Strauss profits as Shah loses out
| 16:12 UK time, Saturday, 1 March 2008
England batsman Owais Shah could be preparing for a quiet few weeks.
, but his unbeaten 104 on the final day of the looks to have secured his recall for the first Test in Hamilton.
Strauss was dropped from the Test squad after failing to score a hundred in 25 successive Test innings, but reputation clearly counts for a lot, and his sharpness in the slips was sorely missed in .
He took two good catches at first slip during the New Zealand XI’s innings here in .
The first he held at neck-height off Steve Harmison, and the second was a sharp take from a Monty Panesar delivery, which turned and caught the edge of the bat.
If Strauss is selected, it will be desperately unfortunate for Shah, who hit a fine 96 in the - albeit after surviving a big appeal for a catch behind on 28 and being dropped at mid-on 10 runs later.
He was effectively the next in line for a Test recall when was dropped for this tour because he was on the Sri Lanka tour while Strauss was out of the picture.
But Strauss, Shah's team-mate and good friend, seems to have been pencilled in for the pivotal number three position, a role in which he does not have a great deal of experience.
However, he understands the rationale of the thinking, with Alistair Cook and Michael Vaughan forging a left-hand right-hand combination, which was successful in Sri Lanka.
If Strauss opened with Cook, it would mean two accumulators at the top of the order, whereas Vaughan’s more attacking style complements Cook's method of batting.
Strauss - who celebrates his 31st birthday on Sunday - was delighted with his century, especially against a side containing seven players named in .
Wellington all-rounder Grant Eilliott has been named in their 13-man squad, with batsmen Ross Taylor and Jamie How earning recalls.
The out-of-form Peter Fulton misses out with a recurrence of a knee problem, while seamer Iain O’Brien has beaten Mark Gillespie to the final bowling spot.
So on to in the North Island, where the weather has to be an improvement on the gloomy, cold, rainy and windswept Saturday we have had in Dunedin.
It was a rare 30 degrees the day we arrived, but we have been assured by locals that the cold and rain is much more normal for these parts of the South Island!
On a final note, a big thank you to everyone who has looked after us so well at in the last week. The facilities were outstanding, as were the cakes...
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌýPost your comment
Delightful article, but what it neglects to mention is an opinion on whether Strauss's selection is a good move. Dropped for poor form which prior to Thursday had shown no sign of improvement. On the otherhand Shah has been one of the highlights of the ODIs follwing this up with a good score in the first warm-up.
Strauss will start the first test purely because he is a centrally contracted player, his recent century will hide the fact that on playing form he shouldn't start.
And if Shah is not selected he should consider himself very unlucky
Complain about this comment
why is pat murphy no longer going on tour.
Complain about this comment
I think its a joke that Shahs not picked as hes been the better player than Strauss for so many years at Middlesex. He is probably Englands best batsmen after peterson and cook. The board have been unfair to him throughout his career.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure that Owais Shah can complain so much. He got a Test on his home ground last summer and, rather than seizing the chance, looked a bundle of nerves and completely out of place. After 36 ODIs he averages under 25. More to the point is to ask if that is a good enough return to justify his continued selection: surely 36 matches is a reasonable trial on which to assess his results? Andrew Strauss, criticised as not being a ODI player, averages 32 - exactly 7 higher than the "better" Shah.
Is averaging under 25 the mark of a class batsman?
Complain about this comment
Its where you bat -which is the answer to batting average.
Complain about this comment
Not entirely. Batting at 3 or 4, with time to build an innings, his results are very poor (6 matches, 51 runs, 39 of them in a single innings). His best results by far have come batting at 5.
Complain about this comment
Ace Razzak.
You'll be accusing the selectors of being insitutionally racist next. IMO Sha and Bopara were only picked because of positive discrimination issues, they really didn't deserve to be there.
Complain about this comment
Just watched a superb Australia/India one day Final. What was significant was that (apart from Tendulkar's wonderful ton) that Dhoni selected two spinners for this important match plus Yuvraj. In our last one day, which we lost, we didn't play one spinner. 3 of the 4 leading wicket takers in the world are spinners; Murali, Warne and Kumble. Why do we have so little faith in spinners? Surely it's better to have a spinner in the side giving an extra option, than a bits and pieces medium pacer? We used to have Laker and Lock, Edmunds and Emburay who were automatic selections. Why have we lost all confidence in spinners?
Complain about this comment
I think the selection of Strauss is a very good choice. A batsman's primary role is obviously to score runs however there are other aspects to take into account.
Strauss is an excellent slip catcher, is mentally tough, a great thinker with expert tactical knowledge and a good team player on and off the pitch. He is better than Shah in all of these departments without doubt.
Strauss has had a very difficult year or so in cricket but he will become stronger for it and he deserves his chance.
I am a fan of Shah as well, and being a Middlesex supporter I have seen him play a lot. However I feel that he needs to toughen up mentally if he wants to play for England on a consistent basis. Unfortunately this weakness of his is heightened in test matches.
Anyway keep up the good work Alison, I very much enjoy your postings.
Complain about this comment
I think the selection of Strauss is a very good choice. A batsman's primary role is obviously to score runs however there are other aspects to take into account.
Strauss is an excellent slip catcher, is mentally tough, a great thinker with expert tactical knowledge and a good team player on and off the pitch. He is better than Shah in all of these departments without doubt.
Strauss has had a very difficult year or so in cricket but he will become stronger for it and he deserves his chance.
I am a fan of Shah as well, and being a Middlesex supporter I have seen him play a lot. However I feel that he needs to toughen up mentally if he wants to play for England on a consistent basis. Unfortunately this weakness of his is heightened in test matches.
Anyway keep up the good work Alison, I very much enjoy your postings.
Complain about this comment
Personally I think Shah should play, and Collingwood with a hamstring niggle should be rested for the 1st Test.
Bell, Shah, Strauss and Peterson have shown themselves in form with scores. Go for and reward form
Cooke, Vaughan need to prove themselves a little more with the bat, in terms of big scores.
Complain about this comment
Personally I think Shah should play, and Collingwood with a hamstring niggle should be rested for the 1st Test.
Bell, Shah, Strauss and Peterson have shown themselves in form with scores. Go for and reward form
Cooke, Vaughan need to prove themselves a little more with the bat, in terms of big scores.
Complain about this comment
Alison refers to the cakes and hospitality in NZ (South Island). Brian Jonston would approve I'm sure.
Complain about this comment
i feel sorry for Owais Shah, hes a great batsman and has performed so well for England in times when we needed it most.
Vaughans past it, the only thing hes good for nowadays are his skills as a captain. Strauss is past his prime aswel, he may have had a century but he had two miserable innings to go with that. If were going to win a series we cant have a player who is only going to perform on some occasions.
Shah would also be much handier as people forget he can stil bowl.
Complain about this comment
It is good to see Strauss back simply because he is clearly a one of our top three batsman. He had a torrid time in Australia, looking the part but not going on to make a significant innings. We do need to back players such as Strauss simply because we are short of really classy batsmen and will have to back them if their form is not the best. Shah does not convince, nor has Bopara fulfilled his early promise.
PS to the idiot who mentioned positive discrimination, get a life and a brain! Unfortunately there are not many quality batsmen available and Shah and Bopara were picked as their performances in county cricket merited it.
Complain about this comment
Firstly for all those who scratched their heads at the re selection of Strauss, hes back now so we should all get behind him, the fact is he wouldnt have been called up if players had taken their chances during the Sri Lanka series. I have to feel for Shah who has been given little oppurtunity throughout his career and the oppurtunities he has had (forgetting the last one) hes impressed. If Collingwood is struggling (his warm up performances say he is) surely Shah is a certainty for his place, i feel batting lower down the order would suit him more, less pressure almost.
Secondly Noel, how have you got on to the discussion of spinners?? sure we didnt play enough spin in the ODI's but thats because we dont have a good enough ODI spinner! Panesars selection in this test team is a certainty and Swann is not a good enough international spinner to get in the test team and who would he replace even if he was?
Finally Vicot, your statement is one of the most ridiculous & untrue Ive heard in so long, last i heard the selectors were not under any pressure to play more "non- white players" Shah and Bopara, when given there chances have been there purely on merit and because they are 2 of the best English ODI players in the country.
Complain about this comment
I wanted to question comment no.1 on here? Shah being a highlight of the ODI's - I suppose he was a highlight next to a lot of lowlights but he failed to make any real impression with the bat against this team - I dread to think how he's fair against a team like Australia with the likes of Lee and Bracken coming up against him. Not sure if a Strauss recall is the right option but unfortunately there is noone else knocking on the door. I still think that Ramprakash should have been recalled years ago. He seems to have sorted himself out mentally after previous England dissapointments and he has consistently averaged the best englishmen in county cricket for three seasons - he could have helped bring players through and played a vital role and number three. If its too late for him now though surely the same should be said for 31 year old Strauss?
Complain about this comment
I think vaughan needs to prove himself with the bat
Complain about this comment
The more I think about it Collingwood should be rested for the first test and Shah given his reward. Collingwood should be fully fit and hamstrings must 100% and Collingwood has struggled to get form.
Accepted Vaughan needs to follow Strauss and get a half or big ton, soon!
Complain about this comment
shah has been very unlucky in terms of oppotunities at test level,on his test debut he made an important innings which set up a win in india,since then he has been given one token innings at lords last year when vaughan was out with an injury,he was set up to fail as everone knew that vaughan would be straight back in the side,i think he is a quality player who has to be given a run, he has played some sparkling one day innings but as not been given any time to ajust to test cricket,i think he is techically englands best bat after cook.
Complain about this comment
Amazing how Strauss's star has risen by doing nothing. He's not picked for Sri Lanka and then leapfrogs into the team while Shah, who was the next cab off the rank on that tour, is overlooked again.
David makes a good point that Shah played well in India when given a very late call up. It was made clear last summer that he was would be out when Vaughan was fit so how is that meant to inspire good form?
Nothing against Strauss, a good bloke and an excellent team man who was messed around over the captaincy but Shah has earned the chance to have a few Tests to show what he can do.
Complain about this comment
I think Vaughan is a brilliant captain, but maybe it affects his batting? A great player, but could do with a few more runs especially this test series
Complain about this comment
It's typical England really.
How many times have we had 'replacement' players called up only to replace someone currently in the squad who was picked ahead of the replacement in the first place!
Stauss is quality yes and would probably make most people's team ahead of Shah in the first instance. However i believe Shah has to be picked simply because it would be unfair and a sign of mis-management to select Strauss who's form must have come back to him sitting on the sofa!!
Complain about this comment
What has Shah done for England that Strauss has not done.
Shah a fifty on debut, Strauss cracked a hundred and and fifty which would have been a hundred if Nasser didnt need a car to get to the other end.
Shah has done well for England in ODI's you say well a highest score of 29 since October 2007 is hardy Bradmanesk. Shah averages 24.96 in 36 ODI's with a hundred and four fifties. 36 ODI's is a fair crack at the whip, and Shah has been touted as one of our best batsmen do me a favour, Strauss has a better record in both games, and even ODI's which Andrew is not a natural at he still has a better average with 31.98 in 78 matches which is double the amount of Owais.
What has Owais Shah done to secure a place on the test team this tour nothing credible in the ODI's, and a 96 which was streaky and he could have been out in single figures. Whereas Strauss hit a century so that negates his 96 anyway.
Andrew Strauss is pure class who had a sustained blip and needed a break, England need a settle team and selection does not need to be criticised after a defeat. For example Australia lost the other night they will have the same team in tomorrows game.
As for people wanting a bowling attack of Sidebottom, Hoggard And Broad, that attack doesnt scare any one its feather fisted with a top speed of maybe 86mph. Harmison just has to play, you people are picking Broad because he can bat a bit, im sorry if Broad has so bat for a long time in this series our batting is not up to test standard. I would rather face Broad at that pace and having a idea were the ball will be rather than Harmison at 90+mph that could go anywere just Runako Morton who got a couple of full tosses then to jaffers that saw his downfall.
Complain about this comment
Anonymous - Pat Murphy is terrible! He should stick to being the mouth piece of midlands football rather than commenting on cricket. If he knows anything about the game he does an excellent job of hiding it!
Regarding the test side, i am delighted that Strauss is back. For the same reason that the wicket keeper spot had to change after Sri Lanka, the slips needed a rethink (where Freddie is a bigger loss than he is with the bat). Our attack had at best become frustrated, and at worse started to loose faith in catching.
Complain about this comment
I think that the selection of strauss can only benefit the england team becuase of his quality slip feilding, which england were lacking in Sri lanka. He is also a high class batsmen a test average of 40+ proves this. He is one of the best batsmen england have to offer why not play him?
Also shah's 4 test innings produced 136 runs. Strauss's first 4 produced 267. This shows who the better test player is.
Complain about this comment
you get the feeling Ambrose has his own methods, and will go about his business the way he plays Bob Dylan on his acoustic guitar, with quiet, self-assured confidence.
what?!?!?!?!
this is the sort of thing which proves that women should not report on cricket
Complain about this comment
Vaughn is the best England captain I (as a 26 year old) have seen, but more importantly, is techniquely the best batsman we have as well. He will prove himself (again) with the bat. How many times does one player have to prove himself?
Complain about this comment