Strauss @ 3 now?

England's team selection makes about as much sense as a chocolate teapot at the moment. Looks like this will be near enough how we line up (batting wise - bowlers... who knows?) bar a few changes eg. Vaughan and Strauss our specialist slipper swapping #'s to get Vaughan in his 'favourite position' when clearly the Vaughan/Cook p'ship was making real headway. Gotta feel sorry for poor old Ace, Strauss has done nothing of real merit to get back in the test side, few OD's for Northern Districts against sub standard kiwi dobbler attacks.

Is the Moore's-Vaughan selection/coaching p'ship all its cracked up to be?

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/nzveng/content/current/story/340023.html

Is the Moore's-Vaughan selection/coaching p'ship all its cracked up to be?

Err, as far as I know, it's not cracked up to be much. If Owais Shah misses out on selection for the first test, he may as well pack his bags and go home now. What's the point of picking a guy in the squad if the captain (Vaughan) has so little regard for him?

It's got to the stage where it's even more obvious than Duncan Fletcher's dislike of Panesar and Read.

Well, just to play devil's advocate, perhaps they think Shah - having faced 150 balls in the last game and got into some nick - can afford to sit out this game, while Strauss clearly needs to get some time in the middle.

And then they'll make a decision on the morning of the first Test.

Probably not. But maybe...

Dello wrote:Well, just to play devil's advocate, perhaps they think Shah - having faced 150 balls in the last game and got into some nick - can afford to sit out this game, while Strauss clearly needs to get some time in the middle.

And then they'll make a decision on the morning of the first Test.

Probably not. But maybe...

Yeah, I'm up for that. Still think they'll 'plump for'(sh!t, that's not the same term it used to be when Fletcher was in charge **sighs**) Strauss on the 11th hour. Shah did have a good knock and I think they see it as another chance for Strauss to have a dig too, but just reckon Shah's something they don't like, it can't be for arrogance(KP) or any sort of mental/technical deficiency(Bell) or Asian(Monty) I reckon he's gay and they're homophobes. Makes perfect sense.

It's difficult to know what more Shah has to do to get in the test side. (Well, it's easy actually, but I don't suppose he thought to pack any KY)

MPV and Cook to open is a good call - a left hand/righthand combination to disrupt the line of the NZers bowlers.

Isn't Strauss just an opener though. There must be better options down the order.

Cook
Vaughan
Bell
KP
Shah
Collingwood

Where does Strauss fit in? It's not like he's suddenly made a ton of scores from the middle order position to reclaim his place in the side.

I'd probably take an inform Straussy over Cook, but he's done nothing to suggest that he's the man has he?

The weird thing is, when Trescothick came back from his stress-related problem, it was Cook who went to number three, while Strauss remained opening - worked out all right.

Bizarre that they're now trying yet another variation. Yes, they're right - Strauss and Cook as an opening partnership don't really compliment each other - but it still seems a bit of a muddle.

Interesting that Ambrose and Tremlett are playing. You'd have to think Ambrose is the preferred choice behind the timbers in the proper format of the game, but he'll need some time in the middle to cement that selection.

Are they hinting that Tremlett would come in if Sidebottom is ruled out? Or are they just seeing what kind of shape he's in after spending the winter kicking his heels, in the knowledge that Anderson's got plenty of bowling under his belt?

If the NZ-ers try to pass a meadow for a pitch again, wouldn't Anderson be worth another shot?

I'm going to go with the theory that the selectors have actually got some idea what they're doing and have had it firmly imprinted into their heads that Anderson is utter gash.

Tremlett or Broad for me. At least it lengthens the tail which er, stops after Ambrose...

doremi wrote:If the NZ-ers try to pass a meadow for a pitch again, wouldn't Anderson be worth another shot?

How many more 'shots' can one guy get? Most infuriating bowler ever to play for us IMO. When you think he's cracked it he bowl utter tripe in the very next innings.

doremi wrote:If the NZ-ers try to pass a meadow for a pitch again, wouldn't Anderson be worth another shot?

If they're daft enough to pull that stunt, we should definitely play Tremlett or Broad to take advantage of any dodgy bounce in the pitch.

But Tremlett's not a swing bowler, nor is Broad to the extent Hoggard, Sidebottom or Anderson are. With one of them injured and the other having dodgy fitness....

Look at it this way, even Agarkar performed...... a couple of times, and one of those efforts was genuinely brilliant and won us a test in Oz.

doremi wrote:But Tremlett's not a swing bowler, nor is Broad to the extent Hoggard, Sidebottom or Anderson are. With one of them injured and the other having dodgy fitness....

Look at it this way, even Agarkar performed...... a couple of times, and one of those efforts was genuinely brilliant and won us a test in Oz.

If the pitch is green then, the ball will go off the seam - and I would back either Tremlett or Broad to be as effective if not more son than Anderson, who would need helpful atmosperic conditions rather than an iffy pitch.

JKLever wrote:

doremi wrote:If the NZ-ers try to pass a meadow for a pitch again, wouldn't Anderson be worth another shot?

How many more 'shots' can one guy get? Most infuriating bowler ever to play for us IMO. When you think he's cracked it he bowl utter tripe in the very next innings.

But if England obsess about swing (which they're bound to), Anderson is the only other viable option if Sidebottom is injured. Tremlett and Broad get a little shape on the ball when the power's with them, but they're not pitch-it-up swingers.

I reckon Anderson will play (if SiBo doesn't).

Dello wrote:

I reckon Anderson will play (if SiBo doesn't).

This ties in neatly with my lose/lose scenario I put forward the other day.

I'd much rather a non-swinger who bowls a tight line than a swing bowler with a 4 ball every over.

Broad should play regardless (instead of Harmison). I'd then narrow it down to Anderson or Sidebottom for the last spot (only because of SiBo's fitness - if fit he's straight in). I'd like to see this team, taking into account the fact that Shah will have to do the whole alternate Universe thing to get in the England team:

Cook
Vaughan
Strauss
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Panesar

Get rid of all the idiots who can't be bothered to turn themselves into good players; Harmison and Anderson especially.

I think Broad is massively over-rated at this stage of his career and shouldn't be anywhere near the Test side.

He's a player of some potential, no doubt. But should be filed alongside Ravi Bopara as one for the future, not the here and now.

Can Broad be any worse than Jimmykins though?

Augustus wrote:
Cook
Vaughan
Strauss
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Panesar

That's pretty much my pick, though it's tough on Ace. Let's face it, Strausser could get a king pair in the warm-up and he'll still play in the tests.

God I hope Sidebottom is fit- oustide of Hoggard the bowling is mercurial at best.

The main thing is that Anderson is from now on permanently marooned on the Dissappointing Planet with only a dissappointing Robot and an unknown evil, yet dissappointing, force for company.

Things can change in cricket so much; English supporters praying that Siders stays fit .

Of course, Siders has done everything to justify that hope, but still.. a few seasons ago...

I'm predicting Alan Richardson will be this year's Sidebottom.

The steady English seamer is coming right back into fashion.

Eric Air Emu wrote:

The steady English seamer is coming right back into fashion.

Along with the crap late 80's/early 90's results...

JKLever wrote:

Eric Air Emu wrote:

The steady English seamer is coming right back into fashion.

Along with the crap late 80's/early 90's results...

Bring back Alan Igglesden

Dello wrote:I think Broad is massively over-rated at this stage of his career and shouldn't be anywhere near the Test side.

He's a player of some potential, no doubt. But should be filed alongside Ravi Bopara as one for the future, not the here and now.

Broad doesn't seem to be developing that quickly though when you compare him to the likes of Ishant Sharma and Morne Morkel. His pace isn't great (normally around 80-85 mph) and he doesn't really do much with the ball. There's hope for him yet, but the talk of 2 years ago of him being "England's answer to Glenn Mcrath" are at this stage proving to be a bit far fetched.

At least he doesn't seem to be as stupid and naive as most other young English quick bowlers of late.