Ravi Bopara and Owais Shah failing?

[SaeedAnwar]

Why do you think Ravi Bopara and Owais Shah keep failing? both have been playing for a while now and England selectors have given them a lot of chances but both haven't proven themselves worthy of their places.

also do you think they should be given any more chances after this one day series?

 

[stumpski]

I would be surprised if both went on the winter tour tbh, but Bopara is the more likely to - in both squads. Shah hasn't played a major innings for England for a long, long time - he's getting to the stage where pretty 40s won't cut it anymore.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Can probably add Bell to the list too and Ian's services to mediocrity have secured him another central contract.

I think with Bopara he's very much a touch player; beautiful on the eye but not the kind who you'd back to grind out a score when the ball isn't quite coming out of the middle. His bad runs seem to spiral; he started badly in Sri Lanka and ended with a pair and similarly against Oz he began with a (slightly spawny) 35, but it was all downhill from there.

 

[Woodster]

I think in ODI terms we should be looking at a bit of an overhaul of the current side. I'm not necessarily suggesting massive changes, but I would look to move Bopara down the order to number 4, as I don't think opening the batting is the best position for him. With Shah I would now ship out of the side. Yes he has played a few crucial innings for England but his consistency still isn't there. He has been messed around at times, but I just think it's time to draw a line under his international career for now, and see if he does anything really special in domestic cricket to demand re-selection.

Bopara is very good on the eye, and a player I have said many times on here, that I think will have a big future in England's top four or five over the next few years. He has one or two technical problems that 'Goochie' will hopefully sort, it's more his mental state that is slightly more worrying at this stage.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I think in ODI terms we should be looking at a bit of an overhaul of the current side. I'm not necessarily suggesting massive changes, but I would look to move Bopara down the order to number 4, as I don't think opening the batting is the best position for him. With Shah I would now ship out of the side. Yes he has played a few crucial innings for England but his consistency still isn't there. He has been messed around at times, but I just think it's time to draw a line under his international career for now, and see if he does anything really special in domestic cricket to demand re-selection.

Bopara is very good on the eye, and a player I have said many times on here, that I think will have a big future in England's top four or five over the next few years. He has one or two technical problems that 'Goochie' will hopefully sort, it's more his mental state that is slightly more worrying at this stage.

Don't rate Gooch's coaching or judgement. He's hardly gotten the best out of Alistair Cook has he?.

He was at Durham when their batting was useless, and remained so. Gooch just generally over-hypes players, it just makes his opinion worthless.

 

[Richard]

Most coaches overhype their players, it's not really very surprising - if a coach works extensively with someone and he puts in lots of hard work the coach is always going to be pleased with him and talk him up. Rodney Marsh called Chris Read one of the best wicketkeeper-batsmen in The World, and he's supposedly not one given to hyperbole.

As regards Shah and Bopara, Shah has never been all that much of a ODI batsman (though it's fair to say he did a decent job between the Third ODI against NZ in 2008 and the WI home series earlier this summer). Bopara isn't a ODI opener, isn't a ODI #6\7\8 and probablyisn't a ODI #4 either. If he has a future, I reckon it's probably in Tests. If he doesn't have an international future, which is far from impossible, then he should do well for Essex in both game-forms, better than Mark Pettini who was once thought to be his superior.

 

[Woodster]

Don't rate Gooch's coaching or judgement. He's hardly gotten the best out of Alistair Cook has he?.

He was at Durham when their batting was useless, and remained so. Gooch just generally over-hypes players, it just makes his opinion worthless.

For a guy that's suspect technique is now continually coming into question, he has scored a heck of a lot of Test runs and averages in excess of 40. With that in mind, he probably has got plenty out of Cook.

Yes it's nothing new for a coach to talk-up one of his own, coaches the world over are guilty, if that is the right word, of doing this.

 

[Woodster]

As regards Shah and Bopara, Shah has never been all that much of a ODI batsman (though it's fair to say he did a decent job between the Third ODI against NZ in 2008 and the WI home series earlier this summer). Bopara isn't a ODI opener, isn't a ODI #6\7\8 and probablyisn't a ODI #4 either. If he has a future, I reckon it's probably in Tests. If he doesn't have an international future, which is far from impossible, then he should do well for Essex in both game-forms, better than Mark Pettini who was once thought to be his superior.

Questionable judgement to suggest Pettini was going to make more of an impact at the highest level than Bopara.

What Shah does do is hit the ball in different areas, angling his bat to ensure he finds the gaps, he can be very unorthodox which makes it difficult to set a field to him and contain, that is of course when he's playing well, and on a consistency level it does not happen enough.

I think Bopara can still be a hit in both forms. Perhaps his success against the WI gave him a false impression of where he was at in terms of his own development, he generally got away with a few things, but also demonstrated his elegant strokeplay potential. He needs to continue understanding his own game, continue to work on the faults he had even when he was scoring runs against WI, and put the hard yards in.

 

[Scaly piscine]

For a guy that's suspect technique is now continually coming into question, he has scored a heck of a lot of Test runs and averages in excess of 40. With that in mind, he probably has got plenty out of Cook.

Yes it's nothing new for a coach to talk-up one of his own, coaches the world over are guilty, if that is the right word, of doing this.

Yes and who has been the batting coach for Bopara and Cook - two technically flawed (and one mentally flawed) players?

Cook is one of the most naturally gifted players around in England and he's only averaging above 40 because he fills his boots on roads. Wouldn't be surprised if Gooch played a part in Collingwood's crappy technique as well. These guys have the potential and they've got a good enough mental approach and work ethic - this goes for plenty of players in English cricket.

Gooch has basically made coal out of diamonds.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yes and who has been the batting coach for Bopara and Cook - two technically flawed (and one mentally flawed) players?

Cook is one of the most naturally gifted players around in England and he's only averaging above 40 because he fills his boots on roads. Wouldn't be surprised if Gooch played a part in Collingwood's crappy technique as well. These guys have the potential and they've got a good enough mental approach and work ethic - this goes for plenty of players in English cricket.

Gooch has basically made coal out of diamonds.

I would; Colly's technique is basically the anti-Gooch. Gooch had a massive backlift whereas Collingwood barely has one at all. Gooch played a lot straighter too, Colly's so bottom handed he strangles a lot of shots.

Not talking up Gooch as a coach, btw, just can't see any hints of him in Collingwood.

 

[Richard]

Questionable judgement to suggest Pettini was going to make more of an impact at the highest level than Bopara.

Well, it's just symptomatic of judging players at the age of 19-20; history is littered with examples of people thinking one player had more potential than another at that sort of age and things turning-out otherwise. Nothing case-specific, really.

I think Bopara can still be a hit in both forms. Perhaps his success against the WI gave him a false impression of where he was at in terms of his own development, he generally got away with a few things, but also demonstrated his elegant strokeplay potential. He needs to continue understanding his own game, continue to work on the faults he had even when he was scoring runs against WI, and put the hard yards in.

Absolutely - to precisely what extent he's able to do that will determine whether and when he becomes a Test-standard player. Some people, however, seem to take it for granted it will happen. Sure, I hope it will, but it's far from a formality to my mind. I find it quite conceivable that Bopara will be unable to overcome all his faults, and thus could possibly continue to struggle all Test career against teams who can catch.

He's played lots of ODIs now, though, in a variety of positions, and not looked particularly well-suited to any of them. The only thing he's done well is pull games from the fire which have looked gone - demonstrating a remarkable cool head in adverse circumstances, which is why the assertion that he's mentally soft is so ridiculous. Bopara's problems in the longer game are based around his set-up and hitting the ball in the air too often; in the shorter they're based around his limitations and his inability to innovate.

 

[Woodster]

Yes and who has been the batting coach for Bopara and Cook - two technically flawed (and one mentally flawed) players?

Cook is one of the most naturally gifted players around in England and he's only averaging above 40 because he fills his boots on roads. Wouldn't be surprised if Gooch played a part in Collingwood's crappy technique as well. These guys have the potential and they've got a good enough mental approach and work ethic - this goes for plenty of players in English cricket.

Gooch has basically made coal out of diamonds.

There is no doubting Cook's weaknesses but by fixing those it may create other problems, potentially bigger ones.

Regarding Bopara, there are very few young players that arrive on the international scene the finished article, it is clear he has to work on his game, but on the whole his technique will be good enough to score runs for England.

 

[Woodster]

Well, it's just symptomatic of judging players at the age of 19-20; history is littered with examples of people thinking one player had more potential than another at that sort of age and things turning-out otherwise. Nothing case-specific, really.

Absolutely - to precisely what extent he's able to do that will determine whether and when he becomes a Test-standard player. Some people, however, seem to take it for granted it will happen. Sure, I hope it will, but it's far from a formality to my mind. I find it quite conceivable that Bopara will be unable to overcome all his faults, and thus could possibly continue to struggle all Test career against teams who can catch.

He's played lots of ODIs now, though, in a variety of positions, and not looked particularly well-suited to any of them. The only thing he's done well is pull games from the fire which have looked gone - demonstrating a remarkable cool head in adverse circumstances, which is why the assertion that he's mentally soft is so ridiculous. Bopara's problems in the longer game are based around his set-up and hitting the ball in the air too often; in the shorter they're based around his limitations and his inability to innovate.

Yes sure it is easy to make wrong judgements when comparing two young players for a number of factors.

You cannot expect certain players to succeed, I agree, and when he is playing well it is easy to predict such a bright future for him, but it is when he is not playing well that will give us an indication how far Bopara can go. He has been too positive and loose in his strokeplay while batting at number 3, whether that is a pre-meditated move to be a positive number 3, I don't know. He does need to assess the situation better, things like this come with experience. He does have technical issues, but few batsman are faultless after a dozen Tests or so.

In ODI's I believe his game is better suited to four or five rather than up top, or languishing in the lower middle order.

 

[Scaly piscine]

You can't expect everyone to succeed no, but they sure make much more of potential in Australia than we do here. Better at assessing talent, better at developing and maximizing it. It is the same story in plenty of other sports as well.

 

[Zinzan]

You can't expect everyone to succeed no, but they sure make much more of potential in Australia than we do here. Better at assessing talent, better at developing and maximizing it. It is the same story in plenty of other sports as well.

I think you'll find that's because Australia generally have more raw talent/potential to start with & I mean that in terms of being real "athletes". You only have to watch England run (or waddle) around the field to see they're hardly the most naturally gifted athletes in the world.

Obviously I'm generalising as there are a few exceptions such as Pietersen, Collingwood and Anderson. But really painful watching guys like Broad, Side-bum in the outfield.

Of the 4 "Western Team's" Aust, SA, Eng & NZ (I exclude West Indies), England are pretty much always the least athletic in the field.

 

[Zinzan]

I would; Colly's technique is basically the anti-Gooch. Gooch had a massive backlift whereas Collingwood barely has one at all. Gooch played a lot straighter too, Colly's so bottom handed he strangles a lot of shots.

Not talking up Gooch as a coach, btw, just can't see any hints of him in Collingwood.

Agreed, styles are like chalk & cheese