This is absolute rubbish ... not from Vaughan, but from Mr.de Lisle. Firstly, which captain would go around blaming the selectors before such a vital series? Secondly, there is truth in what Vaughan has said in the interview. Players like Tresco, Freddie etc are automatic choices in any England team chosen two months before the Ashes ... Its just that Tresco has a stress-related injury, and nobody is able to figure out the recovery period ... Thats no reason to drop Tresco from the touring party. It could take 2-3 months for him to recover. Equally likely, it could take just 2-3 weeks too ! As for the captaincy issue, thats beside the point ... choosing a captain to replace Vaughny was always going to be hard ... but that really cannot be bracketed under "selection issues" ...I really cant think of any other major issues ... Giles? Perhaps. But one specialist spinner would never be sufficient, and hence, the experienced Giles. He is close to full-recovery now, and that should satify everyone (much the same way that people are satisfied with FLintoff's selection, given he is coming off an injury too). And i dont believe Jamie Dalrymple's one-day performances really meri a place for him in the test squad as a second specialist spinner + batsman. James Anderson? Hasnt bowled a ball all season. But he is the best of the back up seamers England have, including Sajid Mahmood and Plunkett, and he deserves a place (again, keeping in mind that there are still 2 more months, and that he is going to India for Champions trophy).For me, the only point of debate is Liam Plunkett. He has kept off Stuart Broad and Jon Lewis ... Only time will tell whether its a right choice, but England's policy of persisting with players meant that Plunkett got back the place he lost due to his injury...
All in all Michael Vaughan is indeed right, when he says, it was quite easy to pick this squad. There was a lot of hype, and lots of options were discussed. But its hard to think of any major changes the selectors could have made to the squad ...

Tim you are a bit of a stirrer are you not?!

I read the interview as you suggested and I reckon Vaughan has got it right on a number of fronts although I do feel the captaincy decision was a gamble-good for the series but a very big ask of the big blonde chap with the smile.

The best point I can make as an Aussie is that England finally seem to have learned that winners are worth their weight in gold. By sticking with the "team" who broke the drought I feel England gave itself its best chance.

I also agree that England would appear to have added to their depth with emerging players of calibre such as Cook.

However whilst I still feel there is a change in era in the Aussie ranks inevitably looming, I can already see new talent emerging down under.

ie People like Jacques, Johnson, Brackens, Tait , Cosgrove, Rogers, Cullen not to mention other big gains since the last Ashes in Hussey , Hodge and of course Lee's great form.

So whilst Vaughan seems to feel happy that England emerging talent will be sufficent to do the job, I feel a new dawn arising down under ..already...so Michael is perhaps a touch complacent there.

I would add that it's a "bit of a worry" if it all depends on winning the toss!

I'm not surprised at Vaughan's remarks. Indeed, given the importance he's placed on team spirit and providing a unified front, I'd expect nothing less than total solidarity with the selectors from within the England camp. The Australians will be looking out for any cracks that they might be able to exploit, but they won't be getting a whiff of any from him. England certainly do have some real concerns going into this ashes series, but internal strife is not going to be one of them.

Was it a risk for Australia to pick Glen Mcgrath for the DLF cup after such a long lay off? Yes maybe, but it was decision that had to be made and not just for the DLf cup, there would have been no doubt (and that really means no doubt) he would have been named in the Australian side if the ashes was his first game back rather than a slightly less glamarous one day tournament in malaysia. The same applies to Shane Warne who's personal life was not in the best of conditions leading up to the last ashes tour, a tour which ranks up there as one of his best, where he was undoubtedly Australia's most effective player. I'm not denying that Vaughn has maybe underplayed the situation facing the selectors, but where as taking Trescothick, Flintoff, Anderson and the the other army of invalids maybe seen as a risk, not taking them would be seen less a gamble and more an outright blunder. So therfore you can understand what Vaughn means when he says it was a simple decision for the selectors, taking them maybe a touch risky, but not taking them would be down right stupid. To suggest that there was any other decision that could be made would have been an insult to the intelligence of his many fans.

Go easy, de Lisle. Remember you pushed for Dalrymple to replace Flintoff (July 25, 2006)- your radar isn't anything to brag about.

Is everyone forgetting the shadow squad that will be at the academy? Already present and acclimatised to Australian conditions will be some, if not all, of the fringe players who might have been picked instead of the injured players.

Wow Tim, the bloggers do seem to be having a go at you eh? I think that the English selectors have taken one too many risks in choosing the squad. Flintoff over Strauss, ok, can be justified. But the spate of injuries to key bowlers is probably worrying the pants off the ECB who seem quite content to play down the whole thing.
To Mr. S. Sandeep: you claim that Giles is close to full fitness and thus his place in the squad is unquestioned. The guy hasnt played cricket in a whole year, never have i heard of some cricketer being out for so long and then coming back in a pivotal series without serious match practice. As for saying that nobody talks abt Flintoff coming back from injury, well its pretty obvious why isnt it? Ones a plodder and the other a matchwinner. PLus the fact that FLintoff will be playing in the Champions Trophy and be getting time out in the middle unlike GILO.

Im afraid that if any one of the currently injured players breaks down, the whole squad will go down with him. The performance of this squad will be contingent on a lot of prayer and good luck and I bet that as I write this, the English management is arranging a very 'accidental' slip over a ball for a certain pigeon toed fast bowler.

You talk of two risks with the last tour. I can think of three. Michael Vaughan himself was injured when the party was announced and was an uncertain starter yet became man of the series. Moreover, the impact of picking injured players in the last tour has been exaggerated - they were replaced and the tour continued. England lost because the team just wasn't good enough, and no selection policy imaginable would have made any difference. I also remember Chris Silverwood in 2002 - he arrived fully fit and immediately broke down.

I agree with Tim that Vaughan's comments are rubbish. Of course there were hard decisions to make!

The point is, have England put plans into place to support these tough decisions? It appears that the 'reserve' squad in Perth is a strategy to support the decision to pick so many doubtful players. This will prove to be a good decision in the case of emergency. In the case of no emergency, England will have a good team-building exercise.

The other tough decision of the captaincy is a little more behind closed doors and we won't know for a while whether support has been put in place for this decision. That is, have Strauss and others been given an explicit role in supporting Flintoff? Aside from onfield support, the media commitment and pressure will be ridiculous for Flintoff. England management must build a functioning brainstrust around Flintoff to support their decision to make him captain. If they do, England could potentially become a steamroller. If they don't, 2002-03 will look like a successful campaign in comparison.

One can only guess from Vaughan's comments that he is confident with the decisions based on the safety nets in place. But to call them easy decisions is ridiculous.

Why was it a risk that the Aussies pick McGrath for the DLF series. For starters, its a one day series, its not a Test, and nor is it the ASHES - the biggest cricket sporting challenge.

It was no risk at all. It is a risk to bring back players who have not played for such a long period of time for this momentous series.

An Aussie.

Quite apart from Vaughan's views on the Ashes selection, I'm not quite sure what point you are making about his having a holiday home in Barbados. Are we now sneering at him for being a fat cat? There are plenty of sportsmen, English sportsmen, who have given a lot less to English sport, and who make a lot more. Does Vaughan need a pay cut then, or perhaps no contract at all?

Australia"s experiment with Mcgrath is certainly working as he needs matches under his belt and even if he bowled a few wides which was unlike him, he was at his miserly worst in the finals and Lee bowled fast and straight.With Johnson waiting in the wings, I think the Australian bowling will be better this time around .At this stage the signs are more positive for Australia.The team with fitter players will win the Ashes.

The biggest risk England face is selecting James Anderson... and i hope they don't. To win a series as important as the ashes against a side reduced to picking Sunday league class players is some what unsatisfying.

The big problem we face, as not only Australian fans but fans of good cricket, is that the quality has dropped since the last Ashes series for the English and we just don't know what Australia is capable of these days . As an Australian who was living in Britain during the last ashes series (I called a taxi and asked them to take me to the highest bridge possible after the last ball)I say it could not have been more exciting. This excitement was born out of the closeness of the series, which England threw away the chance of winning much more convincingly. This time around a lot of Australians who had not faced quality bowling (except in the nets) know what they are up against and will have prepared. Furthermore the old saying that it is easier to get into the Australian team than out of it seems gone. The new talent which has entrenched itself within the nucleus of the best team of all time will only serve to strengthen the success we have enjoyed for so long.

It is not all golden for Australia, however. In the not-so-long-run there will be no more Glenn McGrath or Shayne Warne. What we as fans have not wanted to admit is that this is a hole in the team that will never fully be filled, such is the cost of the brilliance and success in sport that we have enjoyed for so long.

The point or conclusion of this semi inane rambling is that Australia will win the Ashes back and we are at the dawn of a new competitive environment for cricket. Will Australia dominate again? I hope so, but any who says that in the long run they will is deluding themselves with their certainty.

I must say I agree with a lot of what Tim says. It is a huge risk picking some of the players England have picked - Giles and Anderson in particular.

But I do feel that to have any chance of retaining the Ashes we have to have our best and most experienced players out there, otherwise the Aussies could steamroller us if we're reduced to having a lily-livered bunch of kids as the basis of much of the side.

The Aussies are gonna be so pumped for that first session in Brisbane that we have to fight fire with fire, and that means Freddie as captain and all our best players out there.

I'm getting goosebumps just thinking about it...

Bit of an overeaction imo, he probably does Not think its a great idea to gamble with these players but they are the best talent we have so he has to back them in print he probably feels differently off the record so basic point is its a bit harsh to call his comments rubbish its just par for the coures the way I see it....

Michael is doing his job, you cant give anything away at this stage. But England will learn their lessons again. You cant carry injured players in Australia, the pitches are harder on the body and the heat conditions take their toll. Bowlers have to work harder because they wont have any assistance with cloud and green pitches like in England. Good luck picking an injured captain, I just hope he doesnt get burned out because that would be a shame for all cricket lovers.

Honestly, I have only one thing to say ... the Aussie team to fear the most is one that has something to prove. When they lost that series in India, they came back and showed what they were all about. As far as they Ashes go, there's only one opponent that matters. I'm expecting the Aussie team to be fully on top of their game, seeking to regain what they see as being 'theirs'.

It's a big ask for Freddie putting him in charge when coming off injury. Class player, clearly the best all-rounder the world has seen in a long time. He was, for me, the difference last time around. He bowled and batted as a champion all-rounder should. Put the captaincy on top, coming off injury ... now that's asking a HELL of a lot.

If anyone can come through with all that, Freddie can (and I'm an Aussie, if wasn't obvious), but heck ... that's a lot of pressure to place on one man.

Vaughan, a crock who hopes to play in the VB series, is hardly going to criticise the selectors for picking a tour party full of crocks.

That said, I think he is essentially right; with the possible exception of Plunkett, you wouldn't want to leave any of these players behind. But is it right that Vaughan was speaking 'quite regularly about the squad' to the selectors? He hasn't been around the players much all summer... by his own admission he hasn't seen enough of Panesar to really judge him.

Tim's criticism of Vaughan is a typical example of media hypocrisy. If Vaughan had been completely honest he might've said something like "yeah, we are taking a bit of a gamble on some of our injured players, but we have no choice because our second-string players would almost certainly be smashed by Australia". The media would've then jumped all over this as evidence of mental weakness, England going back to their old ways of admitting defeat before the first Test, etc.

All Vaughan can do for England while he's injured is try to provide a positive and supportive atmosphere for his team-mates. His remarks should be interpreted in that context. It's not his role to provide honest analysis of England's selection policy or what their strengths and weaknesses might be.

Crikey

Interviewee in "pats back difficult questions to interviewer" shock. Bland? No surprises there.

What does TDL expect?

"Yes - shockingly hard selection. A couple of the boys are lucky to be on the plane, I can tell you! When I was last skipper there's no way we'd have picked Gilo given he hasn't bowled for a year. And Freddy? If he hasn't broken down by the time he gets to Perth he will on that deck. Straussy is far more cerebral than Freddy anyway and its only because Harmy's a bit flaky that Freddy got the nod."

Not a chance of that.

Typically in the absence of any real news in the original piece TDL has chosen to have a dig and stir something up. It's no wonder sportsmen and women today don't give regular interviews and that journalists are continually raging about "access". Clearly the are right to be wary.

Vaughan's opinions are his own and he gave HIS thoughts about the team. What's wrong with that? If HE thinks the selctors have picked the right team, he'll say it. What's wrong in expressing your opinion? If he would've said, "Players who are not fully fit should not be selected", then he would got a real stinger from the board itself for 'interfering' with the selction of the team. So it's better for him play safe by saying this rather than indulging himself in a muddle with the board. (Or maybe he's practising being diplomatic for the Ashes tour. After all, he's planning to be in Aus for the entire Ashes tour, isn't he? So, he's got to know how to express his opinion regarding certain issues.)

Vaughan knows it wouldnt matter what side they bring to aus. there still going to cop a floging.
One thing that is certain this time around is aus will be better prepared than at any time in our history there is no complacency now, and this time its in our backyard where the ball dosent reverse, on most grounds its lucky to swing at all, our crowds, our substitutes and our hard sun baked pitches.
The aus team has improved with the emergance of Mike Hussey, Mitchell Johnson, Mark Cosgrove and Shaun Tait where the eng team has only improved with Cook and Panesar. Aus 3/0 for me

At least with this touring party there are no great pretenders who never looked liked cutting it at the elite eg. hick, ramprakash, caddick, defraites, or half of any touring party to come here in the last twenty years.

I agree with AB that there isn't a chance in hell that Vaughan would stir things up by not being diplomatic

It doesn't matter anyway-- England is walking wounded and the Aussies are in no mood to take prisoners

Vaughan was between a rock and a hard place. Support the team selected and he is accused of toeing the party line and wearing blinkers. Anything less than full support and the headlines would be 'Vaughan lukewarm on English team selection' and team morale would be dealt a blow right before the series. He did what he had to do.

The Aussies might win this series. I think selecting Flintoff as captain was an error- like Ian Botham, he is a superb natural cricketer who flourishes under a captain who uses him correctly and inspires him to perform. Also like Botham, I think he will show that he is a lot better at playing the game than thinking about it. Captaincy in such a tough series is of paramount importance and England will really suffer from Vaughan's absence.

Overall, though, I think England is on track to overtake Australia as soon as Warne and McGrath hang it up. The new crop of England players look a lot better than the young Australians and half the Aussie test side (Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath) are on the wrong side of 35. It may be, though, that they'll have enough gas left in the tank to hold off a depleted England side.