The early days of this tour have provided enough material for a psychologist to write a thesis. Who has been having dinner with whom? Is Kevin Pietersen talking to Andrew Flintoff? Is the IPL providing a distraction?

Andrew McGlashan in Jamaica06-Feb-2009
Andrew Flintoff had one successful referral and wanted a second. Should the captain have stopped him having his way? © Getty Images
The early days of this tour have provided enough material for a psychologist to write a thesis. Who has been having dinner with whom? Is Kevin Pietersen talking to Andrew Flintoff? Is the IPL providing a distraction? The second day at Sabina Park allowed the first proper look at how Andrew Strauss would manage his team in the field and, on that score, there are still more questions than answers.Although this isn’t the first time Strauss has led England in the field, he is at last doing so without another captain lurking in the background. It’s always been suggested that the full-time leadership would enable him to imprint his own ideas more strongly, but there is the other side of the argument too. When he was merely a stand-in captain, Strauss pulled the strings but had none of the stress. This time, he’s been landed with the fullest package imaginable, and after a nervy first innings and a flat day in the field, he wouldn’t be human if he wasn’t feeling the pressure.As a captain it is important to have a clear mind, but aside from the usual dilemmas of bowling changes and fielding positions, Strauss has also had to contend with the intricacies of the referral system. His first call was easy enough, when Devon Smith lost sight of Andrew Flintoff’s yorker with Tony Hill initially saying not out. England’s second referral, however, was more problematic, and opened the debate about how best to use them.Sarwan, who was on 2 at the time, was caught on the pad by a full inswinger, and again Hill said not out. Even to the naked eye it was clear the ball was snaking down the leg side and it didn’t require the TV replays to confirm that fact. Taking issue with the decision was a grievous waste of a precious resource.In Strauss’s defence Matt Prior later revealed that it had largely been down to Flintoff to make the call. “I didn’t get a great view of that one, Fred felt pretty strongly about it so he made the call,” he said. “I wasn’t sure about it, but he felt confident and you give the guy the responsibility to make the call.”However, that raises the issue about who should make the ultimate call. If the responsibility rests with the captain, as most things do on the field, then Strauss must surely have had the final say. It was a wasted referral, but the point is that nobody quite seemed sure what to do. Could Strauss have been stronger and told Flintoff ‘no’? It would have required a brave man to do that. Would Pietersen have done it if he was still captain?Pietersen was certainly actively involved in the field, at one point running from gully to the bowler to offer some advice while Strauss pondered his options at slip. Being a close catcher means Strauss is less able to spend time next to his bowlers, whereas Pietersen had mainly fielded at mid-off during his spell as captain. Another one for the psychologists to ponder.Referrals may or may not become a permanent part of international cricket, but one thing that won’t change is the need to take wickets. England again struggled to do that and although it’s still early days in this series, the omens didn’t look good as they laboured through the best part of two sessions.It wasn’t long before Strauss was placed in that predicament so familiar to England’s leadership. Who does one call upon to exert control when Flintoff is resting up between bursts?Strauss tried all his options, and backed up his own desire to bring out the strike bowler in Flintoff by using him in three short bursts after handing him the new ball alongside Ryan Sidebottom. Steve Harmison was made to wait, and how the mighty have fallen since his 7 for 12 on this ground five years ago.The desire to use Flintoff as an attacking option is similar to how Michael Vaughan utilised him on the 2003-04 visit to West Indies. That was the series in which Flintoff broke through as a Test bowler, taking his maiden five-wicket haul in Barbados, after being persuaded to crank it up a notch by the bowling coach, Troy Cooley. The difference, however, is that Vaughan had the luxury of a potent four-man pace attack. Strauss’s current foursome lacks cutting edge and confidence.Since 2005 and the break-up of the Fab Four, Flintoff has become more and more of a stock bowler, with his greatest attribute, pace, deferring to his second-greatest, accuracy. Strauss has never previously captained Flintoff in a Test (he was injured in 2006 and 2007), but it wasn’t long before he too was placed in that predicament so familiar to England’s leadership. Who does one call upon to exert control when Flintoff is resting up between bursts?Stuart Broad might have provided control, but he was the most disappointing of the pace quartet. It was surprising, however, to see Ryan Sidebottom ignored for so long after a reasonable five-over spell with the new ball. Harmison appeared in good rhythm, and he thought he had Sarwan lbw until the decision was referred, but this pitch is too slow for him.And then there was Monty Panesar. He has been talked up by his team-mates – “he is in a great place,” said Pietersen on the first evening, although that sounded like a euphemism for “the right areas” – and had spent the best part of four sessions watching Suliemen Benn find turn and bounce.Panesar has struggled with expectations in the last six months, but that comes with having played more than 30 Tests and taken over 100 wickets. Prior supported him saying “he’s getting better and better” but sooner rather than later Panesar will have to back up the talk with deeds. For Strauss’s sake now would be a good time to start, because if he had any doubts about the task ahead of him now it’s abundantly clear. He won’t need a psychologists’ thesis to tell him that.