Giles Clarke, the new chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board, has not taken long to show what a loose cannon he can be.

If his barmy suggestion that England cricketers will soon play on a squad rotational basis is an example of so-called forward thinking - and he has a not totally undeserved reputation for shooting from the lip - cricket in this country is in for a rollercoaster ride.

He rightly claims that England cricketers play far too much but, such is his obsession that financial ends justify the means, he is approaching the problem from the wrong end. Why not reduce the number of international commitments, not all of which are at the behest of the Future Tours Programme of the International Cricket Council which calls for two home and away series against each country every six years?

He claims that "everyone recognises we have to fund the game and funding is increasingly about academies and bigger grounds." Really? The truth is that more than half of the ECB's profits are swallowed by the 18 counties' slice of £30 million a year and, in turn, that £30 m is more than half the counties' income, most of which goes on salaries for more and more players who are not qualified to play for England.

Former Warwickshire captain Nick Knight shied away from Kolpak players but the need for silverware to pacify memberships has developed into a rat race from which there is no escape. For instance, Sanath Jayasuriya will play for Warwickshire in next year's Twenty20 Cup ... but not for peanuts.

Should the ECB voluntarily reduce England's bloated fixture list, the counties would have to adapt accordingly and dead money would not pour into overseas pockets at such an alarming rate. There are two other crucial considerations which are ignored by the Clarke rotational vision - the effect on players and the paying public.

Paul Collingwood is so incensed at the idea of being stood down that he put his head above the censorship parapet and said: "At the moment it is difficult to see how it can work. Playing for my country is something I wouldn't want to miss out on. I know the schedule is pretty ruthless at times but let's get the schedule right rather than rotation."

Precisely. That player's simple view makes nonsense of Clarke's manifesto which says: "We are heading towards rotation, more specialists and different sides put out in different forms of the game and against different types of opposition."

How will the system work? Will it be done by numbers and by whom? Just imagine telling a youngster such as Alastair Cook that it is his turn to stand down after scoring a couple of centuries.

What would happen if his stand-in also scored heavily? Presumably the rotation would be done only against nations perceived to be weaker opposition but, other than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, against which other ones can England afford to play anything other than their strongest team?

Player power is not always welcome but it is in this instance and who better than deputy captain Collingwood to lead it?

Then there is the public for whom the current market place is an expensive temple to visit when ticket prices are added to travel and food and drink. A cheque for a few hundred quid can be written in January for four tickets for the Oval Test in August.

Father and sons turn up only to hear that Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff and Monty Panesar are rested because of a heavy few months. The idea is plain barmy and the sooner it is quietly dropped the better for players and public alike.

If Clarke has had a bad week, Warwickshire's Ian Bell has also disappointed, despite scoring his third half-century in four innings in the first two Tests against Sri Lanka, at Kandy and Colombo. His scores have been 83, 74, 15 and 54, giving him an aggregate of 236 and a clear lead over all his colleagues. Furthermore, those three half-centuries have been mini-masterpieces of technical and stylish batting, with only a strangely subdued 15 in 20 overs contributing towards England's first-innings loss of momentum in Colombo.

With so much in Bell's credit column, it seems churlish to label him as only a few innings away from becoming Mr Nearly Man. But he has fallen four times to Muttiah Muralitharan, with only one attempted defensive stroke as against three self-induced dismissals when he tried to hit over the top.

It is doubtful if there has been another slow bowler who has been so tricky to try the aerial route against because of his many subtle variations of loopy flight and amount of turn. England had to bat out the final day in Colombo to save the match but eyebrows were raised in the last over before lunch when Bell gave him the charge and hit him over the top for four.

It was a well-executed shot - therefore perfectly safe, or so Bell thought, because, an hour after the break, he tried it again, only to mis-hit to wide mid-on. It is as though he now believes it necessary to show the opposition that no-one can dictate to him but it is a stuttering sort of body language that is costing him dearly.

The perfect example was Mahela Jayawardene who, when he gets in, plays at the same pace for as long as it takes. His first 50 in a lovely 195 came off 125 balls and his third, from 100 to 150, came off 147, with only the middle one quicker when Panesar bowled poorly.

Bell needs to throttle back a mental gear before he can maximise his undoubted talent. It is difficult enough to get in - he has done it four times in two Tests only to throw it away three times.