Sports fans are fickle. It is their nature and probably their right. But there is certainly a feeling that the batsmen have been operating in a comfort zone. It is dificult to understand - and I'm sure you will have some sympathy with this - how two bowlers can be jettisoned without a by your leave and yet the jolly boys simply sail merrily on.
Owais Shah has been treated badly by the selectors, certainly throughout this winter. Early days, but with the pitch presumably likely to get better before deteriorating later on a bit, England could lose this, I guess.

The selectors had better start selecting. They've had as bad a run as the top order. Geoff Miller, the new chairman or whatever fancy name he has been given must make his mark quickly.
What they must also do is look at the issue of the captaincy. When Miller was appointed he quite glibly gave both one-day and Test captains his backing,as though they could be there forever. There is a growing feeling that Michael Vaughan does as he wants, batting where he wants, and that his position is untouchable.

An absolute shocker - it's almost as though the players began to over-believe all the hype that this was such a featherbed that there was no reason to even try to see off the new ball, and that a century was already in the bag! Apart from Vaughan, who actually was "gotten" out, and who got themselves out? Bell's dismissal was a total embarassment - I just can't for the life of me figure out how he ended up playing a baseball drive to such a poor ball to a trundling part timer without the skill of Oram. The same would apply to Cook and Collingwood - they just seem to get the "yips", or ants in their pants - I don't know what it is, but this is the deciding test, the cup final, and you can't keep expecting your bowlers to bail you out on every occasion. As I think Angus said on a previous day, eventually the bowlers will start to get a little peeved, especially if they see NZ cashing in on this pitch while they are running in tirelessly trying to undo the damage yet again to defensive fields due to a low total.

My worry about Geoff Miller is that he was already part of the original sleection panel for many years previously, so will we really see anything new here?

Maybe an already muted idea is to have 20 central contracts with a basic (although not bad) basal salary, but with high bonus's (not necessarily for wins) for milestone runs/wickets within a test match.

There is but finding that person is always quite hard. I'm not sure where I sit on Vaughan. If he goes, along with Strauss, Bell, Hoggard and Harmison, that's half a team. England will then be going back to the bad old days of the eighties and nineties, which is not where they want to be.

I liked the look of Southee when he played in the Twenty20 matches against England. He has a nice simple, high action that is easy to repeat and he seems to know what he is doing, which, for a 19 year-old, is very encouraging. In the Twenty20's he bowled good yorkers at Pietersen and kept him quiet when he was ooking for quick runs. He deserved his wickets and a bright future beckons. When he was interviewed at the end of play he seemed totally unflustered too. Nice lad - good bowler. I hope the coaches eave him alone and let him develop naturally.

I think England have got themselves into a selectors' version of no-mans-land. Half of this team is looking forward, half of it is looking back to the Ashes in 2005 - and generally the forward looking half seems to be doing better. I am not surprised that the bowling has generally held up, because it is new, relatively young, and untainted by the yips. Sidebottom has been a marvel, Panesar is the best spinner we have seen in 20 years, even if he is still learning, while Broad's promise seems immense to me. If Anderson really has come into his promise, that's a pretty good attack, especially with Hoggard, maybe Flintoff, Onions etc in the wings.

Battingwise, I am not convinced. I would argue that the 40 average is the new 35 in terms of modern pitches and better bats. It marks you as competent, but no more. The new 40, I suggest is 45-50, maintained over a number of years. As for what to do with the batting: Cook has done very well for one so young, while Pietersen remains the finest batsman we have seen for a couple of decades. Both of them should be longterm certainties. Strauss has lost it, perhaps permanently, which is sad, but the facts can't now be avoided. Bell - well, he is young, but he seems to be doing the Transylvanian time warp - a step to the left a jump to the right - and nobody quite knows where he is. We've heard a lot about how he is one breakthrough innings away from being great, and I want to believe it. Unfortunately, what I see is a pattern of inconsistency emerging, and that worries me. That leaves Vaughan and Collingwood. No-one disputes Vaughan as a fine batsman - in the past - but is he now the batsman he was? Equally, has his captaincy passed its sell-by date? For my money, the answer is beginning to look a little bleak. Collingwood has always made something of the talent he has, and is a fine fielder, which adds something to his claims. Ambrose - too early to judge, but looks promising.

What to do then? I would drop Strauss and probably Bell as well. Strauss most likely would go for good, while Bell needs to spend a year maturing, learning how to dominate an attack, and generally learning what consistency means. Who should replace them? I would definitely give Shah a run, in Bell's place, and move Vaughan to three. Cook needs a more aggressive partner, someone younger, less tainted by anxiety. Denly might work, and his name has been mentioned frequently enough of late. I would look for someone to replace Vaughan if the summer goes poorly. Pietersen strikes me as worth a gamble here. He is hardheaded, fights with everything he has, and woud not be afraid to gambe. Plus, he must have learned something from Shane Warne. Engand need to forget the 2005 Ashes, look ahead for the next decade, and make the necessary changes.

As a sidenote, the sooner England make fielding an area for serious improvement, the happier I shall be. It can be done, and must be done. Look at how Sri Lanka improved their fielding. I refuse to believe that England are any less physically equipped to do the job. What must change is attitude - and fast. Engand have remained amateurs in a professional world - and that always gets punished. Surely the last two years have shown us that.

Yes, well that message seems pretty clear. The selectors would be foolish not to listen.
Joe Denly seems to have a lot of support out there. Personally, I think another Kent opener may be deserving of another look, having been disdainfully treated under a previous regime: Robert Key is a stylish, tough player.
But I've just been doing some research for a piece on Marcus Trescothick. How England miss him.
As for Vaughan, the question has to be asked - because it is what England crave above all - whether he will be captain come the 2009 Ashes. On the answer to that question the selectors must act.

Stephen, on the need for stomach and toughness: yes, Robert Key.