absolutely splendid piece. it's remarkable that long term injury can result in such enormous sums being paid regardless. whatever happened to statutory sick pay? it seems incompatible that fletch can be both a cricket coach/expert and 'a jones fan'.

When he questions the decision to award contracts to injured players, I think Tim de Lisle is not considering the demands returning from injury places on them, both mentally and physically. They will be following intensive, full-time rehabilitation programs which will involve many hours of gym work and physiotherapy. Their easiest option would be to retire and take advantage of their celebrity status and/or pursue lucrative careers in the media. If the ECB judge that there is a reasonable chance of them playing again, then there is no question that they should be awarded contracts so they have the financial and psychological support they need to ensure the best chance of recovery.

Seems like Aussie seletors picked up English team and WI selectors handed over the contracts :-)

As an just ordinary fan I am becoming terribly annoyed with Duncan Fletcher. Here is gifted Chris Read whom Tim de Lisle appropriately calls an artist when compared with Jones the jouneyman, yet Read and Jones are treated the same! How often does it have to be stressed to Fletcher that one ALWAYS chooses the best keeper. A team wins a series 3-0 (vs. WINDIES) AND SACKS THE KEEPER! The bland mediocrity, Buchanan, is beginning to look like an intellectual giant compared with Fletcher. How can we sack this guy Fletcher? It is now obvious that Fletcher has an unhealthy addiction to Jones. (Which is all terribly unfair to Jones too!)

England has an old boys club ... and is guilty of nepotism !? Horrors .... does it mean that all their dealing through history haven't been in the best interests of the community. Has anyone told Iraq, Afganistan, Palestine, Zimbabwe .... ?

The problem is that thirteen contracts is simply too few. The Australian Cricket Board has 25 players under contract which leaves fairly ample room for backup players and emerging talent in all positions. Even then competition is fierce and every year there is controversy over who should miss out.

Thirteen on the other hand, is a twelve-man squad with one spare and no real room for rotation between test and one-day squads, let alone variation with pitch conditions, the vagaries of form, the demands of different tours or facing different opposition, or the happenstance of injury.

With only thirteen slots available is it realistic or desirable to invest money on players who cannot provide the service for which they are being paid?

I don't particularly think so, especially when those injuries eat up a large portion of a calendar year.

And finally,yes, I believe Read has been badly done by, but then so has Jones. The ACB has Gilchrist and Haddin under contract, why can't the ECB do the same with their top two keepers?

I don't intend this as a demonstration that only Australians do things right, just that it can be done better than the ECB is currently managing things.

The "we must always pick the best keeper" brigade tend to shout loudest but, around the world, if not always in this country, one notes that the most successful sides most often include a "keeper who is a proper Test batsman", however you define that term.

Another thing: Geraint Jones has one important feather in his cap, which no doubt weighs heavily with Duncan Fletcher - he has been a contributing member of an Ashes winning side. He may have fluffed the odd chance, as do they all. But he took a match-winning catch at Edgbaston, an important one at Old Trafford and played one crucial innings at Trent Bridge.

Let us hope Chris Read, if he plays, similarly rises to the occasion in Australia. Jones missed next to nothing this summer but he was sent back to County Cricket because the runs had dried up. It is good that we are sending two keepers to Australia, either of whom is capable of playing a key role in the Ashes series. The selectors may actually have been rather cute in awarding a central contract to neither. I would be inclined to give each of them one of the two three day games before the First Test and play them both, and let them share the gloves, in the One Day tour opener. There's nothing like a bit of competition.

Finally, seven days cricket is nothing like what the team need to get acclimatised to Australian pitches by the First Test, particularly as one of the three day games is in Sydney. Our plans should have been to move the team on to Australia directly from India as soon as our involvement in the Champions Trophy is over. When will we ever learn?

It's the strangest thing, aussies have two keepers in their contract list why cant we have one?? now I know its not important to have a contract to play, as you can be called up as a slave, but isnt that really unfair to give a lad 400,000 pounds just to sit on his backside till next year feb???? english selectors and coach should know it better that it was once in a life time thing which happened last year by playing an unchanged side... and It will n ot happen or highly unlikely... give the lads like mahmood and plunkett a chance give read and jones both a contract and let them play tension free... my 2 cents..

I really cannot for the life of me understand Fletch's faith in bits & pieces players e.g. Jones, Giles, Rikki Clarke. I think the experiment in 1998-2000 where Matthew Fleming, Mark Alleyne were in the Eng ODI squad would still rankle the selectors and prove that bits & pieces cricketers are no substitute for class! I cannot believe there is an argument reg who to pick Jones v Read or Giles v Panesar. I think the latter are genuine players and are better in their primary skill. If the top 6 cannot score runs, it should be left to Read and Panesar to score! Plus winning a test requires 20 wickets and Giles and Jones are not the answer to that. Jones would imply 23 wickets need to be taken each match (on average, he drops about 3 chances a game) and Giles would on average take 1.5 less wkts per game than panesar so mathematically, it doesnt make sense!

The english side needs to move on from the glory days of the ashes. This is international cricket, and it's not played by celebrating and watching videos of the ashes. Lets do a reality check for some of the heroes; Michael Vaughan averages 28.36 in the one day format; he is unfit till God knows when; and yes he hasn't picked up a cricket bat for almost a year; yet he has been offered a contract. Jones looked pretty promising for a while, but here's the big question; will he ever be at his best again? It is historically evident that no fast bowler has ever come back stronger after such a long injury. One aspect or the other of Jones' game has to give upon his comeback (Check Ian Bishop's career for proof). So is it really fair to the guys who are fit and not still watching the videos of the Ashes ?

I am here thinking: What if one of you fell ill and your boss decided not to compensate you during that period, would you think him unfair?
It appears a strange move, but England are top dogs now with alot of money and they are spending it on developing their game and rewarding those who were instrumental in placing them in the position they find themselves today. It will be interesting to see what most of the critics will say after England wins again. Fletcher has proven many wrong before, you get the feeling that he is a very misunderstood person in terms of his motives. He is about to prove many wrong again!

I believe giving a central contract to Vaughan was the right thing, as he is the best captain by a huge distance England has. Therefore, keeping faith in him was the best thing to do. Ashely Giles should never have been given a central contract at all. England's future lies with Panesar and not Giles. Either of the two keepers Chris Read or Jones should have been given a contract as well. I am not very sure on Simon Jones contract. Cheers

Gobsmacked is my only reaction to this piece by Tim De Lisle. I cannot possibly fathom what Read has to do to be certain of the backing of Fletcher (or the ECB for that matter). He was told to pack his bags and work on his batting a couple of years ago and he has returned a better player. His keeping ability was never in doubt - just ask Rod Marsh and now his batting has improved too. To the point where his recent form comfortably outstrips that of the incumbent Jones.
Duncan Fletcher may have done some wonderful things in moulding England into a formidable team but all that can be undone unless he abandons his ridiculous cronyism with all things Jones. Give it up Fletch - Read is your man!

i feel that england should keep faith in one and not keep changing both are good but cris read look slike having more protential so we should go with him .right duncan fletcer ???

Whos more likely to drop a catch in the first morning, 1st test? answer Jones
Drop Hayden or ponting early and the series could be all over in Brisbane

... And returning to cricket for a moment again...

I've alsways backed Read and felt he should play in the team. I thought I was mistaken when Jones got his maiden est century, but that was a while ago. While his batting form slumped his glovework didn't improve and put down some right clangers in the Ashes last year.

England are in danger of becoming a laughing stock. All this extra money that the ECB are getting from Sky is being wasted on people who will not ba able to play for a significant part of the contract period (Vaughn & S Jones), has been the best of a very limited bunch (hard working but not gifted) who has no recent form (Giles) when that money could have been used to help develop young players. If it was so important to get in this extra money that they had to limit crickets exposure and speed its demise as a popular sport why waste it?

Hits the nail on the head. Read might play more games than any other player this winter, it's a discrace they haven't given him a central contract. Haven't the England management considered how this will effect him mentally during the Ashes?

Surely Read is more deserving of a contract than Giles or Simon Jones?

Duncan Fletcher has always been loyal to players he thinks are right for England, but there are signs that his loyalty is being taken to extremes and he is putting loyalty before the overall good of the team.

Well, the selectors' decisions make complete sense to me. Vaughan is a match-winning captain, touted as the finest captain in the world last year, and Jones a match-winning bowler, one of the very finest purveyors of reverse swing — the England camp knows how valuable they are and doesn't want to cut them loose. Both players are putting all they have into coming back and the selectors are keeping faith with them, which is exactly what I would do.

As for Jones and Read, they clearly haven't made their minds up and want the two to continue to fight for the place, hence it woudn't make sense to give one a contract and not the other.

The fairest option would probably have been to offer both Read and Jones central contracts, but I imagine costs militated against that. The fact that *neither* therefore has a contract comes down to the fact that the jury is genuinely still out as to who provides the greatest value to the team. Read's done fine, so far, but he hasn't made an unassailable case, not having got beyond brisk cameos with the bat and not being error-free nor markedly superior than Jones with the gloves in recent months. (I will, though, agree that Read is the more natural keeper, so there's perhaps less to go wrong with his game.) The batting remains a significant issue. Both bat at seven, though Read is perhaps more suited to eight. Playing five bowlers complicates things further, because the keeper, although still batting at seven, really needs to have the quality of a number six to take some of the pressure off Flintoff. Under the circumstances, then, it's perhaps not surprising that the selectors are loathe to be locked into a decision for the next 12 months.

I dont have in depth knowledge of English Cricket and their players much. But I think contracted or not, for a long trip and far trip of Ashes, two keepers should be picked. Once that is decided, they should be the best amongst current English county structure. I trust selector must have chosen the best. As far as contracted players not travelling and still get the money, I believe its business as usual. You quote X prize to get the business and if the market goes down, you loose money and if it goes up you earn some. So, should not complained either way. The point for England and English people should be to retain the Ashes.Because of Australia's dominance for past decade or so, rest of the world and their people are wishing that the English team should re visit the Ashes of 2005.Either players are less or more paid, even paid or playing voluterily, doesnt matter, does it?

This just goes on to show that England thinktank is still not sure who to choose as keeper in Ashes tests. Chris Read may be a more refined keeper with impressive recent batting performances but he has not really been tested lately. A depleted Pakistani bowling attack in first three tests being an indication. Plus he does have the habit of leaving sitters for first slip. For a series as important as this one, Geraint Jones, being an Ashes battle hardened keeper, might be a better pick.

I think some knees are jerking a touch too hard after Tim's latest contribution. Sure, Read didn't get a contract, but Geraint Jones had his taken away. By reading some of these comments you would think Geraint had retained his contract!

The selectors still think the wicketkeeping position is up for grabs, and not just between Read and Jones, and thus haven't awarded a contract to either. Read has performed commendably this summer but a decision to hand him a year's contract after just four Test matches when, in the eyes of Mr. Graveney and co., the keeper's slot is still open, is not wise. Better to hand him a contract in April if he has continued his good work.

Vaughan and Jones shouldn't have had their contracts renewed. Both will be playing proper cricket by the start of next season (Vaughan's wish of playing in the VB series is ridiculous, there's no place for you in our ODI team at the moment mate, results or no results.) and if performances justify selection for England, then offer them contracts in April.

Loyalty from the ECB is great for the injured players but here it's just too much. £400k too much.

Rob Guy has got this absolutely right. 13 central contracts is far too few, leaving no space at all for one-day specialists and no wiggle-room in the event of injury. Loyalty has served England well in recent years: it would have been as harsh on Vaughan and Jones to jettison them as it is on Read, Jones, Lewis, Broad, Mahmood etc to ignore them. The issue is not one of loyalty or sentimentality, but the central contract system. I would say that 15 contracts are required to give you a test team plus acceptable injury cover, 21 to in addition accomodate a reasonable number of one-day specialists.

Come on Tim, Read has only played two tests. That is nowhere near enough to deserve a contract. Vaughan should get one as he is sitll the captain in my mind when he returns to action. Jones I'm unsure about, but Giles looks close to fitness.

Whether it's Jones or Read who is the preferred keeper with the central contract, at least *one* of them should be on a central contract. Personally, i thought it would be Read, but maybe Fletcher has had a tantrum: if he can't have his preferred toy, he doesn't want any.

13 contracts has never been sufficient, but if 13 is all the ECB have to allocate, then they have to allocate them responsibly. Allocating three of the available 13 to players who have longterm injuries doesn't meet any definition of responsible. If need be, they should have created a new category of sick leave contract, or put two of the injured three on half-contracts, or some other fudge - whatever was necessary to give at least one of Read and Jones a central contract. You don't have a cricket team if you don't have a keeper.

It appears once again that one dismisal will continue to blight Chris Reads International Career!! No wonder Rod Marsh was so upset at the dropping of Read.

Read has done exactly as asked by the selectors and now must wait until the first ashes test to prove himself. I only hope he can rub Fletchers nose in the dirt, but no doubt if he scores more than 50 and doesn't drop a catch he'll still be dropped for Jones!! who'll then no doubt get the "summer contract" because he "Bats best with Freddie".

Can't wait to see who will be bowling and keeping in the Champions Trophy!!

Surely the injured players should be on a lesser contract until they have proved that their injuries are not career ending which if we are honest could well be the case, as for Read u have to feel sorry for him he performed well under great scrutiny, Fletch clearly has a stubborn attitude towards certain players, not good for team morale imo...

i totally agree with some of the posts up here.....what does poor chris read have to do to cement his place in the team. surely an intelligent man like fletcher, whom ive never been a great fan of, must be able to see that read is right for the team. ridiculous amounts of money are being spent on central contracts for players who in all likelihood wont be able to play throught the whole calender year. Fletcher is in danger of making this england team into a luaghing stock!!!

There are merits for both playing the best gloveman and the batsman-keeper, depending on the team balance. However, if England already has a genuine allrounder in Andrew Flintoff, I do not see the reason for going with the batsman-keeper Jones, particularly if he is out of form with the bat.

It is rather undisputed that Read is the best gloveman in the country, but is Jones the best batting keeper? I certainly don't think so. If the English indeed are interested in having a lineup seven deep, especially considering Hoggard could be batting at 8, then I would have though Matt Prior would be considered a better bat than Jones. All an opinion from a non-Englishman...

Just a quick comment about Cooley. Is it a coincidence that all the fast bowlers he coached for England have had injury problems?

I am sure there is something about Read's personality that Fletcher does not like (which is not fair) and vice-versa. Fletcher should keep his ego aside and pick the best keeper and in this case its Read.

Maybe because Cricket Australia is richer than the ECB, they have a larger pool of people to offer contracts? 13 is too few a number.

After watching Chris Read's old club side, Paignton in Devon - he was in attendance too - fluff their retention of the Devon League the weekend before the Twenty20, I had the feeling that Read's brief appearance as the England no. 1 keeper was to be scuppered once the squad arrives in Australia.

Despite his high standards with the gloves and improved and battling batting, all the signs point to the coach's favourite being given another chance because he's got experience against the Aussies.

I hope the likeable Read gets a decent chance to keep his place, despite Jones's improvements, a better keeper who can bat is far more likely to win you a game with a vital catch than the other way around (Alec Stewart apart - I'm sure there's a few others, but my point stands in the majority of cases).

We'll know the answer by Christmas.

I think Fletcher is bit of a dectator and it's sad that ECB is playing right into his hands. Even in this modern day and age, I don't see the contratcs being awarded professionally. Loyalty and support to the players is very important but if you don't back up your best players (C Read) you would pay dearly in the long run. ECB is making the same mistakes which it had made during all those years when Ashes were last for decades.

I would say this, that Duncan Fletcher is not thinking "England's win over Ausies".I don't think this team is right enough to do the job. They lack skill,confedence,and experience. & if I am wrong, then why do the hell they they didn't pick Read as an keeper he has a good recoard, he can bat as an lover order batsman - as he proved that against Pakistan.
England is a cricketing nation and they should not have problames finding good replacements. And selectors also don't notice good performence of players in the countyes.They should have taken Nick Knight befor he retired and should take talents like Ramps,Udal,Crage White,Ehlam befor they leave cricket.

If England selectors really wanted to pick the best 'keeper, they would have picked Keith Piper years ago. The trouble is too much reliance is being placed on the 'keeper to make up for the failure of the specialist batsmen. As long as the specialist batsmen continue to fail 'keeping ability alone becomes subserviant to the middle order and tail enders' ability to bat England out of a collapse.

So the logic of giving contracts to keepers is based on the fact that we "need one" or "Read deserves a contract".

Neither Jones nor Read deserve a contract. Jones is out of the side, Read just back in. I see neither playing all 5 Ashes Tests. What would happen if both play bit parts between now and the start of next season and their form is so poor you have to turn to Davies, Prior or Foster for next season? On this basis, with a contract for either Jones or Read, you could potentially have players trousering £250,000 for not actually playing because their form is so bad.

Nice if work if you can get it, though.

I wonder, has Read done such a great job since re-joining the team? Sure, his batting has been acceptable, but his wicket-keeping has been patchy at best.

Although the press, having campaigned for so long to get Jones axed from the team, barely mentioned it, Read missed three clear-cut chances in the games against Pakistan. In each case, he did not dive for catches that went between him and first slip, letting all three go begging. For all Jones' inconsistency with the gloves, at least he was brave enough to go for the ball if a chance was in the offering. He did occasionally put down difficult chances when diving across towards first slip, and was duly pilloried by the press as a consequence. But surely this is better than leaving the ball completely.

The few journalists who bothered to mention it at all put it down to Read 'not yet being familiar' with Trescothick's habits at first slip. But how different is one slip-catcher from another? First-slip is first-slip, and if the ball goes to his left, it is ALWAYS the keeper's job to go for it. Was Read frightened of going for a tricky catch in case he spilled it? If so, one can very well understand Fletcher's reluctance to trust him long-term.

Jones may have had a rough spell with the bat (though not with the gloves, ironically), but he and Flintoff starred in some extremely important partnerships that helped regain us the Ashes. Although he clearly lost confidence with the bat during the summer, he is still a classy player, and I think Fletcher is right to keep him in the frame.

Chris Read's Glovework was as good as anything ive seen (including Jack Russell) in the second half of the one-day series and with the amount and importance of one-day cricket being played in the coming months, a happy, settled Chris Read could prove as much of a match-winner as Pietersen or Harmison on their day. He must be wondering what he has to do to gain the selectors confidence - i think Fletcher has a fantasy about producing a Gilchrist-like figure. If thats what he wants then Mustard from Durham is the one to develop and bring into the academy, but for me it would be Read every time

Ali Hasan makes a very cogent point, that players ought to be protected from financial catastrophe if they get injured. And really, that's one reason why the contract system was introduced.

In this case however, we're not talking about players who had been awarded contracts and then fell injured. We're talking about players who are injured and were subsequently awarded contracts for this year.

To use Ali's example: Yes I expect to be compensated if I fall ill, but I don't expect to be offered a job if I can't do the work.

Does it make sense that a player who is fit and can contribute should miss out on a contract because the money was set aside for player who is not guaranteed to return to full fitness or to be in form when they do?

The ECB should be looking at its objectives for the next 12 months. I would expect the World Cup and the Ashes to be top of the list. In which case it would seem advisable to invest in players who can help achieve both. If a player can't contribute to one objective or the other then they can't be worth a full contract, and yes Vaughn, I'm looking at you.

Once again though, this wouldn't be as much of an issue if there were more contracts to go round.

I've come in on this a little late, but I am astonished that there should be any disagreement about offering Michael Vaughan an England contract. Not only is he the finest batsman and captain available to the country he is absolutley feared by the Australians. To drop him from the payment roster, prior to the Ashes, which he is destined to observe, rather than to play in, would send signals to the Down Under camp that would be received with joyous celebration.
I watched a couple of the last Ashes tests in "the land down under" and if the inhabitants, for one moment, think that Vaughan has rolled over to die they will be over the moon. Every penny spent on awarding Vaughan, for his past, and possible future, contributions, puts another nail into the Aussies hearts.
As for the keepers - well - they just love trying to perform - why pay them??!!??
All England fans would love to have a 25 strong contracted unit but, as I've said before, England have the better test-ready options to throw into this series.

If the selected team comprises the best players then there are a number who have crept in on reputation rather than current form.
Sorry to the walking wounded. Sign off – go away and get well – prove yourselves and then be accepted (and contracted) again if you can.
The selectors, with help from Mr Fletcher, will lose the Ashes for us, without a doubt. At least then we might be able to replace him (and Vaughan and Jones, etc) – preferably WITHOUT golden handshakes.
Then, perhaps, we can appoint an English manager………. And maybe, if the selectors are wise, they’ll resign too………!
Pardon me if I'm being overly brutal but there comes a point when I feel enough is enough.

The keeper debate is continually misrepresented. Jones was not picked over Read "because he was a better batsman", Jones was picked over Read because it was felt he had the makings of a genuine no7 (even no6!) test batsman.

The fact is that Read has returned to the side as the best short term 'default' option, as a direct result of Jones' run of poor form. As long as England believe they need their keeper to bat at no7, especially at no7 behind Flintoff at 6, then Read is not the long term answer, merely a stop gap (whether they are right in this belief is a debate for another day). Hence he has not been given a contract. It would not be at all surprising to see an alternative in place come next summer, quite possibly Steven Davies.

13 contracts for Test and ODI teams ? I see the Poms are trying to develop and expose new talent into the international arena (sorry my tongue got stuck in my cheek !)Stop living in the past ! In reality the Ashes were only won by 2 runs. Larger number of contracts promotes competition and 2 wicket keepers should be listed. Australia have a fantastic succession plan in place due to younger members training and being under the guidance of senior cricketers and what is required to succeed at the highest level. Recently the Aussies had a training camp with the 25 contracted players. What a great experience that must have been for the younger members. England must learn to develop youngsters and be prepared to be bold ! Remember, the Aussies will have plenty of new faces for the next Ashes campaign i.e Hussey, S Clark, Watson, Johnson. Stay tuned !

I have nothing personally against Jones G, but I cannot for the like of me understand why he has supporters. As a test keeper he is mediocre at best, recent improvements nonwithstanding. Compared to top keepers like Read or, going further back, Jack Russell, he looks like an amateur. Even if a Jones scores an extra 20 runs in a match compared to Read, that is practically nullified by the byes he concedes, never mind the extra runs the oppostion score due to his dropped catches.

I mentioned Russell for a reason - Read is in the team as a 'test class batsman', but his test batting average (25.79) is lower than Russell's (27.10), as is his century rate (1 in 31 versus 2 in 54). And Russell, one of the true great glovesmen, was ultimately dropped because of his batting.

I think the gap between Jones and Read in terms of both keeping and batting ability is largely exaggerated. The only big difference I can see between their abilities at the moment is form: Read has some and Jones misplaced his sometime during the summer. Things might change this winter, but I'm fairly sure that Read will start the series at the very least.

As regards the injured bowler situation, it's more an indication of the lack of fit bowlers England has rather than a poor decision as to where to avoid central contracts. I'm hoping that, with Hoggard and Harmison at least, it's more a case of players being rested for reasons of caution rather than anything that will rule them out completely.

To those saying that thirteen central contracts isn't enough, it shouldn't be forgotten that England managed to get through the entire previous ashes series with just twelve players. That said, given the recent spate of injuries a few more wouldn't have gone amiss this year.

Just becoz Jones was a part of the Ashes side doesn't mean that he has to be picked again. Read is a better keeper and by the looks of it not that bad a bat. Jones lost batting form this summer and as it usually happens that will affect his keeping too. Secondly with Panesar sure to play in most of the games (unless Fletch goes for his favourite Giles), keeping to spin will be the key (except for in Perth perhaps), which Jones is not exactly adept at. So if England has to retain the ashes, percentage cricket has to be shunned and bold steps need to be adhered to. And that is why not giving a contract to either of the keepers, specially Read is unfair and doesn't convey any confidence in the person. Looks like England is back to its folly ways. Looking for batsman who can keep wickets and bowl instead of the other way round!

Contract issues aside, I think Read has to be first choice for the ashes.

This is mainly beacuse I do not think we have a fourth choice seamer with the quality and experience to replace Simon Jones for such a high-profile series.

Therefore, my preffered approach would be to only use three main seamers (Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff). In my opinion, Paul Collingwood is a better bowler than the number of test overs he is allowed to bowl would reflect and should be bowled more. With Monty Panesar as a genuine wicket-taking spinner, the need for four out-and-out quick strike-bowlers is reduced, although obviously this would slightly weaken the bowling attack and so picking the best keeper would be essential.

Read is obviously the better gloveman and this scenario would allow him to bat at number 8. Ian Bell seemed to enjoy the freedom of batting at number seven recently and also provides a bit of backup in the seam bowling department. I also don't think that Kevin Pietersen would let anyone down if given a greater share of the bowling duties should conditions suit.

Obviously if one of the main seamers became injured during a match we'd be in big trouble but a middle order of Cook, Collingwood, Pieresen, Flintoff and Bell looks absoulutely bullet proof.

Absolutely bulletproof is a very, very big call. On the contrary, I would say this is a middle order that could be readily exposed, especially the lesser lights of this 'vaunted' group (i.e. Cook, Bell, Collingwood).

Cook is totally untested in the heat of a real white-hot battle. Collingwood, despite reasonable ODI form, has never played Ashes test cricket. It will not be the same game for KP over here, i.e. a lot further to clear the boundary & an obvious weakness exposed by Mr. Asif. Flintoff is just back from injury & has the do-everything role in the team. Bell though he has improved, still remains an Aussie bunny (& regardless of what he, or anyone else says would have psychological scars from the last Ashes series), & would realise he has much to prove against Australia.

Aravind's question about whether Simon Jones will ever be as good a bowler again seems to be a fair one. However, Simon Jones is also the answer to his second query. He was a much better bowler after his previous long injury, sustained in Brisbane.

Well, doesn't the growing list of responses illustrate how emotive the keeping debate is and how difficult (impossible?) it will be for either Jones or Read to satisfy their critics!

I also have a suspicion that many people start with a gut reaction as to who their favoured player is and then selectively look for evidence to support that view, in the process exaggerating the merits of their choice and the flaws in the game of the other.

I wouldn't necessarily exclude myself from this (I think, contrary to popular belief, unreasoned bias is far more likely to be found among armchair selectors than those doing the job for real), but some of the hyperbole implying huge gulfs of talent between the two candidates is not only harmful to both Jones *and* Read, but suggests that their detractors watch little cricket beyond the evening highlights.

As a Pom living down under, I cheered long and loud at the winning of the Ashes, but I feel the England team coming to Australia in a few weeks time haven't a hope of retaining them. Much has been made of the age of the Aussies, but they know how to fight and with no Simon Jones their job is that much easier. I'm amazed that Giles is coming.He's been on the injured list for so long and his style of bowling doesn't cut it here. I honestly doubt if any State team would pick him for thier four day games so lowly do I rate him. I hope Panesar gets the nod ahead of him. Jones also wouldn't make the grade in State cricket- Read is miles ahead of him as keeper.
If Mcgrath strikes any sort of form, I predict a series win by Australia quite easily.

One of the central questions arising in the English squad is the balance of the team. Fletcher (as reported by the media) seems very concerned about the players coming in at no.8 and 9 and what sort of batting credentials they have. Perhaps this is the reason why Gilo continues to be a fixture, hes a team man obviously (good for morale), offers a defensive bowling option and occassional gritty batting. I think it is mainly his batting that enables him to keep his spot in a pretty talented line up. Similarly the debate for Jones vs. Read is concerned very much with their respective batting abilities. the question i want to ask(and ofcourse its been asked before) is why fletcher is so keen to strengthen the tail, when it invariably clips the claws (pardon the imagery) of England's bowling attack? Especially now that they are faced with so many problems with regards to fitness. does he not have faith in a batting line up of: tresc, strauss, cook, pietersen, bell and flintoff? I know one of the reasons for Australias dominance is the presence of Gilchrist (the best wicketkeeper/batsman perhaps ever) but what are the chances that another talent like that will be discovered in England, in this century? Fletcher should be concentrating on specialist players rather than the ususal bits and pieces rubbish that has come out in recent years (read MArk Ealham among others). England will not win the ashes because their no.8 and 9 can bat a bit, and employing a strategy which covers the contingency of a major batting collapse (read 130/7) will not win you matches against the best. I know people will point to gilo and jones as valuable run scorers in the last ashes, but if youve watched cricket for more than a few minutes youll know that is not a viable long term option. if you go into the match thinking that my no.8 and below better know how to deal with mcgrath, warne, lee and co., then youve already lost the match. What England need are 6 top quality batsmen, 4 top quality bowlers and a keeper who wont drop catches. IF they compromise their team in the hope that giles will score 35 and win a last ball scorcher then the english management are sadly mistaken. here is my english team for the ashes based on the squad picked and assuming all available are fit and raring to go:

tresc, strauss, cook, bell, pietersen, flintoff, Read or Jones (havent seen enough of either to choose between, what abt matt prior?), hoggard, harmison, panesar and either plunkett or mahmood. Im leaning towards saj cause he has the potential to be special and a series in australia often provides the determination for players to prove themselves, also his height and speed will come in handy on those bouncy australian decks.

Whoever reads this may point out that Flintoff is not an out and out specialist and thus contradicts my argument. I answer that players like flintoff and gilchrist are exceptions to the rule that prove it. And unless England finds a couple of fellas like Flintoff soon, they should depend on those with the pedigree to do their job. Sorry Collingwood i know ive left you out (like he really cares or knows) but you fit the mold of a ODI player more than a test match regular. That said his fielding is fantastic and if you count that as a specialty then he could possibly be included.

Good Luck England, Im pulling for you guys, but I fear the Aussies will be waiting with sharpened knives and sneering smiles to rip that little urn right out of your hands.

> Read missed three clear-cut chances in the
> games against Pakistan.

Where/when were these 3 chances?

> First-slip is first-slip, and if the ball goes > to his left, it is ALWAYS the keeper's job to > go for it.

IMHO if the wk should ALWAYS go for a catch his side of a 1st slip then 1st slip is standing too close to the wk.

Re a couple of comments from Chadsman:

>> Read missed three clear-cut chances in the
>> games against Pakistan.

> Where/when were these 3 chances?

I can't answer for the person you're quoting, but I recall seeing two that should at least have been attempted. The worst was when Read began to go to his right, then stopped in mid-action. It seemed distinctly timorous, which actually bothered me far more than the chance being missed. Read also made a dreadful mess of a stumping in the Twenty/20 semi-final.

I point these things out less to criticise him than to challenge the notion that Read is a flawless keeper. He's *very* good, and a natural in the role (as opposed to Jones, who's self-made), but he's not the very image of perfection that some people maintain.

>> First-slip is first-slip, and if the ball goes >> to his left, it is ALWAYS the keeper's job to >> go for it.

>IMHO if the wk should ALWAYS go for a catch his >side of a 1st slip then 1st slip is standing too >close to the wk.

Then your view is in conflict with that of Michael Holding. That aside, if you're right, why was Trescothick moved *closer* to Read in subsequent games? Furthermore, the position of first slip is generally governed by the keeper.

I believe that England should have a greater amount of players contracted but have their pay vary according to role and worth in regards to the team.

I think that 18 should be the amount of players contracted by the ECB. 7 Batsmen, 5 Fast Bowlers, 2 Spin Bowlers, 2 All Rounders and 2 Wicketkeepers.

The 7 batsmen should be Ian Bell, Paul Collingwood, Alastair Cook, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Strauss, Marcus Trescothick and Michael Vaughan.

The 5 fast bowlers should be James Anderson, Stuart Broad, Stephen Harmison, Matthew Hoggard and Simon Jones.

The 2 spin bowlers should be Ashley Giles and Monty Panesar.

The 2 all rounders should be Ian Blackwell and Andrew Flintoff.

The 2 wicketkeepers should be Matthew Prior and Chris Read.

Only the best 11 should be paid substantially with the players who play both get special payments.

I didn't realise that England only offered 13 contracts - actually, I never really thought about it, just assumed that they would do what we do here in Australia and offer more. Given that only thirteen are offered, though, it seems odd to me that they would include players like Vaughan and Jones whose injuries have kept them out for so long. Injuries like that can take a long, long time to get over - and some players just never *do* get over them, despite their best efforts and those of all around them.

One further point: I can't remember who said it, but someone did mention earlier than Vaughan may have been awarded his ongoing contract as a psychological blow against the Australians. I've gotta say, as an Aussie myself, I wasn't actually that impressed with Vaughan's captaincy in the last Ashes series (to be fair, I wasn't terribly impressed with Ponting's efforts, either!), and he certainly doesn't fill me with fear and longing. It doesn't bother me one way or another whether he's captaining the Ashes side - but I do find it an odd choice to be awarding him one of only a very few contracts so that he can sit the series out....