I was browsing at a couple of the old article drafts here on the CMS Blog. What did I notice? Two very interesting titles which may well have been relevant three years ago, but today seem more outdated than a utopia containing the horse and cart. The first article was one of mine and was given the title of something similar to ‘What next for English Cricket?’ whilst the other was that of greyblazer, a most accomplished blogger, which was entitled ‘Well Done India’ (celebrating them taking a 2-0 lead in the then current series against England). Thankfully mine was never published (I hope!) as that would be hugely embarassing given the two or three years that the English side have had since, and GB’s was merely a statement of congratulations on a factual score, not as all emcompassing as my bound to be negative take on English selection policy.

So what has changed for England and why has it done so?

Well as I am sure you are all aware that the summer gave us an almost complete reversal in the fortunes of the two aforementioned sides. England have reached a peak that has everyone thinking, ‘Surely they can’t go higher?’ And then they do. India have had a torrid six months, having gone from being crowned as World Champions on domestic soil to suffering a torrid time at the hands of the English in England. However, whilst England are arguably approaching their zenith, I would not go as far as to say that India have reached their nadir, merely a dip before a rise.

Having been an ardent critic of English selection policy, I am slightly aghast that no longer do I feel like having a moan, and even if I did, I don’t think that there would be anything that I could legitimately moan about. One of the problems of the past in my opinion was that England always stuck by underperforming players and one of the greatest problems that I had was the continued presence of Paul Collingwood in the England side. Hurrah! Not only am I celebrating his removal (at last) from the England setup, but actually celebrating the policies of England selection over the last few years.

New talent has been blooded. You look at the bowling attack and you see seam options left, right and centre. One cannot be so crass as to say that they have been produced due to a most outstanding domestic format. Simply because this would not be the truth. One aspect of the England selection team of the past was that they always had a core group of players, and it was around this group that all plans had been made. Nowadays though, they have a core group of players as before, but they seem to be thinking about where the next core is coming from – ‘If we lose Anderson for a series, who can take his place?’ Not only have they been thinking about the next generation, but this next generation has been brought through and you would feel comfortable that England could field two four-man seam attacks should they so desire. An obvious benefit of the larger player base is that those that need it can be rested as we have seen with the likes of KP, Stuart Broad and Andrew Strauss in recent times. The vast majority of English cricketers play no part in IPL either which surely helps as they are having more R+R than all other international cricketers.

A key aspect has been the chances taken with tri-captaincy. Normally, dual captaincy has its problems – but the selectors have gone one step further and split all formats of the game. I personally would have liked Stuart Broad to be given all short form captaincy with the English Wall – Alastair Cook to have waited for the Test captaincy. Whilst I am sure many of you would disagree with me and question Stuart Broad’s credentials, all I can say is that there is a bit of spark about him and a determination to always do well. If I were in the shoes of the selectors, that is what I would have done, but made sure that Cook knew that the door was open to both his presence in the ODI team and his future captaincy in the beautiful form of the game. I am not advocating that this should happen now, merely suggesting what could have happened. My reasons are simple – without Cook – before his recent ODI form, England could have looked to form a far more agressive ODI side which already contains the likes of Ian Bell and Jonathan Trott. However, what’s done is done, and the tri-captaincy seems to be working well enough, if somewhat devaluing the role of Captain. Cook has responded well to the challenge and has even scored some runs and the team recently played well – far more consistently than normal – against a below-par India side, a side that nevertheless are current World Champions. What the tri-captaincy has achieved is that it has meant that England have mover away from always having one leader to having three leaders, all of whom are accomplished cricketers and all of whom play with a passion for the game – even if they express it in radically different ways. It has allowed specialisation of captaincy and allows the captains to focus on their particular format of the game tactically without being engulfed in all three.

Another aspect of recent English success has been the successful combination of Andy Flowers and Andrew Strauss. Flowers has clearly brought discipline and a work ethic that was lost in the tumult after Duncan Fletcher’s departure. It is this which is key, England have been able to blood more new talent than in a long time whilst at the same time appearing to be far more stable and under control than I can remember. There has been far less (reported) bad behaviour on tours and the recent Ashes victory down under seemed a far more professional get together than the previous trip. On top of this, the preparation by England tours has been much improved and it should be noted how lessons were learned from poor preparation for the previous tour down under was remedied by the management team. If we look at this in comparison to India’s warm up schedule for England, we see some stark differences.

Whilst this has been a short perusal into the state of English cricket – I daren’t go into India as I don’t have the heart for all the negative feedback that any article would be bound to attract – I would be very interested to see what you guys think? Are there any factors which I have completely overlooked in this hastily put together article (most likely)? Anyway, I look forward to hearing what you have to say whether it be good or bad and ultimately I am just very grateful that I did not run with my harsh criticisms of the selection team just before this about turn came upon us. Quite simply because three years later, surely it would not be too unbelievable to see ‘Well Done England’ and ‘What next for India?’ somewhere on this blog.