Trescothick V Fleming

[GIMH]

I commented on a "recently retired XI" in the spam thread, this XI had Fleming in, I said I would pick Trescothick instead. Someone disagreed. What does the rest of the forum think?

 

[andruid]

Fleming was a genius of a captain and I reckon probably had a better technique than Trescothick.

 

[Richard]

Strange comparison, for one, as Trescothick's an opener and Fleming was a middle-order batsman.

Obviously Fleming far better for mine though - my thoughts on Trescothick are well-known, his scorebook record flatters him more than perhaps any other player in history, even Virender Sehwag. A distinctly poor batsman whose propensity to get let-offs both from fielders and Umpires made him look Test-class.

Fleming on the other hand while he could've made more of his ability, at least in the first half of his career, was a pretty decent Test batsman and obviously not from the top drawer, but certainly a good player.

 

[GIMH]

The comparison came about because pasag picked him as an opener in his "Recently Retired XI"

 

[Richard]

Gelman picked Fleming as an opener?

Why?

Or are we talking about ODIs? As Fleming did open regularly in ODIs (though he'd have done far better for mine if he'd batted three or four)? Because if it's about ODI openers, Trescothick was certainly the better of the two.

 

[GIMH]

All it said was, "Recently Retired XI"

He did play a few Tests as an opener though, unless I completely imagined it!?

 

[Richard]

IIRR he opened in 2 Tests against Australia in 2004/05.

Terrible decision.

Anyway I thought the idea of picking mythical XIs (like "recently retired") was to bat people in position and pick a genuine team, else you could just have 11 batsmen or 9 bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

Purely as batsmen, they were both decent but not as special as some people would like to make out. Fleming actually was a fairly ordinary batsman, surely anyone whos played 111 tests should have scored more than 8 test centuries.
Whether or not Fleming was a better player on seaming tracks is irrelevant IMO, Trescothick was temperamentally a better player and was able to score big more often. Fleming should have been better, but the bottom line is that he wasnt.

 

[GIMH]

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.

 

[krkode]

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.

 

[GIMH]

Look, that's possibily a very fair point (Y)

I don't see that we can't compare different types of batsmen though.

 

[Goughy]

I think Fleming was the better player but Trescothick may have accomplished more at the highest level.

If Trescothick would have played 20-30 more Tests, I think his average would have declined rather than increased but we will never know. Rather than speculate, and based on the fact that good openers are harder to find than good middle order player, I take Tresco.

 

[S.P. Fleming]

Fleming. He still averaged over 40 and there a not many new zealand batsmen who have done that because of our conditions. Still by those stats he passed 50 58 times in 111 matches which is a good effort. I do belive he did underachieve somewhat and shouldve made more centuries. His captaincy was ingenius. For mine hes in a different league.

 

[GIMH]

Goughy, I presume you mean 20-30 more Tests?

 

[Woodster]

I think Fleming at his best made the game look so easy. He was elegant and possessed plenty of natural talent, more than what Trescothick did, but never made the most of his talent, while Tres probably did.

Who has left the biggest hole in their respective national sides ? Could certainly be argued Fleming due to NZ's lack of decent batting options, his experience and qualities were invaluable while he was in the side. But England have certainly lacked the controlled aggression at the top, especially in one-day cricket.

In terms of aesthetics, Fleming gets the nod, in terms of actually delivering, Trescothick for me.

 

[Richard]

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.

Again from memory, this was only an especially unusually large problem in the first half of Fleming's career - think he scored something like 2 centuries in his first 48 Tests or so. In the second half of his career he generally went on well when set, but also developed a tendency for extreme vulnerability early on and got quite a few single-figure scores.

However, I think his conversion-rate in the second half of his career was pretty "normal". It just wasn't spectacular, so it didn't cancel-out his remarkable lack of centuries in the first half of his career.

 

[Woodster]

However, I think his conversion-rate in the second half of his career was pretty "normal". It just wasn't spectacular, so it didn't cancel-out his remarkable lack of centuries in the first half of his career.

Not totally sure I agree with that. Looking towards the back end of his career, after he made a big one against Bangladesh, he then passed fifty a further 12 times, going on to register three figures just once. 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).

 

[Prince EWS]

I think Fleming was the better player but Trescothick may have accomplished more at the highest level.

For mine, once you retire, you are what you've accomplished (at all levels).

Fleming should have been better, but the bottom line is that he wasnt.

This.

Hence, purely as batsmen, Trescothick. If you add in all facets then I'd vote for Fleming - marginally better slipper and a brilliant captain.

 

[Flem274*]

Depends on what you want. If you want an opener, then Trescothick is your man. If you want a no. 4/5, especially if you're going to the subcontinent, then you take Fleming.

On memory of his stats, if Fleming had been from the subcontinent, he would've averaged 50 or so. He wasn't the best at seaming/swinging conditions early on, so him batting at three in tests and opening in ODIs, whilst he was good and I'm not making excuses, hindered him somewhat imo. He said himself in one of his gazillion interviews just before retirement his favourite position was number five.

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.

 

[haroon510]

voted for Marcus Trescothick although i would have fleming in my team also simply because of his captaincy...
Trescothick has better average, better strike rate and was a better opener than fleming.. to this date i don't know why fleming opened the innings himself.. he was doing better in middle order... and he kind of hold back guys like Astle and afew others from that position..