Prior and Shah included as Nixon misses out

Quotehanger

"I'm not Jerry Maguire."
Stephen Fleming explains his new profession is much more than just being a sports agent

Oct 11, 2008

The headlines

The news

TWC

Related pieces

Search

Eat your feeds

Posts

Comments

Who will win the series?
- India
- Australia
- Drawn (0-0)
- Drawn (2-2)
- Abandoned due to poor behaviour
View Results
Loading ...

Polls Archive

Sponsors ?

Cricinfo blogs

Cricinfo articles

Simple man, simple plan
England's new captain may not be too experienced, but no one could be more up for the job
Today Tanzania, tomorrow the world
Will Luke speaks to Aftab Habib and Kabir Khan, the coaches of Hong Kong and Afghanistan, ahead of Division Four of the World Cricket League
Metal Bruce, fishy Roy
Pop stars, heavy rockers, and the new Sobers
4-0 to England after Cardiff washout
England's hopes of securing a 5-0 whitewash over South Africa were denied by the Welsh rain, as the fifth and final ODI at Cardiff was abandoned after only three overs of play
South Africa desperate to fight back
England took an unassailable 3-0 lead at The Oval, but for England's new and irrepressibly positive captain, he and his team have greater goals in their sights

Scorecards

By Emma last year, mid-May Leave a comment on this post

Since Peter Moores took over the task of rebuilding Englandâ€™s Test and ODI teams after what was undeniably a disappointing winter, speculation has been rife over which players the former Sussex coach wanted to take the field at Lordâ€™s this Thursday. Though the role of coach as selector is set to diminish when the Schofield inquiry airs its views, there is no doubt that Moores has had his hand in choosing his first full international squad. Thus, it is not overly surprising that two of his Winter Academy squad have already taken two of the twelve places.

Squad:
Strauss(captain)
Bell
Cook
Collingwood
Flintoff
Harmison
Hoggard
Panesar
Pietersen
Plunkett
Prior (w/k)
Shah

So Nixon misses out to Mooresâ€™ former county teammate, though after a good winter at the Academy, Prior has so far failed to impress in the Championship. The other talking point, of course, is Owais Shah. Whilst Shah has been much tipped in the media, he has backed this up with decent batting performances this season, and deserves to build on his Indian experience. Plunkettâ€™s selection is to be expected â€“ with Flintoffâ€™s batting having been proven to be in poor international form, then a bowler with pretensions to all-round capabilities must be included over the more one-dimensional Anderson.

So what are your thoughts? Has Nixon been robbed? Is Strauss the man for the job? Would you have preferred one of any number of alternatives? Let us know your views below.

Tags: england, matt-prior, owais-shah, Peter-Moores, West-Indies-in-England |

Comments to “Prior and Shah included as Nixon misses out” Amy wrote:
May 13th, 2007 at 11.13 am

I’m pleased Plunkett is in. I think he is showing the product of hard work over the winter and deserves his inclusion.

Strauss was my choice for Captain. The potential of runs within the batsmen is very strong and I have not seen enough of Prior to judge him so look forward to it.

Arun wrote:
May 13th, 2007 at 4.13 pm

I think Strauss is a perfect choice for captain. Nixon is a really good wicketkeeper/batsman, I think the best that England have had since Alec Stewart, and it’s rather unfortunate that he’s not selected.

Angus wrote:
May 13th, 2007 at 6.01 pm

Strauss’s batting improved with the captaincy last time, and, with the first game at Lord’s, hopefully he can recapture the form he showed in his first year of international cricket.

You might feel sorry for Nixon, but really, his chance should have come a few years earlier. At least he got his moment Down Under and in the WC. But now is the time to build for the future. We shouldn’t expect miaracles in the keeper-batting department. Everyone expects a Gilchrist.

Shah deserves his chance. We need to maintain competition for places, in order to be successful. Harsh, but one of Vaughan, Bell, Cook, Strauss, Shah, and Collingwood will eventually have to miss out, especially if Tresco comes back and hits form.
I’m not such a fan of ‘well, they’re all so good, so let’s play seven batsmen and drop a bowler’.

Flintoff’s bowling is so key, I fear for his workload now. With the volume of international cricket, we might see our fast bowlers disappearing after two seasons, especially when there’s no fifth bowler. Collingwood, while an admirable performer, is not a bowler who is going to win Test matches.

I hope the hunger is there for the England team, to build as they did up till the 2005 Ashes. They seem to have been in a real spin ever since.

Reverse Swing wrote:
May 13th, 2007 at 6.58 pm

Picking Nixon would have been a big mistake. He was brought in to do a specific job in the winter and, to be fair to him, he did it well - but that’s that.

He’s a useful keeper, a handy one day batsman, and as gobby as hell - but is never a test wicketkeeper.

Plus, he’s 36.

Give Prior at least the Windies series, if not the whole summer to establish himself.

Innocent Abroad wrote:
May 13th, 2007 at 7.38 pm

Well, it’s the XII I would have picked. The mood music suggests that Shah will be the man left out. I wonder… I can understand that any skipper would prefer five front-line bowlers to four, if only because of the risk of injury, and I take the point that five bowlers is the more aggressive way to go - yet a card with Flintoff at #8 has an intimidating look to it, doesn’t it?

Hopefully Prior has been told that he’ll play through this series, and then real & armchair selectors alike will have the evidence one way or another.

The batting’s OK (or better) - but we do need to sort our seam bowling out. And that means a new bowling coach - better to wait till the right one becomes avaiable, though, than to rush into it.

Although quite how much cricket the Clerk of the Weather will permit is another matter entirely…

Steven Davies-Morris wrote:
May 18th, 2007 at 6.51 pm

Shah certainly stuffed his chance when one looks down the England scorecard. 4 tons including a debut ton, with the once and future king about to return pretty much consigns Shah back to county cricket for now.

Given Flintoff’s ankle problems I’d be happy to see him sidelined for the duration of the Windies series (and even vs India) if it means he can get well. If so then pencil in Plunkett at #8 for a sustained run, and even give some thought to looking at Broad against India. Or giving Bopara, who is a better technical batsman than Freddie, an extended run at #6 or #7.

In fact, given Matt Prior’s marvelous “Gilchrist” impersonation today, I think we can safely put to rest where Freddie should be batting. No higher than #7 and even at #8 depending on the bowling attack desired. Here’s a couple of possible lineups to chew over with/without Vaughan and with Plunkett earmarked as Flintoff’s standin if Freddie’s sat down to heal.

(with Vaughan back):
1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Vaughan (c)
4. Pietersen
5. Bell/Collingwood
6. Collingwood/Bell
7. Prior (wk)
8. Flintoff/Plunkett
9. Panesar
10. Hoggard
11. Harmison

(without Vaughan):
1. Strauss (c)
2. Cook
3. Bell
4. Pietersen
5. Collingwood
6. Bopara
7. Prior (wk)
8. Flintoff/Plunkett
9. Panesar
10. Hoggard
11. Harmison

And of course there’s always the issue of bringing back Key in lieu of Shah with the same T1 lineup if Vaughan was required to demonstrate some real form before returning to the test squad.

1. Strauss (c)
2. Cook
3. Key
4. Pietersen
5. Collingwood/Bell
6. Bell/Collingwood
7. Prior (wk)
8. Plunkett/Bopara (in which case Prior bats #8)
9. Panesar
10. Hoggard
11. Harmison

I have no problem with fielding that side vs Windies (or even India for that matter).

Innocent Abroad wrote:
May 19th, 2007 at 10.04 am

That seems about right to me, except that I hope & expect that, if Vaughan is unfit for the next Test (it starts on Friday, after all) they will continue with Shah. Anything else sends out the wrong message to everybody.

As to the Flintoff conundrum, it’s worth looking back into the dim & distant - how often was Keith Miller fit to both bat and bowl when he was 29? Not often, I think you’ll find. Fast bowling all rounders have a very short shelf-life: we need Freddie as a bowler more than we need him as a batsman. He should finish his career where he started it - at #8. (ODIs are a different matter of course, and there must be a case for him as a pinch-hitting opener, at least when we bat first.)

Comments

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

« Somerset v West Indians, 1st day, Taunton | Main | Australia should leave the ICC »

The Corridor (a cricket blog)

"Peering down the corridor of uncertainty. It’s about cricket, sport and journalism"