• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Monty and Swann

steds

Hall of Fame Member
You'd need Samit Patel at 6 if you were to do that. Can't have four pacemen without any backup, what if Freddie's ankle or Sidebottom's back goes?
Indeed. England can't play 6 specialist batsmen until we find a Darren Lehmann type.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Bennett longing for a Yorkshire player. :-O

Have hopes for Patel as a Test batsman, incidentally. That was what was always so good (and virtually never used) about Vaughan - he was a perfectly decent fingerspinner for the sort of stuff England need in most Tests and could easily have been played alongside four seamers. Such a shame he couldn't have had a longer career and that a specialist was picked in almost every Test of his career, despite obviously having little chance to make much impact in the overwhelming number of them.

If we wind-up with something like this in a year's time:
Strauss
Cook \ Key
Pietersen
Collingwood \ Shah \ Bopara \ Bell
Collingwood \ Shah \ Bopara \ Bell
Patel
Davies
Flintoff
AN Other seamer (be it Tremlett, Broad or someone else)
Sidebottom
Anderson
I'll be pretty happy.

The only players in the above line-up, if Collingwood keeps performing, Bell keeps not performing, Bopara plays and Shah doesn't, who don't bowl passably are the openers and obviously the wicketkeeper. Having two bit-part seamers (from three of Bell, Collingwood and Bopara) and two bit-part spinners (Patel and Pietersen) is a good thing and means you can easily, easily afford to go in with four specialists.

Likewise, if Broad's bowling develops quicker than I'm expecting it to, there's strong batting down to nine.

Such a side would almost equal the strongest England team of my memory:
Atherton
Trescothick
Hussain
Vaughan
Stewart
Thorpe
Hick
White
Cork
Caddick
Gough

Where there was batting to eleven and only Atherton, Hussain, Thorpe and the wicketkeeper Stewart didn't bowl.
 

Jigga988

State 12th Man
I would love to see Bopara and Key in the team in a years time. I dont think Key should've been dropped, he never really failed and scored centuries but wasn't given a chance. Although, the chances of him getting in to the side are very small now strauss' century has gifted him about 10 failed innings before he gets dropped and Cook will never really get dropped due to potential, despite deficiencies in his technique.

I think Key>Strauss and i reckon Key>Cook currently but in a few years time that would probobly be different.

With regards to Bopara, i think that he needs a big score under his belt before he can truely progress and go up the ranks in an England shirt. I think Bopara is ten times better than Shah, and should hopefully be the next batter in, but when he comes in is debatable, I dont see Colly or Bell ever getting dropped unless they go on a baron run of about 8-10 innings, due to the way England and KP thinks. Bopara without a doubt has the class, but for some reason has never performed with the bat, hoping he can be a revelation of 2009 though this is unlikely.
 

The Masterplan

U19 Debutant
Robert Key, I don't think so, I think he is a class player but his England days were unfortunatly over a while ago, I'd like to see Swann in the team for WI.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Don't rate Bopara at all.
Currently (or, rather, after the SL tour), neither do I, but I do think he has potential, and I also think the adjustments required are not particularly large. I think it's simply a matter of one or two things clicking, and if and when they do that, I think he'll be a Test-standard batsman on-the-spot.

As for ODIs, I'm less convinced, but there's some chance there as well of course. Also, given this thread is about MSP vs Swann and has diverged into the Test team as a whole and MSP should never, ever have played a ODI and quite possibly well always be a player who should never, ever play a ODI, the ODI side hasn't had much discussion here.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I would love to see Bopara and Key in the team in a years time. I dont think Key should've been dropped, he never really failed and scored centuries but wasn't given a chance. Although, the chances of him getting in to the side are very small now strauss' century has gifted him about 10 failed innings before he gets dropped and Cook will never really get dropped due to potential, despite deficiencies in his technique.

I think Key>Strauss and i reckon Key>Cook currently but in a few years time that would probobly be different.
Honestly, right now Strauss is the best opener in the country IMO, and I'm not saying that exclusively because he's just made twin centuries, though obviously those twin centuries dispel a fair amount of doubts I'd had about him after his most recent back-from-the-dead trip.

Strauss' technique is fairly watertight and his shot-selection currently is excellent - his judgement of where his off-stump is is superb and he's put the off-side drives away for everything except rank Half-Volleys. I think it'll take very, very good opening bowling to stop him seeing-off the new-ball at worst, making a pretty decent score at best.

However, Cook still fills me with precisely zero confidence against good opening bowling, the three (two of which are linked) flaws in his technique are as glaring as ever and while it says a fair bit about the calibre of his shot-selection that he's still been able to see-off the new-ball if not make big scores pretty often over the last year-and-a-bit despite the obviousness of his technical flaws, I still think a good opening bowler will get him out more often than not - never mind two of them (such as Stuart Clark and Brett Lee...) in the same attack.

Right now, I'd have Key without a backward thought, while realising that Cook's scoring, both 3 years ago and 1, doesn't really allow for the possibility to be seriously considered. If Cook was dropped (from team rather than squad, obviously) in West Indies there'd be outcry and not unjustifiably so. Sadly, the damage I see (at the current time) Cook's retention potentially doing would probably have to be actually done (in future) before there was a serious case for his exclusion.
With regards to Bopara, i think that he needs a big score under his belt before he can truely progress and go up the ranks in an England shirt. I think Bopara is ten times better than Shah, and should hopefully be the next batter in
I don't. Right now, if I had to choose between Shah and Bopara I'd have Shah without a backward thought, and it's a disgrace that Bopara was preferred in SL a year ago. But I don't see Shah getting his chance at all - nor there being much point in him getting it - if he doesn't get it within the next 6-12 months. So as of 2009/10, I'd probably be preferring Bopara.
 

Jigga988

State 12th Man
Honestly, right now Strauss is the best opener in the country IMO, and I'm not saying that exclusively because he's just made twin centuries, though obviously those twin centuries dispel a fair amount of doubts I'd had about him after his most recent back-from-the-dead trip.Strauss' technique is fairly watertight and his shot-selection currently is excellent - his judgement of where his off-stump is is superb and he's put the off-side drives away for everything except rank Half-Volleys. I think it'll take very, very good opening bowling to stop him seeing-off the new-ball at worst, making a pretty decent score at best.However, Cook still fills me with precisely zero confidence against good opening bowling, the three (two of which are linked) flaws in his technique are as glaring as ever and while it says a fair bit about the calibre of his shot-selection that he's still been able to see-off the new-ball if not make big scores pretty often over the last year-and-a-bit despite the obviousness of his technical flaws, I still think a good opening bowler will get him out more often than not - never mind two of them (such as Stuart Clark and Brett Lee...) in the same attack.Right now, I'd have Key without a backward thought, while realising that Cook's scoring, both 3 years ago and 1, doesn't really allow for the possibility to be seriously considered. If Cook was dropped (from team rather than squad, obviously) in West Indies there'd be outcry and not unjustifiably so. Sadly, the damage I see (at the current time) Cook's retention potentially doing would probably have to be actually done (in future) before there was a serious case for his exclusion.I don't. Right now, if I had to choose between Shah and Bopara I'd have Shah without a backward thought, and it's a disgrace that Bopara was preferred in SL a year ago. But I don't see Shah getting his chance at all - nor there being much point in him getting it - if he doesn't get it within the next 6-12 months. So as of 2009/10, I'd probably be preferring Bopara.
Shah is a one-day player. His technique is not condusive to the test arena. His FC average was considerably lower than Bopara's and Bopara is a far better fielder, and more handy a bowler than Shah.
I dont think it possible to drop Cook, i dont really know whats gone wrong with him, his tecnique, i dont remember ever being that poor. First time i noticed it was only in the series against Seth Efrica a bit ago. He has some talent driving on the offside and can be quite fluent when he wants to be, but he has never had a sweep shot, then again most essex batsman are taught not to use it and the way he constantly rocks on to the back foot is something that i think has come in to his game but hasn't always been there. I think once he sorts this tecnical deficiency out then he will develop in to a good test opener.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
I don't. Right now, if I had to choose between Shah and Bopara I'd have Shah without a backward thought, and it's a disgrace that Bopara was preferred in SL a year ago. But I don't see Shah getting his chance at all - nor there being much point in him getting it - if he doesn't get it within the next 6-12 months. So as of 2009/10, I'd probably be preferring Bopara.
Depends who's picking the side. If Moores, then you're probably right. If, as seems more likely, it's KP, then I can see Shah getting a go sooner rather than latter, given KP's very public championing of him in the oneday side. As I said elsewhere, KP has more than once taken a swipe at underachievers, and I suspect that Bell is now skating on very thin ice indeed, especially now that Collingwood has strung together 3 good or excellent tests on the trot. If Bell fails in the 2nd test, I think that Shah might start at 3 in the WI. I don't think KP would want matters to continue as they are until next summer. The longer term plan may be for Bopara to replace Collingwood in a couple of years' time.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Shah is a one-day player. His technique is not condusive to the test arena. His FC average was considerably lower than Bopara's and Bopara is a far better fielder, and more handy a bowler than Shah.
Shah isn't a one-day player though. Shah's always been far stronger at the longer version of the game than the shorter one. His technique might get found-out at the Test level but there's only one way to find-out, and that's to try. Shah has earnt the right to try, there've been hundreds of players with faulty techniques who've been good to magnificent Test players - look at Gary Kirsten and Stephen Waugh, for example. Not all technical flaws can be exploited.

And there is absolutely no way on Earth that Bopara's First-Class record is better than Shah's, that's why it's such an outrage that Bopara was picked for Tests ahead of Shah. Shah has been bashing down the door (the Test one - not the ODI one that the selectors have so stupidly repeatedly opened to him) for 8 years now, and has gotten a whole 2 Tests' recognition because of it, both as injury replacements. Bopara got 3 Tests, as a first-choce, on the basis of 1 good year. Absolutely ridiculous.
I dont think it possible to drop Cook, i dont really know whats gone wrong with him, his tecnique, i dont remember ever being that poor. First time i noticed it was only in the series against Seth Efrica a bit ago. He has some talent driving on the offside and can be quite fluent when he wants to be, but he has never had a sweep shot, then again most essex batsman are taught not to use it and the way he constantly rocks on to the back foot is something that i think has come in to his game but hasn't always been there. I think once he sorts this tecnical deficiency out then he will develop in to a good test opener.
Obviously, if he sorts it out he'll be a Test player of rare excellence. That much can be deduced from his shot-selection. However, to take it for granted that he can iron-out all three flaws would be extremely unwise. I first noticed the first (the tendency to defend deliveries outside off-stump, and worse defend them towards extra-cover rather than straight back down the pitch - you should always play a defensive shot with the full face showing to the bowler) in Australia in 2006/07, a little while ago now. The other one, the heavy-footed leading foot and tendency to get the bat stuck behind the pad and play around it, is one that afflicts plenty of LHBs (and RHBs when they face left-arm-over seam-bowlers) I first noticed against India in 2007, and it played a big part in us losing that series.

It will be far from straightforward for Cook to fix the latter flaw, and the fact that he still hasn't fixed the former despite it being in evidence for 2 years now suggests that a) it's proving very difficult as well or b) he and the England coaching staff are a bunch of dunderheads who can not merely not spot technical flaws for themselves but can't even take note of someone else pointing them out, as Sky commentators have done plenty of times.

As for the sweep, it's a problem for him, but not I don't think a bigger one than many other England batsmen. England batsmen by-and-large are simply not judicious sweepers. If I'm tutoring batsmen, one of the first things I'd say is "pretty well under any circumstances, never sweep against the spin".
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Depends who's picking the side. If Moores, then you're probably right. If, as seems more likely, it's KP, then I can see Shah getting a go sooner rather than latter, given KP's very public championing of him in the oneday side. As I said elsewhere, KP has more than once taken a swipe at underachievers, and I suspect that Bell is now skating on very thin ice indeed, especially now that Collingwood has strung together 3 good or excellent tests on the trot. If Bell fails in the 2nd test, I think that Shah might start at 3 in the WI. I don't think KP would want matters to continue as they are until next summer. The longer term plan may be for Bopara to replace Collingwood in a couple of years' time.
Wouldn't object to Shah replacing Bell in West Indies at all. Just hope it doesn't happen for the Second Test in India as, as I mentioned above, I'm almost never in favour of changing your side wilfully in a two-Test series.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Vaughan has to come in for Bell and bat 3.

Shah could be ok but its hard to argue that he is an upgrade. Bopara has done little to deserve the selection and I dont think he is one of the best batsmen in the country. Key has, IMO thankfully, seen his ship sail.

Patel would obviously come into consideration based on team composition. But still Vaughan is the clear candidate.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
What is it that makes you think Cook > Key right now Kev?

Not, I hope, the fact that he fits the stereotype of "southern softie".
 

Cameron-Moss

U19 12th Man
Panesar's only worry in WI should be from the lefties, Gayle and Shiv. I think he'll be given a run to see whether he can deal the pressure. Swann though good so far, has to prove a lot before he is established in the test team.
I agree here. IMO if panesar wants to do well WI he should bowl RtW (Round The Wicket) and pitch it at a good length on off-stump. This well open up the chance of LBW, and could force them to play on the leg-side, so if this happens I think the captain should set you good field.
 

Jigga988

State 12th Man
Obviously, if he sorts it out he'll be a Test player of rare excellence. That much can be deduced from his shot-selection. However, to take it for granted that he can iron-out all three flaws would be extremely unwise. I first noticed the first (the tendency to defend deliveries outside off-stump, and worse defend them towards extra-cover rather than straight back down the pitch - you should always play a defensive shot with the full face showing to the bowler) in Australia in 2006/07, a little while ago now. The other one, the heavy-footed leading foot and tendency to get the bat stuck behind the pad and play around it, is one that afflicts plenty of LHBs (and RHBs when they face left-arm-over seam-bowlers) I first noticed against India in 2007, and it played a big part in us losing that series.

It will be far from straightforward for Cook to fix the latter flaw, and the fact that he still hasn't fixed the former despite it being in evidence for 2 years now suggests that a) it's proving very difficult as well or b) he and the England coaching staff are a bunch of dunderheads who can not merely not spot technical flaws for themselves but can't even take note of someone else pointing them out, as Sky commentators have done plenty of times.
I dont think these are his biggest flaws and i dont think that these effect him as adversely as his trigger movements. The way that when the ball is bowled he is practically always going back. Yes, he does defend towards the off-side, as does Bell, I think Bell has got out a number of times doing it, i remember he got out doing it a couple times against SA. I always find that there is no merit in defending towards the offside as in practically every case you can just leave the ball alone for the same result - a dot ball.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
What is it that makes you think Cook > Key right now Kev?

Not, I hope, the fact that he fits the stereotype of "southern softie".
Firstly I dont mind Cook at all. I also dont mind the suposed "technical issues".

He has a good record at all levels, I like his compact game and, even if things are supposedly 'wrong' with his game right now, he scored 4 50s in 7 innings in his last series against a strong SA attack.

Maybe most importantly he is a young player that can make good contributions. He isnt out of his depth whilst learning the game.

I dont like Key. I dont like his temperament, I dont like his ability to handle pressure, Im not overly keen on his technique and I question his ability to step up a level.

Now, if Cook was failing left, right and centre and Key was a run machine then I could see the reasons for a callup (even if I disagreed). However, that isnt the case. It just isnt that cut and dried.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Vaughan has to come in for Bell and bat 3.

Shah could be ok but its hard to argue that he is an upgrade. Bopara has done little to deserve the selection and I dont think he is one of the best batsmen in the country. Key has, IMO thankfully, seen his ship sail.

Patel would obviously come into consideration based on team composition. But still Vaughan is the clear candidate.
I can't see that it's that cut & dry in Vaughan's favour. Since his return, his series averages have been 63 (WI), 49 (Ind), 36 (SL), 21 (NZ-away), 50 (NZ-home) and 8 (SA) and at the end of last summer he couldn't buy a score against pretty well anybody. He might be better than Bell or Shah, but it's by no means definite imo.

Bopara isn't relevant to this discussion because he isn't going to bat at number 3. Neither is Patel, of course.

Key is an interesting one. I couldn't write him off as confidently as you and he'd probably kill to have the sort of chances at test level that Bell has been given: iirc he was ditched after 3 moderate test in SA, which can happen to anybody. You could argue a case for him opening with Strauss to give us a RH/LH combination with Cook droping to 3, where he has previously done well for England.

Incidentally, what are your issues with Key's temprament?
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Shah is a one-day player. His technique is not condusive to the test arena. His FC average was considerably lower than Bopara's and Bopara is a far better fielder, and more handy a bowler than Shah.
You what?

Bopara's FC average: 40.82
Shah's FC average: 42.99
 

Top