A sham called continuity

Cricket is a great game for burping up spurious statistics, but for bare-faced deception, few facts can rival the gem that was unearthed at Trent Bridge on Wednesday. When Michael Vaughan confirmed that England's eleven would be unchanged for the fifth match in a row, it transpired that he was equalling a 123-year record.

Not since the winter of 1884-85 have England's selectors demonstrated the same degree of loyalty to their players (although back then the gentlefolk of Blighty were far more concerned with the plight of General Gordon at the siege of Khartoum, and didn't pay much heed to Arthur Shrewsbury's series-winning heroics Down Under).

There hasn't been a whole lot of heed paid to the class of 2008 either, which partially explains how they've got away with such continuity. Duncan Fletcher may have received criticism for showing unrepentant loyalty towards certain key members of his England squad, but when he strung together four change-free sides in a row at the height of the 2005 Ashes they were comprised, indisputably, of the best eleven players he could and would ever muster in his seven years in charge.

Barely a year into his tenure, Peter Moores is about to go one better, but could anyone claim with authority that the group upon which he has settled is the best that England could put out? Emphatically not. The top six has class but have under-performed since December; while the wicketkeeper, Tim Ambrose, would not be human if he wasn't casting the odd perturbed glance in the direction of his former county colleague, Matt Prior. There is more of a settled feel among the bowlers, with only James Anderson struggling to fulfil his brief day in, day out. But this appearance of stability is a sham, and will remain that way until the fate of one man is resolved, for once and for all.

That one man, of course, is Andrew Flintoff. Incredibly, he is now approaching his tenth anniversary as an England cricketer, having made his debut against South Africa in 1998. Yet he has not taken part in a Test match since captaining England to their Ashes whitewash at Sydney 18 months ago. In his absence England have coped - admirably on occasions, inadequately on others - but it would be stretching a point to say they have moved on without him. Such gargantuan characters are not easily overcome, by opponents and team-mates alike.

Ironically, Flintoff might well have been making his comeback at Trent Bridge today had it not been for the shortsightedness of the same selectors whose continuity is being lauded. Invariably there has been a pattern to Flintoff's aborted comebacks. A proclamation of fitness, an over-eager and over-trumpeted return to the fray, and an untimely relapse. By giving him the impression - later confirmed - that he was in the frame for the first Test at Lord's three weeks ago, the selectors goaded him into bowling full-throttle before he was ready, and the resulting side strain was sadly predictable.

That's not to say that England would be thrashing New Zealand to all corners right now if Flintoff was fit and firing - as Lawrence Booth pointed out in the Guardian this week, England simply don't do dominant Test victories; they didn't even during Flintoff's golden years of 2003-05. What there would be, on the other hand, is a narrative - a sense that everything is building towards a greater goal. In 2004, that goal was victory itself - a first triumph in the Caribbean for three decades, seven wins on the bounce in the home summer, victory in South Africa for the first time since 1969 ... Flintoff was as central to all that as he is absent from all this.

Instead, everything seems a little bit passe at the moment. The Kiwis are plucky but fail to spark any great enthusiasm, which is all the more reason why England's third defeat in three visits to Trent Bridge would be a just return - especially given their near-miss at Old Trafford. In fact, it's unlikely that England's intensity will pick up before the South Africans arrive at Lord's in July, and yet, if it's inspiration they seek, then perhaps they should take a look to the west and size up the manner in which Australia are going about their business in the Caribbean. If England think they are having problems in overcoming Flintoff's influence, then they really should get a grip and count their blessings.

Following their failure to close out the second Test in Antigua, Ricky Ponting admitted in the Australian press that his team "has come back to the pack a bit in Test cricket". In the last 18 months they've lost Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Adam Gilchrist, Justin Langer, and now Stuart MacGill. Matthew Hayden's fitness hangs in the balance, while Australia's attack is carried by the enduring 90mph excellence of Brett Lee, and the ever-green seam of Stuart Clark. For the first time in two decades, the most significant spinner in Ashes cricket is an Englishman.

But, quite unlike England, there's no question about Australia moping about their their losses. In Ponting, Mike Hussey and Michael Clarke, they have the nucleus of a batting line-up that can regenerate in Terminator style - and given what's at stake, they will doubtless spend the rest of 2008 doing just that. Stability is meant to be a blessing, but you wouldn't have thought so from the somnolent manner in which England are squandering their current good fortune.