Day two at the Kensington Oval

This is proving to be a sumptuously fascinating test match, and a reminder that the lowest-scoring games are invariably the most exciting. When will the sport’s administrators realise that cricket’s fundamental appeal derives from the contest between bat and ball, not the accumulation of runs (and scoring of sixes), for their own sake.

There’s so much to discuss, I barely know where to start, but perhaps at the beginning of the day, when England lost 3-17, to be bowled out for 257. Add in their second innings 39-5, and on aggregate England have lost eight wickets for 56 runs. Did they come across to you as a well-led and coached team who are maturing into a side of confidence and accomplishment? Or as a nervy, fractured, and rudderless set of players – who lack self-belief and have probably been befuddled by their management?

England’s double-collapse sets Alastair Cook’s century into twin contexts. In one sense, it was all the greater achievement. 105 now looks like rather a lot of runs, and no other batsman in this match has performed so effectively. On the other, Cook’s departure triggered a dismal decline. How would this match look now if Cook had played for the close, with intent to build further the following morning, rather than give his wicket away to a lame stroke?

It didn’t help that, once again, England’s tail evaporated. What’s happened to their ability to eke out runs down the order? Will Stuart Broad ever again hold a bat with conviction? As Jonathan Liew argues convincingly in the Telegraph today, this problem will cost England dear come the summer.

But it’s not only England’s shortcomings which have led this match to its current position. West Indies have bowled well, especially Jerome Taylor. They’ve played better in this series – and with more pride and tenacity – than most people expected.

The day also highlighted James Anderson’s return to his best form. He’s bowling with zest, urgency, and no little skill. It always seems to me that when Anderson is good, England are good – or at least, the second is impossible without the first. Can he retain his mojo until the end of the Ashes? And if not, do England have a Plan B?

England’s selection strategy for this test suggests they barely have much of a Plan A beyond repeating what they did before and hoping for the best. It would hardly have taken a leap of the imagination to spot the spin-friendly conditions and plump for Adil Rashid over Chris Jordan.

Jordan is a lovely cricketer and his slip-catching is amazing – his pouching of Chanderpaul was a veritable peach – but I can’t help wishing he’d do just a little more with the ball. His bowling remains something and nothing, which is a shame, as I enjoy his presence in the team.

Yesterday also encompassed the sad end to Jonathan Trott’s career. I think you can just about argue the selectors were right to restore him – but not as an opener. He was hopelessly, fatally, miscast. Wouldn’t it have been better to wait until there was an opportunity at five or six?

And is it just and fair that Trott should be discarded on the basis of his returns so far since recall? He has scored 0, 4, 59, 0, 0 and 9. In a sequence beginning with the first Ashes test of 2013, and continuing until the second test against India in 2014, Alastair Cook made innings of 13, 50, 12, 8, 62, 0, 51, 22, 25, 34, 13, 65, 3, 1, 72, 0, 27, 51, 7, 7, 17, 28, 17, 16, 5, 10 and 22. More runs than Trott, yes, but form which deserved retention? If Trott is indeed dropped, what does that tell you about how the selectors (who didn’t drop Cook) weigh blind loyalty and favouritism against logic?

Before we move on, though, we should pay proper tribute to Trott as a wonderful servant of English cricket. His finest hours came during the 2010-11 Ashes, when he made 135* at Brisbane, 78 at Adelaide and 168 at Melbourne. Oh, and he also won the 2009 Ashes on debut.

Meanwhile, Andrew Strauss is on the verge of being appointed England’s new director of cricket – or at least, so says Scyld Berry in the Telegraph, and as he’s unlikely to have got this wrong, I think we can take it as read.

This is immensely disappointing and depressing news – and something we’ll look at it more detail after this test match. I was a great admirer of Strauss the player, and in the main as captain, but his approach and philosophy are now obsolete.

What England need, in 2015, is a figure of creativity and vision, who can put the verve and fun back into playing for the national side. What Strauss will bring is conservatism, an obsession with playing the margins, and an overweening fixation with the misleading ethos of ‘team’.

Just as importantly, Strauss remains very close to several senior members of the present side, especially Cook. He famously described another player, who plays county cricket and seeks re-selection, as an “absolute c**t”. How is Strauss is a position to make dispassionate, clear-headed judgements about who should play in, and captain, the team?

And how has this information reached the public domain? If the ECB have something to tell us, they should do so upfront, to everyone – not via favoured journalists. Is the ‘new’ ECB just as sieve-like as the old one?

But to return to the third test. My hunch is that England remain slight favourites, but West Indies will be able to chase down 150. The first thirty minutes of today’s play will probably decide the match.