Breaking news on the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...nd/6140748.stm

hmmm Reads the better keeper.. jones the better batsmen... uggh i dunno. Bold move by Fletcher though

__________________

I don't see anything bold about playing a middle order of Flintoff, Jones and Giles: that's just panic. Fletcher seemed to have finally developed some guts this summer, backing Mahmood, Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar to bowl and six specialist batsmen to bat... but this signals a clear return to the bad old days. Flintoff should be coming in for Mahmood rather than Collingwood: that would have allowed both Read and Panesar to stay in the attack. Moving him to Collingwood's spot unbalances the side and the result is Jones and Giles: pathetic.

Fletcher really is a worse Test coach that ODI coach: he just doesn't have the guts to back his specialists... leading to an ugly side that doesn't include enough specialist bats, a specialist 'keeper or a specialist spiner - and right now I rather hope it all ends in tears and with the ******** getting the sack.

Just wait Giles will be in instead of Panesar next.

Not happy myself.

Could someone please explain the daft logic of taking two spinners into most Test matches and not playing your best keeper.

Australia is having selection dilemmas of their own too.
Jacques getting his second ton in a row today against England poses a problem of who to open for Australia.
Mitchell Johnson got 4-56 off 22 overs today at the Gabba incuding the wickets of D.Martyn and M.Hussey on the back of Taits fine spell of bowling against the English the other day. Stuart Clarke is back in form and McGrath is getting closer to his best. Who to select out of those guys?
Symonds knocked over three top order batsmen from W.A including Gilchrist thus going some way to staking a claim for the allrounders spot
If MacGill gets a swag of English wickets in the next day or two, that will only increase Australia's selection problems

As i say, England is not the only ones having selection problems.

__________________
The thought police are everywhere..............

This is pretty disgraceful stuff from Fletcher. Making an announcement like this after two days of cricket (in which Read has not had a chance) is dreadful man-management. Given the utterly ludicrous nature of this fourteen a side game, it might have been a good idea to let Jones and Read have an innings each. (What would have been better, of course, is to have played proper first-class cricket before the 1st Test rather than un-glorified practice matches, but that's for another day).

Read did very well in the summer, batted positively, kept fine. Sure, he had a poor CC with the bat, but if it wasn't for the failures of the top four, he would have been able to express himself. Jones so far on this tour has: caught a blinder, dropped an absolute sitter and hung around at the crease. It's hardly been inspiring. There is one thing that is for certain - if Jones had been the man in posession coming into the series and Read had played in the first match-and-a-third, Fletcher would not have made such an announcement.

I think there is an argument to give Jones another go - and England could have done that by playing Jones in one game, Read in another and telling them both that the selection in the first test was up for grabs. That would show who best handles pressure.

Well it's a daft logic for England to play two spinners in any case.

What was the point in recalling Read, he did not do well in ODI's, but Jones has not batted well for England in any sort of cricket for a long time.

Read has not batted well, Jones has not batted well - so logic says pick the best keeper.
greg is probably right, Fletcher could well have another chinwag with Flintoff and pick Giles over Panesar.

I thought Fletcher had gone dowbhill after last years Ashes triumph, I posted for him to go here , now I am sure he has lost the plot - he should go not Read.

__________________
Ern

Welcome to the board, First Change! Hope you'll enjoy your time here at WAT.

I agree with your comment on man management. It really does no-one any favours to make this sort of comment part way through a game, in my opinion, even a practice game. And I'm not convinced that having a bad ICCCT is a good enough reason for binning a keeper for an upcoming test series. I know the vociferous ODI supporters' club on the board will take issue with me on this, so I'll say now that I am not going to get into the usual debate about the importance of one-day versus test cricket, but the fact is that no-one in the England set up had a particularly good time in the ICCCT and, in the general scheme of things, that tournament is not an especially important one: certainly not important enough to give a basis for making this kind of selection decision for something which is as important to England as an Ashes series.

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

Even if Panesar plays in the Ashes, i doubt Flintoff will use him properly like Strauus did. Flintoff will want his mate (Giles) back in the side. Flintoff will over-bowl himself and under-bowl Panesar.

__________________
CC