**Official** England in New Zealand

[pasag]

I think the plan was always going to be drop Strauss for a bit, let him rest and rebuild mentally for a couple of months before rushing him back in, regardless of merit.

Baffled like many here with the Prior decision, I mean it just makes no sense at this stage. I don't think he was brilliant or anything but he came as close as England were ever going to get to solving their short term wicket-keeping woes and to drop him now is pretty dumb.

 

[wpdavid]

Looks like I'm in a minority of one here. Given that Prior has shelled more chances in 8 months than most test keepers manage in 8 years, then his position was completely untenable. And tbf he's had 3 series - this is a long way removed from the Jones/Read situation. Beyond that, they've recalled a guy with a healthy test average for a kid who looked out of his depth at this level. Where's the problem? I honestly don't get the idea that this is a return to the cast-of-thousands approach of the 1980's.

 

[tooextracool]

Looks like I'm in a minority of one here. Given that Prior has shelled more chances in 8 months than most test keepers manage in 8 years, then his position was completely untenable. And tbf he's had 3 series - this is a long way removed from the Jones/Read situation. Beyond that, they've recalled a guy with a healthy test average for a kid who looked out of his depth at this level. Where's the problem? I honestly don't get the idea that this is a return to the cast-of-thousands approach of the 1980's.

The problem lies in the fact that the English fast bowler with the most test match potential has been recalled to the wrong squad. Chris Tremlett has been picked in the ODI squad despite the fact that hes absolutely rubbish at it. Meanwhile James Anderson whos rubbish at the other form has retained his place.

AFAIC, dropping Bopara is not the issue, picking Strauss is(although one question that must be asked is why the **** was Bopara picked ITFP?). Strauss does not have a 'healthy test match average'. Even if you dont consider the fact that his average has fallen from over 50 over the last couple of years, averaging 40 as a specialist test match batsman is not good enough in this day and age. Nor is someone who has enough holes in his technique to open a swiss cheese factory. Strauss' return despite not accomplishing anything during his absence belies logic. And so does Graveney's position as chairman of selectors.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

What was the point of dropping Strauss for Sri Lanka? Seriously, what was the point if you're just going to bring him back into the side later that winter???

 

[tooextracool]

Because the English selectors believe that Strauss' issues are temperamental and not technical. Which is about as ludicrous as thinking that Bopara had it in him to be a test class bat.

 

[Goughy]

Looks like I'm in a minority of one here. Given that Prior has shelled more chances in 8 months than most test keepers manage in 8 years, then his position was completely untenable. And tbf he's had 3 series - this is a long way removed from the Jones/Read situation. Beyond that, they've recalled a guy with a healthy test average for a kid who looked out of his depth at this level. Where's the problem? I honestly don't get the idea that this is a return to the cast-of-thousands approach of the 1980's.

Priors glove work was seen as a potential weakness when he was selected. His batting was his strong point. Now what has he done? he has averaged over 40 and the keeping has been ordinary. What did they expect and if that want good for them then why select him?

Its something that would have been predicted at the beginning. Now, when he is looking like he is finding his feet, he is dropped for performing exactly how he could be expected to.

You say 3 series, I say 10 Tests. Read and Jones have each played more than that.

Ive no issue with Strauss coming back in. But what was Bopara doing there in the first place?

This is going back to the bad old days. Guys are geting thown in and out at random, ordinary cricketers with little chance of success are playing and no one knows the best 14 players in the country. But we have discussed this at length elsewhere. This just further adds weight to my point.

 

[Richard]

Strauss' return despite not accomplishing anything during his absence belies logic. And so does Graveney's position as chairman of selectors.

I honestly believe that you can pick someone else, and there won't be that many who'd do the job differently.

Far, far more people than not in the English cricketing fraturnity (that being the press and the less educated fans) would still say Strauss has had a reasonably successful Test career.

On the subject of Strauss, though, I don't think anyone really pretended he was having a rest or anything. Had he averaged 60 against West Indies - the way he damn well should have done, there was no excuse for doing so poorly against such a weak attack - he'd have been picked for the Sri Lanka series. To drop him then recall him when he's played no cricket in the meantime just makes no sense, as tec says. They should either have taken him to Sri Lanka and left him out of the Test team or simply picked Shah instead of Bopara.

The reason this Strauss case is so bad is because Bopara was picked. Had it been Shah who'd played, as it should have been, there'd be less questions to answer. Or better still, had it been a proper opener: now Vaughan has failed at the top of the order, there is - rightly - the thought to put him back to three. Key should have replaced Strauss for Sri Lanka, of course.

For one thing, because Key or Shah would very possibly have done half-decently. Better than Bopara did.

A succession of decisions this winter which have simply baffled logic. At least in cases like Giles-vs-MSP, Jones-vs-Read, there was some sense in picking who they did then. The trouble is, so many of these errors have required more errors to be made to correct them.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Looks like I'm in a minority of one here. Given that Prior has shelled more chances in 8 months than most test keepers manage in 8 years, then his position was completely untenable. And tbf he's had 3 series - this is a long way removed from the Jones/Read situation. Beyond that, they've recalled a guy with a healthy test average for a kid who looked out of his depth at this level. Where's the problem? I honestly don't get the idea that this is a return to the cast-of-thousands approach of the 1980's.

I don't have a particular fondness for Prior, but selectorial consistency demands Mustard goes into the 1st test, given he was the back-up for Sri Lanka, surely? &, given he's at best no more than Prior's equal with the gloves and probably not as good with the bat, it really beggars belief.

That said, given our alleged selectorial consistency is of the non-existant variety I suspect Ambrose will play.

 

[wpdavid]

The problem lies in the fact that the English fast bowler with the most test match potential has been recalled to the wrong squad. Chris Tremlett has been picked in the ODI squad despite the fact that hes absolutely rubbish at it. Meanwhile James Anderson whos rubbish at the other form has retained his place.

AFAIC, dropping Bopara is not the issue, picking Strauss is(although one question that must be asked is why the **** was Bopara picked ITFP?). Strauss does not have a 'healthy test match average'. Even if you dont consider the fact that his average has fallen from over 50 over the last couple of years, averaging 40 as a specialist test match batsman is not good enough in this day and age. Nor is someone who has enough holes in his technique to open a swiss cheese factory. Strauss' return despite not accomplishing anything during his absence belies logic. And so does Graveney's position as chairman of selectors.

Agreed about Tremlett being in the oneday squad, but I was confining my comments to the test side. Beyond that, we're in agree to differ territory. I never understood why Tremlett leapfrogged Broad after the latter was initially picked for the India series, and Broad's subsequent reinstatement at least rectified that particular wrong. Which they've stuck with, as I would hope. As for Strauss, I know your views and I could hardly argue with them after his scores in the last 18 months or so, but we'll just have to see whether the break has recharged his batteries after the captaincy fiasco. I am, of course, aware that you reckon technique has more to do with it, and you may well be proved right, but I honestly have no idea who I'd rather have seen in the squad. And I suspect that you don't either.

In suppose I'm saying that, with the selection of Broad and the ditching of Bopara, they have corrected a couple of duff selections that they made in the last 6 months. I'd rather that they hadn't made them in the first place, but that's another matter - as discussed on the thread Goughy linked us to on the previous page.

 

[Richard]

I don't have a particular fondness for Prior, but selectorial consistency demands Mustard goes into the 1st test, given he was the back-up for Sri Lanka, surely? &, given he's at best no more than Prior's equal with the gloves and probably not as good with the bat, it really beggars belief.

That said, given our alleged selectorial consistency is of the non-existant variety I suspect Ambrose will play.

No, Graveney essentially explained that Mustard was not picked because he was considered the be the 2nd-best long-form-of-game wicketkeeper in the country, but purely because he'd been in Sri Lanka for the ODIs.

If anyone (who knows anything whatsoever about cricket) seriously puts Mustard as a better wicketkeeper-batsman than Foster, though, I'll probably be forced to kill them.

 

[James90]

England Test stats
867 matches, 638 caps

England ODI stats
482 matches, 206 caps

Australia Test stats
691 matches, 398 caps

Australia ODI stats
669 matches, 163 caps

It's especially amazing when I think that players like Dorey, Cosgrove, Lewis and Hauritz have an ODI cap.

 

[tooextracool]

Agreed about Tremlett being in the oneday squad, but I was confining my comments to the test side. Beyond that, we're in agree to differ territory. I never understood why Tremlett leapfrogged Broad after the latter was initially picked for the India series, and Broad's subsequent reinstatement at least rectified that particular wrong. Which they've stuck with, as I would hope. As for Strauss, I know your views and I could hardly argue with them after his scores in the last 18 months or so, but we'll just have to see whether the break has recharged his batteries after the captaincy fiasco. I am, of course, aware that you reckon technique has more to do with it, and you may well be proved right, but I honestly have no idea who I'd rather have seen in the squad. And I suspect that you don't either.

Much rather see Key in there for Strauss.If Strauss really had gotten over his apparent 'Ashes captaincy hangover', he would have scored runs when he did play CC. Key never really deserved to be dropped when he was last time around anyways. Id probably have picked Ramprakash too in place of Swann. Theres no reason to go to NZ with 2 spinners IMO, Swann wont get a game. Assuming there isnt some uncapped player who is setting the world alight in CC, this would be my 16 to tour NZ:

Key
Cook
Vaughan
Ramprakash
Pietersen
Bell
Shah
Collingwood
Prior
Foster
Panesar
Sidebottom
Tremlett
Harmison
Hoggard
Broad

 

[Richard]

Because the English selectors believe that Strauss' issues are temperamental and not technical. Which is about as ludicrous as thinking that Bopara had it in him to be a test class bat.

This is an interesting one, though. I've no doubt the problems are technical, but I actually don't think they're insoluble.

I saw, for the first time in ages, some footage of his strokes to the boundary in his debut century against New Zealand.

Strauss' biggest problem of late has been hitting the ball in the air off the front-foot, especially on the off-side - never demonstrated worse than in the Tests at Lord's last summer - he was caught at backward-point against WI and dropped against India. Now there were several strokes in the innings against New Zealand where he played exactly the sort of delivery he was getting into trouble with in 2007, and played them perfectly, driving high-elbow style through extra-cover with a full face on the ground rather than snatching at them with a flowing follow-through and hitting them in the air through backward-point.

Can he start playing that way again? I don't know. But I damn well hope he - or someone else - has spotted what I spotted earlier and that he's been having bowling-machine session after bowling-machine session and trying to sort it.

EDIT: just looked at his dismissals since the start of 2006, which is IMO when the problems started. He's had 41, 1 of which was a run-out. In the 40 dismissals to bowlers, 31 have been to catches (plus 6 lbw and 3 bowled). Now, all right, a good few of those were to wicketkeepers and slips, and a good few of them were to good deliveries that moved away, and in the Pakistan series most of them were after he'd already scored a lot. But it's still indicative of the problems. In that time he's averaged 35.68, but that'll go down substantially if you remove the Pakistan series.

What worries me, though, is that he was unable against West Indies in 2007 to cash-in even on bowling even worse than that he'd cashed-in on against Pakistan in 2006. Suggesting that there was a degeneration even between 2006 and 2007.

One thing's fore sure, I really damn well wish he'd never been given the captaincy, as then no-one could even be under the illusion that that had anything to do with it.

 

[Richard]

Id probably have picked Ramprakash too

Never thought I'd see that!

 

[tooextracool]

Never thought I'd see that!

Cant argue against a player whos been having Bradmanesque seasons in CC over the last 5 years really. Never doubted that he had the potential to be a fine player either.

 

[JASON]

Cannot understand why they picked Graeme Swann for NZ Tour, when they failed to play him in SL in any of the Tests and given their unlikelihood of playing 2 spinners in NZ in Tests .....

 

[wpdavid]

Priors glove work was seen as a potential weakness when he was selected. His batting was his strong point. Now what has he done? he has averaged over 40 and the keeping has been ordinary. What did they expect and if that want good for them then why select him?

Its something that would have been predicted at the beginning. Now, when he is looking like he is finding his feet, he is dropped for performing exactly how he could be expected to.

Does recognising that his keeping was likely to be 'iffy' equate to accepting the number of misses that we've seen? Not in my book. It's one thing to accept that he wouldn't make the sort of catches that a Taylor or Knott managed, but I doubt that the selectors expected him to drop as many as he has done.

You say 3 series, I say 10 Tests. Read and Jones have each played more than that.

I was talking about the situation in 2006 when Jones & Read took turns to play 2 or 3 tests. The fact that they both played more over a period of time is irrelevant.

I've no issue with Strauss coming back in. But what was Bopara doing there in the first place?

I know and, to an extent, I agree. But surely it would have been worse if they'd kept Bopara for this tour? Short of borrowing the Tardis, I don't see what else they could've done.

This is going back to the bad old days. Guys are geting thown in and out at random, ordinary cricketers with little chance of success are playing and know one knows the best 14 players in the country. But we have discussed this at length elsewhere. This just further adds weight to my point.

No, this is miles away from the bad old days. They have brought in one new player for this tour and, as I said before, they have recitified a couple of duff decisions. Ordinary players are picked because that's what the CC produces and selectors have to try and make silk purses out of sows' ears. Moores is new to the job and he's entitled to a bit of grace at this stage. If he's still pissing around in 9 months time that'll be another matter though.

 

[Richard]

Does recognising that his keeping was likely to be 'iffy' equate to accepting the number of misses that we've seen? Not in my book. It's one thing to accept that he wouldn't make the sort of catches that a Taylor or Knott managed, but I doubt that the selectors expected him to drop as many as he has done.

If they thought he was likely to drop as many as he has in Third Tests, they should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever have given him the gloves in a Test-match.

 

[Matteh]

Good to see Ambrose in the mix, you can't fluke a 251*.

 

[tooextracool]

This is an interesting one, though. I've no doubt the problems are technical, but I actually don't think they're insoluble.

I saw, for the first time in ages, some footage of his strokes to the boundary in his debut century against New Zealand.

Strauss' biggest problem of late has been hitting the ball in the air off the front-foot, especially on the off-side - never demonstrated worse than in the Tests at Lord's last summer - he was caught at backward-point against WI and dropped against India. Now there were several strokes in the innings against New Zealand where he played exactly the sort of delivery he was getting into trouble with in 2007, and played them perfectly, driving high-elbow style through extra-cover with a full face on the ground rather than snatching at them with a flowing follow-through and hitting them in the air through backward-point.

Can he start playing that way again? I don't know. But I damn well hope he - or someone else - has spotted what I spotted earlier and that he's been having bowling-machine session after bowling-machine session and trying to sort it.

Meh dont have footage of his performances in 2004. From memory though most of his shots were on the back foot, either cuts or pulls and it would be especially odd that he was playing it extremely well a year before the very same weakness was exploited(albeit not completely) by the Aussies the following summer. As i have said earlier, his bat comes down at an angle from behind the wickets and that is something i have noticed about him since his debut. I have noticed though that after hes in for a while he starts playing the drive much better and his bat comes down straighter, but at the start of his innings its almost always coming down crooked. Unless hes managed to sort that weakness out completely, id be very surprised if he succeeded at the test match level. And when you factor in his inability to play spin, it just gets worse.