Are England getting full value from Alec Stewart?

As if the English selectors didn't have enough problems already on their hands, the issue of Alec Stewart would give them sufficient food for thought to feed them for a week.

Playing him as a wicket-keeper/batsman should give the team extra flexibility but at the moment it looks more unbalanced than the leaning tower of Pisa.

A conventional side has six batsmen, four bowlers and a 'keeper. If Stewart is out of form with the bat like he was at the Gabba, the side is playing with five batsman. They lose out there and they lose out in what they are gaining for the gamble that is Craig White. It's doubtful whether White is making enough runs or taking enough wickets to justify his position.

Not withstanding the loss of Simon Jones, the bowling of England in Brisbane was poor - how much worse would it have been if Stewart was picked as a 'keeper? England struggled to bowl out Australia with the extra bowler but they must realise they need quality not quantity.

Stewart's best batting was done at the top of the order. Eight of his 15 centuries were peeled off when opening the batting. Three more when batting at No 3. He averaged 45 when opening as opposed to 38 at No 6.

He averaged 46.70 when not 'keeping and 34.45 when playing as a 'keeper/batsman. For England, playing Stewart as a 'keeper/batsman might seem the logical situation but they seem to have gained the worst from both worlds from the experiment.

They seem to be tortured by a Catch-22. Stewart makes runs which would warrant him playing as a 'keeper/batsman but he only makes the runs when he isn't 'keeping.

Andy Flower and Zimbabwe have done well out of Flower's transition to a 'keeper/batsman. He averaged 35 when not 'keeper as opposed to 54 when 'keeping.

If ever a side seemed ideal to play a 'keeper/batsman it would be Australia. Adam Gilchrist could bat at No 6. This would allow Australia an extra bowler which could come in the shape of another spinner or maybe some variety such as a left-armer.

If the all-rounder Australia is so desperate to unearth ever turns up, they could have Gilchrist at No 6 and fit him in at No 7.

Gilchrist opens for Australia in the shorter form of the game but it is doubtful they would throw such caution to the wind and play him as a specialist bat for Test matches.

Given Australia's recent well-documented middle-order collapses, maybe it's better if he stays where he is.