posted Sep 30, 2008

I'm glad to see they are finally giving Shah a decent run, I like Bopara but think Shah would have been hard done by if he lost his place to him prior to his own chance to cement a place.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 30, 2008

Freddie was the key player in the ODIs that we won 4-0, trevorbarker. His 4-89 in the Edgbaston Test gave England a chance to win which they subsequently squandered. No one seems to be arguing at the moment that Freddie isn't worth his place in the squad. even in less personally insulting terms than you chose.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 30, 2008

Patel is no Test spinner. He is nowhere near equal to Panesar, Swann or Rashid. Having him at 8 would be a waste and the only reason to have him in the side is as a batsman/bowler (like Collingwood).

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 30, 2008

yorker_129-7

You obviously missed the point of my last comment. That Strauss didn't tour Sri Lanka matters not a jot - he's basically failed against the better attacks he's faced over the last three years, whereas Cook hasn't.

Cricketing_stargazer

Care to enlighten us on the five bad decisions?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 30, 2008

"Having him at 8 would be a waste and the only reason to have him in the side is as a batsman/bowler (like Collingwood)."

What about having him in as batsman (like Pietersen)?

First class records for batsmen/allrounders with some sort of England "contract", ranked by average:

1) Pietersen - 10,172 runs at 51.37
2) Patel - 2,678 runs at 48.69
3) Cook - 6,625 runs at 45.06
4) Bell - 9,157 runs at 43.81
5) Shah - 12,984 runs at 42.99
6) Strauss - 11,283 runs at 41.02
7) Bopara - 4,572 runs at 40.82
8) Prior - 7,563 runs at 39.39
9) Vaughan - 16,136 runs at 37.26
10) Collingwood - 9,301 runs at 35.63
11) Flintoff - 8,588 runs at 34.48
12) Ambrose - 4,376 runs at 34.18
13) Wright - 1,536 runs at 30.11

Note Patel has scored the second fewest runs in this list, but has batted in the fewest innings.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 30, 2008

Yes, I would like him there as a batsman - I even say so in an article I wrote. However, his lack of centuries is a worry.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 30, 2008

Centuries per innings in first class cricket (same set of players):

1) Pietersen - 0.169
2) Patel - 0.131
3) Cook - 0.114
4) Shah - 0.105
5) Bell - 0.100
6) Strauss - 0.097
7) Vaughan - 0.091
8) Prior - 0.085
9) Bopara - 0.077
10) Collingwood - 0.070
11) Flintoff - 0.055
12) Wright - 0.048
13) Ambrose - 0.043

Doesn't look too bad now does it?! Indeed the order is very similar to the order of average, with Vaughan slightly higher and Bopara slightly lower being the notable differences.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 1, 2008

I personally don't adopt the philosophy that better batting should give you the keepers gloves, hence my reference to the Knott/Taylor farce of the 70s. The best keeper should play, and if he bats, then that's a bonus. Dont compensate on the glovesman just to prop up the batting. If you are unsure about the batting line up then change it!. Monty is a good spinner but almost useless in the field or with the bat, so why is it one rule for the keeper position, another for the spinners?. Thats the point that I am making.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 1, 2008

SprieriteNW - didn't think you did subscribe to the philosophy.
Think there is 'some' scope for taking batting into account with keeping - if you have a decent keeper who is a great bat or a good keeper who is a ferret, would probably go for the decent keeper/great bat.
However, we have a great / good keeper who is also good (and in Div 2 and Cups - great) with the bat = Foster
and a poor / decent keeper who is good to great (at least in Div 1 this summer) with the bat (although not really in Tests so far) in Prior.
I think the balance has to come down in Foster's favour surely!?!?
Conversely with spinners - don't think Monty is so Warne / Maraliesque in his bowling to justify his poor batting and risible fielding.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 1, 2008

"ignore one of the country's leading batsmen in 2008 not to mention best fielders (Bopara) for someone who can barely throw off the square (Shah) just shows what a cozy club England has become."

I hardly think Shah has been benefitting from England's 'cozy club', since he's constantly been overlooked by England's Test selectors!
_______________________

Yes, the fact shah has only played 2 tests and has a sponsorship with Lucozade shows his position in the England cozy club.

I question whether he'll even play anyway, with a top five of Cook, Strauss, Bell, KP and Cauli.

And can we just accept that Foster ain't in the squad? It's like a stuck record this thread with everyone starting to sound like Kabir Ali.

add comment | complain about this comment