CRICKET SECOND TEST:THE ENGLAND selectors, with a faith that would be deemed commendable in some quarters but feeble in others, have opted to leave well alone and give the Test team the opportunity to demonstrate they are capable of digging holes in which to bury others rather than from which to extricate themselves.
Today in Nottingham, barring unforeseen circumstances, the same side will take the field for the third and final Test against New Zealand as has contested England's previous four matches.
Given it was not long ago the selectors were unable to go five minutes without changing their side, to not do so for five games on the trot represents the stability of a supertanker.
There is a case for saying the side deserve this. Three wins in the past four Tests and no losses is a good run, and if each of these has been a scrappy victory forged out of adversity, then there is merit in that too. There was a time when England sides were incapable of reversing the tide of ill fortune, and to compile ugly wins is in itself a virtue. Imagine what they will do, the message is, when things eventually come together.
The opposite view, of course, is England should be applying for charitable status, so readily have they accepted the benevolence of the Kiwis in conceding positions of strength ever since the remarkably complete performance in Hamilton, the aftermath of which was the last time the machete went through the England ranks.
In Wellington England were 136 for five before Tim Ambrose and Paul Collingwood, with the aid of daft New Zealand bowling, added 164 for the sixth wicket, enough to give Jimmy Anderson the impetus to cut down the opposing batting.
In the series decider in Napier it was worse: four for three became 36 for four before Kevin Pietersen hauled them out of serious trouble with a century and Ryan Sidebottom did the rest. The 179-run first innings deficit at Old Trafford scarcely needs revisiting.
The batting, in terms of setting up a strong competitive base, has not functioned well as a unit for a year. The spin tells us the top six batsmen are the best there are irrespective of form, and those who fail are just one innings away from a big score. We are told repeatedly that as individuals they have career averages in excess of 40, as if that were justification in itself, without mind to trends and whether with some this represents underachievement.
The most oft-quoted evidence against such cosiness would seem to be that one has to go back a year, 12 Tests in fact, to find the last occasion England topped 400 in the first innings.
From August 1998 until January 2000, shortly after Duncan Fletcher took over as coach, they managed 13 successive matches without reaching 400 first-innings runs. And from November of that year until August 2001, they managed a further 11 games likewise.
There is a bit more to this than a bald statistic, for matches can be low-scoring but still successful.
In the first case, however, against Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, England conceded a first-innings lead in all but one instance, won only twice as a result and drew four. In the second example, with the opponents being Pakistan (twice), Sri Lanka and Australia, they led four times, winning five with one draw.
In this latest sequence, low scores notwithstanding, they have gained a first-innings lead four times, winning three, drawing five, and losing just three times.
So it is easy to see how selectors prevaricate: high scores do not necessarily win matches nor low scores lose them.
Given the dampness there must be following dreadful weather in which to prepare a pitch, it might be that sights need to be set a little lower. This could be a match where flamboyance and run rates go out the window to be replaced by graft and bloodymindedness. If so, the faith shown in Collingwood may not be misplaced.
Guardian Service
