Crucial win against Sri Lanka will buy England time

Galle was the most galling of England's four consecutive Test defeats this winter. Pakistan have the makings of a fine Test side. To lose 3-0 to them was a shock, but not necessarily a humiliation, especially with the mystery of Saeed Ajmal left unsolved.

Sri Lanka are ordinary. That Galle represented only their second Test win in 18 matches and their first at home since the retirement of Muttiah Muralitharan tells a long and considered tale. Unproven or not in Asia, to lose to them was an embarrassment for the world's highest-ranked side, especially after the usually considerable disadvantage of losing the toss was soothed by three early wickets.

England blew it. Yes, it was a wonderfully gripping Test match in which Rangana Herath inked himself into the record books and Mahela Jayawardene played one of the great Test innings. But England were sloppy. And that is not just to highlight Monty Panesar's unacceptable dropped catches or Stuart Broad's no-ball that allowed Sri Lanka an extra 47 runs in their second innings. They lacked clarity under pressure with the bat and in their fielding.

And, most untypically, they selected poorly beforehand. The Andocracy of Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower has generally been excellent in this regard. But in Galle they erred. The inclusion of Samit Patel was as poor as any pick under their command.

It smacked of conservatism, of concern that a four-bowler unit might require assistance in the unforgiving conditions. Granted, Ravi Bopara's side strain, which is preventing him from bowling, probably altered pre-tour thinking, but this was a fudge.

And this is not to say that Patel is an incapable cricketer. He is a good cricketer. He bowled decently. But the question I immediately asked when gossip emerged of his selection the night before the Test was this: "Can he score a Test-match century?" I'd be surprised; pleasantly surprised, of course. He is a personable fellow.

England appear equally unconvinced of his batting. That was why he batted at No?7. Remember that Bopara, whose first-class average (41.66) is not that dissimilar to Patel's (40.90), batted at No?6 in his two Tests at the end of last summer (well, actually at No?7 in the second but only because of a nightwatchman). That told him he was in the side primarily as a batsman. The message to Patel was: "We're not sure. You're our bits-and-pieces man."

Bopara must play in Colombo. It is unfathomable that some are advocating another seamer's inclusion. England need runs, for goodness' sake!

Steven Finn, tactically presented to the press yesterday, must replace Stuart Broad, who should not have played in Galle. He was never fit. He didn't look it beforehand, and he did not look it on the first day. With only two seamers in the side, it was a reckless gamble.

Maybe the cricketing fates were having their wicked way when he bowled the no-ball. It can be the cruellest of games, especially when one messes with it.

Although Tim Bresnan will doubtless be considered carefully (England have won all 10 of his Tests, after all), Finn now deserves his chance, especially on a pitch at the P Sara Oval that traditionally now has more bounce than most others in the country, and where the tall off-spinner Suraj Randiv took nine wickets in the last Test played there; a defeat against India in 2010.

But England's bowling is not the worry. It is the batting. Take a look at these statistics from the four Tests this winter: Strauss has 203 runs at 25.38, Alastair Cook 173 at 21.63, Jonathan Trott 285 at 35.63, Kevin Pietersen 100 at 12.5, Ian Bell 116 at 14.5, Matt Prior 198 at 33 and between them Eoin Morgan and Patel 93 at 11.63.

The figures of Trott and Prior (the latter aided by two not outs) are just about acceptable. The rest range from mediocre to purely shambolic. This team is currently carrying more passengers than your average Tuk Tuk.

This raises all sorts of awkward questions. Can any of them really play spin on turning pitches? Do they blithely think their places are cast in stone? Have the successes of 2011 gone to their heads? Was something crucial lost in the unusually long break they enjoyed before Christmas? Indeed, looking more broadly, is this just another example, adding to the Rugby World Cup win of 2003 and the 2005 Ashes, of English sport suffering an uncontrollably sharp decline after reaching the summit (beating Australia was the summit then, even if it didn't the mean No?1 ranking)?

It may be harsh even to raise such points, but it is hardly knee-jerk stuff. Four Tests is a long time. Reputations can be shattered as well as forged in that time.

There is only one way to banish such thoughts. And that is to win this week in Colombo. That will maintain England's ranking as
No?1 in the world, and then the predictable calls for change can be resisted more easily, or at least addressed without the surrounding sensationalism. The last time England lost five consecutive Tests, it prompted a review!

Bloodletting does not always have to be the way. And I'm still to be convinced that there are too many credible alternatives waiting in the queue. Too many of the pretenders - for example, Jonny Bairstow, Ben Stokes, Alex Hales and Jos Buttler - are bashers, not yet the kind of craftsmen capable of playing the proper Test innings Trott played in Galle.

James Taylor might just be an exception, but for now it is down to the incumbents. They must wise up. Strauss, Pietersen and Bell in particular know that.

The P Sara Oval, home to the Tamil Union club, is not Colombo's most frequently used Test venue, but it is where England played Sri Lanka's inaugural Test in 1982. That started something good in world cricket.

But it is there this week that England must re-start something good for themselves.

It is called winning, as England did in 1982 by seven wickets.