A tour of the sub-continent is not everyone's cup of tea. Indeed, it shows the true strength of a player's character and resilience. After England's maiden one-day series victory against the Sri Lankans, the Test series looms ominously. 

The key to England's success there was the discipline and maturity of their relatively inexperienced (at international level at least) bowling attack. Moreover, the seam/swing-bowling triumvirate of Ryan Sidebottom, James Anderson and Stuart Broad produced problems for the wily Sanath Jayasuriya, Kumar Sangakarra and Mahela Jayawardena – the very three who destroyed the then pace bowling attack. The likes of Saj Mahmood, Liam Plunkett and, dare I say it, Steve Harmison were unable to bowl a consistent line or length, a stark contrast to the recent one-day heroes.

The selectors face a dilemma for the Tests, not only with the openers, with Andrew Strauss not at all certain of his place on recent form, but also the formation of their bowling attack. Surely, the ever reliable Matthew Hoggard is the first name on the list in this category. An ever-present in England's domineering side of 2004-05, he has added subtle variations to his armory since then and has become a more complete bowler, causing left-handers in particular severe problems against the new ball. 

'Harmison has failed to reproduce the same kind of form which led him to the dizzy heights of No.1 in the Test bowling rankings.'


Sidebottom has performed admirably in his second coming on the international scene and is worthy of a place in the side.  So, too, is Anderson, who has had something of a resurgence of late, after his persistent injury troubles.  Broad is also in contention after strong showings in ODIs. England may also choose to use their two spinners, Monty Panesar and Graeme Swann, on the turning wickets in Sri Lanka. With only five bowling spots seemingly available, it appears to be a tight fit. 

Let us not forget Harmison. Absent for the majority of the summer, England performed stoutly or perhaps even better without him. The very man who took 7-12 against the West Indians in early 2005, and set the tone for an Ashes victory with his opening barrage against Justin Langer and Co, has failed to reproduce the same kind of form which led him to the dizzy heights of No.1in the Test bowling rankings.

Is it possible that success has gone to his head? If his opening spell against the Aussies Down Under late last year, and his spray-gun approach to the early Tests in the summer, are anything to go by, I would suggest so. Harmison's desire has been questioned on occasions before – his homesickness is well publicised. With the flat and dusty sub-continent pitches unlikely to aid his hit-the-deck style, and the fact he has not played competitive cricket since August, his once indispensable stature to the team now looks sorrowfully fragile. On recent form, he does not deserve to tour, let alone merit a starting place in the team.

However, in his own pre-series mini-tour to South Africa he showed commitment and application. His reputation alone strikes fear through batting line-ups and has earned several of his wickets. On form he is unplayable, and breath-taking to watch, a match-winner. Will England take a risk? I incline that the easy option would be to take him, the less easy to persevere with the likes of Broad and Anderson. 

Should Harmison play in the Test series? Post a comment below or submit an article to Sportingo.