Limited Options for Listless England

England has been in a similar mess to this one before. Too many times.

51 all out is, of course, a pathetic effort, one symptomatic of a batting lineup short of form and confidence, and possibly without the necessary mental or technical talents to reach the necessary standards English cricket has come to expect.

The natural instincts of the casual observer may be to initiate a cull, but there are lessons to be learnt from the last occasion England slipped to similar catastrophic depths.

Back in 1999, when the team lost 2-1 at home to New Zealand, the Sun newspaper ran a front page headline proclaiming the death of English cricket after Nasser Hussain’s team fell to bottom of the prototype Wisden test rankings.

The response then was typically reactionary and symptomatic of the selection policies of the '80s and '90s. The tour party selected for the winter foray to South Africa was vastly inexperienced and went down 2-1 in a series written into the history books thanks to Hansie Cronje and the contrived fifth test match at Centurion.

Looking back on that tour, there is a temptation to deem it a limited success.

It was the first series for which the redemptive partnership of Duncan Fletcher and Hussain were paired and featured the impressive debutant Michael Vaughan as well as an embryonic Andrew Flintoff.

However, the less prolific Chris Adams, Darren Maddy, Chris Silverwood, and the one-test wonder Gavin Hamilton also played in a five-match series that England was never destined to win.

In these days of central contracts, drastic changes of personnel are far less frequent (perhaps too infrequent), and it is nigh on impossible that, with such thin batting depth in a party that has already been selected, it could happen again.

However, some changes are undoubtedly needed, particularly in the batting lineup.

One of the downsides of a central contract system is that it is restrictive toward those not already in the squad and, therefore, in a crisis like this there are few obvious alternatives away from those who have played in the team recently.

This is typified by the talk of potentially calling up Michael Vaughan to the squad.

The former skipper is, of course, centrally contracted by the ECB and, should an experienced hand be required by the team, then it is difficult to look beyond the Yorkshireman.

How the team would react to the presence of the former captain is debatable, but he has a good relationship with much of the squad, including Andrew Strauss, and is the kind of experienced, laid-back character who could aid in smoothing over the cracks.

However, despite his obvious talent, Vaughan has not been the kind of world-class performer he once was over the last couple of years, and England may be reluctant to make what would almost certainly be deemed a panicked SOS call.

What will almost certainly occur is the introduction of Owais Shah for the fragile Ian Bell. Bell is the most exasperating member of the English team; breathtakingly talented, and seemingly in permanently good touch yet without the mental strength to prosper in anything other than the most placid circumstances.

Paul Collingwood, more mentally tough but with a lack of natural talent or aesthetic beauty, will fight to live another day, partly thanks to the ineptitude of Bell but more simply because there is no one else available to replace him.

Perhaps a more concerning issue is that of the opening batsmen. Strauss may have rejuvenated his career in India, but the new captain is still suffering the hangover of Australia two winters ago when the almost Bradmanesque start to his test career was abruptly ended by the metronomic efficiency of Glenn McGrath and Stuart Clark.

The lesson is clear: starve the cut and the pull and pitch it up to the England captain and he can look very ordinary.

Cook, on the other hand, has technical deficiencies that would benefit from time with his coach at Essex, Graham Gooch, rather than increased exposure at test level. And he must be looking forward to recapturing some of the form that greeted his own entry at the highest level.

Strangely, in a defeat of this magnitude, the bowlers have escaped with their reputations almost intact. Although for Monty Panesar and Steve Harmison, that will provide little comfort.

The persistent nature of their efforts on a slow, lifeless pitch should have been enough to secure at least a draw, and Stuart Broad’s performance was a just reward for an intelligent and skillful young bowler who has had little luck in his test career so far.

If the selectors are feeling twitchy, then Panesar could be replaced, either by the One Day spinner Graham Swann or possibly by the young leg-spinner Adil Rashid. Should either get a game, then at the very least the batting lineup will look a bit more solid, even if they fail to improve on Panesar’s bowling.

One footnote, however. Fifteen years ago, a similarly beleaguered England team followed up being dismissed for just 46 at Port of Spain with a crushing 208-run victory in Barbados as Alec Stewart made twin centuries and Angus Fraser picked up eight first-innings scalps.

How the whole of the country would love a similar response this time around.