England Pass First Test

After all the predictable hyperbole and hogwash of an Ashes build up (myself included) comes the predictable hyperbole and hogwash that follows the first Test. It makes little sense to deny that this trend will continue until after the series reaches its conclusion but it is useful to remember that the only “fact” in Ashes reporting is that the true facts will be trumped up, overanalysed and examined to the point of nonsense as we contemplate what is surely one of the most celebrated draws in sporting history.

Admittedly this analysis is something of a wet fart and two fingers up to a stunning turnabout by Andrew Strauss and his team, ending up with something of a points victory after five days when defeat seemed an almost certain outcome after three.

The captain, Trott and double centurion Cook gave a physical and most notably mental masterclass over the course of the last two days as records tumbled at the Gabba, a ground that England have more often than not left 1-0 down in the series. The pitch was admittedly placid; a batting paradise but anyone who has tried to bat through even fifty overs on a Sunday would have to doff their respective hat to the marathon that took England past 500 at the cost of just one wicket for the first time in history.

It was undoubtedly a body blow to Australia, a side who have for the last six months been dogged by accusations of failure to kill of sides in the manner to which cricket lovers and followers have grown accustomed in recent history. That said, just as the Australian expectation of victory after Hussey and Haddin’s wonderful stand was shown to be vastly flawed, so delighted analysis of England’s fightback should be tempered by a sense of place in the series.

The match provided wonderful moments. Siddle’s birthday hat-trick, Strauss’s lionesque roar upon reaching three figures in the second innings after failing in the first, not to mention the undeniable symmetry of Hussey and Cook’s innings, both producing big scores when questions were raised about their place in the side. Beyond that though, not much has been learned that wasn’t known before.

The basic fact seems to be that without much more helpful conditions that those offered on the last three days in Brisbane, neither side (in their current incarnations) seem to have the ability to take 20 wickets to win the game without relying on batsmen errors. As Swann struggled more than he has at any time in his England career to date on a pitch that admittedly held little for him, their lack of bowling depth was exposed once more. I have no doubt that Swann will get better (he had a similar first Test in Cardiff) and although England will be delighted by Steve Finn’s wicket haul neither he nor anyone else in the bowling lineup can be expected to take six wickets every innings in the hope that the rest can claim the other four.

In spite of this, I expect England to be unchanged for Adelaide. Stability has been been as much a hallmark of the Strauss/Flower reign as intensity and preparation, and with England having gained (at best mental) superiority in the series there is no call for change.

Australia on the other hand have much to contemplate before announcing their line up for Adelaide. With questions over his fitness, the selectors have an excuse to drop the out of form Michael Clarke but they won’t take it. Despite showing a startling lack of fluency for a player so great to watch at his best, and shelling Cook before he had even reached his century, the selectors will be loathe to drop their vice captain and he will surely be given another shot.

The player most under threat is Mitchell Johnson. Although Ben Hillfenhaus also looked largely toothless, he at least showed an ability to stick at the task in hand, remaining under three an over. In contrast, Johnson’s 42 wicketless overs cost over 4 runs each. Although the big hearted bowler is willing to fight, there doesn’t seem to be much fight left in him, as evidenced by his duck, dropped dolly and missed run out. He is a man it is difficult to not like but he didn’t help himself by predicting that he would bounce out Strauss and terrifying the rest with his pace and bounce only to wind up as safe to face as a Swiss army general on leave. The selectors (who themselves are under scrutiny following a recent reshuffle) will know that should they select him and he fail, or worse England take a lead in the series then the decision may be one that haunts them. With this in mind I, like most expect him to miss out in favour Doug Bollinger who has performed with a level of consistency that Johnson has found almost impossible to find over the last year.

The quick turnaround to Adelaide certainly favours England. As the side with the momentum going into the series they have the momentum thus far within it, but if the first Test taught us only one thing it is that the next match, day, delivery will be an arm wrestle, and these two evenly matched will have to fight tooth and nail to secure any victory. Both sides are capable of getting into winning positions. Both have players capable of producing wonderful individual performances. But both sets of players would trade the centuries, the wickets and the records for a 1-0 lead and neither side showed in Brisbane much evidence of having the tools to dominate the only scoreboard that counts. All that the first Test means now is nothing, and rest assured that both captains and coaches will be reminding their charges of that every day before the first ball is bowled in Adelaide.

Doubt and Inexperience Leaves the Door Ajar for England

Unless you have been around for a goodly time longer than I have there are certain things one has come to expect from our little island when it comes to international sport. Every four years the footballers will talk a much better game than they produce, a plucky Brit will reach the semi finals of Wimbledon and then implode, and under no circumstances will an Ashes tour Down Under result in anything other than the handing over of the famous urn to the old enemy.

However, after contrasting summer successes the general thinking is that England not only have a good chance of winning the Test series, they are favourites over Australia in all three formats off the back of their recent victory in the T20 World Cup.

The Australian media have already set about promoting their team as underdogs in order to transfer pressure from Ponting’s team to Strauss’s men, but sifting through the meaningless mutterings you can find an occasional stat or quote which explains exactly why Australia are so concerned.

The stand out fact is that the current Australia squad comprises of individuals who simply do not know how to beat England. With the exception of the captain, all have lost more than they have won, and many have tasted nothing but defeat. Contrast this with the last tour four years ago, when a team of veterans, fresh from the gut wrenching loss in that great 2005 series utilised that pain and their experience to dish out a humiliating 5-0 drubbing. Ponting can no longer turn to players who know about the pressure, who have time and again outfoxed the same opponents and it is the experience of Warne, Hayden, Glichrist and McGrath he will miss this year as much as the talent.

In addition to having weaker weapons at his disposal, Ponting is also going through a crisis unlike any that he has endured since being given the captaincy. Having led Australia to three consecutive losses, the captain has also struggled with the bat and is now facing a (much overhyped but none-the-less hurtful) media witch hunt about his captaincy, after an outburst by former team mate Warne on Twitter over his field placings for spinner Nathan Hauritz. He has admitted that failure in this series would almost certainly end his reign as skipper.

And ultimately this is the real difference between now and the last Ashes tour. Australia are, for the first time in a long time contemplating failure. In the glory days it just wasn’t a word they used, not even a thought they entertained, yet before a ball has been bowled it is being talked of and by the captain no less.

This doesn’t mean for one instance that the series will be an easy one for England. This will be attritional, energy sapping and mentally exhausting cricket of the finest quality and Ponting will squeeze every drop of sweat from his players before they concede a single match. What it does show is that England have a chance, and it isn’t just media hype, it isn’t mere hyperbole, all of Australia knows it. Their current situation brings to mind a quote from the BBC’s Phil McNulty about Fabio Capello’s side; “they need to come to terms with the fact that they are no longer at the top table of world competition [...] and they won’t be there for a long time either.” It is an ugly truth for a team that not only sat at the top table, but had the head of it for so long.

In years past, any mental pressure would get the best from one of those great Australian players of the past decade. Playing mind games with them was something you did at your own peril. This tour is the first in decades where there is some mental fragility for England to put pressure on. In 2006/07 they came up against a wounded animal, eager to reset the status quo. This time, England face something more akin to a puppy; still very talented, still boisterous, still eager for victory, but without the experience or knowledge of how to achieve it’s goal. With the teams almost impossible to separate on paper, the key to the series will be whether Ponting’s inexperienced team are hindered by all this knowledge, or inspired to stunning individual and team performances as previous colleagues would have been.

England’s Key: Part 2 The Bowlers

Most articles with a part 1 have a part 2 and in this piece we look at the England bowling attack, and attack that the England selectors have to believe has the ability to take 100 Australian wickets over the course of the next five Test matches.

It is often said that in professional sport there is nowhere to hide, a problem exacerbated for the individual once the adrenalin of an international call up has worn off. Any weakness or fragility will be seized on more ruthlessly by opposition, fans, managers and selectors.

Over the next few months, nowhere will this adage be more prevalent than for the England bowling unit. In a quest to find balance since the departure of Andrew Flintoff, the England selectors have stuck with a four man attack. Unable to call on a stellar top six to secure regular high scores, and without a natural all rounder to pivot the team around, England have compromised, selecting 6 all out batsmen, with a Prior behind the stumps and a four man bowling unit.

While this may give the side a balanced appearance on paper, it clearly limits the choices for the captain, most crucially when someone is below par. In a five man attack there is always the option of blackballing an individual who the opposition have taken too, but with only 3 other frontline options and in temperatures that will sore above 30 degrees this is no longer an option.

As a result, England will need the four they select at the very top of their game, and in Jimmy Anderson, Stuart Broad, Steve Finn and Graeme Swann they believe that they have a unit who can get the wickets they need to secure a rare series victory on Australian turf. Three have tasted success against Australia before but which of the four is the most important to ensuring the fate of the urn this time around?

Of the three seamers, Anderson is the most likely to devastate a top order should the conditions be to his liking. If he can find swing with the Kookaburra ball and not be afraid to maintain a full length in search of reverse he is someone any batsman in the world would do well to fear. Strauss and himself also have a good understanding of when to attack and when to defend, so the field settings should be supportive to his style and the conditions. Arguably the big question that still hangs over him is how he performs when he isn’t taking wickets and the ball isn’t swinging.

Anderson will share the new ball with Broad, and the compliment each other well. Broad is also the seamer most likely to produce something from nothing, a fact which Australia will remember all too well from the Oval decider last year when he took 5 for 37 in an afternoon to essentially gift his side victory. Once again, it is mental toughness that will be called into question. Broad’s career has been dogged by a number of petulant incidents involving umpires and players alike, and the Australian fans, media and players will look to take him on. That said, I expect him to have a fine series, and he has the advantage of feeding confidence with the ball with strong performances with the bat.

Graeme Swann is the man most expect the Ashes to hinge on. The likable Nottinghamshire player’s rise has been astronomic, and pleasingly for England has coincided with a spectacular dip in form for opposition rival Nathan Hauritz. Should the ball spin Swann is more than capable of taking advantage of it, as shown in his four wicket haul in the second warm up game. His wickets and knowledge, as well as his indomitable spirit will be vital for team mates and results alike. He needs support from his captain, his fielders and from his other bowlers creating pressure at the other end. The idea of bowling n pairs is not one that England have always employed well but if Australia aren’t let off the hook at the other end Swann can cause them real problems.

That said, even though I expect Swann to be comfortably the leading wicket taker for England this series, I do not believe he holds the key to England’s triumph over the course of five matches. I believe that man is Steve Finn.

Although he is an Ashes rookie there has been much hype around young Finn. Good performances against Pakistan and Bangladesh cemented his place on the tour, and he was shielded from the Aussies in the following ODI series. His height and pace give him sharp bounce and the consistency he has for a man of such relative inexperience is nothing short of spectacular. His metronomic action and his ability to place six balls in a row on line and length have earned favorable comparisons with another man who enjoyed more than a modicum of success in this fixture; Glenn McGrath. However, for all his attributes I do not think he will roll the Aussies over on a regular basis on this baptism of fire tour.

Why then do I believe he holds the key? Precisely for the reason outlined at the start of this article; there is nowhere to hide. Should he crumble on that first morning at the Gabba, or should Strauss at any moment find himself unable to throw the rookie the ball the workload on the frontline bowlers increases by a third. While they may be able to scrape through a single Test match like that, the added stress and strain would surely effect their performance later in the series as exhaustion builds up.

This is why Finn is so important. I don’t expect him to match Swann for wickets, Broad for fire or Anderson for mercurial talent. However, the other three need to know that they are part of a four man attack, all with their separate jobs to do. Swann’s is to average between 3 and 4 wickets per innings, something he is more than capable of if he doesn’t have to try and do it all on his own. Finn’s job can be boiled down to a much simpler level. He has to do enough to stay in the team, simply by being economical and chipping in with a couple of wickets here and there. If he maintains his place until the the last ball is bowled at the SCG in January I believe England have a fantastic chance of securing victory. If he can’t, I am not certain there I enough depth in this bowling unit to avoid giving Australia at best a head start in the series, at worst the urn.

England’s Key: Part 1 The Batsmen

Any major sporting event is the perfect excuse for any writer to self-indulge and offer up their editor the perfect excuse for not coming up with two separate ideas for a couple of articles; the two parter. Here at the Comment Bureau we are no different and over the next two articles I’ll be looking at the key performers for England, the men on whom the Ashes will be secured or lost. In Part 1, I’ll be looking at the batsmen.

Without a single batsman in the top twenty of the ICC rankings you would have thought the Aussies had little to fear from the England top six. However, no matter how weak one’s perception of the opposition batting unit is, there is always a lynchpin whom you feel is both the physical and mental key to dominating your opponent. Get under their skin, get them out cheaply and the rest will suffer for it, far more so than the dismissal of any other team mate. Think Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting; the players with the ability to set the tone not only of their own innings, but of the side’s.

Trying to find this individual in an England batting lineup which is as inconsistent as it is talented is a more difficult proposition. All of the top six have the potential to score hundreds but Prior often fails to push on towards three figures (3 centuries to 15 fifties), Cooke currently finds himself in the worst form of his career and Collingwood and Bell have both repeatedly been in the last chance saloon. Indeed were it not for Collingwood’s mental determination to pull an innings out the bag he may well have joined Bell as something of an Hokey-Cokey cricketer; as much out of the team as he is in it.

Despite Trott having the top ranking, in truth there are only two players in the current lineup with any real claim to this position; captain and predecessor. Ashes winner Michael Vaughan believes that it is the level headed Strauss (England’s outstanding performer for the last two calender years) who will fulfill the role in this series. Vaughan said earlier this week that if Strauss could average around fifty he will lead his side on the first victorious tour of Australia in twenty years, while if he fell closer to the 25 mark Ponting would reclaim the urn.

Despite his undoubted ability to lead from the front, and the validity of Vaughan’s claims, I would suggest that he is ill suited for the role. Strauss is a captain and batsman who commands a huge amount of respect from fellow and opposition players, but there is only one man in the England team that the Aussies truly fear. Think of the man who repeatedly sent Warne into the stands in 2005, the man who had the audacity the switch hit Murali and the man who can’t stay off the back pages even when he can’t buy a run.

The last two years have been a tough time for Kevin Pietersen. After coming back injured from the IPL he was sidelined for the majority of the last Ashes campaign before enjoying a stunning ICC World T20 and being rightly crowned the Player of the Tournament. Despite those performances in the Caribbean the last six months have seen him dropped from the ODI side, have a public fallout with his county club and struggle against weaker bowling units in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

With no Test century since March this year Pietersen’s mental state has repeatedly been called into question.As with Ian Bell there has never been any doubt of the man’s ability, but both have mental weaknesses that have consistently been their undoing. For Bell it has been a perceived lack of maturity and grit in the middle, but for Pietersen it has been a far less forgivable arrogance. Some of his dismissals, often at key times when he could have set a platform for his team have had the air of man who was more concerned with imposing himself at all costs than one who would do anything to cement his team in a strong position. Imagine what a cricketer we would have if one could combine Pietersen’s flair and talent with Collingwood’s mental strength.

Fortunately for England, Pietersen’s preparation for the 2009/10 Ashes could not have been more meticulous. Although a return to South Africa yielded little in terms of runs, it showed a determination to get himself ready mentally that has been lacking in recent times. His half century in the opening tour warm up game provided further indication that although he is still far from his best, the trend is at least an upwards one. Make no mistake, this focus has not gone un-noticed in Australia, with former Somerset captain Peter Roebuck writing in the Sydney Morning Herald that his preparation will ensure that KP finds his form on this tour. In an online poll 71% of Australians agreed.

If he can get back to something approaching his best then there is no doubt that England’s chances greatly improve, however there is something to what both Roebuck and Vaughan say. In a line up packed with inconsistency, Strauss and Pietersen are the two stand out men with the capability of making high contributions, regularly and at the key moments in the series. As a result of this I would have to disagree with Vaughan. It is not about whether Strauss averages fifty that will determine whether England will be victorious. To my mind, if Strauss and Pietersen average between 90 and 100 between them something else will have to go spectacularly wrong for the Ashes not to be in English hands after the five Tests. If you are desperate for the key metaphor to be extended just think of this as being a multi-lock door, because I believe that without both hitting some form England will fall short.

Whispers From Australia

As a race the Australians don't get "rattled". They pride themselves on the fact that their greatest character trait is embodied by the emu and kangaroo emblazoned on their coat of arms; both animals incapable of taking a backwards step. Australians will tell you that it is this drive which has seen a country with almost 20 million less inhabitants than England become one of the most feared sporting competitors in the world.

It is Australia who spearheaded the changes we now take for granted in the Test arena. Eager for results and success Steve Waugh pushed his batsmen to score at more than 4 an over, preferring to lose aggressively than draw meekly. Even before that they had been at the forefront of changes in the field. My father tells me he once saw the West Indies bowl 6 overs in an hour and Lords', but the Australians stormed through their overs.

Their eagerness changed the face of cricket, with Richie Benaud whooping and hollering like a madman upon taking a wicket, and bringing mind games and sledging into what had previously been a very stoic and gentile affair.

Over time, these mindsets brought about a period of dominance that made Australia all but untouchable for over fifteen years. Yet despite this, in the last twelve months something seems to have changed.

In truth, several somethings have changed, with personnel being the most noticeable. It is difficult to take the likes of Warne, Langer, Hayden and McGrath out of a side and replace them instantly, but with them went that air of invicibility and since then there has been a sense that although they are till a class outfit, they are far from untouchable.

The case in point, rather pleasingly is England who have enjoyed a wonderful 12 months against the old enemy, thwarting them in the Ashes, T20 World Cup and until the recent defeat went on an 8 match ODI unbeaten run. Over a pint in the local cricket club I put the case to three Brisbane residents and cricket lovers that come November, England may well be seen as favourites for an Ashes series victory in Australia.

"That's not going to happen," said Merv Bennett as the other two nodded in absolute agreement. "The gap has closed and England have finally figured out how to play the shorter stuff, but an Ashes Test series on Australian soil is a different story."

"Especially when you don't seem to have a plan if Graeme Swann doesn't bowl out whoever you are against," asserted his brother Ted.

I had been prepared for this. If everyone in England is muttering about a lack of firepower in the bowling department you can bet that the Aussies are fully aware and my plan had been to play the Steve Finn card at this point, but I was somewhat beaten to the punch.

"What about the young lad Finn?" inquired an up until this point silent Jordan Bews. "That boy shows some promise. He'll be a fine bowler without a shadow of a doubt. Maybe not this tour but come four years time and we'll have a real cause for worry." He then looked at me almost accusingly and added, "don't you ruin him."

The conversation meandered along for a while, the conclusion being that Australia would have enough to regain the Ashes this year, but this part of the conversation stuck with me for a variety of reasons.

Finn is an interesting young man with great potential, and it is to be hoped that he has a great England future ahead of him. However, at just 21 he needs to be managed well and will need to well looked after as Bews rightly pointed out. More interesting however was how the Aussies responded to him. This article began with an analysis of the traits which had made them so successful; their drive, their hunger, their passion. But there are other traits which go unsung as my conversation revealed. Not only a great knowledge but a love of the game. Whilst their passion on the pitch is there for all to see, but there are plenty of Australians out there who are enjoying the battles with England all the more now for their more even and competitive edge.

They are having to rely more on these latter traits now as the team boasts less talent, but make no mistake they have as much brain as they do heart and England's current run of success will be examined and learnt from in detail. This Ashes series may not have the bluster and swagger of 2005, but it will be the thinking man's game at it's finest.

Seeds don't always Flower

The ICC doesn't have the best track record for hosting events in the West Indies. In 2007 the World Cup was robbed of the Caribbean flavour that it demanded by a mixture of bureaucratic blunders turning away the locals, a farcical final in near pitch black conditions and the untimely death of Pakistan head coach Bob Woolmer. Fortunately, the sport's carnival format hasn't been denied the carnival atmosphere, and the only place the ICC have been made to look foolish this time around is in the seeding.

In their defence it is difficult to find fault with the decisions they made. With the sub-continent expected to dominate once more, England and Australia weren't seeded for the World T20. England's T20 record only bests minnows Bangladesh, while Australia were famously dumped out of the competition in the group stages the last time the event was held. Yet it is these two sides who are comfortably dispatching every opposition put in front of them. Only Duckworth Lewis has taken points off England while Australia remain undefeated with just one game remaining in the Super Eights.

For both teams, part of their somewhat shocking success is the nature of T20 itself. Unlike Test or even ODI, the demand isn't for extended periods of dominance, merely correctly timed assertions of force. The rewards and penalties for the outcome of each ball in the shortest format of the game are far more keenly felt, meaning that any underdog, no matter how little fancied can have that over of brilliance or fortune which bring home the prized scalp.

The tournament also places a high value on momentum. The high turnover of games means that the winning habit and feel good factor are easier to maintain than on a long tour. If evidence is needed think only how Pakistan won the trophy last time out after a horror start.

There is also another factor that no other team in the competition has, spurring on these players to perform. With both sides looking unsettled at Test level, and England especially showing consistent inconsistency at ODI level, there are spots up for grabs. Four months ago Eoin Morgan said in an interview that everything he did from that point to the announcement of the touring party was designed to get him on that plane in some capacity, and there is no doubt that many others will be thinking the same.

For some like Kevin Pieterson, places are assured, but what of the Morgans, the Steve Smiths and the Tim Bresnans? All will be eyeing up weakness in their own team's, desperate to make a spot undeniably theirs. Playing any role in a World T20 victory, although far from guaranteeing their place would certainly give them some pedigree to bargain with, and perhaps this is why both sides have produced such strong team performances over the last few days. While sides like India and South Africa have floundered under the expectations of trying to win the tournament, their English and Australian counterparts have had one eye on simply using this event as a stepping stone. Perhaps proof if ever it was required that there is still life in the old dog of Test cricket yet.

With all this and their current form in mind, it is difficult to predict anything other than an Ashes appetiser of a final; an early mind game for the players to sweat through and the fans to enjoy. It will give little more than bragging rights, but there isn't a sports fan alive who doesn't enjoy bragging....

Equally, trying to genuinely predict T20 matches is like trying to pick the seeds for a T20 tournament; arduous, long winded, and despite logically processing all the evidence almost certainly doomed to failure. Put your money on a Pakistan v Sri Lanka final.

2010 Ashes Predictions (Part 2)

In part 2 of this article, I’ll be turning my attention to the Australians, who despite their recent successes over a Pakistan team which exists in perpetual turmoil have a few selection headaches of their own in the bowling department and are looking for a fresh spearhead since the retirement of Brett Lee.

Shane Watson: Although Phil Hughes announced himself with a bang in South Africa before the Ashes last year, since replacing him Watson has barely put a foot wrong. In many ways he is a natural replacement for Hayden; a bully of an opener, who enjoys hitting straight past the bowler and pulling off the front foot. A trademark of that decade of Aussie dominance was that they regularly scored at over 4 an over and Watson gives them impetus at the start as well as an added option with the ball, although injury has made him less able to contribute in this area.

Simon Katich: After a torrid 2005 in the middle order he remodeled himself as an opener and has been a lynchpin in the Australian side since his return. His recent gritty innings have highlighted his mental toughness and he is a batsman who rarely gifts his wicket away. He is the perfect foil to his partner, happy to play Langer to Watson’s Hayden and England must look to dismiss him early because once settled he will dig in for the long haul.

Ricky Ponting: If anything the retirement of so many around him seems to have made him hungrier. After losing another series in England he will be looking for his side come out with all the fight they showed in 2006/7 and he will be at the heart of everything. Still impressive with the bat and electric in the field, he is one of those players who never seems to drift in a game. Questions still remain over his captaincy; years of being able to throw the ball to McGrath and Warne mean that he isn’t as tactically astute as other captains with similar experience may be, but make no mistake, he will be fired up and dangerous. England will be hoping the ball swings early in his innings as he remains prone to falling over and being trapped LBW.

Michael Clarke: Recent trouble in his personal life hasn’t distracted him, and he was named man of the match in the first Test against New Zealand after a splendid century. Many wouldn’t have played in his circumstances, let alone performed to that level and the fact that he did tells you everything you need to know about this world class performer. He was a thorn in England’s side last year and nobody would be shocked if he was again.

Michael Hussey: Mr Cricket completes the experienced 3, 4, 5 that England must dismiss cheaply if they are to win Test matches, and he mirrors his fellow no.5 Paul Collingwood for mental steel. He loves to beat England and he has regained his form after a shakey start to the 2009 Ashes. He loves a personal battle as well as a team one, and having struggled against Swann in England will be looking to redress the balance in front of fans who adore his passion for the sport.

Marcus North: With so many stellar names ahead of him, North is almost a forgotten man overseas, but in Australia they recognise his value. He not only boasts a fine average with the bat, but along with Michael Clarke provides more than adequate backup spin should Hauritz be unselected or ineffective and he is a stunning gully fielder.

Brad Haddin: When Adam Gilchrist retired, many expected Australia to chop and change their wicket keepers, but Haddin had waited so long he clearly didn’t want to miss the opportunity and has retained the position as long as he has been fit. With his lightening hands and aggressive batting it is easy to see why, and the only question mark is over his fingers. He has broken 3 in the last year, which is a shock given how cleanly he takes the ball.

Mitchell Johnson: The smiling assassin struggled initially in England, but was still at the top end of the wicket taking statistics come the end of the series. His slinging action will always be somewhat scattergun, but he is capable of producing wicket taking deliveries in the middle of woeful spells, and his slower ball is a constant danger. In addition, if England’s bowlers have had to toil agains the top order and allow themselves mental or physical lapses, then his aggressive batting can quickly alter the complexion of a game.

Nathan Hauritz: Hauritz has taken his time adapting to international cricket, but seems now to understand his role with both bat and ball and weighed in heavily with both against Pakistan. There is a chance that his duel with Kevin Pieterson, whose recent troubles with left-arm spinners has been well documented could be the pick of the series, with both fancying their chances against the other.

Ben Hilfenhaus: Hilfenhaus was a revelation in the 2009 Ashes. Despite his size and obvious power and strength, it was his precision and accuracy that ensured his possession of the new ball when Mitchell Johnson’s radar went haywire. He took 4 for 16 on his return for Tasmania but aggravated a knee injury which he has been battling with. If fit, his consistency of line and length make him the nearest replacement Australia have to Glenn McGrath; not only a wicket taker in his own right, but a dream for the bowler at the other end in virtue of how much pressure he applies with economical figures.

Doug Bollinger: As with England, this spot is something of a head-scratcher for the Australian selectors. Since Brett Lee’s sad retirement through injury they need a new spearhead. Five years ago that looked like being Shaun Tait, but mental frailties put his career on hold, and although he is back in the one day lineup it is unlikely he would be risked in a Test series where so much is at stake. Although Peter Siddle can still be called upon, Bollinger has impressed in a variety of conditions since being called up in January 2009. He took his first ODI five wicket haul in tough conditions on the tour of India, and excelled in all formats against both Pakistan and in the recent series against New Zealand. Although they already have a prominent left armer in Johnson, Bollinger is a different proposition, more inclined to kiss the turf than go for the jugular. From an English point of view, Graeme Swann will be hoping that he does play, with the additional rough created by two left armers sure to aid him against right handed batsman.

It seems fair to say that for both selection committees it is the bowling department that causes the greatest worry. That said I would rather be in the Australian camp. They can be relatively safe in the knowledge that any combination of Johnson, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus, Siddle and Watson has the ability to cause England problems, and with Tait and Clint McKay on the sidelines they boast a strength in depth of talent and experience in this department that England can only currently dream of. Australia’s ability to replace first choice seam in cases of injury or form loss may well play a vital role in the outcome of the series.

With all this in mind I expect Australia to win the series 3-1. Watch this space.

2010 Ashes Predictions (Part 1)

With the Ashes now just over 6 months away, writers around the world are dipping their toes into the unruly world of Ashes starting line ups, praying that a star player remain in form and injury free, and that no upstart wildcard ruins their predictions. To act as a bridge into a greater Australian focus for this blog, in this first of a 2 part article I'll be examining England's likely lineup.

Andrew Strauss: Has flourished with the bat since being given the added responsibility of captaincy and will be well rested after not touring Bangladesh and not being involved in England's short term plans. If anything a lack of cricket may be a concern compared to others but expect him to lead from the front in Australia.

Alistair Cook: Has rediscovered form with good performances in South Africa and now as captain in Bangladesh. Shows a startling amount of maturity for one so young and this may be the year that makes him. With so much experience already behind him including a miserable tour over here 4 years ago, England will be hoping that he and Strauss can regularly produce 3 figure opening partnerships against the Aussies.

Jonathan Trott: Wouldn't make the cut if England were to go with a 5 bowlers but I expect them to try and scrape through with only 4 and 7 frontline batters. After exploding into international cricket with a century in the final Ashes Test, has failed to impress with a mixture of starts and odd dismissals which have failed to distract from his poor fielding, including dropping a sitter in the last Test. However, England will persevere with him for several reasons, not least the lack of an obvious alternative at the moment. Will be hoping the openers can take the pressure off him.

Kevin Pieterson: Rediscovered some form with the bat in Bangladesh but needs both regular cricket and to stay fit in order to pose the same threat to Australia as he did in 2005. Along with Strauss and Collingwood he will still be seen as a vital wicket, but will be looking to make match winning contributions more frequently. Much of England's chances rest on his shoulders.

Paul Collingwood: The grafter is one of the first names on the team sheet, boasting as he does the mental grit which many of his peers are criticised for lacking. One of the few players to emerge from the last tour with any credit and can be relied on to perform under pressure. Gives his captain an option with the ball which will be needed more than ever if England are to persist with 4 front line bowlers.

Ian Bell: Has appeared to be a changed man since his return to the England lineup in South Africa. Clearly enjoys batting at 6 far more than he did at 3 and appears to have used his time on the sidelines to address mental weaknesses. The criticism of being unable to bat under pressure seems to be increasingly null and void, with good performances as England teetered in South Africa and in Bangladesh. If he can maintain his current form he could contribute to the large totals England will need with only 4 frontline bowlers.

Matt Prior: Although he has come under increasing pressure from Craig Kieswetter in the shorter forms of the game, I expect him to hold on to gloves for at least another year. He has undoubtedly improved behind the stumps since coming into the England setup, but will be disappointed with his glovework in Bangladesh and will no doubt be aware that it will be this area of his game that will be under most scrutiny in the upcoming months as his batting remains easily strong enough for a Test no.7, and he has strong batting to follow him in Broad and Swann.

Stuart Broad: Although aspects of his temperament continue to frustrate, Broad shows flickers of brilliance and can produce the sort of match winning spells that England will need if they are to win matches with only 4 bowlers. His batting is hit or miss, but the combination of him and Swann at 8 and 9 mean England have a very short tail. For a bit man he is a gifted fielder and his safe hands in the deep are vital for all the bowlers.

Graeme Swann: England's star man of the last 18 months, Swann's mastery of finger spin make him a threat on even the most docile of surfaces. Despite the talents of Anderson and Broad, for most he is the key bowler for England, and without him claiming 7 or more wickets in a Test it is difficult to see how England possess the firepower to take the 20 required to win a Test match in Australia.

James Anderson: Without Flintoff he is the spearhead of the attack and must make inroads with the new ball. Will want to be more effective when the ball isn't swinging and will flourish on some wickets here and struggle on others unless he develops something other than swing. That said, when the conditions are right he is nigh on unplayable and if he can get it right on the those pitches conducive to aerial movement then he may be able to give England a position in the series that they can hold on to.

Liam Plunkett: Every selection has a wildcard and this is mine. Onions is struggling with a back injury and, although it hardly seems fair that he should be omitted because of it, he seems to be an unlucky bowler at international level. While Swann has the knack of taking a wicket in his first over, Onions seems to have the knack of bowling great deliveries that don't take wickets. Bresnan is a workhorse but will not win Test matches with the ball and Sidebottom is also a fitness worry, and you can't afford a question mark over fitness when the captain already has so few people to throw the ball too. As a result, Plunkett gets my nod. He is a proven performer who has improved beyond measure since he last played for England. He adds depth to both the batting and fielding lineups. The only thing that counts against him is the strength in depth at Durham, who boast such seam bowling riches that nobody up there is guaranteed to start.

So there you have it. In my mind certainly 2, and possibly 3 are up for debate. Trott needs to return to no.3 and impress there and the fourth bowler is there to be claimed. The other question mark hangs over Prior, who will be hoping that his glove work returns to the levels shown in South Africa.

Sachin Sets The Bar

Wednesday's ODI between India and South Africa was special for many reasons. The cameo from Dhoni, the swashbuckling from Karthik or even the stunning century from AB de Villiers which, on any other day would have been a worthy talking point. India dismissed a strong South African side by posting a massive total and bowling them out, but in the years to come nobody will talk about the humbling result, they will say "I saw the Little Master make history".

Trying to say something new about Sachin Tendulkar is a thankless task. In India he can't even go out of his house without wearing a disguise for fear of being mobbed. He has been studied, almost down to atomic level as his fans and admirers seek new ways of describing a man whose achievements and conduct under extreme public pressure defy description. One almost wonders if he keeps trying to break new ground even after 20 years in the game, simply to give people something new to write about.

Wednesday's innings made him the first batsman to score a double century in limited overs internationals, and the quality of the innings from the off was such that as he reached his century that commentators immediately speculated that they might see him "double up". There are precious few batsmen in the world who could attract such speculation, but he not only attracts it, it lives up to it and thrives on it. His knock was a masterclass in precision, pacing an innings and executing every shot, either textbook or improvised. Put simply, you will not see a better innings, and there is no finer player or man in the cricket world who could reach this landmark.

On a personal note, this innings comes at a perfect time for me; a natural place to start a departure from England, both physically and in terms of cricket writing, as I fly out to Australia on Monday morning. I don't want to write on the progress of Strauss's team in the build up to the Ashes without seeing them play, so I am going to turn my attention to the Australian camp, providing up to date information on their build up as I travel around the country.

More Drama Reignites Selection Question

Graeme Onions was called on once more as last session drama in Cape Town reduced England from a position of security to 9 down. The Durham seamer faced 11 deliveries and intense scrutiny from Morne Morkel to secure the draw for his country and ensure that Andrew Strauss's men will not leave South Africa as losers of either the ODI or Test series.

In many ways it is a difficult match to write on, as there is a feeling it has all been done (and said) before. This is the third time in just eight Test matches that England have salvaged a draw from near certain defeat on the last day; asking their strong lower order to see them over the line. With this in mind I am going to use this blog to put to bed the issue which has dominated the first three blogs on this Test series. I promise that this is the last time I give it such prominence, and equally assure that this will be a broader discussion than the usual "we need five bowlers" format.

However, that is the place we will start, and a quick examination of the recent evidence will offer some support. Of the three matches where England have given their captain only four strike bowlers to play with, the opposition has been able to amass a total that allows a declaration with nearly a day and a half left to play. This means that the best England have been able to hope for going into the last day of two matches has been to draw, and this is no longer good enough because, Test match cricket is a far more even playing field than it was ten years ago.

In the days of Atherton and Hussain, the three Lions couldn't eat at the top table and as a result, two draws against a side with the talent of this South African team would be considered a major success. But England's rise has coincided with a slight decline in two of it's major rivals, largely down to the retirement of two pairs of all time great bowlers. Alan Donald and Shaun Pollock, Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne were four players who were world class whoever they were against, but often saved their very best for England. Obviously they were not alone, but they tormented the England sides at the end of the last century and the start of this one and they have proved difficult to replace.

This may seem like an odd thing to say, particularly given the South Africans boast the number one rated bowler in the world in Dale Steyn. But this is a discussion for England, and unlike his predecessors he has rarely shown us his best. Add to this the fact that England now has a much stronger all round line up than they did in those bleak days and, as shown by the recent successes over the Australians (who did boast Warne and McGrath in '05) at home and in South Africa and nobody would suggest that England haven't got the talent to challenge the top sides in the world.

So why then are we letting an average South African side dominate us. The ICC may say they are they were the top side in the world going into this series, but their top 6 has two players in Duminy and Prince who have looked like walking wickets, a spinner who can't turn it and a seam attack which hasn't looked fully fit until England's second innings in this Test. In layman's terms, they have been there for the taking...but they are not only still in the series, they have been 2 balls away from leading it.

From England's point of view, the lineup they have been selecting is actually tuned to save a draw rather than force a win. By hopefully trying to extend the time they can bat for they are limiting the number of wicket takers at their disposal, and everyone knows you need wickets more than you need runs to win a Test Match.

The theory is of course sound, but there is a practical problem that lies in a batting lineup which is failing to reach its potential. Just as in the summer, there aren't enough match winning 3 figure innings out there. England have mustered two this series, which came in the same innings and sure enough they won the Test match. South Africa have spread their four centuries over the four innings of the first and third Test matches, both games they would have expected to win going into the last day.

As a result, England find themselves trapped in an unwelcome situation this winter. They can either increase the likelihood of victory but make these match saving performances less likely, or hope to make losing as unlikely as possible and try and pick up a win when the opposition have an off day as in the second test.

Make no mistake, I expect the current selection format to be the one England stick with over the tour to Bangladesh, but I feel it is one that belongs int he days when England didn't believe they were real contenders. If winning the success of 2005 and the reclaiming of the Ashes this summer don't make them think of themselves (and select like) as a side that can defeat the best in the world then I don't know what will.

England sealed an emphatic innings and 98 run victory over a surprisingly timid South Africa in Durban. The nature of the win has, for many, answered the questions I have raised over the course of this tour about the balance of a four man bowling unit, but in this slightly Jekyll and Hyde blog the problem will be re-examined in light of the events of the last week.

However, to avoid coming across all Bob Willis it is more than a little important that the win itself is at least touched upon, and what a win it was. Andrew Strauss said it was as good a victory away from home as he could recall and who can argue with him. Victories by an innings are rare against the major cricket playing nations, but to defeat the top ranked Test nation by such a margin in their own back yard is something worth heralding.

It was a victory to which everyone can lay claim. Trott and Onions may not have got the runs or taken the wickets they wanted but Trott withstood scrutiny in fading light on the second evening when losing another wicket would have dented any chance of such a sizable total, and Onions new ball bowling provided just the challenging control that the Kookaburra ball needs before the shine quickly disappears.

On another day this win could have belonged to either of them, but instead it was four others who soaked up the humidity down by the sea and returned performances of pure brilliance.

Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann produced one of those memorable sessions of international cricket on the 4th evening which is usually reserved for the Ashes to reduce South Africa to 50 for 6. For Swann, his 9 wicket haul for the match was a fitting end to a stunning renaissance year, almost a decade on from his debut. He is a reminder to all finger spinners that you don't need to dislocate your wrists or have a doosrah in your armoury to be successful, because simple mastery of your art will still confound batsmen at the highest level.

Broad again underlined his potential, taking three Proteas wickets for a single run at one point in his spell. It is easy to forget when he produces spells like this that he is only 23, and although fans may be desperate for him to turn in performances of this calibre every innings he is still learning his craft. That said, the ability is clearly there and the more he concentrates on trying to hit the top of off stump the quicker he will develop into a strike bowler to be feared.

With the bat, the two players under most scrutiny delivered characteristically contrasting innings and got the centuries they deserved. Despite averaging over 40 for the calender year, Alistair Cook has struggled to get beyond starts and there have been a few questions raised over whether he can produce match winning innings at the top of the order. His technique has undergone some tweaking and his innings was a lesson in mental restraint as he stubbornly refused to be drawn into the airy wafts outside off stump which have cost him his wicket over the last 18 months. For much of his 118 he was far from fluent, but his gritty performance and partnership with Paul Collingwood set the perfect platform for Ian Bell.

Bell has always been something of an enigma. As exemplified in the First Test he is does not seem to be a man for the crisis, but he has shown time and again that with a suitable foundation he can get England into a winning position. The tentativeness shown when England were struggling in the First Test was replaced by the sort of easy stroke play which has become his calling card. There can be no doubt that somewhere in there is a truly quality Test batsman, which brings us once more to the question of balance.

The first and arguably most important point was raised by Nasser Hussain. Simply put, this is not an issue of whether or not Bell is good enough to play for England. In truth it never has been, Bell has a good average and has shown again over the course of this last match that he is wonderfully gifted young man with many years of top level cricket left in him. That said, he would not have been in my England team before this century, and despite this wonderful innings he would not make the cut for the first Test of 2010.

Test match cricket has one major difference to One Day Internationals, namely the wicket requirement. In ODI's you can lose nine wickets and defeat a side you lost one, as a result of having more runs. In Test matches you can score infinitely more than the opposition but without 20 wickets it is meaningless and the game will meander towards a draw. England managed to do that in this game but I do not for one second that this four man attack will produce the required results on a regular basis for the following reasons.

Firstly, you cannot expect the opposition to be as bereft of fight as the South African's apparently were. Their tentative batting did not befit the top ranked side in the world, and for three quality batsmen to be dismissed attempting to leave the ball in such short time is unforgivable. Add to that Amla's poor dismissal and you have to accept that 4 top batsmen gifted England their wickets. This was less a case of bowlers defeating batsmen than it was a case of batsmen waving the white flag.

A further point would be that the South African bowling attack may have had five obvious prongs in name, but this was at best a three man attack in combination, with Kallis and Steyn only half fit and Ntini all but anonymous. de Whet must have been sat on the sidelines wondering what on earth he had to do on debut to warrant a place in this distinctly average bowling line up. For South Africa to pick Ntini over him for the next match would be at best sentimental ignorance. As a result, England will have to work a lot harder to give their bowlers such scoreboard pressure.

The inference would be that this was not a case of one unbalanced side being defeated by a balanced one, but rather a case of the least unbalanced side triumphing. England still need to win one of the remaining two Tests to be assured of victory and their best chance of victory does not lie in the hope that Graeme Smith's men will be as bad second time around. As a result, cruel though it is I would replace Bell with a bowler rather than gamble that four will be enough.

A nod to recent history would suggest that England have their best chance of winning with a five man attack. Few would suggest that England are a better bowling unit without Andrew Flintoff, and if the selectors didn't feel four was enough with him it seems odd that they suddenly feel that four is enough after his retirement. As the last man in, Bell would be the first man out, but this does not mean international exile. Think how long Hussey, Katich and Watson had to wait to prove their class. England should be thankful to have six batsmen and wicket keeper with such batting quality, but it doesn't mean that playing them all in the same side will bring victories of this magnitude on a regular basis.

Negative England Nearly Pay the Price

Cast your minds back to Cardiff this summer and you will recall a heroic last stand between Jimmy Anderson and Monty Panesar which held the Australians at bay in the crucial first Test. It is a little surprising that at the start of the very next series England found themselves in a near identical situation as Paul Collingwood (able to surpass his efforts in Cardiff) and Graeme Onions denied The Proteas the chance to take an early advantage.

History will also repeat itself in the aftermath, as the euphoria of saving the match will be tempered by a searching examination of what put England in a position where scraping a draw was the best they could hope for.

On this occasion it seems that Ian Bell will pay the price. The selectors preferred Bell to a fifth bowler, hoping to extend the batting line up precisely to avoid the situation that they ultimately found themselves in. Unfortunately for all parties Bell collected only 7 runs in two innings, a return which was made to look worse after England were twice unable to turn the screw in the field. At both 159 for 4 in the first innings and wobbling at 46 for 4 in the second Strauss's team had the opportunity to exert real pressure and possibly put themselves in a winning position. Instead, as South Africa rebuilt around Kallis or Amla Strauss cut a frustrated feeling, casting about for a wicket, even using Jonathon Trott for a couple of overs as England listed aimlessly, awaiting reverse swing or a bit of Swann magic after the new ball had lost his hardness.

Of course their is no guarantee that an extra bowler given England a different result, but it is always true that bowlers have more chance to recover from errors than batsmen. Ian Bell made two and found himself back in the pavilion unbuckling his pads, but a bowler could have sent down two shocking deliveries and maybe made that vital breakthrough with his third. As was shown in the first innings, although neither Swann or Broad is a natural Test number 7 the combination of them at 7 and 8 can be enough to add a hundred or maybe even more. As a result England will almost certainly opt for the five pronged attack in the second Test that they should have used in the first.

The other main point of interest was the referrals system which has had some tweaks since England last came across it a year ago and to my mind it was actually a success. By allowing the umpire's decision to stand in marginal cases their authority and dignity is upheld while glaring errors can be eliminated. It is a great compromise and although Stuart Broad's ugly outburst drew headlines it cannot be forgotten that the correct decision was actually reached. The system will need to be used before a practical decision can be made on how long is too long to appeal but either way, players like Broad will have to learn to hold their tongue because I have a feeling that this system is here to stay and I for one support this progress which still upholds the finest traditions of the game.

Wright the Wrong Choice?

The big question on everyone's lips round the England camp is what the balance of the bottom five places in the batting order will be. The top six has picked itself, with captain Strauss sure to be partnered by Cook with the Englishmen by trade Trott and Pieterson looking to form a solid middle order in the land of their birth. Collingwood will retain the number five position and Matt Prior is more than good enough to bat at number six. After that, Strauss and the selectors have a difficult task.

Balance was the talk of the ODI series, with South Africa struggling to select a lineup that satisfied the needs of both the bowling and batting departments. With Andrew Flintoff now retired, England would love a ready made replacement to slot in at number 7. But Flintoff was a once in a lifetime player; a batsman with of destructive capabilities on his day, and a bowler of frightening ability even when it wasn't.

There is talk that England will try and replace him like for like with Luke Wright, a player who - like Freddie - plies his trade under the label of an all rounder. He too is a powerful right hander and a bowler capable of breaking the 90mph barrier. However, for the moment at least he is not a man capable of winning a Test match with either bat or ball and a quick recap of Freddie's finest hours of late for England explain why Wright should not make his Test match bow next week.

Although we all recall those halcyon days of 2005 when Flintoff emptied bars by swashing his buckle in that greatest of Ashes summers, in truth that was the last time he changed a game for England with the bat. As injuries blighted his career he found it easier lacing up his bowling boots than putting on his pads after extended periods on the sidelines. If you need any more proof then think no further back to Lord's when a devastating spell ended England's hoodoo at the home of cricket against the players in the baggy green.

In that series it was Broad and Swann who provided the lower order runs, so in truth Strauss is arguably only looking for a bowler who can bat, as opposed to a genuine all rounder and this must be the strategy if England are serious about building on their excellent ODI series win. Extending the batting lineup and only playing four front line bowlers would be a step back from the aggressive attitude that served them so well thus far on the tour and a step in the wrong direction.

However many runs you get, in order to win a Test match you must take 20 wickets and England's best chance of doing that is to select a fifth bowler and trust the batsmen to do their job and give them something to bowl at. With this in mind I would expect Stuart Broad to be promoted to number 7. The combination of him and Swann at 7 and 8 is far from a weak one, and although it undoubtedly draw yet more media comparison between him and Freddie on an individual basis, it would be nothing more than the most positive selection for the team.

It is a given that Anderson will take one of the remaining slots now that he has proved his fitness and Ryan Sidebottom has bowled himself into contention in the final warm up game with 5-42. The fact that he may generate rough for Swann on what is not known as a spinner's paradise at Centurion will also count in his favour. This leaves just one space and given his selection for both warm up games and the quick pitch it may be the case that Wright does get the nod. To my mind this seems like a defensive selection and I would have liked to see a fit Onions of Plunkett getting more of a run out on the tour. If England were concerned about the length of the tail then Plunkett is not incapable and both are more complete bowlers than Wright. What is certain is that this will be a real test of England's selection committee as they try and balance a side without the sizeable counterweight of Mr Flintoff.

From Insipid to Inspirational in the Blink of an Eye

England's bowlers produced two highly contrasting displays to take a 2-1 lead in the ODI series against South Africa with one fixture remaining. The Protees were able to take advantage of a poor display from the English attack on Friday, but had no answer to a more controlled and ruthless performance on Sunday.

The game on Friday had many highlights, but the match will be remembered for AB de Villiers stunning century to take his side to a total which England never looked like chasing down, even on a friendly surface. The numbers game told as the English batsmen fell to shots born out of frustration and pressure.

In fairness, South Africa also put in a very disciplined shift with the ball, quickly finding the correct length to bowl on the surface and stubbornly refusing to budge from it. The result was that the English batsmen were unable to profit in the same way that de Villiers et al had done earlier in the day, tucking into a mixture of half volleys and long hops on their way to 354-6.

However, if there was a clear contrast between the two bowling units on Friday, the difference in England's seam attack from that humiliating annihilation to their resurgence on Sunday was the equivalent of night and day. Broad, Bresnan and in particular Anderson gave away nothing, turning the screws with the grim satisfaction of a medieval torturer. Anderson will undoubtedly get the headlines for his superb five wicket haul but Bresnan once more looks as if he is growing into international cricket, and his miserly spell helped to assert the pressure which gave Anderson his victims. Broad's spell on the Sunday will also have been a pleasing sight to Flower and Strauss. After going round the park in Cape Town he looked much less ring rusty and got some good overs under his belt.

The one disappointment for England will have been Luke Wright, who in many ways sums up England's side at the moment. He is a player capable of pulling off the sublime, both in the field as he did to dismiss Peterson and with the ball, but he seems to lack the consistancy that fans and captains alike desire at this level. He was the only player on Sunday who made Friday's mistakes; perhaps spending too much time trying to outwit the batsman with slower balls and yorkers which failed to hit the mark. If this series has shown anything to both sides it is that while variations are useful, there is no replacement for a tight line and finding the length best suited to the wicket.

While England continue to put in mixed performances South Africa seem to have a totally different problem. England's issues stem from a lack of consistancy, but looking at both the team and the squad the balance seems good. As noted in last week's blog, everyone seems to be int he right position and although the personel may change both the bowling and batting units seem to potentially offer all the right qualities in all the right places. In contrast, South Africa seem stumped as to how to balance their side without Jacques Kallis. Just as England struggled when they first lost Flintoff, the Protees seem clueless as to who should play where when the talismanic all rounder is unavailable.

Many South African fans will find the decision to have a player of Herschelle Gibbs' quality carrying the drinks when the batting seems a man light is odd indeed. If he is seen as disruptive for his actions off the field then he shouldn't be around the squad, but if he is then surely he could add some steel and experience to a top order that if pressurised looks light on both. If England bowl as poorly as they did in Cape Town then perhaps it won't be an issue, but if they are able to put on a display of unified discipline as they did on Sunday then Graeme Smith's men may suffer a rare home series defeat.

Collingwood and Trott give England the Iniative

A magnificent unbeaten century from Paul Collingwood helped England defeat South Africa by 7 wickets to take a 1-0 lead in the ODI series. Chasing the Proteas 250 he shared a partnership of 162 with Jonathon Trott to place England within sight of victory before Eoigan Morgan finished the job with a swashbucking 27 from 18 balls.

England had already impressed with the ball, reducing South Africa to 165 for 6 before Peterson and Boucher had marshalled Graeme Smith's men to a competative 250. Collingwood had already caught the eye with a stunning diving catch to dismiss AB de Villiers before sharing a somewhat surprising bowling partnership with Trott. The pitch itself seemed to favour more medium paced bowling and the pair combined to return joint figures of 2 for 45 from 13 overs, capping a wonderful day as captain for Andrew Strauss who saw his bowling changes result in immediate wickets on 4 seperate occasions. To use up so many overs not only ensured that the main seam attack of Anderson (3 for 60), Bresnan (2 for 46), Wright and Mahmoood was ably supported in the middle of the innings, but also made up for the limited use of Rashid, who would have been expected to offer more than the expensive 3 overs he managed.

Bresnan and Wright were particularly impressive, having been dealt with so harshly in the Pro20 matches they were back on their metal, doing the basics well and backed up for the most part by an energetic fielding performance. Andrew Strauss's inability to hold on to 2 very basic chances were the only major blots on a England's copy book as the South African's struggled to take charge with a line up which looked decidedly light on genuine top order ability without the injured Kallis.

While England had relied on the taking the pace off the ball, South Africa didn't have anyone in the same mould as Trott or Collingwood and were unable to take advantage of the slight slowness in the track. Trott impressed at the top of the order with a well paced 87 but it was Collingwood, earning a record 171 ODI caps who guided England home with his fifth one day century.

The match as a whole was a lesson in how vital it is have a balance in your side. England only used one more bowler than the Proteas, but there was a lot more variety in their attack. Anderson and Bresnan offer swing at good pace, while Wright can hit the deck hard and is quicker than he seems. With Collingwood and now Trott bowling tight areas at a tricky medium the seam department is multi-dimensional, especially compared to the South African attack. On another day they could have turned to spin with Rashid or even Pieterson but the key in this shorter format is for the captain to have a variety of options.

In contrast, Graeme Smith will have looked at Steyn, McLaren and Langeveldt and known that even though they bowl at slightly different paces they all rely on swing and skid onto the batsmen. Albie Morkel is not yet the finished article and although van der Merwe continues to improve he does not have the depth of backup bowling that Strauss has, and as a result needs the conditions to favour his frontline attack.
The same could be said of the two batting line ups on display today. Trott's county experience as an opener showed, and throughout the middle order you saw people who knew the position they were in. Pieterson should have been England's no.3 for years, while Collingwood's experience and recent developments as an attacking force make him a natural foil for Morgan and Prior at 5 and 6. Beyond that, Wright and Bresnan are more than strong finishers as they showed against Australia in the Champion's Trophy semi-final and Rashid has several first class centuries to his name. The Proteas clearly struggled to balance their team without Kallis, and as a result nearly the entire line up looked like they were batting one position higher than they their attributes suit and Graeme Smith will be praying that Kallis is fit to bolster and balance both his batting and bowling attacks.

Both sides have time on their side before next Friday's fixture, as England hope that Swann and Broad will be fit with Mahmood and Rashid the likely players to miss out. Strauss can only hope that bringing in these players with so little match practice doesn't disrupt the balance which served them so well today.

South Africa Smash Records En Route to Victory

A masterclass of clean hitting from Graeme Smith and Loots Bosman gave South Africa a colossal 84 run victory in the final Pro20 match at Centurian.

With Collingwood and Swann added to the injury list England brought in Rashid and (ahead of schedule) Kevin Pieterson, offering Alistair Cook the opportunity to captain his country for the first time. As a result England took to the field with only 2 players boasting 10 or more international Pro20 caps and the inexperience told under the pressure of the Proteas attack. England looked a little frenetic and void of ideas in the face of such clean hitting and looked devoid of ideas once the initial game plan was swiftly undone.

That said, there are few sides that would not look a little fraught under the pressure applied by Bosman and his captain in a record stand of 170. The two hit fifteen maximums between them, equalling the previous record for a Pro20 inside 16 overs before Albie Morkel and de Villiers added one apiece as South Africa posted an intimidating 241 for 6.

Although the class of the batting in undeniable, England will have been frustrated by their inability to apply the lessons learnt from the first Pro20, serving up a mixture of full tosses, half volleys and long hops. The bowling, perhaps understandably had an air of desperation, as England seemed more concerned about finding a magic delivery than bowling disciplined length and (in particular) line. With the exception of Jimmy Anderson they all erred, and many will need to improve their basic disciplines if they wish to oust Onions, Broad, or Swann once they return from injury.

England's response looked somewhat lacklustre as they looked to surpass such a monumental total, but although the decision to open with the more circumspect Denly and Cook in favour of Luke Wright seemed to deny the task facing them 154 is actually an above par score for that ground. Jonathon Trott looked assured once more as he amassed an impressive half century, while Kevin Pieterson looked in good touch and (more importantly) fit. With Morgan and Prior to back them up and Collingwood and Strauss to slot in England's batting order has a sense of both solidity and flair.

Whilst the only selection headache in the batting lineup is whether to open with Denly or Cook, the bowling department may select itself for a different reason. With Swann joining Broad on the sidelines and Anderson not 100% fit, the selectors face a difficult task, as the majority of the bowling attack failed to cover itself in glory in either Pro20 outings.

As noted in the previous articule, these two matches have failed to give either side any particular advantage before the more serious aspects of the tour start in earnest. Both are capable of playing scintilating cricket, but I would expect the South African's to triumph. In all aspects of the game England are capable of producing brilliance, and their bullish new attitude in terms of batting is a clear step in the right direction. However, as they showed at Centurion, Graeme Smith's men are equally capable and to my mind are more likely to show this level consistantly. As a result I would expect the Proteas to triumph in the seven match series, although don't be shocked if England let them have it all their own way.

England Set Tone for Tour

England triumphied by one run on the Duckworth Lewis method last night in the tour curtain-raiser at the Bull Ring in Johannesburg, but it was the manner of performance rather than the result which will have left Andy Flower and the England camp feeling very satisfied with how the tourists are preparing for the more serious business that follow these Pro20 hors d'oeuvres.

The Champion's Trophy had shown glimpses of a new English attitude towards the shorter forms of the game. Throughout that tournament England played with a previously unseen freedom. Gone were the singles and nudges which had so often resulted in lifeless middle overs, and batsmen who had spent so much of their recent careers seemingly so afraid of losing their wickets that they were unwilling to chance their arm for victory were reborn or replaced with a middle order capable of both finding and clearing the rope.

The result was that Andrew Strauss's men notched up some impressive scalps and returned to England with renewed optimism that they could compete with the best in the world over one day as well as five. It was vital that they began this tour in the same frame of mind; playing fearless cricket in order to assert themselves against such fine opposition.

In truth, the result last night was of little importance. Obviously it is always better to win than to lose but in truth both the result last night and in Sunday's repeat fixture will have little bearing on the overall complexion of either the ODI or Test series. They serve merely to hype the upcoming series and neither side would trade victory in these two fixtures for overall supremacy in the older formats.

So if the financial bonuses are taken out of the equation, what (if any) is the pure cricketting value of these fixtures where victory is of such comparative unimportance? The only way to make an impression in these fixtures is to play aggressive and fearless cricket, making a clear statement of intent. If England were to play the way they did a couple of months ago and lose, they would have a much better chance of winning the mind games before the ODI series begins next Friday.

When Joe Denly was dismissed first ball it would have given England the perfect excuse to retreat back into their shell and revert to their old ways, but as Jonathon Trott took 18 of Dale Steyn's first over it was clear that this was not on the cards. Trott himself was run out after a moment of hesitation for an impressive 33, allowing Morgan to join Collingwood and share a partnership of 98 for the fourth wicket.

Collingwood's innings was perhaps the best illustration of the new mentality Flower has instilled. The archetypal grafter, so often in recent years either unable or unwilling to wrest the initiative from the opposition had a swagger to accompany his new high backlift. Not only did he look a more imposing proposition at the crease, he looked more relaxed than I recall seeing him in recent years and it clearly paid off as he cleared the rope 4 times on his way to an quickfire half century.

Although Collingwood may have looked like a new man, it was the relatively inexperienced Morgan, continuing his good form from the Champion's Trophy who rightly drew most plaudits. His 85* from a mere 45 deliveries had literally everything that has been lacking in an English middle order in coloured kit. A phenomenally powerful man for his size he combined intelligent placement with brutal inside out hitting, as well as moments of improvisation and inspiration.

Two of his five maximums will have left Graeme Smith under no doubt that England's middle order is no longer content to merely let overs tick by. Hitting Steyn out of the ground was magical, but is almost forgettable compared to the arrogant flick over fine leg in the final over off Charl Langeveldt. Over recent years we have seen the switch hit, the Dil-scoop, but this required all the bravery of Dilshan's innovation as well as the movement of the switch hit. Put simply, this boy is very special.

He is also surrounded by a fresh middle order which, in virtue of the qualities the players not only have but are allowed to express doesn't put pressure on itself in the ways of old. Trott, the revitalised Collingwood, Prior and Wright are all shot makers, so it is less that those stale periods, often followed by a flurry of wickets as scared players try and overhit their way out of trouble will be allowed to happen.

The bowlers will have been disappointed with their inability to bowl tighter lines, but the replacement of Mahmood with Anderson as the rain came down meant England were able to keep the South African's at behind the required target. Although the track was excellent for strokeplay they will be aware that as a unit they will need to improve, and it isn't impossible the Broad and possibly Onions will return on Sunday with that level of control in mind.

Most importantly though, England have clearly arrived with business in mind on this winter tour. They have not suddenly become world beaters and there will be times when their strokeplay gets them into trouble. If you require comparison think of Newcastle United under Keegan in the 90's: great to watch, very entertaining, but always with more than a tinge of risk. It will bring victory far more often than the old, tentative approach but more importantly in the context of this tour it has made sure the Proteas know they are in for a tough few months.