***Official*** South Africa in England

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Get the skipper in at 3. Bell's going to play daft shots wherever he bats, so move him to 4. Slot Bopara in at 5 and tell him to play his shots. Quietly confident of a 2-day Test match.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

His selection smacks of the same ineptitude that has resulted in England's downfall since the Ashes in 2005. Couldnt care less if hes good enough to play for England, he never merited a chance to play for England over Shah, he got it and failed miserably and it looks like they still havent learnt their lesson. The question here should really be What has Bopara done to merit selection over Shah?
His record for England A is almost as poor as his record for England and thats saying something.

As said previously, Shah has had a very mediocre first-class season.

 

[tooextracool]

Saw him stuck on 0 for 15 deliveries earlier this season or something. Certainly was stuck on a low score for a large number of deliveries. Against the might of Phil Eaglestone and Kevin O'Diren too.

He has a SR of 80 odd so lets just assume that it was just a one time thing.

 

[tooextracool]

Come on, Goughy, your standard of debate is usually higher than that. I'm not suggesting he's Steve Waugh or that "any old player" can be Steve Waugh - as you well know. I was merely illustrating the point that early performance in international cricket can be misleading, and that you can't read too much into his 22 appearances so far.

All the more so in Prior's case because he's yet to have a proper run in the team and he's been pushed into the opener's role (both by England and Sussex) which doesn't necessarily suit him.

If Prior is supposedly good enough to keep in ODIs then why isnt he in the test side? We know that he has the ability to make at least a decent bat in tests, dont think he'll average 40 odd with his footwork, but surely if his keeping is good enough he should be in the test side as well? Ambrose's keeping is shocking IMO, especially for someone whos been picked as a wicket-keeper batsman and not the other way around.

 

[tooextracool]

As said previously, Shah has had a very mediocre first-class season.

Averaging nearly 40 isnt great but its not mediocre. Im not sure whether you watched Bopara in Sl or not but his past performances dont inspire confidence (i think even the england selectors would acknowledge that he was well short of international class during that time) and it seems much of a joke that hes selected after half a season's worth of performances. It seems even worse that he is selected over someone who had yet to be given more than a 1 test match run at the international level.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Averaging nearly 40 isnt great but its not mediocre. Im not sure whether you watched Bopara in Sl or not but his past performances dont inspire confidence (i think even the england selectors would acknowledge that he was well short of international class during that time) and it seems much of a joke that hes selected after half a season's worth of performances. It seems even worse that he is selected over someone who had yet to be given more than a 1 test match run at the international level.

Test class batsmen who spend most of their time in domestic cricket should be averaging over 50 at that level, IMO. At least over 45. Shah certainly should, and the fact that he's not is a concern, especially considering some of his efforts in past years.

But you don't picked players based on last year's form, if that player has no international record of which to gloat.

 

[Prince EWS]

If Ravi Bopara is one of the best 6 Test/FC batsmen in England then things are worse than I thought.

If Bopara really is the next best option, I seriously think Vaughan should have been retained as a batsman. There are a number of batsmen I would have thought could be alternatives to Vaughan but if none of them are deemed better than Bopara, Vaughan should still be playing.

Bopara is quite clearly in good form and is having a good season, but form by its very nature is cyclical. His overall record is modest and he looked absolutely clueless not long ago in a Test series. He's even looked quite poor in ODIs during this "golden run" of excellent form (which has covered both formats). Even if he is an immediate success in his second stint at Test level, which I found doubtful anyway, his form will subside and he'll return to mediocrity.

 

[Prince EWS]

But you don't picked players based on last year's form, if that player has no international record of which to gloat.

You don't pick players purely on this year's form if that player has no domestic record of which to gloat either, though.

Shah might not be at the peak of his game right now but there's no evidence to suggest he has actually declined as a batsman, and even if Bopara is slightly more likely to get a score in the next Test than Shah (which I personally don't believe to be true anyway), he's not a better medium-term option.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You don't pick players purely on this year's form if that player has no domestic record of which to gloat either, though.

Shah might not be at the peak of his game right now but there's no evidence to suggest he has actually declined as a batsman, and even if Bopara is slightly more likely to get a score in the next Test than Shah (which I personally don't believe to be true anyway), he's not a better medium-term option.

I'm not advocating Bopara. I'm questioning Shah.

 

[tooextracool]

Test class batsmen who spend most of their time in domestic cricket should be averaging over 50 at that level, IMO. At least over 45. Shah certainly should, and the fact that he's not is a concern, especially considering some of his efforts in past years.

But you don't picked players based on last year's form, if that player has no international record of which to gloat.

Few players average over 50 in every season. England are hardly spoilt for choice and given the option of picking someone who averages 40 odd this season and has had several seasons of consistent success isnt that bad. Personally, I dont rate Shah or Bopara, but Shah deserves a go in the side as he never really had a proper shot at the international level ITFP. I can understand if we have someone whos been flaying county attacks in the manner of Hick or Pietersen, but someone whos played 3 tests less than a year ago and looked out of depth being a part of the side based on half a seasons performance just sickens me.

 

[GIMH]

If Bopara really is the next best option, I seriously think Vaughan should have been retained as a batsman. There are a number of batsmen I would have thought could be alternatives to Vaughan but if none of them are deemed better than Bopara, Vaughan should still be playing.

Bopara is quite clearly in good form and is having a good season, but form by its very nature is cyclical. His overall record is modest and he looked absolutely clueless not long ago in a Test series. He's even looked quite poor in ODIs during this "golden run" of excellent form (which has covered both formats). Even if he is an immediate success in his second stint at Test level, which I found doubtful anyway, his form will subside and he'll return to mediocrity.

He ruled himself out, though, so it wasn't an option

 

[zaremba]

You're missing Kev's point, which is that Steve Waugh was never as poor a player at domestic level as Matt Prior has consistently been in List-A cricket. Matt Prior is a good first-class batsman who can score briskly, but that has little to no bearing on his ability in one-day cricket. Aside from short runs of form, Matt Prior has never looked good enough to play OD cricket as a batsman. He's just poor in that form. He shouldn't be, all things considered, but for whatever reasons, he is.

I'm not missing his main point, which is a fair one (although I don't accept that Prior couldn't make it in ODI cricket).

 

[Richard]

If Bopara really is the next best option, I seriously think Vaughan should have been retained as a batsman.

I reckon he would have been had he made himself available. But he wants a break, and I guess I can understand that, but it's very risky.

Then again, so might have been playing in this Test.

 

[Richard]

Bopara's obvious a case of a young pretty thing who's face fits, which isn't hard to do alongside Key.

There speaks a true son of Essex. Just pleased to see a county stalwart get a go.

I highly doubt it.

Dunno who you are

Fairly sure this is him TBH.

 

[Richard]

Well doubtless you're hoping he fails, to "teach the selectors a lesson".

Pretty much.

Though as I've said before: a lesson they'll learn? I highly doubt it.

BTW, I'll say one good thing about Prior's selection - at least he's done well this season... in the whole 5 innings' he's played.

 

[Goughy]

Come on, Goughy, your standard of debate is usually higher than that. I'm not suggesting he's Steve Waugh or that "any old player" can be Steve Waugh - as you well know. I was merely illustrating the point that early performance in international cricket can be misleading, and that you can't read too much into his 22 appearances so far.

All the more so in Prior's case because he's yet to have a proper run in the team and he's been pushed into the opener's role (both by England and Sussex) which doesn't necessarily suit him.

Suprising reply.

Your case is that Waugh was not a success early and went onto become a star and that therefore any player that has a poor record cannot be written off.

I think thats a fairly weak argument, as along with the occasional ugly duckling, if you trawl the lower depths of International success you are far more likely to find ordinary players.

Prior isnt comparable to Waugh as Waugh had a poor Test record but debuted early, came from a different system and was an allrounder.

Prior has a poor ODI record as well as having a poor domestic OD record based over a pretty long career. Hence it is no suprise.

If Prior was averaging 40+ in List A then you may have a point but he averages 27 (I think). When that is so low then a poor International record is no suprise and he cannot be expected to be a success at that level when he cant do it domestically.

 

[Zinzan]

Prior > Ambrose.

I agree. To me Ambrose seems so sluggish behind the stumps compared with the likes of McCullum or even an aging Boucher. And its not like he's a star with the bat.

 

[Richard]

At least Ambrose hasn't yet had a Test where he dropped near enough everything that came his way - which Prior has, not once, but twice.

 

[Zinzan]

At least Ambrose hasn't yet had a Test where he dropped near enough everything that came his way - which Prior has, not once, but twice.

Haven't seen much of Prior tbh, but would be extremely surprised if Ambrose is the best gloveman in the country

 

[Richard]

He's not, there's at least 2 better (1 of whom is ineligable for international cricket) but he's nowhere near as bad as you made-out earlier. He's barely dropped a catch in Test cricket and is an infinitely better wicketkeeper than Prior.