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.