David Lloyd says he is embarrassed that the SWALEC Stadium is going to be used for the first Ashes Test.

Why are we not using our strongholds against Australia?

Before we begin, let me declare that I'm part-Welsh.

My grandparents are from Cardiff and I'm quite passionate about Wales, but I'm sorry, I can't see how the SWALEC Stadium is a Test match venue.

It doesn't fit with me that it's going to be used for the first Test of the Ashes and it has clearly not been chosen for cricketing reasons.

It's nice, but it just doesn't look finished. It looks more like an out ground in New Zealand than a proper Test match stadium.

If you want to know what a Test match venue looks like, then look at Durham. It has good views, wonderful scenery and it looks and feels like a proper stadium, even though it's a new build.

I was mixing with a lot of the media on Wednesday afternoon and nobody had a good word to say about the place. One unnamed journalist said the SWALEC Stadium looked more like Toy Town.

You'd expect a new build to take notice of the media - both written and electronic - when it was designed. They clearly haven't.

The camera positions have not got stations in critical areas and the viewing areas for electronic media are obscured. The windows are not full windows and have got the thickest frames I've ever seen.

There's been a financial inducement from the Welsh Assembly, which is obviously tax-payers' money, and that must have something to do with why it has been chosen ahead of Old Trafford for the Ashes.

Another thing I need to declare is that I have no affinity with Lancashire County Cricket Club.

But how Old Trafford can miss out on a Test match is beyond me. The North West is heaving with people, heaving with sport and has a venue that is very accessible, holds 22,000 people and England love playing there. Monty Panesar says he'd like to wrap that pitch up and take it round with him!

The two England stronghold venues are Trent Bridge (swing) and Old Trafford (pace, spin) and neither of them are being used for the Ashes.

Somebody has made that decision. I'm not sure who it was, but I'll tell you who it wasn't - Peter Moores.

There's no way that he's been consulted about where he wants to play Australia to have the best chance of winning.

People ask should you have home advantage?

There's going to be a Ryder Cup very soon and the lay-out at Valhalla will suit the home team.

The aprons will be left to grow so Europe can't bump and run and you've got to play target golf and hit the pin.

The home team will know all of the positions a week in advance, while the European team will find out on the morning of each day. So the Americans are clearly taking home advantage.

England don't play anybody more important than Australia and I think people need to know that England's stronghold venues are not being used.

I'll stress again I have nothing against the Welsh - and I'll thump anybody that has! - but it is not the place to play Australia.

I'm quite embarrassed that's where the first Test is going to he held.

Without doubt, England have got a very good one-day team now.

Kevin's next port of call is to tell a number of players that they're not playing for £500,000. That's going to take very good man-management.

Only 11 men can play in the Stanford match and have that chance of winning £500,000 each. Some people need to be told: 'sorry mate, you're not playing'.

There's no room for sentiment. When Sir Alex Ferguson or Arsene Wenger are playing for the big prizes they pick their best team.

I'll put a spanner in the works straight away. The best Twenty20 player I've seen this year is Graham Napier, so pick him and move on from there.

He loses a cricket ball, he bowls at 87mph full at the stumps and he fields like a dream. If he doesn't get in that team then England must have some great Twenty20 players.

There are tough decisions for Kevin and the management to make, but they've got to pick the best team possible.

Click here for Sky Sports cricket TV schedule