Some pruning required

After a summer of growth it is often a good idea to prune a tree. Remove the dead wood and make precise decisions about the direction you want the tree to grow in the future. Of course the tree will largely do what it wants but you can but try. So it is with cricket teams. England have just had their most important home series ... until the next Ashes battle, so it’s a good time to wield the axe make some space.

Bell and Collingwood must go. These have been on my personal hobby horse for quite some time, mainly because they are just, well, not very good. Okay, they are rubbish; there you dragged it out of me. People will always say things like ‘ah yes but Collingwood’s effort at Cardiff was instrumental in England saving the game and hence winning the series’, which is true. However, that is largely irrelevant because if you give anyone enough chances they will come up with significant innings. It is not the exceptional performances that matter it’s the everyday ones. Collingwood scored 250 runs at 27.77 and Bell made 140 runs (3 matches only) at 28. That is not only crap, it is what I expected! Put it this way, England have just beaten Australia. If there was a combined XI of the two sides, what are the chances of Bell or Collingwood appearing in it? Exactly.

Cook is one who England has to do something about. On paper he is just as poor as Bell or Collingwood (222 runs at 24.66). He had good series against the West Indies but that was very much the exception. England should consider removing Cook’s central contract and make him work for his place. As it stands he has to do nothing and giving him another year will change nothing.

Harmison, Panesar and Sidebottom should lose their central contract status. All are struggling to make the test side (if at all). Make them justify their place in the side with results as Harmison did recently.

Bopara looks to be a man with talent. He was excellent against the West Indies and awful against Australia. He doesn’t look a natural number three against quality bowling, so maybe he should come in at five (i.e. replace Collingwood). The guy had three consecutive Test centuries earlier in the year so he deserves a chance.

The Baker's dozen

The England ‘13’ for the first Ashes test contains a couple of curious picks:

Ian Bell: what does this guy have that keeps getting him in the squad? The answer is obvious I suppose: a central contract. It would be an admission of failure to keep not picking him especially after the Vaughan central contract fiasco. Bell’s first class record for Warwickshire this year looks quite good: 8 innings at 79.50. However, those numbers are a little deceiving. He has only made one century and that was way back on April 15th. He made an outing for England Lions last week (or England A as they used to be called) and got a first baller from Lee followed by 20 (from 63 balls). So why would they pick him? Oh yea, the central contract...

Monty Panaser: “go back to your county and take some wickets”. Well he only did the first part of that. Not only did he not take many wickets but a look down the bowling averages makes me wonder if he would be dropped from Northamptonshire’s side. His stats are 8 wickets at 86.7! Surely that would make him unpickable. He did take three wickets for England against Warwickshire last week (batsmen numbers 8, 10 and 11 mind you) and he does have a reasonable record against Australia.

The problem is that both these players were told to go away and get some form. Neither has done that and yet are in the squad – with the suggestion that Panesar will play (even if Bell does not). How can young England cricketers hope to get selected when serial poor performers are regularly rewarded with selection?

Off the hook?

I wonder what was said just before England went out to start India’s second innings? Do you think KP said:

“Right guys, we have India in trouble. They need nearly 400 and there is no way they are going to get them. We need to get Sehwag early – he is a bad starter and quite often goes for a single figure start. He loves to have a bit of room, so ‘Big Steve’ and ‘Jim Bob’, I want you to bowl short and wide outside his off-stump. I want you to really telegraph your intentions too so that he is already on the back foot waiting to slap it for six. It will be a difficult task to bowl so poorly, but we are counting on you two guys.”

It is probably the worst spell of new ball bowling I have seen for a while. They fed Sehwag rubbish and he gladly consumed it. I always think Sehwag is a bit like Symonds (but with more talent, obviously) – he is dangerous when he gets to twenty-odd but has no real idea how to get there. Along come Harmison and Anderson who invite Sehwag to an all-you-can-eat square-cutting buffet.

Now that ‘Captain Block’ (Collingwood) has saved his career for another few matches I have a job for him. He is a hard-as-nails northerner and so should become the teams enforcer. Whenever Panasar pitches the ball a foot outside leg stump and appeals for LBW, Collingwood should run over and clip him behind the ear and say ‘idiot’. Similarly when he appeals for a catch and the ball has not got within a foot of the bat -- whack. In addition, whenever Anderson or Harmison bowl a short wide ‘hit me for six’ ball he should catch them at the end of the over and dig them in the rib and say ‘no!’.