Nobody should have any complaints about England not bowling out South Africa twice. They gave everything and couldn’t have done any more. The Lord’s pitch had lost its pace and the last six matches have been draws. This pitch had no chance of being fast because of heavy rain in the days leading up to the Test.

The covers keep the pitch dry but the rain seeps deep down from the rest of the square and slows it up. Over five days it got slower and slower and more straw-coloured, which means that if even the bowler beats the batsman in length, he still has time to adjust.

Lord’s was a perfect fourth or fifth-day pitch to save a Test match. South Africa will be buoyed by this. Graeme Smith, the South Africa captain, knows he made a huge mistake by putting England into bat. His much-vaunted bowlers bowled rubbish on the first day. They then batted poorly in the first innings so, quite frankly, they got a get-out-of-jail card. But South Africa will get better for Headingley.

Both teams were asked to try the three-referral system similar to the one they use at Wimbledon. South Africa agreed but England’s players turned it down.

At Leeds, I would bat Flintoff at six. He is not in the best batting form so the middle-order does look a touch fragile but his bowling will be a huge plus. If a team have two great bowlers, like the Aussies had Warne and Glenn McGrath, then you can afford to pick just four bowlers because they will still have enough quality to bowl teams out.

I would have added Steve Harmison to the squad.

Ryan Sidebottom has a question mark over his back and Harmison with Flintoff would freshen up the attack and give us that extra pace.

Nobody deserves to be left out, but sometimes the head has to rule the heart. Harmison is bowling more and bowling better. If England pick five bowlers — four seamers and one spinner— it will not be as big a risk on Flintoff’s ankle and Harmison’s waywardness. If Harmison gets it right, his pace and bounce makes him a match-winner.

Meanwhile, there is an unseemly haste for television and radio rights, which are up for grabs for four years starting in 2010. Despite this, the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) can’t make up their minds what type of cricket we are going to play over those four years.

They’re arguing like mad over Twenty20. No one knows if the competition will be a short one or played over two months. In first-class cricket, they can’t make up their minds what they want to play. Some are talking about three conferences of six with playoffs. Others want to keep two divisions. Some would like to play every county once. How can companies bid to buy rights when they don’t know exactly what is on offer?

My view is that if we have too many Twenty20 matches in a short space of time, it could be overkill. We also have to think of financial implications for families. They can’t afford to pay two or three times a week to watch cricket. My view is we should play one Twenty20 match a week on the same night of every week so that families can afford it and they can plan their week around it.

If English cricket makes a lot more television money from Twenty20, it only attracts lots of overseas players here on huge contracts. How does that help English cricket? What good does that do for our game? It just takes money out of it.

To the ECB — stop rowing, scoring points off each other and start serious cricket discussion.