How do you solve a problem like Collingwood?

When we reflect, in years to come, on the Ashes success of 2010-11 it will probably be the names of Alastair Cook and James Anderson that spring to mind.

But there were other, largely unsung, heroes. Not just those members of the tour party, like Tim Bresnan, who chipped in with valuable performances when their opportunity arose, but the support staff and coaches who helped the team remain fit and discover their best form. The likes of Graham Gooch (batting), Richard Halsall (fielding), Bruce French (wicketkeeping) and David Saker (bowling) all played a fulsome role.

And then there were the selectors. They have enjoyed a wonderful few months and deserve a great deal of credit.

The decision to replace Steve Finn for Bresnan, for example, was a masterstroke. Finn was, at the time, England’s leading wicket-taker, so the decision to omit him was controversial. After all, can you imagine a side dropping their leading run-scorer?

But Bresnan came into the side, bowled impressively and fully vindicated the decision. The recall of Tremlett was also astute.

Most of all, however, the selectors deserve praise for their faith in Cook. Coming into the series, Cook has passed 50 just once in his previous 10 Test innings and, but for a century against Pakistan in the penultimate Test of last summer, might have been struggling to make the tour.

Or so it was thought.

Actually, it appears Cook’s spot was never in doubt.

Such was the selectors’ faith in him, that Cook was certain to tour even if he’d failed in every innings against Pakistan.

“As far as I’m concerned, Cook was never anywhere near being dropped,” Ashley Giles said this week. “He has a very good Test record and we’re not into knee-jerk reactions.”

But, what would have happened if Cook hadn’t scored that century against Pakistan?

“It didn’t make much difference,” Giles replied. “We’d have stuck with him. Perhaps we’d have taken a reserve opener on the Ashes tour. But, in Australia, we all thought it was vital to have someone of Cook’s mental strength and we all thought he’d come good.”

766 Ashes runs later, it’s looking like an excellent decision. We can only speculate on how well Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash – who made their debuts in the same Test in 1991 – might have fared had they enjoyed such enlightened management. Against the far more modest bowling attacks of today, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that both men may have averaged around 50.

But every silver lining has a cloud. And if you were a batsman on the fringes of the England team, you may feel that the consistency of selection policy has allowed some to coast on reputation for some time.

Consider Paul Collingwood. England must pick their World Cup squad this week and the Collingwood issue is beginning to cause the selectors a major headache.

No-one disputes that Collingwood has been a wonderful servant of English cricket. His determination, his selflessness, his superb fielding and his all-round ability have rendered him an automatic selection in all formats for several years. It’s not hard to see why colleagues and supporters feel such loyalty towards him. He’s a good man.

But that’s not the criteria for selection, is it? If it was, Nelson Mandela would open the bowling for South Africa and Cheryl Cole would be keeping wicket for England.

Ultimately a batsman’s job is to score runs. And Collingwood hasn’t scored many in a long, long time.

Sound harsh? Well, consider this. In the last year, he’s played 13 T20 internationals. In them he’s scored just 119 runs at an average of 10.8. Despite batting at number four, his highest score is just 21.

Meanwhile, he’s passed 50 just once in his last 15 ODI innings (in a game that England lost) and, in his last seven matches, he averages only 19.

And, in Test cricket, he passed 50 just once in his last 14 innings and, in that time, averaged just 14.

That’s not just a poor run. It’s a crisis. You have to go back a long, long time to find a match-winning performance.

While it’s true that Collingwood adds value with his bowling and fielding, there are several prospective replacements who might feel they can also offer an all-round package.

Ravi Bopara, for example, has a better strike-rate with the ball (39.1 balls per wicket compared to Collingwood’s 46.2) and concedes his runs at almost the same rate (5.07 an over compared to Collingwood’s 5.01). Collingwood’s last 25 ODIs have garnered just 11 wickets at 52 apiece, while his record in India (four wickets at 72 apiece in 18 ODIs with an economy rate of 5.78) hardly makes a compelling case for inclusion, either.

While the smart money suggests Collingwood will be selected in England’s 15-man World Cup squad, his position now hangs by a thread. If he is to see off the threat of the likes of Trott and Bopara, he really needs to start repaying the selectors faith with something more tangible than being a good influence. He needs runs and he needs them now.

Morgan punishes Shoaib’s errors in Cardiff

By Gemma Wright

Anyone can have a funny five minutes. Even Lenny Henry.
But Shoaib Aktar’s ‘funny spell’ in the first T20 international in
Cardiff had a more dramatic impact than most. By dropping a simple
chance offered by Eoin Morgan, of all people, when the batsman had
just 13, he allowed England to run away with a game that had
previously been in the balance. Shoaib also fumbled a routine ball in
the field to gift England a boundary. In a low-scoring contest, such
margins are vital.
Those few minutes swung the game back in England’s favour. A
mid-innings wobble had left them tottering on 62 for 5 after 10
overs. Had Akhtar held on to the chance offered by Morgan, England
would have been 72 for six and Pakistan would have been into the
lower-order of a team that – without Kevin Pietersen – looked one
batsman short.
It wasn’t Pakistan’s only lapse in the field. Kamran Akmal reprieved
Yardy when the batsman had 13, while a number of run-out chances were
also squandered. When Shahid Afridi admitted afterwards that Pakistan
needed to spend more time practising their fielding, it was hard to
wonder why they haven’t done so previously. It’s hardly breaking news
that it’s poor, is it?
As it was, however, the two World T20 winners, Morgan (38 from 36
balls, with six fours) and Yardy (35 from 27 with four balls), added
67 from 43 balls to secure victory for England. Winning by five
wickets and 2.5 overs is, in this format of the game, is a comfortable
margin.
Pakistan had started pretty. Despite being inserted on a slow wicket,
Shahzaib Hasan and Mohammad Yousuf prospered against the seam bowlers.
As so often in the World T20, it was England’s spinners, Yardy and
Swann, who stemmed the flow of runs. They conceded just 35 runs from
their eight overs, at one stage delivering five overs without
conceding a boundary. By contrast, Saeed Ajmal, Pakistan’s specialist
spinner, conceded 30 from just three overs. Only a couple of dropped
chances from Tim Bresnan and Luke Wright blotted an otherwise
excellent performance in the field from England.
In many ways, it was as if nothing has changed since the Caribbean
World T20. As captain Paul Collingwood put it later, England have “a
strategy that seems to be working.” The bowling attack was the same
as that employed in the final, while Davies, who kept nicely and ran
between the wickets impressively, showed enough to suggest he has a
decent future at this level.
In contrast, Pakistan were once again below par in the field, though
Mohammed Yousuf, running backwards from mid-on to dismiss Bopara, took
an excellent catch.
Still, at least the match took place. At the end of one of the most
controversial weeks in cricket’s recent history, the taking part was
more important than the result.

You couldn’t completely escape the match fixing controversy however. Shahid Afridi, while attempting to take the heat out of the situation dismissed Yasir Hameed comments by saying ‘he may be 30/31, but mentally he is 15 or 16. He is unreliable.’