Henry Blofeld: Trescothick's dual role a sign of uncertainty

Internal links

Hussain's new world reduced to rubble

Henry Blofeld: Trescothick's dual role a sign of uncertainty

Andrew Caddick: The only way is to play more matches and keep the same players

Stephen Brenkley: Why the Kiwis have a clear advantage

Even in the best regulated circles plans come unstuck and doubts set in when things begin to go wrong. With the World Cup coming up in 2003 two satisfactory one-day series this winter were crucial to England. They just about got away with it in India when they drew the series 3-3. When they lost the first one-dayer in New Zealand signs of unease appeared. After the second, comprehensive defeat, those in charge may struggle to hold their nerve.

England's management have made it known that, unless their hand was forced by injury, as in Kanpur, they would stick to their best wicketkeeper. Now, after the middle order had made another mess in Christchurch, it was announced, without a blush, that in order to make way for Owais Shah, Jamie Foster was to be replaced by Marcus Trescothick.

Fair enough, although it is unwise to give hostages to fortune in this way. Trescothick did a more than adequate job too, after Nasser Hussain had won the toss and made a woolly and defensive decision to field first. The pitch was said to be soft and villainous. It was certainly the former but never the latter although by batting second England had the worst of it, as the bounce grew increasingly uneven.

It is never easy to keep wicket and then to open the batting, but it is less of a problem in limited-over cricket because there is a long interval between innings in which to recover. Trescothick came out as usual to open and perished to the eighth ball. Being a cheerful chap he probably did not depart thinking dark thoughts about those who made him keep wicket, but he might have done.

This situation has become an eternal dichotomy within England's cricket. For years, Alec Stewart was at the centre of an identical problem. When he kept wicket and scored runs it was fine; when he kept wicket and failed with the bat he either dropped down the order or the gloves were given to Jack Russell.

Historically, the best wicketkeepers have never gone in first. One exception was John Waite of South Africa, who went in first in the Fifties and Sixties when he had the job of keeping wicket to that fine pair of fast bowlers, Neil Adcock and Peter Heine, and then to off-spinner "Toey'' Tayfield. He put up with his elevation in the order rather than rejoiced in it.

The needs of contemporary cricket, especially one-day cricket, have demanded that wicketkeepers fulfil an all-round role and are able to score their share of runs. In the instant game this is probably fair enough, but in two- innings cricket it must surely make sense to play your best wicketkeeper regardless, for it becomes imperative that every chance should be taken.

It is more than reasonable to expect Trescothick to keep wicket and open the batting in one-day internationals. It would be absurd to expect him to do so in Test cricket.

Foster showed in the latter, in Ahmedabad and Bangalore before Christmas that he is a more than capable batsman to have coming in down the order, for Test cricket is played at a more leisurely pace. So far, he has found it almost impossible to adapt his batting to the more frenetic expectations of a number nine in the one-day side.

Advantage seldom comes of saying one thing and doing another and although this is just a small example of uncertainty breeding doubt in what has come to be thought of a well regulated circle, others may follow if results do not improve.