*Official* Second Test at Lords

[four_or_six]

If someone has not done it then how can you claim him as an equal or better to someone who has? Onions has taken FC wickets, Broad hasnt. Broad failed in the first test, Onions didnt play. Broad has had a mediocre test career so far, Onions is unproven. Unless you are a real conservative, the facts are that there is more going for Onion's selection than Broad ATM.

I'm not sure it's fair though to comapre Onions test stats with Broad's... the WI blatantly didn't want to be here and all the bowlers looked great. And I agree that Onions has FC wickets, but if you use that as the criteria we'd have a bowling attack of Harmison, Onions, Plunkett and Hoggard in the next match.

Personally, I'd have Onions as a shoe-in for Monty in the next match anyway. And I would have had for the last one too.

 

[Richard]

Must say I'm completely mystified by Bell being called-up instead of Shah TBH. Both have had decent-ish seasons so far (Patel hasn't and thus shouldn't be considered) and Shah has failed far less often than Bell has.

I suppose there is the fact that most of Bell's best Test performances have come as a replacement for Flintoff but that really isn't something that should have too much weight attached to it.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm not sure it's fair though to comapre Onions test stats with Broad's... the WI blatantly didn't want to be here and all the bowlers looked great. And I agree that Onions has FC wickets, but if you use that as the criteria we'd have a bowling attack of Harmison, Onions, Plunkett and Hoggard in the next match.

Ok, so give me a reason why Onions shouldn't play?

Personally, its not really about how the WI played against Onions. I just thought that he genuinely bowled well and hit the sort of lengths that made it difficult to play him. Perhaps, it might all have been a fluke, or perhaps he might struggle when the pitches are a bit flatter, but if he bowls like he did at Lords again he will cause problems doesn't matter who the team is. Broad has been playing for almost 2 years now. Even, his most loyal supporters wouldn't argue the fact that at best hes nothing more than 'ok' at the moment.

 

[tooextracool]

Must say I'm completely mystified by Bell being called-up instead of Shah TBH. Both have had decent-ish seasons so far (Patel hasn't and thus shouldn't be considered) and Shah has failed far less often than Bell has.

I suppose there is the fact that most of Bell's best Test performances have come as a replacement for Flintoff but that really isn't something that should have too much weight attached to it.

Shah is technically not up to the mark for test cricket and surely even you must have noticed as much from his last few test performances.

 

[four_or_six]

Must say I'm completely mystified by Bell being called-up instead of Shah TBH. Both have had decent-ish seasons so far (Patel hasn't and thus shouldn't be considered) and Shah has failed far less often than Bell has.

I suppose there is the fact that most of Bell's best Test performances have come as a replacement for Flintoff but that really isn't something that should have too much weight attached to it.

I wonder if the way Shah looked in the tests he played in the WI is a nail in the coffin for his hopes of a recall. Extremely nervous looking, coupled with the hand cramps, coupled with the near-certainty of a run-out while he's in, coupled with the terrible fielding. At least Bell is fit, a good fielder and less of an obvious run-out threat, even if he also seems nervy while batting.

 

[Richard]

Shah is technically not up to the mark for test cricket and surely even you must have noticed as much from his last few test performances.

Shah's run himself out more often than he's batted himself out.

I also don't really think West Indies are capable of exploiting technical weaknesses. Shah just let himself down - and more with his running than anything else. There is no way he's done badly enough in 3 games to merit falling behind Bell who played 50-odd games while being dropped once.

 

[four_or_six]

Ok, so give me a reason why Onions shouldn't play?

Personally, its not really about how the WI played against Onions. I just thought that he genuinely bowled well and hit the sort of lengths that made it difficult to play him. Perhaps, it might all have been a fluke, or perhaps he might struggle when the pitches are a bit flatter, but if he bowls like he did at Lords again he will cause problems doesn't matter who the team is. Broad has been playing for almost 2 years now. Even, his most loyal supporters wouldn't argue the fact that at best hes nothing more than 'ok' at the moment.

Why he shouldn't play in this next match? I've already said he should do in response to a previous post of yours.

Personally, I think if anyone is going to take Broad's place, it would be Harmison. And as for them in a head-to-head... that's a whole other topic of debate imo. Despite Harmison's 42 FC wickets this season.

 

[Richard]

I wonder if the way Shah looked in the tests he played in the WI is a nail in the coffin for his hopes of a recall. Extremely nervous looking, coupled with the hand cramps, coupled with the near-certainty of a run-out while he's in, coupled with the terrible fielding. At least Bell is fit, a good fielder and less of an obvious run-out threat, even if he also seems nervy while batting.

Bell's hardly an outstanding runner. About the only thing he has over Shah is fielding, and I don't think good to average (Shah certainly isn't a poor fielder) fielding is enough to excuse giving someone 50-odd games and someone else 3.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Bell is a shocking runner between wickets, has been involved in more run-outs than I care to remember. Shah is a gun ODI player anyway, get him in the team.

 

[four_or_six]

Bell's hardly an outstanding runner. About the only thing he has over Shah is fielding, and I don't think good to average (Shah certainly isn't a poor fielder) fielding is enough to excuse giving someone 50-odd games and someone else 3.

No... but there was something about Shah in the WI. I was a huge advocate of him playing ahead of Bell there, right from the start. But somehow, one we got to the end of the series I was less than convinced.

 

[GIMH]

The fact is Shah has failed with all bar one of the chances he's had. Bell would have been dropped after his Ashes failure but for Vaughan's injury, and then was again dropped after failing in India. He has failed plenty but has also succeded at times, Shah has played five Tests without scoring a century, pretty much no other batsman we have picked has done that poorly in recent years.

 

[four_or_six]

Bell is a shocking runner between wickets, has been involved in more run-outs than I care to remember. Shah is a gun ODI player anyway, get him in the team.

No, I know... hence my less than glowing assessment of Bell's running. To be honest, with either of Bell or Shah in with KP it's about a 95% chance of a run-out occuring.

 

[four_or_six]

It's interesting to do the same exercise as for the bowlers in terms of FC runs for the batters. Taking out overseas players (which I didn't have to do for the bowlers), that leaves us with a top 6 of:

Trescothick
Hildreth
Ramprakash
Blackwell
Sayers
McGrath

with Alistair Cook next in line.

 

[tooextracool]

Why he shouldn't play in this next match? I've already said he should do in response to a previous post of yours.

Personally, I think if anyone is going to take Broad's place, it would be Harmison. And as for them in a head-to-head... that's a whole other topic of debate imo. Despite Harmison's 42 FC wickets this season.

As long as Flintoff is playing, I would have Onions over Harmison, Broad and Panesar. And in a head to head between Harmison and Broad, I think I would go for Harmison again. Broad just hasnt bowled enough wicket-taking spells in test match cricket to inspire confidence. Even at his best, I know i can expect something like 3/70 odd from him.

 

[tooextracool]

Shah's run himself out more often than he's batted himself out..

He got run out twice and got himself out in other more conventional methods 4 times in the West Indies. I'm not sure how that sentence makes sense.

 

[four_or_six]

As long as Flintoff is playing, I would have Onions over Harmison, Broad and Panesar. And in a head to head between Harmison and Broad, I think I would go for Harmison again. Broad just hasnt bowled enough wicket-taking spells in test match cricket to inspire confidence. Even at his best, I know i can expect something like 3/70 odd from him.

True enough... although the last couple of matches Broad and Harmy played together Broad was clearly better.

I still can't decide about Harmy.

 

[tooextracool]

True enough... although the last couple of matches Broad and Harmy played together Broad was clearly better.

I still can't decide about Harmy.

Yes I do know that but one must remember where those tests were played. Pitches in that series in the West Indies were devoid of any pace or bounce and teams racked up big totals for the most part. Harmison should never really have been expected to succeed there, and his performances on those pitches make no difference on whether he will be able to bowl well on traditional English pitches which have far more in it for the bowlers.

 

[social]

Call me crazy but IF Lords has something in it for the bowlers and IF Ponting goes cheaply, it would not surprise me if Eng won this test

Ponting is by far the outstanding cricketer on either side and Eng simply needs to get on a roll in favourable conditions to knock Aus over

 

[Pothas]

I would pick him, quite probably against my better judgement. I have been largely against his inclusion in recent years but he does not have a bad record in England and when we play 4 seamers I tend to think that he is worth the gamble. If England are going to have any chance of winning a game let alone the series they need a couple of bowlers who can bowl a side out. With Harmison and Anderson in the side we have to who might be able to do that. In reality it will probably fail but I think it is the right selection

 

[four_or_six]

Yes I do know that but one must remember where those tests were played. Pitches in that series in the West Indies were devoid of any pace or bounce and teams racked up big totals for the most part. Harmison should never really have been expected to succeed there, and his performances on those pitches make no difference on whether he will be able to bowl well on traditional English pitches which have far more in it for the bowlers.

But will Lords? I wonder if we shouldn't leave Harmison on ice for a later match.