Fourth ODI (v Aus) Reaction: Selectors' Hands Tied

Australia won by 7 wickets (with 38 balls remaining). Australia win the series.

England freshened up today's line-up a bit, but not enough, as Australia claimed an unassailable 4-0 lead.

In came Denly, Broad and Rashid for Swann and the rested duo of Paul Collingwood and James Anderson. Except that in the Sky commentary box neither Michael Holding nor Sir Ian Botham could believe they were being rested. Both were at pains to point out that Collingwood has 'only' played 77 days cricket so far this year. Surely they're missing the point; since the new year he's been away in the Caribbean playing Test and ODI series before embarking on a summer of seven home Tests, more ODIs and a stint captaining his country at the World T20. Atherton stood tall for the batting fraternity, suggesting all that may have taken a mental toll, but Holding was having none of it. 77 days of England duty on the pitch it may have been, but it's been at least that or more off it. I don't begrudge Collingwood a rest ahead of the Champions Trophy, in fact, I called for it after the third ODI.

Strauss winning the toss has become as inevitable as England's batting collapsing. He chose to bat first, giving Denly a chance to impress, which he did in part. 11 off 17 balls in 20 minutes is hardly the stuff of dreams, but he did offer a glimpse of hope. First ball nerves were dispelled with a leg-side clip for four, and he's got the first one out of the way. If he can find his feet over the next three matches, England will at least head to the Champions Trophy with a settled opening pair.

Again only Strauss (63) and Shah (39) offered any resistance as England squandered their best start of the series. After 16 overs they were 89-1, which though not headline-worthy does represent an improvement.

Matt Prior's struggles with the bat reflect those of his team. At present he's not translating his Test fluency and expansive shot play to the shorter game. Today he batted at four, meaning he's now batted everywhere from one to nine in ODIs (except five), though as Scyld Berry Points out in The Telegraph, come February, England are likely to install Craig Kieswetter. How we could do with his hitting now.

Brett Lee produced the outstanding performance of the series in claiming five wickets for 49, four of them clean bowled. Sometimes you have to just admire an opponents performance, and having watched the Ashes from the sidelines, Lee is unleashing his frustration in style. That is forgivable, the treatment - or rather non-treatment - of Hauritz less so.

He's clearly a tidy bowler - better than his career stats suggest - but he must be loving how cagily England are dealing with him. They didn't even try going after him - as his economy rate of 2.30 suggests - and with Lee on fire at the other end, this proved fatal. When the opposition are turning their potential weaknesses into strengths, it's time for changes.

Or at least it would be if the Champions Trophy squad hadn't already been announced. Bringing in fresh faces now would be counter productive - England must find their solution with this crop of players. Were this not the case, the likes of Mascarenhas, Lumb, Bell and Trott would all be in with a shout. The CT squad was named before Trott's Ashes heroics, but his unflappable temperament and a one-day average in the fourties suggests he'll feature in the winter tour to South Africa.

On to Trent Bridge, where Stuart Broad destroyed the South Africans last year.

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

England's Misfiring Top Order

Ahead of the second ODI against Australia at Lord's tomorrow, Strauss has called upon the top order to contribute more runs, and in doing so has highlighted his teams' main problem across all forms of the game.

He said, "If you want to win consistently one of your top four or five needs to get hundreds more often than not. That is an area we are looking to an address."

They're focussing their attention on the right area.

The bowling unit is in good shape, and has depth - it restricted Australia to 260 yesterday, and enabled England to win the Ashes, despite their inferior batting. Indeed, the likes of Swann, Broad, Anderson and yesterday Rashid, have contributed with the bat too and in doing so, disguised, to some extent, the frailty of the specialist batting line-up.

Take the Ashes series. Of the seven innings in which every member of the team batted, the players selected for their batting alone (numbers one to five in the batting order) - were outscored by the all-rounders and bowlers (numbers six to eleven, plus extras) on five occasions, coming out on top just twice. Take extras out of the equation and the non-specialist batsmen still come out on top, four-three.

The Ashes averages back-up this evidence. Removing KP and Trott, who played two and one Tests respectively, leaves Andrew Strauss as the only specialist batsman - though you could argue that as captain, he's an all-rounder - in the top four; where he's joined by Swann, Flintoff and Prior - all primarily in the side to fulfill a different role.

The problem resurfaced yesterday in the 50 over game. Ideally, one of a team's specialist batsman would make a century once in every three/four - five at the most - ODIs. A side would expect at least three half-centuries in the absence of a three figure score. No Englishman passed 50 yesterday, which is no basis on which to expect to win a match.

It's not all bad news for England though. Their tail are wagging like never before, and gone are the days when they stutter from being six wickets down to all out in under five overs. James Anderson is as decent a Test number 11 as England have ever had.

Also, when their top batsmen do perform, they win. The two occasions when the specialist batsmen did outdo their all-rounder/bowling team-mates in the Ashes, were at Lord's and The Oval. So either England should play all their matches in London, or concentrate on sorting out their top order - something which Jonathan Trott's immediate success has ensured will happen anyway. Factor in too that England were without their best batsman for 60 per cent of the series, and Strauss may soon be blessed with the improvement he seeks.

First ODI (v Aus) Reaction: Rashid's Breakthrough

Australia won by 4 runs.

The England run chase fell just short - with Ryan Sidebottom needing to hit his first international six off the last ball to win - after Australia posted a patiently constructed 260 for 5.

The tourists' "risk-free approach", as Derek Pringle described it in The Telegraph, was akin to the mindset of the England batsmen in the last World Cup - careful accumulation by the top-order, setting a platform for middle-order big hitters. Unlike with England in the Caribbean two years ago, it worked - just - with Ferguson's 71 not out providing the necessary impetus.

England approached their innings in similarly slow fashion - largely due to Bopara's 49 from 88 balls, which, in the circumstances is forgivable; ten innings against Australia in all forms of the game (prior to today's match) with a highest score of 35 is mental block territory. The half century remains illusive, but if his 49 at a strike-rate of 55.68 is enough to spark him into action for the rest of the series, then it will be worth it.

Despite going 1-0 down in the series, England have reasons to be encouraged with six matches still to play:

• Strauss won the toss yet again - and chose to chase, a recurring theme in England's recent limited-overs strategy. They were always slipping slightly behind the run-rate today, but in general seem a more contented batting unit when chasing, rather than setting, a score.
• Luke Wright (38 from 27) has found his ideal position at six, having flirted with seven and eight in the past. Today he came in during the 37th over, which is ideal, but England shouldn't be afraid to move him up if the match situation requires it. His game is maturing after a good season at Sussex - scoring successive Championship hundreds, bowling more overs and taking more wickets. England's Albie Morkel.
• Adil Rashid. Wicketless, but bowled beautifully. Only England bowler to bowl ten overs, with best economy rate of 3.70. Also demonstrated one-day savvy batting (much improved since the World T20), dragging England to within an inch of the line with 31 from 23.

Blackwell's Resurgance

Patrick Kidd's Line and Length blog today highlights one-time England all-rounder Ian Blackwell's impressive first season at Durham.

The stats look good - this season he's averaged 19 with the ball and 44 with the bat - but with Swann and Panesar playing a part in the Ashes, and Rashid tipped to have one foot on the plane to South Africa, he'd be forgiven for wondering whether he registers on the England radar these days.

Blackwell played the last of his 34 ODIs in 2006 - the same year in which he played his only Test. A consistent county performer, a black mark has always hung over his name surrounding his weight - an issue the England management clearly still value given the recent treatment of Samit Patel. Such a reputation can be as hard to shift as the actual weight itself, and to an extent, Blackwell has always been fighting a losing battle in terms of perception.

But, a move up north at the start of the season has taken him out of his comfort zone and reinvigorated him (though it has to be said that leaving Taunton would surely do that for any spinner). He spoke at the time of his international aspirations, telling SPIN Magazine in June, "I'm desperate to get back in the one-day side. It's the main reason I've come to Durham." He's since backed up his words with bat and ball.

Like Kidd, I'd place Swann and Rashid ahead of him, but Blackwell weighs in with a far superior case to Panesar for the role of third in line, especially in the one-day set-up. His on-pitch argument is convincing, but how damaging will those perceptions prove to be?

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."

Denly Named In Champions Trophy Squad

Joe Denly is the only new face in England's 15 man Champions Trophy squad, and a welcome inclusion. Andrew Strauss will lead the team, who will take on the Australians in seven ODIs before heading to the tournament in South Africa next month. KP misses out through injury, and Mascarenhas has been dropped.

Collingwood keeps the captaincy - in the absence of Strauss - for the forthcoming T20 internationals against Australia, and Denly and Test new-boy Trott have been included.

Only one new face puts paid to the significant changes I was hoping for, and I'd love to have seen Michael Lumb make the cut, but Bresnan, Rashid and Morgan are largely untried at this level, so hopefully they'll get a chance to impress. Overall, there is potential for fielding a relatively new-look team, which, given the lack of consistency of the current side and the relatively unimportant nature of the Champions trophy, is what I hope the management go with.

ODI series v Australia and Champions Trophy

Strauss (capt)

Anderson

Bopara

Bresnan

Broad

Collingwood

Denly

Flintoff

Morgan

Prior

Rashid

Shah

Sidebottom

Swann

Wright

T20 Squad v Australia

Same, minus Strauss and plus Trott.

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.

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)

England World T20 Report Card: Bowlers

England bowled well as a collective unit, with no stand-out performances.

Rashid - Economy: 7.30. Thrown in at the deep end and coped well. Grew in confidence and took three wickets in four matches. 7/10 

Sidebottom - 7.39. Not bad, but not outstanding. Took three wickets in three matches, and held his nerve for the last over against India. Just. Was given an impossible task in the last over of the West Indies match. 6.5/10

Swann - 6.92. Took five wickets in four games at a sub-20 average. Shouldn't have been left out of the first game. Bowled intelligently and wasn't afraid to take risks. Never lets England down. Is a better batsman than he showed. 7.5/10

Broad - 6.50. The best of the bunch. England's highest wicket taker with an average of 17.33. Has added much variety to his game, becoming Collingwood's go-to bowler. Bowls well at the death as he is hard to get away. 8/10

Anderson - 7.55. A bit disappointing because he has set himself the highest of standards recently. Still, a reliable performer who weighed in with five wickets. 7/10

Wright - 8.28. Only bowled seven overs, taking one wicket. A useful pace option. 6/10

Mascarenhas - 6.42. England's best economy rate. Bowls well in this format - would have had a great tournament if he'd matched it with the bat. 7/10

How The Holland Game Was Lost

Yes, Pietersen and Flintoff were missing, and yes, selection mistakes were made yesterday - Mascheranas and Swann should have played, not Key and Rashid - but that's not why England lost. Any combination of their 15-man squad should have been more than a match for the men in orange. And don't for a minute believe that Stuart Broad was responsible, with his failed last-ball shy at the stumps. He had to do it - his only mistake was not hitting. That Broad went for the stumps is a positive thing - England need that mindset. He bowled a fine last over too - his round-the-wicket wide of off-stump bowling has been inventive and effective. On another day, one of his last over efforts would have been successful. Here's where the game was really lost:

• England failed to build on a solid start in their last nine overs, adding only 62 runs. They seemed to think the job was done, but in T20 a strike-rate of 100 is unacceptable for any period longer than the odd over.
• England made six hitting look impossible. Holland hit four.
• There are fielding restrictions in T20. Only two fielders allowed outside the circle in the first six overs - prime six-hitting time which no team can afford to ignore.
• As the pressure intensified England's fielding was nervy. The wet conditions didn't help, but the situation required razor-sharp catching and run outs, neither materialised.
• Holland timed their run chase expertly. D+L was pretty much always in their favour as they supplemented a steady flow of boundaries with single after single.
• Holland played superbly and deserved to win. Bowled well in the second half of the England innings - restricting them to singles - and timed their own innings to perfection. Disastrous for England, great for the tournament and the sport.
• T20 as a format lends itself to upsets. The heroics of one or two players can have more influence in a shorter space of time than in any other format. Tom de Grooth discovered this yesterday.

Reasons to be cheerful? A few. Namely, Ravi Bopara, Stuart Broad, James Anderson and Zimbabwe. The latter beat Australia in the 2007 World T20 and the Aussies went on to reach the semi-final. Things can turnaround in no time in T20. England will be praying they can prove this point.

BBC reaction

England Hammer Windies. Again.

That's more like it! The final warm-up before the fun starts on Friday saw England cruise to another win against the hapless West Indies. This nine wicket victory was notable for tidy bowling from Rashid (1-20) and stunning clean hitting from Bopara (60 off 35) and Wright (75* off 48).

Delighted for Wright, who hasn't enjoyed much time in the middle for England. He's had to wait a long time since those encouraging early displays two summers ago. Always imagined him in the middle order, but we could be onto something with him and Bopara up top. It wont work every game, maybe not even half the time, but it's great when it does because he is a genuine boundary hitter. And when he does get out, KP gets in - could be worse.

The main thing England must do now is stick with him. We've been striving for a settled opening partnership in one-day cricket for too long, and T20 selection in general has been anything but consistent - 14 players used in first 15 T20s, including 11 different opening partnerships. This one is worth giving an extended run.

Scorecard