***Official England in India***

[Precambrian]

He hasn't really been consistently anything though - aside from 2004 and 2007 (when, irrefutably, he scored well) he's only had another 3 full seasons (2004/05, 2005 and 2008). In essence, that's 2 good seasons and 3 mediocre to poor ones. Not the closed-case you present it as.

Sorry, I'd rather say 1 reasonably good season (an average of 54.60 in one season - that's what good batsmen have as career average) , one medium season (46 - 2004) and remaining 4 poor seasons (averages 32, 30, 26 and 5). This is the story just as a middle order batsman.

Add to this his dreadful record as an opener during this period, and you'd get the picture. Nope, Give me Mark Ramprakash anyday.

 

[Richard]

Ramprakash who could be argued to have had 1 good year in Test cricket (1998) then another decent one (2001), to follow one of the worst introductions ever (1991-1995/96, where he averaged 16)?

You are kidding me?

 

[Precambrian]

It's not that I never want Vaughan to come back again. But at the moment, he just doesnt deserve to be in the squad, just because there is no alternative. That'll be a sorry state of affairs if he did.

I'll be a fan of him if he does the Ganguly route, the right route, by fighting it out. And proving himself.

 

[Precambrian]

Ramprakash who could be argued to have had 1 good year in Test cricket (1998) then another decent one (2001), to follow one of the worst introductions ever (1991-1995/96, where he averaged 16)?

You are kidding me?

That was a long time back. He's done some phenomenal rounds in the country circuit since then

 

[FBU]

My team for the 1st Test

Cook, Vaughan, Shah, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior, Flintoff, Sidebottom, Harmison, Anderson and Panesar.

If Swann did better than Panesar in the warm up match I would swop the two.

 

[Perm]

I'll be a fan of him if he does the Ganguly route, the right route, by fighting it out. And proving himself.

Ganguly only started 'proving himself'' when he made it back into the Test team, he certainly didn't deserve his re-call at the time.

 

[pup11]

Ganguly only started 'proving himself'' when he made it back into the Test team, he certainly didn't deserve his re-call at the time.

The more important question is do England really need Vaughan back in the side, he first would have to show some form in county cricket, but still i think Vaughan is well past his best and i don't think he has much left to contribute as a batsman to the English side, having an ex-captain in the team that is rebuilding also isn't really ideal for them imo.

 

[Richard]

That was a long time back. He's done some phenomenal rounds in the country circuit since then

And there's precisely no reason to think anything has changed. Ramprakash was always a very fine domestic batsman - it's not like he's gone from poor to good, he's simply gone from superlative to phenomenally superlative. I was always a massive Ramprakash fan and thought he was exceptionally poorly treated in 1999/2000 and with hindsight just a little unfortunate in 2002 as well. But there is no way on Earth he should be recalled now or should have been any time in the last 12 months. His time has gone; everyone he played with is no longer around - the Butchers, Athertons, Hussains, Stewarts, Thorpes, Corks, Caddicks, Goughs - all gone a while ago now. Recalling him in recent times would have made no sense.

And when it comes to who had(\has had) the better Test career, Vaughan irrefutably comes-out on top, though Ramprakash was obviously also far better at domestic level.

 

[Richard]

My team for the 1st Test

Cook, Vaughan, Shah, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior, Flintoff, Sidebottom, Harmison, Anderson and Panesar.

If Swann did better than Panesar in the warm up match I would swop the two.

Not Vaughan opening again!!!!

Strauss has to play. Hopefully he'll play as he has the last 6 months and as he did in 2004 and 2005, rather than how he played on his last trip to India and for the rest of 2006, and 2007. If he does he should be a rip-roaring success. South Africa have managed to get him out; seamers in India should find that exceedingly difficult so if he can play the patience game he's shown himself on two separate occasions to be well capable of he should be in for a good shedload of runs. If he tries to force the pace again, though, he's likely to fail badly.

 

[Precambrian]

And there's precisely no reason to think anything has changed. Ramprakash was always a very fine domestic batsman - it's not like he's gone from poor to good, he's simply gone from superlative to phenomenally superlative. I was always a massive Ramprakash fan and thought he was exceptionally poorly treated in 1999/2000 and with hindsight just a little unfortunate in 2002 as well. But there is no way on Earth he should be recalled now or should have been any time in the last 12 months. His time has gone; everyone he played with is no longer around - the Butchers, Athertons, Hussains, Stewarts, Thorpes, Corks, Caddicks, Goughs - all gone a while ago now. Recalling him in recent times would have made no sense.

And when it comes to who had(\has had) the better Test career, Vaughan irrefutably comes-out on top, though Ramprakash was obviously also far better at domestic level.

Bleh, next time i think i should highlight i am posting in a sarcastic tone. I know Mark's time's well up. I was telling, if at England was that desperate, they should be ringing Mark instead of Michael.

I think Bopara and Shah should make the squad as the middle order batsmen. Maybe Patel also as a back up spinner *** bat option. Jus because he's so confident coming from the good series he's had.

 

[Richard]

Shah certainly should make the squad and the team - arguably should have done 3 years ago indeed. Bopara, though, is a much more questionable case.

And yes, a YES, THIS POST WAS IN JEST!!!!!!!!!!!! goes a long way.

 

[GIMH]

Wouldn't stick Bopara in. If you're going to give him another crack, bed him in at home. Look what happened last time we played him on the sub.

I'd put Shah in but they clearly don't fancy him for the Test side, doing all they could to not pick him this summer.

 

[Richard]

I'm still hoping it was simply doing all they could to keep Collingwood in. And maybe it was poor, maybe it was inspired (I'm still not totally sure and maybe I never will be) - but it worked. Collingwood has always inspired massive loyalty and I hope it's that rather than trying not to pick Shah.

Because such a thing would be truly inexplicable.

 

[GIMH]

Possibly, but when they dropped Colly logic suggests Shah should have come in, simple as

 

[FBU]

I think Shah's chances of getting into the Test side have improved a lot since we have a new captain who seems to want to have a say in his team. Before he went on holiday I expect he handed Moores his team sheets and said 'make sure I get those players for India and Antigua'.. We will have to wait until the end of the month for the Test team but should hear on Monday the ODI team, contracts and the Stanford 13.

 

[Richard]

Possibly, but when they dropped Colly logic suggests Shah should have come in, simple as

Well, not neccessarily - they dropped Collingwood for a bowler. When they reverted once again to four bowlers and recalled a batsman, the logic was that Collingwood had not done poorly enough to fall behind Shah.

You can argue whether or not he had, and I don't really think there is a conclusive right or wrong answer TBH, I don't think keeping faith with Collingwood was shockingly poor, and it certainly wouldn't have been had Shah been picked for Edgbaston either. Fortunately, the option they plumped for ended-up working.

 

[aussie]

Rest of the team looks fine, but i would seriously consider playing Foster ahead Prior in the playing XI, and also think of selecting Tremlett or Hoggard instead of Swann.

Shah is clearly a better player of spin that Key.

Picking Foster would mean a lengthening the batting line-up with him @ 8, thus a major bowling workload on Flintoff in a 4-man which is not to safe risk to take.

Swann has to be picked since IMO ATM he should be on par with Panesar for the main spinner role.

 

[aussie]

On the Vaughan depate on whether is would still be useful or needed by the England side, well its no clear answer just yet for me. Obviously its a new era now under KP & Vaughan even if he where to find some form, his international career isn't likely to go further than Ashes.

I guess some questions that needs to be axed is do England still feel Vaughan the batsman (in form again i hope & based on team balance) can be still be a source of runs for another two years or so?. If so yes pick him if he scores runs.

Or if you just want him for the short term especially for the Ashes well then depending on team balance for example:

- if its 5 bats, Freddie @ 6, Keeper & the bowlers. Then with Bell, KP, Collingwood already in the middle-order it will be tough for him to win back a place IMO.

- if its 6 bats, Freddie @ 7, Keeper & the bowler. Then he has chance to force a middle-order place if he finds some form.

 

[GIMH]

Well, not neccessarily - they dropped Collingwood for a bowler. When they reverted once again to four bowlers and recalled a batsman, the logic was that Collingwood had not done poorly enough to fall behind Shah.

You can argue whether or not he had, and I don't really think there is a conclusive right or wrong answer TBH, I don't think keeping faith with Collingwood was shockingly poor, and it certainly wouldn't have been had Shah been picked for Edgbaston either. Fortunately, the option they plumped for ended-up working.

For sure, agree that that was the selectors thinking. Nonetheless they stuck a guy who averages less than 30 at 6 so they should have picked Shah. IMO.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, as I say - that's fine to think that. Similarly, anyone who thought Collingwood should have been given another go (and that included the selectors) wasn't really too wrong either.

All that really matters is that the choice which was made turned-out well for all concerned (except Shah, obviously).