Fletcher's vision of England future is in the past

One of the more interesting analyses of England's inability to win so much as a single Test in the Caribbean as they slid to a narrow defeat came from the man who last helped lead them to some meaningful series wins against international cricket's major forces. Duncan Fletcher writes with clarity and alacrity, but does have an amusing tendency to use his word count in the Guardian as an opportunity to vindicate his own thinking during his days as England coach. This week, more than ever, Fletcher simply couldn't resist:

When you look at Australia, they've got three guys – Mitchell Johnson, who's finally developing an inswinger into the right-hander, Peter Siddle and Ben Hilfenhaus – who all touch 90mph. And Brett Lee and Stuart Clark are still waiting to return from injury. It's a scary prospect. Yet one of England's brightest fast-bowling prospects, Sajid Mahmood, who occasionally goes for runs but offers genuine pace, seems to have dropped out of contention. You have to wonder what's going on.

Occasionally goes for runs? Here's a list, courtesy of Cricinfo, of Test cricketers in the last 30 years who have bowled at least 1000 balls, sorted by their economy rate. Mahmood has the fifth worst economy rate of all of those – in the last thirty years. The four above him are Zimbabweans and Bangladeshis playing in weak teams, while one, Ashraful, is actually a bowler. Sajid Mahmood may occasionally go for runs, but only if you accept that nobody on a major team in recent Test cricket history has occasionally gone for more runs.

Mahmood has dropped out of contention because he was found wanting at Test level, then returned to Lancashire and had a decent 2008 (35 first-class wickets at 32.8, economy 3.55), which saw him called up for the England Lions. He got a game for them last week against New Zealand A, and returned figures of 2-77 (economy rate 4.81, including 13 no balls and 2 wides) and 3-118 (economy rate of 4.21). The same things which made him a flawed England selection are probably still in evidence.

Duncan, you can stop wondering what's going on.

Shah has decided to play in the Indian Premier League – assuming it goes ahead – rather than score runs for Middlesex in the lead-up to the Lord's Test on 6 May, but he will go to India knowing his place is under threat. The name of Michael Vaughan keeps cropping up – I notice Shane Warne mentioned him the other day – and as long as he starts the season well for Yorkshire, I'd have him in at No3. Sure, he's an old favourite of mine but I can guarantee the Australians would rather he wasn't playing.

Yes, he is an old favourite of yours. The Australians might well wish that the Michael Vaughan who turned up in 2002-3 and averaged in the 60s wasn't playing, but the Michael Vaughan who last played for England and averaged 8. I think they'd be quite happy with that. And until there's some evidence that he's the player who averaged 60 and not the player who averaged 8 (and there are no runs scored which indicate that) then advocating him is folly – not that that stopped Duncan calling for him before the West Indies touring party was named and again when he didn't go to India; interestingly Fletcher suggests that "It's a big blow for England that Michael Vaughan doesn't feel in the right frame of mind to tour India”, while Geoff Miller at the time said quite flatly “Michael's place cannot be justified based on recent form”  – Fletcher's version of events are either the truth, which would be a desperate reflection of selectorial methodology, or somewhat fanciful, which does not flatter the author.

But it's not all doom and gloom. This series produced some great performances from the two of the toughest characters in the side, Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood, and I was very impressed with the performance of Matt Prior. In 2006, when we decided to give Geraint Jones a break from keeping, I wanted Prior to take over in his place but the other selectors overrode me – I was furious. It seems to have taken them three years to realise just how good this guy is. To have found a bloke who can bat at No7 is a huge plus, and the way he played in both innings in Trinidad was a reminder of why we tried him as a one-day opener.

Ok, Duncan – we know you didn't rate Chris Read. We get it. The other selectors had a point, though. Geraint Jones had to be dropped because he stopped batting well, and continued keeping averagely. Chris Read, who had been dropped for keeping well and batting badly, had been batting well in County Cricket. He deserved another chance, rather than replacing Jones with a batter batsman and worse keeper. Speaking of which, we're all happy Prior's making some runs, but mightn't it be useful if he didn't drop quite so many catches and concede so many byes?

People who criticise his keeping should remember that most keepers struggle when they first come on the international scene: Alec Stewart, Brendon McCullum, Mark Boucher, even Kumar Sangakkara. All keepers miss chances, it's just that a guy like Adam Gilchrist could get away with it because Australia had an attack that covered up any mistakes he made. Prior should be cut some slack.

Yes, there were dropped catches, perhaps not on the scale of those in Sri Lanka in 2007 when it was felt that despite a good series with the bat his keeping did not merit a place in the side, but dropped catches nonetheless. Prior also conceded 96 byes 3717 balls this series – 1 bye conceded every 38.7 balls, as opposed to 1 bye every 77.9 balls from Ambrose in his one match. Not an exact measure, undoubtedly, but if you praise Prior for his runs you must also be prepared to criticise his keeping. More runs from a man who averaged forty with the bat as it was is hardly what the English needed to see to be more convinced of Prior's merits – it's improved performances with the gloves.

Fletcher's journalism is fascinating, because his work encapsulates everything that made him both so effective as an England coach and so blinkered that he could no longer continue in the role. His analysis of Sarwan's technique and subsequent plans to get him out recall the days when England had wonderful and well-executed plans against the Australians, but harking back to the Vaughans and Mahmoods of this world jolt you back to today and the need to look forward in creating a better England side.

To leave a comment on this article, please scroll down        BOOKMARK THIS -