Don't think an aggressor is necessary, and Key certainly isn't the man to be one. England are short on aggressive openers because the new ball almost always swings here and they end up having their asses handed to them regularly.
surely the best paper in UK needs better cricket coverage than that.
I also simply don't see Paul Collingwood doing terribly well if there's anything much in the decks for seam and if Stuart Clark stays fit (and doesn't get dropped like he was in India
). For all Collingwood's fighting quality he lacks the technique to deal with top-class bowling and it doesn't get much better than Clark on a seamer.
I'd have Shah over Bell as well. Maybe there will be a place for Shah as I don't think Collingwood's shoulder is going to last until next summer. His fielding has suffered because of it and there will be plenty of diving around before the Ashes.
Tbh, i don't buy into the "mentally weak" theory. I think he's just not very good- he mistimes too many shots, he chooses the wrong ones, he's more vulnerable than most to the good ball even when well set. There's no one, obvious technical flaw, he just doesn't have either the hand-eye co-ordination, the concentration or the consistent timing ability to be a success at test level IMO. Averaging 39 (non-Bangladesh) after this many tests isn't what good players do.
Averaging 39 isn't the mark of a bad player, though, and he does have time on his side. He must be about 26? I have a bit of faith in him itbt
I don't know, 39 is very mediocre in this age. It would be okay if he scored those runs when his team really needed him to like Atherton. Or if he fully took advantage when the going was good, like a proper flat-track bully. Scoring neither important runs nor many runs is a bit much for me. I'd give Shah a shot.
I thought you watched Australia bowl in India this past month?
Not necessarily an aggressor, but they need someone who is willing to play some strokes at the top of the order and can take the pressure off the other. Its all fine and good to have defensive batsmen but when the combination of them tie their end up and put pressure on the other without getting any runs on the board, it is almost always a recipe for disaster.
Can't see Bell batting anywhere other than 3 in India. For me, he's produced his most impressive innings in that position. Or at least, the only times he's contributed when the going is a lot less than easy. Obv I'm aware of his averages.
I think Cook's been given the aggressor role. Against SA, he did always seem to score at a decent pace, a strike rate of above 50. The problem i foresee with Cook is that he depends on being exceptionally fantastic at a few shots. Smith missed a trick here this summer, but i fancy if you use a third man and deep square leg and don't bowl any short stuff, the runs could dry up to a massive extent. And with his foot movement, it often seems like only a matter of time before he nicks one.Not necessarily an aggressor, but they need someone who is willing to play some strokes at the top of the order and can take the pressure off the other. Its all fine and good to have defensive batsmen but when the combination of them tie their end up and put pressure on the other without getting any runs on the board, it is almost always a recipe for disaster.
I do not see the combination of Strauss and Cook succeeding at the international level tbh, and I certainly dont see the current version of Strauss who seems to believe he can leave absolutely everything outside the off stump and defend everything thats full and still manage to score runs
Didn't make one TBH, Bell either got a decent-size innings or nothing. No really big scores and no virtually no middling ones either.