I’m afraid it’s not taken me long to get fed up with the Moores regime. It’s all talk isn’t it? First we had Bell banging on about ruthlessness (I like the ruthless way we allowed Kumble to get a ton, nice one lads), then we had the immaturity of the jelly beans, and now we have a severe problem with the batting.

Moores has to make some “tough decisions”; although what’s so tough about dropping an opener who struggles to get past 20 is beyond me. Yes he’s been a good player in the past. No, he doesn’t look like a good player any more.

What does Thin Bob Key have to do to get back in? Or Shah for that matter?

For what it’s worth, I’d drop Strauss and Bell. Bring in Key and Flintoff, and push Vaughan up to open. The Cook-Strauss axis is one of the least successfull opening partnerships ever. Cook-Vaughan may be better. I’d have Shah as first batting reserve. Someone is bound to get ill / injured in Sr-Lanka. And at a push, Thin Bob could open.

At the moment the batting is looking like a closed shop again. Moores must act now, or be accused of being nothing more than a Fletcherite lickspittle.

We haven’t come across pro-Key sentiments much of late. How nice.

The thinking seems to be that Flintoff can only ever be one-fifth of a bowling attack and never a quarter, in which case there’s no opening even if Strauss is dropped.

But why should that be? Either Flintoff’s fit to bowl or he’s not.

England should play four bowlers, one of whom’s Flintoff with Rob Key at three and Vaughan opening. Better batting at the top of the order. Better batting in the lower order.

Our batting really would be strengthened if Fred went in at 7 instead of 6, with the keeper at 8 (Foster really should go on tour to SL as well as Prior)

Strass really needs the winter off to sort out both his head and technique. He’s been in pieces in ODI’s for ages. I agree that Key and Shah should go on tour, but would prefer to see Shah in the team - give him 3 games against Sri Lanka and with his technique he could make some big runs.

As for the bowlers, the selectors have got a challenge to choose 4 from arguably 7 pace bowlers. If we’re worried about the batting then what about taking Broad? The only bankers are Fred and Sidebottom (what a great summer he’s had!) with Plunkett nowhere near the airport. Take your pick from Anderson/Harmison/Hoggard/Tremlett/Broad. And a 2nd spinner to support Monty? Hmmmm

The squad will provide some contentious copy in the papers I’m sure.

Before we start discussing about the future, let’s discuss the present and immediate past. England, led by no less a person than Michael Vaughan lost a home series for the first time since 2001, and that too quite comprehensively. But, I didn’t see anybody discussing it here. England can become a great test team only if it gets rid of its fixation with Australia. Accept it. Ashes 2005 was an exception (due to a combination factors, Glenn McGrath’s absence being one of them) and not the rule. England (and for that matter any other team) is a much inferior team than Australia. You have to first start regularly beating India, SA, Pak, NZ, SL etc before you can start thinking of challenging Aus. Because, there is very little to choose between these 5 teams. What I noticed in this blog during the just concluded Ind-Eng series was just apathy and indifference as if it didn’t matter. All this while a closely contested series was being played. I’m sure there things would have been different had England won.

JII and Chris, I agree to a certain extent.
The Test summer has been low key for a few reasons, in my opinion. For one, we beat the Windies easily by playing ok cricket. Then the Indian series was determined by rain (Lords) and a couple of good tosses, although the Indians probably shaded it overall. Perhaps it ought to have been a five match series throughout the summer?
I am delighted though that the 2005 defeat still hurts so much. Sure, luck conspired against Australia, but you really ought to let that go. We’re certainly not the team we were back then, but then neither are you and it will be interesting to see how you go without McGrath and Warne. When your two other very special players from that era (Ponting and Gilchrist) retire, there will be a big hole to fill. I suspect you’ll come back down to our level before we come up to yours.

Sorry JII, my bad. I apologise for that.
You’re right. Tosses and rain aside, there’s no denying that the Indian batsmen got the odd shocking decision - especially Ganguly (twice) and Tendulkar - so perhaps these things even themselves out. As Vaughan said, nobody over here really expected your seamers to bowl quite so well and that was probably the difference.
While I’m feeling contrite, I’ll also admit that the Aussies got a rough deal in 2005, especially Damien Martyn, while everything else went England’s way. And we still struggled to win!

Ian, I’m certainly looking forward to seeing how we play without some of the guys that have been the best in the world at what they do for so long. For one thing I’m hoping to see more tight tests played. The next few years will certainly be an exciting time for test cricket, with a lot of teams having to now turn to their younger (or less experienced) players.

4 bowlers should be enough. Freddy should play as a bowler who can bash the ball around at number 8.

You already have Peitersen as a back-up spinner, Collingwood as a back-up medium pacer.

There is no reason in the world why England should be playing more than 3 specialist bowlers.

And they should be Monty, Sidebottom and Tremlett.

Flintoff
Monty
Tremlett
Sidebottom
Collingwood
Peitersen

Are already 6 guys who can bowl well enough in test cricket. Having an extra one is costing you test matches.

Drop Collingwood down to #6 so his batting requirements are lessened, he can bowl a few more overs than he normally does.

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Peitersen
Bell
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Tremlett
Panesar
Sidebottom

And on a side note, don’t England know that losing 1-0 is still losing?

Why didn’t they go for the runs? They had nothing to lose.

England has been at its best when playing five genuine bowlers - one being an allrounder, and the other four being able to hold up and end, or chip 30.

If you go into a Test with only four bowlers, you run the risk of one breaking down, then the other three will be bowled into the ground, get injured, and miss the rest of the series. Not ideal on the flat pitches of the sub-continent, under a hot sun. in Sri Lanka, two of our bowlers are going to have to be specialist spinners.

England’S top order has a great deal of ability. And with Flintoff at 6, it gives the team tremendous balance. A little more consistency and application from the top order at times, and we’ll be winning most series.

Collingwood is not a Test allrounder. He is a very good batsman, with about four Test wickets. He can plug an end in one-dayers, but that’s about the extent of it. Please do not suggest he can come on and bowl out Sri Lanka in a Test match.

Pietersen was a good off-spinner in his youth, but now focuses on his batting. That’s why he’s one of the best batsmen in the world. He doesn’t have time to be practising his bowling, and England need him to be at his best as a batsman.

Vaughan, on the other hand, could and should bowl more. As long as he doesn’t risk injury.

Every batsman goes through long periods without runs, but we have short memories. Strauss is a class act, and he’s having a minor blip. Not as bad as Nasser’s, or Justin Langer’s, or Mark Waugh’s - just yet. If he’s picked this winter, he will adjust his game plan, and might just graft some solid centuries again. Someone with that talent doesn’t lose it forever. Have patience.

Oh, and I thought Pieterson’s offies were pretty tidy in Australia, and it certainly didn’t seem to affect his batting. I think that he is focused enough to be able to do both jobs without too much trouble.

Yobbo, I think that’s a very good insight into the different ways in which we look at Test cricket in England and Australia.

I suppose we’ll just have to wait for Australia to play a series without their four first-choice pace bowlers

As to Australia’s 8, 9 and 10 for a long period of time were Shane Warne, Brett Lee, Jason Gillespie. All 3 of those are better batsmen than Giles - well, the stats on your side (I was astonished that Lee shaded Giles, but he does). I think this is actually one of our biggest problems - we don’t expect our bowlers to average 20+ with the bat, and you do (either that, or you’ve been lucky of late).

Perhaps we should ask “Statsguru” on Cricinfo to do a piece on runs contributed by numbers 8-11 in Tests over a decent period (say the last 30 years) in all countries - might be interesting.

Yobbo’s right about how England were way too defensive in going for the runs. They were never going to have a chance going for something like 400 runs on the last day- if they were just playing for a draw they might have well just resigned the match.

But I do think England ought to go in with 5 bowlers. How’s Hoggard going to fir in when he’s fit- is he going to replace on of England’s bowlers, who’ve all been in great form, or one of their batsmen, who haven’t? I’d go for the latter, as we all saw how the Windies suffered through thinking that they could do it with just four.