sostenurter...to deal with the first point first, as you say, the strength in depth appears impressive in all departments except the spin bowling. To the list that you've given you can probably add Ed Smith in the middle order. The A tour has also thrown up a series of names for guys who look like they could enter the team at any time, particularly Pietersen (you had him, but he did perform well), Gidman, Mahmood and Tredwell, although people keep mentioning Prior too. There is also the perpetual Ian Bell who will surely get at least a ODI squad call this summer.

As you say, it looks impressive. The all-rounder spot may not stay vacant long as one of Rikki Clarke and Alex Gidman will surely be challenging for it by next autumn's tour.

In the spin bowling Batty looks to have had his chance and really I cannot imagine Giles getting another chance, surely? However, there was some hope on the A tour and maybe someone like Dawson will have another go. That said, it looks like England will have a paced-based attack for the next year.

Shah has paid the price for failure. 15 innings, 2 fifties and 8 single-figure scores (albeit one of them a 0*). Of 6 starts, only two got converted to 40+. He has had the bad luck to play in a losing team though - England won just 3 and lost 12 of his 15 matches in the team. Of the three matches that England won, his contributions were 0, 0* and 25, so he hardly set the team alight.

I wouldn't get carried away on the strength in depth... Thorpe is the only guy who has consistently convinced on all surfaces and against all attacks... and the only guy even close is Vaughan.. who some are saying has something to prove when faced with a lot of sideways movement (swing / seam)... and who seemed to get through his one and only significant innings against Murali in Sri Lanka by thrusting the pad a long way forward rather than actually playing the ball.

In Butcher we look, increasingly, to have found another player in a similar league - a guy fit to be our senior player for the next 5 years. Once vulnerable against spin, he played Murali with real authority this winter (averaged 50+ against him) and he's added some real grafting ability to his undoubtedly fine strokeplay. Something of a revelation given the doubts that surrounded him when he was younger.

Beyond that... no-one we've tried or could try right now looks ready to replace Hussain: Collingwood looks the most promising (simply on grounds of temperament and attitude)... but the jury must still be out (let's hope he gets a good run this summer to give him a chance to shine). Pietersen looks like the next real prospect... but that's all he is right now: more promising players have failed!

My own feeling is that of Trescothick, Strauss and Ed Smith... Ed Smith is the likeliest to mature into the real thing: Tresco looks likely to blow hot and cold very unpredictably as he lacks that essential Test match quality of being able to scratch around without getting out as he plays himself into form; Strauss just doesn't look ready; Smith? Who knows: he's had the most badly handled introduction to Test cricket I've seen in yers... but just seems to have that mix of temperament and technique that is called for.

I stand by a claim I made a long time ago: we'll have strength in depth when (and only when) we can tour with an in-form Trescothick not quite making the team - that's the level that is called for... and he (in form) is the sort of quality 1st reserve we ought to be able to draw upon.

Bottom line: I think we need to hope that Hussain hangs around to 2005... Thorpe stays on beyond that.. and that someone can do for the young English batsmen what Troy Cooley has done for Flintoff and Harmison!

Am I the only one here who thinks that any batsman who has played county cricket for several years should be able to take care of himself against Fast-Medium bowlers (ie. Chris Martin, Kyle Mills, Darryl Tuffey), dobbers (Jacob Oram) and craft Slow-Left Armers (Vettori of late) on a may greentop?

Surely if Trescothick is going to be dropped down the order, the NZ series when the ball is zipping around is the time to do it, rather than waiting until later when the pitches flatten out and movement becomes less extravagant so he can massage his figures with a big score again? But - if we do, Strauss is the only possible replacement as of now, as moving Butcher from #3 would be stupid. Is Strauss a genuine opener though, or a Trescothick/Gayle style "opener"? Some statistical analysis required when I get home tonight methinx. Ian Bell might be worth an outside punt for the openers slot too.

And another thing - if Hussain, or anyone from the middle order, is dropped for the NZ series Collingwood has to be the replacement, absolutely no question. He's the man at the front of the queue, Fletcher thinks enough of him to give him a central contract and so any notion that Ed Smith or Strauss will magically jump in front of him in the queue for a middle order berth is wrong. Strauss surely must be the front of the queue for opening, but I would imagine he and Smith are some way behind Collingwood for the middle order.

If we need 5 bowlers, it'll have to be G Jones at 5 and Flintoff at 6, or vice versa. I wouldn't feel confident with Flintoff at 5 though, and from what I saw in Antigue, albeit on a pitch that was flatter than a dead hedgehog, he looked like a chap more suited to batting higher up the order than Flintoff.

Seeing as you are letting Peter make you backslide, consider a practical case which suggests that his logic is faulty.

Bridgetown. 3rd Test. 1981. Pitch: a traditional english greentop.
England attack: Dilley, Botham, Jackman, Emburey (with 8 overs shared between Willey and Gooch).

Now I'm sure you'd say that England fielded an excellent attack for the conditions. Jackman was Mr. Steady. Dilley had an excellent tour and started to come of age as a quick bowler. Botham we know about and Emburey was the lynchpin of the attack on that tour.

Now I'm sure that you remember the result. The West Indies struggled to 265, thanks to a 100 from Clive Lloyd. End of match. England lost by 298 runs and were grateful to get that close.

What happened? The ball moved about a lot. The English seamers used the conditions well. Dilley was a real handful and were well pleased with their efforts.

Then Croft, Roberts, Holding and Garner bowled on the same surface 10-15mph faster than their opponents and a ball that moved around and bounced a bit for the England seamers suddenly became a lethal missile. Boycott got a pair, inclusing a very rare bowled.

The lesson: if you have a difficult surface, a medium pacer can be hard to play, but a good batsman has time to adjust and can survive. A quick bowler will be unplayable if he is accurate because the ball will bounce more and jag around faster and the batsman doesn't have an earthly.

Why didn't Dilley get a hatfull of wickets? As Desmond Haynes put it speaking to Sir Geoffrey - "I'm gonna get some runs today because you've only got one fast bowler" (actually he only got 25 in each innings). Dilley was a real handful, but he couldn't bowl at both ends.

Lesson: on a greentop a fast bowler can be a really lethal proposition. Don't drop your fastest bowler(s) just because the pitch is green.

Mark: you say "A quick bowler will be unplayable if he is accurate because the ball will bounce more and jag around faster and the batsman doesn't have an earthly" - I couldn't agree more.. but the "if" of that "if he is accurate" kinda says it all really.

Two scenarios: someone quick-ish who gets pretty well EVERY ball in the right area (say Pollock) and someone seriously quick who just gets the odd delivery right but can be unplayable when it's right (say Simon Jones).... who do you favour?

I think this is far from a straightforward question... and not just because the balance of the attack is important and because the pitches vary: I think it depends a lot on the tactical approach of the whole team.

The Aussie ideal might be to basically bat the opposition out of the game: exagerating a tendency it could be summarised as "pile on so many runs so quickly that the fielders can all be in catching positions, every delivery can be an all-out attempt to take a wicket and runs conceded just don't come into the equasion".

My own preference, given English strengths, would be more Hussain-ish: dig in for a total that keeps you in the game (no matter how long it takes to get there) and then make it damnably difficult for the opposition to compete with plans tailored to ensure each player is forced to change their game to keep the scorecard moving.

If you're basically going for plan {a} then the Simon Jones character has a lot of appeal.. but if you prefer plan {b} (which I always have) then it's Pollock every time.

I appreciate that in practice a great team will have the adaptability to mix and match to take best advantage of conditions and match / series situations... and for that reason I'd like to see someone like Simon Jones either in / on the fringes of the team pretty well come what may... but my fundamental objection is not so much to Simon Jones.. or to Trescothick.. or to Flintoff... or to Clarke... but to the way that committing ourselves to more and more of these players increasingly seems to me to commit us to plan {a}... with all that implies about ever truer and more batsman friendly pitches... sporting declarations... artificial run chases.. and the general transmogrification of Test cricket into a 5 day version of a ODI.

It's nice to have plan {a} as an option.... and with players of the callibre of Vaughan and Thorpe (and I'm increasingly inclined to say Butcher) you seem to keep that option open: they can adjust their game to the demands of the team. For all his dour reputation as the man of grit... it's also basically true (if to a lesser extent) of Hussain... and may well be true of Collingwood (showed the grit in Sri Lanka... but has shown the more aggressive side in the ODI arena).

Likewise with the bowling: Harmison's steep bounce looks like giving the captain the best of both worlds - a strike bowler who is incredibly tight; Hoggard is working on Fraserish accuracy for those times when hat-tricks don't seem on; and Flintoff is adding a bit of fire to his armoury to complement that heavy ball that ties batsmen up.

My worry remains that in Tresco, Flintoff (batting), G Jones and S Jones... and in due course, possibly, in Pietersen and Clarke... we are assembling such an array of aggressive players that the versatility I've been talking about will just be something to be recalled nostagically or admired in other teams!

As i say, my concern was some of the commentators saying jones was tired and still not as match fit as he would like, but as you, caddick has been injured too so isn't exactly in a better boat. I guess my arguement would be that caddick at least has experience to fall back on, so he's recovering and playing from experience, rather than recovering and learning at the same time as the case with jones. But i agree with your points, if jones is happy to play and feels fit then he is the future and best to just stick with him, hoggard, harmison and flintoff should be able to take up any potential slack, and if they can't then it's all gone wrong anyway.

Re: batting lineups, i'd bring in strauss for giles, i know collingwood has been first choice but whilst i like collingwood a lot and think he's a good player with a good temperament, i don't think he'll ever turn into a world beater, although perhaps he could be our new stock player in place of hussain, with pieterson in for giles as the 'spinner' later on, leaving tresco and strauss to fight out for the opening berth perhaps. I like the suggestions for dropping tresco down the order, i get frustrated by the way he gives his wicket away and the fact he doesn't seem to have learnt much in his time in test cricket, but fundamentally he's a good player and perhaps down the order will give him a better opportunity to get those first runs on the board, after that he tends to settle more and score quickly.

Considering what everyone else has said then, i'd go for:

Vaughan
Strauss
Butcher
Collingwood
Thorpe
Trescothick
G.Jones
Flintoff
Hoggard
S.Jones
Harmison

I've dropped nass simply because he doesn't look like he'll ever be a consistent 50/100 scorer again and whilst he deserves to have 100 caps for all he's done for england, we got sentimental about stewart and wasted time finding a replacement, we should give ourselves the full 3 summer series to find nass' replacement or potential competition for pieterson and long term possible replacements for thorpe, collingwood is capable of doing the same job that nass has done during the winter, holding the line and getting a partnership going to disturb the bowling.

Mark, scott's reply to your statistics post is on page 12, he split it into two parts, one each for vaughan and tresco.

Excellent posts by everyone, interesting stuff. I'm more of a gut feeling person like scott, although ironically i remember saying that we needed to do something about vaughan and tresco on the bbc board and scott was one of the people to call me an idiot for even suggesting they should be dropped/moved Opinions change though i guess, that's why cricket is so interesting.

I think the points made about butcher playing well at 3 so should stay there are good, he effectively opens at the moment anyway so i don't think his scores would go down if he was made to open, but don't see the need, if anything there would be less pressure on him as if he gets out at the moment it's 10-2 but if he gets out as opener it's only 10-1.

I think the best option for the first NZ test would be to drop giles and let strauss have a go in the side. Have tresco play these one dayers and if there is time a county match of some sort, if he doesn't get at least a bit of his form back then drop him down to 5 and let strauss open, with a call that whoever scores the most in the 3 games gets the nod for the windies (when the spinner place will be needed again).

If it was me picking the team out of the current squad i would say to strauss, hussain and tresco that they are fighting it out for 2 batting positions for the windies tests. I would also say to collingwood to go back to county cricket and get as much batting in as he can, if his average is a good deal higher than theirs (bearing in mind he'll face weaker attacks) then he'll be considered for the windies too. Wether i'd stick to it or not is a different matter, but competition is what some of them need (seems to be working with the bowling).

Do people think pieterson will be an automatic shoe-in for the SA tour (barring horrendous county season obviously), as if so then dropping hussain for collingwood would be a bit pointless as he'd effectively just be keeping the seat warm, what if collie scores a century, 3 50's and a couple of 20-30's ? On the one hand it's a good decision to have to make as it means we have some good players to pick from, i'd be inclined to pick pieterson for the spinners berth, even if he's rubbish he can't be much worse than giles.