England Cricket - Beyond Hope

England lost the 4th ODI in Sri Lanka today with England posting a meager 265 from their 50 overs and the hosts comfortably reaching their target, although gave the crowd value for money by leaving it until the final over.

With a World Cup on the horizon in Australia and New Zealand this series is supposed to gearing Peter Moores' side up for that tournament. The problem is that England have absolutely no chance of winning it. I like Moores as a coach and a he comes across well as a person through the media, but his insistence at keeping Alastair Cook as captain and therefore in the side is pigheaded at best. Cook is a poor captain in all forms of the game but is a great Test match batsman, so why not just concentrate on Test cricket? He can even captain the Test match side if he likes, I don't care, but limited overs cricket is not his thing.

England under Moores are turning back to the the doldrum years of Ian Austin, Adam Hollioake and Matthew Fleming where being reasonable at both batting and bowling in county cricket seemed to guarantee a player an England cap. And yet James Taylor, the one bright spot of today's game with an eye-catching 90 before his lack of match fitness got the better of him, has onlt just got into the side.

England's bowling is also pretty ordinary and lacks discipline; if you aren't express pace or turn it 90 degrees then you need to land the thing exactly where you want it to give your captain a chance when setting a field. Moeen Ali is a decent cricketer but kept dragging the ball halfway down and Ben Stokes ought to be on the next plane home in the woeful form that he finds himself in (worth his place when playing well).

Post-match interviews seem to run along the lines of:

• We've let ourselves down.
• We'll work hard in practise/nets.
• We have some great players in the squad.
• We can still win the World Cup.

To be fair as these performances seem to happen in most games all of the above are delusional.

Why Are England Stuffing Pakistan In The ODI Series?

They are playing against the same bowlers and batsmen, so why are England totally outplaying Pakistan in the 50 over game?

Ok, so some of the players have changed, but the ones who played in the test series are actually better players than those playing the ODI side, in theory. Bopara has essentially chucked an egg in Strauss' and Flower's faces for not picking him for the test series, and good on him, although I'm not entirely sure he'd have fared any better than those who did get the nod.

The bowlers have changed a little, but the bowling was fine in the tests.

The whole problem is in the mind - the longer game means that players feel that they have to be more watchful. The field can be spread more in test cricket. agreed, but only so much. The England batsmen all went into their shells against the Pakistan spinners (who are pretty good, I hasten to add) during the test series, but when the overs are limited, they are forced to go after them. And it generally works. Ok, so Ajmal got 5 for in the first game, but England won handsomely.

Why not just try to smash these guys out of the attack? They can't do any worse than they actually did.

Cricket's Never Had It So Good, Or Has It?

Andy Flower has been quoted as bemoaning the apparent insistence of the ICC pushing ODIs ahead of Test series today. What would once be a stand-out series of South Africa versus Australia is limited to just 2 games. In this case there are no ODIs but during the last English summer England played 4 tests against the then number ones India, followed by 6 ODIs and a T20.

Test cricket called Test cricket for one reason: it is the ultimate test of a team and the players in that team. The best side will normally come out on top. ODIs are far more of a lottery - 10 poor overs and the game's lost. If you liken the games to football you'd say that Test cricket is the Premier League and ODIs the FA Cup, and ask any football fan or player which they'd rather win and it would be the Premier League every time.

The trouble is that the financial incentives are difficult to ignore for both ICC, Cricket Boards and players alike. What would you rather do? Spend a long time at work for your wages (Test cricket) or work less and earn more (T20/IPL)? It's a no-brainer unfortunately.

As a result some of the best players in the world are turning their back on Test cricket for the financial rewards of T20 cricket, therefore making Test cricket less desirable to the paying public as the quality of cricket on offer isn't necessarily as high.

Cricket has been through this before and come out the other side during the Kerry Packer World series era during the 1970s and 80s, but the longer T20's popularity remains, the more difficult it will be for cricket to recover at the top level of Test matches.

Andy Flower has a vested interest of course, in that he doesn't want his achievement as England coach and reaching the number spot in Test cricket with England to be belittled by the best players not playing, but he's definitely has a point. The ICC are looking very short term at the situation.

England Selection Policy

A healthy loss for England in the first ODI in India, but the side was bizarre.

Three seamers picked (plus a couple in reserve) in conditions that are renowned for suiting spin. Genius!

A wicketkeeper-batsman who seems to be able to fail to get runs on a regular basis but maintains a place in the side. His 'keeping isn't even that good. What has Matt Prior done?

Bopara continues to get in the side with endless poor returns, but Ian Bell, one of the best and most in-form batsmen on the planet is consigned to running on the drinks.

Kevin Pietersen is living off past glories, but needs to be pensioned off now.

My England side for the ODIs in India:
Cook
Bell
Trott
Taylor (look to the future instead of South African history)
Bairstow
Prior (should be in the party instead of Bed, sorry Kieswetter)
S. Patel
Bresnan
Swann
Dernbach
Borthwick