ENGLAND'S dropping of wicketkeeper Matt Prior last week was not only insensitive, it was downright wrong.

It added to the farce that chairman of selectors David Graveney could not get hold of him to inform him of the shocking news. Prior was apparently holidaying in New York, clearly not expecting such a bombshell upon the announcement of the party to tour New Zealand.

Whether Graveney has to make any more of those calls in the future will be interesting. He was interviewed this week, along with other candidates including Sussex skipper Chris Adams, for the new post of national selector.

It will be the decision of my old mate and opening partner, Hugh Morris, in his new capacity as managing director of England cricket, to make the decision as to who takes that job. That is one big decision.

But if this is to be the final selection of the current panel of Graveney, Geoff Miller and coach Peter Moores it was not a good one on which to finish.

Not in my opinion, anyway. Prior is not even in the England A squad (or Lions as they are now stupidly called). But during the recent Sri Lanka tour there was talk that he might even be deserving of a central contract.

How has this dramatic fall come about? Well, as I said last week, Prior had one very poor Test in Galle. But the true reason is that the selectors have panicked. They have done this because, with England losing another Test series, they feel that they have to be seen to be doing something.

It is the curse of selection panels all the world round. Quite frankly it is pathetic.

And now Warwickshire's Tim Ambrose is the designated Test match keeper. I rate Ambrose but why was he not the second keeper in Sri Lanka? Because Durham's Phil Mustard was. And Graveney has told us that was because Mustard had been in Sri Lanka with the one-day party beforehand and was used to the conditions.

So if Prior had been injured, we would have had a bloke who was used to the conditions rather than the next best. What a muddle.

I don't like having two keepers for the two different forms of the game anyway. You have one international keeper, full stop.

Prior was capable of being that man. Not now he won't. I wager this setback will put his career back years.

In fact I wouldn't mind betting that in a year or so he announces that he is giving up the gloves to concentrate on just batting. And why not? He averaged over 40 in Sri Lanka and put most of the so-called specialist batsmen to shame.

And so England's quest for a keeper/batsman (and yes, before the old-time romantics start, he does have to bat) continues.

I also advocated the recall of Andrew Strauss last week and am glad it has happened. But even that does not truly make sense. Why was he omitted in the first place just after he had been awarded a central contract? And what has he done in the meantime to justify a recall? Nothing.

He's worked hard in the nets apparently, and is off to play some provincial cricket in New Zealand soon. But that is nothing to justify a recall.

It is all very strange. Maybe the selectors felt he does not play spin very well. So does that mean that he will be dropped from every tour to the sub-continent from now on?

I suspect there may be an element of the management trying to give some of the senior players a hurry up. There seems to be a common feeling that there is some complacency among those who won the 2005 Ashes. The treatment of Steve Harmison before the Sri Lanka tour- where he was told to prove his fitness- would seem to validate that.

With Harmison that might well be the case, but not with Strauss surely. He is the model professional and a damn fine bloke too. England need to look after him. I still think he should be the answer as skipper.

I don't like the split captaincy business and am not sure how long it will last. And for all his competitiveness and spirit I am also not sure that Paul Collingwood is the answer in both forms of the game.

Some might say Alastair Cook is the man but that is some way off. He's got enough on his plate for now.

Strauss can be the man and England can start that process by batting him at number three in New Zealand.

Cook and Michael Vaughan did well together at the top in Sri Lanka because Vaughan took the initiative and played the aggressive role Marcus Trescothick used to perform.

When Cook and Strauss opened neither could play that role naturally. Strauss attempted it but it was not just him. He has never batted anywhere but opener in Tests (although he has done so in one-dayers) for England but now might be the time.

In Vaughan's early days as skipper he preferred to bat down the order to give himself to think. So Strauss will be ready to do that when the time comes.

It's not that I think Vaughan is a poor skipper. Far from it. Just that England have backed themselves into a corner. Strauss can provide the get out in 2008.