posted Jan 1, 2009

To be fair, Vaughan was made captain after 2003 and captaincy often weakens a batsman's run-scoring ability.

For this reason I don't think we can completely rule out a Vaughan return, and indeed a successful return.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 1, 2009

If Vaughan were to return, we would have a plethora of experience and nouse in the field.

KP would be able to draw on Vaughan, undoubtedly a shrewd mind. Strauss, who would make a good captain himself. Colly, an ex-captain. Flintoff, though not seen to have been a good captain, still offers something.

Not saying this would actually work in practice but KP should have a great deal of help and plenty of opportunity to bounce ideas around and take a good tactical approach.

In regards Vaughan's batting, I hope he could return to around '45' form as he would solve a few problems for our batting line up.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 2, 2009

if i was the selecter i will allow vaughn in the team. there are some reasons fro that. vaughn is the best captain that england have ever seen and KP had some night mares in India. i will bring in vaughn to help KP to understand how to lead a pretty talented team. if KP can lead the team well then obviously england will win against Windies, that will restore some pride in the england team just before the ashes. with that pride england has a chance to win the ashes. after that drop him. england need to be like india,a young side lead by a young talented captian. it is so hard to be like india but england can try. for short term yes we need MV in the team but after the ashes england doesn't need.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 3, 2009

I have been folowing the hot air from the establishment brigade with amusement - bring in anyone but Bell (as long as he comes from a "proper" county). Many of the special pleaders being exactly the same people as have called for the retention in the past of the likes of Vaughan and Strauss when in much worse form than Bell. I am from Surrey but recognise 4 things; Bell's technique is needed and at its best on hard wickets; you can forget having a decent short leg fielder unless Bell is in the team; Bell is good for team balance (who else will bat anywhere from 1 to 6); and finally, related to the last point, Bell has been the victim of shameful management in the past - being yo-yo'd up and down the order to accomodate players with much worse form. What with his past treatment and the current witchhunt it suprises me that Bell doesn't do a 'Pietersen'. One final irrefutable point in Bell's favour - Agnew's efforts to cheerlead for the selection of his buddies.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 3, 2009

Its truly terrifying that people can still trot out the same old defence for Bell, we've been hearing it for years, his record at the highest level is average at best, his short leg fielding is hardly outstanding and his only consistency is found in his poor performance.

Cry all you like about him being 'moved around the order', him being the subject of a 'witch hunt' or even that other players have been stuck with when in worse form (Vaughan I agree with but his captaincy made up for it) the simple fact is that if he was even half as good as his supporters would have us believe he wouldn't have failed to produce with such amazing regularity.

No other country would stick with a guy with such an average record for such a long time. His only big runs are scored in meaningless situations calling into question his temperament. I believe it was Sunil Gavaskar who said 70% of Test cricket is in the mind.

He may well have a technique suited to flat hard tracks but to be honest practically every batsman in the international arena does!

Having said all this I imagine he will play in the West Indies probably get a ton at some meaningless point, do nothing for the rest of the series apart from 'look good' then all his supporters can say I told you so but completely miss the fact that a Shah or a Key would probably perform better over the entire series than he would.

The guy has played 40+ tests and has not got any better, are you really suggesting we give him another 40 just to make sure?

A couple of seasons back with his county would do England AND Ian Bell no harm at all. Who knows, it might even turn Ian Bell into the player many of you seem to think he is...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 4, 2009

One test player who clearly does not have hard flat wicket technique is Strauss (driving outside off with a 6 inch gap between bat and pad). I would also have more time for Key if he could achieve the fitness levels of John Sargeant - but he costs 10 runs an innings in the field. As for Shah - a decent county bat but hardly going to improve at 30.

Bell averages over 40 and 37 even in 2008. Add his catches and general fielding and he is streets ahead of the alternatives. I know I would not want to be an England bowler without Bell as my close fielder option.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 5, 2009

It really made sense to give Vaughan a central contract worth £200k and then not pick him.
It just shows that our selectors havn't got a clue !!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 5, 2009

exactly tommo. but we knew that already by the fact that England have been, by and large putting the same team out for years- regardless of form or who was playing better county cricket. The only reason Vaughan was initially dropped was because he resigned the captincy- but to be fair to Moores and the selectors, picking him for this tour would be wrong as he has scored no runs. Which is why its mistifying that Ian Bell retains a place- his last big innings was? Shah and Key might not be the ideal choice but theyre the best other batsman we have- unless england go for a young talent.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 5, 2009

Its the central contract system that is wrong.Its fine if you have 15 to 20 top class players but we don't.
The sooner we get back to picking on form and creating some competition for places the better.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 5, 2009

One test player who clearly does not have hard flat wicket technique is Strauss (driving outside off with a 6 inch gap between bat and pad). I would also have more time for Key if he could achieve the fitness levels of John Sargeant - but he costs 10 runs an innings in the field. As for Shah - a decent county bat but hardly going to improve at 30.

Bell averages over 40 and 37 even in 2008. Add his catches and general fielding and he is streets ahead of the alternatives. I know I would not want to be an England bowler without Bell as my close fielder option.


----------------------

1) Strauss did have problems but you might have noticed he has done what Ian Ball hasn't and has modified his technique and now plays within himself a lot more.

2) Key is fitter than he has ever been, not saying much maybe but I imagine you would never have picked Freddie, Gatts, Botham in that case.

3) Shah not going to improve at 30?? And Bell has been coming on in leaps and bounds at 26 hasn't he?

4) Bell only just averages over 40 which is nothing special at all these days and his average of 37 for the last year is probably more like the level he will settle at for his career.

5)"I know I would not want to be an England bowler without Bell as my close fielder option" - Seriously are you high? Bell is an unremarkable fielder, certainly not bad but that statement suggests we have a Jonty Rhodes in our midst! Put any other England player at short leg and they will do no worse than Bell. Quite what you base this point on is beyond me....He's a batsman, if you want to defend him by all means do but defend his batting otherwise your argument looks very, very weak.

add comment | complain about this comment