England will move forward if selectors stop looking back

Towards the end of Duncan Fletcher's tenure as England coach he was embattled and defiant. In one of the many dark moments, following a fractious chat with the press the dayafter the Ashes were lost last December, which was not so much a conference as an affray, he said that loyalty was man's greatest virtue.

He meant it, and what he meant was clear. He was proud to have kept faith with the men – two in particular – who had helped England to win the Ashes 15 months earlier.

Related articles

• Kumble proves his pedigree as Test fortunes spin his way
• The Oval Diary
• England on brink as spinners turn on style
• Search the news archive for more stories

Fletcher had picked Ashley Giles and Geraint Jones, partly perhaps because he considered them to be the best men for the job, but partly because they had served him so well before. He had been loyal to those who had been loyal to him.

All extremely noble. The earnestness of his argument in that Perth hotel lobby was unmistakable, and it seemed churlish to point out that there were other players towards whom he had been more disdainful than loyal. However, it might be that what he saw as the greatest virtue ultimately cost him his job. The sad, inevitable retirement of Giles last week seemed to confirm an aspect that Fletcher had forgotten and one that those now running the team are in imminent danger of missing. In team sports, as in life, it is wiser to glance back only when looking forward. Learn from history, that is, do not ape it. At all costs, do not confuse continuity with loyalty.

Fletcher probably knows it now, though he may be too stubborn to concede it (we shall know more when his book covering his final year is published next month). He spent years trying to find a team who might win the Ashes while still trying to win other series in between. He had been excited at the prospect of what Stephen Harmison and Simon Jones could do, he helped to nurture Andrew Flintoff to maturity, he plucked Marcus Trescothick from the shires, he found his second co-operative captain in Michael Vaughan, he stayed loyal to Geraint Jones.

It took careful planning, a touch of luck and, yes, loyalty for it all to come together. He liked some, he disliked others and was unafraid to say so. Step forward Chris Read, Robert Key, Kabir Ali. He never forgave Read for rejecting some advice about batting, he probably doubted Key's ability in the big time, he thought Kabir was rubbish.

But Fletcher (and his fellow selectors) designed and built a winning team. The culmination might have been a piss-up huge even by Trafalgar Square standards, but it had been a long time in sober preparation.

In the 18 months before, England won five consecutive series and then made it six. Nine of the 12 players involved in the greatest triumph played 16 or more of the 23 Tests involved. The departure from the scene of Giles emphasises that a team need rebuilding again – and quickly.

In the first part of the winter of 2003, England went to Bangladesh, for a comfy win, and to Sri Lanka, where they lost valiantly. Only four of their eventual epic Ashes team played, but by the following April in West Indies they were up to eight and had their eyes on some batsmen.

Under Peter Moores, a start of sorts has been made but there is a sentimental, potentially dangerous insistence on harking back. Selectorial intentions will not become clearer until early September, when the central contracts for the next year are announced. Speculation that the contracts were to be announced this week was wrong: the selectors need thinking time.

For the moment, there are several players on the sidelines, and it seems from the talk around that all of Flintoff, Harmison and Matthew Hoggard will be welcomed back immediately they are finally signed off by their doctors. The selectors may suppose that they still comprise the best-equipped seam department, but that rather ignores the flaying they received in the winter. Lest it is forgotten, Hoggard averaged 37.38 runs a wicket, Flintoff 43.73 and Harmison 61.40, the worst collective seam gathering in an Ashes series. Of course, that is merely glancing back at history.

Against West Indies in the early part of the summer, England's seamers were as wayward and substandard as they have ever been. True, only Harmison of the old guard was involved, but the improvement has been gradually enormous, the flat Oval pitch notwithstanding.

The selectors looking to 2009 should talk tough. Hoggard has inestimable qualities, but should he now be preferred to his fellow swing bowler and Yorkshireman, Ryan Sidebottom? Does Tremlett's bounce and greater accuracy put him a nose ahead of Harmison? Has Strauss buckled? Is Bell the ideal No 6? That is not all they have to consider. Largely, but not solely, because of Flintoff's absence they seem to have mislaid the craft of balancing a team. Again it was Giles's walking into the sunset that concentrated the mind.

England's tail is obviously much too long, one reason why the inaugural Pataudi Trophy will surely go to India. Giles was almost the perfect No 8 (as is Anil Kumble, who scored a hundred for India on Friday). Giles batted in the position more times for England than anybody before, and only Godfrey Evans had scored more runs there.

It was an obsession of Fletcher's – and not his only one – that both his wicketkeeper and No 8 must contribute runs regularly. In Giles he also found the model pro. But there was more to the team of 2004 and 2005. They were pals. It showed on the pitch and off it. There was a linelinking everybody and proper friendships all over.

It may be an opportune time for bold moves. Teams cannot exist in a vacuum. Sri Lanka this winter may be round the corner, but 2009 will loom on the horizon pretty soon afterwards.