Last Friday, the Test and ODI squads for England’s tour of New Zealand were announced. First impressions would suggest that other than the now-traditional change of wicketkeeper and the re-inclusion of exiled batsman Andrew Strauss, the selectors had chosen to stick with their winning side.

The only problem with the situation, of course, is that they’re nothing of the sort.

The ECB appear to be under the impression that so long as the public are continually told that they have a good cricket team, they will believe unquestioningly. The end of England’s impressive six-year undefeated home Test series run came to an end last summer at the hands of India -  but this was quickly swept under the carpet in favour of an unprecedented 4-3 ODI series victory.

'The ECB appear to be under the impression that so long as the public are continually told that they have a good cricket team, they will believe unquestioningly'


Despite continually playing down ODI cricket whilst their record went from bad to worse, having actually won something, the team and the ECB appeared to change their minds, insisting that the one-day series more than made up for the Test match debacle.

The ODI victory was enough to allow the selectors to avoid some difficult questions and as such they continued on to Sri Lanka with an almost identical Test team. After all, 1-0 wasn’t so bad, was it? Certainly not bad enough to justify getting rid of a wicketkeeper who can’t catch. Definitely not bad enough to give in to Mark Ramprakash’s case for selection, despite him being statistically more deserving of a place in the England team than any other batsman in the country.

Instead, the decision was made to drop Strauss, not for the veteran in the form of his life, but for the less experienced Ravi Bopara who managed a batting average 40 runs below Ramprakash’s, over fewer matches, in a lower division. The justification? Ramprakash won’t be around for the 2009 Ashes – the only series the ECB seems to care about.

The selectors continue to defend poor selection decisions by claiming they are building towards the climax of the 2009 summer, with the result that the England team seem to slip from bad to worse in series which are treated with lower importance by the selectors. The Australians will famously fight every series, every match, to the death, an ethic propelled to new intensity by their last series defeat, ironically at the hands of the now-faltering England.

The same faces are continually re-used as the selectors and coach refuse to admit their past mistakes. The inexplicable re-selection of Geraint Jones and Ashley Giles at the beginning of the 2006 Ashes seemed to underline this but England seemingly refused to learn from their errors, the much-vaunted Schofield Report failing to ask for a review of the team who suffered the first Ashes whitewash in over 80 years.

Instead, as is now becoming customary, the wicketkeeper who had done little wrong was made scapegoat and booted from the side.

The tour to New Zealand will see the sixth England wicketkeeper in 13 months. Apparently changing the criteria to suit who they currently do, and more worryingly don’t, want to select (batting first, sledging ability first, catching first and now any keeper who didn’t join the ICL, if David Graveney is to be believed), the selectors have plumped for Tim Ambrose. Despite ousting Matt Prior on the premise of needing a keeper who is a better glovesman (giving hope to many that they may finally have realised the purpose of a wicketkeeper), Ambrose managed a paltry eighth in the LVCC1 wicket-keeping averages, although he finished the season with a healthy batting average of 45.15.

The other wicketkeeper going on tour, Phil Mustard, averaged 25.96 – easily trumped by the out-of favour Geraint Jones (34.61), hotly-tipped James Foster (37.59), newly England qualified Nic Pothas (46.87), World Cup keeper Paul Nixon (48.83) and continually out-of-favour Chris Read (54.17). Read was also the second-ranked English keeper in his division, losing out only to James Pipe of Derbyshire who, although impressing with the gloves, boasts a batting average less likely  to trouble the England selectors (36.06).

The question of Read's non-selection was put to Graveney at Friday’s press conference, the answer coming back that the issue of the ICL must be taken into consideration. It would stand to reason that the statistics of county cricket (which according to the Schofield Report is first and foremost a feeder system for the national side) and the needs of the England team should be ‘taken into account’ first. But evidently Graveney does not agree.

Current selection policy is letting the England side down, the twin stumbling blocks of focusing solely on the Ashes series of the dim and distant future and consistency for consistency’s sake holding back a team which has steadily slipped from second to fifth in the world rankings despite having the potential and the talent to do better.