It looks very much like England will go into the first Test against Pakistan on Tuesday with Moeen Ali opening the batting alongside Alastair Cook. Moeen has come in at nine twice in his last three Test innings, and never batted higher than six in a Test for his country. Meanwhile, waiting in the wings is Alex Hales, who is yet to make his long-form international debut, and averages 9.3 in his last six ODI and T20I innings.
The fact that a touring squad, going to a country where Pakistan have never lost, contains not just one, but two candidates for an opening berth who have never fronted up first in a Test before and whose form and suitability for the role are questionable is not, in itself, a problem. Moeen deserves a go as opener, if only to allow a simple rejigging of the side in what will be twirl-friendly conditions in the UAE. Hales, too, has earned any opportunity that might come his way, with over 1,000 Division One runs for Nottinghamshire in 2015 at an average in excess of 50. And last summer, Adam Lyth deserved his chance, as did Sam Robson, and Michael Carberry, and Nick Compton before any of them, all the way back to the sorely missed Andrew Strauss.
Each of the latest four to be tried – omitting the short-lived, ill-advised dabble with Jonathan Trott, and sidestepping the shuffled-around Joe Root – had his faults. Lyth flapped too much, Compton perhaps too little; Robson left too big a gate, Carberry faced too big a challenge. None of them has made it to ten Tests.
Now Steve Waugh averaged 20.84 in his first ten Tests – lower than all save Lyth have managed in their stints so far – and 53.01 in his next 158, but that’s not really the point. Lyth, Compton, Robson and Carberry might have proved better Test cricketers than Steve Waugh had they been given the same opportunities, but let’s be honest, it’s much more likely that they would have proved worse. No, the point is that all of them are clearly pretty good, but none of them is much better or worse than the others.
The constant need for change more in hope of magic than in expectation of competence is not just a feature of the England cricket team. Since Stuart Lancaster took charge of the rugby lot in 2011, there have been 14 different partnerships at centre. Even allowing for injuries, loss of form, the emergence of some players and the fading away of others, that is an extraordinary figure. Meanwhile, the England football team is going the same way. It had six managers between 1946, when it became a full-time post, and 1990; Roy Hodgson is the 11th incumbent in the 25 years since.
Undoubtedly, international rugby – and international football for that matter – suffers from the fact that some games are more important than others. No one cares too much about the Six Nations, or a friendly kickabout with Norway; but fail at a World Cup (particularly, Stuart, if your country’s hosting the tournament), and there will be hell to pay. So change has at least some endgame in mind – if you aren’t going to be there in four years’ time, there’s not much point in having you around now.
The England cricket team (or at least, the Test team) doesn’t really have that problem. An Ashes series is special, but it isn’t the pinnacle of the game in the same way. There are only two possible winners, for a start, and it comes along so often that you – yes you, Ian Bell – can be 33 years old, have lost a few, and still won five of the things. And yet, over the last three years, through Andy Flower, Peter Moores and Trevor Bayliss, the selectors have lost the courage of their convictions at the top of the order.
Change begets change. A constant flow of new batters coming into the team means less familiarity between partners and less trust in those to follow. That, in turn, leads to tension out in the middle, lapses in concentration and uncharacteristic dismissals. Even worse, uncertainty can build in an excuse for the very failures it has helped to create. Beleaguered management can explain away poor results and performances by arguing that a team is in transition, while a struggling player can blame the disorientating effect of upheaval. Meanwhile from the outside, fans, who cannot be held to account for their views, find it much easier to wish for the dazzling, unlimited potential of the unknown than accept the niggling imperfections of reality.
English cricket has come a long way since the dark selectorial days of the 1990s. The current vacillation at the top of the order, though, risks them staring down that same old barrel. The opening batsman question has become A Thing, and that’s not helping those who are being selected. So come on, England. Pick someone that plays the way you want – maybe it’s the bombast of Hales, maybe the elegance of Moeen – and then let’s just stick with him.
The Top Left Hand Corner 