But with only pride at stake, should the selectors have gambled a little more?

Click here to read more about the squad selection

England have stuck with familiar faces for the Headingley Test which starts on Thursday.

Captain Nasser Hussain has been recalled after injury while Hampshire bowler Alan Mullally is back in the 13-man squad.

The only other new name is Somerset's Richard Johnson who was called up as a late replacement for Chris Silverwood for the last game but didn't play.

Chairman of Selectors David Graveney admitted that players like David Fulton of Kent, Richard Montgomerie of Sussex and Middlesex's Owais Shah were also considered.

Should they have been given their chance in a game like this?

Are the selectors right to go for the tried and trusted formula or should they have rung the changes?

Tell us what you think

David Fulton has now scored over 1600 runs this year and still doesn't get picked. Fulton is one of a number of players who deserve a chance in the Test side and what else can they do? I know, score over 2000 runs David and you might make 12th man! Also, isn't it a good time to replace Stewart as keeper and give Test experience to someone like Nixon?
Andy Smith, England

Even to those of us accustomed to the irrational bias of the England selectors, the persistent selection of Ramprakash and Croft appears breathtakingly stupid. Croft lacks the skill and cunning to bowl at the highest level. If he is the best we have, it is time to abandon the idea of a specialist spinner and encourage batsmen to do the job. Despite considerable technical skill, Ramprakash clearly does not have the bottle to deal with difficult circumstances. His inclusion must demoralise the rest of the squad and those players more worthy of a trial. If these selectors remain in office, I predict that Rod Marsh will leave in disgust within a year of taking charge of the Academy.
Tom, UK

I must agree with the intelligent comments of my fellow readers. Perhaps these people should be chosen to pick the team instead - they can't do much worse. The selectors stick with proven no hopers like Ramprakash and Croft. While wholesale changes can rarely be justified, what harm is there in playing youngsters like shah and peng in two dead rubbers. They would relish the chance to play against the best. Perhaps this page of comments should be sent to messrs graveney and co. to encourage a little freshness of thought.
Neil Clarke, England

I applaud the selectors' attempts to provide some consistency of selection, although Sidebottom and Knight should not have been asked to play in a single Test and then abandoned. However, I would like to have seen Flintoff given a chance against the Aussies - is he still in the doghouse for the fit/not fit controversy in the winter? As a young player with tremendous promise (if also with a perceived attitude problem) how is he going to improve as an international cricketer if he does not get selected? And just think of what he could do to the Aussies if he came off with the bat !
Richard Greenhough, UK

Why do the selectors keep picking Ramps and Croft? the series is over, so why not pick all the young players? Even if they get no runs they will at least gain some needed experience. we are going backwards not fowards!
Peter Macciochi, England

A gutless, nay mindless, selection of the batting line up. How can Ramprakash possibly be retained after playing "that shot" in the last test? He has done less well in test cricket than Hick. How come Fulton doesn't get the nod? How many big hundreds does the guy have to score? Do we have such little faith in the county game that the countries leading running scorer, the man with the best average, man in the form of his life and a man, whom if selected, might offer England five or six years good service doesn't get to play test cricket? Are we trying to hand the Aussies a 5-0 whitewash? At least the bowling attack will benefit from Mullally's inclusion.
Andy Johnstone, France

The continued selection of Croft and Ramprakash (to name but two!) verges on the cretinous. Perhaps the selectors have confused the former's bowling average with the latter's batting average? We have lost the Ashes and the only reaction is to restore a 32-year-old (with a distinctly chequered Test record) to a squad already packed with seasoned losers. After 30 years of following English cricket I am tempted to boycott this lot once and for all.
Clive Nuttman, Scotland

Yet again the selectors show little or no imagination with their choice of new players. Instead of being bold and introducing fresh-faced youngsters with proven potential now that The Ashes are lost, they keep to the same old faces such as Stewart and Atherton. Both players are exceptional but they won't be around forever. I would have thought it more beneficial to go for broke with new talent for the future, let them taste the big time now so that they get that invaluable experience in as soon as possible rather than just swapping teams every five minutes with the same old warhorses.
Russell O, England

There should have been bolder moves by the selectors. Mark Wagh of Warks, a fine young prospect, should have been thrown in. Similarly, Ryan Sidebottom should have been given the nod instead of Mullally because he is a player for the future. It's time that England selectors stopped picking guys like Butcher and Mullally who are into their thirties. It's a team for the future that we, English cricket fans, want. Not one that clings to the past.
Abilash Nalapat, England

With Australia already winning the Ashes, why don't the selectors try to introduce new younger players to the squad? But no, we have to trudge on with the likes of Stewart (who has contributed very little to the Tests so far in the Ashes?)and Michael Atherton, who could easily be replaced by countless other batsmen. With Nixon and other wicket keepers on form why do we not try to introduce youngsters that we all rave on about. Will the new Academy really work if we don't even give new players a chance now.
Tom Greasley, England

The core of the England team is sound, although it would be nice to have it playing in this series. That said, we do need to work to include newer names. Ramprakash and Butcher are old news - from the losing days. They should not have been considered; instead, new blood should be brought in to fill the places left by Thorpe and Vaughan. I don't know why Mullally is there either - but thank heavens they have finally brought back Tudor! He was the find of two summers' ago and then forgotten after his injury.

But when, oh when, are they going to do something about Stewart? His contribution to English cricket cannot be understated, but I would rather see him bow out graciously now than to see his averages drop further. Besides, we desperately need to work on getting a new keeper some experience. England need to play to their own timetable and not wait until Stewart retires and then scramble to fill his place.
Richard Braiswell, Toronto, Canada

What else does Dave Fulton have to do! Since the last Test match he has scored 515 runs at an average of God knows what, yet he still gets left out! Why don't we just pick the rest of the Aussies playing in English cricket. We'd probably be more competitive!
Phill Thorne, UK

Ben Link, with typically sound Aussie sporting knowledge, has hit the nail on the head: we need to nurture young potentials by using our past greats. We have to start planning for five years time.
Andrew Spencer, Spain

England have already lost the series and there would be no harm in trying new blood. I have seen David Fulton play and he is playing brilliantly at the moment, being the highest run scorer out of the English batsmen.
Paul Willcocks, UK

The team selection shows just what is wrong with English cricket. We have the players, but there is absolutely no coherence in selection. They pick a player like Ian Ward, play him out of position, his form suffers, then they drop him. Absolutely crazy. What sort of company would recruit someone, put him or her in a position to which he or she was unsuited and then wonder why the person fails to perform? Again the selectors are being totally short-sighted. It is time for Stewart and others to be thanked for their services and for the management to look to build a team for the future.
Robert Croft, England

The selectors have got it right with the dropping of White and Ward and the recalling of Afzaal. But to continue with Croft is a step backwards. They should have gone for Tufnell, and they should have brought back Flintoff.
Jamie Russell, UK

Why aren't the likes of Bob Willis mentoring your young quicks? Boycott and Gooch raw bats? Botham into every new players psyche before they're even allowed on the paddock? Political and class structure games are not the ones that win trophies.
Ben Link, Australia

England have been beaten by the best team in the world and without Hussain, Thorpe and Vaughan for most of the series. There is no need to make wholesale changes. Now is the time to think about a typical Australian -type formation with six batsmen, a wicket keeper, a spinner and three seamers, especially wth Stewart's retirement imminent. Therefore, play: Athers, Trescothick, Butcher, Hussain, Ramprakash, Afzaal/Ward/White, Stewart, Tudor, Caddick, Gough and Tuffers.

With the Oval straight after, add Thorpe, Vaughan and Mullaly or Martin Bicknell too. Bicknell seems to be consistently overlooked by the selectors, despite producing the goods every year; Mullally too (in Tests) - he is in fine form and would provide variation. Bring back Tufnell - every cricketer knows he's our best spinner by a mile and also in great form. Croft is OK for tours to the sub-continent but can't turn it an inch over here. It's all very well shouting for youngsters but let's face it, throw more than one or two youngsters in and we would be steam-rollered - they need more experience in the county game.
James Hemingway, UK