, are found wanting. At the very top - in the modern football world this is where Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo reside - are the players who have never really been found wanting. They are the best of the best of the best.

Cricket is the same. At the level of cricket which I've played for the last couple of decades - friendly matches between village sides in England's west country - a player capable of playing in the local premier league will stand out. Go and watch a match in that premier league and a player who represents the local minor county, or who once was among the best teenagers in the country, will stand out. Go and watch that minor county and a player who has played a lot in the County Championship will - if he is not a physical or psychological wreck (long cricket careers can do that to you) - stand out. Go and watch a County Championship match and someone who has played in 88 Test matches and scored 21 centuries, including some of the most brilliant innings played by an England batsman in the modern era, well, he will stand out.

So it was with Kevin Pietersen yesterday. So much has been written over the past few weeks, so many opinions offered, about Pietersen's undeniably complex psychology, that it has been possible to forget, or at least briefly overlook, the fact that he is, when all has been said, a batsman of the purest genius.

And, if the eleven players in Somerset's side, or his Surrey team-mates, or the thousand or so in the Taunton crowd, were in any danger of forgetting how good Pietersen was - and some would never before have seen evidence of his ability at first-hand - they will not do so for a very long time.

In many ways Pietersen's century seemed understated, largely on account of the ease and assurance with which it was made. Such was the superiority of Pietersen over a useful Somerset attack that the need for extreme violence or self-preservation was obviated. It was bloodless.

In the early stages of his innings Pietersen occasionally played and missed at seaming deliveries from the eternally fiery Steven Kirby and his erstwhile England colleague Sajid Mahmood, but, when he had settled, it was simply a question of how often he felt like hitting the ball for four or six. Far worse players than Peter Trego - a locally-raised all-rounder having his best season with the ball - have played for England. Pietersen, when he desired an acceleration in the tempo of his side's innings after lunch, danced down the pitch and flicked Trego to the leg-side boundary with the disdainful ease of a teenage elder brother humiliating a younger sibling. And then, when, as night follows day, Trego dropped the ball short, Pietersen pulled him for a flat six with the venom of a cornered snake.

The young Irish slow left-armer George Dockrell is a spin bowler of huge potential. Until yesterday he had found that his easy, grooved action and fine control of pace and spin were enough to see him through against some of the better batting sides in the first division of the Championship. Against Pietersen, receiving little help from the surface, he found that he could do nothing to prevent himself being milked for run after run, and then, when Pietersen felt it was necessary, he was hit out of the ground into the River Tone. Although he took three wickets, the lasting value of the day will be as a lesson in what players from another realm can do. One day - perhaps with a Test career behind him - he will look back on it with wryness and appreciation of its value.

Pietersen's celebrations were also understated. There was none of the leaping and fist-pumping which always accompany his international milestones. Here there was simply a raised bat, first to the Surrey dressing room and then to all the ground's corners. There were friendly conversations with Alfonso Thomas and, later in the day, with all the scoreboard damage done, with Mahmood. This, somewhat incongrously, was Pietersen attempting to play the part of the humble everyman. Something about his body language suggested contrition, and even, perhaps, a longing for forgiveness.

The saga of the last few weeks is far from over - it will probably take another twist within the hour - and the sense is that, for all Pietersen's gifts, things will always happen around him which people will not understand or like.

Many words have been expended on Kevin Pietersen and many more will be used before his career is done.

You can say what you like about Kevin Pietersen.

Just don't ever say he can't bat.

Another Day...

Another English cricketer says that he's rejected an offer from the IPL. Yesterday it was Ravi Bopara, today it's Sajid Mahmood.

What to make of it? Well, it was inevitable that English players would be offered IPL contracts, and it's even more inevitable that, one day soon, they'll start accepting them. How many of us, if offered, say, five times the money for a fraction of the work, would do anything else? I know I'd be off like a shot, but then I've got no hope of playing for England, and it was good to see that Bopara was more concerned about his potential future in the national side than the amount of Indian cash he could make, at least in the short term.

For a player like Bopara - young, with both plenty of talent and a good temperament, and bang in form, this is how it should be. As for Mahmood, well, with the emergence of Sidebottom and Broad, he's going to have to find some very good form of his own in the near future if he's not to be consigned permanently to the well-filled pigeonhole marked 'former England internationals'. Personally I'll be very surprised if he ever plays for England again, and, if I was him, I'd have gone.

But then I'm just about as far from being Sajid Mahmood as it's possible to be, so my perspective on life is bound to be a bit different from his. If he wants to stay here and fight to regain his England place, good luck to him.

As I've said, the attractions of the IPL are obvious and undeniable. And sometimes they're even better than that. Consider for a minute the case of Dimitri Mascarenhas, who at the moment is presumably being paid a very large amount of money for doing absolutely nothing.

I'd take it.

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.

Humiliation

The only conceivable surprise about South Africa's slaughter of England yesterday was that it was quite so quick. Let's face it, with a few notable exceptions (Sharjah 1997, Champions Trophy 2004, CB Series 2007), England have been useless at one-day cricket for years and years and years.

I'm going to take a back seat and let the dust settle for a few days before I say anything else, but most of the British papers seem to be calling for Fletcher's head and, having first done so back in December, I can't see myself bucking the trend now. It's encouraging also that there appears to be widespread recognition that Vaughan's ODI career, never very distinguished, has also run its course. I'm instinctively dubious about the concept of having different captains in Test and one-day cricket, but England simply can't go on like this.

Having seemingly played most of the tournament with only one proper batsman, it was always going to be tough for England when he failed. Throw in a complete inability to take advantage of powerplays in the way that the better sides do, add the consistently inconsistent - and often utterly dreadful - bowling of Sajid Mahmood and Flintoff's range of form and discipline issues and you have a recipe for disaster.

Looking to the longer term, it's difficult at the moment to feel other than that the only good to come out of England's 'campaign' is the feeling that the whole flimsy house of cards has been brought crashing down and that change is now inevitable.

And Ravi Bopara.

Attrition

An interesting article in The Times by Christopher Martin-Jenkins, arguing that no other country currently has as much young seam bowling talent as England.

I like Plunkett (but he's still got plenty to do); Anderson, when fit, looks to be getting back to where he was a few years ago; Mahmood continues to look unconvincing to me and I've hardly seen Onions. I have, however, seen plenty of Stuart Broad, who could be the best of the lot.

CMJ may be right, but, given the historic attrition rate among young English seamers, it'll be interesting to see where all these bowlers are in five years' time.

Same Old, Same Old

Well, yes. But England managed to put together a decent fist of things in the field against Australia in Brisbane yesterday, although, having only made 155, their chances of winning were always slim.

The gloom of the defeat wasn't without a few rays of sunshine, though. Mal Loye simply stepped up and carried on batting as he has for Lancashire for several years now and has surely inked himself into the World Cup squad (if not the team), and Jon Lewis achieved his best international figures with 4-36.

I haven't thought much until now about some people's claims that Lewis might have been a useful addition to England's Ashes squad, but, although he may lack pace at this level, as an acknowledged line and length merchant, he would surely have been more threatening and consistent than Mahmood, even if he'd been below his best.

That's hindsight for you...

The End is Nigh

Despite some reasonable bowling at times on the second day, the contrast between England's long and desperately weak tail (it's a pity to have to personalize it, but Sajid Mahmood as a Test number eight anyone?) and the aggressive vibrancy of Australia's, as personified today by Warne and Clark, has been utterly stark.

Trust Warne. Conditions and the run of the game appear to dictate that he'll be denied the opportunity to go out on a bowling high (although don't rule out a hat-trick tomorrow morning) so he makes 71 instead. England (and not just Paul Colingwood) will be glad when he's gone, although they'll have to wait until 2009 to confront and enjoy the reality.

Sometime early tomorrow (I'll hopefully be asleep) the end will come. For the time being it'll be a merciful release, as, despite the need to keep things in perspective (England aren't the worst side in the world, etc.), this has ultimately been, as a Norwegian football commentator once said, 'a hell of a beating'.

Deja Vu

Well, after winning the toss and batting (again), England made a decent fist of the first day at the SCG. Flintoff began to look like a proper batsman once more, Pietersen got himself out and Bell made another stylish half-century before falling to McGrath (again) when a century was starting to appear likely (again). While it has to be viewed in the context of England's wide range of more serious failings, Bell's inability to reach three figures in Australia has, along with the under-performance of Strauss and Cook at the top of the order, been one of the more disappointing aspects of their batting. If he can't do so in the second innings at Sydney, he'll hopefully cash in later in the year against the West Indies and India.

But I was more concerned, as usual, by the team selection. Despite the fact that Hoggard was ruled out by injury, it was a great pity that England weren't prepared to place a bit of trust in Jamie Dalrymple. On a wicket which usually turns we now have both Mahmood and Anderson in the attack (more than a tad worrying after the way they've bowled so far) and Mahmood to bat at eight. Okay, Dalrymple's not the greatest spinner in the world, but, with a first-class career best of 244 and a rock-solid temperament, he'd surely be a better bet at number eight than Mahmood. In all probability, in fact, he'd go in at seven, ahead of Chris Read.

Early wickets tomorrow will surely spell trouble, but, if Flintoff and Collingwood can settle themselves in again the tail might not be exposed.

Let's hope so.

Gathering Shadows

So much has been written and said about team selection, Duncan Fletcher, Ashley Giles, Monty Panesar, Andrew Flintoff, Michael Vaughan and the past, present and future of English cricket since the Adelaide capitulation last Tuesday that it's easy to lose track of where your own opinions begin and where those of other people end.

Personally I could understand the logic of starting the tour with Giles in the side, if only because his presence shortens the tail to a far greater degree than that of Panesar (or Anderson or Mahmood for that matter). And it must be remembered that he made useful contributions with the bat in the first three innings of the series. However, it was asking a lot of someone who has never been a consistently threatening bowler at Test level to return to the side after a year's absence and prove penetrative on unresponsive wickets against some of the best players of spin in the world. And so it has proved. Giles has been handled with ease by all the Australian batsmen and with disdain by their two best players, Ponting and Hussey. Overall, though, there's little question in my mind that two spinners should have been played at Adelaide, and, if only one was required for Brisbane, it should have been Panesar. The batting problem could have been eased by playing Sajid Mahmood instead of Jimmy Anderson, who's also looked utterly impotent. Mahmood has had an inconsistent England career so far but he's a better batsman than Anderson and could hardly have been more innocuous with the ball.

With all that said, I'm very dubious about the hype being attached to Panesar by the perenially impulsive British media, many of whom (who never gave a damn about cricket until August 2005) seem to feel that he's a panacea for all England's problems. He's an extremely promising bowler, England's best spin discovery for generations, but his figures in the few games he's played in Australia have not been especially impressive, indicating that he's taking time to adapt to conditions which are alien and unhelpful to him. Also, in case anyone hasn't noticed, he's a rather limited batsman (if more talented than he's given credit for) and the main reason England lost in Adelaide was because the batting failed on the final day. It's important that his potential value to the side is kept in perspective or the age-old tendency of the British media to build people up with excessive and unjust praise before knocking them down with withering and unjust criticism will come into view again.

A further aspect of this which has been doing the rounds in Britain is the story that Duncan Fletcher, who has hitherto taken all the blame for the omission of Panesar, in fact wanted him in the Adelaide team but was overruled by his captain. Nobody - except Duncan and Freddie - knows the exact truth of this, and we'll have to wait for Duncan's autobiography to (perhaps) find out, but, if that was the case it points to a classic blind spot of the modern English cricketer - the way in which seam bowlers, however mediocre, are valued more highly than spinners.

And Flintoff has history here, don't forget. Last May, in Panesar's first Test in this country, he gave him just 27 overs out of 199 in a Sri Lankan total of 537, while at the same time bowling himself into the ground. All Panesar's successes later in the summer came under the leadership of Andrew Strauss. Even allowing for Fletcher's sometimes grudging attitude towards Panesar last summer, it may just be Flintoff, and not Fletcher, who has a blind spot when it comes to Monty's potential.

Whatever the case, it's hard to escape the feeling that the shadows are gathering on Fletcher's term of office as England coach. It's virtually inconceivable that the Ashes can be retained now and further humiliation awaits at the World Cup. Fletcher has been an incredibly influential figure in the renaissance of English cricket these past seven years, but am I the only person who feels that we may be at the point where England require a little more than his grim-faced, pedestrian conservatism?