Owais Shah must be selected from now on

[wpdavid]

It's quite some if, though. I've long since come to think - and I seem to remember you saying something similar - that if Flintoff plays again it'll be a bonus rather than something we're waiting for.

On the subject of Anderson - what's the odds of him cleaning-up the lower-order tomorrow and making himself undroppable at the last possible minute a la Strauss?

Hmmm. Even if he did, I think that Strauss's 177 is a different kettle of fish. I wonder if Vaughan will give him the new ball anyway - he's not had much of a bowl in this game, which suggests that the captain may have given up on him.

As for Fred, yes I agree that it's unlikely. Purely pondering on what might happen if he's fit at the start of the season. Personally I think Moores would let him play as much cricket for Lancashire as possible to see if he is genuinely fit enough for test cricket.

 

[GIMH]

Cook is the last one out of those three I'd bat at #3, personally.

He just doesn't take me as a #3, at all, where as I feel Key and Strauss suit the position slightly more. It's based on a gut feel more than anything - it's not like they've played out entire careers there to give us a decent sample size.

He's not done too badly there in the past

Admittedly it's a small sample and those games all came when he was something of a golden boy, but he did well at 3 in 2006 and I'd have absolutely no problem him being selected there again.

 

[Richard]

Hmmm. Even if he did, I think that Strauss's 177 is a different kettle of fish. I wonder if Vaughan will give him the new ball anyway - he's not had much of a bowl in this game, which suggests that the captain may have given up on him.

Should Anderson clean-up the lower-order and take 4 - Heaven forbid, even 5 - I'd be truly astonished if he were to then not be selected for the opening Test next summer. Fitness-permitting, obv.

 

[GIMH]

I'm not sure. I think we all know that Hoggy would have done a much better job than Anderson in this Test, surely the selectors have realised this. Surely the selectors also realise that there is a big difference between carrying your bat through 90% of an innings for 177 compared to taking a few tailend wickets when the opposition are miles behind. If Anderson does that then great but he needs to do a lot more to convince me of his place. I like Anderson, and he is a capable bowler but he is not even inconsistent, it's just one good performance in 8 or 9, his bad days are much worse than Hoggy's also.

 

[Richard]

If they can drop Hoggard (sustained quality for nearly 4 years) for Anderson (very little of note over 5 years, most in which he was rightly deemed surplus to requirements) just because of 2 bad Tests, they most certainly can use cleaning-up a tail as an excuse to stick by that decision.

TBH, I'm not entirely ruling-out the prospect that Anderson stays in the side for the opening Test of the summer even if Sidebottom\Broad\MSP\Collingwood clean-up the lower-order without him so much as touching the ball on this last day.

 

[GIMH]

We'll see I guess. I'm all for consistency of selection, but not when it's a bad selection.

 

[Richard]

Oh absolutely, my thoughts moreoreless to the word.

 

[gettingbetter]

What about Shah coming in for Collingwood or Bell? Both, as I said about Bell in a previous thread, have been stuck in the same gear for along time. Probably expected of Collingwood as he is clearly fighting above his weight, but Bell has really staganted with his career.

Also, I think there was a poster who made comment about Bell's ability to either score a) hundreds when they weren't needed (probably needed in this instance) or b) score hundreds when someone else has already scored one.

 

[Richard]

There's no such thing as a "hundred that isn't needed", that's just gross exaggeration and trying to make a case sound worse for a player you're trying to denigrate.

As I've said several times recently about Bell, he's spent a lot of his career ramming home the advantage and not that much earning it. Equally, though, it's not like he's blown opportunity after opportunity to earn the advantage. There is absolutely no case for him to be excluded from the Test side at the current time.

Nor Collingwood, I believe him clearly an inferior batsman to Shah, but not one who currently has any case to be excluded from the Test team.

 

[gettingbetter]

There's no such thing as a "hundred that isn't needed", that's just gross exaggeration and trying to make a case sound worse for a player you're trying to denigrate.

As I've said several times recently about Bell, he's spent a lot of his career ramming home the advantage and not that much earning it. Equally, though, it's not like he's blown opportunity after opportunity to earn the advantage. There is absolutely no case for him to be excluded from the Test side at the current time.

Nor Collingwood, I believe him clearly an inferior batsman to Shah, but not one who currently has any case to be excluded from the Test team.

I don't disagree about the hundreds part, but surely there must be some relevance to it. As for Collingwood, its the same case as Bell and a little similar to Strauss, consistent enough to remain within the team and when needed will get the big score to hammer it home it even more so.

 

[simmy]

The fact remains neither player will be dropped.

Collingwood is the highest paid England player for a start, arguably the second most senior and suits his role well.

Bell is the future, but seems the more likely to go out of the two if it ever came to fruition.

Anyway, I think we are being a little harsh. Perhaps changes need to be made if things do not go well heading towards the RSA home series.

WE WON!!