Amjad Khan won't have done his chances much harm after taking 5-79 in the Barbados Cricket Association President's XI innings either. Those wickets did, however, come at over five-an-over.
I suppose Khan basically comes into an equation whereby England either pick two or three from the Kent man, Anderson, Harmison and Sidebottom, depending on whether they choose to go in with four or five bowlers.
It's a tricky conundrum: five bowlers, albeit carrying an injured Flintoff, Harmison, and as it transpired, Swann, couldn't whittle the Windies out in 130 overs in the last Test, but that was on a pretty flat track. Counter that with the stats regarding how few times England have been past 400 before the first innings in Antigua and you have a problem (twice past 365 in 25 Tests, according to YB's excellent article
here)
If Swann's elbow doesn't react well over the next few days, I think England will plump for six batsmen, even given the Nottinghamshire spinner's inauspicious start to his Test career with the bat. If it does, then I guess there's a chance of England going in with Ambrose at six, Broad at seven, Swann at eight and Harmison, Anderson and Sidebottom/Khan making up the tail.
Six is undoubtedly a spot too high for Ambrose, and at the moment putting Broad in at seven is also counterproductive - based on the evidence of this series and his form in ODIs, I want Broad to be our major strike bowler, and not have the responsibility of having to contribute 30/40 with the bat. Sure, if he makes those runs, great, and in the future he has the ability to potentially eclipse Flintoff, but not now.
If Swann is out, and even possibly if he is fit, then England will take the more conservative route, and look for overs from Collingwood and/or Pietersen.
Then it's down to who you pick at six as the 'extra' batsman. Bell has had his chance - being dropped after Jamaica proved that the England selectors have had enough of him threatening to make runs at three and not going on, with the odd deceptive big hundred intermittedntly thrown in. Granted, Bell looks good as a batsman, but the figures don't add up - in the top three positions in the order, he averages less than 30, from 4-7, it's over 40.
My concern is that he averages nearly 50 from 19 Test innings at number six. The English selectors have proven with Strauss (recalled on the basis of taking the Sri Lanka tour off) and Collingwood (brought back after a solitary Test out), that they aren't willing to make the established guard work hard for their places back.
That doesn't bode well for Bopara, who on the basis of his potential and the versatility he has shown at County level, plus good form for Essex, as well as his century in this tour match, that he is ready for another Test chance. If England are looking forward to the Ashes, then Bopara is the solution given that he could fill a gap for any injured batsman from 3 to 6 in the order, and he needs Test experience now. Unfortunately, I guess that the selectors would take the 'easy' option of recalling Bell to a position that he enjoys, but in which he has no real future.
As for the bowlers, Broad is the strike bowler, Swann has done well as the spinner, and that leaves two more pace men. Anderson's late spell of 8-3-18-2 in Antigua, and his improvement in the past 12 months, would give him a place in the side for me and, since Harmison blows hot and cold, I would side with a safer option in a four man attack of Sidebottom, who now has overs under his belt, leaving my team for Barbados looking like this:
Strauss (c), Cook, Shah, Pietersen, Collingwood, Bopara, Ambrose (wk), Broad, Swann, Sidebottom, Anderson.
As a footnote, the Bopara & Khan-less England Lions have just finished a two-day match against a New Zealand Emerging Players XI in Lincoln, NZ. Stephen Moore made an encouraging 75, and whilst fellow Worcestershire player Steven Davies, who will replace Ambrose in the England squad for the ODIs, made just 3, Ben Scott, the Middlesex gloveman, contributed 53 from number eight (
scorecard).
