Hoggard To Replace Out Of Sorts Plunkett For Fourth Test.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by adamberry

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

That's fair comment, but one would have thought they would have mirrored that in test cricket, but this point from NE:-

Originally Posted by Nott's Exile

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).

NE is agreeing that maybe key was not given the same chances, Bell was in the same possition until Vaughan was injured in 2006, and your point says a lot of why key has not reached his potential in test cricket.

But I think NE is hardened to players being hard done by - Read - I don't need to say more.

Originally Posted by adamberry

Key always seemed to get out when he was set for a score.

That's true, as it was with Rampraksh and Hick but to name two others - key had his 15 matches in two spells, meaning that he was always under pressure to score runs, I believe he should have been given a prolonged run.

His reputation as a flat track bully, and the amount of pitches favouring batsmen these days - I would have thought would have suited Key.

Originally Posted by adamberry

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.

The Sri Lanka tour will be a test for Bell, he will have to face Malinga, but be it Key or not, England need an experienced opener to play alongside Cook, if Trescothick is not available.

Key could replace Strauss, and Ramp's, Bell or Collingwood, that would IMO make England batting stronger.

Yes key had a poor season last year - but his 11,000 - runs show the type of player he can be, and he has international experince not only with the 15 tests, but also the other England sides.

PS: A 31 top of the order average is not that bad considering the circumstances of his selection(s).

If it's not key or Ramp's, Strauss IMO has to be rested, and Colly and Bell just don't seem right in the same team, two seasoned players will IMO have to be found.

The bowling is the same, can you imagine England playing the Aussie's with:-

Harmison
Plunkett
Hoggard
Sidebottom - as the England pace attack.

[Rachael]

Strauss is FAR more accomplished than Key.. and has greater expeience: he's not awesome... and is overly dependent (as many Aussies are) on his back-foot (square of the wicket) prowess... but he's experienced and competent. The obvious alternative opener is Vaughan. In the event of neither being available, Bell could move to his natural position of opener (as heir to Atherton).

Originally Posted by Ernest

as the England pace attack.

There's no intelligible use of "pace" in this context: an attack is based on bowlers... and on variety.. and if the best attack was a latter day equivalent of Statham, Bedser, Underwood and Laker.. the absence of "pace" would be irrelevent!

Quality is what matters... and if you must distinguish between spinners and non-spinners you should at least talk of a seam-attack rather than a "pace" attack: seam bowling is about a LOT more than pace... and a bowler who can get the ball to swing or to move off the seam... and who can bamboozle with well disguised variations... and who can get the ball in the right area six times out of six... is a lot more use than a scattergun speedster!

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by Ernest

key had his 15 matches in two spells, meaning that he was always under pressure to score runs, I believe he should have been given a prolonged run.

Well that is fair enough. But the time he was in run-hungry mode was also the time he was stuck behind Thorpe, Butcher et al in the England pecking order. If he was in the same kind of form today, then maybe he'd be much nearer selection; but in his current form his selection would cause an uproar, and bewilderment, amongst the majority of the country at how an out-of-form guy can force his way in.

Originally Posted by Ernest

The Sri Lanka tour will be a test for Bell, he will have to face Malinga, but be it Key or not, England need an experienced opener to play alongside Cook, if Trescothick is not available.

Key could replace Strauss, and Ramp's, Bell or Collingwood, that would IMO make England batting stronger.

Strauss could yet produce an outstanding run of form to re-cement his place in the side; we just don't know yet (unless you've been to the future, in which case who should I back in the England-India series? ) At the moment I don't see England's batting being any stronger with the changes you've suggested; indeed bringing back Ramps could backfire badly if his head isn't up to the mental strains.

Originally Posted by Ernest

PS: A 31 top of the order average is not that bad considering the circumstances of his selection(s).

Right, I'll say this once and once only. Take away Key's innings of 221. What's his Test average now? 23.08, with a highest score of 93*. Big difference, for a top order bat.

Originally Posted by Ernest

The bowling is the same, can you imagine England playing the Aussie's with...

We're not playing the Aussies for another two years, in which time the likes of Broad, Anderson, (you'll like this one) Mahmood, Rashid and Smith could all have come good. There is no point in our bowling attack peaking now, two years from the event!

[Ernest]

Strauss is really out of form, he needs a rest from test cricket - he will come good again, but he needs the pressure taken of him for a while.

Vaughan should never have dropped down the order, he was at his best as an opener - but I don't think he could slot back in against a quick attack.

Atherton I don't think finished his international career with an average over 40, but he was more than adiquate.

For a long while you have both critisised key as being a flat track bully, and also have been livid at the none cricketing wickets that have been produced, surely if the pitches are being produced flat - then key is the man.

But leaving key out for a while.

Cook
Strauss
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff

Played some of the worst innings ever by an England team in Australia 2006/07, and if it's not to be key - the batting has to change.

[adamberry]

So if I know Ern's thinking, it would be:

Cook
Strauss - out
Bell - out
Pietersen
Collingwood - probably out as well
Flintoff

That's three new batsmen you'd need to chuck in at the deep end, Key (sorry to bring him up again) would bring "experience" yet hasn't played international cricket for the best part of two or three years. There, in my mind (I should point out it's been a long day and I'm tired), are no other obvious candidates.

Of course Ern, it could also be that the Aussies, pure and simple, outplayed us comprehensively on their own patch?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by adamberry

indeed bringing back Ramps could backfire badly if his head isn't up to the mental strains.

True - but could he do worse than the England players have done over the last 9 months, it's a gamble playing Strauss until he gets it together.

Right, I'll say this once and once only. Take away Key's innings of 221. What's his Test average now? 23.08, with a highest score of 93*.

I wondered if you would thow this one - I can't complain I did just that after the Ashes in Australia, when a couple of players averages had been inflated with large one off scores.

I think England have to keep one eye on 2009, and bask in beating a West indies team that has lost it's best player, and others have been injured.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Cook Strauss Bell Pietersen Collingwood Flintoff [...] Played some of the worst innings ever by an England team in Australia 2006/07, and if it's not to be key - the batting has to change.

Not really. I was not concerned with the batting in Australia. The underperformance of the batting was exaggerated by the media.. but to the extent that it was real (an not forced by some excellent Aussie bowling) it was brought about by pressure... most of which came from {a} Flintoff taking the place of a batsman rather than of a bowler; and {b} the bowlers setting such a poor tone (and the captain doing so little to deal with the situation) that pressure for runs escalated beyond all reasonable bounds.

You shouldn't read too much into the ashes series: every side has bizarre series in which quality fails to reap due reward. The lessons that need to be learnt are not about who should be picked and are more about who should captain and about how the team (and a tour) should be managed.

[Collyisamackem]

I'd love to see someone explain how 206 is one of the worst innings ever played by an Englishman, especially in Australia. *Tin hat on*

Just a point Ern - if you're going to go on about Bell's average being inflated by not-outs batting at 6, who is it who has batted there for about four years up until now?

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Ernest

NE is agreeing that maybe key was not given the same chances, Bell was in the same possition until Vaughan was injured in 2006, and your point says a lot of why key has not reached his potential in test cricket.

But I think NE is hardened to players being hard done by - Read - I don't need to say more.

You'd be right there Ern. However, just because someone has been hard done by does not mean they should then be back in the side once we realise they've been hard done by. Key's time came and went, unfortunately for him. He didn't get the chances offered to Bell but was as unlucky as John Crawley perhaps.

[Collyisamackem]

Quite possibly right Notts, I'm not against Key but I think his time has come and gone. Incidentally, do you think Read will ever be selected again? I'm tempted to think that he won't, as after Jones was dropped (for good after the Ashes) it really seemed to be his time, but he was ignored and it seems only a matter of time before Steven Davies is offered a chance which by all accounts it seems he will take with aplomb.