The irony should not be lost on anyone. On Tuesday, Hugh Morris, the managing director of English cricket, called the selectors together to instigate a bit of head-banging. He was about a year too late. As part of the Schofield review, Morris had the chance to help to put in place a new selection structure, but what they came up with was the same in all but name.

For the chairman of selectors read the national selector. Different name, but the problems - a lack of accountability and some occasional confusion - remain.

The Schofield review missed a chance to clarify who picks the XI that takes the field. It was the Ashes shambles in Australia in 2006-07, remember, that provoked the need for this working party to look into selection, among other things, in particular the need to avoid a repeat of what happened to Chris Read and Monty Panesar.

Read and Panesar were the men in possession and had been picked by the selection panel but were overlooked when the first Ashes Test match in Brisbane began. In Read's case, especially, it was obvious that he was rated by the selectors but not by the captain or coach - a repeat of what is happening to Chris Tremlett, who continues to be picked in the squad and then ignored for the final XI.

Not everything Australian is to be admired or copied, but it is hard to imagine the Australia captain and coach being drawn into such a post-match shambles. They have no formal say in selection and whenever they are asked about it they refer the matter to their equivalent of the national selector. England should either do the same or move to a system in which the coach has football-style authority with clear-cut responsibility and accountability.

In extended talks this week lasting about four hours, the selectors had five main issues to resolve before naming a squad of 13 today for the third Test against South Africa at Edgbaston.

What is Andrew Flintoff's role?

This question is at the heart of the matter and affects every other issue, below. Is he a genuine all-rounder or a bowler who bats? By putting him at No 7, the selectors have acknowledged that he is the latter. In which case a No 6 must be found - presumably Paul Collingwood - and the best four bowlers picked. In the short-term this is unsatisfactory because four bowlers cannot have a better chance of taking 20 South Africa wickets than five. Long term, it is unsatisfactory, too. Five bowlers will give England the best chance of beating Australia.

The wicketkeeper?

Tim Ambrose is a decent gloveman, but he is no Test-match No6. He is an adequate No7. If the selectors want five bowlers, they may be forced to return to Matt Prior, the best of the batsmen-wicketkeepers. But they will be fearful of the criticism that will follow another change to this key role - another reason why they will consider six batsmen and four bowlers and retain Ambrose, but this time at No8.

Who is the better all-rounder, Flintoff or Stuart Broad?

This is not as silly a question as it sounds. Long term, Broad can be a better all-rounder. For the moment he is a better batsman than Flintoff (and Ambrose) but not as good a bowler. His Test bowling average is a shade under 50 and he has taken only three wickets against South Africa in the two Tests so far.

If England play only four frontline bowlers, he may have to go, which is not ideal, given that he is progressing beautifully. If the selectors leave him out on tiredness grounds (tired, after a nine-day break?) this will be a convenient excuse, allowing them to get Collingwood back in the team without losing face. Broad could help England to find the perfect balance in time.

Who is the strike bowler?

The return of Flintoff was supposed to solve this problem, but one wicket in 40 overs reminded everyone that he does not get that many big-wicket hauls. His strike-rate in Test cricket is 64 and he has taken two five-fers. James Anderson is an increasingly substantial cricketer, but he does not lead the attack, and questions remain whether Ryan Sidebottom's success was a flash in the pan or whether he is fit enough to get the late swing that makes him so dangerous. These questions bring Simon Jones and Stephen Harmison into the equation.

What should be done about Darren Pattinson?

If he is left out, it looks as if the selectors are making him a scapegoat for a shocking team performance. Cowardly. Leaving him out for Tremlett also defies logic. If he remains in the squad, the awkwardness of the past week will be revisited. Given that the selectors had prepared the ground by selecting him in their initial 30 for the ICC Champions Trophy, we can assume that this was not a one-off selection. Will the selectors have the courage of their convictions to pick him?

So, what will the selectors do? My hunch is not much - maybe replace Tremlett and Pattinson and bring Harmison into a squad of 13. They will have been stung by the reaction to their most recent foray into a flight of fancy and they will retreat into their shells. This would be no bad thing; but it is never wise to experiment too much after one bad defeat because it gives the impression of panic. The options for the final XI are to replace Pattinson with Sidebottom, who is fit again, and possibly Collingwood for Broad.

Kevin Pietersen joins Darren Pattinson debate

Kevin Pietersen added weight to Michael Vaughan's view that the choice of Darren Pattinson had a detrimental impact on the England dressing-room during the second Test match against South Africa at Headingley Carnegie, but he also agreed that the new bowler should not be made a scapegoat for the ten-wicket defeat (Richard Hobson writes). “For sure it felt differently at Headingley,” Pietersen said. “I was sitting next to a guy I had never seen, I met him at breakfast and an hour later he was sitting next to me as I was getting ready to bat in a Test match.

“But we lost because we played badly, not because of the selection. We batted badly, South Africa won a good toss in overcast conditions and I felt sorry for Patto because if we had won the toss he might have got a cheeky four or five-fer. He didn't bowl badly at all.”

Names in the frame

The selectors’ possible XIII: M P Vaughan (Yorkshire, captain), T R Ambrose (Warwickshire, wicketkeeper), J M Anderson (Lancashire), I R Bell (Warwickshire), S C J Broad (Nottinghamshire), P D Collingwood (Durham), A N Cook (Essex), S J Harmison (Durham), M S Panesar (Northamptonshire), K P Pietersen (Hampshire), A Flintoff (Lancashire), R J Sidebottom (Nottinghamshire), A J Strauss (Middlesex)

Kevin Pietersen added weight to Michael Vaughan’s view that the choice of Darren Pattinson had a detrimental impact on the England dressing-room during the second Test match against South Africa at Headingley Carnegie, but he also agreed that the new bowler should not be made a scapegoat for the ten-wicket defeat (Richard Hobson writes). “For sure it felt differently at Headingley,” Pietersen said. “I was sitting next to a guy I had never seen, I met him at breakfast and an hour later he was sitting next to me as I was getting ready to bat in a Test match.

“But we lost because we played badly, not because of the selection. We batted badly, South Africa won a good toss in overcast conditions and I felt sorry for Patto because if we had won the toss he might have got a cheeky four or five-fer. He didn’t bowl badly at all.”