Will cricket please throw up a surprise or two?

The selectors would have done well though to have made it clear why he wasn’t being picked. They would have done Indian cricket a lot of good. By holding back, they added to the intrigue.

There were three test matches last week and they didn’t tell us anything we did not know. They told us Pakistan can’t play in Australia, that England are on their way up and South Africa down and that Bangladesh are struggling to be competitive at this level. Hopefully the next round of matches will throw up a surprise. Cricket could do with some on the field.

Pakistan are struggling with their batting and it hasn’t helped that their openers have come and gone like autumn leaves, or promises from politicians. The senior players haven’t stood up to be counted and before Melbourne they need to take a close look at number six. If Abdul Razzaq has to play as a batting all-rounder, he needs to be in the class of Andrew Flintoff or Jacques Kallis. And if he has to bat at number seven, with a wicket keeper following him, he has to be the third seamer. Currently he is neither number six nor third seamer.

But that is not their only problem. Add to that list an unforgiving public, a vitriolic former coach and a prima donna with the new ball. That is quite a collection.

South Africa’s problems have much to do with the all-rounder’s slot as well. It is fashionable, and facile, to say that their problems lie off the field, with the ‘‘quotas’’. I suspect it has more to do with the balance of the side.

At their best, South Africa gave themselves a lot of options because Kallis at number three or four and Klusener at number six or seven performed two jobs. Kallis was the key because he could allow the team to play either Boje or Adams and still have enough seam bowlers. With injury preventing him from bowling South Africa have had to look at bits and pieces players at number six and seven when really, they should be carrying no more than one of those.

The fragility of Herschelle Gibbs, on and off the field, hasn’t helped. When he and Kirsten were opening the batting South Africa had a pair to rival Langer and Hayden.

I suspect with the retirement of Kirsten they lost their anchor and a steadying influence on the mercurial Gibbs.

South Africa played their best cricket under Woolmer and Cronje, they seemed the best prepared team and there seemed to be a method to their game. Now they seem to have more selectors than Bangladesh have players, coaches come and go like they would from a bus-stand and there is an air of uncertainty around.

England have done well to capitalise on that. They have found a wicket-keeper who bats, a batsman who bowls seam up very effectively and a spinner who bats better every match. Soon a couple of places will open up in the middle order and if England go for character, like they did with Trescothick, Vaughan and Strauss, they can only become better.

Bangladesh played a test match as well. They won two sessions and a young man produced a scintillating century. Mohd Ashraful is a fantastic young player but he has been around for more than three years and averages less than 25. There has to be something wrong with that. There are many in this Bangladesh side who look good, seem to hint at bright careers. But in the end, it is substance that counts.

Bangladesh don’t have it. Not yet.