Shah or Strauss?

[deira]

Who should England select for test spot in this series. Owais Shah or AJ Strauss?

 

[silentstriker]

Shah? I'll go. Do I get an IPL contract?



Strauss.

 

[dunfyguy29]

bit like asking do u want to take a cricket bat out there when u bat.

shah is never an international player,more like a pub cricketer!

 

[Perm]

Apples and oranges.

 

[Tim]

well Strauss has looked like a possum in headlights the way he;s been batting for Northern Districts. And not surprisingly he was out cheaply again today. I think you'd have to go with Shah at this stage.

 

[sledger]

Fairly obviously Strauss for mine, would have no hesitation in picking him whatsoever.

 

[Richard]

shah is never an international player,more like a pub cricketer!

Haha, wonder how many Middlesex Championship games you've watched to come to that conclusion then? Shah, who averages all but 50 for the last 7 seasons (and 122 for MCC to boot) is clearly one of the best long-form batsmen in the country.

Sadly, though, you can't put a round peg in a square hole, as has been pointed-out via a different metaphor already. If Strauss is excluded for Shah, it means Vaughan must open, something he has never done with as massive distinction as most seem to think, and certainly something he hasn't done with any distinction at all of late. Vaughan must bat three, so unfortunately that means Shah (who has a compelling case to play) must stay out for Strauss (who has very little case, ITBT).

 

[Richard]

well Strauss has looked like a possum in headlights the way he;s been batting for Northern Districts. And not surprisingly he was out cheaply again today. I think you'd have to go with Shah at this stage.

I'm not terribly concerned about what Strauss has done in one-day cricket, and nor am I particularly bothered about some worthless 2-day game either. Nonetheless, as I said in my above post, Strauss has done nothing of late to deserve selection. But his non-selection would mean Vaughan opening, something no-one should want to see (except maybe patriotic Kiwis ), so there's virtually no choice.

 

[gettingbetter]

Even if Vaughan does open, don't you think he'd do a better job than Strauss? Consequently having Shah in the team is somewhat win-win.

 

[Richard]

If Vaughan would do a better job than Strauss by averaging 28 where Strauss would average 17 (hypothetical figures) I wouldn't neccessarily be happy at all. I don't want Vaughan wasted by batting out of position to try and accomodate a middle-order batsman, however good that middle-order batsman might be.

Vaughan batting three and averaging 50 or 60 while Strauss does not-much at the top would be far preferable. Though obviously, if Strauss repeatedly goes quickly Vaughan would essentially be opening anyway. But it's remarkable what a difference even 10 overs or so can make.

 

[tooextracool]

My thoughts on Strauss are well known. Id be more likely to be convinced to pick Ali Brown than Strauss at this point.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Shah for mine. Should've played in SL too, but Moores did a rather spectacular volte face based on Bopara scoring a few more runs in one of those beer-and-skittles warm ups before the test series.

The only thing that might save Strauss is that Mick has let it be known that he'd prefer to play at 3. Personally I think he needs to suck it up. Despite Richard's assertions Vaughan became the no 1 test bat of the back of his perfomance in the 02/3 Ashes as an opener.

 

[Richard]

And what's his performances since then been, remind me?

 

[BoyBrumby]

And what's his performances since then been, remind me?

Averages more opening than not, which sort of refutes your suggestion that it's "something he has never done with as massive distinction as most seem to think".

Moreover, even if we leave aside Shah's own case, Strauss & Cook have never convinced me as an opening pair. They're similar sort of players and one doesn't seem to compliment the other.

 

[Richard]

Averages more opening than not, which sort of refutes your suggestion that it's "something he has never done with as massive distinction as most seem to think".

It doesn't, though - the precise point I was making when I used that phrase was that the scorebook-average for 2002 and 2002\03 was deceiving. Vaughan did not bat anywhere near as well as an average of 76.65 suggests. His first-chance average in this time was a mere 53.44 - still excellent, yes, but nowhere near as good as the luck made it look. Therefore, people who looked purely at the scorebook might get the impression he'd batted with more distinction than he actually had.

What's more - and the point I was making with my previous post which you ignored - is that his opening record aside from this short period is roundly unimpressive. In his first 6 innings as an opener he averaged 21.83, and since his luck as an opener has dried-up, in 30 innings now, he's averaged a mere 30.75 in the position, compared to 39.56 elsewhere.

Vaughan has only had 1 short impressive stint as an opener (that not as impressive as might appear at first glance) and has also had a lot of mediocrity. It's a crying shame he wasted several prime years in the position.

Moreover, even if we leave aside Shah's own case, Strauss & Cook have never convinced me as an opening pair. They're similar sort of players and one doesn't seem to compliment the other.

Well I really don't mind how similar they are, TBH - if they're both effective, job's a good-'un. Trouble, of course, is that Strauss wasn't remotely effective in 2006 or 2007 against teams that weren't missing 3 or 4 frontline seamers. Nor - in case you were thinking to, which you might not have been - can you blame his decline on opening with Cook, because plenty of these innings have come with Trescothick anyway.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well I really don't mind how similar they are, TBH - if they're both effective, job's a good-'un. Trouble, of course, is that Strauss wasn't remotely effective in 2006 or 2007 against teams that weren't missing 3 or 4 frontline seamers. Nor - in case you were thinking to, which you might not have been - can you blame his decline on opening with Cook, because plenty of these innings have come with Trescothick anyway.

You're all over the place there. Are you supporting Strauss or Shah?

 

[Richard]

As I've said - I expect things to be all over the place, because I don't really "support" the selection of either, for various reasons. I don't think Strauss should be in the team, but nor do I think Shah should be because if he is, it'll mean Vaughan opens, which I believe will drastically reduce his performance relative to what it would be at three.

What I'd have preferred would have been had Strauss been excluded in favour of Robert Key, and Key opened with Cook. And if that'd worked in Sri Lanka, obviously we'd try it again now.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As I've said - I expect things to be all over the place, because I don't really "support" the selection of either, for various reasons. I don't think Strauss should be in the team, but nor do I think Shah should be because if he is, it'll mean Vaughan opens, which I believe will drastically reduce his performance relative to what it would be at three.

What I'd have preferred would have been had Strauss been excluded in favour of Robert Key, and Key opened with Cook. And if that'd worked in Sri Lanka, obviously we'd try it again now.

FFS. Grow a pair & make a choice already! There isn't a secret third option, it's a clear either-or shout. Try to see the positives each player brings, rather than the negatives. Strauss's slip-catching might work in his favour, for instance.

 

[Richard]

Don't really see the need for such severity TBH. I have good reasons to think that there is a preferable option - one that has already been ruled-out by the non-inclusion of Key in the squad - to the selection of Strauss, or the selection of Shah.

If I haven't already said so in this thread (I definately have elsewhere), I'd prefer this:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
to this:
Cook
Vaughan
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
but it's very much a lesser-of-two-evils thing. I think there's a pretty good chance of failure (in some way, shape or form, be it Strauss or Vaughan) with either of the options the squad selected gives us. I won't be terribly happy at either - I will merely be slightly less unhappy at one than the other.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Strauss then? Thank you. Sheesh.