Victims of poor selection?

Ah yes, the frustration of following England is back. After a first test which promised so much, all of England's failings have returned once more.

So what went wrong?

First of all, Darren Pattinson. No-one knows who picked him, and no-one seems to know why he was picked. The 29 year old Australian born seamer was seemingly plucked from obscurity to take the injured Ryan Sidebottom's place in the second test at Leeds, and he gave a solid performance. But why were players such as Simon Jones and Matthew Hoggard overlooked? They are in fine form for their counties, and have more experience and pedigree than Pattinson.

Personally I would plump for Simon Jones in the next test. His bowling average is fantastic at present, and more crucially, he has stayed fit. His inclusion would give the bowling attack more pace and penetration, something that is desperately needed.

Then there was the inclusion of Andrew Flintoff.

Flintoff is a fine player, there is no doubt about that, but his return provided England with a dilemma. The decision to go with five bowlers to accomodate Flintoff was a poor one in my opinion, no less so because Tim Ambrose was promoted to bat at six, and was clearly uncomfortable in doing so. If the wicket keeper is to be considered as the sixth batter, then Ambrose is not the answer. His batting just isnt good enough for that role. Matt Prior has proved himself to be more than adequate with the bat recently, and is tidy with the gloves. He could be worth considering. Either way, the balance of the team just wasnt right here, and questions have to be answered for the upcoming Third Test.

Should England stick with five bowlers or revert to the policy that served them well at Lord's? Do England stay consistent with their selection, or make further changes?

More questions than answers? Sounds like England to me.