Flintoff's absence makes heart weaker

All the signs are pointing India's way now. Suddenly, it is high summer in their world and an enthralling Test series has tilted inexorably in their direction.

England are in disarray. In a fortnight they have fallen from clear favourites to hardly having a clue what team to pick. Their batting order has been subjected to hour upon hour of selectorial debate, but whatever conclusion is eventually announced this morning it will be based on hope rather than expectation.

Sometime at The Oval next week the tourists should win the deciding Test of four and thus end a period of 16 years of failure away from the subcontinent. It did not look as if it would end like this. Merely five weeks ago, England left Lord's with a thumping win under their belts. India, team of all the talents, were at it again: blowing it on foreign soil. How they have turned that round.

England, who were in danger of breaking into something of a swagger, have been halted in their tracks. Defeat and injury have debilitated them. The large squad, probably of 14, to be announced this morning will serve only to confirm their uncertainty.

The thought that they must travel to Australia in two months to try to regain the Ashes bears no contemplation. Losing against India at home, having appeared so dominant for so much of the summer, may be a terminally draining experience, no matter who, if anybody, gets fit by then. Indeed, so uncommonly desperate are England now that they must decide whether to pick a side who may (or may not, of course) bowl out India twice, or settle for a team who should secure a draw and a level series. The main problem, apart from a bowling attack which has rapidly taken on the guise of peashooters with wonky sights, is the No 7 position in the batting order.

This is the spot vacated by Andrew Flintoff, who had a hernia operation late last week. It might seem odd that England should worry so about missing a chap whose Test batting average is below 20 and who managed a pair in his last match. But there you are. Young Freddie, by dint of personality and a lion heart, has become an integral part of the side. Why, he is almost the all-rounder's all-rounder.

In his enforced absence, England listed those who might act as a reasonable substitute. Craig White is not fit to bowl. Paul Collingwood is not fit to bowl or bat, and will have a test next week to see whether his frozen shoulder has thawed sufficiently to allow him to make the ICC Champions' Trophy in Sri Lanka next month. Rikki Clarke, the newcomer from Surrey who has just been made Young Cricketer of the Year, is too short of experience. Ronnie Irani, who may not be good enough at either skill, is barely recovered from a knee operation.

The player who would fit the bill as robustly as any competitor and has hardly been mentioned in the selectors' somewhat vague dispatches is Adam Hollioake. He has had a blazing season for Surrey following his belated start, he would be on his home ground, his competitive instinct is second to none. If he is not the bowler he once promised to be, he would not be overawed.

Another option is to stack the side with batting, perhaps recalling Mark Ramprakash and placing Alec Stewart at seven. This is what England did at The Oval last year. They lost to Australia by an innings.

Or they may go for broke, relying on their top six batsmen, which will sound less of a gamble with Marcus Trescothick back for Robert Key (who will come again). They will then pick five bowlers, with Dominic Cork or Alex Tudor at seven, followed by Ashley Giles, Matthew Hoggard, Andrew Caddick and Steve Harmison. Apparently, playing two spinners is not an option, on the grounds that India play spin better than anybody and that Giles has already lost the battle. Well, Giles and Dawson bowled extremely well and attritionally in tandem in India.

A line-up of five bowlers would show that England mean business. True, if Hoggard and Caddick bowl as indifferently as at Headingley it would be a bankrupt kind of business pretty quickly. That surely will not happen. Hoggard has a habit of coming back from adversity, Caddick has made a career of making us despair and then producing the goods.

In truth, whatever England do, it would be a considerable triumph for them to avoid defeat. Forget the hard fact of India's abysmal away record, ignore their heavy defeat at Lord's, this is now a side burgeoning with self-belief. Their batsmen have hit form. And how.

Nasser Hussain's estimation that they would feel the pressure was a nice try at gamesmanship. India's coach, John Wright, was not falling for it. "I don't believe in these psychological games," he said. "We have a very good chance of winning, but whatever happens India have made progress. Apart from anything else we are one of the most entertaining teams in the world." That might have been a psychological ploy, of course.

Apart from these dreadful shenanigans over India, the Australian trip will also have exercised the selectors' minds. They have come round to the view that if they are to win there they must use extreme pace. They will invite both Harmison and, if fit, Simon Jones to tour. Another possibility must surely be James Anderson, who has suddenly popped up at Lancashire delivering it at express rate. He may be raw but nobody, least of all Australians, knows about him.

Last year, New Zealand matched the Aussies blow for blow. They did so largely because of the extreme pace of the unknown, unsung Shane Bond. The Aussies, as it were, don't like it up 'em.

The Graham Thorpe saga continues to rumble on. The left-handed middle-order batsman, who is in the middle of a self-imposed break from cricket while he sorts out his family problems, now thinks he may like to go on the Ashes trip. He is a splendid batsman, but a troubled mind is not so easily healed. He will have to be left at home.

The immediate task is to stop history beckoning for India. Sixteen years is a long time, but not so long that we can forget whom they last beat in a series not on the subcontinent. It was England in 1986.