The Strauss announcement

Written before the ECB press conference, so most of the content of this is based on spurious rumours and gossip from Twitter. If the ECB announcement turns out to be about a move from Buxton water to Evian as the sponsor of the drinks break, please ignore below.

So the ECB are calling a press conference at 12, and without wanting to pre-empt anything, it looks like it will be dealing with the future of Andrew Strauss. As much as it pains me to write, it looks like Graeme Smith has claimed the scalp of yet another England captain, and Strauss is to step aside as England skipper. But is Strauss leaving his post the right thing to do for the England team?

Well, initially, it depends on how exactly he decides to leave. The first option would be the outright, effective immediate retirement from England duty. No last hurrah. No rejoining the ranks. A swift clearing of the locker and out. This would in one fell swoop rid England of not just their captain, but one of their openers, with an incredibly tough tour to India only months away and nobody with any experience ready to step into his shoes. While a re-jig could see Trott move up to the top, more likely would be a youngster like Joe Root or Alex Hales (or because I'm biased, Joe Denly or Sam Robson of Middlesex) thrown straight into the deep end of what is probably cricket's toughest tour. So not ideal then for Team England for Strauss to chuck it in then.

So what if he went the Ricky Ponting route and fell back in line as one of the foot soldiers? Well, for one, is he good enough to justify his place in the team as a batsman alone? Strauss' record over recent years has been sketchy to say the least, and it could be argued that he's only been able to keep his spot because he is the captain. Can England afford to carry an underperforming player who may well be past it with India this winter and an Ashes series next summer? And while the young pups may not have much experience, as Alastair Cook showed back in 2006, being thrown in at the deep end can reveal a player's true class. Who's to say that someone like Root, who was identified as a talent long ago and brought through the England Performance Program wouldn't excel from the off? But then (just to be awkward), what if unburdened from the captaincy, Strauss refound the form that followed him for the first few years of his test career. One of Strauss' finest hours in an England shirt came on the last tour to India - a tumultuous tour that followed a home South African defeat and the resignation of the captain. Who's to say that he couldn't do it again?

The elephant in the room, and quite probably the reason Strauss feels he needs to call it quits, however, is Kevin Pietersen. Strauss may feel that the divisions between Pietersen and himself are irreparable, and knowing that long-term Pietersen will score more runs for England than he will, has decided selflessly to step aside to help ease KP's return to the fold. But then again, if that is the case, would the fractions between the anti-KP and pro-KP camps in the dressing room (the pro-KP camp would just be KP) become even more irreconcilable if he is directly to blame for the loss of the well loved and well respected leader, making it even less likely that Pietersen can ever succeed as part of an England team again?

I really do hope Andrew Strauss doesn't give up the England captaincy, simply because it just shouldn't end this way. Strauss was meant to keep going for another year, win his third Ashes series as captain before handing over the reigns to Alastair Cook, who'd then go Down Under and win them again. Strauss is a captain that did win back-to-back Ashes, as well as leading England to number one in the world, and history will judge him as one of England's finest captains ever, and it's so undignified for such a good, decent man to have to leave over some texts and a parody Twitter account. But whatever happens to Andrew Strauss, one giant problem in the England camp needs to be decided. Back in early 2009, Strauss took over the job after a fall-out caused by Kevin Pietersen. In August 2012, it looks like Strauss will give up the job after a fall-out caused by Kevin Pietersen. As talented a batsman as Kevin Pietersen undoubtedly is, can England afford to have him causing so much damage any longer?

How to make England win in the subcontinent

So England have lost yet another test match in the subcontinent. The number one ranked test side have now lost four in a row - unthinkable only a few short months ago. So what's going wrong - and how can things be changed so England can be good again?

Well to start off, it's obvious where the problem lies. England's batting in the subcontinent - against spin in particular, is horrific. While the batsmen were booking in for bed, breakfast, lunch, dinner, and another night against India last summer, there's been none of that determination to remain at the crease in the four tests of this tour. While there are obvious technical flaws in most of the batsmen, much of the issue is mental. How can Rangana Herath, who England destroyed back at home turn from a pie-chucker into a world-beater? Herath is the same bowler as he was 8 months ago, there's very little mystery to him, but England's fragile mental state to spinners in the subcontinent made him look like a cross between Hedley Verity, Jim Laker and Shane Warne. Any issues over facing Herath are solely between the batsmen's ears, which is making their previously adequate techniques fall to mush when a spinner is thrown the ball.

So what can be done? In between trolling Indian fans on Twitter and combing his new hair, Michael Vaughan made a good point about mental baggage. Before 2005 England hadn't won an Ashes series in 18 years, and had been consistently humped by the Aussies, so most of the team that he inherited came into games against Australia expecting to lose. Vaughan then got rid of the players with mental scars about playing Australia, and got in a new brand of Ashes newbies who promptly went on and won. Vaughan's point was that a similar approach may well work here, with seemingly all of England's current side paralysed by fear of spin, and waking up in cold sweats after dreaming of Suraj Randiv's teesra. Basically, Vaughan advocated getting rid of the batsmen and starting again with a fresh bunch, a group who may or may not be as good technically, but at least wouldn't fall into the trap of consistently getting themselves out.

Vaughan's argument does have it's merits, but it would be very difficult to just "bring in a new bunch". To start, who would they be? As strong as the county system is at the moment, it isn't brimming with test-ready players who'll be able to swim when they're thrown in at the deep end. Plus, who do you drop? Cook, Bell, Pietersen and Trott all made double-tons last summer, Prior is the best wicket-keeper batsman in the world, Patel has only just come into the team, and Strauss is the captain. (More on him here). These are all clearly very good batsmen (how else would England have got to that number one ranking?) but seemingly only Jonathan Trott has the mental stability to dig in on the subcontinent. When the players get back to England in a few months, chances are that all of the batsmen will fill their boots and make everyone eat their words.

So what can be done? Well, if teams sometimes play 'horses for courses' bowlers at certain grounds, why not horses for courses batsmen? Monty Panesar is purely playing in these tests because they expect it to spin, so why not a spin-specialist batsman? Having a James Taylor or an Owais Shah to only play if the ball's going to rag square may be quite unorthodox, but why should the batting order be set in stone? Dropping Pietersen for Joe Root for subcontinental games may seem unfair to KP, but isn't Panesar getting picked a little harsh on Steve Finn? As England and India's fluctuating fortunes have proved, cricket is a very different game depending on where in the world it's being played, so surely the smart thing to do is to pick different players depending on the different conditions? It's certainly something worth considering, as while England may well beat the West Indies and South Africa in the summer on green seamers in Durham, the four test series that follows in India could be a very long one for England fans unless something drastic changes.

The ODI Bell tolls for Ian

The curious case of Ian Bell has plagued England's One Day side for quite a while now. Clearly ridiculously talented, Bell just hasn't got it together in ODIs, with just one century from 108 games and a worse-than-expected average of just 34.04. While his test form has gone through the roof in the past two years (this Pakistan series excepted), if anything his ODI form has gone downhill, with only one fifty in the last fourteen games. After not making the team for the first four games of England's most recent ODI tour, he hasn't even made the squad for this to-be-played Pakistan series in the UAE. So is Ian Bell's ODI career over? Or indeed, should it be?

Well, simply put, the performances of Ian Bell in ODIs sum up England's failing in the fifty over format. A few starts here and there, but very rarely the big match-winning score, and when the pressure's on, he hasn't been the man to put his hand up for the team (Bell averages just 26 in games England have lost). Add to that a poor away record (averaging 28 in games outside England), and Ian Bell's ODI history is a microcosm of England and their general lack of consistent ODI success.

The stats may be harsh on Bell, as he has been shunted up and down the order, having been employed in every position from aggressive opener, to middle-order nurdler, even to number eleven tailender (admittedly coming in with a runner due to a broken foot), and the England management's inability to find a regular slot or gameplan for Bell could well sum up why England just haven't got it right in fifty over cricket as well. But, he's been given countless chances to impress at ODI level, and hasn't done it. Eventually somebody had to be ruthless and give him the boot.

Mediocrity has almost become a by-word for English batsmen in ODI cricket over the past ten years, and probably well before that as well. Players who are clearly naturally talented, or have had sparkling test careers just haven't cut it in limited over cricket, yet have been allowed prolonged stays in the side, without ever producing. Owais Shah - 71 matches, averaging 30 with only one hundred. Michael Vaughan - 86 matches, averaging 27, no hundreds. Ravi Bopara - 69 matches, averaging 29 with no hundreds. These are not numbers that lead to a successful side. You can add to that post 2008 Kevin Pietersen - 36 matches, averaging 25 with no centuries. The culture of "well, he's clearly a good player / scored runs in tests, so let's keep him in" has led to England being nothing more than a second rate ODI team, and if England are to become successful, has to stop.

There's no real room for sentiment in international cricket, and while Ian Bell's test exploits should be celebrated, his ODI form should be downright ridiculed. While being a good test batsman can sometimes mean you'll be a good ODI player, the Venn Diagram doesn't totally intersect. Just ask "good in ODIs, not so good in tests" Eoin Morgan for proof that the two disciplines require different talents, and don't always lead to the same results. In the likes of Alex Hales, Jos Buttler and Jonny Bairstow, England have some incredibly exciting young batsmen, who's games are perfectly set up for limited over international cricket. These are the players who England should be playing, not Ian Bell, and after a long time, it seems that the England management have realised it. While Andy Flower has spoken about how dropping Bell for this series isn't the end of his ODI career, if England are to make a success of it in the short-forms, hopefully this will be the last that we see of Ian Bell in ODIs.