One-day Test for Jones

All coaches of every sport, especially since the resignation of Sir Clive Woodward, seem to operate from the same handbook. The same platitudes surface whether England are playing San Marino (at football), Canada (rugby union) or Zimbabwe (cricket). So inevitably Duncan Fletcher said upon departure for Southern Africa: 'What I have learnt is that you cannot say there are any easy games in international cricket.'

Nonsense, of course. We can expect England to thrash their Zimbabwean opponents in the five one-day internationals that commence in Harare on Friday. We would expect any self-respecting English county side to do the same. At least on the field, where the tour begins today with the first of two warm-up games against Namibia, there should be no problems.

The challenge for the management team is to keep the bodies and minds of the squad intact during the visit to Zimbabwe. We all know of the absurdity of this segment of the tour. Every utterance from the senior players confirms the reluctance of the squad to be there. A visit to the dentist is infinitely preferable. The arguments for boycotting this trip to Zimbabwe are obvious and well rehearsed. Even taking the narrowest of cricketing perspectives, there is no real justification for being there. But that is where they are and they may as well make the most of it.

So who has most to gain? There are four uncapped players in the squad. Presumably common sense will prevail and every one of the 14 players will be given at least two games out of the seven on the schedule. Simon Jones will be aching to have an outing. In six years with Glamorgan he has played 10 one-day games. During that time he has amassed four wickets, one for every 105 runs he has conceded. I doubt whether anyone - outside of the Zimbabwe team - has possessed such slender credentials before his international debut.

Yet Jones's presence on this leg of the tour is justified - it is worth finding out how he performs with a white ball - and so are his misgivings about staying a Glamorgan player. On one occasion last year he was even omitted from Glamorgan's championship team.

Matt Prior, of Sussex, has slightly better credentials (he averages just under 20 in one-day cricket for his county) although it is remarkable that he has been told that he is in the squad for his batting and fielding rather than his wicket-keeping. Maybe this is a bit of propaganda to placate Chris Read, whose quirky batsmanship and combative temperament seem ideal for the one-day game. The confused Read will be among the 'specialist' Test players who head for South Africa on 1 December.

The other two newcomers are Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen. Here there is also scope for confusion. Already Bell, rather than Pietersen, has been selected for the one-day series against South Africa, which takes place in February after the Tests have been completed. Sod's Law will determine that Pietersen will blast some hundreds over the next fortnight, outshining Bell in the process.

Pietersen, not known for his reticence, has expressed his disappointment at not being selected for the South Africa section of the tour. On purely cricketing grounds - and surely this is how he must judged, even if some have reservations about his decision to opt to play for England rather than South Africa - Pietersen has a good case. He is a truly destructive batsman who can change the course of a one-day match in an hour. Bell is more of a Strauss-style accumulator. It seems as if Pietersen is being made to earn his spurs, not only by scoring runs but also by confirming his commitment to the regime. He is not being granted an automatic passage. It is in his interests to keep his mouth shut, to buckle down and cheerfully carry the drinks if necessary.

There is one good, long-term reason for the selectors' preference for Bell, who made one successful Test appearance in the summer. Experience in one-day internationals forms a helpful conduit for Test cricketers. The format may be different, but some of the pressures are the same.

If we glance at the careers of Adam Gilchrist and Michael Clarke in Australia or Marcus Trescothick and Andrew Strauss of England, all of whom made an immediate impact at Test level, we note that they all started their international careers in the one-day game. On these grounds, the preference for Bell rather than Pietersen is justified. But I suspect that Pietersen is more likely to win England a World Cup.

Both of them should be capable of gleaning stacks of runs during England's uncomfortable ramblings around the continent before the real contest of the winter against South Africa begins - to the relief of all concerned.