Trescothick V Fleming

[krkode]

Trescothink was a strange player. Should never had suceeded in some ways, but he did and brilliantly so. One of the gifted few openers who can get away without much technique.

You have an interesting point. Trescothick is one of those players who actually averages more in test cricket than he does in FC cricket. That's got to be pretty rare, no? I can't think of many other players who are like that. Barring Bradman and Hussey who are in a different league at the moment...

 

[Polo23]

That once was admittedly a really big one, 262 against South Africa (the fact NZ's no.9 James Franklin made a ton in the same game suggests the pitch was rather batsman-friendly).

Disagree with that. Franklin is a very very good batsman, in fact, it has been argued that he has more batting talent than bowling talent, and could be a fantastic all-rounder. When Franklin scored that ton he was really starting to flourish with the bat in both forms of the game, the fact he was batting at number 9 wasn't a true indication of his ability, Vettori of course was at number 8. I don't think Franklin would be out of depth as a test number 7, and even possibly higher. That pitch was flat though...but that shouldnt detract from what was a brilliant innings by Fleming, and a great supporting knock by Franklin.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Trescothic strikes me as very Sehwag-like in his style... in that sense, he's good at giving his team an explosive start and setting up the game right from the get-go.

Fleming strikes me more as a Steve Waugh, not just in the sense that he was captain, but also in the sense that more often than not he has to bat carefully and sensibly to try and stabilize the innings.

You would want both kinds of batsmen in your team, I imagine. But like has been noticed in this thread, neither was the best at what they did as batsmen. Fleming definitely had his captaincy going for him.

Good comparison for mine. Neither really what one would consider the classic test opener given both look to get on with the game & both rely on a simplistic-looking weight transference method rather than classic footwork.

Of the Tres/Flem debate I'd take Trescothick as a batsman without too much thought. His value to our team (especially our ODI team) has become increasingly evident in his continuing absence. Fleming unquestionably easier on the eye, but I'd take the bottom line, which is runs on the board.

 

[Woodster]

Disagree with that. Franklin is a very very good batsman, in fact, it has been argued that he has more batting talent than bowling talent, and could be a fantastic all-rounder. When Franklin scored that ton he was really starting to flourish with the bat in both forms of the game, the fact he was batting at number 9 wasn't a true indication of his ability, Vettori of course was at number 8. I don't think Franklin would be out of depth as a test number 7, and even possibly higher. That pitch was flat though...but that shouldnt detract from what was a brilliant innings by Fleming, and a great supporting knock by Franklin.

I don't mean to discredit his batting quality, although I would be very disappointed if England allowed him to get anywhere near three figures. Fact is he has only two scores in excess of 50 in 28 innings. I am not suggesting he is a poor batsman, he certainly has potential, whether that is ever fully realised, time will tell. He is probably a decent number 9.

Another tell-tale sign that the particular track was rather batsman friendly in this Test were the team scores. In response Fleming's 262 and NZ's 593-8 declared, SA made 512.

 

[Goughy]

You have an interesting point. Trescothick is one of those players who actually averages more in test cricket than he does in FC cricket. That's got to be pretty rare, no? I can't think of many other players who are like that. Barring Bradman and Hussey who are in a different league at the moment...

Its getting more common as players are spending less of their prime scoring runs in domestic FC cricket, but you are right in that it still is pretty rare.

2 other examples being Ken Barrington who averaged 58 in Tests and 45 in FC and more recently, Michael Vaughan.

 

[Uppercut]

Agree re Fleming's poor number of centuries. Sure, I'm a believer that stats can't tell you everything - without checking, I seem to remember Fleming closing with 49 50s and 9 100s - to me that sort of stat does tell you something. Whereas Trescothick played less Tests, scored more tons and IMO was a key contributor to England becoming one of the top sides in the world. It is no coincidence that our decline from the #2 spot closely matches his absence from the team.

I know there were other contributory factors in both cases, but look at the quality drop NZ have suffered since Fleming gave up the captaincy and then again when he retired.

I voted Fleming, would rather have him in the team because he's the best captain i've ever watched. Purely as a batsman, i wouldn't want to open with Fleming but i'd feel more comfortable with him coming in after that than i would with Tresco.

 

[GIMH]

I could be wrong, but with Tresco I think we only lost one home series, that was against Australia. Without him we've managed to lose two out of four. That's pretty dramatic.

 

[Uppercut]

I could be wrong, but with Tresco I think we only lost one home series, that was against Australia. Without him we've managed to lose two out of four. That's pretty dramatic.

Yeah but it's coincided with all the injury crap for Vaughan and Flintoff, Simon Jones's life breaking, Ian Bell starting to play for England regularly, Harmison's stars misaligning, etc. etc.

Can't think that Tresco would've made a massive difference to many of those series, Alaistar Cook's a more than able deputy. Unlike some replacements for other lost players- thinking Mahmood, Plunkett, early Anderson, Broad.

 

[GIMH]

Cook is not a deputy for Trescothick, though. He's an opener, Tresco's an opener, there it ends. Strauss has been nowhere near as good since Tresco left the side, and I daresay would have been dropped sooner and for longer had Trescothick been available.

Sure, things like Flintoff missing out have made a difference. But as you said, Fleming wasn't the only kiwi to drop out of the side, and I'm really not factoring captaincy into anything here.

 

[Uppercut]

Cook is not a deputy for Trescothick, though. He's an opener, Tresco's an opener, there it ends. Strauss has been nowhere near as good since Tresco left the side, and I daresay would have been dropped sooner and for longer had Trescothick been available.

Sure, things like Flintoff missing out have made a difference. But as you said, Fleming wasn't the only kiwi to drop out of the side, and I'm really not factoring captaincy into anything here.

Ah, i'd factor captaincy into the equation in this particular instance, because whatever your XI is, it's not going to have a better captain than Fleming IMO. As pure batsmen, i have to agree with those who say that once you retire, your ability=your achievements and go for Tresco. But as for who i'd prefer to have in my team, Fleming.

 

[tooextracool]

I know there were other contributory factors in both cases, but look at the quality drop NZ have suffered since Fleming gave up the captaincy and then again when he retired.

Dont really think thats made that much of a difference tbh. New Zealand have lost a lot of their main players over the years. Astle, Mcmillan, Cairns, Bond and Styris were the backbone of the side for a while and losing all of them had about as much or at least nearly as much of an impact as losing Fleming (with the exception of Styris).

 

[pskov]

The question is who was the better batsman so I voted Trescothick. If the question was who was the better cricketer then I'd probably go for Fleming.

 

[NZTailender]

Will comment after Tresco plays a hundred Tests.

 

[Goughy]

Will comment after Tresco plays a hundred Tests.

or when Fleming scores 10 Test tons

We obviously need to give these pups time to prove themselves.