That 92/93 tour summed up the inconsistent selection policies of the day.

When we'd got thrashed in the 1989 Ashes, and a lot of the players got Test bans for signing up for Gatting's rebel tour of SA, all the talk had been of using this opportunity to rebuild the England team with the obviously good young talent coming through, Graham Gooch's "young lions" had shaped up pretty well against a top W Indies team that winter. They also set up the England A side as a touring team to groom some players for the full Test team. But over the next few years, gradually they started turning back the clock again, Gower got recalled, we had ageing guys like Wayne Larkins and Eddie Hemmings having short term spells in the team.

By 1992 there was a good group of young players emerging in the county game, Graham Thorpe, Dominic Cork, Mark Ilott, and David Millns. These guys looked well worth a shot in the Test team. But then ICC announced that all the players who had gone on Gattings rebel tour had their bans revoked so instead of the younger players it was straight back to Gatting, John Emburey and Paul Jarvis for the India tour. They recalled Neil Foster against the Aussies the next summer as well.

The other really strange thing at this time was that whilst the young lads who looked like they had real talent, sat in the 'A' team for years (and in the case of Millns, never got a call up), there were a lot of one off selections of county pros in their late 20s, who had 'earned themselves a shot', and were given a token game or two. Richard Blakey was taken as the keeper for that India tour, and was miles out of his depth. Paul Taylor from Northants was another very random selection. There was an odd situation with Taylor a couple of years later, when Atherton was captain, when Atherton and Illingworth had a big fall out because Illingworth insisted on recalling Taylor (a steady county bowler but never a Test bowler) instead of Fraser who Atherton wanted....so Atherton just refused to bowl him more than a handful of overs and effectively played with 3 front line bowlers, so Illingworth had to drop him for the next Test because he knew Atherton wouldn't use him! But he wouldn't pick Fraser because that would have been backing down to Atherton, so instead he picked Gough (which was one of Illingworth's good picks).

The odd thing about picking the older county pros who'd 'earned a shot', was that whilst most of them did nothing, the ones who were successful were also dropped straight away. Neil Mallender bowled us to victory against Pakistan on debut, and was dropped to bring Jarvis back, and never seen again. Peter Such got wickets against the Aussies in his early Tests, and disappeared quickly, although he strangely reappeared again about five years later. Richard Illingworth and Peter Martin came into the team out of the blue, performed pretty solidly, and then disappeared. I think a lot of players were selected as token gestures, without the selectors ever having the intention of keeping them for more than a few Tests no matter how they did.

I was talking to my cousin the other day who's now a naturalised Aussie and living in Sydney (has been for 40 years).

He's always been so sure that the Aussie's were going to win The Ashes every time they're played but this time he reckons England will retain them. I've never known him to be defeatist when it comes to England v Australia but he reckons their players are just not good enough.

I hope he's right.

Terrible first day for England, being skittled out for just 260 on a good batting pitch, letting such a average bowler like Peter Siddle rip through them, if the Aussies get around 400 or more in there 1st innings its game over, the bowlers have a massive job on there hands on day 2.

Fairbrother had a decent chance with England IIRC with 10 matches and 15 innings. The problem for him was of not delivering. He had 9 innings where he scored single figures, only 2 innings above 30, with a 83 against India being a highlight. His first 4 innings for England contributed only 5 runs.

Good start

Agreed, although the point which Angry Pirate makes is valid about when they played Pakistan in 1987 and sent him in the dark rather than sending a nighchman, it wasn't helpful to a young player starting his Test career. However Fairbrother did seem to be in the England fold in that he was in the One Day side for a while, I remember him getting a great century against the W Indies in a Texaco Trophy match, and he was a big player for us in the 92 World Cup, I think he was our best batsman in the final. The difference between Fairbrother and guys like Hick and Ramprakash was with those two, the doubts weren't about them having the technique for the top level, it was about whether they had the mental side to it, so the constantly being dropped and recalled and dropped again and recalled again weren't helpful. With Fairbrother the doubts were whether his technique was up to Test cricket, and in the chances he did have, he didn't make a good case, so I think it became case closed and he was just kept as a ODI player (in the end he did have a good international career). The same thing happened to Michael Bevan with the Aussies, who probably would have come good in Test cricket but for the fact it was so competitive getting into the Aussie middle order at the time (even Stuart Law only had one Test innings, he got a fifty and never played again!). Bevan's big chance was the 94/95 Ashes, but all the doubts were if he could handle fast bowling, and Devon Malcolm got him in all sorts of trouble, he got dropped, Greg Blewett came in and got a hundred, and it was case closed for Bevan and he too ended up as a one day player.

true the aussies have the upper hand and we need quick wickets.just got a feeling we are gonna toil for a good 2 days in the field which takes the game well away from us...is there any rain on the way,only chance of saving this test unless the bowlers do a good job

Let's not get too downhearted. We do have a good bowling attack, and we don't hold the Aussie batting line up in the same awe as the last decade or so.
A few batting failures by some players with "not great" form, haven't helped matters, but this Test is far from out of our hands. We've still got every chance.

bloody new it...cant see us batting for nearly 2 days to save this test..sadly we`ve been outplayed for 3 days..rain is our likely saviour

Wouldn't say outplayed, just on the receiving end of a very good partnership which has been the difference between the 2 sides.

Also, as I've pointed out on another thread, I would love to see the review system changed.....Its quite bizarre that cricket seem to view the system as a tactical part of the game, when it surely should be used as a method of eliminating incorrect decisions.

They need to follow Rugby's example and leave the decision making in the hands of the match officials....Any referals should be made by the umpires alone, not at the request of the fielding captain or batsman.....Hussey was out in the morning session, but England didn't have any referals left.....What should be happening is when an obviously close decision like that needs analysing, then the umpire should be able to request a video decision and then the correct decision will be given.

Completely agree. If they're going to have this technology, they should have to use it for EVERY decision where there can be any doubt.

They also need to either speed up 'Snicko' or just get rid of it from telly replays - what good is it 3 overs later when the batsman's still there...?

superb responce from our boys,was`nt expecting that sort of reply.jobs not done yet tho,early wickets and the aussies will smell blood..just hope the rest of the england batters can do there bit when it comes to their turn at the crease

Would love to see England try and score quickly tonight. 120 in the first session, and then a rapid 50 or 60 after lunch. Declare 250 odd ahead, and put them under some pressure with a session and a half to go.

Doubt Strauss will be up for such tactics though.

Great response. Was hoping for a loss of only 3 wickets at best yesterday. Ponting has not got a bowler to turn to when they are struggling. Johnson is having a shocker so far.

No because that increases the chance of an Australian victory much more than it does us. The captains who get praised for that sort of bold attacking declaration are generally captains who have world class bowlers who could skittle teams out. If we declare 250 odd ahead and they have a session and a half (45-50 overs) then it makes it like a one day game with a target of 5 an over which the Aussies would fancy themselves to get more often than not, but if we make inroads and knock them down to say 35-3 after ten overs, then they will just say fair enough shut the gate, and its an easy job to bat out 35-40 overs with wickets in hand.

Given that the Ashes are at stake, we are in Australia, and we are the holders, there is no point trying to take risks with this one. Better to ensure we get a draw and grind down the Aussies, personally I wouldn't even let them have a bat, just bat slowly through the day, while their fans grumble and curse about boring cricket, let Cook try and slowly accumulate his way to a double hundred and just say to him and Trott and anyone still to bat, today is free runs, bat as selfishly as you want to improve your total, and just sledge the Aussies while you are at the wicket. That will send a message to Australia, we are going to be spoilsports and just bat and occupy the crease this series, and get draws, and you haven't got the bowling power to do anything about it. The Aussies, knowing that as they need to win the series to regain the Ashes, will then know they have to take the intiative, ie score quick runs in the other games to give themselves time to bowl us out....then if we bowl in a disciplined manner it only takes one bad Aussie innings and they could blow a Test.

I'd be happy to bat out 5 draws and sledge the Aussies while we're doing it, then come home with the Ashes.

You have just described Boycott.

superb post...agree 100% about not declaring and giving the aussies a bat leave them to suffer in the field..sends out a message that after 2 days you could`nt bowl us out (should it work out that way)..the onus is on them and i too would take 5 draws....

I haven't heard Boycott saying it, but I agree my post does sound better read in a Geoff Boycott voice....

Good ending to the test, allthough I was hoping that we'd bat all day, forcing their quicks to be bowling all the time in Aussie heat, thus making them tired for the next Test, which has a quick turn around time (starting Friday).

Bar Siddall's hat-trick and a couple of thrown away wickets, this has to be the Aussies weakest bowling line up in my cricket viewing lifetime ('81 onwards). I'll be disappointed if we don't return home with the urn.

confident we can retain the ashes now..my 7/4 looks rather good..well done england

Don't understand Strauss's declaration really. It didn't rub their noses in it as it prevented them having to field all day as people above have suggested he should have done, and it didn't give them any chance of winning, which made it pointless. If anything, it just gave Ponting the chance to smack our attack around a bit...

The best reason I can come up with is that he did it as soon as Cook passed Bradman's ground record. Though I doubt the Aussies will be at all ar$ed by that.

Still, I'm on 3-0 and 4-0 England, so musn't grumble. The toss at Adelaide could prove very important indeed.

brilliant start to the 2nd test..seems we have the aussies on the back foot..ponting exchanging words with strauss at the end of play.just hope we get a good lead and put the pressure on the whining aussies

I'd settle for 325-0 by stumps on the 2nd day

Was a decent 1st over to start with

Great effort in the field yesterday just need to capitalise now and get a 400+ score in the 1st innings which we seem to struggle with.

Apparently this was down to Anderson's sledging of Haddin. LMAO.