They'd better have plenty of reserves playing cricket in Australia this winter - we're going to need them based on this squad!

Yes the selectors have played safe but interestingly have a squad of relatively experienced players. The injuries this season have helped to deepen the quality of the available pool of players. The series will not be a pushover for Australia. I reckon no more than one test in it. England to squeak it!

I agree with Tim in that selections are rather on the "safe" side. I think we've missed a trick in not selecting Broad and even Ramps to a degree.

The trouble with this squad is in the bowling - Plunkett, Mahmood, Anderson, Panesar are all unproven.

The selectors are probably devestated that Simon Jones is unfit and are having to cover for him with a county cast of misfits.

Let's face it - first morning Australia get through Harmison and Hoggard and are 70-0 - then they lay into Mahmood, Plunkett etc. It's scary.

Yes the bowling is a concern. However, in Anderson is fit and firing he and Panesar will be the equivalent of Giles and S.Jones. Extra runs from Bell this time will compensate for the loss of runs at no 8. So overall England can be as good. The issue may turn out to be more about whether Australia have high quality fit 3rd and 4th bowlers.

I must confess to be disappointed in the squad though - not so much any individual selection but the overall conservatism - in particular the choice of Flintoff as captain and picking so many injured players - some of them like Giles and Plunkett are very marginal picks

If they get through Harmison and Hoggard they'll then have Flintoff to contend with (Hopefully).

I wouldn't say Panesar is unproven. He's bowled a lot of overs at some of the finest batsman in the world and not been found out. Players like Inzamam, Mohammad Yousuf, Younis Khan, Jayawardene, Sehwag, Tendulker, Dravid, Sangakkara.

I agree though that beyond Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff the seam bowling is rather unfit/unproven/inexperienced. A great chance for someone to make to come from nowhere and make their name on the world stage, similar to Simon Jones last summer.

Considering Fletcher has increased selectorial power when England are on tour, I wouldnt be at all surprised to see both Bell and Panesar dropped in favour of two of Fletchers old favourites, Collingwood and Giles.

All this talk of team England's 'bubble' and yet Fletcher has no hesitation in ruthlesly dropping players if in his eyes they dont quite 'fit'. It will be shattering to Panesar's confidence if he is left out of the First Test.

The only concern for me is the fitness aspect. Obviously Simon Jones is a big loss, but I would back Panesar to make up the shortfall in wickets caused by his absence. Only Jones & Vaughan are missing of the 12 from last year & consider how some of those members have improved. Pietersen now has a full year of test cricket under his belt, Bell has improved considerably and Collingwood has established himself and averages over 40 in tests. Any predictions Glenn?

Broad over Plunkett would have been tempting, and the right move i think - but consistancy must be applauded.

In April last year I emailed all my friends in Australia and offered them a bet of £100 per test on an England victory. After this afternoon's announcement I have, like the England selectors, decided to play safe.

What an accident waiting to happen....expect car crash cricket with a team with 2 or 3 'subs' from the stand-by squad who are not the experienced and fit people who have been left out. The Aussies are one nil up already....as remember taking Gough and others of dubious fitness on previous tours???? Perhaps the chairman is past his sell by date...not impressed.

I can't believe that Giles, who hasn't played any cricket all year, has been picked as part of the main squad. Dalrymple or Yardy should have got the nod, while Giles works on his game and fitness at the Academy.

And I'd have gone for Broad over Plunkett any day...

And lastly (and most important of all) Strauss should have been skipper. Flintoff won't know whether he's on his head or his arse when he arrives in Aus. The media will run him ragged.

If Australia see off Harmy and Hoggy they should then be hit by Freddie, Anderson and Panesar - which was good enough to roll over India in their own back garden. Fear not!

This selection of the England Team is heading for disaster. How can you pick people like Giles who hasn't played for over a year?!! Unbelievable! These players are being picked on their past records and not taking into consideration their present form and fitness. God help us! I will watch this series with my heart in my mouth. I hope Australia don't destroy us completely. What a shambles. Of course Flintoff, Strauss, Collingwood and Bell will do the best they can in true bulldog spirit, but that's as far as it goes. I sincerely hope my fears are dispelled and England put up a good show, and keep the flag flying in OZ.

Seeing the name of Giles there really scares me.
Are the fools thinking about not having Panesar as number one spinner ?
Let us hope here's only there for "two-spinner" pitches - although a braver chioice for this role may have been Dalrymple - he's not put a foot wrong in the recent ODIs - surely he deserves a chance ?
We all love the King of Spin - but we must now accept that his time has come.

The England squads demonstrate muddled thinking by our selectors. Two bowlers who are yet to really play this year and a third who is just about to play for the 1st time in a few months. A keeper who is a long way from the 2nd best with the gloves and can't buy a run with the bat.

I also think choosing Flintoff as skipper is a mistake. He is too important as a player to risk his form being affected by the strain of captaincy - whilst Strauss has already shown that his form is not affected by the burden.

Lastly, Rikki Clarke......................

Tim - I used to really like your editorial's on WCM, but when on earth did you become such an old grumpus?

'The third worry is spray-gun bowling. England's lowest point of the summer came in the one-dayers against Sri Lanka, when the fast bowling was atrocious. The culprits were Steve Harmison, Saj Mahmood and Liam Plunkett, and all three of them are in this squad. The selectors are putting a lot of faith in Mahmood and Plunkett, and indirectly, in the new bowling coach Kevin Shine, who has a hard act to follow - and rival -in Troy Cooley.

This is not a squad to frighten the Aussies. If fit, they could still be good enough to retain the Ashes. But that's a very big if.'

Moan moan moan moan

1. ODI's are utterly irrelevant, we've spanked Pakistan 3-0 in the TESTS which I do believe is where the Ashes is contested.

2. Scare the Aussies? excuse me, my sister could scare the Aussies. why is no one looking at their squad. They are a bunch of OAPs, they are going to have possibly 7 of their XI over 35. I am sorry, we have youth hunger and enough experiencr AND the mental edge. Just how poor will they be in the field (and they were shocking last year)

3. Dull? dull? dull? Oh my god, for year we england fans dreamt of haing enough sustained success so we could have settled Test XIs and touring squads. Now we have a brilliant management that has master minded this we call them dull.

Just for once cant we say 'excellant squad, excellant depth, we're the better side, bring it on'

Word's really do fail me (well they do after writing all of that).

Talent and ability falls into two categories, physical skills and psycological strength. the former can be assessed as a talented youngster grows through a development system, but the mental toughness to withstand pressure at the highest level can only be revealed whilst playing at that level. It is thus inevitable, from time to time, that a young player of superb talent will emerge, having ticked all the boxes on the way up, who simply does not have that mental and emotional stregth under extreme presure. Such a person, it seems to me, is the very talented Sajid Mahmood, who oozes talent but has repeatedly "blown up", head-wise, under pressure from the world's best. I do not believe he will succeed in realising his talent in the Test arena, and I think the time has come to acknowledge that.The contrast with Stuart Broad - a more "together" young man it would be hard to find - is stark, and I was surprised to see him not present in the Ashes squal, not least because he's a true three-dimensional cricketer - excellent fielder, top-class new ball bowler, and far, far more than a tail-end batsman, a player with full all rounder potential as the next decade evolves. An England team with Flintoff at 7, Read at 8, Broad at 9 and the redoubtable Hogster at 10 could easily afford Panesar at 11.

The squad selection was predictable and will not scare the full-strength Australians at all. The England selectors made a mistake of not pulling off a surprise or two that would surely unnerve the Australians in what is essentially a mind-game. I still feel that there's hope for Ramps, though. If Trescothick does not recover from his mystery illness, and England is 1 nil down, Ramps should be flown in as a last minute 'ace in the hole' to shock the Aussies.
Trescothick may end up the Graham Thorpe way and retire within a year I feel.

If a skill could be learned just by watching, then all dogs would be butchers.

I say that because I feel that most people do not seem to realize that Flintoff is still England's best _clutch_ cricketer. Because of his overall stature, superstardom and been-there-dont-that attsitude, he appears (and remains) unfazed when faced with a tough situation. Only a year ago he smiled and handshook his way to being the Ashes Player of the Series. Also, of all the English cricketers, the Aussies respect him the most. I think respect will make a huge difference to how the Aussies act on and off the field. You don't wanna make Flintoff mad, or he'll hit you for 10 sixes and hit a couple of top-order batsmen on the head. What's an angry Strauss gonna do? - short-arm jab McGrath to third-man for another single?

And that's exactly why Ramps was never going to be a good selection. Picking a 36-year-old has-been is a clear sign of weakness and lack of trust in the 'actual' pool of domestic players. Even if Ramps had scored a couple more of his 133's against the Aussies back in 2001 or whenever he played, the fact remains that he is NOT a big threat to any bowling attack around the world. Even New Zealand, in Bond's absence, wouldn't spend the pre-match meeting discussing how to dismiss Ramps. They know he'll get out - if not for 10 then for 30.

Will we be facing a better Aussie side than last time? The main differences with (or ought to be) Hussey in for Katich (Massive improvement) and Clark as an able 3rd seamer to Lee and McGrath (if fit). To me their batting and bowling looks a bit better than last time. One of the issues will once again be whether Engl can benefit from advancing age of aussies with the bat and in the field.

Well the decisions are made.Fred to lead a team that is living off perhaps justifiable euphoria ...how many years was it? Goodluck to you Freddie old boy youhad better be on form! Cause we are waiting!!

The 2005 success was deserved in my view but it seems to be too easily forgotten how close it was and hard fought and could easily have turned the other way.

What was it? Just one run in the second test, a couple of wickets only in the 4th .
Australia were outfoxed it is true and I think we did not show respect, but I cannot see this England team to Australia as containing enough players of calibre.
Who are the players to take on some of the greatest Aussies who have represented the green and gold?
Hoggard Flintoff and Harmison -they are the key. Plus add a touch of your South African hitter and Strauss-the rest will not be a worry to a team with the likes of
Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Ponting, Hayden,Langer, Macgill (on Aussie wickets) Lee (we think much improved) Hussey ( what would the 2005 result have been had he replaced Katich then?) and add a few new boys perhaps like Clarke, Johnson, Jacques. No worries mate bring it on!

Ashley Giles is a waste of space on a tour of Australia. His bowling is too negative, and too limited. Australia will belt him out of the attach. England need to play positively, and playing Panesar would be positive! On the flip-side, the Australian selectors have been known to be just as conservative. MacGill by rights should be played in all Tests - imagine how difficult an attack of McGrath, Lee, Warne and MacGill would be. Now that would be trouble for England.

"ODI's are utterly irrelevant, we've spanked Pakistan 3-0 in the TESTS which I do believe is where the Ashes is contested". ---Really? Mighty Pakistan....wow
"Scare the Aussies? excuse me, my sister could scare the Aussies". ---Oh dear......
"Just for once cant we say 'excellant squad, excellant(sic) depth, we're the better side, bring it on" ---Because that is called denial mate, & you do too much of it already.....

Oh my my! Sweet lord, what music to an Aussie cricket lovers ears. The delusions of grandeur continue unabated in the Northern Hemisphere. you lot haven't got a clue what you're headed to, do you? What ever team you bring i.e. the A team, or the B(oy) team, you are going to facing an Australian outfit hellbent on redemption & settling scores on home turf. As a travelling Aussie fan, I well know the hostility we were given last year. That was duly taken onboard by a good many Aussies, do (not) worry about that.

You lot, just keep yapping over there.....lets see it in action over here!! Safe & secure millions of miles from the hot zone. Simply put, you are gunna get a mauling. Like sending a Yorkshire terrier in against a blood thristy Australian mongrel pit-bull. As any cricket follower knows reputations are won & lost in this country. I don't see your new boys (including Ian Bell) having much of a hope out here, or any real stomach for the fight once it gets nasty. Pieterson is going to be technically worked over this summer. You think we didn't notice what Asif did to him? Imagine Glenn McGrath kicking back on his lazeeboy taking all that in....hmmm, nice.

While you should ponder a bit England, I'm very sure we'll hear a lot more of this sort of self-assured nonsense piffling forth from your quarter. Remember you are so very under-gunned this time round........but, do what you well though; talk a good game. We will see you at the Gabba, England. We are all patiently & very eagerly awaiting your imminent arrival.

England cricket fans, Aussie cricket fans say to you "bring it". We will see who's singing silly songs at the end of the series.....

Go on Tim, I dare you post one of my blogs, or do you only want the UK angle?

Ashley Giles? After he has'nt played for a year? That too after it is obvious that Panesar is a far better bowler than Giles ever was or will be.

I mean is there really any comparison? What happens if Flintoff asks Giles to bowl round the wicket? Giles won't know what to do - one dimensional, leg-stump bowling hack that he is!

Of course Flintoff won't do that. That would mean having study, deep thinking tactical acuity, not just raw brawn anf gung-ho. By choosing Flintoff as captain as a populist measure instead of the more accomplished Strauss, the English have already lost the Ashes. Mark my words.

The poms definately should have had Ramprakash in the sqaud due to the fact alot of the sqaud members are half fit. To have a reserve batsmen with the experience and form of Ramprakash would have been a great choice. How Collingwood gets a cap in test cricket is beyond me, sure hes a decent field but his batting isnt up to scratch and my crystal ball says he will struggle, surely there are better Batsmen around than him. panesar will be interesting, hes a better bowler than Giles in certain areas. Chris Broad should have been picked above Anderson also, Broad is a rising player and bowling on our hard aussie decks with his height would benefit him.

Cant for the life of me understand why giles is on the plane. Surely Dalrymple with his variation would have been the way to go . Dalrymple at 7 in between flintoff and read. Think the selectors have missed a trick . Agree with most, that the second change seamer after harmy hoggy and flintoff is a major concern . Mahmood holds all the cards at this stage and we should all be behind the lad. He has a minor issue with his floppy wrist, but given a few more games to groove his action and gain confidence from decent performances, he definitely has the ability to be a like for like replacement for taffy jones

I think the squad is a risk by not taking any! A bolter like Stuart Broad would be nice. Instead we have the steady but uninspiring (and overrated) Giles, and a team full of question marks over injuries. I thought there was the potential for an exciting squad, and there is...but the picks don't fill me with the greatest confidence.

Still, bring it on...I hope England take the Ashes and Black Caps for the ICC Champions Trophy would be nice thanks :)

Why do England need to name the 16 now? Why not wait a few weeks - I can't see any merit in going with a squad with question marks over 6 players, but in 2/3 weeks it might be different.

Either way, I remember lots of similar swaggering chat by the Aussies just before the series last summer (and to be fair every other series). Seems like they haven't learnt their lesson. There will be huge expectancy & pressure on the Aussie team, something Ponting clearly can't handle. I think selecting Flintoff is the right decision - he kept a decimated team together to come back in India - harder than Australia.

I agree with Tim totally, but I think when you are going to defend a title like Ashes, I think playing safe while selecting a team is first negative of many more to come. They could have avoided Giles "Uncle" when Panesar is doing so well.Plus Anderson could have been shown doors as he is an abscentee during this season.I am from India and I can imagine how I feel if our selector selects safe team to Pakistan.They could have give shock to Trescko for not going to India, twice now.Anyways, I think this team has all the ingredients to collaps at any time under pressure and English people know more then me that what a pressure it will be, when you defend nothing less then Ashes and that too in old enemy's own den. Sledging will be at its best and not to forget chin music and Warnie's spin magic. Best of luck England, I am with you, hope my wishes work.

5-0 to Australia. Oh hang on, didn't I make that same prediction last time around only to see England beat the hell out of us for four consecutive games?

Like most people on here I think that we have too many injured players going and certainly Dalrymple for Giles and Broad for Plunkett would make a huge amount of sense.

But if this 16 are fit I think we are in with a good shout.

Gee stop worrying about your squad and start worrying about the England players ability against the short ball, the team's poor catching history - especially in Australia and finally the Australian weather.

The selectors have the squad right! Broad is untried at test level and would have been a huge risk, Lewis would be torn apart and only represents a replacement option for Hoggard. There however are 2 main concerns:
1) the captain - Flintoff is a poor decision. His best moment as captain have been playing a Johnny Cash song. That is very worrying. Strauss won a series against a side ranked better than England at the time without Flintoff - Yes without Flintoff. He did this through bowling Panesar - a lot! Flintoff only ever turns to Monty when he has flogged all the seamers into the ground and stupidly bowled himself for 51 overs retriggering his ankle problem. His selection as captain is a disaster. The selectors have chosen him because they were worried about disgruntling him and his best mate Harmie - not because he was the best man for the job because they know he isn't!
2) as touched on by someone else - Fletch will be able to select who he wants and will welcome back Giles and Jones at the expense of Monty and Read. A big mistake - especially Panesar who has bowled superbly well. Look at how many top order wickets he has taken. He is the key to replacing S. Jones and his ommission will spell disaster.

Dave - your analysis is really incisive. Flintoff's captaincy skills are largely the stuff of hype and myth. We have no evidence, for example, 'that he gets the best out of his great mate Steve Harmison' and reports that captaincy improves his game are not proven either - yes he batted and bowled well in India but he did both very ordinarily against SL. And, as you say, his handling of Panesar could pose a real problem. He tended to bowl Panesar only a little in the first innings of games and only an average amount in the second. Strauss had Panesar as an integral part of the attack in the first innings and then made him the fulcrum in the second. Since Panesar can take wickets with drift and bounce he can be effective in the first innings and can actually get quite a bit out of a fairly new ball as well as an old one.

Firstly it's great that people are getting really polarised about cricket again- thanks Tim.

Second, Flintoff seems to be chosen as captain based on glamour, whereas Strauss is a proven captain and was respected enough by us for McGrath to name him on the Hitlist last year. On the other hand, I approve greatly of Flintoff's taste in music, as Richie said.

Still, it should be a terrific series. Come Freddy, Strauss, Johnny Cash and all!

Interesting to see the comments about Flintoff and Strauss' treatment of Monty. What people forget is that there was one fundamental difference between the two teams that they led. Flintoff's had 5 bowlers, Strauss had four. If Flintoff had treated Monty "as an integral part of the first innings and the fulcrum of the second" then the fifth bowler would have got very little bowling and certainly wouldn't have been able to justify his place. Where is this leading... to the fact that playing five bowlers could potentially WEAKEN England's bowling attack. It certainly won't strengthen it to the extent of the extra 60+ runs PER MATCH that playing an extra batsman would bring (as well as enabling Flintoff and Read to bat where they should at 7 and 8). There may have been a worry about "overbowling Flintoff" (laughable when you consider how much he bowled at Lords IN A FIVE MAN ATTACK), but the only solution to that would have been to pick Dalrymple as the 7th batsman/5th bowler. Suspicions are that Giles is being lined up for this role, but Giles vs Dalrymple as fifth "take the strain off Flintoff" bowler is no contest - Dalrymple's batting gets in hands down. Still there's hope yet. Giles might not make it.

Excellent points I think Marcus. 'Integral in the first and a fulcrum in the second' Monty, like any really good spinner, does the job of one and a half bowlers. A 4 1/2 man attack is enough. Look back to the last Ashes and in a sense that is what we had anyway because Giles was not much more than half a bowler (only 10 wickets at a very low average in the series).

I agree with your Dalyrmple point too. On turners at Adelaide and Sydney he could be first choice or at least a sub if one of the 6 batters got injured. As an offie he is also a better foil for Monty.

It just occurred to me- Giles missed most of the last tour here, but he DID play at Brisbane, and I clearly remember him taking something like 4 wickets in the first innings. Maybe we shouldn't be ruling him quite out-yet.

Austen, I think you have me confused with someone else.