Dire Times Ahead For England

[marc71178]

Collingwood - good one-day player ... no more from what he's shown

You reckon? I'd say he showed a lot of bottle in those 2 matches, and I feel that he should be in the side now (although I think he would be but for that injury in the summer)

 

[Langeveldt]

You reckon? I'd say he showed a lot of bottle in those 2 matches, and I feel that he should be in the side now (although I think he would be but for that injury in the summer)

Yes but for a test match England should be looking for players that can score big runs against good bowling, not just make dependable 30's and 40's (which might be okay for the One day game).. He will pick up wickets too, but wouldnt consider him an allrounder, more a batsman who bowls..

 

[Richard]

Trescothick: I thought after the "bad light" debacle of the fourth test match against SA, and the committed match winning effort that followed, that we had seen a change in Trescothick. No such luck. He has immediately reverted to the mediocre and unreliable batsman we all know and love, which is a shame, because his talent is much more than the flashy 30's-70's he scores. He refuses to commit himself to scoring match winning innings, and is symptomatic of the malaise that has dogged English cricket for 20 years.

Trescothick has never been a Test-class player for mine. Simply had a load of luck. If you get rid of the Bangladesh games and ignore the match at The Oval he has scored 4 fifties in 25 Test innings (no hundreds). Finally, he has been exposed.

Vaughn: England's only world class player. But he seems to have completely forgotten what it means to build an innings. He would do well to analyse the 7 centuries he scored in 2002. He would find that he started all of those innings slowly and gradually built up the momentum. Nice to see England are putting all that technology to good use.

If he analysed the centuries he scored in 2002 (and his comments suggest he did, to his eternal credit) he'd notice he had a not-inconsiderable amount of luck in 4 out of 6. He said "I've had a bit of luck, been dropped quite a few times". Most people, customarily, neglect that fact. He played no differently in 2003. Since New Zealand at the start of 2002, since being made to open, he has tried to score too fast for a Test opener against decent bowling. In 2003 he has had little luck, and has scored 3 centuries in 20 proper Test-innings, plus a half. Move him back to number-four, you'll see the best of him.

Butcher: Time's up Butch. Sorry, you're just not up to the task of England's number 3. Another in the Trescothick mould: looks good, then unconscionably gets out. He keeps reminding us about his 40 batting average over the last year and a half. Is that as good as it gets? A batting average of 40 is your peak years? Are these the standards out cricketers are setting for themselves? I always fear drinks breaks or delays in play when Butch is at the crease ... any break in concentration seem to lead to his demise.

Butcher is better opening than at three IMO anyway, but he has shown many times that he can score runs at three too. He was the best batsman last summer, and has basically been consistency personnified since his recall at Edgbaston 2001. Wait for West Indies; he'll be back in the runs, believe me. He has played many knocks pivotal to the outcome of the match in England's favour; he gets out poorly sometimes, wow. So does everyone. An average like Butcher's over that period, peak years or not, is impressive.

Hussain: Nasser is a player of ordinary talent who has succeeded by sheer bloody minded determination. England's best captain in 20 years. But as a player, one feels the fire is gone, and there isn't much talent to fall back on. At 34/35, the curtain must surely be brought down on Nasser's career after the Windies series.

For me this is a load of scaremongering. Nasser has had two bad matches recently; he too has been consistency personnified since the start of the 2001 season and logic suggests he'll be back scoring runs in the not-too-distant future.

Thorpe: England's best batsman over the past 10 years. But at 35 years of age will be lucky to reach the heights he previously scaled. England will need a veteran presence in the centre of their middle order as they rebuild. Thorpe has to be the fulcrum they build around. At 35, he hasn't much time left, and neither do England.

I still believe Thorpey has plenty left in him.

Flintoff: IMO he must become England’s bowling all rounder and bat 7. Sad to say, but if England are to succeed, Flintoff must become England 3rd fast bowler, and bat at 7. Number 6 in the batting line-up is crucial. It requires a player (like the number 3) who can play both defensively and offensively depending on what the match situation dictates. Number 6 is often required to score quick runs, other times to shepherd the tail, other times to rebuild the innings after the loss of early wickets. Flintoff is not equipped for this role IMO. He must bat at 7 and be allowed to express himself freely, or else England will be scoring no more than 250 runs per inning.

I don't rate Flintoff as bowler or batsman, never have made any secret of it, not much has happened to change my opinion. He had a good series against South Africa and somehow got away with a bit of slogging at The SSC. Whether he bats five, six, seven or eight, I don't think he'll ever score many runs against decent bowling. As for his bowling, just look at his average and remember that the last series was the first time it went down in God knows how long.

Read: Excellent wicket keeper, but looks massively out of his depth with the bat, to the extent that Gareth Batty has overtaken him in the line-up. England do not have enough batting talent and they carry too much of a tail to afford a non-batting wicket keeper. Read is a luxury England must discard. IMO the opportunity exists for a fringe England batsman who is competent with the gloves to take over this role. One wonders why someone like John Crawley doesn't try and turn himself into a wicket keeping all-rounder. Can it be that hard to catch the damn ball?

For me England have someone who is almost a ready-made replacement for Stewart in Geirant Jones. I can't believe he's quite as good a batsman as Stewie, but he can't be far behind. His wicketkeeping isn't as good as Read's but I can't believe it's not up to international standard. Why the hell anyone could possibly consider Read a better cricketer than Jones is completely beyond me.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

For me England have someone who is almost a ready-made replacement for Stewart in Geirant Jones. I can't believe he's quite as good a batsman as Stewie, but he can't be far behind. His wicketkeeping isn't as good as Read's but I can't believe it's not up to international standard. Why the hell anyone could possibly consider Read a better cricketer than Jones is completely beyond me.

Because Read has proven himself a solid option for several seasons and Geraint Jones has not?

 

[Langeveldt]

Because Read has proven himself a solid option for several seasons and Geraint Jones has not?

By doing what? Scoring loads of runs in England colours?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Trescothick has never been a Test-class player for mine. Simply had a load of luck. If you get rid of the Bangladesh games and ignore the match at The Oval he has scored 4 fifties in 25 Test innings (no hundreds). Finally, he has been exposed.

If he analysed the centuries he scored in 2002 (and his comments suggest he did, to his eternal credit) he'd notice he had a not-inconsiderable amount of luck in 4 out of 6. He said "I've had a bit of luck, been dropped quite a few times". Most people, customarily, neglect that fact. He played no differently in 2003. Since New Zealand at the start of 2002, since being made to open, he has tried to score too fast for a Test opener against decent bowling. In 2003 he has had little luck, and has scored 3 centuries in 20 proper Test-innings, plus a half. Move him back to number-four, you'll see the best of him.

So both of them have averaged in the mid to late 40's for a considerable time now, and have just been lucky? Yes, lucky if they've played 5 tests, not lucky if played 30 to 40. The luck will even itself out over that period of time.

 

[marc71178]

Trescothick has never been a Test-class player for mine. Simply had a load of luck. If you get rid of the Bangladesh games and ignore the match at The Oval he has scored 4 fifties in 25 Test innings (no hundreds). Finally, he has been exposed

You cannot knock out innings just because they don't suit your theory - how many times will you try and do it?

 

[marc71178]

As for his bowling, just look at his average and remember that the last series was the first time it went down in God knows how long.

For crying out loud - he was far and away England's best fast bowler in the recent series, and his average and Eco were superb.

He has been an incredibly unlucky bowler in the past year, as many experts have commented.

Credit where credit is due.

 

[marc71178]

For me England have someone who is almost a ready-made replacement for Stewart in Geirant Jones. I can't believe he's quite as good a batsman as Stewie, but he can't be far behind.

So good that he bats at 7 for his County Side?

I believe that was below Ealham, who never looked anything better than a number 8 (7 at a big push) for England.

And you think he could bat 6 in Tests? OK...

 

[Tom Halsey]

Trescothick has never been a Test-class player for mine. Simply had a load of luck. If you get rid of the Bangladesh games and ignore the match at The Oval he has scored 4 fifties in 25 Test innings (no hundreds). Finally, he has been exposed.

Erm, no he hasn't. You've got it wrong. Remember his 161 against Sri Lanka in 2002? There are probably many more-just can't remember them

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

By doing what? Scoring loads of runs in England colours?

By doing enough to earn a recall and being criticized after 6 Tests upon his recall. Really, has he been that bad? Sri Lanka isn't an amazing place to start or restart your Test career v Murali.

From all reports his 'keeping has been very good. What has Geraint Jones done in his half-a-season to suggest he's better than Read?

 

[Craig]

Read - better 'keeper then batsman perhaps
G.Jones - better batsman then 'keeper.

It will depend on what sorto f player the England selectors want. So far they think they want a 'kkeper who's main strength is his 'keeping.

 

[iamdavid]

Even though he bats at 7 usually for Kent?

Him at 7 following Flintoff may be more solid though (with Giles at 8)



Interesting call. As a Warwickshire fan, and one who first saw Wagh at the age of about 14 (incidentally on a day when Aus hit 600+ for 4 into the 3rd morning of the Test, how times have changed!) I may be a bit biased, but I do think he is an option (also bowls a bit of off spin)

I got to bowl to him in the nets in 2001 , he was sick of the bowling machine so he invited all the kids who were watching to come & bowl at him .

He didnt have a great 2002 but this year was superb , also none of the blatant technical flaws which were evident in Smith or McGrath.
His off spin is handy to fill in a few overs as you point out , in fact I recall him taking a seven-for this year , he's probably in the same class as Vaughan as far as bowling is concerned.

Just needs to keep making the runs & hopefully when a spot opens up he is the man they turn to.

On the matter of Butcher I agree with Richard , always been a big fan of his , he was easily Englands best batsman against South Africa IMO , he is all class & Ive seen him make facing some very good bowlers in very tricky conditions look very easy.
He will get out softly alot as he is not the greatest concentrator , however he has the talent & you cant really argue with his numbers in the last 2 years.
Why on Earth do they feild him in the slips though , he's got to be the worst slipper I've ever seen , if I had a dollar for every catch he's had a mess of then I'd be a lot richer than I am now.

 

[Richard]

I don't think this tour is an indicator of their overall ability. Most teams nowadays are struggling in SRL on those spinning pitches and English batsman aren't the best against spin. They will be back to their best against West Indies with their bowling attack. I thought Crawley was unlucky too . They need to bring in Collingwood as a batsman in at 6. The pace bowling worries me . They all need helpful conditions to bowl well on except for maybe Harmison and Flintoff.

Harmison and Flintoff cannot bowl well!
Harmison has got wickets only when the batting has been poor: 9 in 1 Test against Bangladesh and 9(?) in 2 Tests against Zimbabwe, neither of whom have very many batsmen you would expect to play well at Test level. His only impressive spells against batsmen who tend to do particularly well are 3 for 55 against India, 4 for 33 against South Africa (both in 1 innings) and 6 for 156 in 3 innings at the end of The Ashes 2002\03. None of them contained any good bowling anyway, but they are odd-outs in the general pattern of being played competently and being exposed as palpably substandard.
As far as Flintoff goes: has there ever been a worse bowler whose ability continues to be believed in? He simply cannot bowl wicket-taking deliveries, and not very often have batsmen played poor strokes against him. Fortunately, when they have, plenty of the catches have been dropped. Contrary to popular thinking, these dropped catches actually improve the accuracy of his record, not disfigure it. Because a bowler doesn’t deserve any credit for a poor stroke.
Crawley was very unlucky to be dropped when he was but he hardly did himself any favours in 2003, his First-Class form was very poor. Collingwood has played reasonably well in 3 of his 4 Test innings, but has yet to show that he can make Test-match half-centuries, a basic requirement in a Test batsman. We can’t start to make a fair judgement until he’s played a couple more Tests, but at present there are players who have earned a spot more than him.

 

[Richard]

I wasn't really talking about this tour. If England can get their best bowlers on the field and 100% fit, they will always have a chance. But that's not the problem IMO. The batting is the problem, and the fact that we have holes (or imminent holes) at 3, 4, 5 & 6, not even to mention the wicket keeper ... and no obvious replacements for even one of those slots.

If ever there was an advertisment for the radical restructuring of English cricket, that would be it - we can't even find 6 deserving batsmen to fill the top 6

England would be hoping to build their fast bowling battery around Harmison, Jones, Flintoff. None I would say require helpful conditions, although I'm sure they'd prefer it. Hoggard, Anderson and the rest are a different story. Hoggard is a waste of space IMO. Anderson's run up problems have lost him his swing and his pace. At 21 years of age, he should be at home working with the coaches every day of the week ... another 81 mph bowler with no movement is not the answer. Kirtley is OK, Johnson is less than OK on his recent showings.

There really is no such thing as favourable conditions for Harmison, Jones and Flintoff. None are swing-bowlers, none are especially good seam-bowlers. None will get very many wickets without poor batting. Hopefully all will go to West Indies and be exposed. Even then, there’ll almost certainly be some excuse.
As far as Hoggard and Anderson are concerned, I’d much prefer have both in proper English conditions (if we ever see them again). However on wickets that don’t offer seam and when conditions don’t favour swing (and West Indies isn’t traditionally the easiest place to make a cricket ball swing) neither are very good. Both have so far been exposed for the most part in their Test-careers.
Kirtley isn’t much of a bowler when there’s no seam and swing, either, and he’s not the most accurate in The World, either. More accurate than some, but not as accurate as Caddick and the like.
Johnson is for me better than all the above. Accurate, and even if he doesn’t have the ability to bowl wicket-taking balls in unfavourable conditions, he certainly does in favourable ones.
My ideal attack for the New Zealand series (forget West Indies; some more bowlers have to be exposed before this comes to pass) would be Caddick, Johnson, Saggers, White (yes, I still hope to see him back and bowling again).
Not forgetting Martin Bicknell, who is deadly with a new-ball almost anywhere, totally innocuous with an older one. Still a better bowler than Harmison, Jones, Flintoff, Anderson or anyone like that.

 

[Richard]

I think the Batting is in good hands at the moment, but if all the new guys who come through keep failing, then who is going to take over from the likes of Thorpe? Surely its no coincidence that guys like Smith, Troughton, Solanki, Key, McGrath etc have all done sod all?

Troughton and Solanki have yet to play Test-cricket. Don’t judge them on ODIs – neither should have been picked for them. The failures of Smith and Key at international level is slightly worrying as both have done well in domestic cricket in the last few years. However Smith has only played 5 innings, and Key only 3 in his proper position. How many times must England pick openers in the middle-order; it’s a complete waste of time.

 

[Richard]

Even though he bats at 7 usually for Kent?

Him at 7 following Flintoff may be more solid though (with Giles at 8)

If you really think Flintoff is a better batsman than Geirant Jones, you’re seriously deluding yourself.

 

[Richard]

Because Read has proven himself a solid option for several seasons and Geraint Jones has not?

Read batted well in 2002 in First-Class-cricket but he had a poor 2003 compared to that. Jones has only had one good season, too, but for a part of 2003 he was averaging very nearly 60.
I am always one to say don’t rush a player in after just one good season, but with the hounding-out of Stewart we’re left with little choice. Jones is for me the only viable option. And Read has now been proven, fairly conclusively, not to be up to the standards of Test-cricket.
And for me wicketkeeping is not an issue. It’s similar to the Russell\Stewart situation: Russell (Read) brilliant, Stewart (Jones) more than acceptable. Just because Stewart and Jones would make the side as batsmen alone (and if you ask me Jones is good enough for this to apply) people seem to have this bizarre mind-block that they can’t be good enough wicketkeepers. Sorry, that don’t apply.
If Read had had a good 2003 (ie averaged 35+) I would be defending him and saying he had to get a couple more chances, but he didn’t. It would be a small risk to rush Jones, but really it’s almost a no-option situation.

 

[Richard]

So both of them have averaged in the mid to late 40's for a considerable time now, and have just been lucky? Yes, lucky if they've played 5 tests, not lucky if played 30 to 40. The luck will even itself out over that period of time.

It’s a popular belief and in some cases it’s totally untrue. Most batsmen have slightly more good luck than bad over a career; some (like Trescothick) have much more good luck. Even in The Ashes and the first 4 South Africa Tests, he was still getting luck, just fortunately it wasn’t resulting in undeserved big scores.
As for Vaughan, I can give you an exact breakdown if you like:
115 v SL, Lords: dropped on 28 and 33 by Jayasuriya at second-slip.
100 v Ind, Lord’s: dropped by Ratra on 50, caught-behind on 77 and given not-out, lbw on 89 and given not-out, should have been caught on 97 by any other fielder than Ganguly.
197 v Ind, Trent Bridge: dropped by Patel on 19.
Even in a 55 against India at Headingley, he still managed to get dropped twice in 2 balls, before giving yet another chance shortly after and it being taken.
177 v Aus, Adelaide Oval: caught at cover on 19, given not-out by a gutless third-Umpire.
As I say, Vaughan himself, to his credit, admitted to his luck, so to deny it is rather silly.
He had lots of luck in a short period of time; other than that, there hasn’t been much. He played 3 good innings in that time, too, at The Oval (195), MCG (146?) and SCG (187). However, since the start of the 2003 season his luck has dried-up. He has made 2 centuries (Edgbaston v SA; Kandy v SL) and a half-century (Kandy v SL) but his average, excluding the Bangladesh games, is poor.
IMO he would do far better, with his style of play, in the middle-order.

 

[Richard]

You cannot knock out innings just because they don't suit your theory - how many times will you try and do it?

I will do it as many times as I wish – I do not do it because they don’t suit my theory, I do it because to do it produces the theory. The theory fits the data, not the other way around.
As to the actual acts: surely you cannot possibly argue that runs against Bangladesh count for much, so the basic point is that the only time he has made some decent Test runs his last 15 matches and 27 innings is at The Oval. My point is that this game in an anomaly in the trend of failure.
If you wish to use generalisation and invalid data (the Bangladesh games) to blur the picture that’s up to you but the logical view is that Trescothick has only had one good game in his last 15 against proper Test opposition (and I do count Zimbabwe as such as far as opposition batsmen are concerned, because the conditions helped the bowlers a lot).