I've got doubts about Luke Wright. He's a bit too 'bits & pieces' for me. Don't get me wrong, his bowling has improved, he's a good 5 mph quicker than he was, with a bit more menace like.

It's the batting. I just can't see how he'll contsruct an innings, he's just a hitter, but say he had to start his innings facing Harris for example, I just can't see him building an innings, waiting for the bad ball & that caper, it's just see it, hit it, and as a number six or seven, you've got to be better than that for me, that's cool with Swann at nine like.

I'm just not sure what he is.

Ian Bell is close to being done now I think, for the time being anyhow. Bopara, Denly, Taylor, Carberry etc all knocking on the door and all look better alternatives. The other one who needs to be careful is Cook, talk of him captaining England in Bangladesh, he wouldn't even be in my team to be honest.

I'd be tempted to blood a couple in Bangladesh, use it to have a look at a couple, Carberry & Denly say.

If Carberry was going to get a game it would have been this year IMO - more runs than Trott in the Championship and more fifties. Certainly should have toured ahead of Bell. If he doesn't start the season in the same sort of form though it gives the selectors ample opportunity to continue overlooking him.

I agree entirely but I think that's a dangerous policy as Bangladesh are a decent outfit at home and with their spinners could cause us all kinds of trouble. Is there an England Lions Tour this winter or not?

Quite a measured appraisal of Bell.
Didn't expect that from you!

I think you've been hoodwinked by the selectors' repeated recalls every time he goes back to Warwickshire and gets brought back as soon as he makes one century. I've just checked on cricinfo and Bell's career First Class average is just under 43, with a Test average in the high thirties. He was a teenage prodigy who made a flying start to his career, so that average isn't skewed by a slow start to his career. I remember seeing him as a teenager scoring 98 for Warwickshire in a championship match at Lord's and thinking what a fantastic talent he was, but he's just never really matured since then. A player of his ability should be averaging over fifty in county cricket. From memory I think, for instance, Samit Patel does, and I'm sure there are others yet to get their chance in a Test who do so too.

I used Ramprakash as the yardstick for what Bell needs to do to deserve another Test chance. Ramps joined Surrey for the 2001 season and made his final Test appearance less than a year later. In nine seasons with Surrey he averages over 70, with an average of around six Championship centuries every season, many of them 150's or 200's. Even if Bell can just have one season like that it might prove something, but it feels like the selectors just keep "resting" him as opposed to dropping him, and that all he needs to do to is score one century for his county to get back in. He should be made to work a lot harder and a lot longer for any further opportunities.

It's the season of goodwill to ALL men...and Ian Bell!!

I'd worry about Luke Wright also tbh. He's a good allround crickter for one day sides but i'm just not sure he has the skills for test match cricket. His batting is hit and miss and i get the feeling he'd try and play in the correct test way of playing himself in and end up scratching around for runs until he gets himself out with a wild swing. As for his bowling he's be ok to bowl a few overs to give somebody a rest but i get the feeling he's be targeted and go for runs giving Strauss no control. His fielding is very good mind but that can't be reason alone to bring him in.

Sidebottam or Plunkett for me on Boxing day. Maybe to add abit of depth with the batting i'd go for Plunkett. He has the potential to get you some handy runs and is a decent allround player. He seems to have improved as a player from the last time he played test cricket.

We play Bangladesh away first (which I am going to in March ) and then at home. The IPL clashes with the tour of Bangladesh and expect England to be particularly under strength. The ECB have also intimated that they intend to rest key players (Andrew Strauss being a likely one). Therefore they will have no choice but to blood some potential players of the future and lets face it, if you can not do it against Bangladesh then who can you do it against??

As for Luke Wright, his bowling has improved immeasureably but I still have my doubts whether he is a test quality batsman. He doesn't have the right temperament for me......

Wright, in my opinion, is a throwback to the bad old days of the 90's, when we had an obsession of finding the next Ian Botham and we tried several, supposed, all rounders who were never fit to play Test cricket (Mark Ealham & Adam Hollioake being a couple who spring to mind).

Instead of this constant, usually unsuccessful, hunt for an all rounder, the selectors should instead be working on a policy of finding 5 batsman & a keeper who can actually compile 300-400 runs between them on a consistent basis. This would then leave the way open to actually have 5 potentially match winning bowlers, instead of carrying the all rounding makeweight.

True test all rounders are a rare thing...the problem is that during the 80's there was a situation where every side seemed to have one (Botham, Hadlee, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan) and this has led to the belief that the all rounding number 6 is a must....This belief must be stopped if we are to ever progress.

If the England management have gone back to the old method of picking players from numbers on the page (which is the only explanation for Ian Bell) why isn't Plunkett being seriously considered? He averaged 44 with the bat last season.