***Official*** England in Sri Lanka

[BoyBrumby]

Of course, can't have Sri Lanka playing good cricket and dominating England, can we? Never mind when they make a Durham player look like a fool. Thus, when such happens, the game's automatically d**e.

 

[wpdavid]

That's it! A little bit of history made by that run-out. Collingwood is the first England captain since Keith Fletcher to win an ODI in Sri Lanka.

And how easy was that, given our quite abomnable record there since that first game in 1982? Astonishing, if you ask me.

Interestingly, following the discussion on the last couple of pages, it came about from building a decent score by means within our capabilities - ditto the wins against India and in Aus earlier this year - rather than pretending our guys are as good as Hayden & Gilchrist at blasting away against the new ball and getting bowled out for 180.

It strike me that Shah's getting a bit of a raw deal here. I know he's been lucky to get another go this year, but since his return he's probably done as well as anyone and better than most.

 

[Richard]

Check the time of that post, pal...

 

[Richard]

And how easy was that, given our quite abomnable record there since that first game in 1982? Astonishing, if you ask me.

Interestingly, following the discussion on the last couple of pages, it came about from building a decent score by means within our capabilities - ditto the wins against India and in Aus earlier this year - rather than pretending our guys are as good as Hayden & Gilchrist at blasting away against the new ball and getting bowled out for 180.

It strike me that Shah's getting a bit of a raw deal here. I know he's been lucky to get another go this year, but since his return he's probably done as well as anyone and better than most.

Not sure TBH, as I'm about to say in my report this was almost certainly his best innings since his 2nd game. I'm very much to be convinced - he's so far had 1 good series against West Indies and 1 poor series against India (was damn lucky to get more than 40 in that last game remember), and now 1 poor game and 1 good one against SL.

We wait to see, but it's certainly hugely premature to be championing him as suddenly having become ODI-class having been useless for games spread over years.

 

[aussie]

To date, he still is. Today's was his first really, really impressive innings in his entire ODI career, though his 62 in his 2nd game was pretty good.

First?, don't know about you but AFAIC Shah has been very impressive this year for England in ODI cricket and to date has erased any qualms of him not being good enough to play for England.

 

[Richard]

Nope, certainly not erased. Kept himself in the frame, undoubtedly, but erased all doubts, no way at all.

Had one good series last summer (42, 45, 52 against West Indies) and one poor one (19, 8, 15, 40) and has now had 1 good game and 1 poor one this series. As I say, he's very much looked better than he ever had before, but he's still very far from proven.

 

[pup11]

Good win for England and TBH i never thought they would be able to challenge the Lankans in their own backyard especially in the Odi's, but they played very well yesterday and they paced their innings very well and they deserved to win.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nope, certainly not erased. Kept himself in the frame, undoubtedly, but erased all doubts, no way at all.

Had one good series last summer (42, 45, 52 against West Indies) and one poor one (19, 8, 15, 40) and has now had 1 good game and 1 poor one this series. As I say, he's very much looked better than he ever had before, but he's still very far from proven.

Didn't score a ton against India? Or am I imagining things?

 

[Richard]

Was caught behind on 40 and not given. Remember who you're talking to.

 

[TheEpic]

Yawn.

That is not some kind of freak incident which has only happened to Owais Shah. Disputed/dropped catches happen all the time, and it doesn't change the fact he was still able to score another 60 odd runs and bat very nicely indeed. Although this may unfavourably plump his average, if nothing else it proves he is able to make aggressive one day hundreds and can hit out well in the last few overs.

 

[Pup Clarke]

That is not some kind of freak incident which has only happened to Owais Shah. Disputed/dropped catches happen all the time, and it doesn't change the fact he was still able to score another 60 odd runs and bat very nicely indeed. Although this may unfavourably plump his average, if nothing else it proves he is able to make aggressive one day hundreds and can hit out well in the last few overs.

 

[Richard]

Yawn.

That is not some kind of freak incident which has only happened to Owais Shah.

And? I don't only mention it when it happens to Owais Shah.

Disputed/dropped catches happen all the time, and it doesn't change the fact he was still able to score another 60 odd runs and bat very nicely indeed. Although this may unfavourably plump his average, if nothing else it proves he is able to make aggressive one day hundreds and can hit out well in the last few overs.

We already knew that though, he did that in his very first ODI.

Simple fact is, that bad decision made what was actually a poor series look like, if not a good one, then a decent one to follow a good one.

 

[The_Bunny]

Nope, certainly not erased. Kept himself in the frame, undoubtedly, but erased all doubts, no way at all.

Had one good series last summer (42, 45, 52 against West Indies) and one poor one (19, 8, 15, 40) and has now had 1 good game and 1 poor one this series. As I say, he's very much looked better than he ever had before, but he's still very far from proven.

He hasnt erased all your doubts, but i'm pretty sure he has erased the selectors doubts...
Think he is in there to stay myself tbh.

 

[Richard]

If he's erased the selectors' doubts, that proves 2 things:
1, they're foolish and too quick to have doubts erased
2, those doubts will only have to come back again should there be a time when Shah returns to his ways of failure

 

[The_Bunny]

If he's erased the selectors' doubts, that proves 2 things:
1, they're foolish and too quick to have doubts erased
2, those doubts will only have to come back again should there be a time when Shah returns to his ways of failure

If he stops getting runs for a length of time (however long that should be is debatable) then he should be dropped, but I dont have any doubts about his ability to perform at this level, and I think he can be one of Englands better Odi batsmen.
If you think differantly thats fine, you continue thinking that, and I'll continue thinking this, because I doubt I can change your mind, and it would take a pretty convincing argument to change my mind, which I doubt you will come up with

 

[TheEpic]

We already knew that though, he did that in his very first ODI.

So what's the problem?

Simple fact is, that bad decision made what was actually a poor series look like, if not a good one, then a decent one to follow a good one.

So what is the problem here? Every batsman in world cricket, even when in good form, is capable of nicking the ball. On this occasion, he nicked it and was given not out. This fact doesn't make Shah a bad batsman. After this, he went on and blasted a pretty explosive hundred full of exciting shots, which is a rare commodity for an English one day batsman anyway.

The fact that he is capable of producing such an innings is by far the most important point here, and you seem to be totally ignoring it. If Michael Yardy or Ian Blackwell had nicked off and been given not out, do you think they possess the ability to then go on and whack a highly impressive century?

 

[Richard]

If he stops getting runs for a length of time (however long that should be is debatable) then he should be dropped, but I dont have any doubts about his ability to perform at this level, and I think he can be one of Englands better Odi batsmen.
If you think differantly thats fine, you continue thinking that, and I'll continue thinking this, because I doubt I can change your mind, and it would take a pretty convincing argument to change my mind, which I doubt you will come up with

The only thing I can say is convincing is that, even if Shah had scored runs in every single game since his comeback last summer, it should still not convince anyone. It's just 9 innings.

Obviously, if Shah scores runs for the next 2 years, he'll have me convinced. I tend to take a bit longer than most to be convinced by someone, though, and it's meant I've made far less mistakes than most. You can't really make an error by sitting on the fence; you can make loads by deciding a player's got the goods on a mere handful of games.

For reference, I refer you to the cases of Anderson and Harmison, for instance.

 

[Richard]

So what's the problem?

That Shah has not done it very often. You need to do it more than twice in a career.

So what is the problem here? Every batsman in world cricket, even when in good form, is capable of nicking the ball. On this occasion, he nicked it and was given not out. This fact doesn't make Shah a bad batsman.

Nicking an innocuous ball to the wicketkeeper doesn't make someone a bad batsman? O...K...

After this, he went on and blasted a pretty explosive hundred full of exciting shots, which is a rare commodity for an English one day batsman anyway.

Any fool can do this if they get given the chance to do. Andrew Flintoff did a couple of times in 2004, for instance - what's he done of late?

The fact that he is capable of producing such an innings is by far the most important point here, and you seem to be totally ignoring it. If Michael Yardy or Ian Blackwell had nicked off and been given not out, do you think they possess the ability to then go on and whack a highly impressive century?

Yes, frankly. Any fool can if they're given let-offs. Fact is, neither of those two have been so far, so we haven't seen any evidence.

 

[Prince EWS]

Was caught behind on 40 and not given. Remember who you're talking to.

Haha, you can't just list it as 40 though. Fair enough discrediting an innings (I suppose.. that's another debate which I don't care to go into again..) but to actually list it as 40 is waaay OTT. List it as what it was and then give your reasons for why it wasn't significant.

 

[Goughy]

Shah has shown himself to be nothing more than an ordinary ODI player so far in his career.

Does he have the potential to kick on and become a good one? That can be debated.

However, there is nothing in his domestic record or his International record to make anyone think he will be a good International player.

In fact he may be more suited to Test cricket than ODI.

A couple of good innings is little proof of anything as any FC cricketer is capable of scoring runs on occasion given enough opportunities.