The lack of experience isn't an excuse! First and foremost, because we should believe this is the best England have to offer. Secondly, none of the batsmen (maybe Strauss) are showing clear signs of improvement. Similarly, Anderson certainly isn't improving. Compare his performances v India in the Tests and ODIs to his recen Test and ODI performances...

__________________
third-umpire.com

How often have these current players faced the sort of pressure they have encountered in this game? The level of expectation was huge, and the way the game went left the players only too aware that the game was within the grasp of either side and likely to turn on just a couple of special performances. The pitch and conditions were just sporting enough to ensure batsmen needed to play very old-fashioned cricket (without actually offering the bowler that much when the batsmen eschewed forcing shots) and the blustery wind made finding a rhythm with a ball very, very difficult indeed.

Very few tests are played in conditions that would place so much emphasis on experience... and it's no co-incidence that the most assured England batting partnership of the match was between the two most senior England batsmen (who, it should be added, batted beautifully, displaying excellent judgement matched by exquisite touch).

In terms of developing the players, Moores could not have scripted a more useful experience: this could serve as a platform for building a much more resillient side. What remains to be seen is whether some momentum can be developed in the next game... but also whether the South African series will be too much, too soon: it may well turn out that way... but if England can compete well throughout the series then the side that merges at the end of the summer will, quite possibly with much the same personnel, be on the sort of roll that set up the 2005 Ashes victory.

ps. In terms of improvement.... Strauss has today offered an object lesson in accumulating runs without undue risk in the toughest of circumstances (in a manner that contrasts hugely with his doomed approach to the 2007 Ashes); Cook has, throughout the two Tests, shown enormous progress in his strokeplay against the seamers; Vaughan has shown us that he's playing at a level that he has not managed since his early glory days in Australia; Pietersen has demonstrated a determination to bat to a plan as a senior player; Broad has done an enormous amount to confirm the general perception that he is a very special find indeed; Panesar has shown that he's through his ropey winter and that whilst he's not where he needs to be, he has huge potential.

I'd concede that Bell, Collingwood, Ambrose, Anderson and Sidebottom have done little to enhance their reputations in these two Tests... though we've had glimpses of Bell's development as a truly exquisite batsman, and even Anderson has shown why selectors have persisted with him over the years - I'd still like to see him replaced, but after years of underperforming, Lee has finally matured into a world class bowler... and I'd certainly not rule out Anderson eventually doing the same.

I was always of the belief that the selectors role was finished once they had selected the 12 players for the Test.
It then was left to the final match selection commitee, in Australia's case the captain, vice captain and team coach to select the final 11.
Either England does something totally different, Vaughan did not vote for the Tremlett inclusion as indicated or the vice captain (I pressume Collingwood) voted along with the coach (Moore) against Vaughan and opted for Broad.

Anyway this poses an interesting stand-off.
On one hand you have the selectors with probably a medium and long term interest in the team as well as a short term one. Who have identified Broad, a development type player and are showing they are prepared to have the faith to stick with him.
On the other hand you have the captain Vaughan, who appears to only have interest in the short term wanting to include a bowler to do the job on the day (considering the selectors had not selected him originally, there must be some doubt if he can).

Why shouldn't young developing Broad be afforded the same selection security in the team as that being given to a few of the English batsmen ?

And that includes some batsmen who are already supposedly developed.

The player turnover in the England side compared to the Australian side is frightening.

Broad will get good quick development in the Test squad, relegate him back to the counties and his development will slow.


How good is this Tremlett ?
If he is so good how come he finds himself outside of the team ?

Journo's are like computers, they are only as good as the information fed into them. Horse-poop in, Horse poop out, you know what I mean.



An experienced captain who does not know how to effectively use his spin bowler. Why ?

Does he discuss this issue with Monty ? Does he listen to what Monty has to say ?

This is a serious captaincy issue, if it was not for Monty's 2nd innings bowling heroics in this test, your journo mates would be trying to nail Vaughan's still bloody scalp to the back pages of their newspapers right now.

Considering 4 of Monty's 6 victims were "lbw" and another was caught by the keeper, we can hardly go slapping the captain on the back and congratulating him for great feild positioning, as to being the major reason for Monty's big haul.

In fairness, Warne is about the only captain of the last 20 years to have won plaudits in England for his understanding of how to deploy slow bowlers. His impact on Udal's effectveness at Hampshire was stunning, but stood out because of the negative handling of spinners just about everywhere else!

England's not alone in this: SA and the WI are no different. Moreover, it's not just spin: captains and coaches everywhere are comfortable with setting fields for containment with back of a length, heavy ball speedsters like Flintoff... but hardly anyone, anywhere, seems confident handling attacking bowlers who should be encouraged to pitch the ball up and who should be positively encouraging aggressive batting as a means to effect a dismissal.

I was impressed at the use of Jones stood up to Hoggard to unsettle batsmen in the 2007 Ashes... and have been impressed by the resent resurgence of guile in the form of well disguised slower balls and variations in pace that has emerged from ODI cricket with Fernando, Vettori and Akhtar the prime exponents... but how many countries, these days, actively seek a latter day Bedser rather than another passable speedster?

Ever think that Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting were no more brilliant handling spin bowlers than any of your English captains.

But they had superior skill's when it came to discussing, listening and effectively formulating a viable compromise between the individual veiwpoints of their spinners and themselves.

Again we arrive back to a leadership issue.

Maybe England just expects their captains to be the font of all knowledge and influence in the team, because it still lives in the shadow of the Brearley era. Which would be a shame because the world and effective leadership skill's have moved on a fair bit over 30 years.

I'm not convinced with the current four man bowling attack. At present neither Jimmy Andreson nor Stuart Broad are really good enough to be part of a four man bowling attack. Jimmy just isn't consistent enough and bowls absolute rubbish far too often. Broad is still very young and doesn't look like taking enough wickets yet (as part of a five man attack this isn't so much of a problem). Get a fit Flintoff into a five man attack and we have a better proposition. Is Tremlett that quick? I don't remember him being a speed merchant.

The batting still worries me. The second innings performance was a major improvement in so much that the intent to score was there. Collingwood, for me, is the man in the most danger but Bell must be worried too. These wonderful 15 and 20s he scores are of no use to anyone.

Two things:

1. No player should be dropped unless someone better is demanding his place: right now, no one is really battering down the door (though in fairness, Hoggard should be the incumbent, with Anderson the one under pressure to challenge for his place).

2. Both are young enough to be worth investing in. Broad, in particular, has excited interest and done plenty to warrant ongoing investment.

If the four bowlers are the best four and still aren't good enough then sobeit: better to put them under pressure as they were in this game and give them the opportunity to develop than to bring in an extra bowler so one or other can be carried as a passenger!

Not really, for two reasons:

i) Players must be dropped for consistent poor performances, or consistent failures to achieve their potential, or consistent demonstration of an inability to follow a plan. Doing otherwise merely reinforces failure.

ii) The notion that a player can 'demand' a place in the Test team whilst pounding the county circuit may be true in a few instances, but is seldom the norm and hence shouldn't be made into an all-encompassing requirement. Often enough, selectors need to do precisely that: select. Selection is not a process of picking those who top the averages or the computer ratings - it involves using one's experience and intuition in judging potential as well as temperament. For this reason, generally, the task is entrusted to ex-cricketers, and not to professional mathematicians, despite the latter's acknowledged superiority in performing statistical computations.

In any case, the gulf in class that should exist between proper Test cricket and current county cricket implies that statistical analysis would have poor predictive power.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

Quite correct M... the fact is that judging a player purely on stats is pointless. Take the average County attack, it will consist of one good bowler, (ex-international, kolpak or overseas player), maybe another one or two good county players, the rest are fairly average. If you take a batter based purely on County stats then put them against an attack of four decent international bowlers, you are going to see failure.

The fact is that some players suddenly find a bit of county form, and then start "knocking on the door" but seldom do they go onto long Test careers. Selectors have to judge on more than just purple patches, but on perceived class as well as performance.

Bell for example is a guy that probably gets selected based on how he plays, the way he times the ball, rather than purely on runs in county cricket. He has the talent, but probably not the stats. I would like to see him live up to that, and if he does, then he will be a very good player for England.

In England the head selector still has final say and the XI for this match was chosen a couple of days before the game started. Under Fletcher the captain and coach pretty much ran selection

England never have an "official" V/C during home tests.

It aint that bad - we won the Ashes with 12 players and 11 played in the first 4 tests.


He's a poor mans Harmison. Not as quick or as bouncy and more mentally fragile!

Dont worry I give him plenty of stick for earning 60K per year for telling lies

I wouldnt have said that, they just had access to Warnes cricketing Brain, which to be honest is rather good!

I totally agree. To me Broad has flattered to deceive with the ball in all of his tests so far but he will be useful to turn to to keep an end tight as part of a 5 man attack. We never know, with Flintoff steaming in at the other end batsman may look to get after Broad and he may take some wickets.

Not really but he's a good yard (4mph) quicker than Broad.

County cricket is at times a joke. Apart from Durham and say, Lancashire most attacks are full of trundlers who are no good at preparing batsman for test cricket.

If county stats were the be all and end all why is Ramps one of the biggest failures ever at test cricket?? And why can players like Vaughan, Trescothick, Collingwood, Bell, Strauss.... all have better test averages and in Vaughan, Tres and Collys case poor FC averages.

__________________
Mark.