Still, be a nice six weeks in the sun all expenses paid for Dierdre.

Shift some kit around, carry some drinks, watch Monty Predictable get belted out of the ground on a regular basis...

Flintoff at 4, are you out of your mind? You have been following cricket in the last 3 years right? Flintoff is finished as a top 7 batsman. He's been abysmal since the 2005 ashes.

With regards to Patel, he's a batting all-rounder and as such he should be kept in regardless of whether Rashid is selected. The continued selection of Cook and Harmison in ODI squads baffles me.

Samit Patel is one of the best young batsmen in England; he bats in the top five for Notts and has a career First Class batting average of almost 50. Unfortunately the selectors seem to have a knack of utilising such young players (Shah & Bopara being others) as lower middle-order bits and pieces players in the limited overs game instead of giving them a proper chance playing to their strengths in the Test side. Now people not surprisingly have come to regard him as interchangeable with bowlers who can bat a bit, such as his county teammate Graeme Swann.

Adil Rashid is potentially a Test class all rounder whose career batting and bowling averages are already both in the early thirties. I'm really looking forward to seeing how he shapes up in a Test match.

As for Cook, I can only assume he's in the one day squads for his slip fielding. On second thoughts Rob Key wouldn't be such a bad selection after all.

There just seems to be something a bit soft about Ian Bell - he's the opposite of some of his recent predecessors such as Graham Thorpe and Nasser Hussain, and now teammates such as Pietersen and Collingwood.

Basically, the likes of Bopara and Patel are shunted down the order to accomodate the likes of Bell in the one-day squad.

And we wonder why we struggle at this level of the game.

In ODI cricket you have to get the right people time at the crease. I see no benefit in batting Andrew Flintoff at six or seven, when the asking rate is rising and there's fielders strewn around the boundary edge. Get Flintoff in early, facing the quicks who he starts better against, in powerplays, where he can be destructive. To add also, I think in the last six months or so, there's just the first shoots that his batting is getting itself together again, in India, he at times looked capable of batting for long periods, and building an innings, something which I fekt had gone out of his game, when he's batting poorly, it's either 0 or a quick crash bang wallop 20.

I agree with you on both Cook & Harmison.

I kind of agree with you, I've maybe come at this the wrong way a tad. I wasn't as much saying "get rid of Patel & get the lad Rashid in", the point was more aligned with one that you make, that within the current setup, there are no roles, nobody has a clue, and at some point they need to lay out a footprint, and put in players around that, within that, I can't see how Patel figures. Over the last few years they've kind of dipped their toe in the water with various ideas, get your ODI side as close to your test side as your can, hence Cook, Struass etc. Then we've toyed with the idea of specialists, Mal Loye's etc. I think it's time to get a plan and stick to it.

I've no qualms with Patel if England pick him as a number 4 or 5 who can bowl fill in overs, like a Yuvraj. I have issue with him at seven, and being Englands frontline spinner.

I think England have to get back to basics, forget pinch hitters, bits and pieces, wicket keeper batsmen, all these terms that get strewn around. Get an 11 or 12 and stick with it, people who do specific jobs.

Totally agree with you on Bell, great word you use 'Soft', it's exactly what he is. The only time he's covinced in his test career was when he batted at six and had that spell when he scored hundreds when England were dominant.

World class cricket players can play cricket in all forms!! The Australian ODI team of the last dozen years did not vary too much from their test team. We just don't have enough quality full stop.

I know what your saying, but I do feel that cricket is evolving. Australia also had some incredible individuals, like Warne & Gilchrist, Gilchrist ccould open in any form of cricket, the same cannot be said for Cook or Struss or a direct comparison in Prior/Ambrose etc. (England have trialed using Prior & Gerraint Jones as an opener, it hasn't worked) I also think the introduction of 20/20 has changed ODI cricket, bigger scores are now seen, the powerplays are now more important seemingly than ever so I think even the Australian formula of the last decade would have been tested further.

I agree that England have the players. We've all seen KP & Flintoff be destructive. I watched Owais Shah decimate an attack in the 20/20 final, so he can play with aggresion, Denly is a quick scoring, aggresive opener, Patel plays with aggresion, Masceranhas and many more, I just think Enlgnad lack the intent, that's all. I watched in amazement at the likes of Sehweg coming in and smashing the ball from ball one, and then I thought, yeah, but he's special, but he isn't, ordinary players like Yusuf Pathan come in at six, face two balls, finish 10/12 not out. It's incredible,but it must come from the dressing room, being told to be extremely positive. England don't do this, I think that's half the problem. We're always playing containing cricket as oppose to expressive, it's all about dot balls, saving a single etc, more aggression needed, starting with team selection.

Intent is key. (not Robert.)

I'm hearing ya. When England lose a wicket or 2 they hang around and attempt to rebuild for far too long.

We all know Gilly was a test batsman in his own right and not just a wicket keeper batsman, whoever decided to give him the openers position in ODI's pulled a master stroke. I wonder if Freddie or KP could do the same thing in the first 10/15 overs??? 100+ strike rates at the top of the innings.....Cook, Strauss, Bell and Vaughan can't. Oh for Marcus Trescothick.......

Exactly, Tres was fantastic for England. Thing is, he's a cracking example, as when you listen to the players etc who were involved in the 2005 Ashes, they reckon that he set the tone for England winning it, 2nd Test, England one down, the writing on the wall as usual and he comes out and blasts the Australian attack to all parts pre lunch. I don't think it's always that important how many you get (if you get me), but how you get them. He showed an intent and gave England the initiative. In that series, I don't think I've ever seen a more aggresive England side, and I haven't since. Yes, Warne took 40 wickets, but they cost him 37+ runs each, he was carted to all parts, England were keen to get after him as oppose to being sitting ducks, eventually, he'll bowl a ball that has your name on it, it's a matter of time, so make him work for them.

I suppose what i'm saying is, I think England have the players (minus one or two areas, an aggresive opener, a keeper (I still don't feel convinced with Prior & another seamer, Sidebottom when fit, Broad - who whilst being inexperienced must now kick on bowling wise, he looks a little predicatble at times, no variation, Anderson - which one ?, Harmison - Which one ?...) I think we are a seamer light, a quality seamer.

2005 Attack v 2009 Attack

Hoggard - Sidebottom
Harmison - Harmison
Fred - Fred
Jones - Broad
Giles - Panesar

Are we stronger or weaker ? I can't make my mind up.

Anyhow England selectors, ODI cricket & Test cricket, more positive intent please, it's when England look best. For recent example check 1st Test v India, fantastic until they eeked about for a session on the 4th day and handed the momentum right back.