Here's a stat for you: whenever Michael Vaughan has lost a Test in the middle of a series, he has led England to victory in the next game. Granted, this has only happened five times*, but the Spin doesn't want to miss out on the general mood of barminess that has descended on English cricket. It was only a few days ago, after all, that Geoff Miller claimed the selection of Steve Harmison was "no risk at all". Harmy is many things; "no risk" is not one of them.
Mickey Arthur discerned "desperation" in Harmison's recall, and although his judgment must be questioned following his claim at Headingley that there was no difference between the disputed catches claimed by AB de Villiers (definitely not out) and Vaughan (hard to say) - to say nothing of that teeth-grindingly awful reference to Mother Cricket - he has a point. England would not have SOSed Harmison if they had not got things so horribly wrong at Headingley. And then, just to keep us all on our toes, they go and leave him out of the final XI. After months of unprecedented stability, it suddenly feels as if we are back in the 1990s.
But it is the 1990s with a twist. England have lurched not from one madness to another, but from madness to possibly excessive caution. (Tim Ambrose may have been a place too high at No6, but he is now a place too low at No8.) Clearly the problem with playing Harmison as part of a five-man attack - which presumably would not have included Stuart Broad - was an overly long tail. Word from Edgbaston is that the pitch is less bouncy than the selectors originally thought, in which case Paul Collingwood can rightfully take his place as bowler No4: since The Oval last year his 11 Test wickets have cost 25 each.
The other question - that of team balance - favoured Collingwood too. Had Harmison played, three players would have been at least a slot too high in the batting line-up: one of Ambrose and Flintoff (both No7s), Ryan Sidebottom (a good No10 rather than a No8) and, despite the guts he showed at Headingley, Jimmy Anderson (still a No10, not a No9). With Collingwood in the team, only Ambrose is out of kilter, but arguably to England's benefit.
But what about the old rule of thumb which says you should pick the side the opposition least wants to face? Arthur's attempt at kidology suggests he was anxious about Harmison's potential reintroduction. It's true that South Africa were the first side to go public about his perceived lack of mental strength during the 2004-05 series, when Graeme Smith said his batsmen would target Harmison. There was scoffing among English hacks, only for Harmison to finish the series with nine wickets at 73. But Arthur also knows that England couldn't do any worse with him in the side; and, despite the assessment of the pitch, they might just have done better.
On that basis, Harmison - a mixture of X-factor and X-rated - might have played, at which point England could start to convince themselves they had an attack worthy of the name: a tall bowler who gets disconcerting bounce; a tall bowler who keeps it extremely tight; a left-arm swing bowler who will be raring to go after missing Headingley through an injury; a right-arm swing bowler who is in the form of his life; and a left-arm spinner who is palpably superior to his opposite number.
Ah yes, Monty. If England lose this series, they may well look back and regret the absence of a bunsen, just as the failure to include Old Trafford on next summer's Ashes rota already feels like a major blunder. Whisper it, but Edgbaston may just be his best chance.
* v South Africa, Trent Bridge and The Oval 2003; v South Africa, Johannesburg 2004-05; v Australia, Lord's 2005; v New Zealand, Wellington 2007-08.
Extract taken from The Spin, theguardian.com/sport's weekly look at the workld of cricket. Subscribe now, it's free.
