***Official*** England in Sri Lanka

[Richard]

I see i'm not the only one that picks 12 players...

Must be something going around. But how odd. Could've sworn I'd picked 7 batsmen and 4 bowlers. Oh, hang on, I tried to pick 7 batsmen, and the last time I did that Alec Stewart was around, and he was a wicketkeeper who could bat.

 

[chaminda_00]

How poor is Cook's keeping btw?

 

[Richard]

Never seen it TBH - I'd imagine it's pretty average. Mind, I imagined that about both Solanki and, earlier, Trescothick, and while in both cases it certainly wasn't pretty it wasn't anywhere near as bad as I'd thought. Certainly no worse than Prior's was at The Oval last season and Geraint Jones' was for much of his first year as a Test-cricketer - in fact far better.

Even if Cook was the next Alec Stewart, though, I'd never want him given the gloves. Never, ever in favour of 'keeper-openers in Tests (Hakon may disagree I know) and Cook should just concentrate on improving his close-catching, which is already better than it was a year ago but still leaves something to be desired.

 

[GIMH]

No explanation offered for that. I think he should have been there before Broad. Personal opinion

AWTA

 

[GIMH]

He's not, though - Key is a quite viable option IMO. He's only ever opened in 2 Tests (and though he has batted three quite a few times, he's not done dreadfully there and had it not been for the fact he was keeping Mark Butcher out of the side I'd have been very happy had he suceeded).

If Strauss was to be dropped, for me, it had to be for Key. Then you could have:
Cook
Key
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood \ Shah
Bell
Prior (unfortunately)
Swann
Hoggard
Sidebottom
MSP
With Vaughan, Collingwood and maybe even Pietersen to bowl in addition to the specialists.

TBF it was always obvious that if Strauss was to be dropped then Vaughan would open, alas your feelings have long since been made clear. I don't think it'll make much difference; at times this summer Vuaghan might have well opened considering the speed with which Strauss was getting out.

Shah another possible part-time spin option? Cook's a spinner too

 

[FBU]

Who are going to be our slip fielders? Shah and Cook are poor. No Flintoff or Strauss.

 

[gettingbetter]

Where've I ever put down Shah's Test efforts? I've said since about 2001 that he's a fine batsman in the longer form of the game who's deserved more opportunity than he's got.

Never. Though I wasn't referring to that (as you can see from the example I gave). I was referring to Key who has been tried and failed and now you condone his inclusion in the team. Hence, 'How you pick and disect players is beyond me' i.e. why you will pick Key in the Test team, but you wouldn't pick Shah in the ODI team.

Hopefully that made sense.

 

[Perm]

While I awta, would still have to laugh if they won the series

It's not that unlikely. They still have a formidable batting lineup, while their bowling doesn't look too bad. Just a couple of major weaknesses, similar to the Sri Lankans.

 

[chaminda_00]

If you look at the likely starting XIs their not that bad, the big question for most people is the lack of depth behind the top 8 or so players. Still got a good core group of players.

 

[Richard]

Never. Though I wasn't referring to that (as you can see from the example I gave). I was referring to Key who has been tried and failed and now you condone his inclusion in the team. Hence, 'How you pick and disect players is beyond me' i.e. why you will pick Key in the Test team, but you wouldn't pick Shah in the ODI team.

Hopefully that made sense.

I think Key's shown far more potential in Tests than Shah has in ODIs though.

For starters he's done far better in domestic cricket; for seconds he clearly possesses plenty of the pieces of the puzzle required for Tests, while Shah possesses few for ODIs; and for thirds, Key's actually done better in the Tests he has played than Shah has in the ODIs he's played.

Look, I'm not saying Key's going to be a Test success, not at all - but it should have been between him and Strauss to partner Cook this series, no two ways about that.

 

[Richard]

Who are going to be our slip fielders? Shah and Cook are poor. No Flintoff or Strauss.

Well we had Mark Butcher last time we were there...

Yes, that cordon with Trescothick, Flintoff and eventually Strauss was a pretty damn good one; previously, with the likes of Atherton, Thorpe (at one time), Stewart (when not keeping) and Hick when he was playing, there was also skill.

Let's hope Cook gets better - as I said earlier, he is at least better now than he was when he first started Test-cricket.

 

[gettingbetter]

I think Key's shown far more potential in Tests than Shah has in ODIs though.
For starters he's done far better in domestic cricket; for seconds he clearly possesses plenty of the pieces of the puzzle required for Tests, while Shah possesses few for ODIs; and for thirds, Key's actually done better in the Tests he has played than Shah has in the ODIs he's played.

Look, I'm not saying Key's going to be a Test success, not at all - but it should have been between him and Strauss to partner Cook this series, no two ways about that.

Thats hard to sell.

Key has an average of 60+ against a Windies attack consisting of Collins, Best, Edwards, Bravo and Banks. My skills at manipulating stats aren't as good as others, but you know as well as me, his career average would go down significantly if we extracted those innings.

Between Key and Strauss?

I think the thing that irks me the most about this Richard is that you write off Shah in ODIs, as you do with other players and then some how you can justify Key being selected, who clearly as you have phrased so often on this board has been 'tried and failed and doesn't deserve any more opportunities.'

 

[pup11]

The Murali factor has been missing in this series and there was no other spinner in the Lankan ranks who could trouble the English batsmen so as soon as Murali comes back into the Lankan team most of the English batsmen would be truly tested, but Shah deserves a chance in the test side on the basis of his recent Odi performances and if he fails in this series then Key can be given a chance.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Even if Cook was the next Alec Stewart, though, I'd never want him given the gloves. Never, ever in favour of 'keeper-openers in Tests (Hakon may disagree I know) and Cook should just concentrate on improving his close-catching, which is already better than it was a year ago but still leaves something to be desired.

Haha. May be a bit off topic, but why would you follow CWXI and not participate? Unless you have in the past and retired or something.

EDIT: Never mind, got the info I needed.

 

[Lostman]

Who are going to be our slip fielders? Shah and Cook are poor. No Flintoff or Strauss.

On most of these wickets you would probably need only one slip anyway.

 

[Richard]

Haha. May be a bit off topic, but why would you follow CWXI and not participate? Unless you have in the past and retired or something.

EDIT: Never mind, got the info I needed.

Yeah, I was national coach for a fairly brief time. I do still check how the boys are doing, but not that often these days with Staff work and non-CW stuff.

I'll never, ever forget Hakon's prognostication shortly before his Test debut.

 

[Richard]

Thats hard to sell.

Key has an average of 60+ against a Windies attack consisting of Collins, Best, Edwards, Bravo and Banks. My skills at manipulating stats aren't as good as others, but you know as well as me, his career average would go down significantly if we extracted those innings.

Between Key and Strauss?

I think the thing that irks me the most about this Richard is that you write off Shah in ODIs, as you do with other players and then some how you can justify Key being selected, who clearly as you have phrased so often on this board has been 'tried and failed and doesn't deserve any more opportunities.'

Key may have been tried but he hasn't really failed awfully. He was a failure in 2002\03 when he was batting in the middle-order (which means little); failed in his first 2 Tests (hardly unusual); and did OK in his most recent spell batting three (most of his runs did indeed owe to dropped catches and the bowling in the West Indies series wasn't exactly first-rate). He was dropped almost by default as Bell sneaked in due to some devastating early form in 2005; had Bell's form been less prolific it's likely Key would've kept his place, and obviously playing Bangladesh he'd probably have been into the Ashes side, thus altering everything and who knows, maybe meaning what turned-out to be the best series in history happened totally differently.

Anyway - the point is I don't think Key has exhausted his opportunities. In his last 7 Tests (the only ones that really matter) he averages 44.25; his first-chance average is much lower, but it's still high enough to be a promising start to a career.

The Shah ODI situation is totally different. In his first 18 ODIs he averaged 18.37, and just twice scored more than 40, including 10 single-figure scores. That's seriously, seriously awful. And as his domestic record clearly shows, he should never, ever have been picked ITFP. Key has done better in his Tests than Shah has in his ODIs, and Key deserved selection; Shah didn't.

 

[Perm]

Who are going to be our slip fielders? Shah and Cook are poor. No Flintoff or Strauss.

Pretty good point here. I'm not sure what Key is like as a slipper, and from memory Vaughan is a mediocre catcher. Could be possible that we see Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen spending some time there when the fast bowlers are operating.

 

[Perm]

Robert Key definitely deserves selection. His average over the last four English summers has been 57, which is pretty damn good. Obviously not in the Ramprakash or Hick league, but he has certainly been performing and with the lack of depth for English openers he should have been picked. Strauss has been poor lately, Trescothick is still recovering and may not play Test cricket again while the other options (Godleman, Denly) are too young and don't have sufficient experience.

Owais Shah never deserved his spot in the ODI team when he was first picked, but at the moment he has put enough runs on the board domestically to give himself a chance. Had a decent season in 2005, superb in 2006 and very good in 2007. He's hardly likely to set the world on fire, but he has done enough to earn a run in the English team and I'd like to see him performing internationally. I can't think of too many better middle order options either.

 

[Perm]

but Shah deserves a chance in the test side on the basis of his recent Odi performances and if he fails in this series then Key can be given a chance.

ODI performances shouldn't impact upon whether or not a player deserves a Test spot, especially for somebody like Shah who is an ordinary limited overs batsman but very good in the longer format. His recent ODI innings haven't really been that excellent either, while he performed consistently against the West Indies he never managed to post a big score. His 'sucess' against India was all based on one innings where he punished part-time bowlers like Ganguly, Yuvraj and Tendulkar and slaughtered Agarkar at the death. Other than that he was terrible.