England's Future XI

[Neil Pickup]

It is as simple as this for me: you pick the bowlers who you think are most likely to get the best figures and make the biggest contribution to a win. If they're all right-arm seamers, so be it. It didn't do us any harm in 2000 when we had Cork, Caddick, Gough and White, because they're all good bowlers.

Did you not watch Headingley?

 

[marc71178]

A couple of mentions, of variety and the positions of Butcher, Hussain and Vaughan:
For me it's this simple: Butcher has been an opener all his First-Class-career and Hussain has been a number-three all his.

But that means bugger all when you see how well Butcher plays at number 3, and Hussain does at number 4. It would be stupid to move them.

It is as simple as this for me: you pick the bowlers who you think are most likely to get the best figures and make the biggest contribution to a win. If they're all right-arm seamers, so be it. It didn't do us any harm in 2000 when we had Cork, Caddick, Gough and White, because they're all good bowlers.

But that is only 4 bowlers, and no-one objects to picking 4 similar, but the question is what the 5th adds.

 

[Richard]

Did you not watch Headingley?

Certainly watched it - the problem was none of them bowled consistently well, nothing else. All of them bowled well in patches, bar Flintoff, but the simple fact of the matter was that none of the five bowled to the standard neccesary in Test-cricket, ie consistently hitting the seam and the right areas. I would have had none of them in the XI I would have picked at the start of the summer.

 

[Richard]

But that means bugger all when you see how well Butcher plays at number 3, and Hussain does at number 4. It would be stupid to move them.

Butcher has done well at three and opening, Hussain has done well at four and three.
It's just their most recent success has been in the former positions, so it is the most memorable. But Butcher's performance as an opener in India was no worse than his batting at three the subsequent series in New Zealand, nor was Hussain's. Hussain's best Test score in recent years came at three, the 155 at Lord's when Trescothick was injured and Butcher opened.
In my view Butcher should never have been put back down to three in New Zealand, and if Butcher opens, Hussain bats three.
Well, unless you bat Vaughan at three, which they did try during the Pakistan series in 2001. A short-lived experiment when Vaughan injured himself, Butcher was recalled and excelled.
In the Second and Third Tests in India in 2001\02, the top-four was indeed Butcher, Trescothick, Hussain and Vaughan. Then they messed it up in New Zealand.

 

[Craig]

If you went for Buitcher and Trescothick to open and depending if Hussain will continue to play on, if he doesnt , you could put Ed Smith at 3 and Vaughan at four.

Assuming Smith continues his great run of form of 2003.

 

[Richard]

If you went for Buitcher and Trescothick to open and depending if Hussain will continue to play on, if he doesnt , you could put Ed Smith at 3 and Vaughan at four.

Assuming Smith continues his great run of form of 2003.

Smith's been good for much longer than just 2003, his FC average is over 40.
I will be most disappointed if Hussain isn't still playing this time next year, though. Similarly I was just a little disappointed in Smith, though in all honesty I would have preferred Thorpe in any case and I'm relieved he's got back.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Butcher opening: 25 tests, 1376 runs @ 29.27, 2x100, 6x50
Butcher at three: 31 tests, 2109 runs @ 42.18, 6x100, 9x50

Now I know stats don't tell everything, but I think those say a lot.

 

[marc71178]

Assuming Smith continues his great run of form of 2003.

Can't see Smith getting back in now.

For someone who played the last 3 Tests of the summer and then didn't even make the touring squad suggests to me the selectors won't be calling on him for a while.

 

[chris.hinton]

It is hard to tell really?

But i dont think Ian Bell will be a regular for England?

But dont look past Anderson,Harminson, Hoggard, Flintoff to still be the Bowling Attack together with a Spinner*

*= I am not going to say a leg spinner like but any spinner will do

 

[Richard]

Butcher opening: 25 tests, 1376 runs @ 29.27, 2x100, 6x50
Butcher at three: 31 tests, 2109 runs @ 42.18, 6x100, 9x50

Now I know stats don't tell everything, but I think those say a lot.

There are lies, damn lies and truths. That particular set, IMO, is a set of damn lies. It mixes time-periods and is a good example of manipulation.
The simple fact is that Butcher only had one good spell in his Test-career before 2001 (since which he has played 30 Tests, being a designated opener in just 4 of them), during 1998 when he played South Africa then got a 116 at The 'Gabba. Other than that, batting in a variety of positions including one, three and six, he failed pretty solidly.
Since his recall in 2001 he has looked very much the most solid batsman in the side, whether batting one or three. It's just 26 out of 30 Tests have been at three so lots of people, unfortunately for a time including himself, have got the misleading impression that he's better at three than he is at one.
The fact is there's not a massive amount of difference - Butcher's no inferior at three to at one, but Vaughan IMO is far better at four than at two, and Trescothick's never been anything but an opener, though he doesn't mind whether he bats one or two.

 

[Neil Pickup]

If that were to be the case - which I don't believe it is - why change a successful formula?

 

[marc71178]

There are lies, damn lies and truths. That particular set, IMO, is a set of damn lies. It mixes time-periods and is a good example of manipulation.

Yet when you showed Ramprakash's figures you were able to remove the one's in which he's opened because it didn't suit you?


It shows Butcher averages in excess of 40 when playing at number 3.

How many other Englishman can say that at any position - 2 or 3.

 

[Richard]

If that were to be the case - which I don't believe it is - why change a successful formula?

Because it shouldn't have been succesful in the first place? Because Vaughan only earned 1 of his 4 centuries last sumer? And only 2 of his 3 in Australia?
OK, Vaughan's played well as an opener on occasions (all on flat pitches and all bar the 156 at Edgbaston against attacks which could best be described as popgun) and if you ask me he is too aggressive for a Test opener, and I think that has been proved this summer when he has been caught btw on 8 occasions. OK, openers are always going to be caught-behind sometimes, but 8 out of 12 innings smacks of too much driving on-the-up. His luck dried-up this summer, all the catches off him were taken.
For me, Butcher, a more conservative player, is a better bet as an opener and Vaughan, now an aggressor, would be better at four. Especially since he has been prematurely burdened with the Test captaincy.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It shows Butcher averages in excess of 40 when playing at number 3.

How many other Englishman can say that at any position - 2 or 3.

The important thing about that is that it's rising with every series...

 

[Richard]

Yet when you showed Ramprakash's figures you were able to remove the one's in which he's opened because it didn't suit you?


It shows Butcher averages in excess of 40 when playing at number 3.

How many other Englishman can say that at any position - 2 or 3.

I removed the Ramps opening innings because Ramps is a four-batsman at the highest. Butcher, as I have mentioned, has been an opener all his life.
The Butcher stats are a basic comparison between one era and another. To add opening innings into Ramprakash's figures in the middle-order is unfair as Ramps has never been an opener and no-one should have tried to make him into one.
(Ironically, they only tried it because of Butcher's 23-innings run of no fifties.)

 

[Richard]

The important thing about that is that it's rising with every series...

Butchie's basically just been going from strength to strength since his comeback at Edgbaston in 2001 (38 and 41). He finally ended his run of 26 half-century-less innings at Lord's and two Tests later played that memorable 173*. There have only really been a couple of blips - the New Zealand series on some very bowler-friendly pitches, and the spell from the India series (two half-centuries in 6 innings, one very chancy) then The Ashes, where he basically batted terribly in the first 4 Tests but got some luck in the first-innings at The SCG (could have been out 4 times in 124) and the next Test against Zimbabwe (plumb lbw to Hondo on 11, went on to make 126 more of the best runs you could wish to see). From second-innings Lord's onwards he never looked back in that series. Let us hope his average now rises to the 40 mark where, to be frank, it belongs.

 

[marc71178]

I removed the Ramps opening innings because Ramps is a four-batsman at the highest. Butcher, as I have mentioned, has been an opener all his life.

Except for his most successful period of his career!

Number 3 is a tricky position to play, since you face a variety of scenarios - if you have someone who can do it well, you don't move him.

 

[Richard]

Except for his most successful period of his career!

Number 3 is a tricky position to play, since you face a variety of scenarios - if you have someone who can do it well, you don't move him.

Even if you have someone who can also do it well (Hussain), and you need your first person as an opener?

 

[Anna]

This is completely irrelevant, but what do people think of the young Somerset keeper/batsman Carl Gazzard?

 

[marc71178]

Even if you have someone who can also do it well (Hussain), and you need your first person as an opener?

Hussain at 3 - 39.59
Hussain at 4 - 38.09

He doesn't lose a lot from batting at 4.

Butcher at 3 - 42.18
Butcher opening - 29.27

He loses a lot batting at the top.

Vaughan opening - 52.89
Vaughan at 4 - 26.25

He loses a lot by not opening.