On England.

So, Ian Bell is the designated #3. But is Ian Bell in the mold of Ricky Ponting, attacking the opposition to nullify the gains accrued from an early wicket or consolidating his team's ascendancy? Or is he in the Rahul Dravid mold, grinding the opposition to dust, thus negating the advantages of an early wicket or setting up the match for the rest of the strokemakers when the team is in a position of strength.

And if Bell does not satisfy either of thos criteria, why is he at #3? And statistically, Bell is most productive at 6. So, wont it make sense to move him down the order than moving him out of the team?

Owais Shah is the most likely candidate for #3. Given that neither Cook nor Strauss is capable of, or willing to, do a Trescothick and beat up the opposition, the impetus for the innings has to come at 3. The other candidate for the position is the best batsman in the side, a risk the English will be unwilling or disinclined to take.Even though the batsman is South African.

At 4 comes Pieterson.

At 5, Prior/Ambrose/whoever is the flavor of the season wicket keeper. Plenty of reasons mitigate against this - most importantly playing a wicket keeper that high is unprecedented.

But Prior has opened for England in one dayers. And he is not exactly temperamentally suited to playing at 7, sheparding the tail and working on consolidating the team position ( atleast he has not given any evidence of this in the matches I have seen him play). Prior bats, ups the tempo along with Pieterson or Shah or Bell. Or perishes in the process.

At 6, Bell.

At 7, Freddie Flintoff. Only because he is the best man for the job.

At 8, Broad. This kid is special. And he bats like a top order bat. And his bowling is not too shabby either.

At 8, Sidebottom. Variety. Swing. Obduracy.

At 9, Rashid/Swann. The spin option. The primary spin option.

At 10, Anderson/Tremlett/Hoggard. I would prefer Hoggard myself, but no one else seems to think he fits in the team.

At 11, Harmison/Panesar - the extra pace/spin option.

I think way too much focus has been on the numbers generated by the English top order ( Cook's conversion rate, Strauss' average, Bell's cute 30s), very little attention has been given to the totals England run up.

Since the first Test against the West Indies two summers ago, England have ( in 40 innings)

3 scores in excess of 500
2 scores in excess of 400
16 scores in excess of 300
12 scores in excess of 200
4 scores in excess of 100
3 scores below 100

Here is the list

My problem with this is that the team as a batting unit does not quite know how they want to approach an innings. If Cook and Strauss are opening, then their primary role is to blunt the attack, by playing out as many overs as possible, runs be damned. Rather than focus on getting 100 runs in the first session, if England can play to not losing a wicket in the first session, it is equally effective.

Blunt the new ball attack, soften the ball ( and the bowlers), set the platform for the strokemakers to come in. And middling scores of 300 dont suffice. While batting, the philosophy has to be to bat once and to bat big.

And 6 scores of 50 odd are way more acceptable than one big 100 and the rest making the odd 20.

And finally - Strauss needs to remember that he is not Trescothick. His two 100s at Chennai were instructive in their approach and the effect it had on the opposition ( and its supporters).

Play that way, and you will end up winning more than losing.