By JMB & Yorkshire Curmudgeon
November 27 2006

As the dust of England's first test performance settles England are LOST. As series 3 of the TV show hits UK screens the national side find themsleves stranded on a strange island, with hostile locals, unable to deal with the conditions or find a way to steer themselves to safety. Instead of the anticipated burning embers it is dust and cobwebs that spring to mind when reviewing Englands start to this much anticipated battle. Unlike the TV show this series seems to be over before it has begun.

England are at best naive and at worst arrogant. The performances over the last few years have seen England rise to second in the ICC test rankings. When asked whether the team needed longer to aclimatise to antipodean conditions the answer is 'no, we have always prepared the same way in recent times and look at our record of success'. The problem is that Australia is not a normal tour, they are better than the other opposition we play and the English public expects to see eleven lion hearts on display.

The powers that be in English cricket never seem to learn.

It was inevitable that Giles and Jones would usurp Monty and Read as soon as Duncan Fletcher got his hands on team selection. The system where the coach has control overseas and the panel debate the team for home series is outdated and is causing an inconsistency of selection. When the touring team travelled to Australia by boat and returned five months later there was a need for a manager to control the troops on the ground. In modern times there is no reason why the selectors cannot be the same people home and away. Is Read going to be the home keeper and GoJo the man behind the sticks during the winter as Fletcher restores his own favourites whenever he gets the chance?

Monty has to start sometime in Australia. Why was he not tried in this match? Did Giles' runs save the game? Did Giles' bowling put Australia into a losing position? 'No' and Giles was never likely to be the positive diference between the two sides, whereas Monty might have been. He is a wicket taking bowler, is as economical as Giles but Fletcher's obsession with rewarding players who can wear more than one hat denies England a potential match winner. Fletcher likes versatility whereas England need to pick the best players in their respective roles.

Flintoff is a fine all-rounder. He is a great one in modern terminology and a potentially great in reality. However, can anyone with his responsibilites as a player also be an effective captain? History would suggest not. Stewart wasn't a success in the role when keeping wicket and opening the batting. Botham proved a failure, too. Close and Illingworth were all-rounders and great captains at the same time, but however good they were with bat and ball, they were not as pivotal in either role as Flintoff is now. He is particularly important as a bowler with Harmison performing poorly, Hoggard not having the conditions to help him and all other seam options unsure of their places.

Strauss would have been the better option. The best captains stand at slip without the added pressure of worrying about whether they should be bowling themselves. Strauss may have to open the batting but then every captain takes on a dual role as player and leader. It might however be one straw too many and England do rely on Strauss' runs. If ever the value of Vaughan's captaincy in the last Ashes series has been highlighted it has been in this first test.

The merits or otherwise of Trescothick in the side are largely academic now but the selection of the original touring party must be questioned. With Fletcher unwilling to pick a side that exposes a tail of Read, Hoggard, Panesar, Harmison and Anderson we should be asking - why didn't you pick someone else then? The likely starting eleven was always known so why didn't the selectors either consider playing an extra batsman (which would have allowed Monty's inclusion) or take a bowling all-rounder to shorten the tail.

Finally, are the backroom staff coaching Harmison out of the doldrums he has been in for the last year, or is the player not listening? Apparently he thought his performance in the first innings wasn't that bad. If the bowling coach isn't doing his job he should be replaced. If Harmison is arrogant enough to think that the dreadful exhibition he put on show in Brisbane was sufficient and is not listening to advice he should be on the first plane home.

England lost the first test in 2005 and came back to win the Ashes. It seems a more remote possibility this time.