What a lovely baking summer we are having. On the same day as the Met Office are back tracking quicker than Phil Hughes facing chin music, the weather looks to be an important factor in the result of this game. With a deluge expected today (and here in good old London, it is looking suitably dark and dismal – it is July after all in this “Barbecue Summer”) the pitch will probably be under cover, slightly under prepared and this may be a good toss to lose. That said, I am guessing…. How the hell do I know how the pitch is going to play?

England are without demi-God KP for this outing, which according to some seriously deranged “sages” may be a good thing as it offers our line-up “better balance”. I suppose it is a bit like replacing Usain Bolt with the late great Charlie Williams in your 4×100 relay team if the other three are plodding trundlers. These rambles are inspired by Richie Benaud, because if he can flog a book on the back of such old tat, I can do it on this blog. All this waffling is only putting off the inevitable. I have not commented thus far on the recall of my hero, but by heck, it is on its way.

It was a wise Spanish philosopher who once said “those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it”. The phrase has been chucked around and spewed out a myriad of ways since. Team England blather on, often at great length, of “lessons learned” and then they continue to pick Monty Panesar when he doesn’t get any wickets, and persisted in the belief that Flintoff is a number six batsman despite no centuries since 2005. After finally “learning” a lesson about Ian Bell when he failed under pressure in Jamaica with a shot as grossly irresponsible as KP’s (just the latter had 90 odd, Bell had a couple – can’t be bothered to check) on the stroke of lunch and thus dropping him, the selectors have reinstated him to the team as KP’s replacement. That learning the original lesson was the cricketing equivalent of a pyromaniac finding out a match is hot by dousing himself in petrol and killing himself on the back of a spark off Swan’s finest is one thing. To go back and check if petrol is flammable by doing it to yourself, and not some pyro, is quite another. Where am I going? 

Ian Bell scores a big ton against Somerset early in the season and he puts out the message that he’s hungry for runs and to get back in the England team. In the same game James Hildreth put that 180 odd into perspective by hitting a triple century, and has added a big century since. Jonathan Trott averages more than Bell, and didn’t fail against Hampshire on a pitch that wasn’t acting as a stand in for the M25.

Picking Bell was the safe choice, and the expected choice. Putting him at number 4, where your best batsman should be is loony-toon time, but they could hardly drop Bopara down from three now that his lustre is distinctly tarnished (and look at my Ashes preview regarding Bopara – Bopara will not pass 50 in the first three tests and will drop down the order. – prescient some times, aren’t I?) and admit they were wrong. After all, despair of Harmison as I do, when he is on form, in rhythm and at home, he can be a dangerous proposition, but they had to stick with Onions as it wouldn’t be fair not to pick him as he’d been in the squad all “barbecue summer”. Ian Bell now slots in to the number four slot where he can show his new found resilience, technique, temperament and class. All this gained in a few weeks with Warwickshire. That will show him.

I am sure if Bell makes a ton on his return all the laughers and jokers out there who actually bother with this blog (and judging by today’s hit stats, that’s not many of you) will point in my direction and call me a muppet. But I am basing my “analysis” for what it is on the fact that Ian Bell’s average is below 40 when discounting bargain bucket nonsense against Bangladesh, that he has not played a memorable innings in a winning cause as yet, had failed very frequently (Hamilton being a notable exception) when the team is going down in a puff of smoke, and is prone to dreadful brain farts and ineffective wafts (pick the bones out of that Benaud) that lead to dismissals softer than the Apprentice’s head. (I expect very few of you to get that reference). I think he’s more likely to do that in the future, based on what I’ve seen in the not too distant past. What are the Bell backers basing their assessment on.

Meanwhile, who knows what the Aussies will do? Will they pick Stuart Clark? Will they pick Shane “The Hamstring” Watson? Will Mitchell Johnson come good with the ball? Ponting’s post-match analysis of Lord’s were that his team let themselves down in the first two sessions and had a bad Friday afternoon, but pretty much held their own for the rest of the match. Not quite “lessons learned” but “results ignored” it seemed. If I were him, and I’m not, the batting is not a concern, and the Aussies shouldn’t ditch Hughes just two tests after he was anointed the son of God. All the others have made runs of some description, and I fear Hussey is due his ton very soon. They only need Johnson to fire and I see England in strife. I fear they played at their maximum capacity at Lord’s and won’t be able to repeat it, whereas Australia patently let themselves down, and still put some of the fear of defeat in our minds.

But we’ve brought back Bell, so mental toughness isn’t going to be an issue. Anyone who saw his dismissal after looking sublime for 83 runs at Perth will attest to the fact that he is another in the long line of England players who promise so much, but find ways to fail. Mark Ramprakash, Graeme Hick and John Crawley say hello.