Q So why would anyone want to be Chairman of Selectors? A Well I consider it a great honour. Having never played Test cricket, I feel a buzz just being involved at that level. I'm fortunate to still stay in the game, and despite the weight of expectation I enjoy it hugely. It is an all-consuming job, though.

Q I think it's fair to say you've been more successful than your recent predecessors?

A We've won a tournament in Sharjah, and we've won a five-Test series, so, yes there have been some good moments. We're still not winning as much as I'd like.

Q I've read that you believe your biggest improvement in the selection process has been increased communication.

A That implies that it was bad before, which is not for me to say. It's probably a feature of me as a person, and I see it as part of my job to be accessible to the media. The PCA particularly needs publicity. As regards talking to the players, I've behaved in the same style as I did when captaining Gloucestershire. The problem with that is that it sets expectations. How many players should I talk to? How often should I phone them?

Q So how do you decide?

A I talk to the ones that have been involved before any changes, and any of those that are particularly close to selection. At the end of this season I spoke to Graeme Hick, Phil Tufnell and Andrew Caddick.

Q But Phil Tufnell read the squad on Ceefax, and Caddick heard it on the tannoy when fielding.

A Yes, but I spoke to them afterwards. Obviously they were hugely disappointed, and even though it will be of no consolation they all came very close. I explained that, and our reasons, and though I'm not expecting bouquets from any of them, at least they are aware of what is going on.

Q How important is the personality of a player when picking a side?

A Interaction is very important. Playing ability is crucial, but tour reports are a feature. We'd be fools not to take that into account. Tufnell would be the first to admit he's had the odd difficult tour, but recently he's been no problem at all. All three were cricketing decisions.

Q Even Caddick? How many wickets would he have had to take? And where does that leave Croft for example who struggled to take county wickets?

A It is a tremendous achievement for any cricketer to take 100 wickets in a domestic season, but as selectors we have to look at the context in which these wickets are taken. I have to admit that when I spoke to my observers, particularly the umpires, they confirmed that Andrew was in fine form at the end of the season. The relevant factor is what happened last winter. Andy would admit that his bowling was not as he would have liked. He had his opportunity in the absence of Cork and Gough, and didn't really capitalise on it. As I said to him, would you expect to go in place of Fraser, Cork or Gough? He said probably not. He understood why Mullally was going in terms of different angles, and that just leaves him and Dean Headley. Andrew's achievements were great, but we have to take into account the circumstances, and the wickets that people are playing on. The point with Robert Croft is that the pitches gave no help to the spinners, so it's not really fair to compare their performances.

Q In the last few years we've seen players like Gower, Tufnell, Lewis, Cork and Caddick, all proven match-winners, discarded by England for apparent personality reasons. That would appear to be a luxury that we can't afford.

A Well I've already said that the decisions that I've been involved in have been cricketing decisions. We don't shy away from taking on difficult characters, but it is important that they should be able to interact well as a team. The door is never shut forever. They all have a way back, but I am aware that the clock ticks on, and that time is perhaps no longer on the side of a few people. I'm acutely aware of the responsibility of my job. I remember changing the Gloucestershire wicket-keeper, from Andy Brassington to Jack Russell. It was a decision that had to be made, but I was responsible for ending a guy's career. I find that a heavy responsibility.

Q It seems as if those most in need of understanding, and of some sensitivity are the ones we manage the least. People try to build up the confidence of players like Ramprakash and Hick, but they can get dropped even after a century. Caddick was dropped immediately after taking five wickets in an innings. David Lloyd described him as 'an iffy character'. It's impossible to feel secure in that situation.

A I can accept that things may be misleading in terms of wickets and runs, but tactics are important too.

Q I find it quite hard to believe that the selectors don't think that Chris Lewis is one of the best 37 players in the country.

A Chris Lewis is different. Lots of people will tell you that.

Q But these are the people that need The Management. If we can't get the best out of the most talented players then perhaps the fault is with The Management? AIt's partly about how players deal with pressure. They have to be able to deal with the big stage. That is where the personality is important. I've been to see Chris Lewis. I explained our reasoning. I wanted to know what makes him tick. He's fully aware of the areas in which we are looking for improvement.

Q As I see it, your work for the PCA involves looking after the interests of the players. Isn't that exactly what agents do too?

A They do, but in a narrow spectrum. They mainly negotiate salaries for cricketers. There are good and bad agents though. There have been worrying cases of players agreeing to pay a percentage of their net salary straight to their agent. There is a suspicion within the game that players can be exploited by agents.

Q They can be exploited by their clubs too.

A I meant agents. We don't want confrontation with agents, so we're drawing up a list of the ones that we feel we can recommend to our members. To establish the same relationship the PFA have with agents in football.

Q Is there a danger that you are too closely linked with the establishment to best represent the players?

A I don't think so, but I know some people do. Some of the agents don't realise that there isn't necessarily the money in cricket that there is in football for example. We must learn the lessons of rugby. Fine, the wages have increased dramatically for all players. That is fine and good. We also want to ensure that we have proper insurance and education options for players. We want good health cover and general support for current and ex-players.

Q It does seem ironic that the players' union is seemingly supporting the dismissal of many of its members.

A We're not advocating that, but we are recognising that it could happen. Our members realise that as wages increase the expectations of their performances increase. Therefore their employment will be looked at more closely.

Q Is there a danger that you work from the viewpoint of what is good for the game, not what is good for the players?

A No. In the very near future we hope to make announcements about improved benefits for the players. We are in discussion with the Board regarding improved funding and they are aware of our additional requirements. However, we are all governed by economic necessity.

Q You've mentioned already that wickets in the Championship are not particularly hard to come by. We've heard other selectors talking down the Championship as poor practice. Yet this is the competition that has made overseas stars like Lara and Tendulkar struggle. The last time we won the Ashes I remember listening to Allan Border saying he wished Shield cricket could be more like the County Championship. Isn't part of the problem that we talk ourselves down too much, and perhaps the players start to believe the negative opinions?

A The main thing as far as I'm concerned is the desire to play on better wickets. I don't mean flatter wickets, I mean drier wickets. All facets of the game would improve. You mention that some overseas players struggle, but I think that has more to do with the sheer quantity of cricket that we play. I don't mean to talk it down, but it could be so much better. What's the point of playing four-day cricket if the game finishes within three days? It's a difficult balance. We don't want to make it too easy for batsmen either. Certainly one-day cricket must be played on batsmen friendly pitches. Everybody involved in cricket realises that it is a competitive market, and we should be aware of the public's desire. If people start going elsewhere with their money we will be in big, big trouble.

Q But isn't a county preparing a pitch to suit their own team the same as the Test-playing grounds preparing pitches to suit our national team?

A I think it's true we want the pitches to possess traditional English qualities. We're not giving our spinners much of a chance though. As time goes by I move closer to the 'bring back uncovered pitches' view. In my playing career I can remember rain-affected matches where slow bowlers did most of the bowling, owing to the fact that the pitch was unfit for the quicks.

Q The one-day team: we've tried specialists; we've used all-rounders; we've done a bit of both. Where are we now, with the World Cup looming?

A In truth not that much further. I think it comes down to horses for courses. Most people would appreciate that the conditions in Sharjah, Australia and England are hugely varied. There have to be squad changes. In Australia the size of the grounds decrees that we need a good fielding side even more crucially than ever. It was great that we won in Sharjah, but we could have lost any of those games. There was a slow outfield and the ball went soft quickly. We surprised them with our medium-paced attack. We took the same system to the West Indies, and almost went two up. Then they adopted our system, and our performances declined. Morale is affected by the outcome of a recently ended Test series.

Q Do you have some idea of the World Cup squad in your mind already, and is it the same as the one-day squads for the other competitions?

A I do have quite firm ideas of the World Cup squad. It's not a closed door though. It won't be the same squad. You can say that perhaps we should be building with the same team, but I think it's important to win these games. That is the best thing any team can ever do. It will be hard for each country to pick 15 players in March not knowing what sort of summer we have in store. Let's face it, the weather could do anything. I have thought about the first 15 overs quite a lot. Other teams are putting in their best players first, and letting them bat according to the match situation. Then we need those players to be able to manoeuvre the ball around in the middle-order. Neil Fairbrother is right back in the frame as regards that. The combination of bowlers at the end is crucial too. In Australia you need mobility in the outfield, so all-rounders can be crucial, but it was shown in the West Indies that there is still a place for a fast bowler or two to provide variety sometimes. I expect Gough and Mullally and Fraser to come into that category.

Q People have now come to terms with the idea of England having separate one-day and Test teams; do you think that a logical extension would be to have specialist one-day selectors and coaches? Dermot Reeve and Jack Birkenshaw for example.

A No. I think David Lloyd has done a great job. The fact that we're younger helps. Gatting and Gooch are able to help with coaching. We can hang around in the nets, and as a result we are closer to the players generally.

Q Mike Atherton gave up his role as a selector when he was captain, thinking it could cause problems with other players. Does Alec Stewart have a similar belief?

A Not really. Mike did not have his say withdrawn, and he was still in the meetings. If there was ever a vote then he would abstain, but we've never had to vote in my time as Chairman so it made little difference. Alec is a selector, plenty of new ideas and energy, and wants to be involved.

Q You played for three relatively unfashionable clubs, but even now it appears as if the selectors look first at Lancashire and Surrey when picking players.

A I don't agree with you at all, but I do have plenty of letters from people that do. As a selector I've always attempted to spread my time equally across the country. Only 11 people can play at once, and that means people will be disappointed. Yet Lancashire have been the best one-day side for several years, and although I appreciate the worries of people at Leicestershire, we do give their players fair consideration.

Q Who do you consult when selecting?

A Lots of people involved in the game; players, coaches, even the press. I'm quite happy to talk to the members too.

Q I understand that you reply to all your letters. Do you get any congratulating you?

A Rarely. I do have some nice letters, but there are some I can't reply to - those with no name and address for example. This year it's been mostly about Hick, supporters and detractors; some about leaving out Crofty after his batting saved a Test. And there are some disturbing letters... but I suppose that's normal.

Q We read quite a lot about the importance of the hunger of our cricketers. David Lloyd talks of the need to 'die' for Team England.

A Yes, I think young players can learn from the deep passion shown by Atherton and Stewart to play for their country.

Q Is that another irony that all three selectors decided to turn their back on their country to play on 'rebel tours' of South Africa? You must have known that you were going to be banned?

A I didn't turn my back on Test cricket, I'd never played it. I feel now that there are certain decisions that you make in life that you are not particularly proud of. That was one of them. I was almost 36 at the time. It was a commercial decision. I did it for my family. I'm sure parents will understand but not perhaps agree. I don't expect people to forgive or forget. Damage was done to friendships that is still there.

Q What reforms would you like to see made to the English game?

A Better pitches. I was a supporter of two divisions, but unless the pitch problem is resolved the structure becomes irrelevant. I'd just like to see the Board have more control over the matter. It doesn't mean that they can't have their own characteristics, but they must be controlled. I would like to see two divisions because we've seen from the football play-offs that it keeps interest until the last minute. It would also encourage stubborn resistance, and the ability to fight for draws.