Selectors undo their good work at first opportunity

We thought that it was a new dawn. We felt that a definitive statement had been made about the future direction of the England team. We felt there would be no more passengers or shirkers.  We were wrong.

The selectors have today undone all of the “new broom” work that had been evident in the selection for the first test against West Indies, won so convincingly by ten wickets.

  1. They have recalled Ian Bell
  2. They have recalled Ryan Sidebottom
  3. They have selected 13 players for the match at Durham
  4. They have told Steve Harmison that there is a way back into the side.

Why are these things such a problem?  Perhaps taken individually they are not.  But this feels suspiciously like a complete volte-face.

Ian Bell was dropped for reasons beyond his form.  He was told by Geoff Miller that he needed to be even more passionate about playing for England.  The translation behind this suggested that Bell was complacent about his place in the side.  Less than two weeks later he is back in, without any demonstrable change in attitude from Bell.  Regular readers of this site might be inclined to believe that I have it in for Ian Bell.  I do not.  Unfortunately, however, he seems to epitomise all that has been wrong about England’s approach over the last four years.  Yet the selectors administer no more than a slap on the wrist.

Ryan Sidebottom was dropped in the West Indies due to his loss of form and fitness.  He was seen to be heckled by his team mates after some very poor fielding, and seemed to be out of favour with Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss.  He also has been reinstated.

Geoff Miller had this to say about todays squad selection:

Both Bell and Sidebottom have been in form in the early part of the season and have been a part of the England set-up in recent years

This goes against the new regimes supposed focus on present rather than past performance – these two are essentially in because they have been around in the past.

With England winning the 1st test by such a comprehensive margin, there was absolutely no need for a squad of 13 this time around.  There is no justification for selecting a different XI for the 2nd test, even with the Ashes approaching.  If any player were to be replaced, Tim Bresnan would be first among them, which considering he was allowed just seven overs at Lords would hardly see him being given a fair crack of the whip.

Here’s Geoff Miller again:

The inclusion of Bell and Sidebottom in the squad gives the selectors, the coach and the captain several options going into this game

If the “selectors, the coach and the captain” do not know their strategy for beating a poor West Indies side at Durham in May a week before the match begins, then they are doing the wrong jobs.

The nature of the squad, with 6 batsmen and Matt Prior, suggests that England will consider just four front-line bowlers at Durham, with Ian Bell slotting into the order at number six.  There is nothing wrong with this strategy in itself, but it goes against the grain of the stated preference for five front line bowlers.

Since the Ashes victory in 2005, Steve Harmison averages over 37 for England in tests.  Since the beginning of the last Ashes series (yes, that delivery) he has taken 42 wickets at an average of 44.47 and with a best of 4-48.  He has been heavily criticised for his preparation and attitude, particularly on tour.  How the selectors still feel that he has something to offer I cannot understand.

The conclusion I draw from all of this is that the selectors are worried about the Ashes and are attempting to hedge their bets regarding selection.  Perhaps if they were to take the longer view, and consider the makeup of the side beyond this summer, they might be able to make some more logical decisions.  In contrast, they seem to have gone back on their “new dawn” at the first opportunity.  Sadly, I am not particularly surprised.

Enjoyed this post? Share & follow...