Regarding the selction for Perth, the one factor I’d overlooked until now is “The Fremantle Doctor”, the persistent wind that blows off the ocean from one end of the WACA ground. Received wisdom seems to be that you need a steady seam bowler to hold up an end for long spells bowling into the wind. There seems to be a possibility the Aussies will recall Hilfenhaus to fulfil this duty, and it may also have a bearing on our own team’s final selection.

Anyway, let’s forget about our sole selection dilemma of choosing one of three seam bowlers who all contributed towards a good win in their last appearance. Isn’t it great to see the Aussies struggling so well! After the first two Tests only three of their individuals (Watson, Hussey & Haddin) have made more than one half-decent contribution; the rest have shown no consistency at all. They have to make at least one change with Katich injured, and probably another unless the hapless Doherty retains his place. Bollinger did such a superb job of replicating Johnson’s performance at Perth that his place must now be in doubt too. North’s best hope of retaining his place may be if they pick four seam bowlers and need him to provide a spin option.

Win at Perth and England retain the Ashes with two Tests to spare.

I think its a really big decision for England - bigger than has been suggested by the pundits so far.

First, England's batting form and the Aussie attack makes me wonder if we need six batsmen?

Second, do we want to really go on the attack?

If we want to have a real go at the Aussies we could sacrifice a batsmen and bring in both Tremlett and Bresnan. The top of the order (other than Strauss) is consistently firing so either Collingwood or Bell could drop out. If we drop Bell then we still have the overs of Collingwood in combination with the runs of Bresnan to mean everything is covered. If we drop Collingwood (based on Bells form with the bat), then we lose the stop gap bowler that Colllingwood is, but with a five man attack - who cares? But can we lose our best fielder?

In my heart - I'd like to see us have a go at bowling them out twice again and playing to win so would lose probably Collingwood and go with the five man attack, trusting our in form specialist batsmen.

However, my head says that we are one nil up in a series that we only need to draw. Going with 6 batters, and bringing in Bresnan ahead of Tremlett will make us very hard to beat - I simply can't see the Aussies bowling us out twice with an arguably strengthened batting line up!

And of course, there is the middle ground. Strauss/Flower may not want to change the team dynamic much and hence, you leave the balance as is, bring in Tremlet as a direct replacement - if it isn't broken, why try and fix it?

Really tough call. and not just about who a like for like replacement would be...

We were massively reluctant to drop Ian Bell when he was in a horror run so I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if they dropped him when he's in the (Test) form of his career.

I think it will be Bresnan for Broad to be honest and that's fine by me. He's a whole-hearted player and will never, ever let England down. He might not get the big wicket hauls but he will definitely provide a calm hand and head in the side.

I don't see any chance at all of more than one change. Now way will they change the top 7 imo, it will be a straight choice between Bresnan and Tremlett as I don't see Shazhad getting the nod. Bresnan obviously give them the alround option but with Swann batting at 8 we already bat quite a way down. Tremlett will be really well suited ot the bouncy pitch and I would expect him to get the nod although the next warm up match will be an opportunity for all three of them.

These bowlers that we are talking about are pretty average. Stuart Broad is worth a place if he can justify his spot as a no.7 batsman and a fifth bowler (which his batting may be strong enough to do) but his bowling isn't top class. Tim Bresnan is the kind of dibbly dobs seamer who will be cannon fodder to Ponting and Hussey on Australian wickets.

Amjal Shahzad has got one five wicket haul in his entire professional career, how the heck is he in the England squad.

Tremlett I think might have more potential but I await to be convinced, I have a feeling he's just a Plunkett standard bowler.

Glen Chapple doesn't even get considered but his first class record over the past five seasons is better than any of the England bowlers, his batting is about the same standard as Broad and as a Lancashire fan it is amusing to see all the anguish about Anderson, will-he-won't-he-swing-it.....Chapple has always been a more consistent swing bowler than Anderson has ever been, I can remember a 22 year old Chapple running through Essex in a Natwest Final with unplayable swing bowling.

In fact would have preferred to have taken Dads Army, Chapple, Cork and Hoggard, at least these blokes would have swung the ball and the last two have better Test records than Broad.



Just bringing in an extra bowler doesn't give you any more attacking potency unless you bring in a good bowler. If we were bringing in Flintoff then yes but not those two especially not Bresnan, we may as well use Collingwood for Bresnan's overs.

I agree that an extra bowler doesnt automatically improve your attack, unless a) you know the conditions and are bringing in an extra person to specialise in them or b) you're bringing in something different that the captain wouldnt have been able to call upon otherwise.

Just adds to the decision making process: Tremlett will get bounce, above what can be generated by Finn I'd say - does the captain want that (especially with Hughes back in to open)? Bresnan will probably provide some control, and maybe swing which will be better than Collingwood's contribution with the ball (and swing, according to what i have read, is often helped by the wind direction in Perth?)

I'd go for the jugular, trust the batsmen and take a side into the test with the intention of bowling them out twice... but i'm not a selector of course.

I would go for the strategy of batting them into a hole and forcing the Aussies to get themselves out. Our batting is our strength so lets focus on that. Australia are 1-0 down and we hold the Ashes, ie Australia needs to win 2 out of 3. They can't play for draws.

With our bowling just bowl relentless disciplined line and length and exert pressure, aim to bowl maidens and give no easy runs. If we are making 450+ in our first innings then Australia will need to get scores of 500+ in very quick time to give themselves chance to attack us in the second innings, they will have to play like one day players and all it takes is 2 or 3 key batsmen to get themselves out taking risks and suddenly the gate is open and they are out for a low score, which allows us to go back on the attack.

Playing safe cricket doesn't mean negative cricket in this situation, it just creates relentless pressure on a side who needs to win 2 out of 3, and will likely end up in the Aussies self destructing and giving us another win, and game over.

I wouldnt rule out Shahzad. I think it will come down to pitch conditions and how well they bowl in Melbourne. But if they think reverse swing might be a factor then Shahzad could get the call, particularly as he's probably the best batsman of the three.

The Pitch at Perth should be suited to Tremlett, very tall and will get good bounce out of it

Agree. If i was a selector, with all the responsibilities etc., then that is what my head would tell me to do. As a fan...who'd love to see Aussie noses in the dirt, I'd want us to have a real go...