I am undeceided about this question of long term interests and keeping an eye on the long term future of players.
A few examples,
1. Kallis, for 3 years I have been arguing he shouldn't bowl to concentrate on batting.
2.Is todays Collingwoods innings in Englands long term interest?
3.Should England not bowl Flintoff too much with an eye on the Ashes.

I think they are all interesting questions.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

1) Kallis is a magnificent batsman, one of the all time greats from any country in any era. He is remarkably consistent and has got even better in the last 3-4 years. I don't think his bowling is ruining his batting much is it?

2) Collingwood is a gritty batsman with a good technique who is a superb fielder, popular in the dressing room and as hard as nails as far as "incidents" in the outfield with the opposition are concerned. It is massively in England's interests that he regains his form and stays in the side. I take my cap off to him for how he has performed here and let's hope it is a permanent change. I still say too many members of England's batting are not scoring enough runs though - there needs to be a shake up of some kind. Bell to open maybe?

3) Don't agree, he isn't good enough for a top six bat but is most definitely good enough in a 4 man bowling attack - we won the 2005 Ashes with a sustained period of success beforehand. We can't protect one or two players. Ranking points are always at stake.

__________________
Freddie Flintoff=God

Thats interesting because I think there is no hard and fast answers.
1. I am not so sure if the bowling isn't effecting his batting. I tend to think it is. I would rather have Kallis play the Collingwood use his bowling only as a last resort.

2.The problem about Collingwood's innings is very likely cemented a place for in the winter tour. Maybe when they could of been testing out other batsmen for the Ashes. I tend to think there are better batsmen than Collingwood.

I think it was probably a bad thing Harris got a couple of wickets it keeps him in the side he does not desreve to be in. He only got Pietersen's wicket because he was treating with complete contempt and played a ambitious shot. Now we are stuck with Harris.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

So, let me get this straight. It's a bad thing when Harris doesn't take any wickets, because he's not contributing the way he's supposed to, and when he does take wickets it's a bad thing because he might have earned his retention in the next Test. That's kind of like "heads I win, tails you lose" right?

Anyway, I doubt he'll play in the final Test, with Steyn coming back. Nel and Morkel have done too much, and the only one who could make way is Ntini- but that's not going to happen, because he's got all the "experience."

I argue that once you start tinkering with the balance of an allrounders batting over bowling, it is realy just a fast track to the end of their career, enjoy them for what they are and the balance of skills that enabled them to get where they are. Guys like Kallis are not used to standing around just feilding for half a game, they want involvement.
Yes, he should not have been dropped in the first place, if a batter in the England squad is deserving of being dropped it is Vaughan.
I think Flintoff needs some miles and balls in his legs and body. If he is over nursed and under used he will be at a greater risk of getting injured when the pressure comes on in the Ashes, than if he had built up a good level of stamina.

Thats a good way of putting it.
When Harris took Pietersen's wicket I cheered, of course. But as a second thought in a wider view a long term view how much does Harris contribute to team? Very little so maybe it would of been better in the long term had Pietersen not played that shot and gone on to make an even bigger score.

The difference between Vaughan and Harris is Vaughan has got a stack of centuries and the question of dropping him his more problematic.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Well I've always said that any team needs a spinner- the very fact that Harris is a spinner means that he's contributing some variety to the attack. If there's a better spinner, by all means bring him in. But if Peterson and Botha are his nearest competitors, then he comes out well on top IMO.

Now I like Vaughan- I think he's a classy batsman and a good sport- but if he can no longer contribute with the bat then he should probably be dropped. If he retired from international cricket, then he can at least reflect on a distinguished career which includes 5000 runs, a 40+ average, the good opinion of the Australians, the most Test victories as English captain and an Ashes victory. If he continues to play, on the other hand, and he doesn't get back into form and eventually gets dropped, then he'll be remembered for his undistinguished end. So if I were Vaughan and I failed in the final Test, I know what I'd do.

Those centuries were a very long time ago. Most were also prior to his knee surgery.

The fact is Harris takes a spot in the side and realistic thing he does nothing. He is 29 hardly one for the future. I think we should of played four pace bowlers it was a mistake.
Pietersen's stupid shot let him off the hook made it look like he was doing something. I said SA would pay a price for Harris inclusion and I think that is happening.
As for Collingwood in the long term that century could be the worse thing. Collingwood is inconsistent to say the least as a Test player instead of developing a batsmen for next years Ashes Collingwood will keep his place. Than he will face the Aussies who are different prospect to SA.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Paying a price? He's taken two wickets so far. If South Africa lose this Test, it'll be down to the disappointing efforts of Morkel and Nel in the second innings, who have largely been responsible for letting Collingwood off the hook.

As to "the realistic thing he does nothing" he still has a respectable Test record. He's obviously done something in previous series to keep his place, and now that he's finally doing something in this series it's hardly a bad thing.

I think by general consensus there are only three contenders for his spot. Two are Key and Shah, both of whom are nearly as old as Collingwood is. So they're not really long-term solutions. The other is Bopara. He's 22, and a good long-term prospect. However, his efforts in Test cricket so far suggest that he may not be ready. So England are hardly sacrificing a long-term prospect by throwing him to the wolves when there's no real need.