Touchy, touchy, touchy. Of course, In agree with you in your assessment of what Tests have to offer. But I'll bet a 14-year-old would have tuned into Lord's and turned off. That, unfortunately, is the essential truth of the matter.

You're also right in saying that England are in a big contest here. They shouldn't drop Broad, of course, but equally he has a long way to go. He is not the finished article and we shouldn't expect him to be so.
I shall feel very sorry for Collingwoood if he is the one to go, but that's what England must do. Five bowlers are needed pure and simple.
Had the selectors been truly objective they might well have considered the wicketkeeping position. Ambrose kept wicket with reasonable competence throughout - there was one spilled chance off Panesar - but the jury's still out on his batting. I would have Matt Prior in. He was made a scapegoat for England's paltry performance in Sri Lanka late last year but he could probably bat at six.

To win Test matches consistently against good opposition, England need five bowlers (unless one of four was either Shane Warne or Glenn McGrath and it isn't) so Panesar should play.
But he was disappointing and wicketless second time round. Now tell use Gus was that because these were players who knew what they were doing and Panesar simply wasn't good enough, or wily enough? At Old Trafford against New Zealand he looked unplayable and in South Africa's first innings at Lord's their batsmen found him a handful. But he was frankly innocuous for most of Sunday and Monday, his repertoire limited. But yes, he has to play. Sides need spin.

I agree with you - Panesar has to play. He has bowled well and taken wickets there in the past too. But over the last two days he has failed to fulfil the role England wanted from him. In South Africa's first innings England's seamers dismissed most of the top order batsmen, making it easier when he came on. He bowled well and had a bit of luck - bowling Neil McKenzie behind his legs, James Anderson took a brilliant catch at mid on to dismiss AB de Villiers and the other two victims were tail enders.

In the first innings South Africa wanted to attack him and that brought him in to the game. In the second top order - better - players just sat on him and he did not have the wherewithall to ask different questions.

Great spinners adapt to the surface the game is being played on, I don't think Panesar does. He bowls the same most games and he is effective - Old Trafford - when a pitch comes along that suits the pace he bowls at. Monty is a fine bowler, a bowler who will probably take more Test wickets than Ian Botham - 383 - if the coffin lid has not been nailed down on Test cricket.

Abu, I agree with you about South Africa if not the make-up of England's attack. Despite Vaughan's upbeat comments England will be tired and slightly dispirited when they arrive in leads, whilst South Africa will be fresh and raring to go. South Africa's bowlers need more bowling but England's need a rest. The toss wil be important - England could do with winning it and batting.

About this Test:-
part of the problem is that the Lords pitch seems to be most difficult to bat on during days 2 and 3, then flattens out into the most mundane track in the world for days 3 and 4, which tends to produce a sterile finish.

The cricket was excellent for the first 3 days - England batted really well and the Saffers bowled poorly, then got skittled by a mixture of decent bowling (i.e. on a length) and poor batting. However, those first 3 days are forgotten because of the awful drudge of the last 2.

Of course it's hard to produce a good pitch, but that's why good groundsmen are in such high demand, and a lot of other test venues seem to manage it fine. There's no way a pitch should be so easy to bat on in the last 2 days of a test match. Sure, England don't have the best bowling attack, but any team would have struggled to take wickets on that flat track. Could it be that those in charge see it as more important to produce a pitch which lasts 5 days thus maximising ticket revenue, than risking a 3 or 4 day test and producing a result pitch.

Jenner may have a point. And if he does Test cricket is definitely doomed. This is a point to be further discussed at another time but I actually think there is a case for four day Tests.

yes, for South Africa, Nel should definitely play.

But am I the only one yearning for the recall of England's express bowlers? I know this pace attack has performed admirably, but I would still like to see Harmisson and perhaps Saj Mahmood back in the side. Both those guys are as fast as Morkel and Steyn...