Wednesday, August 1, 2001 On Sunday, the England selectors had a choice to make: Robert Croft or Phil Tufnell? A man who has picked up 13 wickets at 73 in 11 home Tests, or a man who took almost as many (11) in his last game against Australia alone? Naturally, the selectors agreed this was a red herring, rehashed the old chestnut about Tufnell's attitude - and went for the man who could bat a bit. Croft averages 17.41 in Tests, Tufnell 5.03, so it is Croft who will play at Trent Bridge, presumably because the 12 extra runs he scores per innings are considered a vital part of England's efforts to win back the Ashes.

This is great news for Australia, who in six Tests against Croft have only lost 10 wickets to him - four of them tailenders, and one (Justin Langer) caught at long-off in search of quick second-innings runs. It is also part of a uniquely English selectorial policy based on insecurity about the top order: if the top six aren't making runs, let's pack the tail with bowlers who can bat. And if Glenn McGrath (Test batting average: 6.70) or Courtney Walsh (7.54) were English, it's just possible that they would have missed out on the odd cap here and there. ("Ah yes," you can hear the selectors saying, "but who needs 851 Test wickets, when you can get a few runs instead?")

There is some method to England's madness, because in the last few Ashes series the difference between the two sides has been the runs made by the tail. But this time, despite England's efforts to strengthen the lower order, each tail has wagged as feebly as the other: the last four Aussie batsmen - who have been exposed just twice so far this summer - are averaging 6.14 a man, compared with England's 10.15. No, this time England's problem is the Aussie engine-room: between them Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh, Damien Martyn and Adam Gilchrist have churned out consecutive Test innings of 49, 105, 105, 152, 108, 45, 52, 90 and 0*, making a grand total of 706 runs at an almost Bradman-like 88.25.

So logic suggests that the only way England are going to get back into the series is to pick bowlers good enough to dimiss world-class batsmen, regardless of how well they can bat themselves. Four years ago at The Oval, Phil Tufnell bowled like a genius to take 11 for 93 and condemn Australia to a 19-run defeat. He made liberal use of his ball-on-a-string, teased the batsmen with dip and flight so much that it was almost an affront to their manhoods, and bowled one bad ball in 47.4 overs (Mark Waugh cut it for four). Among current England slow bowlers he alone knows how to take wickets at home. In fact he should have started the series instead of the half-fit Ashley Giles, who at Edgbaston batted like Tufnell and bowled like Usman Afzaal.

No other country in the world omits specialist bowlers for players who might give you a 30 every eight innings. So why do England stubbornly continue with a safety-first policy that is safe only for the opposition batsmen? It's a mystery that Duncan Fletcher needs to solve before England go to India. Because it looks like the Ashes have already been given up as lost.

Lawrence Booth is assistant editor of wisden.com

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd