Finally, some sense from England:it removes Matt Prior from the top, since he hasn’t worked out consistently and isn’t good enough to be at the top (it reminds me of when India tried Nayan Mongia at the top, which was also dropped after a few matches). It then promotes Kevin Pietersen to No. 3, which is where he has belonged since he began in ODIs. The previous order made no sense whatsoever: why would you take O. Shah away from the lower-order, where he is more likely to consolidate? Geoffrey Boycott had it just right: Pietersen-Collingwood-Flintoff makes for an intimidating line-up, up there with the best in the world.
There are some other problems: why keep Samit Patel in the team, if he’s not that good at batting much? It can’t be because you think he’s that good a bowler, could it? If you want a spinner in India, wouldn’t investing in a specialist one make so much more sense? And what about Ravi Bopara, mystery of mysteries? If you don’t like his bowling — and I’m not sure why you wouldn’t — then why would you take so long to appreciate his batting?
England have always had a penchat for bits-and-pieces players, who are not very good at anything, but so-so at everything. I suppose I would subscribe to the Ian Chappell theory (presumably): just play good batsmen and good bowlers. The victories will come.
Ducking Beamers: A Cricket Blog 