England’s selectors, following their side’s defeat at Edgbaston which clinched the series for South Africa, face a choice. Carry on more or less as things are, or make dramatic changes. At the moment, the evidence seems to tilt towards the latter as the best course of action.
The form of a number of the batsmen, not least the captain, has been well below par. Whilst Collingwood has probably saved himself with his big score in the second innings at Edgbaston, it is far from clear that he should have been in the side to make it. However good he is in the dressing room, he’s spent far too much time in there when England have been batting.
Similarly, Vaughan’s captaincy skills may be enough to justify inclusion in the side when it’s winning, but it isn’t. England haven’t beaten anyone other than New Zealand or the West Indies since August 2006, and those two are very much second-tier Test sides (or at least were at the time – the West Indies seem to be improving at the moment).
As for the bowlers, the “confused” selection seems to veer between ultra-conservatism, nostalgia and wild stabs in the dark. Far less loyalty has been shown to, say, Matthew Hoggard, than to players such as Collingwood.
I don’t expect that the selectors agree, of course. They will have their reasons for each selection decision, but the conspiracy theories will gain credence if they don’t do something soon.
[...] 4, 2008 by A P Webster On Saturday night, I wrote that England’s selectors faced a choice: be bold, or attempt to muddle through. [...]