Tendulkar's Playing A Different Game

Sachin Tendulkar scored his 44th one-day hundred yesterday, as India defeated Sri Lanka in the Compaq Cup. This nudged him one century ahead of the entire combined total achieved by the all-time England ODI side chosen by Mike Atherton in The Times last Thursday.

It would be easy therefore, though entirely pointless, to concoct unflattering comparisons with England batsmen past and present. A fruitless venture; Tendulkar has been blessed with a rare talent and one which has graced an ODI pitch on no less than 428 occasions.

Only one England player in history can boast an ODI century count in double figures. Only one. And although Marcus Trescothick's career tally of 12 is dwarfed by Tendulkar's exploits, his games per century count is comparable: one in every 10.25 games, compared with the Indian's one in every 9.7.

Mind-boggling though Tendulkar's numbers are, the fact that Trescothick stands alone as the only Englishman to score more than eight career hundreds is the stat that should most concern England. Pietersen, on seven, must have him in his sights. A rejuvenated Strauss, on three, must be looking to double that at the very least. The likes of Trott, Denly, Bopara, Morgan, Kieswetter (from February), even Bell should be looking to share the load and inch as close to membership of the double figures club as is humanly possible.

None will get even close to the Little Master, but to match his sublime achievement as a collective unit would represent a marked improvement. Tendulkar deserves the adulation of a billion people, but what England need to build is a team of Marcus Trescothicks.

Central Contracts: Harmison And Panesar Dropped

Despite Andy Flower reiterating that "central contracts don't decide selection - performances do," there are signs in yesterday's central contracts announcement of the direction in which England will head over the coming year. Onions, Swann and Prior - three of England's leading lights in the last twelve months - have been awarded full contracts for the first time. Panesar and Harmison - along with Patel, Ambrose and the retired Michael Vaughan - have lost theirs.

Ian Bell also received one of the eleven full-time deals - an indication he'll be on the teamsheet for the first Test in South Africa, though hopefully at four, with KP moving up to three.

With their contracts taken away, the onus is firmly on Panesar and Harmison, and neither can have many complaints. The former has slipped behind Adil Rashid in the pecking order, who, with his all-round skills will be hard to overtake. Harmison does not have the threat of a like-for-like replacement breathing down his neck. The news will test his hunger, his options being retire now or add another chapter to his jekyll and hyde England career.

Full Contracts

Anderson, Bell, Broad, Collingwood, Cook, Onions, Pietersen, Prior, Sidebottom, Strauss, Swann

Incremental Contracts

Bopara, Bresnan, Flintoff, Rashid, Shah, Trott, Wright

This Time Last Year...

England were completing a 4-0 ODI series win against South Africa - now arguably the best side in the world - with only rain in Cardiff preventing a 5-0 whitewash and a leap up to second in the world rankings. Peter Moores's England were remarkably dominant in this series, and, had a World Cup been scheduled for September, would have fancied their chances. Pietersen, the newly appointed captain, and Flintoff were rampant, but England carried no passengers; every single member of the team made telling contributions.

As an opening partnership, Bell and Prior failed only once and England seemed to have solved a lingering problem. The depth of the whole batting line-up was such that from the second match onwards Luke Wright batted at eight, with Stuart Broad at nine. Crucially, such firepower did not come at the expense of the bowling armoury, which consisted of Anderson, Flintoff, Broad, Patel and Harmison with Collingwood and KP if needed. Only the four frontline quicks were called upon at Trent Bridge, where Broad produced one of those spells (5-23) and the tourists, victors in the Test series a few weeks earlier, were dismissed for 83.

But England failed to cash in on this undoubted momentum, and ended up on the wrong end of a 5-0 whitewash a few months later in India. One-day cricket inconsistency had reared its ugly head once more.

Vaughan's England Blueprint

Under the sub-headline, "Mission: win the Ashes in Australia", Michael Vaughan offers his England blueprint for success in an interview with Scyld Berry in today's Sunday Telegraph.

He has interesting views regarding the make-up of the team, championing a three, four, five of KP - "because your best player should bat there" - Bell and Trott. He wants England to stick with Alastair Cook, introduce Rashid at number eight and take Bopara to South Africa. When pressed on bowling names he lists Broad, Anderson, Onions, Harmison and Plunkett as potential dangermen for the winter tour, and Chris Woakes and Steve Finn as ones for the future.

Sound as these comments are, Flower, Strauss and the selectors have given us plenty of reason to trust their current thinking regarding selection policy. One day, Vaughan may well find himself part of that process, but for now, this interview represents no more than the informed view of an interested bystander. Where one wishes Vaughan had a more hands-on role, is with regard to his comments relating to the structure of the English game.

Michael Vaughan is a universally liked and respected figure. He was an England weapon as a batsman and captain, and, despite recent retirement, could still be now - if only the ECB could find some sort of consultancy role for him. Even reading his newspaper column would be a start.

Vaughan is acutely aware of the fixture congestion faced by international cricketers today, and laments the lack of resting opportunities: "The players are going to get niggles in the next few weeks [during the upcoming T20I and ODI series' against Australia] and we wont go to the Champions Trophy with our best team in the best shape. It will be another tournament where we don't give ourselves the best chance of winning."

Vaughan understands the needs and necessities of both the county and international games. He excercised logic and diplomacy on the pitch, and could bring the same to an administrative role. He knows only too well that Ashes success can be wasted as a platform on which to build, and is perfectly placed to help avoid mistakes being made this time around.

Berry goes on to quote the Schofield Report, commissioned two years ago by the ECB. In the light of the recent decision to ditch 50-over domestic cricket, it makes damning reading: "The First Class Counties' One Day programme should mirror, wherever possible, the current ICC competition rules, regulations and formats. A reduction in the amount of cricket played at domestic First Class level county championship games played is essential in order to alleviate fixture congestion and allow for better preparation of the players. The domestic programme must aspire to quality and not simply to quantity and the 40-over discipline may be deemed surplus to proper requirement."

Vaughan's reaction? "It's just greed."

Did England Deserve To Win The Ashes?

In short, yes, though some, including Australian cricket writer, Robert Craddock, suggest not - basing their argument around the issues of stats and luck. But they're missing the point. Stats can be misleading, and luck plays an essential part in any series win.

As Ponting alluded to in his post-match interview at the Oval, many of the Ashes 2009 stats weigh heavily in Australia's favour. But the vast majority of these figures are batting related; top seven run scorers (6-1 Australia), centuries (8-2 Aus), scores above 400 (3-2 Aus), partnerships of 100 or more (8-5 Aus) and so on. Despite some of those stats being misleading - for instance, four of Australia's centuries were in their first innings at Cardiff, which means three of them were 'Ian Bell centuries': made in the wake of a teammate achieving the feat - they merely confirm what the team-sheets suggest: that Australia possess superior batsman.

It's been said of Bopara that he must learn it's not how but how many that's most important when making runs in Test cricket. It's also when, and England's two hundreds were crucially and beautifully timed.

However, it's bowling that wins matches, and here England's stats do measure up. England had four five-wicket hauls to Australia's two. England took 20 wickets twice as many times as Australia and in two matches England coupled devastating, match-winning spells with an ability to finish off the tail. The wickets were shared amongst the attack, and Flintoff, Anderson, Onions, Broad and Swann all had their moments of glory - with bat and ball.

Luck, in varying degrees, is a factor in any situation which requires a team to string a set of results together - such as a tournament or Test series. This can range from large slices of luck, like the Danish football team winning the 1992 European Championships despite originally not even qualifying, to moments of mere good fortune, like Dhoni winning five coin tosses in a row on his way to captaining India to the World T20 crown in 2007. It can even simply mean the avoidance of any bad luck, like England being able to field an unchanged team for the first four Tests of the 2005 Ashes.

England had a bit of luck in this series, but it was a brand of luck which shared more of an affinity with Dhoni than some now-retired Danish footballers. Umpiring blunders - which usually even themselves out over the course of a series - still favoured England slightly by the end, and Strauss managed to win four out of five coin tosses. However, they would happily have given these snipets of fortune for the full fitness of their best batsman and talismanic bowler.

On rare occasions, luck can be a decisive factor in a one-off encounter, but not in a five match series, and certainly not in this one. England were dealt a few breaks, and used them spectacularly to their own advantage. When it really mattered, they triumphed in a one-off game which Australia only needed to draw, by a margin of 197 runs.

Ultimately, stats, and, to an extent, luck, are measurable variables. Fortunately, in sport, such factors can be trumped by courage, character and resolve - qualities which present themselves in the form of the only two numbers which matter: 2-1.

Bopara Out, Trott and Panesar In

So Jonathan Trott will make his Test debut in England's most important match for four years. Nothing like a baptism of fire.

Harmison and Sidebottom are also included, so the decisions left to be made now concern the composition of the bowling line-up.

The selectors are closer to the action than we are, and have presumably decided that Bopara is mentally shot. Assuming that's the case, he had to step aside, with Key, Trott and Ramprakash all touted as replacements.

All have been in good form. An extra argument for Ramps seemed to be his knowledge of the Oval pitch. Whilst I can see the merit in the odd horses-for-courses selection in the bowling department, it doesn't say much for the talent available to England if they're picking specific batsmen on a renowned flat track. All three should be capable of making runs at the Oval.

Key would have been my choice given his Test experience, favourable temperament and the crucial fact that he could slot in at three without any fuss. The main problem with Trott's inclusion is it will push Bell up to three, where he averages 31 with no hundreds. Still, there wasn't much in it, and Trott seems capable of making the mental step up. Good luck to him.

Now to the bowling. Surrey manager Chris Adams suggests playing two spinners, and there would be a nice symmetry to a summer beginning and ending with Panesar heroics. But I can't see it happening. It says it all that the Panesar heroics of Cardiff concerned his batting. He's in the team as a spin bowler, but he hasn't taken more than four wickets in a Test in his last ten appearances. He's had a flat season and lacks spark and invention. Cardiff aside, he fails to offer the all-round package of a Swann or Rashid.

I would have included Rashid and seriously considered playing him. Sure, he's unknown at this level, but Panesar being the opposite is his problem - he's become predictable and easy to play. Rashid at least has form with the bat against the Aussies this summer. Then again, so does Panesar. Crazy world.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Bopara?

If there were selection issues before the the innings and 80 runs defeat at Headingley, they've doubled in two and a half days - and that's just the batting. The bowling will become clearer with concrete news about Flintoff's fitness - which looks promising - but for now, here's what the experts would do with the top order at the Oval:

Steve James (The Sunday Telegraph) - No change. Keep Bopara at three and Bell at four. He is against Trott making his debut in such a crucial game - quoting advice that England psychologist Steve Bull gave him before his second Test cap: "Your first Test was for acclimatisation, the second is for performance."

Scyld Berry (The Sunday Telegraph) - Drop Bopara down the order and bring in Ramprakash at three. About Trott he writes: "His being next in line as a middle-order batsman is no commendation of the rest of the field."

David Gower (The Sunday Times) - Axe Bopara and Bell and bring in Key at three and Trott at four. About Robert Key he writes: I like the way he plays and believe he would respond well to the chance to play a part, even if there might be a feeling that it could be a one-off situation."

David Lloyd (The Guardian) - "If Rob Key comes in, I'd move Ravi Bopara down to number four and maybe look at leaving out Ian Bell." He is more clear cut about the bowling, saying Harmison should retain his place and that England must play two spinners.

Graham Thorpe (BBC) - Push Bopara down the order and bring in Key for Bell.

Trott will be given a chance to impress the selectors on Saturday, when he plays for the England Lions against Australia.

What England Could Learn from Marcus North

In terms of talent, not much separates Marcus North, Ravi Bopara and Ian Bell. Indeed, convincing arguments could be made that the Englishmen edge it. But it's the Australian who has worked out how to play a Test innings. While Bopara and Bell offer style over substance, North favours the latter, and in doing so offers both.

A look at the stats reveals North pays almost obsessive consideration to a shot that Bopara probably doesn't consider worthy of the name - the leave. His 125 at Cardiff comprised only 69 scoring shots and included a mammoth 173 dot balls. And why not? This is Test cricket, and not so long ago such stats were the norm.

North has form in this area. His 117 on debut against South Africa included 65 scoring shots and 168 dot balls. That Bopara and Bell take pride in aesthetics is no bad thing, but both must learn to prize their wicket above all else.

Bopara's 18 in the first innings at Lord's was scored at a strike-rate of 94.73, until he got carried away and fell lbw. There is a time and a place for such batting in Tests, but that role rarely falls to a number three batsman.

Clearly Bopara likes to score quickly, which made his two hundreds against the West Indies earlier this summer all the more pleasing - because they were scored at strike-rates of 50.35 and 51.92. The first of those innings included 204 dot balls. So he can do it.

For all the good temperament shown on those occasions, he was dropped a number of times by sloppy West Indian fielders. This is something else he must work on - 50 per cent of his Test dismissals (7/14) have been caught, and only once by the wicket-keeper. This suggests an abundance of unnecessary shots - too risky an approach to Test cricket, especially against quality opposition. Time to rediscover the art of the 'leave'.

Headingley Day One: Analysis

So, what prompted the eleven mug-shot-style photos of anguished England batsmen on the front of the Telegraph today? Are Australia that much better than us, or was it just one of those days (x 100)?

Well, yesterday they were that much better than us, and it certainly had the feel of one of those days. I had no problem with us choosing to bat - Ponting would have done the same - but the locals feared the worst at that point. There were plenty of "typical Headingley morning" comments flying around, and it was clear early on that batting would be tough. Shouldn't have been that hard though. Australia bowled exceptionally well, but it was never a first innings 102 pitch.

• England's batsmen are still slipping in and out of 'Test mode'. Marcus North was still on three after more than an hour at the crease. Not thrilling, but there's a lesson there for Ravi and co. Bopara in particular got out to another ball he simply didn't need to play at. England's batsmen need to start valuing their wicket above all else.
• The bowlers failed to learn from both the tourists' performance and their superior Headingley experience and came out looking for glory balls straight away. That's not how Clark and Siddle got their success. Far too much short stuff, and no where near enough full and straight. Broad was much improved, and, in their defence, Anderson had a niggle and they can't have been expecting to turn their arms over at 2:30 on the first afternoon.

Of the two disciplines, the batting was the most disappointing - leaving the bowlers with a thankless task. It struck me that in 2005, the Tests were more spaced out - allowing the players the chance to return to their counties for the odd day of out-of-the-spotlight batting. Tresco, Flintoff, Bell and KP all returned to the less pressurised confines of county cricket which provided them with a change of scenery and time in the middle. Poor old Ravi has been stuck in a rut of low scores this series (35, 1, 18, 27, 23 and 1) and would have really benefitted from a brief return to Essex and a confidence boosting innings. Unfortunately, due to two Test series and a World Cup he has not been afforded the luxury enjoyed by Vaughan's top order four years ago.

The way things are going, an optimist would recall this Test from 1981. A realist wouldn't bother.

Decisions, decisions...

Given the way Flintoff's fitness waned badly at Edgbaston, and having just seen Sky images of him bowling today in the Headingley nets, I don't rate his chances of being fit for tomorrow. This is a huge game and will quite possibly decide the series - full five-day fitness is clearly key. Even Flintoff is not worth a risk, and the selectors must remember that despite his Edgbaston batting heroics, he's mainly there for his bowling. I don't think he'll be as big a miss as KP, though it does pose problems in terms of balance.

There was a time - not long ago - when an often injured Flintoff's absence actually improved the balance of the England team. Right now, given his recntly improved batting, Broad's emergence and Prior's form at six, that is not the case. There are a number of possible combinations involving the three squad extras; Harmison, Sidebottom and Trott.

I would keep the changes to a minimum and swap him for one of the bowlers. Sure, that weakens the batting, but our lower order is not that of years gone by, and Swann, Broad and co can cope with a one place promotion. I'd pick Sidebottom given that he's a fine exponent of our greatest weapon against these Aussies. That deprives England of a hit-the-deck bowler, but as long as the Headingley pitch lives up to its swing-receptive reputation, I don't see that as a problem. Except that according to Matthew Hoggard, that's a big if. Still, Sidebottom has the local knowledge and has never let England down. The same cannot be said of Harmison.

Broad must keep his place, and not just because he strengthens a weakened batting line-up. He's a quality bowler and better than he's shown at times this series. He's learning all the time and is commendably unafraid to take the fight to the Aussies. He could do with a bit more guidance as to what his specific role is within this bowling attack.

I would also continue with Bopara and Bell, although two failures here by Ravi should open the door for Trott at the Oval. There, big scores and batting time on a good pitch are likely to be the order of the day - especially if the score is still 1-0 - and if Bopara still hasn't played an innings of substance since early summer by then, then Trott should come in, because he undoubtedly has.

England will decide on Flintoff in the morning.

Bell To Bat At Four

It has been confirmed that Bell will start the Edgbaston Test on Thursday, batting at four - which will please Steve James. I would have preferred him at five, but that was never likely. I think backing Bopara in this way is a positive move, after all, as the man himself pointed out, the Ashes is only two Tests old. I'm backing Bell to do well - especially in this Test on his home ground. He could do worse than note how well Nathan Hauritz has handled so many people questioning his ability.

Brett Lee has again been ruled out.

Fact of the day: Edgbaston has hosted 16 draws in its last 20 first-class matches.

Steve James Column In The Sunday Telegraph

As ever, Steve James makes a number of excellent and original points in his weekly Sunday Telegraph column. He calls for the selectors to resist the temptation to lower Bopara in the order by placing Bell at three. He rightly points to Bell's poor record in that position, and insists that Bopara is backed (after all, he does already have three centuries in that position - that's three more than Bell.) In addition, he would promote Collingwood to four and have Bell at five. This is unlikely to happen, but is backed up by his stats.

Bell's record by position:

Number 3 - ave: 31.00, 0 hundreds

Number 4 - ave: 47.16, 2 hundreds

Number 5 - ave: 54.41, 2 hundreds

Number 6 - ave: 49.00, 4 hundreds

Ian Chappell argues the exact opposite in his column in the same paper - preferring Bell at three and Bopara at five. I'm with James, but it will be fascinating to see what happens.

As for the bowling, James would think about replacing Broad, and is unsure about Onions. Harmison's form is excellent, and I can see him playing a part in this series, but at Edgbaston, I would back the current bowling attack. Broad was better at Lord's and is highly capable, while Onions did fine in his first Ashes Test - no better, but certainly no worse. Both, in my opinion, deserve at least one more chance.

A final excellent and overlooked point he makes, is to remind us who the England vice-captain is. It's Alastair Cook by the way, but I did need reminding. As James points out, "It is far from obvious on the field. More advice seems to come from Paul Collingwood."

Bell It Is

As expected, Ian Bell will start the third Ashes Test at Edgbaston on Thursday in place of Kevin Pietersen, it was announced today. Other than KP's omission, the squad is unchanged, so Panesar and Harmison are again included - though destined to be discarded.

As ever, Bell has shown good county form this season - clocking up 640 runs in seven County Championship matches, prior to his double failure against Hampshire last week.

Ian Bell Test Record: Played - 46, Innings - 83, Average - 40.59, High Score - 199, Hundreds - 8, Fifties - 19, Catches 44.

Squad For Third Test Named Tomorrow

Ian Bell for Kevin Pietersen is widely expected to be the only change. And whilst Bell would be my choice, events this week have highlighted a dearth of viable alternatives. Here are the names which have been banded about the media:

Ian Bell - Averages 40.59 from 46 Tests. Scored 199 v South Africa last July, but has one 50 from 12 Test innings since. Dropped during last winter's Caribbean tour. Has always shown promise at international level, but questionable temperament and frustrating inconsistency. Prolific as ever in county cricket this summer. Superb fielder who made an underrated catching contribution in 2005.

Rob Key - Has a Test double century (a feat which only Collingwood and Pietersen can match) and made his international comeback in the recent World T20. Made his first double century in County Championship earlier this month, and has hit form after a wretched start to the season. Has a sub-standard international average, and is unlikely to figure for England again at this level though.

Stephen Moore - Opening batsman, which all but puts him out of the reckoning. Was the highest scorer in domestic first-class cricket last season and made a century against the Australians for the England Lions prior to the first Test. One to keep an eye on.

Joe Denly - Another opener - not what England need. Made 66 and 36 against Australia for England Lions in June, but this Ashes series is a year or two early for him. One for the future in Tests, and the present in one-day cricket.

Owais Shah - Good player, and one I championed for the Test team prior to his run in the Caribbean, but suffers from nerves and didn't seize his chance. Would be too much of a risk on the biggest stage of all.

Marcus Trescothick - Wishful thinking. An unsung hero of the 2005 Ashes series, and still one of the best openers around. Australians respect him, but his England days are sadly over.

Hopefully a break from international cricket has cleared Bell's head and increased his hunger, because we know he has the talent required for this level. I have always thought he'd return to Tests and enjoy sustained success, but I wouldn't have picked mid-way through this series as his reintroduction period. However, given the choice above, and with the exception of Tresco, I believe he represents our best option for the rest of this Ashes summer.

Preliminary ICC Champions Trophy Squad Announced

England announced a 30-strong squad for the 2009 ICC Champions Trophy, yesterday. The tournament will be staged in South Africa in September and the squad will be halved by August 23.

England's ODI form in recent years has been extremely frustrating - not least because it has at times - 2007 home series v India, 2008 home series v South Africa - been excellent. However, for each of these results there is also the whitewashes of the 2008 winter series v India or the 2006 summer series v Sri Lanka.

So, results suggest that England are not a million miles away from finding a successful ODI formula, but the current one is not good enough; one or two steps forward, followed by the same number back. They have to try something a bit new. Although the selectors have named only one uncapped player (Hampshire's Michael Lumb), the squad includes a number of fresh, young and inexperienced names. Their inclusion could provide the subtle change in direction which leads to that illusive consistency.

This is the perfect tournament in which players can shed the label of potential in favour of the far more useful tags, experienced and good enough. It's not a World Cup, and I would suggest that signs of significant improvement (an obvious and suitable gameplan, clearly defined roles within the team, picking the right players and evidence of tournament-savvy play) is more important than returning with the trophy. The logic behind that being that should England happen upon some consistency, they may one day return home with a coveted World Cup.

That means making tough calls - dispensing with good servants of the county game who have served England passably in the past - Rob Key and Gareth Batty - and even those who have an obvious Test future but have failed to grasp countless ODI opportunities - Ian Bell and, in my opinion, Andrew Strauss.

Here's my squad. The main difference between this XV and the one which will be chosen is the absence here of the captain, Strauss. For me, his inclusion is indicative of the two steps forward, two steps back policy - he's shown at times (as recently as the Caribbean tour) that he's capable in the format, but struggled badly with its concept at other times, thus, as an opener, hampering the whole team. I would certainly keep him in the selection mix, but for this tournament would give the captaincy to Stuart Broad - eighth in all-time England ODI wicket-takers list and highly-rated as a thinking cricketer by Michael Vaughan.

My XV:

James Anderson (Lancashire)

Ravi Bopara (Essex)
Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire)
Paul Collingwood (Durham)
Joe Denly (Kent)
Andrew Flintoff (Lancashire)
Michael Lumb (Hampshire)
Dimitri Mascarenhas (Hampshire)
Eoin Morgan (Middlesex)
Graham Onions (Durham)
Kevin Pietersen (Hampshire)
Matt Prior (Sussex)
Adil Rashid (Yorkshire)
Graeme Swann (Nottinghamshire)

Luke Wright (Sussex)

Not All Bad?

Apparently not - that's according to the Guardian's Rob Smyth.

This is an admirable attempt at positivity from an excellent writer. Whilst I would class a sentence like England's most memorable success of the last four years, in the CB Series of 2006-07, came without Pietersen as a bit of a straw clutcher, he does make some valid points. Namely, that if Bell comes in at three then Bopara can drop to the relative sanctuary of four, and that Bell's recent record against Australia, in the forgotten 06-07 series, is passable - four half-centuries in five Tests.

Pietersen To Miss Rest Of Ashes

The news wasn't exactly a surprise, but there was still an element of shock attached to the revelation that Kevin Pietersen will miss the next six weeks, and the remainder of the Ashes series, following surgery on his right Achilles tendon.

Deep down it was news I knew was coming - the shock stemming from the fact I didn't want to believe it and an irrational hope for a Flintoff-esque doctor-defying soldiering on (because, let's face it, a 70% fit KP is still one the Aussies are scared of.) Of course, that was a vain hope. Even Kevin Pietersen is incapable of miraculous recoveries. Off the pitch, that is.

The world's leading Achilles specialist was flown in to tell KP what we all already knew. I've never doubted his commitment to the England cause, and there's no doubt he'll be distraught at the news - this is the stage that he craves the most, and one on which - with an average of 50.72 against Australia - he invariably shines.

So, where does the news leave the player and his country? Well, it puts to bed one of this summer's perpetual worries, and should ensure that England set off for their winter tour of South Africa with their best player fit and revitalised (it would after all have been a tall order without both KP and Flintoff.) So, long-term it's a plus for both. Short-term though, is another matter.

I think this is the worst possible news for England. He's the one player they can ill afford to do without. Even given Freddie's Lord's heroics I could be confident without him - after all England have shown they can live (even thrive) in his absence, and they have a strong battery of reserve bowlers who could take his place. The same is not true with KP.

In many ways it will be a great test for the team, and one they probably needed at some point. Any time but now. Not against the Aussies. Not when we're one nil up with three to play. Much pressure will be heaped upon his replacement Ian Bell, but the pressure notches will rise considerably too on each of the batsmen in the line-up. Each will need to offer an extra 30% in effectiveness to compensate for the absence of the classiest act among them.

On countless occasions Kevin Pietersen has got his side out of trouble. For the next three Tests they must avoid that trouble in the first place. It wont be easy, and I hope I'm placing too much importance on his inclusion, but his loss is a series prediction-altering one.

Warm-up Matches Analysis

Reasons to be cheerful and reasons to be fearful that arose from the England v Warickshire and England Lions v Australia matches.

Cheerful

• All batsmen (with the exception of Pietersen) made runs.
• The continued excellent form of Anderson.
• No shortage of bowling options with Flintoff looking fit, hungry and in-form, Panesar taking three wickets (admittedly all tailenders) and Harmison looking a real threat.
• Identifying Philip Hughes's weakness against the short ball.
• Mitchell Johnson looking below par and struggling to swing the ball until the final session of the match.

Fearful

• Mike Hussey and Marcus North feeling their way back into form whilst enjoying considerable time in the middle and making big hundreds.
• A rejuvenated Brett Lee causing havoc with an outstanding spell of reverse swing that had Troy Cooley's stamp all over it.
• Ian Bell only scoring 20 runs in the match. Injury or loss of form to any of the top six is likely to thrust him into the action, and a significant innings here would have done his confidence no harm.

Overall both teams will be satisfied with their work-outs. The two games merely confirmed that this is likely to be an extremely tight series. The talking points for England: what to do with Harmison, and how many spinners to play in Cardiff. A 13-man squad for the first Test will be announced at 10:00 am tomorrow.