We received plenty of correspondence on the final day of the final Test of the summer and not all of it was about Bumble's lawnmower or his weather reports.

Many of you out there were unhappy about England's approach to chasing down 500 runs, which in fact they never really tried to do.

When the first session came to a close England had lost two wickets and scored only 70 more runs and all of sudden it was a completely implausible target.

Andrew Strauss: Jaded?

The only way they would have gone for it was if they had enjoyed a breezy start and carried on in that fashion, getting to tea needing maybe another 150 runs to win, and then had a dash for it.

But by lunch a win was out of the question and there was nothing left to do but go for the draw, and they got there in the end.

You can understand the punter's reaction, watching in the pub or at home, thinking there is no difference between 1-0 or 2-0 but there is a difference and England have to learn how to save matches.

Had the Ashes been lost 1-0 or 2-0 instead of 5-0 there would have been less of a stink about it and a team occasionally has to learn not to lose. Even though it is disappointing to have lost a home series for the first time since 2001, at least they have avoided defeat in this Test match.

Fair too are the comments that there was much less pressure on England in the situation at the Oval on Monday because even in saving the game they lost the series. It is not the same pressure as fighting for a draw to save a series but still, better to save the game and lose 1-0 instead of 2-0, which would have flattered India, given what happened at Lord's. 1-0 was just about the right result.

Batting problems

Even though England lost the series, the second-string attack of Ryan Sidebottom, Jimmy Anderson and Chris Tremlett came out of it with an awful lot of credit.

The batting however was shown to be suspect again in tough situations. It looks wonderful against a moderate attack in nice conditions, like against the West Indies earlier in the summer, but in the series in Australia and this one against India the batting hasn't looked as sharp in tougher circumstances.

The inevitable questions will be asked about whether changes to the team are necessary for the future, starting with the tour to Sri Lanka in the winter. Many of those questions will concern Andrew Strauss's position at the top of the order and that of Matt Prior as wicket-keeper and batsman.

Having picked Prior, England should stick with him. He has only played seven Test matches and everybody is allowed a bad day or a bad Test, particularly at the start of your career. It is a learning process and he is not the finished article by an means but he is a gifted batsman and a decent enough keeper although he needs to improve a little in that area to get where he wants to be.

If I were a selector I would want to give Strauss as long as possible to re-find his touch but it is getting to the stage where he is a year short of runs and under pressure. The double whammy for him is that he won't play in the one-dayers, so he won't get the chance to impress the selectors again this summer in England colours.

The pitches in Sri Lanka are slow and turning and that is not Strauss's forté. He prefers pitches with more bounce so that he can play his back foot game, so if there is a batsman under pressure, it is him.

There is a school of thought that Strauss is missing Marcus Trescothick at the top of the order, a free-flowing player that took the pressure off his opening partner, and that Alastair Cook and Strauss are too similar a style of player.

My feeling is that Strauss is mentally jaded and in need of a break. He has played a hell of a lot of cricket over the past two or three years without much of a break at all.

I genuinely believe he needs to go and get away from the game for a month or so, come back refreshed and eager to play the game his way. His mind has been a bit weary and it has affected his shot selection, which has been poor.

The case for England could well be that a rest is as good as a change.

back to top