Not so much the choice of seven batsmen - though the tendency is for a No 7 to play like a No 7, which wouldn't matter if he were Ian Healy - but more the decision to leave out Alex Tudor.

For as long as you like, England have craved a bright light on the quick-bowler front and the minute one was found, it was snuffed out. The argument that Australia omitted Jason Gillespie, their fastest bowler, so it must have been right for England to omit theirs, doesn't wash. The Australian team are in good shape, have Glenn McGrath to do their bullying and, anyway, the replacement for Gillespie, Stuart MacGill, is an attacking bowler.

The England team are desperate for something a bit different, someone the Australians aren't sure about, someone to take them on and upset their rhythm.

It was blindingly obvious that Tudor did this in Perth and to ignore him in favour of another mediumish-pacer, or yet another batsman, was crass. It illustrated a mis- understanding of so many things, which, in turn, explains a lot of the ordinariness in the English game.

First, who would Australia least like to play against? Tudor, of course. Second, Tudor is a talented, all-round cricketer who can bat sensibly, move quickly around the outfield and throw in hard and fast, and is a fast bowler who, contrary to expectation, does not spray it about but who bowls a tidy line around off-stump fancy the selectors missing that.

Third, what sort of message does this send to young English cricketers who are busting for the big time? Fourth, what confusion it must have brought upon Tudor. Fifth, what message does it send to Australians at large who view this England team as tactically negative and individually not too talented, and who thought that Tudor con- tradicted both? Now, the sixth . . .

Now, six is really important - it is the nub of the thing. English cricketers are not being allowed to grow up. They are cosy and spoilt and too many are immature. Little in their development has been earned and too much is given.

Here was a chance for Tudor to grow up overnight, however batsman-friendly the Adelaide pitch promised to be. Here was a chance to give a young English cricketer his head at a time when he was on a high. Ten days ago Tudor believed in himself unconditionally, now he will not be quite so sure.

The point is that the moment has gone because the day-to-day management of the team can't see further than the end of their noses. Here was a chance to make an impact - and, yes, there was a degree of risk compared with selecting the more experienced Dean Headley, say, but the risk was a part of the fascination, a part of the drama, and no one could see it. They probably don't understand just how important it is to give English cricket an injection of adventure.

After he plays in Hobart against a strong Australian second XI, in an anti-climax of a game, he could be back among the rank and file. What a waste. And if he plays in the fourth Test in Melbourne - he will, won't he? - Tudor will be hailed as England's saviour, which will increase and intensify the expectation surrounding him. If he fails to pull up trees, the cynics will ask what the fuss was about. Then we are back to square one. Such a shame.

Even Alec Stewart, as up-front and optimistic a captain as England could wish for right now, sounded helpless during his press conference. He said that England competed fine with everyone except Australia. No, he added, he couldn't put his finger on why not.

Leg spin, pace bowling, athleticism, all-round technical skill and a bold approach are among the reasons. Alex Tudor will help with a few of these and, in addition, he would give everyone hope and excitement, thrills which are badly needed if England and all who follow them are not to go home with their tails between their legs.