I would of thought they need the five man bowling attack. If they want to win the series. Three seamers and spinner might leave England short.
I think supporting SA I would want them to play the four men attack. Although I understand the need for a 6 specialist batsmen in the England side.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Englands success in recent times has been based on a 5 man attack. What England need to do is be brave enough to drop Ambrose and play either Prior or Mustard.

A bowling attack of Flintoff, Anderson, Siders and Panesar wont bowl SA out twice and can England risk putting undue strain on Siders as he hasn't looked fit this summer anyway.

__________________
Mark.

So, because Atherton the player went through a run of bad form, Atherton the journo shouldn't critcise the selection of another player who's had a bad run? I don't get that.

I think I agree but Atherton as a punter opens himself up to critcism. Atherton may or may not be right but is it right to use his short comings against his opinions.
Botham was a terrible capitain and now again when he is critcising a captain I found myself wondering is he right one to do it?

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

I think we have to accept that pundits, when they become pundits, become experts in all forms and aspects of the game. Geoffrey Boycott has not been short of advice for bowlers since he started broadcasting and surely we have occasionally heard Bob Willis say "Nice shot, that", when really he wouldn't recognise a nice shot from a hole in the ground. Sometimes, even if only by accident, they get it right.

G Boycott - 7 test wickets at 54.57, best bowling 3-47
R G D Willis - 128 test innings for 840 runs at 11.50, highest score 28*

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Exactly. If a batsman makes a bad shot, then it shouldn't take a batsman to recognise it; if captaincy is poor, then it shouldn't take a great captain to point it out. I mean, commentators point out incorrect umpiring decisions, but does the fact that none of them were themselves umpires invalidate their views?

Its kind of hypocritical that Athers is complaining about the selection of someone who was selected when going through a bad patch, yet he was selected whilst going through a 3 year bad patch.

Why do people have selective memorys??

Since the 2005 Ashes Harmison:

Bowled very well in India and Pakistan before getting injured.
Bowled OK v Pakistan at home.
Had a knightmare first 2 ashes tests but bowled as well as anybody in the last 3.
Started to hit form v the WI at home and got injured.
Was our best bowler v SL in SL.
Was anonymous v NZ.

Thats hardly 3 years of continuous very poor performances is it??

Is that experts or "experts". I always remember watching, say Tres bat and when one of his footwork free shots goes through cover for 4 its a great shot. When it goes to slip its a terrible shot.....

__________________
Mark.

Hardly hypocritical. After all, Atherton didn't select himself. Besides, what's he going to say? "Harmison's going through a bad patch, but I had one too so forget I said anything?"

Since the 2005 Ashes he's averaged over 37 with the ball- better form than Broad's showing at the moment, but overall very ordinary. I'd rather see Hoggard or Jones return, both of whom have good CC records and can at least be relied on to tour.

I would also like to see Jones return, to feature alongside Harmison and Flintoff. With these three and Anderson and Sidebottom we have a decent squad of quicks who can be selected depending on the conditions.

I understand the selectors doubts about Jones' fitness though and it may be wise for him to see the season out and be ready to come back for the Ashes .

__________________
Mark.

Do you not doubt Harmison's mental fitness? Do you not worry that his first ball at Edgbaston will end up at second slip? Do you truly believe he'll tour again happily?