News that Graham Ford has pulled out of the running for England cricket manager is another example of the English Cricket Board’s shambolic and disasterous working methods. Ford is one of the world’s best coaches, transforming Kent’s one-day record from first-round knockout certainties to finalists, coaching South Africa to the 1999 World Cup final under Bob Woolmer and is one of the few men given a shining endorsement from hard-to-please Kevin Pietersen. But the ECB’s laissez-faire attitude towards picking a new coach has ended the South African’s interest in the job.

“I thought it would be sorted out a lot quicker than it has been,” Ford said to the Guardian last week. With the Ashes only 99 days away, what on earth are England’s cricket bosses waiting around for? England have won only two games this winter, one with the help of a mathematical cock-up by West Indies coach John Dyson, and are limping towards this summer’s Ashes showdown without a permanent head coach. Perhaps limping is an understatement, more crawling with a ball and chain attached. The ECB are the key holders to this obstacle – a world-leading coach, given as much time possible to get the players working well again, is needed and this delay is not helping matters.

First terrestrial television is cut away from cricket, second Sir [sic] Allen Stanford flies into the ECB’s back pocket and now we wait on a new head coach. It is no wonder why nobody wants the job.

Very few teams come away from a tour to New Zealand with a series win, but England go into tonight’s final test with the possibility of doing just that. The Kiwis are missing a batch of players and so it’s time for England to pounce and come away victorious.

I appeared to praise Amjad Khan a little too much last week to the point where, in a bid to live up to my pre-match hype, he sent down plenty of no-balls and had a fairly mediocre test debut. Despite this he was still worth the risk and certainly worth picking over Steve Harmison, but charging in on day two he did not look ready enough for the pressure. Perhaps that’s something that will come with experience. Interesting, however, to see that the England selectors picked him for yesterday’s Twenty20 International defeat; perhaps they are willing to give him the benefit of a bag o’ nerves beginning and more time to prove himself.

Sport is unpredictable and in my haste, I banked on Khan. My opinion, wrong as it turned out, was based on looking at his past form in addition to the number of times I had seen him play and the situation England faced before the fifth test. Compare that to Giles Clarke and others at the English Cricket Board who banked on Sir Allen Stanford, ignored his past (Stanford Group’s input in Antigua, an island without money-laundering laws) and took an unnecessary risk on the English game. It appears unlikely Mr Clarke will be apologising for his error.

Later today, England’s beleaguered squad enter the last chance saloon. A last chance to salvage a draw from an uninspiring test series. A last chance to impress the next team manager, with South African Graeme Ford the new favourite. But more importantly, a last chance to convince Australia that they are serious about reclaiming the Ashes. What a contrast from five years ago where England’s Ashes-winning attack – Matthew Hoggard, Steve Harmison, Simon Jones, Andrew Flintoff and Ashley Giles – ripped through the West Indies twice at the Queen’s Park Oval, Trinidad, on the way to a seven-wicket victory. Only two of the famous five remain: Flintoff, resting his hip some 5,000 miles away, and Harmison who probably wishes he was equally as distant after another disappointing tour. Harmison is unlikely to get another chance in Trinidad, despite his 6-61 there five years ago, which leaves England begging for a match-winning bowler. Untried he may be, but Amjad Khan could be England’s answer.

Born in Copenhagan, Amjad was Denmark’s youngest ever player at 17-years- old, but having gained British citizenship in 2006, he joins Kevin Pietersen and Kent team mate Geraint Jones in claiming a British passport and becoming an English cricketer through law. Had it not been for a serious cruciate knee ligament injury in 2007, he may well have played a bigger role for England. Approaching a fast-bowler’s best years at the age of 28, and with over 200 first-class wickets, his inexperience in international cricket should not distract the selectors from choosing him for the fifth test match of this series. His pace could prove to be the cymbal needed in England’s, until now, mediocre drum kit. Although the pitches haven’t given the reward they’ve deserved, England’s bowlers have at times lacked rhythm needed. The result: they haven’t yet bowled the West Indies twice on this tour.

Amjad’s action is different – crumpled-up in the last yard of his approach to the crease, followed by a short pause before an uncoiling of the upper body parts that help produce decent pace – almost in a Simon Jones mould. Like Jones, he also has the ability to reverse-swing the ball, handy where the wicket and outfield are bone dry. His abilities compare to Harmison, who is still out of sorts, and Sidebottom, who has been struggling for fitness and bowling under 80 miles per hour. With Flintoff injured, Khan is England’s most unique bowler. Clocked at 93 miles per hour before his injury, he must be a part of a five-man England attack. Anything short and England won’t win.

This leaves a difficult selection dilemma at the top of the order. A five-man attack means a batsman has to miss out, and it’s no easy task deciding who should make way. Ravi Bopara, fresh from a big hundred in the last test, or Owais Shah, deserving of a long spell in the team having carried more drinks to the players than Ian Botham in his heyday. It would be unfair on Shah to leave him out so soon, but similarly runs out-weigh who should morally play. Shah would have felt hard done by after being snubbed following his debut 88 in Mumbai three years ago and the same rule applies here – Bopara’s quick-fire 104 in Barbados should earn him a place.

But the debate over which batsman should play is irrelevant if England cannot take 20 wickets. A five-prong attack will at least give England the chance to regain some respectability from a difficult tour, and dampen down the pre-series Australian put-downs. A weak showing and expect a difficult summer.