England in Need of a Pacemaker

England showed any number of failings on a slothful pitch at a soulless Westpac Stadium in Wellington on Saturday but the worst was a lack of adaptability.

Once it became apparent that they had severely misread the characteristics of the drop-in pitch and seemingly ignored the intentions of the opposition, who with experience of the conditions had altered their side, there was still an opportunity, when batting, to collect their thoughts, reassess the strategy and play accordingly. Instead, as one New Zealander put it after the match, there was no Plan B.

One-day cricket demands many skills, and the ability to think on the hoof is right up there. In terms of a series England managed it in Sri Lanka before Christmas, losing the first match largely as a result of bowling like novices and allowing the opposition to exceed their own expectation, but then coming back strongly to win by a 3-2 margin. It was a notable success against the World Cup finalists.

But changing tack in midstream in a match still seems beyond them. In Wellington, as the nature of their miscalculation became evident, there was scope for someone to seize the moment, decide on what was a workable total under the circumstances, then set about achieving it.

The strategy instead appeared to be "get as many as we can" - flawed thinking that all too often goes wrong. If you think realistically, it is possible to overachieve; enter the realms of fantasy and the opposite happens. Every pitch, it seems for England, is a 270-plus surface, when 220 might have won the match on Saturday.

But do England have a batsman capable of running the show in the requisite manner? Given the way one-day internationals are conducted now, with power plays and the imperative to capitalize on the new ball while it is hard and hittable whatever the conditions, the openers can be taken out of the equation. Theirs is a job apart. The key position, that of conductor or orchestrator, is No3, first wicket down.

To fill this position, with a brief to assess the conditions and decide on the strategy, requires a considerable personality and cricketing intellect. Someone is needed - and not necessarily the captain - who has the authority to call the shots as a game-player, someone with the clout not to allow others to overrule his judgment. It requires experience on an advanced level of conditions and circumstance.

Dean Jones, trusted implicitly by Allan Border, did it for years for Australia, as Ricky Ponting (291 ODIs) has lately. For Sri Lanka Kumar Sangakkara (210) wields the baton. The contrast is stark with Ian Bell, England's current No3 who, by their standards, boasts a wealth of experience with 60 caps, though few at No3, and in reality is still wet behind the ears. Bell ought to have recognized that first impressions on Saturday were wrong and felt able to adjust the tempo , confident that he had the backing of the dressing room.

The question is whether Bell, who has worked hard to shrug off the diffident tag, has enough about him to take on that Jones-Ponting-Sangakkara mantle, perhaps telling Kevin Pietersen how he should play. And if not him, then who? Pietersen himself? Collingwood? The jury is still out on these two batsmen.