Pietersen Beginning To Talk The Talk Again

Kevin Pietersen gave a typically frank and honest interview to The Times yesterday, and - crucially - it was positive too. Because that's a word that's been slipping down the long list of adjectives aimed at England's best player in recent times.

Will Luke alluded to it in a recent article, the man himself in yesterday's piece; Kevin Pietersen was beginning to fall out of love with the game.

In that respect, writes Alison Rudd, his recent injury can be viewed as "a necessary evil... The combination of politics [the captaincy debacle] and playing while in pain left Pietersen wondering about his relationship with the sport." In his own words, he "hasn't particularly enjoyed playing cricket" in 2009.

But, as 2010 rears into view, his injury heals and his homeland beckons, his love for the game is set to be restored.

"I can't wait. I haven't been at my best since India last year. These last three months have cleared my brain and my thoughts," he said.

Despite the recent Ashes win, England's batting needs to be much stronger in South Africa. A fit and firing KP not only improves the top order through his mere inclusion, but also through the effect he can have on his teammates. It will be great to see him back.

England Issued Stuart Broad Warneing

Watching him bowl was an unforgettable experience, listening to him commentate is refreshing, and reading his articles is always worthwhile - even if it's sometimes advisable to have a bowl of salt to hand, with fingers in pinching position.

Shane Warne, in his Times column today, has warned England that they are in danger of 'ruining' one of their most promising young stars, Stuart Broad, providing he bats - as looks likely - at No 7 in South Africa.

He said: "If England want to ruin Stuart Broad, it strikes me that they may be going the right way about it. [Batting at No 7] could be the worst thing to happen to the guy.

I'm not bagging Broad, because he has the makings of being a good player. He is a decent bowler and a reasonable batsman - just not an international all-rounder. By thinking that he is, England risk taking his focus away from what he is learning to do well: first and foremost to support frontline bowlers, then to chip in with runs."

I'd apply the pinch of salt to the "makings of a good player" part. Broad has proved a match winner on several occasions in his short career so far, making important contributions with bat and ball. He's one of England's good players, the question is, how much better can he get?

If Warne drew on his own experience in writing this article, then it's barely applicable. He played in Test teams who almost always named their wicket-keeper at No 7. The second half of his Test career coincided with the emergence of a certain Adam Gilchrist, who single-handedly changed the job spec of the wicket-keeper forever, in making 12 hundreds from No 7 and even one from No 8.

Gilchrist's predecessor in the Australia team, and their keeper/No 7 for the first half of Warne's 145 appearances in the baggy green, was Ian Healy. Though made to look decidedly human when compared to Gilchrist, his batting average, after the last of his 119 Tests, was a respectable 27.39. After 22 matches, Stuart Broad's stands at 30.68.

It would be easy for England to 'ruin' Stuart Broad, but I think that a step up the batting order is some way down the list of possible ways how. Too much cricket - let's hope he's rested for the Bangladesh tour - and expecting Oval-like performances every match are more dangerous threats to England's brightest young talent.

Having him at seven is not ideal, but nor is not having a genuine Test-class all-rounder, and at present England don't.

One of Warne's arguments is that Broad at No 7 heaps too much pressure on him. On his batting maybe, but in allowing another bowler in the team it should have the opposite effect on his primary weapon. A 7, 8, 9 of Prior, Broad and Swann sounds perfect, but that would leave Broad as one of four front-line bowlers; a prospect South Africa's supreme batting line-up would surely relish.

The balance of the side is a key issue going into the South Africa series, and if Broad at No 7 works, England will have unlocked the answer. If it doesn't, he's shown enough character so far in his England career to suggest that one failed experiment wont 'ruin' him for good.

Media Round-Up: The Champions Trophy, Harmy And The Heroes Of The Summer

England's cricketers may currently be trying to remember what they used to do in their spare time, but those who write about them are having no such thoughts.

Papers and websites have been awash with comment, contemplation and analysis, at the end of a summer which included seven Tests, countless limited-overs contests and two world tournaments. The one-day international was ruthlessly KO'd, then resuscitated, all in the space of a few weeks. Time to take stock.

The Champions Trophy promised to be the party no one wanted to go to, but threatened, in the end, to be the talk-of-the-town white hot VIP ticket. It certainly re-ignited an ODI debate which England had threatened to give a definitive ending to through their dismal 6-1 series defeat to Australia.

Alison Mitchell enjoyed what she saw during her informative blogs and reports from the heart of the action. And the general consensus seemed to be that the ODI, in its current format, had been offered a lifeline. Players, such as winning captain Ricky Ponting, and commentators alike subscribed to the view that while the administration of 50-over cricket is so often found wanting, when managed well, it deserves a place in the calendar.

I have dealt with the media reaction to the Ashes success, but sub-plots - relating to the squad chosen for South Africa - have failed to die-down. The Harmison debate has dominated in recent days.

With his record as it stands, I can only see Harmy as an immensely talented actor, with a penchant for forgetting his lines. Glad, as I am, to have seen him in England colours, I think the selectors have got this one right, but Mike Selvey makes a fine case for the defence in this article, and warns that he may yet be able to add credence to the line: "I'll be back." Providing he remembers it.

The implications of a Harmison-less attack are discussed here, by Otis Gibson.

But the men of the summer have to be Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower. There is little left to say about Strauss, the subject of an excellent Paul Hayward article in The Observer, who has enjoyed a masterful summer.

In the case of Flower, it seems interviews - like victory laps around the Oval - are not for him. Martin Johnson secured such a piece for The Sunday Times a month ago, which concurred entirely with his pragmatic, sensible but ambitious image. It took, as a starting point, England's pathetic 51 all out in Jamaica, and chronicled his team's improvement since then. With the start of the journey a mere eight months ago, Flower is certainly not viewing this summer's success as any sort of ending.

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.

Ashes Victory: Press Reaction

The reaction of Monday's Press to England's epic series win:

The Times - Headline: "England's moment of triumph"

Mike Atherton focussed on the England captain, saying, "Strauss had taken on the England captaincy after a period of turmoil under Kevin Pietersen and Peter Moores and, now, only eight months later, was enjoying what he will surely look back upon as his proudest moment as a cricketer: winning the Ashes as a player is one thing; winning them as captain, quite another. The Ashes is the biggest Test of an England cricketer, captaining in the Ashes the biggest test of character and temperament of them all. And what a job he has done."

Simon Barnes captured the fans' mood in typically lyrical fashion, describing Flintoff's run-out of Ponting thus: "First Ponting hesitated at the non-strikers end before setting out: Andrew Flintoff - a muted figure for most of this final Test - gathered the ball, swung the mighty shoulders and brought off a direct hit. Ah, that Freddie should live to see such a day, emulating no lesser cricketer than the great Gary Pratt."

Gideon Haigh focussed on how the defeat will affect Ponting's captaincy, recalling a famous quote by Kim Hughes after losing the 1981 Ashes: "'Reckon me Mum and Dad'll still talk to me. And me wife. But who else?'" Haigh concluded that "the reality is that the captaincy is his for as long as Ponting deigns it. For all his merits, Michael Clarke cannot captain Australia from No 5; no other batsman is remotely equipped to succeed Ponting at No 3. The difference between Kim Hughes and Ponting, moreover, is that the cap on Hughes never quite fitted, where the cap on Ponting's head is faded, battered, very proudly sported and universally respected."

Shane Warne congratulated England and lamented Australia's decision to omit a front-line spinner. On Stuart Broad he said, "He's really grown up over the past week. The good thing was the way he concentrated on line and length, which is what you want from that third-seamer role." He also singled out Trott for praise, noting his admirable ability to handle pressure.

The Guardian - "England back in paradise"

Vic Marks observed a changing of the guard as Flintoff departed the Test arena. "His was such a dignified exit, avoiding all the traps that were highlighted when he announced his retirement before the Lord's Test. Yesterday was more about the Ashes regained than Flintoff retired. He looked on while those younger and fitter than him did the job. He was content in that role. But he had to intervene once, just the once to leave us a reminder."

Paul Hayward suggested that "only in Ashes cricket, probably, could a team lose by an innings and 80 runs in Leeds and then recover to dominate a Test which Australia needed only to draw." He also noted that, impressively, England "won this series with their finest all-rounder on one leg and their best batsman (Kevin Pietersen) on no legs at all."

The Telegraph - "Ashes Wonderland"

Derek Pringle's match report sat below a sub-headline reading, "Strauss and Flower can move forward with confidence after distant wish become reality." He decided, "On balance, England deserved their 2-1 win. Their captain, Andrew Strauss, top-scored in the series and while they may have trailed Australia in the leading wicket takers, they possessed the stronger bowling attack and in Test cricket that prevails more often than having the stronger batting line-up."

Simon Hughes agreed that England's bowlers were the "decisive factor". He wrote, "Twice England took twenty wickets in a match. Australia achieved [this] only once, at Headingley. They managed only tow five-wicket hauls in the series, England had four. Wickets work better when they come in clusters."

In today's Telegraph, Michael Vaughan warned that England must "stay focussed and ensure the winning habit remains for the long term". He expanded by saying, "It will be Flower's job, with help from Strauss, to keep the guys focused and fresh. Before he became team director, Flower was never really able to fully express himself as coach. But it is clear from speaking to all players that they rate him highly. He is very 'chilled': he knows the direction he wants to take the team and is guiding them in a professional manner."

The Mirror - "Arise Sir Freddie"

Sir Ian Botham wrote an upbeat piece predicting "the dawn of a great new era for England". He said, "The result is enormous for English cricket and I really feel it can be the start of something special and not the end like 2005 turned out to be." He ended with the following praise for Flintoff: "For what you've done, for the man you are and for the friend you've been and will continue to be - thank you, Fred."

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.