Continuity in team selection

Just how much have England benefited from continuity of team selection over recent years ? Certainly, the days of picking 30 players for a Test series are, happily, long gone. Nowadays, class and temperament are recognised and that particular player is persevered with.
OK, I know Ian Bell has had a poor - shocking really - series against Pakistan but he is a particular case in point. In days gone by, he would never have survived his 05 Ashes series which ended with a pair at The Oval. But he's been dropped only once since and is now one of the best Test bastman in the world.
There was talk - thankfully not among the selectors - of dropping Cook in 2010. KP's place has been argued about in some circles.
Full marks, too, for the selection of those who did not immediately stand out, given their county form (Tresco, Vaughan, Trott, Collingwood) but who were seen as having Test match temparement.
We shall never know whether those two great county cricket giants, Hick and Ramps, would have fared if they had been treated like Bell.
Older posters and Aussie fans might also want to ponder the case of David Boon. His early Test form was decidedly underwhelming. But Border had great faith in him and Boon became an outstanding international batsman.

to be fair sir fred...ramps and hick were given enough chances, they just couldnt replicate their brillance in CC, onto the international stage.

C'fan 90. You're right. However Hick was picked in 91 and I think I'm correct in saying that, apart from 94, he was dropped by England EVERY summer practically throughout the 90s.
For all his devastating batting, Hick was shy, sensitive and surprisingly unconfident. Some players need an arm round them (aaah). But others get Ray Illingworth who was as tough as old boots

Hick was definitely a 'arm around' sort of bloke.

Regarding team selection.

It's better now no doubt but I do believe it can be dangerous to stay with someone too long. Morgan for instance has kept his place thanks to others, who are helping us win but if things do go pear shaped then maybe you could have looked at resolved things earlier.

I don't think anyone can argue with the selection policy of England in recent times. Sustained faith in underperforming players has almost always brought out the best in them (much of this faith in the face of widespread calls for the axe to fall from many in the media and supporters alike).

Stuart Broad, Kevin Pietersen (is it me or are there always calls for him to be dropped unless he gets a ton? He is joint with Gooch now as the best performing England batsman of all time in terms of centuries, and will no doubt soon become the #1), Alastair Cook, Andrew Strauss the list is actually quite long, yet all of these players have had stinkers at one point or another only to repay the considerable faith shown in them emphatically.

Consistency of selection is key to not only a successful side but also a happy side. However, the time does come when the odd bit of tinkering is required (perhaps with Morgan in Tests now, I don't know), but I have every belief that this team of selectors know exactly when to do so. I'm happy to leave it in their capable hands.

Big test of how the selectors are getting on comes on Sundays when the squad for the next Test is chosen. I hardly ever bother to tune in/check Ceefax now to find out the side.
In times gone by it was a kind of ritual, followed by amazement that, say, Neil Foster had been chosen at Lord's where he used to go all around the ground or that someone nobody had EVER heard of had been called up, only to be NEVER chosen again. The one-cap wonders are probably worth a separate post.

Cook would have certainly been dropped in 2010 under the 1990's selectors. Proof that they are doing a good job.