Prior Engagement Leaves England Short

When Michael Vaughan left the field at Headingley in 2004 to witness the birth of his son he was described as 'summing up everything wrong with English cricket', which seemed a little unfair. Martin Saggers picked up a second cap - and two for 91 - in the same Test.
Vaughan was a sort of Emmeline Pankhurst of his day though and five years later the stigma has passed. We now live in more enlightened times, and a post-Mary Poppins paternal attitude to children is no longer considered mental weakness. Players are more or less encouraged to skip a tricky morning session when the ball's nipping around to instead attend a childbirth.
Matt Prior is the latest England man to take advantage of his central contract paternity clause, and doing so without a word of protest from the press. Rather than manning up to face the West Indies on Thursday he is back in Blighty with wife Emily, until now most famous for bouncing on Sir Allen Stanford's knee in November. There is no confirmation yet that the big man has got the nod as godfather, but he has been incommunicado recently.
Although this is all totally reasonable, I can't help clacking my tongue in irritation. Vaughan left for an hour against opposition featuring Michael Papps and Daryl Tuffey; Prior was England's best hope of fielding five bowlers in the fourth Test at Bridgetown. If childbirth were truly a miracle, surely it could leave the outcome of an important series unaffected.
In an unsettling twist England now turn to Tim Ambrose, whose small, bald, rounded face makes him look like a newborn - at least, until he pops a Marlboro light in there. The circle of wicketkeeping life is complete.
The spectre of Headingley '08 surely forbids playing the Warwickshire gloveman at number six, where Prior likely would have batted after Andrew Flintoff's injury. A recall for Ian Bell would be widely derided but Ravi Bopara has been overhyped by England's underachievement: he is certainly a talented player and a potential one-day performer, but with a lot more to prove than those demanding all-out change want to accept.
Forget ye not Galle in 2007 when England won the toss and inserted Sri Lanka, who promptly racked up 499 for eight declared before bowling out the tourists for 81. Only the rain saved England from defeat, and their new number six from much greater ridicule. A 'pair' is two ducks and a 'king pair' is two golden ducks, but there really should be a name for a seven-ball duck out of 81 followed by running yourself out first ball when the team is trying to bat for a draw.
Bell v Bopara comes down not to runs in the recent tour match but a hunch: do England want to shake up things up or settle them down? Probably most people now favour the former option, and understandably so. But let's not expect miracles from the Essex man.
A more interesting case is that of Amjad Khan, another who has enjoyed himself against the BCA President's XI. He gets sharp pace and reverse swing, and England need 20 wickets without their best bowler. Ryan Sidebottom's attractions are obvious as part of a four-man attack since he will send down a lot of overs in a day. But the memories of the speed gun clocking him in the late 80s in Sri Lanka now seem like a hoax and he still doesn't look match fit. Steve Harmison and James Anderson together in a four-man attack is a suicide note so if Sidebottom is not fit, or no more likely to start taking wickets, then Khan must have strong claims.
Regrettably a third way to shake things up - the inclusion of Adil Rashid - is now off the table unless England want to expose their young legspinner as one of four bowlers. Against a top six that had four left-handers in St John's, that seems less a gamble than desperation.