Kevin Pietersen will be looking for some easy runs in South Africa ahead of the Ashes

Having completed a century for Surrey on Saturday in their CB40 match at Hove against Sussex, Pietersen was dismissed second ball against Glamorgan at the Oval on Tuesday. He fell, once again, to left-arm spin; Dean Cosker being too hot to handle for KP on this occasion.

He must have been kicking himself at this failure since there were obviously runs there for the taking. Jason Roy, skipper Rory Hamilton-Brown and Gary Wilson all passed 50 as Surrey finished up on 380. Hamilton-Brown finished on 96.

Surrey only has a County Championship game at Gloucestershire left this season starting next Monday. After this, Pietersen will have a short break before heading out to South Africa. He will be desperate for some second innings runs against Glamorgan and will be looking to score heavily at Bristol next week.

Once he is given the green light by Cricket South Africa, Pietersen will then compete for KwaZulu-Natal in two games against North West and Eastern Province. “I’m extremely keen to get as much cricket as possible under my belt before a challenging and exciting winter,” said Pietersen. “My sole focus is to continue playing a leading role for England and joining Natal is the perfect opportunity to prepare in excellent conditions immediately before the Ashes. These two matches would enable me to work on my game against the Kookaburra ball in southern-hemisphere conditions, which is the ideal preparation for Australia.”

The point Pietersen makes of gaining some exposure to the Kookaburra ball is an important one. The Dukes ball used in England has been swinging around at will for most of this summer, making life tough for batsmen. The Kookaburra, ball of choice Down Under, doesn’t swing as much and suits your back-of-a-length-type bowler. It may prove crucial that he gains some exposure to this pre-Brisbane.

His decision to get some more first-class cricket under his belt has been met with a positive reaction at the England and Wales Cricket Board. “We’re very pleased Kevin is seeking to get some more high quality cricket at a crucial period before the Ashes,” said England coach Andy Flower. “We are well aware of Kevin’s attention to detail and thoroughness when it comes to preparation and he would gain a great deal from working on his batting against tough opposition in South Africa.

“Kevin’s commitment, his desire to work on his batting and to play a significant part in a successful England team is unquestioned and this proposed arrangement with Natal, initiated by Kevin himself, further underlines that.”

Pietersen started out at Natal and even played against England for them during the 1999-2000 tour led by Nasser Hussain. Back then he was predominantly a bowler and took home figures of 4/155 as well as contributing 61 runs from number nine.

He will not be paid for this brief return to his roots. Pietersen’s obvious determination to find some form and return to the England fold at something approaching the top of his game is admirable. He clearly feels that four games with Surrey are insufficient and we wish him well for the remaining three-and-a-half games prior to the Ashes. A Kevin Pietersen back to his rambunctious best could be a deadly weapon in the Ashes battle.

By Miles Reucroft

The actions of these three could, potentially, cost cricket millions in lost sponsorship revenue.

Pepsi, the cola drink manufacturer that is the title sponsor of the Pakistan team, has a deal with the Pakistani Cricket Board lasting until 2013. Pakistan was identified by Pepsi as an emerging market and, therefore, worth pouring millions of dollars each year into. Such is cricket’s standing in the country that Pepsi is visible to pretty well everyone in Pakistan.

No one is suggesting that supporters of Pakistani cricket will stop drinking Pepsi as a result of the allegations made in last Sunday’s News of the World, but there is only so much bad publicity that a title sponsor will put up with.

Boom Boom, the manufacturer’s of Pakistan’s cricketing apparel has already moved to distance itself from the three players at the heart of the storm; Test captain Salman Butt and seam bowling duo Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir.

This stance is likely to be indicative of that adopted by cricket sponsors around the world. No one wants to be associated with a sullied reputation. Look at what happened to Tiger Woods last year. Whilst he retained many of his army of sponsors, many washed their hands of him. And he hadn’t cheated the game of golf.

Butt, Asif and Amir, if they do come back from this scandal, will find it incredibly tough to find personal endorsement deals. Even if found innocent, there is such a ring of suspicion around the trio – throw enough mud and some will stick.

As for the game at large it has been suggested in some circles that even the International Cricket Council could be hit by a lack of interest from sponsors as a direct result of this current scandal. The ICC enjoys partnerships with companies such as Yahoo! and Pepsi. I find it very difficult to imagine that they will simply walk away from cricket altogether.

These companies are in cricket for a reason – to market their products to a specific demographic that cricket can offer them. Followers of the game have sat through scandals before and are unlikely to switch off as a result of one bout of spot-fixing. The real fear lies in the thought that this is a cancer that has spread throughout the sub-continent and out into the wider cricketing world.

Whilst the current scenario is far from deal, the whole world has at least one eye on cricket right now. It’s front page news wherever you look. Whilst the sport would undoubtedly prefer to be enjoying such status for entirely different reasons, is there such a thing as bad publicity?

Scandal piques the interest. With no one accusing the sponsors even for a moment of any wrongdoing, is now not an ideal to be involved in the sport?

If the ICC can root out the wider problem and take swift and efficient action, cricket’s standing could even rise. There is huge potential for this scenario to become positive. Those in charge have the future of the game in their hands.

Until such a time that these current allegations are proven it is difficult to know how sponsors will react. If these allegations are proven and Pakistan’s opening batsman Yasir Hameed, is proven right in his comments about the entire Pakistan team throwing games for money, then there is a huge problem and the game’s standing will undoubtedly fall and sponsors will walk away.

Until then, however, all talk of sponsors walking away is just speculation and scaremongering. The game’s standing will rise and fall with its participants, but if this is an isolated incident the actions of such a minority shouldn’t blemish the rest of the game and its participants. Cricket will be praying that this is, however, an isolated incident.

By Miles Reucroft

Kevin Pietersen has been dropped from the England limited overs sides following his woeful perfromances in the Test matches against Pakistan. It was his worst showing as an international cricketer.

Kevin Pietersen found the going so tough that he has been dropped for the following two Twenty20 matches and five ODIs. He will instead be trying to find some form whilst on loan at Surrey from Hampshire for the remainder of the 2010 county season.

England will be hoping that a spell back in county cricket will assist Pietersen in finding form ahead of the Ashes. Put simply, he was possibly the worst of the England performers in this series. It was a tough title to claim at times.

ENGLAND PLAYER RATINGS

Andrew Strauss – 155 runs @ 25.83 – 5/10
Strauss didn’t have the best of times and we are still waiting for another Test century from the English skipper. He is, however, clearly a safe pair of hands to guide the team and it wasn’t an easy series for an opening batsman.

Alastair Cook – 167 runs @ 23.85 – 4/10
Came under the most intense scrutiny of his international career. A fortuitous century at the Oval helped, but his technique and confidence looked shot at times.

Jonathan Trott – 404 runs @ 67.33 – 9/10
Given the conditions, Trott had a superb series. His century at Lord’s was his best innings in an England shirt and he appears to be a rock at the previously troublesome number three position.

Kevin Pietersen – 140 runs @ 23.33 – 3/10
Short of form, short of confidence and short of runs. His 80 at Edgbaston owed far more to Pakistan’s woeful fielding than it did to KP’s dominance over the bowling. His worst showing in international cricket.

Paul Collingwood – 119 runs @ 19.83 – 4/10
There were times when England could have used Brigadier Block, but Collingwood couldn’t summon his previous innings-savings performances for England. Then again, he didn’t really need to.

Eoin Morgan – 175 @ 29.16 – 6/10
A wonderful maiden Test century in the first Test at Trent Bridge, Morgan didn’t push on from there. Will surely be replaced by a fit Ian Bell and is no closer to suggesting whether or not he is suited to the Test format.

Matt Prior – 234 runs @ 58.50 – 8/10
It is clear that Matt Prior has a come long way in international cricket. His glove work was sound, his batting efficient. He was always on hand to lend some middle order runs and look adept at batting with the tail end.

Graeme Swann – 48 runs @ 8.00 & 22 wickets @ 12.22 – 9/10
What can you say? Swann is one of the top performers on the world stage right now. In a series dominated by seam bowling, Swann’s off-spin still proved to be utterly indispensible to England.

Staurt Broad – 250 runs @ 41.66 & 14 wickets @ 23.35 – 7/10
Looking like an ever dependable bowler, Broad had his finest hour with the bat, reaching a maiden Test century at Lord’s. His temperament let him down embarrassingly at Edgbaston and he must curb this aspect of his game to take the next step up as a bowler.

James Anderson – 23 wickets @ 13.73 – 8/10
King of the Swingers, Anderson was a constant thorn in Pakistan’s side and played the conditions with aplomb. Questions will be asked in the run-up to the Ashes about how he will handle the Kookaburra ball, but you can only play what’s in front of you and Anderson ruined the Pakistani top order.

Steven Finn – 13 wickets @ 22.92 – 7/10
Finn is continuing his development and has undoubtedly been the find of this English summer. He never looked panicked on the rare occasions that the Pakistan batsmen found some form and he will be benefit from being in the same attack as Anderson.

We have decided not to review the Pakistan performances in light of the fact that, aside from being terrible at times, the spot-fixing allegations cast a doubt over the sincerity of their performances. If indeed Asif and Amir are to be found guilty of spot-fixing, it can only make you wonder how good they could have been had their minds been solely focussed upon taking English wickets. Amir’s six wicket haul at Lord’s was arguably the performance of the series, if not one of the best performances ever witnessed at the home of cricket.

By Miles Reucroft

It is a deeply saddening thought that, as a result of his involvement with illegal bookmakers, we may never see Mohammad Amir in international cricket ever again following his devestating bursts and Man of the Series performances on Pakistan's tour of England.

The overriding sensation is one of deep frustration – frustration that this can happen right under our noses at the home of cricket. And in such circumstances! Pakistan were well on top of England when the offences took place, the deliberate bowling of three no-balls; one from Mohammad Asif and two from Mohammad Amir.

The evidence is pretty damning. The two no-balls from Amir were huge. He had over stepped by nearly a foot. The deliveries were suspicious in their own right as he was in the middle of bowling one of the most destructive and masterful spells that Lord’s has witnessed. How can someone go from such fluency and accuracy to over stepping by such a margin, not once but twice? There were otherwise no indications from the 18 year old that he was struggling with his run up.

Mohammad Asif, however, bowled his no-ball with unerring accuracy, only just overstepping to deliver an innocuous looking no-ball. The obvious question from this, is, has he done it before? It was the perfect no-ball to order.

Asif is no stranger to controversy. Two failed drugs tests, an arrest at Dubai airport for having a ‘white powder’ in his wallet and a much publicised training ground bust up with the equally inconsistent Shoaib Akhtar. Such was the extent of their argument that Akhtar took a bat to Asif.

That Asif has once more courted controversy should come as no surprise.

The names of Salman Butt and Kamran Akmal are also linked to this sorry episode. Butt has received frequent praise for his dignified captaincy of Pakistan during what has been a tough tour for the visitors. How much of his poor form has just been down to the pressure of captaincy? It’s a question that will be asked, but would never have entered anyone’s mind prior to the fourth Test at Lord’s.

And Akmal – he of the Teflon gloves. There are many, many questions to be asked about his performances. Rubbish behind the stumps with the odd moment of brilliance; rubbish with the bat all tour. His performances during that tour of Australia will once more come under the microscope, particularly his four dropped catches in Sydney.

If found guilty of these alleged spot-fixing offences, all four will most likely face lifetime bans from the International Cricket Council, of not the Pakistan Cricket Board.

It is for Amir, however, that the cricketing world will mourn most. It’s a terrifying and saddening prospect that the final act in the talented left-armers career could have been that spell at Lord’s on Friday, when he blew away England’s middle order with the guile and panache of a seasoned pro 10 years his senior. This could be the end of the road for the youngster. And to think what he could achieve at the highest level.

This isn’t about the further damage to Pakistan’s already sullied reputation. They are only ever consistent in making fools of themselves. This is about the tarnished reputation of sport. As fans we pay our hard earned money to see both sides give nothing than 100%, 100% of the time. To witness anything else is a debacle. And to witness anything else because the participants are gaining financially is to not only defraud the fans, not only defraud cricket, but to defraud sport as a whole.

If the allegations are found to be true, we will be permanently deprived of the talents of Mohammad Amir. That is a deeply upsetting notion. We will never see Mohammad Asif’s nagging accuracy and ability to make a ball talk off the pitch. We will never see Salman Butt strut his stuff at the top of the order. We will never see the erratic glove work of Akmal again. Even if he’s found not guilty.

This hugely defrauds cricket.

With the amount of money wagered on cricket matches it is no surprise that players fall foul of temptation. A Pakistan central contract is only worth around £25,000 per annum. England players on similar deals earn anywhere between £150,000 and £400,000 per annum. MS Dhoni and Sachin Tendulkar earn around £7,000,000 per annum.

With no Pakistan players chosen for the Indian Premier League due to bad blood between the nations, fewer games being organised with Pakistan as a direct result of the attack on the Sri Lankan team bus in Lahore and less revenue being generated by the PCB, the players are increasingly earning less. The temptation of the cash on offer from illegal betting syndicates is, to a lad from an impoverished upbringing such as Amir, often simply too good to refuse.

The deepest cause for concern is the thought that this really is only the tip of the iceberg. This could only be the beginning and we could well have seen the last of Mohammad Amir. That is already too higher a price to have paid.

By Miles Reucroft

John Dyson famously got his numbers all wrong with his own Duckworth-Lewis calculation in Guyana in 2009 to gift England a one run win

Collingwood was understandably aggrieved with England’s loss to the West Indies. England had scored an above par score of 191, but the West Indies were only required to score 30 from 22 balls after the rain.

The system does take into account the psychological bonus of attacking a shorter innings – a good example being the 4th ODI between India and England at Bangalore in November 2008. India scored 166 in 22 overs before rain interrupted play. England were set a target of 198 from the same number of overs to account for their different mindset while batting. They only reached 178.

The system, however, can’t entirely negate the advantage. It will always be easier to attack a short innings and not need to sustain scoring over a longer period. When a Twenty20 revised innings can be as short as five overs, there is no need to worry about losing wickets or building partnerships.

Surrey recently posted a record-breaking score of 386 in a 40 over match against Glamorgan. They weren’t able to finish due to the rain and Glamorgan were given a revised target. They still fell 30 runs short but were far closer than they would have been without the rain’s intervention.

One of the problems with the system is that the formula is so complicated that it’s almost impossible for fans (or even captains and coaches – just ask former West Indies coach John Dyson!) to be able to estimate what the revised total will be. This means that a target appears to be plucked out of the air and one team will feel that they’ve been disadvantaged.

However, the Duckworth-Lewis method is a far better system than previous methods. Earlier techniques such as the average run rate or most productive over rate (if the team batting second is to bat ‘x’ overs they must beat the first team’s total from their ‘x’ highest scoring overs) were severely flawed. In the 1992 World Cup semi final, South Africa were given a target of 21 from a single ball despite being in contention to win before rain halted their progress.

The Duckworth-Lewis method does a better job of taking into account the vast number of variables present in a shortened innings. Even so, it is surely not possible to calculate a score that makes a reduced-over total the exact equivalent of a maximum over score. This means that one side will receive an advantage because of the system, because the estimation cannot be perfect.

What this essentially means is that one team will be slightly more likely to win a match after a rain break than they would have been if every allocated over was batted. Is this any different to a Test team escaping with a rain-induced draw despite being handsomely beaten for four days? Or even the shifting of conditions so that a team that has been skittled in swinging conditions now has to bowl in glorious sunshine?

The Duckworth-Lewis method’s purpose is to avoid rain-produced draws in limited overs cricket. It does this by producing a reasonable (but not perfect) target. To look for it to be any more accurate would be to look to negate the effect of weather on a game of cricket. In many ways, that would be to rip the heart out of the game.

By Luke Catterson

Sachin Tendulkar has celebrated 48 Test centuries, over 13000 Test runs and now 169 Test appearances.

In his home country India he is celebrated like a god – hundreds of thousands of infant males carry the name ‘Sachin’ solely because of Tendulkar. It is impossible to overstate his standing in the eyes of millions of Indians.

When the third Test between Sri Lanka and India commenced yesterday in Colombo, Tendulkar became the most capped Test player is history. Crossing the white line for the 169th time he surpassed Steve Waugh’s record of 168 Test appearances, a figure he had matched during the second Test at the SSC.

The former Australian captain will surely become a distant second as Tendulkar is showing no signs of letting up. He still posses the class and, most importantly, determination to continue playing cricket at the highest level.

How many more records that he can break, however, is questionable. His record breaking 13742 (at the time of writing) Test runs have come at an average of 56.08. This is highly impressive but Tendulkar will never match the career average of 99.94, set by the imperious Sir Donald Bradman. That’s one record that the Don will most likely carry forever more.

Tendulkar can add to his 48 Test centuries but can he reach Brian Lara’s highest score of 400*? Tendulkar’s best effort to date – and that is not sound patronising – is 248*. He has four other double hundreds to sit alongside this effort too.

Whilst it would be foolish to bet against Tendulkar breaking Lara’s record, he doesn’t quite seem to have what it takes to amass such a score. He is far more consistent in accruing big scores, but not massive scores. Indian team mate Virender Sehwag is a more likely candidate to threaten this record.

In ODIs Tendulkar has amassed some 17598 runs – comfortably a record. His 200* against South Africa a few months back broke a previously unthinkable landmark in the game. Some had gone close to 200 runs within 50 overs but none had reached it. That innings reminded everyone of what a special player Tendulkar is. That particular record will take some matching.

Does Tendulkar need anymore records? Does he have anything left to prove? The answer is no. If he retired tomorrow he would be remembered as a legend of the game, one of the all-time greats. That he continues to grace cricket pitches around the world with his presence is a treat to millions and long may he continue to ply his trade at the highest level. Who knows, there may even be a record or two left to break.

By Miles Reucroft

Chris Gayle, aka Mr Cool, is a decent fit for the face of West Indies cricket

Is it equally unhappy for international captains? It’s perhaps an easier but even more thankless task. The role of international cricket captain is different to that of a county skipper – built more around ceremony and providing a face for the team than decision making.

This was proven with Kevin Pietersen’s short tenure as England captain. The negative publicity and divisive atmosphere in the dressing room caused by rifts with Peter Moores meant that he had to go, regardless of how well suited to the job he may have been.

On the flip side Chris Gayle remains as captain of the West Indies despite a growing apathy towards five-day cricket. If it made much difference to the team’s actual performance it would surely be better to replace him with a younger, hungrier fan of five-day cricket who would be passionate about the job. As it is, Gayle does a serviceable job as the face of the team.

At international level it is unusual for there to be a situation in which a captain’s decision can make the difference in a game. Apart from the occasional ill-advised decision to bat first at Headingley, it is the quality of players that make the difference. Bringing Warne on to bowl and getting a wicket wasn’t great captaincy, nor was bringing Swann on last year when he had the incredible knack of taking wickets in the first over of a spell.

Paul Collingwood is now a world cup winning captain, but would be the first to admit he had little more to do than tell a team of in-form players to keep doing their jobs.

The main pressure that befalls a captain is responsibility: the responsibility of picking a side, of choosing to bat or bowl, of choosing an attack and field placings and of trying to find ways to take a wicket.

In reality, this responsibility doesn’t fall squarely on the shoulders of an international captain. They have a say in the selection of a team but with committees in place, they do not make the final decision.

When choosing to bat or bowl, captains openly admit to lengthy discussions with the rest of the team as well as the coaching staff in the morning. They probably shoulder the responsibility of calling heads or tails, but there’s no way to prove that isn’t discussed with the team either.

Field placings are also a democratic process with bowlers, wicket keepers and sometimes senior players all offering opinions when a partnership is beginning to get out of hand.

In terms of tactics to take wickets, there is an incredible amount of video research and planning in the game today. Bowling coaches help to develop plans for each batsman and often they aren’t even subtle (England’s ploy to get Broad to use the short ball against Ponting for example). The captain will make the call of when to make a bowling change but it would be surprising if this didn’t adhere to pre-planned scenarios.

While these features of the game do lessen the credit a victorious captain may receive, they do not stem the criticism should a team lose.

Last week’s Test at Headingley between Pakistan and Australia is a good example. Salman Butt has received less praise for guiding his team to victory than Ricky Ponting received criticism for losing.

In fact, Ponting’s career works as an interesting encapsulation of the life of an international captain. His victories as captain will be put down to the fortune of having a team of world-class players; but his recent defeats as captain will be put down to an inability to turn this young Australian squad into a successful team. He wins as part of a team, but loses as a captain.

By Luke Catterson

Andrew Flintoff, right, is clearly delighted to have the opportunity to meet editor of The Cricket Blog, Miles Reucroft

At first he extols the virtues of fuel efficient driving – remove your cricket bags from the boot, check your tyres, lose the roof-rack, close the windows and turn off the air-conditioning. Unfortunately it’s a warm day.

Freddie cautiously pulls away from the line and encourages our eyes onto a monitor showing how much the petrol tank is emptying by as we go along. It’s not long, however, before talk turns to cricket. He is jovial in his manner and is at ease talking about topics ranging from the Indian Premier League to whether England should have a four-man or five-man bowling attack.

“I’m a bowler, so I’d say five,” he says. Or is he? On the subject of batting he says that he sees himself as a batsman and describes wielding the willow ‘as a reward for bowling’. Right now he says he’s going back to basics. “In the nets I’m concentrating on seeing the ball and just hitting it as hard as I can.”

I take this as the right time to ask if he’s keen on turning out for the Chennai Super Kings franchise in next season’s IPL. “Oh yeah!” he says in a cheeky you-know-exactly-why kind of way, his eyes lighting up in the rear-view mirror. “When I played for Chennai it was in South Africa. Playing in India is a completely different experience.”

Unfortunately we come back to the subject of cars. “In Dubai I’ve got one of those Audi Q7s and over here a Range Rover,” he says. Given that both of these tanks are thirstier than a post-2005 Ashes celebrating Andrew Flintoff, perhaps he needs to conserve the petrol. “Are they?” he asks sheepishly when I point out their gas guzzling ways. His guilty look suggests that he knows.

Following a few laps we retreat and Freddie takes a few more of the gathered hacks round the track. We then get five minutes with Dictaphone et al to talk to arguably England’s most influential cricketer of this century.

We start by returning to talk properly about the IPL, rather than idle car-journey chat. “Yeah, I’d love to,” says Flintoff when I ask if he wants to play IPL next year. “First and foremost though, I need to play cricket. I need to get back on a field, probably initially, for Lancashire 2nd XI and then play my way back into the 1st team at Lancs. Everyone’s asking about IPLs and World Cups, this so called ‘freelance’ thing, which is bizarre really because people have played for different clubs since, well, for years.

“I’ve got to get out there and prove my fitness, prove my form before I can think about Chennai and possibly Queensland and World Cups and things. I want to play for Lancashire first.”

His passion for Lancashire is clearly undiminished. They are the first team that he mentions during any conversation about his returning to competitive action, but the England jersey also remains in his thoughts, if not his immediate sights.

Since Flintoff stepped away from cricket following last summer’s Ashes series, the domestic game that he is so evidently eager to return to has changed somewhat. Not least in the limited overs where 40 over cricket is now the order of the day, not 50.

“I think a lot’s been made of it,” he says. “I used to love playing the old Sunday League, which was always 40 overs. The one thing about it was that everybody knew where they were, they knew there was a game on a Sunday and you got the crowds in. 40 over cricket’s great.

“Everyone’s asking ‘is 40 over cricket doing us any good when at International level it’s 50?’ It’s only 10 overs, isn’t it? It’s not a big thing!”

But from a bowlers perspective, does bowling eight instead of 10 overs affect one’s rhythm? Flintoff interrupts my question to state that, “It’s only two overs. You’ve still got the same pressures – you still have power plays, you still have to bowl at the death, just like 50 over cricket. Your good players will perform whatever – whether it’s Twenty20, 40 overs or 50, or four day cricket.”

"I’d love to play Test cricket still, but unfortunately my knees can’t stand up to it," says Flintoff.

I then mention Imran Khan’s words from the night before we met, where he delivered the ‘MCC Spirit of Cricket Colin Cowdrey Lecture’ at Lord’s. He expressed his fears for the future of Test cricket and, in particular pace bowling, mentioning Flintoff when talking about players choosing to sacrifice the rigours of Test cricket for Twenty20 and all that it entails.

It is a subject that is clearly close to Flintoff’s heart and the merest suggestion that he gave up Test cricket for financial gain rankles with him. “Obviously I respect Imran, but with the Twenty20 stuff I think there’s a huge place for it in the development of cricket, attracting kids, attracting a new audience, bringing fans into the grounds.

“I truly believe, however, that Test cricket is the best form of the game. The one thing we need to do is preserve it. So, for instance, you’ve got your English summer, we’re actually blessed here that we do get full houses and big crowds which isn’t the case in the rest of the world; we need to preserve that. Rather than playing a one-off Test here or there let’s have an event like The Ashes, like in India, and build everything else around it. I’d agree with Imran on that front.

“With players leaving for money I can’t agree with that. If you look at the players playing IPL, a lot of them have played Test cricket and they’ve built reputations that have enabled to play IPL. The likes of me, I’d love to play Test cricket still, but unfortunately my knees can’t stand up to it. So twenty20 and the shorter forms are an option for. I’m lucky in that respect that I can still stay within the game and play.”

I then ask Flintoff if he would return for a one-off Test. I put the scenario to him that England might be desperate and there’s an Ashes decider up next. He throws me a quizzical look and shakes his head. “It wouldn’t do anyone any favours. One, I’ve retired and two, for the development of the team. They don’t want people popping in for one Test. I think they’ve improved over a period of time because they’ve filled key positions, the side have stuck together and they’ve grown together. I think they’ve got key players, or people who can come into key positions due to injury or lack of form and I think that’s something they should persevere with.”

The proof is out there for all to see. England have enjoyed a successful run in 2010, not least in winning the ICC World Twenty20 tournament in the Caribbean. Was it disappointing for Flintoff that he wasn’t a part of that?

“Yeah, I was hoping to play in it but it was evident from a long way out that I wasn’t going to make it,” he says. “So, it wasn’t a case of getting to the West Indies and a week before having to pull out – I knew. I did what everybody else did and became an England fan. I wanted them to do well.

“Don’t get me wrong, I’d have loved to have been in Barbados at the end of it with a medal. I think the knock-on effect for the team, though, is increased confidence. Every time they go out on a field they expect to win. I think that’s showing through their recent performances and results.”

Flintoff rates Marcus Trescothick as the best player he played with for England.

We then talk about Flintoff’s England career and the best player played with in an England shirt. After pausing for thought Flintoff tells us: “There’s been a few. To single out one; Trescothick. The side’s success when we had about four years of dominance, Tres was going up and opening the batting. He smashed everyone about, he made it easy for everybody else. Coming in down the order and Tres had got runs, the opposition is on its knees and we used to come in and reap the rewards!

“Kev’s not bad either, is he!” No he’s not Freddie, no he’s not!

Our time with Flintoff was concluded with a quick question about the future – what next? “I realise cricket’s not going to last forever and I’m looking at various TV opportunities,” he says. “I don’t want to end up in a position where the cricket’s come to an end and I’ve seen ex-professionals who don’t know what they’re going to do and they have to jump for the first thing that comes along. I want to be in a position where I can build for the next year or two – build for the inevitable.”

Call him Fred, Freddie, Andrew or Flintoff (his missus calls him Andrew if you were wondering) Andrew ‘Freddie’ Flintoff has left his mark on the English and International game. His influence is surely nowhere near finished and the thought of Flintoff and Shane Warne teaming up in a commentary box near you sometime soon is an appealing one.

For now, however, avert your eyes from the fast lane and look in the middle lane – that’s where you’ll find Freddie, ensuring he gets his extra litre of fuel out of Shell’s new petrol.

By Miles Reucroft

Bristol witnessed Bangladesh's maiden victory over England

From a Bangladeshi perspective it is obviously a highlight – claiming their first victory in over 200 days and their first ever over England in any form of cricket. The joy was evident in both sets of celebrations.

From an English perspective it was a good loss – if there can be such a thing – because of the response that it elicited from the team. England responded like a wounded animal for a ruthless victory in the final match at Edgbaston – a quality often admired in Australia.

Andrew Strauss has already used the word ruthless; when three-nil up against Australia it was the quality that England would demonstrate to ensure they secured a whitewash against the old enemy. That didn’t happen and it looked as if England lacked the fire in the belly needed to acquire total dominance, giving some momentum back to the Aussies.

Monday’s thumping 144 run victory showed a clinical will to win. Even though Bangladesh can’t be considered as formidable a foe as Australia, it was encouraging to see that such a spirit exists within this English side. If they lose the first test in Brisbane during this winter’s Ashes defence then they look like a side that could come out more fired up for the second at Adelaide, rather than one licking their wounds and wondering if 2014 will bring that elusive win on Australian soil.

For the objective cricket fan, the game at Bristol was an obvious highlight. Any ODI that is settled by five runs is going to be exciting, especially when it looks like a below par score has been posted and should be chased down comfortably.

On top of that was the drama of Bell’s injury. Would he bat? If so, where in the order would he slot in? Were Bangladesh going to have the victory cruelly snatched away having thought they had already won?

It was also a great game for the staunch defenders of the one day game. 40 and 50 over cricket is certainly in a slump at the moment, but Saturday was a reminder that it can be fantastic. On paper it should be a success – a full day’s cricket that is self contained. ODIs give fans the chance to watch the game’s stars for more than a couple of hours and witness the resolution of the contest.

Perhaps there are things that can be done to improve the format (the power plays have done some good), or the mentality that teams bring to it (to avoid the slow middle overs) but, ultimately, the only way for one day cricket to capture the attention of fans is to be exciting. If next year’s World Cup is able to produce more matches like the one at Bristol, then there could well be hope for it yet.

By Luke Catterson

Andrew Struass finished as Man of the Series and top run scorer agianst Bangladesh

The two came together with the score at 1/1 following the dismissal in the first over of Craig Kieswetter. It compounded a miserable series for the wicket keeper who hasn’t pushed on following his scintillating form displayed in the Caribbean during England’s successful ICC World Twenty20 campaign. Occupying as he does a position that is more often than not open to the debate as to who should be the man donning the gloves behind the stumps, Kieswetter will be under serious pressure from first-choice Test keeper Matt Prior for his spot in the limited overs side when England come to face Pakistan later on this summer.

The form of Trott will not have eased any of the pressure on the currently injured/rested Kevin Pietersen. Having come agonisingly close to rescuing England from that defeat at Bristol in his first appearance of the series, Trott hit a superb 110 at Edgbaston to leave himself as the second-highest run getter behind Strauss for the series with 204 runs. Pietersen, like Kieswetter, had been appearing to be suffering from some sort of post-World Twenty20 hangover. That he will return to the side is not in doubt. Nor, however, is the fact that he needs runs and he needs them soon.

England’s bowling unit was too strong for the Bangladeshi batting order in general, although James Anderson, Tim Bresnan and Stuart Broad would have hoped for more emphatic successes than they achieved.

Graeme Swann will return to action against Pakistan and one would imagine that Ajmal Shahzad will be the man to move over, despite finishing top wicket taker with visiting skipper Mashrafe Mortaza. James Tredwell only played in the first game and finished wicket-less as Swann’s replacement off-spinner.

Mortaza was perhaps the pick of the bowlers on either side. He finished with five wickets for 103 runs in the entire series, conceding runs at just 3.96 runs per over. Even amid the destruction faced by his fellow bowlers at Edgbaston, Mortaza kept a cool head to claim three for 31 from his allotted 10 overs. He was by far and away the most economic of the visiting bowlers. If they had another couple capable of keeping it as tight as he, then they would be a vastly improved side.

Bangladesh could also do with another batsman like Tamim Iqbal. That the talented opener only scored 62 runs in the series owed as much to England’s success as it did to Bangladesh’s woes. Despite encouraging performances from Junaid Siddique, Imrul Kayes and Raquibul Hasan, Iqbal is the one player in their batting line-up with the potential to score quickly, heavily and consistently as he did in the Test series earlier in the summer between these two sides. He will be deeply frustrated that he never got started here.

England can now approach the rest of the summer with confidence having responded in exactly the right way to defeat on Saturday. There are questions over some of the team but the competition for places in the England XI is surely as healthy now as it has been for many a year. The cameo performance of Ravi Bopara at Edgbaston – 45 from 16 balls and four wickets for 38 – served only as a reminder of the strength in depth at England’s disposal right now. The rotation policy appears to be working and, crucially, the success experienced so far in 2010 has been tasted by the vast majority of those who will be entrusted with the defence of the Ashes.

By Miles Reucroft