***Official** West Indies in England***

[Prince EWS]

I'm also baffled as to why Shah has been included ahead of Ravi Bopara. Bopara has proven in the ODI format that he has what it takes to play at International level, and for me with Vaughan injured this would have been an ideal time to get him involved.

The fact that Shah is an infinitely better first class batsman might have something to do with it. If not, the fact that his only test to date for England was excellent could have done it for him. And, failing both of those, his excellent start to the county season would have done so.

 

[Poker Boy]

About the squad - is Shah only in if KP isn't fit? I think if KP is fit play all the batsmen - Flintof ain't a No 6 and Prior (isn't it funny an ex SUSSEX WK becomes coach and in his first Test in charge the current SUSSEX WK comes into the team - bias?) is unproven. The only other thing they have got wrong IMO is Plunkett over Anderson. Plunkett, IMO is in the posistion Anderson was in 2005 - he needs a season of CC to learn how to bowl (same as Mahmood who hasn't been picked) shame Lewis is injured as I'd have picked him over both as at least he knows what he is doing.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Well Ramprakash was fine, but yes, forgot about Irani.

Though Flintoff has been doing a viable impression of him (as a batsman) of late. And TBH, I don't believe he's as much superior (Flintoff to Irani, that is) as some probably would. And, of course, we have the wonderful Prior in the side instead of Stewart now.

Yeah, of course Ramps was fine. It was only 17 Tests since he'd made a score above 70.

(which is a lot fewer than Prior is likely to take. And an equal amount of time has passed since Fred's last ton.)

At least the odds of me getting rid of Nemi have gone down.

 

[dcnstntn]

The fact that Shah is an infinitely better first class batsman might have something to do with it. If not, the fact that his only test to date for England was excellent could have done it for him. And, failing both of those, his excellent start to the county season would have done so.

I believe Bopara is the better player. Not only that but I can see he could be a special player in the future. There is something about Bopara, something that world class sportsmen possess.

Shah for me is someone who might play the occasional excellent innings, but just massively reminds me of Ramps. The stats do not always prove things. Especially in our weak County scene.

So my opinion is Bops > Shah, you think the opposite, fair enough.

 

[UncleTheOne]

but shah has already shown he has something about him at test level, his 88 v india in his only test to date was a fine innings.

 

[gettingbetter]

If you have three bowlers of similar quality though, and two have just failed miserably while the other wasn't given a go, you'd logicially go for the third.

'Failed miserably' seems quite dramatic, and if anything, its probably logical to give these two a extended period in the team knowing that potential is there.

As for you Richard, consdiering I am from Australia, I am making comparisons, and thinking about it, its not just Australia whose stuck with the same squad and key players for an extended period of time. And for someone who advocates Read, its intersting that you sway that way with your argument.

As for point 3, yes it is a simplistic way to look at things, but analysing England's situation requires that. Overall, Giles is more capable than Monty wouldn't you say (you know where 'm going with this).

Also, I wold like to see you starting XI - with consideration to injuries. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing two teams by you; one from the designated squad and one of your own concoction - I can already envision names like Ufzaal, Masca, and co in the XI.

 

[steds]

I believe Bopara is the better player. Not only that but I can see he could be a special player in the future. There is something about Bopara, something that world class sportsmen possess.

Shah for me is someone who might play the occasional excellent innings, but just massively reminds me of Ramps. The stats do not always prove things. Especially in our weak County scene.

So my opinion is Bops > Shah, you think the opposite, fair enough.

Location: Essex, UK

 

[Richard]

Hahaha, Bennett.

 

[Richard]

As for you Richard, consdiering I am from Australia, I am making comparisons, and thinking about it, its not just Australia whose stuck with the same squad and key players for an extended period of time. And for someone who advocates Read, its intersting that you sway that way with your argument.

Anyone who has stuck with the same squad has done it for a reason - because the players in question deserved it. If they don't, it's about the most stupid thing you can do to keep picking them. If someone doesn't perform, you drop them. Simple as. The only question is how long is the chance you give someone. With Read, most people can simply tell he's never going to be a Test-class batsman. He's had enough chances (and so has Jones), now it's time to go on to someone else.

As for point 3, yes it is a simplistic way to look at things, but analysing England's situation requires that. Overall, Giles is more capable than Monty wouldn't you say (you know where 'm going with this).

And on a non-turning pitch I'd rather have neither. On a turner I'd happily have both.

I don't think looking at England's situation requires putting the simplistic glasses on at all, that invariably makes things worse whoever's under consideration.

Also, I wold like to see you starting XI - with consideration to injuries. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing two teams by you; one from the designated squad and one of your own concoction - I can already envision names like Ufzaal, Masca, and co in the XI.

Err, no, I've never once suggested Afzaal or Mascarenhas as Test-match options.

 

[Albion]

England should go with the following team IMO,

Strauss
Cook
Shah
Pietersen
Colly
Bell
Flintoff
Prior
Hoggard
Harmison
Panesar

Very strong in batting down to no.8

I wish we'd give up on this 5 bowler policy. If we had 5 world class bowlers yes we should play them - but we've been picking substandard players just to suit and conform to a certain strategy.

The 5th bowler hardly bowled any overs during the ashes anyway and Fred is a dodgy number 6 at best. We also beat Pakistan with a 4 man attack last year.

Use Freddie in 3 fast short spells of 6 each - that way you are not overboling him. Monty can bowl more overs and the other 2 fast men only need to bowl 20 each.

 

[marc71178]

Can't believe Graveney is going to give us Plunkett-Panesar-Hoggard-Harmison after saying never-again following Caddick-Mullally-Tufnell-Giddins.

Erm, what?

Plunkett >>> Caddick
Panesar, Hoggard and Harmison are all >>>>>> Mullally, Tufnell or Giddins.

 

[steds]

Plunkett >>> Caddick

 

[marc71178]

I'm also baffled as to why Shah has been included ahead of Ravi Bopara. Bopara has proven in the ODI format that he has what it takes to play at International level, and for me with Vaughan injured this would have been an ideal time to get him involved.

Shah proved in the Test arena that he has what it takes...

 

[Richard]

Erm, what?

Plunkett >>> Caddick
Panesar, Hoggard and Harmison are all >>>>>> Mullally, Tufnell or Giddins.

Haha, WTF? No way on Earth is Plunkett a better batsman than Caddick. And Hoggard, like Mullally, is a semi-useful blocker and Tufnell, Giddins, Panesar and Harmison all have in common the fact that they have roughly zero ability with the bat.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Haha, WTF? No way on Earth is Plunkett a better batsman than Caddick. And Hoggard, like Mullally, is a semi-useful blocker and Tufnell, Giddins, Panesar and Harmison all have in common the fact that they have roughly zero ability with the bat.

Harmison does have ability with the bat y'know, more than an average tail-ender.

 

[Prince EWS]

Plunkett is an infinitely better batsman than Caddick, IMO. Caddick with his sub-15 first class average and all, to go with his test average of 10.37. A grand total of 0 fifties in international cricket from 133 innings says a lot as well IMO. Plunkett's test average is low at the moment but he's only played a handful of test matches - his first class record is vastly superior to Caddick's.

 

[marc71178]

Plunkett is a far better batsman than Caddick - he's someone who can actually bat at 8 - Caddick is a 9 at best.

Mullally, Tufnell and Giddins were all woeful with the bat, and the 3 current ones have already all done far more at international level with the bat than them.

 

[steds]

Haha, WTF? No way on Earth is Plunkett a better batsman than Caddick. And Hoggard, like Mullally, is a semi-useful blocker and Tufnell, Giddins, Panesar and Harmison all have in common the fact that they have roughly zero ability with the bat.

Haha. Thought he meant as bowlers. I take my "" back.

 

[Richard]

Plunkett is an infinitely better batsman than Caddick, IMO. Caddick with his sub-15 first class average and all, to go with his test average of 10.37. A grand total of 0 fifties in international cricket from 133 innings says a lot as well IMO. Plunkett's test average is low at the moment but he's only played a handful of test matches - his first class record is vastly superior to Caddick's.

Plunkett is a far better batsman than Caddick - he's someone who can actually bat at 8 - Caddick is a 9 at best.

Mullally, Tufnell and Giddins were all woeful with the bat, and the 3 current ones have already all done far more at international level with the bat than them.

Caddick is better than Plunkett as far as I'm concerned. His First-Class average isn't flash, but it's plain for anyone to see that he could play. Plunkett's ability with the bat is overstated.

And Caddick rarely if ever got the chance to bat for long in a ODI, Rob.

 

[Prince EWS]

Caddick is better than Plunkett as far as I'm concerned. His First-Class average isn't flash, but it's plain for anyone to see that he could play. Plunkett's ability with the bat is overstated.

Personally, I think Caddick's ability with the bat was overstated. It was often stated that he could bat a bit but he never really showed it at all in either form of the game at domestic or international level.

Plunkett looks a lot more accomplished at the crease than Caddick IMO, as well as having a significantly better first class average and generally batting higher than him.