WITHIN minutes of Frank Lampard hobbling off the training pitch on Wednesday clutching his thigh, the calls for a rethink about his replacement in the England squad had begun.

"There's only one name we should be considering," tweeted John Harrison, a Durham-based England supporter who is heading to Ukraine. "Paul Scholes."

"Carrick should come in," claimed Alex Marshall, again via Twitter. "Perfectly suited to international football and just had one of his best seasons."

Forget Jordan Henderson, the central midfielder who was promoted from the standby list yesterday, the overwhelming consensus was that England should approach either Scholes or Carrick and urge them to rethink their international retirement.

Before we go on, I'll lay my cards on the table. I don't think Henderson should be anywhere near the England squad at this stage of his career.

His game appears to have stagnated since he left Sunderland, he is coming off the back of a difficult first season at Liverpool and, in terms of the make-up of the group that will travel to Ukraine, I don't really see what Henderson will offer that James Milner will not.

But I'd still much rather have him in the squad than either Scholes or Carrick, players who have turned their back on their country and decided that the less glamorous side of international football is not for them.

In my mind, you either play for England or you don't. And both Scholes and Carrick have decided they don't.

Just as Fabio Capello was made to appear desperate when he begged Jamie Carragher out of retirement ahead of the last World Cup, so Roy Hodgson would be setting an extremely dangerous precedent if he went cap in hand to either Scholes or Carrick now.

"Don't fancy sitting on the substitutes' bench when we travel to Moldova for a World Cup qualifier in September, Michael? Don't worry, we'll get someone else to do that, and you can just wander back into the squad when we get to Rio for the tournament."

Approaching Scholes would be a particularly damaging move, as the 37-year-old has been in a self-imposed international exile for the last eight years.

Just imagine how many games England have played in that period where his presence would potentially have been of benefit.

Perhaps if Scholes hadn't opted to put his own career ahead of the needs of his nation, England might not have missed out on Euro 2008 and a half-fit Gareth Barry might not have been so badly embarrassed by the German midfield at the last World Cup finals.

Carrick's situation is slightly different, as the Newcastle-born midfielder has not formally retired from international football, he has simply requested that he not be selected if he is not going to play.

Hodgson revealed last week that he did not select Carrick on his standby list because "he doesn't want to be involved like that". So after a thoroughly underwhelming international career, the North-Easterner now expects to be picking the team.

Compare Carrick's attitude to that of Phil Jagielka, who was promoted from the standby list to replace the injured Barry at the start of this week.

"I'm 29," said Jagielka. "If I'd said 'no' (to going on the standby list), I might as well have said I was retiring from international football.

"If you're third choice, you've got more chance of playing than if you're not there and, put it this way, I never envisaged, when I was released by Everton at 15, that I would ever get back to play for Everton let alone playing for my country."

Finally, someone who takes pride in pulling on the England shirt. Having been omitted from the original squad, Jagielka could easily have taken umbrage when he was asked to play in Norway last weekend.

Instead, he vowed to give his all, produced a performance of considerable composure and quality, and persuaded Hodgson he was worth a place in Ukraine.

Henderson's substitute display in Oslo was not quite as polished, but at least the Wearsider was there.

Scholes and Carrick were sat at home with their feet up. And that's exactly where they should stay next month.

**

AS the holder of the Australian Open, US Open and Wimbledon titles, Novak Djokovic will complete a truly remarkable clean sweep of the Grand Slam titles if he triumphs in the French Open in Paris.

The Serb will become the first player since Rod Laver in the 1960s to hold all four titles simultaneously, and his achievement would surely be one of the greatest in post-war sport.

In Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, Djokovic is competing against two of the greatest players ever to pick up a tennis racquet.

So if he triumphs over them in all four Grand Slams, what does that make him?

**

KEVIN Pietersen's retirement from international limited overs cricket is an inevitable result of the riches on offer from tournaments such as the Indian Premier League.

However, it is good to see England's most exciting batsman prioritising Test cricket, which he will continue to play, over ODIs and T20s.

It was feared that players would gradually begin to turn their back on the five-day Test arena in order to prolong their limited-overs career, but in this country at least, the longer form of the game retains its primacy.

Perhaps that is because we are better at it. But with the likes of Pietersen continuing to champion five-day cricket, it is nice to know the future of the Test game remains bright.