Owais Shah must be selected from now on

[deira]

Strauss has failed yet again in this series only averaging 19. Unless Strauss scores a century in his last innings in this test match, i think Shah must be automatically selected.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It all equity Owais should be the next to get a go, yes. He's been treated rather shabbily this winter; twice he's been the next cab off the rank & twice he's been leapfrogged by blokes who've played largely turd & failed to pass 50 in 11 innings between them.

 

[andruid]

Strauss has failed yet again in this series only averaging 19. Unless Strauss scores a century in his last innings in this test match, i think Shah must be automatically selected.

The ECB will go and drop someone who should really deserves to stay in the teams to give Shah a go rather than someone who should have been discarded ages ago ans we will end up crying for the unfortunate bugger who ge's axed.

 

[tooextracool]

The ECB will go and drop someone who should really deserves to stay in the teams to give Shah a go rather than someone who should have been discarded ages ago ans we will end up crying for the unfortunate bugger who ge's axed.

Bar Pietersen, Im struggling to think of any other batter who can make a convincing case of deserving to be in this England side. Maybe thats just me, but almost all of them have been exceedingly poor for a while now.

 

[Richard]

"This winter" is as far as I'd go myself.

TBH, I want Key to replace Strauss after this series, with Vaughan moving to three. Vaughan is useless at the top of the order, and much as Shah deserves a chance, you can't put a square peg in a round hole.

 

[tooextracool]

I think what England do need are some more strokemakers. I havent watched much of Shah at the domestic level, but they need players that are capable of taking the game away from the opposition much like Pietersen because the majority of this side ends up batting themselves into a rut before getting themselves out. Back in the heydey of 2004/05, they had players like Trescothick, Flintoff and to an extent even Geraint who were able to score runs aggressively and i feel that that is something this current side is lacking. Ambrose is a breath of fresh air, although i somehow doubt that he has the technique to succeed at this level. Ramps would be ideal, but unfortunately, i doubt the selectors will pick him.

 

[wpdavid]

"This winter" is as far as I'd go myself.

TBH, I want Key to replace Strauss after this series, with Vaughan moving to three. Vaughan is useless at the top of the order, and much as Shah deserves a chance, you can't put a square peg in a round hole.

The weren't exactly convincing against India, either. KP, apart that is.

Agreed with Key for Strauss. But you could also make a good case for Shah replacing Bell, who is taking forever to grow up into a consistent test batsman.

 

[tooextracool]

"This winter" is as far as I'd go myself.

Im struggling to think of what Bell and/or Collingwood accomplished against India last summer. Its all fine and good to tonk the Powells and Taylors around, but neither have shown particularly that they are capable of tonning up in recent times. I might be being a bit harsh on Collingwood who at least provides something in the way of being capable of adding some overs in with the ball, but Ian Bell as I mentioned earlier has scored 1 100 against a test bowling attack that merits mention in his entire career.
Surely when batters are supposed to have their names pinned down as England's players apparently are, they are supposed to not be consistently failing, yet in the case of England they are consistently performing poorly and yet the changes made in the side are to the bowlers rather than the batsmen.
I do not see Cook scoring runs against a pace attack worthy of any mention on a non-flat pitch either. Not with his current technique, which barring Strauss is easily the worst in this England side ATM.

 

[Richard]

The weren't exactly convincing against India, either. KP, apart that is.

Vaughan did well enough for my money.

Im struggling to think of what Bell and/or Collingwood accomplished against India last summer.

Bell scored twin half-centuries at The Oval. Yes, that was indeed (as per usual) an extremely flat pitch, and yes he obviously should have got even more than that, and yes he was highly disappointing in the other two Tests when there was more in it for the seamers. But it's a bit, and it is at least better than nothing.

As I said in the tour thread a little earlier, Bell is a highly frustrating player. There is indeed not a hell of a lot he's done of great note in his Test career, but there's also not a massive list of failures either. Many people, of course, would like to perport the "soft southerner" image on him, and though they have no real case to do so, it remains true that Bell has done best when ramming home rather than earning the advantage. Let's take a closer look:

1. Did well enough on Test debut against a weak attack
2. Had a horror Ashes, though I find this rather more forgiveable than some, as I only think he had large blame for 3 of his 10 dismissals.
3. Was going to be dropped for the winter but got back in, once more as a #3\4, and had several let-offs but also played 2 good innings (71 in the 1st and 92 in the 6th and last) in Pakistan. Then had a poor game and a good game in India, plus 1 where he was shoehorned in to open, which I don't care much for. So overall a fairly disappointing winter but one which had its moments. Dropped for the start of the summer.
4. Got back in following Flintoff's injury and did brilliantly at ramming home the advantage at six after big runs had already been made, but also played an important hand at Headingley to win the advantage, for the first time in his career. Rubbish bowling-attack for the most part, of course.
5. Then the most frustrating part of the career, The Ashes 2006\07. Did a damn sight better than most batsmen but was best described as "had two problems: making starts and going on with starts". Of his 10 innings, just 2 ended between 7 and 50, and he fell for single-figures 4 times and 50-87 4 times. So once more, a decent series but one where you thought "could've done better". Maybe would've done better if not promoted to three again?
6. Actually fairly poor series against West Indies, made a 109* and a 97, but his other 4 innings read 3, 5, 2, 11. Could've done better against such a weak attack.
7. 2 poor Tests and 1 good-'un against India, as described above.
8. By-and-large poor winter once more, never worse than this most recent dismissal as of this post, where he slapped one of the most innocuous deliveries you'll see straight back to the bowler. Nonetheless, that was the first time in the winter that a bowler had dismissed him for a single-figure score. And YET AGAIN in Sri Lanka he was back at three.

One thing I wish above all is that he'd never been promoted to four; that he'd batted five or six every innings of his Test career. Heck, I wish he'd never been promoted to three in 2002, and had those wasted 2 seasons.

Collingwood's a different case; I've never considered him particularly good, at Tests or ODIs. He has only ever, to date, scored runs either when let-off (sometimes lots) or on the flattest of the flat pitches (Karachi and Nagpur 2005\06, Adelaide 2006\07).

 

[tooextracool]

Vaughan did well enough for my money.

1 100 on the flattest pitch of the series against the WI largely masked what was an ordinary series. Its one thing to look at end of series averages as you constantly seem to be doing when assessing player performance. The bottom line is that when you take off the checquered glasses you might realise that scoring 1 100 and little else in a series has been a hallmark of Vaughan's career for the last 6 years. His performance against India was good, but im struggling to think of the last time Vaughan played consistently well over the course of an entire series, because each time i do that i go all the way back to 2002/03.

Bell scored twin half-centuries at The Oval. Yes, that was indeed (as per usual) an extremely flat pitch, and yes he obviously should have got even more than that, and yes he was highly disappointing in the other two Tests when there was more in it for the seamers. But it's a bit, and it is at least better than nothing.

Unfortunately doing a bit better than nothing or as i would like to call it doing better than Strauss is simply not good enough to cut it as an international player. Bell's performances may have otherwise been acceptable, but when you got players of the calibre of Mark Ramprakash or Owais Shah who cant get a game because of you, then you need to be scoring 100s to warrant a permanent place in the side.

As I said in the tour thread a little earlier, Bell is a highly frustrating player. There is indeed not a hell of a lot he's done of great note in his Test career, but there's also not a massive list of failures either. Many people, of course, would like to perport the "soft southerner" image on him, and though they have no real case to do so, it remains true that Bell has done best when ramming home rather than earning the advantage.

The soft image is rather annoying for it has even gotten to Bell who has started to import 'Pietersen' mannerisms into his game. This is not just restricted to his batting style, he constantly walks to the crease like Pietersen and has even started to walk across his stumps in a Pietersen like way when the ball is moving around. Nothing wrong with it of course, but just interesting to see how those comments have got to his head.

[*]Had a horror Ashes, though I find this rather more forgiveable than some, as I only think he had large blame for 3 of his 10 dismissals.

Arguably, he should not have been thrown into the cauldron in the first place. IMO if he was going to be picked as part of the middle order, he should have toured SA first as it is quite impossible to throw someone in the deepend in his first full series and expect him to perform. Pietersen AFAIC depite the acclaim he often gets for that series did not perform too well either, without those let offs he received at the Oval he would have ended up with an extremely ordinary series as well.

Collingwood's a different case; I've never considered him particularly good, at Tests or ODIs. He has only ever, to date, scored runs either when let-off (sometimes lots) or on the flattest of the flat pitches (Karachi and Nagpur 2005\06, Adelaide 2006\07).

Collingwood is a very different player given that he has at least scored big runs on flat wickets and on slow turning wickets. Paul Collingwood until the India series this summer had a fairly good conversion rate. We have been through the topic of Nagpur, which IMO was just as flat as the Hamilton pitch. You seem to think that a turning pitch has to be a raging bunsen or a dustbowl in order for it to asssist the spinners which is rather ludicrous as those sorts of pitches are rarely produced anywhere in the subcontinent. There is not much doubt in my mind that Bell is the more talented player, but equally as frustrating as it has been, Collingwood has outperformed in during their respective careers and also as i mentioned earlier provides the option of being able to turn his arm over.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Many people, of course, would like to perport the "soft southerner" image on him,

He was born in Coventry. Being Southern has nothing to do with it.

 

[grecian]

He was born in Coventry. Being Southern has nothing to do with it.

Here was me thinking you'd be asking what perport, meant........

 

[Neil Pickup]

Here was me thinking you'd be asking what perport, meant........

I usually ignore the words Richard uses and replace them with ones that make sense. Like "foist".

Anyone remember the "de-men-err" episode?

 

[Richard]

He was born in Coventry. Being Southern has nothing to do with it.

If you really believe that, you're less perceptive than I thought.

 

[Richard]

I usually ignore the words Richard uses and replace them with ones that make sense. Like "foist".

Nah, like "for" really.

Anyone remember the "de-men-err" episode?

Only people who were at the meetup. And yeah, I still think it sounds far better pronounced like that than pronounced the customary way.

 

[James90]

Strauss has failed yet again in this series only averaging 19. Unless Strauss scores a century in his last innings in this test match, i think Shah must be automatically selected.

LOL

 

[Matteh]

Awta

 

[grecian]

Me too, and I thought this thread wasn't as funny as the ones he creates in off-topic. How wrong I was.

 

[James_W]

TBF, everyone was thinking the same thing. I would never have predicted him scoring a century here, and I don't think many others would have either.

 

[grecian]

TBF, everyone was thinking the same thing. I would never have predicted him scoring a century here, and I don't think many others would have either.

Ah, but theres the humour, it was a decent shout, but has been made to look a mite silly.

I was gunning for Strauss myself, tbf.