Cook doesn't deserve to be left-out, no - but Trescothick and Vaughan both have more compelling cases than him as far as I'm concerned. And as I say - the fact that Cook has years on his side makes me less uncomfortable with making him wait a short while.
The only reason Cook would ever be left-out would be if Trescothick played. No-one's suggesting he'd fail to find a place unless both Trescothick and Vaughan were available (and happily it seems Vaughan is well on track to be so).
Vaughan's average of 34 is hardly anything special, if anything his First chance average would be miserable given that the 166 makes a sizable difference in that average. And how on earth is someone who hasnt played a single FC game in the last year supposed to be put as a shoe in for the opening test against WI ?
Why should Strauss be a certainity? I can understand how Vaughan is a certainty even if i disagree with it, but Strauss has been nothing short of rubbish since bowlers around the world have figured out how to bowl to him. There are enough questions in that top order for someone like Owais Shah to come in, even if he doesnt start the first test.
Have you actually seen him bat?? He's timing and shot selection is faultless he just hasn't been getting runs.
Maybe his technique has been weak of late he just has been looking like a man in form but just continuing on with his starts. It's because he isn't real used to good spinners like Murali.
What a strange argument. Vaughan's form from two years ago is about as relevant as Vaughan's form in 2003. You can use his performances from said time to develop a point - however only an ability-based one. If you're saying Vaughan just isn't very good at all, and not that he's in poor form, then his performances from2005 would be taken into account along with the rest of his career. Vaughan is a test quality batsman, regardless of what sort of form he was in two years ago, and his test record proves that. Add that to the fact that he is unparalleled by anyone in the world as a test captain, and it'd be stupid to leave him out unless his became a joke (and no, I'm not referring to his form from 2004 or 2005, FTR.)
There is no reason at all to bring Shah in. England have a plethora of proven test batsmen currently in and around the side to choose from, especially if Trescothick makes himself available. I can see why basically none of them would be certainties except for Pietersen - but only because they are competing with themselves - not because they aren't test standard and deserved to be dropped for Shah. Cook, Strauss, Vaughan, Trescothick (if available), Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood would and will all be considered before Shah, regardless of early season country cricket form.
Even though he's been getting out to the quicks as well? I'm pro-Strauss but your points are far from convincing.
I'm not saying he's getting out from spinners each innings, but he's been looking weaker when he's been playing spinners.
That doesn't explain the fact that he's been dire of late though, so it's a poor argument.
Honestly, you dont go out of form for 2.5 years in the test arena and then miraculously score runs against the worst attack that is put in front of you during that period. His test record has suffered severely since his first year and theres a reason behind it.
Let me put my point across a bit better.
How can you ignore his performances of the last few years?
and why should that be the case when Owais Shah has the most compelling case for selection? Everyone who saw him play against India was not just impressed but fascinated by the way he approaches his cricket and if anything he looks to have the Pietersenesque drive to succeed.
