but IMO key has to be given more chances before that. but really if key plays both the next 2 tests, i think by the end of this tour we would know conclusively whether or not hes good enough. and if its not key/tresco i think its fairly obvious that it will be bell or pieterson(bell of course comes first)Mr Mxyzptlk said:
you cannot just make it into the side on class. thorpe as we all know is good enough. flintoff good year or not has still not proved himself away from home as a batsman. as far as tresco is concerned, you simply cannot pick a guy just because he has an average of over 40 even if hes been faiing against quality opposition and away from home. IMO everyone deserves to get enough chances, i dont see the point of dropping key now, because no one will know whether he was good enough or not. if bell fails then its quite plausible that they'll pick key again. all of which would be pointless.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Consider that the number 3 spot has to filled too, as I'm doubting Butcher will return for much longer at any risk. If there are the two spots to be filled, it would have to be both Bell and Pieterson (obviously).tooextracool said:
I agree that batsmen shouldn't be picked on Test stats alone, but the fact is that Trescothick is.tooextracool said:
it is a rather unfortunate situation. everytime his weakness is exposed at the test match level and he has a poor run, he usually ends up scoring a big 100 against a poor bowling attack at home and then claims that hes worked on his technique only to see him make the same mistake over and over again.i think its fairly obvious that there are far more talented players waiting in the wings that are being kept out because of someone who can never be relied upon with the bat is consistently being picked.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
but how long can you keep doing it? yes 2-3 bad series of course can be a sign of poor form. but to be reasonable, someone like vaughan has been failing for 1.5 years. now surely you cannot go along with that for the rest of his career.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
well i think the next test or 2 will more than give us an indication as to how good he really is. while bell certainly seems to be the player with more potential he must wait in line until his turn comes.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Vaughan didn't have a failure of a year last year. He just had a disappointing year by his standards. He did, after all, average 38 with 3 hundreds. 15 years like that and you end your career with an average of 38 with 45 hundreds. Not that bad.tooextracool said:
ok, i wasnt really bothered about the batting order of the last 4 players, but yes hoggard would usually bat ahead of them(Depending on the situation).Mr Mxyzptlk said:
but really all 3 hundreds came on the flattest wickets possible. IMO hes been disappointing whenever england has needed him most(bar of course the 1 inning in SL), under pressure situations. and the extra pressure stems directly from the captaincy. i wouldnt mind it if he had averaged 38 and done a hussain- ie played quality innings on seamer friendly wickets or when england were 10/2.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
No, Bell doesn't open for his county and it would be very strange to have him opening for the test side. ODI's against Zim are another matter altogether!tooextracool said:
The reason why he dropped himself to 4 is because the Trescothick/Strauss partnership showed so much promise, and it has delivered. Personally I think Vaughan should bat at three, he has the perfect game for a number 3.twctopcat said:
Well then i think its quite possibly to have butcher or key open the batting. but bell IMO would make a good opener, he certainly has the right technique for it.wpdavid said:
yes it was only really 1 inning, yes it was good but i dont understand why he should be allowed to jump in line ahead of key.wpdavid said:
why? its not like he was having any great success as an opener sinces hes taken over the captaincy.twctopcat said:
