been thinking this for a long time actually... I reckon Flintoff is a natural no.7. Even without the captaincy he averages 30 odd and if he couldn't bowl it would be nigh on impossible to select him as a batsman on merit. He brings alot to the team, I accept him as a talisman, but when he finishes the game I wouldn't be surprised if he goes down as a very good 'bowling all-rounder' , yet I still think he believes he is 'batting all-rounder'. He should play a full part of a 4 man attack like you said, I would play Read at 8, retain Harmison(1 more chance!!) and then with freddie at 7 we are much more solid unit. Monty comes in obviously and it is time for Anderson to work on his action for next year.

I have been screaming these points on the bbc site since before the start of the Ashes. Obviously at that time one was hoping the extra batter would be tresco and that Harmison would be reasonable overall if inconsistent. I also said the Dalyrmple should go instead of Giles. That way if you wanted two spinners your second one would complement Panesar and have reasonable capacity to bat at 7. You are right about Joyce having talent but lacking experience. I would have picked Shah - not just because of his ability against spin but because he can be yet another part-time bowler to help fill in. We must accept that, especially coming back from a hip injury, Giles is now so anodyne that he is little better than a part-time bowler anyway - particularly against a strong AUS batting line up. The stats you cite perfectly illustrate the point. Playing Joyce would also further weaken the argument to play Jones over Read. Monty would no doubt appeciate having the best keeper in the world to take the edges and stumpings

It's been suggested a number of times from a number of people, and yet it wont happen for the simple reason that Duncan has always (if given the chance) played five bowlers and always will because "it worked last time". I wish we could go into test matches with an aggressive line-up, after the tests against Pakistan I thought it was almost a certainty that we'd go in with 6 and 4, and yet we took another leap backwards. I really am starting to doubt Fletcher now, he shows no adaptability, and while his good work took us out of the nineties disaster-days, it's shown no flexibilty to deal with different matches, against different opponents in different situations. Don't let him become an Andy Robinson, for the sake of English cricket I hope he puts out the line-up you've suggested!

Someone has to drop Harmison...you can't pick a player simply on reputation. If he isn't performing well, he should be dropped...simple as that. I don't know if Sajid Mahmood might be a better choice: as you say, he is expensive. But right now it's a choice between Harmison and Not Harmison.
As far as Giles is concerned, it's unfair to point the finger at him, but I agree that he shouldn't be playing. He doesn't have the confidence to bowl in an attacking manner. As far as his batting goes, if a team's top six isn't getting runs, there's little a number eight can do. Panesar should walk into the side now, and if he doesn't and England lose again, the team management will have some serious answering to do.

Team selection is the heart of Englands problem. Everyone expected England's Ashes side to be the summer side strenghened with Freddie.

The captaincy went to Flintoff and the inner circle preferred to put put as close a side to Ashes 2005 as possible - without considering
Form and Fitness.
Time and time again we go to Ozz with players
either injured or returning to form.
If a class player has returned from injury - they
must have to fight to get back into the team.
Even Mr Vaughan.
I have a lot of repsect for Duncan Fletcher
however I feel he has much to answer for on this
trip.

Couldn't agree more, Tim, and I've been saying the same on the BBC forum - except that I do wish we could have Vaughan back in place of Joyce.

This tour match has clearly shown that Read should replace Jones, and Panesar should replace Giles, as if further proof were really needed. You're right about the rest too. Just wonder if it will actually happen...

I would pick the same side as 'austengg' - but I don't suppose it will happen.

And like 'Tom' (above) I used greatly to respect Fletcher, but I now wonder whether he has been corrupted by power. It happens to most people, eventually.

At any rate, Fletcher is beginning to remind me alarmingly of the self-righteous Ray Illingworth - whose favouritism, whims and assertiveness as Chairman of selectors generated appalling chaos; but never accepted a shred of blame for the consequences.

Mostly everything from England so far has been negative, This I think is Fletchers fault. . Not playing Monty in the last test was the crucial mistake, the England camp are saying it was a bad hour with the bat, yes but the ommision of monty meant Australia got good runs from the Warne/Hussey partnership.. Giles is so predictable. If they dont make some changes England are sunk..Not only because other players are carrying a weak attack but because it say's England dont want to win...Monty is a mystery to the aussies, seen him on tele but never played him in the middle in a test..Its so difficult to judge him on this tour so far because he has not had the chance to build momentum...Using a reason like they want a bowler that can bat!!Man, imagine Australia not playing Mcgrath because he cant bat! , So much in criket is about building preasure and patience, forcing the mistake,Giles cant do this but Monty can.Australia dont have to do that because of Warne..Again, if England dont show some positive intent in the selection they are doomed. And can someone explain why Collingwood hasnt had a bowl?

Something has to give. This current team looks a mess. And that's because the management took a very solid-looking team which had just beaten Pakistan comfortably, abandoned its winning captain, messed around with the batting line-up, and dropped a wicketkeeper averaging 40-plus with the bat and the best spinner we've had in years.
And instead of coming in as a straight replacement for Mahmood and batting at seven,
Flintoff is left shoring up a top order that suddenly looks far too short.
I understand that they picked five bowlers because Flintoff's ankle might not last out a game, but if we were trying to ease the burden on him by playing the extra seamer, it certainly hasn't worked. He's running around trying to do everything, and we can see it's hurting him, physically and mentally. His average is down to 17, and he's not concentrating in the field - while Strauss, whose average shot up to 63 when he was captain, stands at slip and twiddles his thumbs.
We should play the same top five, and Joyce at six - or maybe Dalrymple, if they really feel they need that bit more bowling.
I reckon Harmison is maybe worth retaining if the other three bowlers are solid - just in case he suddenly gets on a roll and bowls Australia out for 120.
But it won't happen. England, and particularly Fletcher, haven't the flexibility to make the changes needed - and it's probably going to cost us the Ashes.

I would have to agree with Flintoff at 7. As an Aussie supporter I am more than happy seeing him come in at 6, sure he might tonk a couple of sixes, but you always feel his wicket is not far away. Also coming in higher up the order seems to mean that he gets under bowled, which is fine by me but is strange given that bowling is his strong suit. As for Anderson verses Panesar, even this little Aussie supporter is frustrated when Anserson comes on to bowl, knowing that he is keeping out a bowler who could provide a real contest.

Tim, you are correct. Monty is not a panacea nor even the second coming. However, down 2-nil, England have to try something. A little creativity and enthusiasm might make a difference - even though I caution that Panesar has yet to play against the number one test nation on its home soil. This can be a daunting prospect for any young bowler.

As for Read being the best wicket-keeper in the world: again, he is untested. Plus, there is another member of Dad's so called army who must surely hold the mantle until this young fellow proves himself.

I fear these claims of "best" finger spinner and "best" wicket keeper in the world are as premature as the claims that some sort of English cricketing dynasty was going to form out of those rather fortunate goings on in 2005.

Perhaps we should give these boys a few years of hard toil before we start recklessly bandying labels about...

Interesting selection suggestions there. I think just about everyone (bar, perhaps, Jonathan Agnew!) actively wants Monty in for Giles, no shock there; bringing Joyce in is more of a gamble though. I'd love to see him play, but if there was more to Fred's ankle than stated in Adelaide it would be a hell of a risk!

I wholeheartedly agree we're seeing England reap the "benefits" of overlooking Strauss as captain, overloading Flintoff in the process. I believe Freddie when he says he enjoys it and believes he can handle it, but the evidence is there against it: it's not good for his performances and, as a result, is not good for the team. I note you don't mention swapping the 'keepers. Surely on form (and on records from the last year or two) Read for Jones would both strengthen fielding and batting efforts considerably. I found it telling that Read - supposedly unsuited to the wickets in Australia - made an unbeaten half-century against WA whilst Jones failed again. Anyone can make a first ball duck, but Jones - picked for his batting - has failed to produce for over a year now.

I'd be worried bowling only four specialist bowlers given Freddie's ankle is still on the mend. Especially when we've not taken 20 wickets in a test yet and Perth looks like being another flat track. I'm afraid that means a long tail (given Freddie's not going great with the bat) but we need our batsmen to take responsibility.
I'd drop Giles and Jones as a given (it's not like their adding runs to the total). One of the part-time bowlers like KP could do Giles' job easy enough. Take your pick of 2 from 3 of Harmison, Anderson, Mahmood. I'd give Mahmood a bash as he can take wickets and bat a bit.

Tim - completely agree with that line-up. The other changed I'd make is give Strauss back the captaincy. Probably never gonna happen, but I feel Flintoff's batting is suffering because of it and England need Fred firing with ball AND bat if they're to have a decent chance a winning a test.

This has been suggested multiple times by you and obviously the English coach does not agree. What is more likely to happen is that Anderson will be axed and Sajid will come in, in his place. It is highly unlikely that Monty will get a chance except maybe at Sydney where it will be a twin spin attack. In all this, you have forgotten Read, i think, that the number of catches dropped also matters. So, maybe you should also see how many chances have been dropped by Giles (Ponting in the first innings virtually was a case of "You dropped the Ashes, mate!") and Jones.

At the risk of loading up another player with game saving batting and bowling responsibility, England could do worse than bowl Peterson more than they do. Whilst the presence of Giles continues to amaze everyone here, the constant mention of Panesar is potentially turning him into something he may be one day, but is not so far. Yes, he is an exciting prospect and adds enthusiasm into an increasingly bland team without Simon Jones's variation. However, great and unfair things will be expected of him and he is not the Ashes saviour yet that people are writing him up to be. Bowling Peterson more, in tandem with Panesar could be an answer, as he bowls uesful leggies, has proven harder to get away than Giles and is a player than needs to be in the game/in our faces for the English to do well. I'm surprised he's overlooked as much as he is

Sometimes when people refer to balance meaning 5 bats, 5 bowlers and 1 keeper the assume that this is the best team makeup. If a team (Windies in the 80's and Aussies now) have the quality bowlers combined with stamina then with positive motives no further bowlers are required than 4. This obviously frees up one more spot that can be utilised by a batsmen not because it is needed but because it is better than playing another bowler unless the conditions dictate.
This is where I wonder about Australia's penchant for ordaining Watson as their answer to the next great allrounder. Each player needs to be good enough to make the team as either a batsmen or a bowler of which I don't think he is either yet. If they then can then add value in another department then great, but not at the expense of the facet of the game that they have been selected for.

When selectors start to hedge their bets then it tends to create more pressure on the captains as they may be reluctant to bowl the fifth bowler in pressure situations or because they can allow the batsmen a breather.

Your general comments and the line-up that you propose are spot on. Flintoff has failed at number six, and a sixth batsman is desperately needed by England to come in ahead of him. There is no point having Joyce in the squad if England is not prepared to play him, and he just scored over 70 versus WA at the WACA.

Also Read scored 59 not out, and Jones scored 0, Jones also has failed every innings at batting apart from his small role in the 551 declaration. Surely Read should be given a shot, as the most given reason for his non-inclusion is Jones's superior batting.

Such a line-up with Hoggard, Panesar, Flintoff and whichever of Anderson, Mahmood, Harmison is in better form is much more competitive and balanced that wasting a slot on an unnecessary and unsuccessful fifth bowler.

Also Pieterson really needs to be batting at fourth, as much as I admire Collingwood's efforts so far, and hope that he continues to prove himself a better run-scorer and batsman than I originally thought, he is no Pieterson. Pieterson needs the time and position within the innings to play his shots freely, and that is better served by placing him ahead of Collingwood.

England also may gain an advantage if Australia weakens its lineup by copying the failed Flintoff plan by playing Symonds or Watson as a fifth bowler, a luxury that Australia can no doubt afford more than England, but nevertheless England should take the advantage and respond by selecting a better side with four specialist bowlers only. Particulary with a spinner that can strike in the team, a superior wicket-keeper, and the confidence of a sixth batsmen to better compile a winning team total - in both innings.

I don't diagree but I just cannot see England risking Flintoff as one of four bowlers.

Also, I always felt that a more aggressive stance was to have five bowlers and shorten the batting. I think you are saying that with five bowlers England do not have any more firepower than with four but it is a big call when England is struggling for wickets. It seems Anderson bowled extremely well on the weekend so I reckon Engalnd will simply change Monty for Giles.

Cheers
Vernon

I'd just suggest that Anderson has thrown a spanner in the works by bowling so beautifully in Perth.

The news of Cook scoring a century in a side match will go down the English cricketing circles. With Pietersen, Collingwood and Bell already in good shape, the English batting line up looks good and may get better as the tour goes on, but the real concern as you have pointed out is bowling. I think Flintoff should be played as a specialist bowler with his batting capabilities coming in handy at 7. He should be supported by Hoggard, Monty and Sajid. Harmison doesnt fit in if England look for performance, not repute. Wicketkeeper is an important cog in the wheel and his keeping need to be the prime consideration while selecting the teams. Therefore, Read should also come in. I am a firm believer that England can defeat the Aussies, but the most important thing is getting the balnce right and playing the horses for the courses.

Flintoff can change a game with his bat but rarely does as his average would indicate. Batting averages these days are padded due to soft opposition, pitches favouring batsman and diminishing quality of bowling attacks which makes the Flintoff batting average of around 30 look even worse. As an Aussie I say leave him at six but he is a seven at best (Australia's seven averages 48 and did average above this for a long time).

Watson's absence was also missed in Brisbane. While the end result was positive for Australia, if Watson had have played I have little doubt England would have been following on.

I agree that Panesar was the natural selection - I never understood why England persisted with a non-spinning spinner in the first place, and indeed the general feeling down here was that Panesar was a first XI selection in all tests, while Giles was the outsider.

However, having just a spinner in run-drying role is not enough. England did well last year because 2 of the seamers - usually Flintoff and Hoggard - were stingy with runs, giving Harmison and Jones more attacking options. England need another run-blocker. You can't have this Aussie lineup scoring at 3.5-4 runs per over and still pile on over 500. If the Aussies want to score at 4 an over it should cost them wickets, and make them take chances.

My way-outsider suggestion, based on this winter's matches, would be Jon Lewis. Little test experience - but plenty of first class, just the way Aussies like it. A tried and tested veteran who gives you what McGrath gives us. Especially at the MCG and the SCG he can give far better then what Anderson can give. The WACA is yet an unknown, but replacing Anderson seems certain anyway, and I would rather bet on a veteran then youngsters like Plunkett or Mahmood.

Mahmood is a straight swap for Harmison, but both being so wayward, I can't tell who's the better pick. Granted Harmison at current form gives you zip - so parhaps a gamble is in order.

Regarding Flintoff - I wish you would stop judging him as a batsman. He isn't. He's a world-class bowler who can bat a bit, much like Vettori or Pollock (who have also scored test centuries). An average of 32 (less then that since the previous ashes) is less then what modern keepers boast and is very similar to Pollock's average of 31. Pollock usually bats at 8 (sometimes at 7) and assuming England find a keeper who can bat a bit, that's where Flintoff should bat (7 or 8).

He's currently where he is simply because there is no better option.

All these comments regarding team balance largely ignore the effect freddies damaged ankle will have on the vital WACA test. Freddie will not bowl and if he does, it will be a reduced quota.
So if he can't bowl and should England select players on performance, not ability SHOULD he get a start?

We don't need to bring in an extra batsman, so much as to rely on the top order to get two par totals, rather than getting skittled for 100 in one innings or the other. We do need to bowl them out twice. So what is required is to ring the changes on the attack. However, only one substitution is obvious - Panesar for Giles. I would aso bring in Mahmood for Harmison (admitting that the moment when Harmison gets it right might always have been just round the corner). And I think I would give Anderson another go, after his improved display at the weekend, although an alternative would be to give Dalrymple a go. The extra overs bowled by Pietersen (welcome) and Collingwood (curiously, none at all) are neither here nor there.

Also Read comes back for Jones. Finally, serious consideration should be given to reinstating Strauss as captain (but of course it won't be).

So, we have struggled to take anywhere near 20 wickets and your suggestion is that we drop a bowler Tim? Now that really does hark back to the bad old days of England circa 1987 onwwards, when the extra batsman barely scored a run and the threadbare bowling got paggered all over the park. I know a draw keeps the series alive, but to specifically play for it by picking six batsmen is deeply negative and defensive and asking for trouble. And it would deserve trouble. If we won the toss and racked up 600 it might just pay off. But if we lose the toss and the pitch is flat, I'd fear for us. Bring in Monty for Giles, Mahmood for or Anderson, depending on what the pitch looks like, play good aggressive cricket and trust your best players come back into form. Positive thinking. Not timidly, spinelessly wave the white flag with a limp wrist by playing an extra batsman, vurtually saying, 'We're not good enough, we have no faith in our captain, we don't think we win.'

If Flintoff cant cope as part of a 4 man attack, he shouldnt even be in Australia! The way England are picking the team, Hick should be the spinner. He could average less than 67 and he'll make more runs than Giles and is a better fielder!

People say about Harmison that he just needs to bowl to get confidence. How can getting spanked all around the park and taking two wickets in two tests get confidence is what I want to know. I just think he needs a break all together. Sure he's a matchwinner but at the moment he is only winning matches for the opposition.

I think Flintoff further down the order would make a good proposition. His bowling is his stronger suit, so take less presure off his batting and he will do well. Panesar should be a shoe-in. Hoggard is never going to be dropped. The third seamer is the only worry now. Anderson must go, although he picked up wickets in the tour match, his overall Test record isn't good enough to make him the third seamer. Someone young and who the Aussies havent seen before could make things interesting. Then you have Pieterson, Collingwood, and Bell to fill the part timer's job and all together will provide the service that Giles apparantly does.

Collingwood, Pieterson and Bell have scored runs. Cook now has a century. Strauss needs to do what Hayden did last year after his poor run and just knuckle down and play it safe, while still putting the bad balls away. And Ed Joyce has plenty of talent and looks like the type of player who will succeed at number 6, just like Clarke did early in his career and now in the last two matches. Read must play too after scoring runs himself.

So that gives England the batting all the way to 7, with a guy who can chip in at number 8 with runs, and a four man bowling attack that can get wickets with an extra bowler or two to play the containment role. That's what Fletcher wants isn't it?

Australia are in more problems now that Martyn has retired than most think. With the No. 4 spot gone, that means two people are pushed out of their run scoring positions to make way for a new debutant. Mind you, I think Hussey should be a failry decent No. 4 I'd say. Clarke on the other hand has only looked good in his Test career when at 6, so with him now probably coming at 5 is going to be interesting too. Symonds is probably the man they will go with, I think they picked Voges to give a young guy some experience around the Australian squad because he might be there in a few seasons. Symonds also provides the option of bowling medium pace if its swinging, and if its not he can bowl offies in tandem with Warnes leggies, much like the days of Colin Miller.

An interesting 3rd Test awairs.

Let's forget for a moment 5 batsmen and 5 bowlers and look at what England actually fielded in Brisbane and Adelaide - 5 batsmen (Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen), 2 bowlers (Hoggard and Flintoff, who hadn't played for 6 months), 3 out of form bowlers (Giles, Harmison and Anderson) and a keeper who can neither keep nor bat. To cap it all off we demoted a captain who had not only been successful but whose batting had actually improved while in charge. Is it any wonder we lost?

As stated above, the logical approach would have been to field the side that beat Pakistan, substituting Freddie for Mahmood. On Tresco's withdrawal we would have had the option of a replacement batsman or bringing Mahmood back in. The chances of saving the series are now virtually nil so we should instead build for the future. I think we should rest Freddie, drop Harmison to focus his attention and also make the logical changes that just about everyone above has suggested. For the WACA I'd have Strauss (capt), Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen, Joyce, Read, Mahmood, Hoggard, Panesar, Broad.

Thanks everyone. Dan - just to clarify - I was certainly not suggesting England play for a draw. As Adelaide showed, that is not their strong point. Let's not equate quantity of bowling with quality. So far England have fielded five bowlers, but only two wicket-takers. I'm advocating four wicket-takers. No timidity there.

It's true that, as Steve and others have said, Flintoff's ankle may not be up to being one of four. In that case, he really shouldn't play. Returning to Dan: the moment when England said 'we're not good enough' was when they dropped three members of a winning team in order to rush back three players who were either rusty, or out of form, or both.

Excellent sense, the only problem is that Fletcher won't read and if he did he will ignore it. Any body who can suggest that Warne is selected partly for his batting has more problems than Tresco.

So far, so sensible from De Lisle and several of the commenters above. I'd be up almost anything except keeping the same XI: drop Harmison, Giles; play Flintoff at 7; bring in Joyce, Broad/Mahmood... and obviously play Panesar; whatever.

The only problem is: it won't happen. Fletcher is too conservative. It's too depressing.

I spent a lot of the time while Australia were batting in Adelaide wondering why Collingwood wasn't having a bowl. Does anyone have a clue?

Agree totally with 7 batsmen, and Panesar, Hoggard, Flintoff forming the bowling attack with one other. I've been advocating this since before the series, just to be egotistical for a second!

Surely Read should play instead of Jones if you're playing seven batsmen, though - he's a miles better wicketkeeper, and in fact very capable of a quick-fire 50, which is infinitely better than Jones's tortured contributions of late.

The Harmison/Mahmood/Anderson debate is a tough one - if Harmison's confidence is still rock-bottom, there's no point picking him. Anderson did well in the tour game, but Mahmood is a dangerous wildcard. I would go with you, Tim, and pick Mahmood, but I think Fletcher will pick Anderson.

This is a bit off the topic I know but I am hoping for a low-scoring, 3 and a half day game, punctuated with snorters lifting off a length and batsmen fending off deliveries as if their lives depended on it. Sadly it sounds as if we are going to get another flat pitch, with bowlers unable to do anything but bowl line and length, and both captains having no other thought in their mind but to bat first. I know it is off the topic but as the WACA has seen some astonishing exhibtions of fast bowling down the years, I can't help but think that this series is reflective of how pitches all over the world are killing hostile, varied pace bowling.

Dear God!! What a great article - this is exactly what I and many others have been saying ever since the team landed in Australia.

Fletcher is guilty of cutting short the team's evolution into a force that destroyed Pakistan, at the time ranked 2 in the world.

Instead we have a half baked pale imitation of the 2005 vintage complete with the ghost of Michael Vaughn lurking around the dressing room.

For this reason I think Fletcher should go immediately after this series.

Anderson will play after Saturday and Mahmood is looking useful too. Monty will play is a potential match winner. That means Harmison would have to get the axe which would be the logical and defendable thing to do. 8-11 = Mahmood, Hoggard, Anderson, Montague. I still have a strong belief in Harmison and the pitch may suit him but it would take a brave man to take the illogical option and pick Harmison.

This all started to go wrong with the appointment of Flintoff as captain, who is not as astute as Strauss, has too much to do already, and was/ is still recovering from injury. Since then it has become increasingly Fletcher vs English cricket fans, and that's probably made Fletcher more stubborn. The Perth two dayer just shows the pointlessness of having played Giles and Jones in the first two tests ahead of Panesar and Read, and at having left Mahmood out ahead of either Harmison or Anderson. Harmison shouldn't be playing on the off chance he will get back into form. And who is really helping get his head right, which is where his problems mainly seem to be? After the professionalism of the English victories in England, we seem to have relapsed back into rank amateurism, with odd prejudices winning out over careful thought and follow through. And how come only two people are responsible for selecting a side? Anybody who knows about decision making knows you cannot have just two people - there has to be a third to broker the disagreements, as was clearly necessary in Adelaide. And of course, that person should be Graveney. He must be tearing his hair out in private, whatever he is saying in public. So far Fletcher is about 0 for 8 in his key decisions in this series. It's a sorry way for him to go - since barring miracles, I think his future position is almost indefensible, since he has done a lot of good for English cricket. But history is littered with the not so great who weren't smart enough to get out when they were at their best, and thereafter often undermined their own legacies. John Buchanan should be very greatful however, he's been allowed to get out in time.

Just to add - everyone on here seems to be blaming Fletcher for the selection problems when it is becoming palpably clear that he wanted Mahmood and Panesar to play, but was overruled by Flintoff. Perhaps more fuel to the fire suggesting he was wrong choice for captain, particularly given the fact that he doesn't rate finger spinners - thinks, like Botham, they're 'step and fetch it' merchants - and useful only to give the fast men a breather, hence Giles. Perhaps he was influenced by Monty's poor bowling v Sri Lanka, and it's no coincidence Panesar played much better against Pakistan under Strauss, who would have picked him without doubt. Would have made no difference though - we'd still be 2-0 down, given the form of our pacemen.

Tim, whichever way you dress it up, dropping a bowler for a batsman is a defensive step. History proves it rarely works, especially in England's experience. There is little problem with our batting - we scored 550 at Adelaide for goodness sake - but everything wrong with the bowling. To sacrifice a seamer in favour of 20 or 30 from Joyce is, well, as barmy as sacrificing a promising young spinner in favour of 20 or 30 from Giles. The captain will need all the firepower he can muster in Perth if we are to get back in the series. You can just about get away with it when you have Warne and McGrath in your attack (and funny how the Aussies are seeking to play five bowlers now their old stagers are becoming less reliable, McGrath at least) but with our wayward misfiring attack it would be insane. But hang on - I forget - Panesar's playing. He will take seven for forty before lunch on the first day. We need no one else! My mistake. Sorry.

I agree that part of England's problems arise out of poor selection. But the performance of even those around whose selction no questions are being raised, is either poor or inconsistent. If England do not start performing and winning test matches soon, it will be hard to cling to No. 2 spot on ICC test rankings for too long.

England fans, you have to be honest with yourself. It's not team selections, captaincy, or where Freddie should bat in the batting order. It's the simple fact that England, in this tour, are not even near good enough to beat Australia. The simple facts are these. Mahmood will get belted, just like the others. Joyce will fail to Warne, just like the others. Read will likely fail, just like Jones. Monty will bowl better than Giles, but figures of 1 for 95 off 38 tidy overs won't win a test match.

I sincerely hope I am wrong. Noone likes a massacre - but the simple fact of the matter is that, with the exception of Pieterson, Collingwood and Hoggard and Flintoff on occasion, the English team is just not good enough.

From what I saw at the Lilac Hill match, Alec Stewart is a better bet as keeper batsman than Read or Jones.....
Seriously though, England have nothing to lose by showing some aggression in their selection policy, which may just translate on the field. At the moment England's defensive mindset reminds me of so many previous tours down here. If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten. Monty has a marginally better test batting average than one G Mcgrath, and I can't recall there ever being a debate in Oz about dropping a matchwinning bowler because he can't bat!Freddie is a true lionheart, but he needs support from truly hungry cricketers - plus we're dying to see if Monty Panacea is worth all the fuss.

One of the most frustrating things I heard Fletcher say was along the lines of Warne scoring runs at No. 8 justifying his inclusion of Giles. What he doesn't seem to realise is that Warne is in the team to bowl and the runs he can provide is a bonus factor. You don't pick bowlers because they can bat. I'm sure that if MacGill, a hilariously poor batsman, was rated as the best spinner in the team he would be there rather than having a guy who can add 20 more runs to the score. Teams win by bowling other sides out. If you can score lots of runs you will draw your matches, you need the bowlers to finish the opposition off.

Flintoff must play, reguardless of how bad his ankle is. His ankle was bad in brisbane and he was still the pick of the english bowlers. Also, when he bowls, the english team believe something is going to happen. He looks more dangerous than any other english bowler, except maybe for Hoggard

I do agree that the captaincy should be handed over to strauss

It must be tremendously hard to be an international coach - a hero one minute and a villain the next. I've always had enormous respect for Fletcher and let's not forget that he has lifted our test side from nowhere to second best in the world. however, I have to say I'm bemused by what he is doing now. He just isn't picking the best players, or worse, making sure they are picked. It's like Clive Wilkinson with the last Lions tour to NZ. He looked back to his 2003 England team and picked from that, ignoring the in form players. We all know the result. The same mistakes are happening here. Reid and Panesar had done no wrong. They had done everything they had been asked to do, yet they were dropped. That makes ripples in a side. It has to. If they do return, don't be surprised if they make some mistakes, wondering how hard they have to push trying to cement a place. Reid is the best wicket keeper - play him. Panesar is one of our best bowlers - play him. Last test out the England batsmen put on over 500. Let's stop looking for 'just in case' situations and play our best players ... just in case we manage to not win a match at all!

I agree and have been telling anybody who would listen the same thing since the last Test finished, but it won't happen. The selectors are in a mindset and will not/can not change. As an lifelong England supporter who lives in Australia, it is enough to make one weep!

I believe for years Australia have tried to find the genuine all-rounder of world class ability. Many have come and gone since the days of the great Keith Miller and most have failed. A few have transformed themselves into a player of a different role, most notably a young Steve Waugh who began his career as a a late middle order batsman and medium fast bowler and became a captain batting at no. 5.

For my money Shane Watson is the brightest prospect Australia have had in years, and not just as an all-rounder. A bulky batsaman who averages over 40 in the competetive Australian Pura Cup/Sheffield Shield and close to 30 with the ball, only injuries have hampered his progress, and I believe we will see his talent shine through in the coming years, he's still only 25.

I don't believe the likes of Symonds or even Cameron White can fulfill this role simply because Australia are seeking a fast bowling all-rounder. Symonds though was impressive in the tour of S.A. and his first class record speaks for itself, if he comes into the side though it must be as a batsman and White is actually a very capable batsman who can bowl spin.

My squad for the next ashes series: Jaques, Katich, Ponting, Hodge, Hussey, Clarke, Watson, Haddin, Hauritz, Gillespie, Lee, Clark, White, Tait, Bracken, Johnson

Regarding England it is simply unfair to Flintoff to give himthe added pressure of the captaincy and I belive the likes of Strauss and Trescothick (if he gets over his depression) would be more approppriate choices. Also K.P. should be utilised more often as a bowler as he really is a better spinner than most people know.

No giles or sure..this is gonna happen..panesar wil be playing. But, i know england will give harmison another chance just on reputation. But, mahmood himself is no better bowler than anderson eitheer. Flintoff musty play more like a bowling all rounder. He needs to bowl with more surity, h is a much better bowler than what he has shown up so far in the series. He will ahve to bat at 7. The attack of Harmisson, Hoggard, Flintoff and Panesar looks the best possible option. Because if we play Ed joyce in place of Harmisoon, it will only benefit the team, as Anderson is not expected to make a big impact further. However, Harmison can still deliver s good performance. PAnesar will play because Giles is too defensive, not because Panesar wil win the match for ENgland. SOmeone at the top pf the order, has to score a ton!! Dont we have wicket keeping problems???? What is jones doing in the team?? Read is better, His inclusion will take a lot of pressure off flintoff's abtting!!
Panesar, Ed Joyce and Read IN
Giles, Anderson and Jones OUT

At the start of the series this would have been a great idea & had it been implemented u Englishmen would only be 1-0 down. However now its too late, draws won't hold the Ashes anymore. England need to swap Giles for Panesar & keep Harmy hoping he gets things right. These are gambles but better to lose 5-0 than to start drawing now!

It was telling that every post on most sites regarding captaincy was to the effect that it was lunacy to make Freddie captain. If just about every fan could see that, why ot the selectors?

Agree on Panaser for Giles, Read for Jones and Mahmoud for Harmison. Tempted by Lewis for Anderson, he's an experienced line and length bowler, should be able to exert control and bowled well when allowed to in the summer. A Strauss captaincy would be ueful as Flintoff will most likely underbowl Panesar. Also Strauss bats better as Captain, Flintoff hasn't.

England's biggest problem is that, they have so many monkeys on their backs. All these former English players who hardly won any thing against the Ashes are all over telling their most succesful team how to play cricket. I have hardly heard any thing from Ian Botham, but the likes of Frasers, Corks, Thorpes, etc just don't stop critisizing. It is just extra hype that is not useful. Let them be.

Personally, I can't stand knee-jerk reactions to a couple of bad results. However! The team selection seems to be very wrong. Poor old Flintoff can’t really be expected to be captain as well as bat and be the main attack bowler, even when fully fit this is too much for one man. It would also appear that he is responsible for overruling Fletcher in the Jones vs. Read and Giles vs. Panesar debate. I’m a really big fan of Freddy, but quite frankly the selections made so far, and the decision to declare on a low first innings total would lead even me to suggest that he should step down in favour of Strauss.

Flintoff has already given Ponting his Christmas present; let’s not give him a New Year one as well!

Anderson and Harmison have been so poor that i think England should replace one of them with Panesar - we would not be losing out that much on batting and Fletch would still have Giles, who he seems to adore, batting at 8. Also give Collingwood the odd bowl - Flintoff, Hoogard, Panesar, Giles, Collingwood and either Mahmood or Harmison I think. Still not sure about Chris Read though - should he replace Jones?

This blog captures the quintessence of English cricket - make the right decision, make a hash of the implementation, and blame everyone/thing in sight whilst picking up the pieces!

As an Australian, let me say this: the five-bowler plan is absolutely the right one, and Flintoff must stay at six (we'd kill for a Flintoff). His only problems are his fitness and his captaincy - Strauss was so obviously the right man for the job that I still can't quite believe it, and the tour's about a month old! They've really copped the double whammy too - Flintoff's form dropping off because of the burden, and Strauss looking (to me) like he's playing without focus.

But the five-bowler thing is good - you just have to pick the right five! Why do you think we are sweating on Watson? He's no Flintoff, but if he can average 30 with the bat, he's better than the joke bowlers we habitually call on fifth. You can only get away with 4 bowlers for any length of time if 2 of them are McGrath and Warne in their pomp. If one or both are not there, or off their game, it's ugly - witness Adelaide just 12 short days ago, or India's entire tour of Australia three summers ago - doesn't anyone remember India piling up 705 for 7 in Sydney, in Steve Waugh's final Test match? THAT spoiled the party!

Regarding the English batting order, I would like to make few suggestions.
England has to line up their batting order after observing the ground realities. Flintoff is has not been scoring since sometimes and throws away his wicket easly. He should be demoted in batting order to no.8. Promoting Collingwood to number 2 will help England to save the sudden downfall of the wickets which had been witnessed in recent innings. Atleast he has ability to spend a little more time than the openers.

you are completely right tim, the notion of team balance is a complete farce.

for the whole of australia's period as the dominant cricketing side in the world, they have consistently picked the best 6 batsmen, 4 best bowlers, and the best keeper in the land. granted there are some exceptions, with the recent flirtations with shane watson and andy symonds, in order to pursue team balance.

all england need to do, to be competitive, is do the same. granted, you folks are missing a number of key players, notably vaughn and trescothik, which means they dont have an effective top order, with complete confidence in its ability to win a match.

all you poms need to do is back your players to do the jobs they were selected to do, to the best of their ability. for the bowlers, it is to bowl out australia twice in 5 days. for the batsmen, it is to make a big score, and put australia under pressure. keep up with this giles and jones in the side for their batting rubbish, and australia will surely win in perth, and retain the ashes. it undermines the batsmen, as it implies they are incomepetent, and it undermines giles and jones as wlel, as their skill in their chosen discipline is not solely good enough for their selection

im looking forward to a contest in perth, but i doubt it will be very likely. australia 5-0. pidge was spot on when he made that prediction

I would just like to point out that although jones is said to have superior batting powers to read it is actually read who holds the better first-class average and is unquestionably a better keeper.

I think that Duncan Fletcher and England's test selectors should be kicked out en masse - and let's start from scratch. What's the old saying: "A new broom sweeps clean etc!!!" I'm tired of all the excuses; it's time for a fresh start for St. George. In case anyone doubts my right to express such radical changes - let me just say I was among the proud thousands who watched Len-boy demolish the Australians at the Oval during the summer of 1938. A win that tied the series. Anyone else there on those memorable August days?