Shah: Pietersen is a “freak”

Owais Shah labelled England’s best batsman as a mutant today in a surprise hostile bid to enter the national team.

Shah unearthed the old MCC rule of “No Ungodly Abominations” rule of 1913, after an experimental nuclear research institute at the Nursery Ground accidentally produced the strains that would later lead to Paul Adams. He got through on a retrospective law defence.

Shad argued strongly against Pietersen’s freakish weirdness. And a cricketing court heard a detailed account of Pietersen’s stroke,

“The batsman dislocated his left armed, removed it entirely and re-attached it to his right ear. This had the effect of turning the entire ground behind the batsmen into the off side. It also put the fielding team off their game, as they had to spend the next three minutes vomiting.

“It also made the pitch slippery.”

The MCC’s greatest legal minds were put to use, but they eventually ruled in favour of Money.

Pietersen later spoke to the assembled press.

“Look at me. I’m fantastic.”

Here's another weird shot that Pietersen played in New Zealand. Weird, isn't it?

England compound their ineptitude

There was an exciting match recently. A tie even. But, in stead of focusing on all the good cricket and intriguing finale, we’ll do what we do best here at AYALAC and moan about England.

First off, for the first time in living memory, our batsmen did alright. Four of the top five scored half-centuries, with Phil “Honey and” Mustard striking 83 from 74. It says something for the English dominance that Jesse Ryder led the Kiwi attack with 2-14.

With late attacks from Paul Collingwood and Luke Wright, England managed an intimidating 340 from their fifty overs.

But then, rather like careering downstairs wearing old slippers, England began to slip dangerously.

First of all, our boys in bucket blue let the New Zealanders off to a flyer, with Ryder and Brendan Whathisface chalking up 70 in under ten overs. “Incompetence” you might think, “pathetic” even. But, I would advice you to hold forth for what is yet to come.

England then allowed some bloke I have barely heard of to score a century. How How got into triple figures, I have no idea. He probably hasn’t scored higher in Scrabble.

Things got so desperate, that they gave Owais Shah seven overs. That’s more than Ravi Bopara bowls in a season. What are they thinking?

Somehow, the Incredibly Incompetent Attribute switch from England's hopeless buccaneers to the Kiwi's useless spanners. New Zealand threw away ever possible advantage to contrive a tie. A tie! A tie for Christ’s sake!

You only get ties at work, and even then I hate them. I hate them even more when England fail to defend 340, especially when they possess the devastating Shah in their attack.

Shah or Bopara?

According to Peter Moores, the England coach, there is one batting space available in their up-and-coming Test series against Sri Lanka. There are two candidates for the spot: Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara.

As always with this sort of decision, it is not easy. Shah is an established international batsman, and has a strong track record against Sri Lankans in Sri Lanka. Bopara is packed with talent, and famously took England to the brink of victory against them during the World Cup.

Bopara is certainly one to watch. Scoring heavily when so young augers for a successful international future. Also, he has an old head and a proven performer in pressure situations. He also can wobble up with some “handy” medium pacers.

Shah seems to be on form. Having scored a handsome century in the home ODI series against India, and single-handedly saved one one-day match in the recent games in Sri Lanka. His test record is harder to read. He started with a bang, scoring 88 in his first match, and then falling to pieces in his return this summer.

Also, unlike Bopara, he doesn’t have time on his side – at 28 he’s no spring chicken. Whereas Bopara is young, full of potential and certain to have a long England career ahead of him. But, I do not feel that age is a good indicator for selection.

Look at Australia: they have been picking geezers for years and have consistently been wiping the floor with the world. Perhaps English selection policy should re-adjust to reflect the fact that cricketers take a little longer to mature, and most batsman peak during their early thirties. As such, Shah’s best years are still ahead of him, and we’re about to get the best out of him now.

So, on balance, I would back Shah. He is a stylish batsman and an excellent player of spin. Bopara’s record, although superb, is not quite so accomplished as Shah’s and, to be honest, in terms of a test future, it is now or never for Shah.

Ramping up again

Stephen Brenkley, the Independent’s cricket correspondent, was making an extremely strong case on TMS for the inclusion of Mark Ramprakash into the Sri Lanka tour in November. He based his argument on the following fact: he is the best batsman in England.

Apparently, for him, that’s ‘nuff said. Which is fair enough, frankly. Yet, people were making the same argument at the end of the 2006 season. I think even Tim, from Third Umpire, was advocating his use during the Winter Ashes.

The idea was dismissed at the time. “He’s old” they said. “He’s had many chances before. He wilted. He’s old news.” Even I accused him of being a Harmsprakash.

And then Ramps went to repeat his batting dominance in the 2007 season in the First Division. Total dominance of all bowling attacks that he faced. He is the Don of the Domestic Game. Consequently, new force is being brought into the pro-Ramps arguments.

2006 was not just a blip; class is permanent. And, without doubt, Ramps proved that he was the classiest in the county circuit.

The anti-Ramps, continued their arguments. “No good at international level, though. Besides, it’ll be a step backwards – we need to build a team for the future.”

Yeah, but if he does perform, under this new enlightened regime, I wouldn’t say no to his runs. Even Owais Shah has publicly said that he’d be perfectly happy to give way to the Surrey run-machine.

It’s not an easy one. Surely Ramps’ mental attitude has improved? Yet, I’m all for giving youth a chance and building for the future. I think if one of the senior players, like Michael Vaughan or Kevin Pietersen was out, then there would be a very strong case for him. But to lose Owais Shah, who is ten years younger, may be too costly in the long term.

(Has anyone else heard Brenkley? Is he really a journalist, or is he just Mark from the Peep Show in a radio incantation. I think that it’s all a bit creepy. Although, I think calculators are creepy too. What do I know?)

Snakes and dogs attack England

In a week of biblical plagues, the heathen Englanders managed a win despite the wrath of a vengeful god. The England captain, Paul Collingwood, was bitten and killed by a poisonous cobra during nets.

Fortunately, although dead, England selected his cadaver as a fifth bowler, and his body was supernaturally re-enliven by the slobber of local stray dogs. It is thought that they were attracted to a Colly on heat.

In other news, England won a cricket match. Well done them.

They won by boring the batsman out of their wickets. Annoyingly, Graeme Swann bowled with maturity and batted sensibly. His irritatingly competent performance is likely to keep Monty out of the series.

People are also saying a lot about Owais Shah. Mainly because his match-winning century against India is still fresh in the memory, and when people score big in a handful of games it means they’re the next Don Bradman. Or, in ODI parlance, “the new Michael Beavan”.

I think that Shah is the new Kevin Pietersen, in that he gets runs where as most of his colleagues cock up. Whereas KP is the new Shah of Iran, despite having plenty of support, he is over-thrown by fundamentalist zealots and exiled to foreign country cosseted by Western indulgences.

Mustard also looked good. I’d still like to see Jack Russell in the position.

Owais Shah Relief

After yesterday’s bitter words, Owais Shah showed us that he can bat after all and won England a game. As you can see from the above photograph image of above mentioned individual, this performance was rewarded with a "man of the match" copy of the bible. This is so he can never be alone in England hotel room in the future. He'll always have a lovely stor- book to read. I think that's the pop-up version, too.

I missed the actual game, so I can’t pass much in the way of comment.

I can, however, note that there were only seven leg byes conceded in the entire match and only one run out. Interesting, that.

In another match that I missed, India beat South Africa. Why? Mainly because they’re better, but also because they wore a marginally more attractive kit. The best looking side in the field always wins.

It’s raining where I live. Matthew Hoggard is still not captain, so it’s raining in my soul too.

A four-man attack

So, Andrew Strauss has been appointed captain and Matt Prior is the new wicket-keeper. Moreover, Liam Plunkett has been selected over James Anderson and Saj Mahmood.

The only question left, as far as I can see is that time-old cricketing question: should we pick an extra batsman or an extra bowler?

There is talk regarding Andrew Flintoff’s poor form in the bat must entail some kind of demotion. Does that mean we select six specialised batsman, shift Andrew Flintoff down to seven, with Prior, Matthew Hoggard, Monty Panesar and Steven Harminson to follow?

This leaves only four specialist bowlers, with Paul Collingwood and whoever else to contribute if things get desperate.

England did OK with four bowlers last season, when Flintoff was injured. Arguably, with weaker bowlers (Anderson, Mahmood, etc.) and stronger opposition. There were some instances when England lacked penetration, and struggled to take vital wickets. But it is hard to see how extra bowlers would provide this.

On the other hand, we can persist with Flintoff at six and miss out on more runs, but retain the extra bowling option – by bringing in Plunkett, who can also bat a bit.

To be honest, either option is not going to change the course of the series. The West Indies’ unpractised bowlers are not going to trouble five specialist batsman, and I doubt their ill-disciplined batsman will always get the better of four England bowlers.

As such, the make-up of the side should be determined by future considerations: do we want to develop Owais Shah, or Plunkett? Do we want to increase Flintoff’s confidence as captain? Do we want to wait to give a “fair run” to a player?

I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, but buy me a few drinks and I may be able to come up with something.