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?

Life in the Old Dog

I'm going away for the weekend tomorrow to London and Hertfordshire - beer will be drunk and rugby will be watched - so I made sure I got along to the County Ground in Taunton for the first day of the match against Lancashire yesterday.

Two things stood out - one a mature piece of defiance from the previously peripatetic home-grown all-rounder Peter Trego, and the other a virile spell of new-ball bowling from Andy Caddick which turned the clock back to his greatest days like nothing else he's produced in the last few seasons.

Caddick will be 40 in November but intends to play next season. For a seamer he's old, but all the indications are that he wants it as much as ever. With it looking likely that Somerset will fail to secure the title, Caddick will be pawing the ground when next season starts.

If Wednesday's anything to go by, he'll be worth watching.

Hard Frost

Whatever people think about it, English county cricket continues to throw up good stories.

For me, comfortably the best of this season has to be that of Tony Frost.

Tony Frost, of Warwickshire, was a journeyman wicket-keeper who quit the game at the end of 2006 and went to work on the Edgbaston groundstaff, leaving his county's gloves to Tim Ambrose. With Ambrose gaining a place in the England side this season, Frost came back and has had an astonishing time, culminating in the innings of 242 not out which helped his side towards the victory over Essex at Chelmsford which took them back into the First Division of the Championship.

In that First Division things still look quite tight, although Notts, having thrashed a hapless Surrey side, are clear favourites to secure the title. I'll be going along to Taunton on Wednesday in the hope that Somerset can beat a Lancashire side that's belatedly given itself something to play for.

I hope that Somerset can pull something out of the bag, but, with the seemingly incessant rain and gloom of August and early September having finally given way to sunshine just seeing some cricket will be enough for me.

It's a long winter.

Going Quietly

It was a pity - certainly for all those people who'd chosen to travel in search of the end of an era - to find Graeme Hick invalided out of his final game in first-class cricket with a recurrence of the elbow problem which has punctuated his last season.

Some photos on Cricinfo this morning showed that he was present on the familiar territory of his old home ground at Kidderminster, with nothing more ferocious to contend with than a queue largely composed of the type of slightly oddball middle-aged autograph hunter who proliferate at county grounds.

But it was perhaps fitting, with the benefit of hindsight, that his career came to an end at Worcester on 8th August, with a final century against Derbyshire under his belt.

He was saying in one of his recent interviews that he'd rather have gone out quietly.

It now looks as though he did.

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.

A Worcester Institution

Graeme Hick plays forward during his 100th century for his county. Worcestershire v Northamptonshire, Worcester, June 2006.

The impending retirement of Graeme Hick is more significant to me than most, as, in the very dim and distant past (it must have been 1984), I latched on to Hick's name. He kept making huge scores for Worcestershire seconds and I thought he might turn out to be a useful player. From then on I kept an unusually close eye on his career, getting in touch with his parents about his early cricket and following his progress innings by innings.

Like someone who's genuinely mad I can still dash off the highlights of those years without going near a Wisden: 230 and 192 in successive innings for Zimbabwe in England in '85, the double centuries for Worcestershire in '86, a thousand before the end of May (including the 405) in '88, a largely unbroken upward curve all the way to the England debut in 1991. From there, of course, things were never quite the same, but, for me, there were always plenty of highlights, some of which I even managed to see in person. The most memorable of these was probably his hundredth century for Worcestershire in 2006; a freezing June day at Worcester, a moderate Northants attack and utter domination, with one stroke living especially keenly in the memory. I'm not sure of the bowler, but I'll take a punt on Ben Phillips. He dropped a fraction short and Hick, as he'd done a million times before, simply stood tall and hit the ball back past him for four with a stroke of rare dismissiveness and command.

This though, was the problem with Hick; at his best (say late eighties, at Worcester) he could achieve a level of dominance and intimidation which few batsmen from anywhere in the world have managed in the last thirty years, but it was all underwritten by a current of personal diffidence which undermined him fatally when it came to the pressure-cooker of Test cricket.

For all the coruscating innings there were technical weaknesses too; a certain stiffness of movement, often an inability to respond to the moving ball, especially at the highest level. I think it was John Bracewell who originally coined the term 'flat-track bully' to describe Hick and, in retrospect, he had something.

This said, I've always tended towards the view that if Hick had been able to play Test cricket when he was at his youngest and most fearless (between 1984 and 1990), he would have achieved much more. A lot of people have pointed to the time Atherton declared on him at Sydney, but, in truth, his early veneer of impregnability had gone by then; the likes of Ambrose, Waqar and Hughes had shown the way to see him off and he was always playing catch-up from then on. He did better in the one-day game, but his overall international statistics must always be regarded as disappointing for a player with his level of ability and potential.

At Worcester, though, he was an institution. Visits there will never quite be the same again.

If you get the chance to see him play between now and the end of the season, take it.

Going Right

When I got back from a weekend away yesterday at 2.35, I turned on the TV in the expectation of a whole afternoon and evening's cricket. Herschelle Gibbs had just been dismissed but there didn't seem to be any reason at that stage to believe that things would turn out as they did.

It was England's most comprehensive and efficient ODI win against a major side since who knows when, but, well though they bowled and batted, some account must be taken of the fact that South Africa, so disciplined and purposeful in the early part of the Test series, don't seem to have been at the races since Edgbaston.

The next thing I know, the game's nearly over, I've got the radio commentary on in the kitchen and Henry Blofeld is rambling on (does he ever do anything else?) about England's chances in next summer's Ashes series, what has made Pietersen such a successful captain, etc., etc. If you allowed yourself to get carried away you could find yourself thinking that England had found the Holy Grail of Cricket in KP, the glorious leader who will take them on to the sunlit uplands of unprecedented success.

Well, just for the moment, I'm not quite buying it. While Pietersen's captaincy record currently stands at played 3, won 3, and he seems to be shaping up really well in terms of both his onfield and off-field influence, one thing I know from too many years of following the England cricket team, especially in one-day cricket, is that if you ever allow yourself to think things are going right they'll very quickly go wrong.

Which is not, of course, to say they will; but let's see where we stand next spring.

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?

Striking Fear

For me, the highlight of the D'Oliveira Trophy series was Graeme Smith's epic at Edgbaston, while I also really enjoyed the contributions of Prince, de Villiers and Amla. South Africa were worthy winners and will surely provide us with some rich entertainment when they take on Australia over six home and away Tests later in the year.

For England, despite a well-constructed win at The Oval, the prognosis is more dubious. Strauss's place once again appears vulnerable, while Ambrose's has surely been lost. Monty - stereotyped, apparently going backwards (from the lowest of low bases) with the bat and in the field and vitally lacking competition - is becoming a concern. As, of course, is Ian Bell. The evidence of the last three matches was that I and a few other observers (not to mention Bell himself) were wrong in thinking that his Lord's 199 meant that he'd finally cracked Test cricket. Much of Bell's batting after Lord's hinted at a man who'd sunk straight back into the complacency which often seems to hover just below the surface of a unit which - notwithstanding Collingwood's ultimate renaissance - still seems a bit too cosy.

Two final parting thoughts:

1. It's clear (as if it wasn't before to most people apart from Duncan Fletcher) that Steve Harmison just needs to bowl and bowl and bowl. It's anyone's guess what'll happen abroad during the winter but, for next summer, just let him bowl as much for Durham as he needs to (if there's any space between the Tests). You know it makes sense (and so, hopefully, does he).

2. For the first time in my cricket-watching life (thirty-plus years and counting) England have a specialist batsman capable of striking fear into any side in the world at any time. David Gower was a genius, albeit of a more fragile cast than KP, but he never quite seemed to have Pietersen's extra determination, self-certainty, improvisational flair and sheer balls.

Christ he's good.

Jimmy Jimmy

Whatever happens at The Oval - and with some decent breaks in the weekend weather they ought to win - the post mortems on England's home Test season will soon be under way.

There'll be a few ticks in the minus column but one definite plus has to be the form and consistency shown by James Anderson, who finally, finally, seems to be growing into his role as an international seam bowler.

His over to, and dismissal of, Graeme Smith this evening was a beautiful example of how far he's come. While always a natural swinger of the ball, for a long time Anderson only seemed capable of moving it in one direction, and his effectiveness was further reduced by his regular failure to maintain a consistent line, length and seam position. Here, though, we had him setting up Smith with a series of away-swingers to the left-hander before nailing him stone dead lbw with an inswinger which Smith, having been moved across his stumps by the earlier deliveries, was powerless to resist.

A check of the replay revealed that the position of the ball's seam was perfect; in an age of reverse swing, this was the conventional article at its good old-fashioned deadly best.

For Anderson it seems as though the years of flitting in and out of the side and travelling the world in search of a regular game are over, and, with his improved batting and brilliant fielding, he's starting to look, whisper it, like someone who really belongs in the side.

For a bowler of his type India and the West Indies this winter will prove tough assignments, but he's now sure to be there, and I, for one, will be happy to see him.

Playing On

A nice piece from The Guardian by the long-time Graeme Hick obsessive (hope you don't mind me terming it like that, Simon, it's meant in the nicest possible way) Simon Hattenstone.

And it's out of date already - Hick made his 136th century this afternoon.

Stacking up

The reasons why it could go wrong have been well aired, but I'm happy to see KP as captain. In fact I have a suspicion that if he's allowed to grow into the role he may do very well. The biggest imponderable of all is the question of whether it'll have a negative effect on his batting, and England, who already rely on him to an unsettling degree, can't afford that.

I was also pleased to see Samit Patel's name in the one-day squad. He's a player who's impressed throughout the England age-groups and has steadily found his feet in the Notts side with some good performances in both one and four-day cricket. A glance at his profile on Cricinfo indicates that his stats stack up pretty well.

When I've seen him play he's tended to look a bit rotund but I think I read somewhere that he's worked hard on his fitness, so hopefully, if he gets to play, he won't be exposed in the field.

He does like to hit the ball hard, though, and you can always do with more of that.

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.

Meaning Too Much

It seems obligatory this morning to write something about Mark Ramprakash, who yesterday became the 25th - and almost certainly the last - player to make 100 first-class centuries.

I can't write anything original about the man as it's all been said before, but I'll content myself with saying that when it comes to technical fundamentals, he was the very best English player of his generation, but you need a bit more than an impregnable technique to succeed at the very highest level.

His main problem always seemed to be that it just meant too much.

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...

One of the Best

A player who's never been accused of lacking ability is Virender Sehwag, but he has been dropped, he has been doubted and he has been disillusioned.

He is, though, fit to rank with the very best players that his country has ever produced. Indeed, he's always seemed to me to have an element of truly instinctive genius which the Trinity (Gavaskar, Tendulkar and Dravid) don't quite have.

And, unlike many a fragile genius he bats big. Two triples, countless scores above 150 and now a bat-carrying double against Murali and Mendis.

Many years ago I went on a cricket tour of Australia with a dour Yorkshireman who'd been lucky enough to see Brian Lara's 375 in Antigua the previous winter. He didn't say much about it but what he did say said a lot, if you see what I mean. And what he said then I'll say about Viru now as it sums things up at least as well as anything original I can come up with.

One of the best.

Character

They say that cricket reveals character. And they (whoever 'they' are) would be right.

In the time I've been following the game England have probably never had a player with the iron resolve of Paul Collingwood. He may lack his rivals' abilities, he may lack their range of strokes, he may lack their support from the media, but, when the chips are really, really down, he comes good.

I still think it was wrong to pick him, but credit where it's due.

That was class.

Set Up to Fail

England were poor again today, but nothing about their performance on the field was as disappointing as the recall to the side of Paul Collingwood. He's been out of form all season and was originally dropped for that reason, presumably with the intention that he should go away, make some runs for Durham and regain some confidence.

Having done neither, he's been recalled to the side for no obvious reason apart from the fact that the other players like having him around and missed him at Headingley. Unsurprisingly, he failed again, but all the evidence appears to be that how many runs you make doesn't really matter as long as you're part of the dangerously complacent cabal which the England side has become.

With the selection of Darren Pattinson and now this, the selectors appear hell-bent on destroying the faith and confidence of players who are currently outside the inner circle; for Harmison, Hoggard and Tremlett two weeks ago, read Ravi Bopara and Owais Shah now. To them the only message appears to be: make as many runs as you want; Collingwood's face fits and yours don't.

Any sports team in which players are retained regardless of their level of performance is setting itself up to fail.

And that's something which England are doing rather well at the moment.

Eating People is Wrong

With lots going on I haven't got round to posting anything about Twenty20 finals day, which I watched from start to finish on Sky and which ended with the county I grew up supporting, Middlesex, winning a trophy for the first time since 1993.

In terms of putting it in its wider context, I don't think I can do much better than Will Luke's summary at Cricinfo, but what I will say is that it was a brilliant, brilliant day, with my favourite aspect being the way in which Shaun Udal bowled and the great personal story his bowling added another chapter to.

I was reading a film review recently and the writer stated that 'next time somebody tells me that Angelina Jolie cannot act, I will eat them'. At this point in time I feel compelled to state that whenever anybody (especially somebody who's never seen a game) tries to tell me that Twenty20 cricket is 'all about slogging', is 'just baseball, really', or any other such fatuous and ill-informed comment, I will eat them.