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.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.
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.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.
The weren't exactly convincing against India, either. KP, apart that is."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.
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."This winter" is as far as I'd go myself.
Vaughan did well enough for my money.The weren't exactly convincing against India, either. KP, apart that is.
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.Im struggling to think of what Bell and/or Collingwood accomplished against India last summer.
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.Vaughan did well enough for my money.
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.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.
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.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.
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.[*]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.
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.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).
He was born in Coventry. Being Southern has nothing to do with it.Many people, of course, would like to perport the "soft southerner" image on him,
Here was me thinking you'd be asking what perport, meant........He was born in Coventry. Being Southern has nothing to do with it.
I usually ignore the words Richard uses and replace them with ones that make sense. Like "foist".Here was me thinking you'd be asking what perport, meant........
If you really believe that, you're less perceptive than I thought.He was born in Coventry. Being Southern has nothing to do with it.
Nah, like "for" really.I usually ignore the words Richard uses and replace them with ones that make sense. Like "foist".
Only people who were at the meetup. And yeah, I still think it sounds far better pronounced like that than pronounced the customary way.Anyone remember the "de-men-err" episode?
LOLStrauss 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.
Ah, but theres the humour, it was a decent shout, but has been made to look a mite silly.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.