Close, but no cigar.

The anger of Sky’s commentary team following the drawn fifth test at Port-of-Spain was something to behold. Andrew Strauss, who, like every England cricket and rugby captain of the last five years (or so it seems), managed to talk about “taking the positives” from an abject failure, was the target of much of their ire; his ill-timed declarations in Antigua and Trinidad apparently his most heinous crimes.

There is no doubt that the test series in the West Indies has been an enormous disappointment from England’s point of view. Knowledgable cricket afficionados around the world confidently predicted a comfortable series win for England, dismissing the horror of the Stanford 20/20 as an ill-judged freak show. A 2-0 or 3-0 win would have been nothing more than “job done”.

Set in that context, any management-speak platitudes are hard to stomach, and perhaps a bit of honest (Martin Johnson-style) anger in post-match interview would have left a better flavour than Strauss’ ready smile and “aw shucks” approach. Perhaps he was simply struggling to comprehend Larry Gomes’ man-of-the-match decision (Matt Prior), but it was an horrendously mis-judged piece of public relations on the captain’s part. Michael Vaughan used to tell us again and again that he was “hitting the ball well in the nets” and that England were “working hard in practice” as if these were bonuses for which fans should be grateful rather than the very basics of an England player’s job, but at least he managed to look disappointed in defeat. Strauss had the air of a prefect reporting back to the housemaster on the result of a junior house match, and it rankled.

So where did he find his positives?

The batting, of course, appears to have done well, with each of Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Collingwood and Prior averaging well over 50 and England notching up 9 centuries – only the No 3 position continues to cause real problems. But appearances can be deceiving, and in this case a look at the detail will reveal that the majority of the runs were made in circumstances where the West Indies were simply not interested in taking wickets. Brendon Nash’s 46 overs in the series will (not) be remembered as 276 balls of net practice, and only Fidel Edwards looked like a truly test-class bowler. Not only that, but had the West Indies’ fielding in Barbados been up to scratch, England would probably have scored in the region of 350, from which it would have been a hard task to catch the West Indies total of 749.

Alastair Cook ended his long century drought, and that will certainly be a relief to the management. At 24 he is young to have played 41 tests, and one must believe that he will continue to improve. The Australians, on the other hand, will feel that the ball going across him outside off stump is too obvious a weakness and will target it ruthlessly. It should be of concern that Andy Flower, the former Zimbabwe left-hander and now England’s batting coach, does not seem to have been able to iron out this obvious flaw in Cook’s technique. If the glaring problems are not resolved, one suspects that the more subtle are not even considered.

Andrew Strauss’ 541 runs at 67.62 will be a personal positive, though it is subject to the same caveats as the team’s batting performances. Nevertheless, it does at least suggest that England have found a captain whose batting is not unduly affected by the captaincy. Strauss’ earlier stint at the helm, against Pakistan in what is fast becoming known as the “Darrell Hair” series, also produced high run yields before the disastrous appointment of Andrew Flintoff for the 2006/2007 Ashes appeared to knock the stuffing out of the Middlesex man. It was also good to see some of the strokeplay returning to his game, in sharp contrast to the exceptionally introspective approach he adopted against New Zealand. Of course, this may be just one more product of the ludicrously flat wickets in the Caribbean, but it is good to know that the drive has not totally disappeared from his locker because one can be sure that Mitchell Johnson and his cohorts will not feed the cut shot as Darren Powell has done.

The mere fact of Kevin Pietersen’s continued enthusiasm for the England cause must be considered a positive in the light of events over Christmas. Many are the men who would have turned their back on a system which behaved so abominably towards him, but KP’s increasingly happy demeanour during the series suggested that the rancour may be receding. It was instructive to note that, as the final overs of the Trinidad test reached their tense finale, it was Pietersen who directed a couple of switches in the personnel huddled around the bat. His natural authority does not appear to have diminished, either with the bat or in the field.

Paul Collingwood proved that he can make runs even when the media are not calling for his head, though his muted celebration of his hundred in Trinidad demonstrated an awareness of the limited demands placed on his skills by the West Indies attack. There is more than a suspicion, though, that his “backs against the wall” courage is more in evident when it is his place on the line rather than England’s fortunes. He is lauded as a batsman with that happy knack of making runs at difficult times: difficult for him, yes, but he was missing in action in Jamaica, where England needed someone to stop the rot. Jonty Rhodes always seemed to step up to the plate when South Africa were reeling, so too Steve Waugh for Australia. This is the role which Collingwood must now seek to fulful.

Matt Prior’s batting was excellent, and his final innings in Trinidad showed exactly why England have had such faith in his one-day abilities. England’s one-day woes are a subject for another time, but at least one can understand one bit of their pyjama-based thought processes. Stuart Broad finally played a couple of useful knocks, though talk of him as a Test match number 7, or even 6, was clearly extremely premature. It looks as it he may be cut out for the Ashley Giles role at 8. The lower order was barely tested in this extraordinary series – one only hopes (though sadly doubts) that the endless hours when the top order were nudging the singles around were gainfully employed with extended one-to-one net sessions with the bowlers in their pads.

It is much harder to put a positive spin on the flip side of the batting coin. Much of the bowling was frankly inept and England’s attack looks utterly toothless at the moment. Strauss’ “positives” are deep in the underbrush, hidden by a canopy of waywardness, lack of pace, limited imagination and, frighteningly, lack of decent alternatives. The selectors must take more than a fair share of the blame, as the constant shuffling of an already weak hand surely made it only worse through undermining the confidence of those involved. The extraordinary fact that England selected a bowling attack of Broad, Sidebottom, Panesar and Anderson for the second (abandoned) Test on 13th February and, just two days later, had changed half the attack (dropping Sidebottom and Panesar for Harmison and Swann) demonstrated the totally incoherent approach. A pitch-based justification may placate some, though such adjustments usually turn on whether to play one, two or no spinners and would not usually prompt a reversal of the selectors’ opinion on who is their strongest spinner, for example. Nor can one reasonably argue that the switch between Harmison and Sidebottom was predicated on swing, for the selectors must be aware that the Kookaburra ball swings only for a few overs in even the most conducive conditions which were hardly likely to be prevalent in Antigua.

The beacons of light on the bowling front were James Anderson and Graeme Swann. Anderson may have taken only 9 wickets at 38, but his performances improved steadily and his bowling on the final day in Trinidad was inspired. Gone are the days when the captain could not set a field to cope with Anderson’s waywardness: he has developed considerable control and the ability to swing both the old and the new ball in both directions should be treasured. As England grew increasingly desperate in the closing overs in Port-of-Spain, so we saw a hint of the pace which Anderson has at his disposal when it is required – he ran in with a determination and willingness which we might more usually equate with Andrew Flintoff. Indeed, he appeared on the verge of tears and utterly drained when he retrieved his cap after an heroic final burst. The selectors (again) made a gross error when leaving him out in Jamaica, and they should be the first to shake his hand when next they meet and congratulate him on a hugely committed effort.

Graeme Swann was a revelation with his classical finger-spin. A few years ago there was a thought that finger-spinners were going to disappear completely, and the shrinking boundaries coupled with ever more powerful bats has boosted that argument. Twenty20 has shown that spin has a place, however, and Swann bowled with great guile throughout the series. It was instructive just how much he varied his pace and flight as compared with the approach which we have so often seen from Monty – every ball at around 55mph with an identical trajectory. Swann’s morning and evening interviews were filled with nuggets of tactical thought, and his experience on the county circuit is evident. 19 wickets at 24.5 is an astonishing return in the context of this series and, providing his elbow operation goes well in the US, he should certinly return as the senior spinner.

That is not to say that Monty has not improved. His efforts in Trinidad were notable for the variation with which he bowled, though he still seemed surprised by what the ball was doing rather than giving the impression of having it on a string as Warne would have done in similar circumstances. The introduction of an arm ball is to be applauded, even if more went for four byes than anything else in the final test. The work which he is doing with Mushtaq Ahmed is obviously paying dividends – one cannot therefore fathom the trepidation of the ECB in giving any coach of note such a brief contract. Allan Donald departed when the ECB prevaricated on his future terms, and Troy Cooley left in a (justifiable huff) when the ECB would only give him one year instead of two. The ECB must be bold and back its judgement in relation to Mushtaq: make him England spin coach for at last the next two years and really invest in his relationship with Monty, Swann and Adil Rashid.

This is meant to be an article aimed at locating positives, so a paragraph spent on Harmison, Sidebottom and Khan would be entirely wasted. Suffice to say, Harmison must surely be discarded, Sidebottom was an embarrasment both with his bowling and his petulant and idle fielding and Amjad Khan looks destined to join Darren Pattinson as the next one cap wonder. I hope I am proved wrong.

The bowling of Stuart Broad, to turn to the final part of the attack, showed inventiveness and perseverance. I suspect that a winter spent bowling on such heart-breaking pitches may actually have done him some good. He will be physically stronger (after some rest!) and a cannier bowler on flat surfaces. A series average of 30.58 is a significant improvement on 46.85 (his pre-series career average), so things are at least moving in the right direction.

The team’s fielding was of distinctly variable standards throughout the series. Paul Collingwood pulled off a remarkable catch in the final test, but chances were also spilled throughout, including by Collingwood. Bell out of the side is a blow to England’s fielding. He is outstanding close to the bat and athletic and energetic in the outfield. His replacements on that score looked distinctly ordinary. Whatever else he may be, it is quite clear that Andrew Strauss is not a man to be fielding close to the bat when a spinner is operating. The problems with his technique were numerous, including watching the bowler right up to delivery stride and a complete failure to stay down low which cost England at least three chances. On tracks such as these, this was a criminal waste. Not only this, but it smacked of lack of preparation from England. From the moment that the team returned from India it must have been evident to all that the most vulnerable batsman was Ian Bell and that the most likely replacement was Owais Shah. Why, then, was Shah not instantly despatched to the Academy and subjected to two hours a day of close-to-the-bat catching. Even if things had turned out differently it could not have been a wasted effort, and in the event it proved an entirely negligent oversight.

In general, the bowlers fielded well. As already mentioned, Ryan Sidebottom was an obvious, embarrassing and frankly unnacceptable exception. If the central contracts were performance related, Sidebottom would have been paying the ECB rather than the other way round, and Harmison’s pathetic response to heatstroke was probably the final nail in his coffin. James Anderson, on the other hand, showed that he is probably the finest fast-bowling outfielder England have had for some good time – his efforts in the face fo a debilitating stomach bug in sharp contrast to Harmison’s resignation. Stuart Broad looks a fine athlete as is Graeme Swann, and one of them may slip into the Ashley Giles role in the gully, and even Monty pulled off one astounding stop in Trinidad.

Andrew Strauss’ captaincy came under plenty of scrutiny, and the biggest positive may be that he has managed (if it was required) to pull together the dressing room. One suspects that the media significantly over-hyped any rifts in the wake of the Peter Moores affair, but the squad have appeared happy with one another. There was the occasional flash of captaincy inspiration – it was Strauss who suggested that Monty bowl round the wicket to Gayle on the final afternoon, so trapping him leg before – but in general the hand of Strauss was little evident. Sometimes it is hard to know whether that is a good or bad thing. Returning to an earlier theme, I feel strongly that silly point is not the place for a captain, but the first slip position he more often holds is a good one, and he is confident enough with his hands to fulfil the role. At one stage the stump microphones picked up a strong barrage of shouted criticism directed at Sidebottom after the Nottinghamshire senior’s latest fielding mishap, and it was good to hear that the captain was sufficiently comfortably in his own skin to lambast such staggering ineptitude. Tactically, of course, there were lessons, and at least one (when to declare) was not learned at the first time of asking, but if learning was a negative a lot of teachers would be out of business.

So, maybe the captain was being sincere when he spoke of “taking the positives”, maybe it wasn’t just an empty cliche. But will England really analyse in sufficient depth to realise what the positives were and learn from them, or will they merely rest easy in the knowledge that there must have been some positives somewhere? Sadly, one suspects that England’s complacent approach make the latter the significant favourite.