Hoggard To Replace Out Of Sorts Plunkett For Fourth Test.

[Collyisamackem]

Then we can close that chapter I think!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Then we can close that chapter I think!

No because I don't think Key was injured all winter - he was in Austrealia with the academy in 2006 click here , and could easily have replaced Trescothick.

Also key has lots of experience in captaining Englanf sides click here

Rob Key again captains England A


The stage is set. Rob Key will be on his home turf and he'll be playing against international opposition again. We're a little bit disconcerted that the match isn't taking place RIGHT NOW THIS MINUTE, but we'll get over that feeling when the match does start on July the 6th.

Originally Posted by king Cricket

England A games are great. They offer loads of intrigue. Plus they always seem to have Rob Key in them at the moment[...] There's no sporting occasion that couldn't be improved by the presence of Rob Key.

Rob key was in Australia in 2006, and played in this game click here - so he was available for selection, and match fit at that.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ernest

just so long as he performs..

Right, so a Test match average 45 or a Test Match average of 31, who is performing?

[Ernest]

Bell has it all to prove - he has scored some good first innings scores against the Windie's, he scored well against Bangladesh - and teams with slowers bowlers, but the fact is that he has had two goes against the Aussies - and failed both times.

FF - Bell was fortunate to get back in the side due to an injury to Vaughan, key on the other hand got injured when it looked like he might get back in the side.

Bell might have a better average (at the moment) - but key in the long run would be a far better player IMO.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Bell might have a better average (at the moment) - but key in the long run would be a far better player IMO.

We're all entitled to our opinions. I've not heard or read that one from anyone else. It's not one that I share either. IMHO, Ian Bell is a far better bet than Robert Key (who maybe wasn't given the chances that others have had, but that's the way these things go).

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Bell might have a better average (at the moment) - but key in the long run would be a far better player IMO.

No he bloody well wouldn't.

And now Adam sticks his sensible hat back on... I, like NE, don't agree with that school of thinking. I can remember when quite a few people were told that going to Giles, Geraint, Ramps etc. would be a backward step - well so would Key. A big one. I would rather see Ramprakash brought back ahead of Key, and my thoughts on that avenue being taken has been well documented on this board. As I said; only if Key was in Ramprakashian form would I even consider it.

Okay, so I'd gladly see the back of Key's captaincy... but the Kent stand-in's are even worse, so I'll make do with Key if you don't mind!

Originally Posted by Ernest

Rob key was in Australia in 2006, and played in this game - so he was available for selection, and match fit at that.

And he scored 30. Against a state second eleven side. Whoop-de-doo.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by adamberry

And he scored 30. . Whoop-de-doo.

adam: That 30 was important click here .

Despite appreciable movement from the bowlers Key and Prior batted well to put-on 52 for the first wicket - the highest partnership of the day.

Later batters encountered more difficulty, although Michael Vaughan struck two fours in a cameo of 14,

14 - Whoop-de-doo.

Ultimately Key and Prior's careful initial innings and Tremlett's aggression were important in posting a low but useful score for the conditions

It would seem that in this match that conditions were much worse than in the Ashes piches in 2006/07, pity England had not a Prior or a key in the Test side.

Also to match Bell against key as a first class cricketer.

key has scored more runs, granted over a longer period - but that's even more to his credit.

Bell has a slightly higher average, but has slightly more not outs to account for this.

key has scored more hundreds, and also he can score his runs at the TOP of the order.

A man who has scored 11,500+ first class runs is not rubbish, also his top score of 221 was against a stronger West Indies, against a top score of from Ian Bell of 162 against the might of Bangladesh.

England have got some runs against a weak and up and coming West Indies, but this just IMO papers over the cracks in the bowling, and also the combination of Bell and Collingwood in the same side - I would rather keep Collingwood.

To often in Australia Pietersen and Flintoff batted together to soon, because the top order had crumbled - and if Flintoff comes back at 6 - where would Bell play?.

Not back up the order.

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by Ernest

14 - Whoop-de-doo.

Hoorah - something we agree on!

Originally Posted by Ernest

key has scored more runs, granted over a longer period - but that's even more to his credit. [...] Bell has a slightly higher average, but has slightly more not outs to account for this. [...] key has scored more hundreds, and also he can score his runs at the TOP of the order.

Right, okay, Bell will obviously have more not outs as he bats further down the order, that is fairly obvious. Everyone has their favoured position in the order.

Key and Bell both average roughly the same number of runs per season, so not much to divide them there.

Originally Posted by Ernest

A man who has scored 11,500+ first class runs is not rubbish, also his top score of 221 was against a stronger West Indies, against a top score of from Ian Bell of 162 against the might of Bangladesh.

Jumping the gun a bit there Ern - he hasn't quite got there yet.

Key's top score of 221 - that remains his only Test hundred in 15 Tests. Bell has six in 26; however you average it out Bell still comes out on top in that category. It does not matter a jot IMO who the opposition is: any bowler is capable of bowling a decent enough ball to get the man out, Key always seemed to get out when he was set for a score.

Originally Posted by Ernest

England have got some runs against a weak and up and coming West Indies, but this just IMO papers over the cracks in the bowling, and also the combination of Bell and Collingwood in the same side - I would rather keep Collingwood.

Well, if England are not going to make adequate use of Collingwood's part-time dobbers when they could be useful (there were some moments in the Third Test where I'd have brought him on), then I would dispense with Collingwood. I do, however, agree that Collingwood and Bell together is not the greatest combination in the world.

Originally Posted by Ernest

To often in Australia Pietersen and Flintoff batted together to soon, because the top order had crumbled - and if Flintoff comes back at 6 - where would Bell play?. Not back up the order.

Well, that won't happen this summer (at least I hope not), so Bell now has the opportunity to make an claim for any of the middle-order berths. Then we can have this discussion in September/October when the difficult decisions for the Sri Lanka tour (is it? can't remember) have to be made.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by adamberry

No he bloody well wouldn't [...] I can remember when quite a few people were told that going to Giles, Geraint, Ramps etc. would be a backward step - well so would Key. A big one.

Yup. Rob "the pie eater" Key has never looked Test class: aside from being a leaden footed lump who is about as light on his feet as your average sumo wrestler (and fielding like Monty Panesar on a bad day when not lumbering between wickets in a fashion reminiscent of Inzi)... he's horribly dependent on leg-side shots and is quite horrendous in his handling of balls outside of off stump.

The contrast with Bell could not be greater: Bell (aside from being compact, quick between the wickets and one of the best fielders in world cricket) is far lighter on his feet, far more accomplished at leaving balls outside off stump, in a different league on off-side shots and arguably better on the on side as well!

Key is no better than his team mate David Fulton. he's not hugely better than Matt "what's technique" Prior. He certainly doesn't deserve to be higher on the pecking order than Nick Compton. No one should be surprised to find that Worcestershire's Steve Davies (suppoedly a wicket-keeper) scored more runs at a better average last season.

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by Rachael

he's horribly dependent on leg-side shots and is quite horrendous in his handling of balls outside of off stump.

And a horrible slap-shot off the back foot through the covers. It's the only off-side shot he possesses, and it looks bloody horrible.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Key is no better than his team mate David Fulton.

To be honest, I always felt Fults was the better batsman; he was certainly more aesthetically pleasing and had the inate ability to leave balls in the corridor. This is probably why Key, statistically, seems better - he just goes hell for leather.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Fulton once selected for a Test, only to be replaced eleventh hour by Butcher?