Omission impossible

In an Ashes series with enough drama to provide cricket with its first 24-hour television channel, it was easy to overlook the story's first intriguing sub-plot: how England came to jettison their most experienced player on the eve of their toughest assignment.

Graham Thorpe's omission inevitably caused a kerfuffle when the squad for the first Test was named on July 14. Thorpe had been a major performer for England, appearing in 100 Tests and since returning to the side in 2003 helping to win a number of games with some high-class innings. But he was about to turn 36 and had been suffering severe back problems. To every outsider the obvious conclusion was that he had reached the end of the road. Eight days later, on the second morning of the first Test at Lord's, Thorpe publicly announced his retirement from Test cricket, which suggested he had drawn the same conclusion.

But then things got interesting. Two days later, in his Sunday newspaper column, Thorpe elaborated on his decision. He said that David Graveney, the chairman of selectors, had given him a clear impression when he rang to inform him that he had been dropped from the side, that the door was closed to a return.

Hardly an earth-shattering revelation, except that by this stage - the fourth day of the Test - England were slipping to a heavy defeat to Australia and a "here we go again" depression had gripped English cricket. Kevin Pietersen, Thorpe's replacement, had scored runs but Ian Bell didn't need buck teeth or long floppy ears to persuade the nation that Australia's headlights had just spotted a rabbit.

All of a sudden, Thorpe's omission, and his retirement, looked premature and Graveney was trundled out to explain things. Graveney claimed that when he spoke to Thorpe: "I did suggest on behalf of the selectors that, if at all possible, we could keep a door open until the end of the summer because we were not sure what might happen." How perspicacious that was of Graveney, though Thorpe denies it was ever said.

Thorpe's position was strengthened when it emerged that he had informed Graveney of his retirement several days before it became public knowledge and Graveney, far from asking him to reconsider, had merely asked him to delay the announcement until after the first Test had begun to save distracting England from their preparations.

It was a minor media spat and was quickly forgotten once England, and Bell, recovered their poise. Had England not played so badly towards the end of the first Test, it might never have happened. At the time this was going on, I was putting the finishing touches to Thorpe's autobiography and what struck me as odd was that the real story behind his exclusion didn't get any airplay.

The key events actually took place two months earlier, in the lead-up to the Test series against Bangladesh that preceded the Ashes, when Thorpe received several thinly veiled hints that even then the management was considering putting him out to grass. First, Thorpe said that when Graveney informed him of his selection for the first Test against Bangladesh, Graveney had added: "Obviously, it was very close between you and Kevin Pietersen."

Then, two days before that game, Duncan Fletcher had surprised Thorpe by asking him whether he was going to retire after the Bangladesh series and before the Ashes. Fletcher added: "I can't guarantee you starting against Australia."

The day after that, Thorpe spoke to Michael Vaughan at nets. They talked about Thorpe's long-standing back problem and at one point, according to Thorpe, Vaughan said: "Look, if your back is really playing up, then just tell us. There's no difference between 99 and 100 Tests and I'd like to give KP [Pietersen] a game before the Ashes."

All this, remember, was before Pietersen first blitzed the Aussies in the one-dayer at Bristol. Clearly, the management had seen enough in South Africa of Pietersen's batting in the one-day series, and perhaps enough of Thorpe's declining mobility in the Tests there, to be tempted to switch horses in the Tests.

If that sounds ruthless, then perhaps we should consider why the selectors didn't actually make the change for the Bangladesh Tests, as Vaughan would apparently have liked. The only conclusion I can draw is that, however business-like this England set-up had become, the selectors didn't have it in their hearts to deny an old soldier his hundredth Test cap. In which case, good on 'em.

Simon Wilde is cricket correspondent of the Sunday Times and collaborated with Graham Thorpe on Rising from the Ashes. Buy it now