Shah or Strauss?

[Richard]

Yes. But that's not to say "I think Strauss' selection will be a successful one". Even if he does take a catch or two that Shah might have dropped (important as that is). It's not as simple as "I want this" - I like to give reasons, not simply make statements.

 

[andruid]

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.

How about plaing Bell or Pietersen at 3 and letting Shah come in down the order? Like this

Cook
Vaughan
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah
.or

Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Shah

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Actually id go one step further and suggest that in terms of form and fitness, Mark Ramprakash is currently the best player available for selection to the England side. Since there doesnt seem much of a chance for him to be selected, id settle for Shah

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Unfortunately for Vaughan, his best years are probably already past him, and there is absolutely no logical reason to have him taking up one of the most important positions in the side. Yes i agree that he is better at 3 than he is opening, but for the balance of the side he needs to open the batting. Even if his average falls by about 10 runs or so, he will still be doing a far more effective job than Strauss.

 

[tooextracool]

How about plaing Bell or Pietersen at 3 and letting Shah come in down the order? Like this

Cook
Vaughan
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah
.or

Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Shah

Pietersen is not a test or ODI no 3. Whilst he might score runs at 3, his productivity will seriously dimish by batting (often) against the new ball.

 

[Richard]

How about plaing Bell or Pietersen at 3 and letting Shah come in down the order? Like this

Cook
Vaughan
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah
.or

Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Shah

No, never been in favour of either Pietersen at three or Bell in the top-order. And with Bell this dates back a long way, too - right as far as the 2002 season, 2 years before he made his Test debut.

Bell has always been better at five or six than he has at three, for Warwickshire or England. I was surprised when Bell got picked as a number-six batsman in Tests in the 2006 summer, but not at all surprised it was successful, if not perhaps as spectacularly successful as it was.

 

[Richard]

Unfortunately for Vaughan, his best years are probably already past him, and there is absolutely no logical reason to have him taking up one of the most important positions in the side. Yes i agree that he is better at 3 than he is opening, but for the balance of the side he needs to open the batting. Even if his average falls by about 10 runs or so, he will still be doing a far more effective job than Strauss.

If Strauss was the only option, yes, I'd agree (and of course, in the squad we currently have for this series, he is). But with Key available, I'd still prefer Vaughan at three.

What's more, we know - whether we like it or not - that Vaughan, exactly the same as Tendulkar, has the power not to open the batting if they don't want to.

 

[Woodster]

I would favour the selection of Shah, based on a few reasons. Firstly, I agree with the above comments that suggest Strauss has simply not done enough to prove he warrants a recall to the Test side. No proof he has overcome technical deficiencies or that he has found his form. I am not dismissing him as a Test opener, he was outstanding when he arrived on the scene, but I would probably not have selected for this tour.

Perhaps in an ideal world there would be another opener that England simply could not ignore. Rob Key probably does not fit into this category yet, but it would have been reward for his efforts to win a place on this tour.

Owais Shah has been a regular top performer in county cricket for a number of seasons and all he has been given is two Tests, 18 months apart. One in which he performed credibly. He deserves, more than most, a fair run in the side to show he can do it at the highest level.

In terms of where Vaughan bats, I like him at the top, although it would not trouble me too much should he come in at 3, but I also think Bell can be the long term number 3. Bell exudes such class at the crease and although at the moment you could say he is still an unfulfilled talent, the fact he averages in excess of 42 in Tests just shows how far people think he can go. Many would be happy with that average but people, myself included, still think he can improve much more. Has he the mental toughness to make these big scores ? I think so and would prolong his position at number 3.

 

[tooextracool]

In terms of where Vaughan bats, I like him at the top, although it would not trouble me too much should he come in at 3, but I also think Bell can be the long term number 3. Bell exudes such class at the crease and although at the moment you could say he is still an unfulfilled talent, the fact he averages in excess of 42 in Tests just shows how far people think he can go. Many would be happy with that average but people, myself included, still think he can improve much more. Has he the mental toughness to make these big scores ? I think so and would prolong his position at number 3.

Bell does have it in him to succeed at 3 or anywhere in the side really. There is no doubt about his class. But frequently, he comes in and gets bogged down and ends up like he did in Australia struggling to get the scoreboard ticking before throwing his wicket away after getting to 50, especially if the ball is moving around or if wickets are falling at the other end. The reason why he has been better at 6(although i would argue 5 would be better) is that he has been coming in against an older ball against bowlers who arent as fresh and in what can be termed as the 'Gilchrist effect' hes been able to score at better rates and consequently get more runs. In addition, he is arguably the best player of spin in the England side at present, and coming in against spin would add to and not shatter his confidence.

 

[Woodster]

Bell does have it in him to succeed at 3 or anywhere in the side really. There is no doubt about his class. But frequently, he comes in and gets bogged down and ends up like he did in Australia struggling to get the scoreboard ticking before throwing his wicket away after getting to 50, especially if the ball is moving around or if wickets are falling at the other end. The reason why he has been better at 6(although i would argue 5 would be better) is that he has been coming in against an older ball against bowlers who arent as fresh and in what can be termed as the 'Gilchrist effect' hes been able to score at better rates and consequently get more runs. In addition, he is arguably the best player of spin in the England side at present, and coming in against spin would add to and not shatter his confidence.

I am not saying he does not have anything left to prove and he should bat at 3 regardless of future series'. Yes he does need to go on and get big hundreds, more chance of him doing that at 3 rather than 6. He does play spin well but would be harsh to punish him for being one of the best, by shoving him lower in the order. At 3 you have to be solid or positive, both of which he can do. Yes he has impressed at 6, but I believe we can get so much more out of Ian Bell at 3.

 

[andruid]

No, never been in favour of either Pietersen at three or Bell in the top-order. And with Bell this dates back a long way, too - right as far as the 2002 season, 2 years before he made his Test debut.

Bell has always been better at five or six than he has at three, for Warwickshire or England. I was surprised when Bell got picked as a number-six batsman in Tests in the 2006 summer, but not at all surprised it was successful, if not perhaps as spectacularly successful as it was.

While Bell may not be the best at facing the new ball as is very strong though not guaranteed posiibility at 3 isn't he the best at palying the new ball besides Vaughan, and the specialist openers. Therefore in a situation where Shah is drafted in ahead of Strauss leaving only Vaughan and Cook to open would it be more sensible to send in Bell at three than Shah

 

[Richard]

Thing about Shah is that he's always been - even when a junior player - a three or four batsman. And he's done his best work there, done excellent work in fact. Bell, as I say, has done better both domestically and internationally at five or six (as tec said, five would be ideal but currently Collingwood is ahead of him).

Just before he first came into the Warwickshire side, this was generally the top-six:
Powell
Knight
Wagh
Ostler
Penney
Hemp

Bell essentially replaced his fellow right-hander Penney (relegated to the role of one-day specialist) and Troughton his left-handed fellow Hemp (who soon returned to his first county, Glamorgan). And this worked brilliantly. But then they decided in their infinite wisdom to drop Ostler (and often Powell too) and promote Wagh to open and Bell to three. And it set Bell's career back 2 years.

 

[andruid]

Thing about Shah is that he's always been - even when a junior player - a three or four batsman. And he's done his best work there, done excellent work in fact. Bell, as I say, has done better both domestically and internationally at five or six (as tec said, five would be ideal but currently Collingwood is ahead of him).

Just before he first came into the Warwickshire side, this was generally the top-six:
Powell
Knight
Wagh
Ostler
Penney
Hemp

Bell essentially replaced his fellow right-hander Penney (relegated to the role of one-day specialist) and Troughton his left-handed fellow Hemp (who soon returned to his first county, Glamorgan). And this worked brilliantly. But then they decided in their infinite wisdom to drop Ostler (and often Powell too) and promote Wagh to open and Bell to three. And it set Bell's career back 2 years.

Well argued indeed, so just how successful ahs Shah been playing in the 3/4 position at Firtst class level?

 

[Richard]

Unfortunately there's no way to provide exact stats in that department. The best you could do is go and look at cards of, say, 1999 (at which point he was still a grossly wasted talent) - you'd find he still mostly batted four or so.

Certainly since becoming Middlesex's premier batsman (probably the minute Ramprakash left) he's batted three.

 

[Woodster]

There is no question that Ian Bell is now a much better and more complete player than he was when he batted at five for Warks, something he has not done for a number of years now. So Warks must agree with the England side that he is clearly of most use to his side at number 3.

Shah, I would not argue, would probably be better used in a top four slot, but unfortunately he is further down the pecking order currently and so must bide his time or make the most of his potential opportunities at six before being rewarded with a higher position.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

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.

Key... I wonder why the first chance average theory doesn't apply here...

 

[GIMH]

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.

Shah not too shabby at slip, so at least one way or the other we will have a decent slip catcher this time out

 

[Richard]

Key... I wonder why the first chance average theory doesn't apply here...

Where did I say it doesn't?

 

[Richard]

There is no question that Ian Bell is now a much better and more complete player than he was when he batted at five for Warks, something he has not done for a number of years now. So Warks must agree with the England side that he is clearly of most use to his side at number 3.

Maybe they might, but I'm still not entirely certain they'd be right. As I say - for mine, it was the promotion to three that set Bell's career back so badly in 2002 and 2003 (let's not forget, there were one or two worries that he might have lost it completely and not be anything like the player he had looked like he was becoming - easy to forget now). Had he stayed at five, I honestly think that would never have happened. And who knows - maybe he might've got into the England side sooner that way, and not had the horrific Ashes 2005 he ended-up having.

I've always, always liked the look of Bell coming in lower down more than higher up the order TBH. Regardless of how he's developed.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Where did I say it doesn't?

Well, Key averages 23 in 15 Tests using that theory. Not even Strauss' slump matches that.