Shah or Strauss?

[Richard]

Of course he does. Congrats on working it out BTW.

However, 2 of those Tests were against Zimbabwe, and batting in the middle-order to boot. Which as you know means sod-all to me.

The first 2 were when he still had a glaring weakness in his game with pushing at deliveries outside off-stump. That was soon ironed-out.

The 4 in Australia were in the middle-order - irrelevant when judging his credentials as an opener.

So basically you have the most recent 7 games which are important to me. In those 7 games, he failed to convince me, very much so, despite an excellent 83 at The Wanderers (his best Test innings by a fair amount for mine). But I'm not willing to write someone off completely and say I never want to see them again based on 7 bad Tests (13 innings) when they've been scoring runs for fun at the domestic level. Strauss has struggled even to do this in recent times, and his recent Test record excluding that Pakistan series (scorebook average is 29.97, first-chance quite a bit down on that) is every bit as unimpressive as those 7 Tests of Key's.

So for me, as of this post Key > Strauss.

 

[Woodster]

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.

I think when there is so much expectancy surrounding a player, especially one as young as Bell was, then there will come a time when self doubt creeps and he fears he will never live up to his potential. I am not sure when he completed slipped off England's radar that it can be solely because of his batting position. I think if a blip like that happens, then it would happen regardless of his place in the batting line up, be it 3,5 or 6.

 

[Richard]

Oh, we'll probably never know for sure what it was that caused Bell's inexplicably poor form in 2002 and 2003. But I don't think the notion of him being pushed up the order without any real reason is a possibility that can be ruled-out. It might just have been weight of expectation, should we say, weighing on his mind, sure. But there's enough in Bell's successes and failures, both recent and less recent, to make me think that had he stayed at five in 2002 things might have gone better.

 

[Woodster]

It certainly remains a little bit of a mystery for now, but no, the reason you stated cannot be entirely ruled out.

However, I would be very much against him dropping down to six to allow Strauss to bat at 3!

 

[Richard]

Strauss batting three, as I said in the tour thread, is little short of plain madness.

 

[deira]

Shah might have a chance here.

This is what peter moore said today: "At the moment we're trying to finalise our team," he stressed. "We've had Owais (Shah) with us for quite a long time and we've not seen much of Andrew so we've put a side out and that gives us a chance to look at players.

"We have an idea of what the Test match team will be but we're having a look at what options we have available. There's obviously been a debate about the Shah/Strauss batting position and bowling-wise we have quite an interesting decision"

so maybe Shah will be selected

 

[gettingbetter]

After Strauss scoring that 50, i think England will go back to him - sweet 05 memories.

 

[Flem274*]

Want Strauss TBH, free wicket.

Seriously, Vaughan shouldn't open. he had a short stint of success there, but so did Stephen Fleming when he opened, and what happened next? He got owned, moved back into the middle order and surprise! Scored runs again.

 

[gettingbetter]

Want Strauss TBH, free wicket.

Seriously, Vaughan shouldn't open. he had a short stint of success there, but so did Stephen Fleming when he opened, and what happened next? He got owned, moved back into the middle order and surprise! Scored runs again.

You are giving of Richard vibes atm.

 

[albo97056]

Personally I dont think it matters too much where Vaughan bats, but if youve got a specialist opener in the side in Strauss the why not use him as an opener? Seems nonsensical to bat him at 3 when hes opened all his career.

 

[Richard]

After Strauss scoring that 50, i think England will go back to him - sweet 05 memories.

Memories of him opening.

 

[gettingbetter]

Memories of him opening.

Ahh, the English cricket fan's fascnation/infatuation with 05 - at least you are living in a world knowing that Tresco, Freddie and Jones won't likely to be back.

 

[Richard]

I have no real desire to try and recreate 2005 - I've been fast losing faith in Strauss since he failed to score against West Indies - but he opened in 2005, along with the entire rest of his career to my knowledge, and so therefore it really makes no sense, if you're hankering for 2005, to bat him at three.

Really, who on Earth bats openers at three? The only excuse for doing that, EVER, is if there's an opener basically bashing down the door, but both opening slots are taken-up indisputably by two batsmen who simply must open. Neither of these is present in this case, it's just some stupid, idiotic, braindead idea about opening partnerships having to have some sort of contrast. Yeah, Cook stays in, Vaughan goes early - great contrast there.

 

[gettingbetter]

I'm not all that oppossed to having an opener at 3 - people seem to suceed there (although I'm not 100% who exactly are openers are and who aren't). But if Strauss was picked to play at 3 that would be mad.

 

[Richard]

Openers have succeded at three, sure. But middle-order players tend to do better in the middle-order than openers do, and openers tend to do better opening.

As I say - the only time you can ever justify picking an opener to bat three ahead of a middle-order player is if an opener is bashing down the door but the two opening slots are very firmly taken.

Mind, I've seen more stupid things than Strauss batting three. I've seen Jean-Paul Duminy picked for ODIs as a bowler.

 

[gettingbetter]

I'm at a mates house so I'll respond late, but are you sure you haven't got JP mixed up with Philander?

 

[Richard]

Nope. Philander is an all-rounder.

 

[gettingbetter]

I've got time, but as you say and I agree, Strauss hasn't even entered the building let alone get near the door to deserve a place in the team.

 

[sledger]

tbh Strauss should be allowed straight back in, the team could do with his experience if you ask me. And Owais Shah has been unconvincing in the opportunities he has had so far, he always strikes me as looking like a rabbit caught in the headlights of an oncoming car.

 

[Goughy]

I love how we are in a big lull in the quality of Englands performances and yet its possible that 2 batsmen averaging over 40 may be cast aside. Must be a better team than I thought.

Id play Strauss. There are technical issues, especially leaning back when driving, but he has done a decent job, is an opener and is experienced.

Im happy with Cook and Strauss opening. Less keen on Strauss at 3. Its possible that players have bad runs and its possible that he can score runs in this series.