England Cricket / Andrew Hughes / 11 June 2008 /

Two series against New Zealand represented a gentle opening but from here on England need to raise their game, says Andrew Hughes

Pleasing though it is to see England players wielding trophies and champagne bottles, the heady thrill of victory must be diluted with a drop or two from reality's cold tap.

New Zealand are a poor cricket team. Their batting line-up is bereft of experience, confidence and deficient in technique. Ross Taylor's flashes of brilliance are not enough and their serviceable bowling attack has buckled under the burden of carrying the team.

In that context, victory alone is not the whole story. As a preparation for a series against South Africa, it is like limbering up for a bout of lion wrestling by beating a small flightless bird with a stick. Victory was the minimum standard. It is the manner of victory that indicates how well this team will cope with the challenges ahead. And with that in mind, there are reasons to be concerned.

Our batting has been anaemic at times. Four of the six tests featured first innings collapses and the scoring rate has been funereal. Yes we showed fighting spirit in getting out of poor positions. But in the bare-knuckle contest to come, we will be pummelled into the dust if we don't come out of our corner swinging. Much of this is down to Bell and Collingwood. In the event of early wickets, the role of numbers five and six is to put out fires. Instead, they seem intent on throwing themselves onto the pyre. Three down is effectively five down.

It seems harsh to criticise the bowling and a four-man attack performed admirably on occasions. But bowling quartets, unless they feature a Warne and McGrath, do not demolish good teams. Sometimes even against New Zealand, early breakthroughs were not capitalised on. At Lord's, the visitors were 104-5 but recovered to 277. At Old Trafford, they were effectively 136-5 but managed 381 and a big first innings lead. An extra bowler would give Vaughan the firepower to sustain the attack.

That man, of course, is Flintoff. The suggestion that England might not need him is typical of the complacency that comes as naturally to the English as queuing and meteorological speculation. A fit Flintoff is the most dangerous attacking bowler in the country, a potent purveyor of bouncy, accurate and clever fast bowling good enough to trouble any batsman in the world. As soon as he is properly fit, he has to be selected.

And he has to bat at six, to make a five-man attack possible and to restore the team's balance. His batting arguably doesn't justify such a high position but then Collingwood isn't exactly Bradmanesque and Flintoff would inject a bit of momentum into the batting line-up. Meanwhile, even his closest friends would surely recognise that Collingwood is due a spell of rest and recuperation in the tranquil backwaters of county cricket.

And finally, there is Anderson. An early test of the resolve of Geoff Miller's band of brothers will be how soon they drop the Lancashire swing merchant. Personally, I'd do it now. For those lost in the foliage, Anderson is a bowler reborn, a reincarnation of Sydney Barnes and Harold Larwood. Those who can see the whole forest have a different perspective. They know that he is a one-dimensional bowler with a precarious action and an iffy temperament. They can hear the buzz of reverse swing at New Road and they know that Simon Jones does what Anderson can do, but quicker and more often.

There has been much talk of England's supposed 'ruthlessness' at Trent Bridge. Time for the selectors to demonstrate some steel of their own. If we aren't prepared to address our shortcomings, Graeme Smith's hungry South Africans will be more than happy to expose them for us.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: