Test only batsmen

[marc71178]

Butcher should definitely get given a game... Especially with the likes of Irani, McGrath and Rikki Clarke being banded around in recent years... (Butch can bowl a few overs too)

Butch can bowl a few overs, but he is only effective in a very limited set of conditions...

What about Atherton's ODI career?

Not as bad as people would've expected.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

This whole campaign to select him reminds me a lot of the campaign to have Slater picked in Australia's one-day side. He did get picked a few times, and it became painfully apparent why he shouldn't have been.

Michael Slater's ODI Career
42 Matches, 987 runs@ 24.07, SR: 60.40, Ct: 9, St:0
2 Overs, 0 wickets, Econ: 5.50

Those stats wouldn't get you near the Australian ODI side these days. Though when he was picked in the ODI side, 99% of the time he opened with Mark Taylor who wasn't known to be a particuarly attacking ODI batsman (and who was dropped from the ODI side in 1997). So I guess Slater tried to be the attacking one of the two, but he did end up being caught very often.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Not as bad as people would've expected.

The reason why people (and I guess the selectors as well) think that Atherton didn't have a great ODI career is because of his strike rate. His ODI strike rate was only 58.64

 

[marc71178]

But that should be taken in context IMO

 

[a massive zebra]

Michael Slater's ODI Career
42 Matches, 987 runs@ 24.07, SR: 60.40, Ct: 9, St:0
2 Overs, 0 wickets, Econ: 5.50

Those stats wouldn't get you near the Australian ODI side these days. Though when he was picked in the ODI side, 99% of the time he opened with Mark Taylor who wasn't known to be a particuarly attacking ODI batsman (and who was dropped from the ODI side in 1997). So I guess Slater tried to be the attacking one of the two, but he did end up being caught very often.

Your theory about Slater overattacking to make up for Taylor, and paying the penalty by getting out hardly stands up when you consider his ODI strike rate is 60.40.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Your theory about Slater overattacking to make up for Taylor, and paying the penalty by getting out hardly stands up when you consider his ODI strike rate is 60.40.

Look at these ODI innings of Slater when scored 50 or more

73 (69) SR: 105.79
54 (82) SR: 65.85
66 (76) SR: 86.84
50 (66) SR: 75.75
55 (72) SR: 76.38
68 (108) SR: 62.96
50 (69) SR: 72.46
53* (69) SR: 76.81
52 (38) SR: 136.84

His overall strike rate in those innings is 80.27


Look at these ODI innings of Slater when he scored 5 runs or less

1 (2) SR: 50.00
0 (2) SR: 0.00
4 (12) SR: 33.33
0 (10) SR: 0.00
4 (6) SR: 66.66
2 (12) SR: 16.66
1 (13) SR: 7.69
2 (7) SR: 28.57
5 (26) SR: 19.23
0 (4) SR: 0.00
2 (17) SR: 11.67
3 (21) SR: 14.28
1 (11) SR: 9.09

His overall strike rate in those innings is 17.48

I think if you look at those stats and you'll see if Slater had got going, he scored his runs very quickly. Though if he scored only a few runs, his strike rate tended to be very low.

So thats why I stand by my theory on Slater.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Butch can bowl a few overs, but he is only effective in a very limited set of conditions...

Which is still better than Rikki Clarke.

 

[badgerhair]

So thats why I stand by my theory on Slater.

It's your theory, which is yours. It fits the facts, as does mine, which is that he played a lot of shots which were profitable in Tests but which were risky in one-day cricket. A lot of fairly airy drives through what would be a vacant mid-off or extra cover in Tests but just go down the throat of an ODI field. And those pulls for four to the non-existent midwicket in a Test were just gifts in one-day cricket. The opposite side of the coin was Neil Fairbrother, who could never have been a success in Tests because his business shot was through third slip.

Sure, Slats could ride his luck in an ODI, and sometimes it came off. But mostly it didn't. Taylor's other one-day partners didn't seem to suffer from the same affliction, even though they weren't dashers like Test match Slater.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Waughney]

Do you think the likes of Mark Butcher, Justin Langer etc. deserve the chance to play in ODI's?

Butcher has never even played an ODI for England. If this was done say five years ago, I wouldn't have considered him in the ODI side. Though in recent years he has shown that he could perform as an ODI batsman, if given the chance.

Langer is a little more fortunate as he has played 8 ODI's for Australia. His batting in recent years has improved a lot (including his strike rate), but he would be still far down the order for ODI selection given his age, heaps of young players are now emerging & where could Langer bat in the ODI side given Gilchrist and Hayden are doing great.

I don't think Langer will get a chance ahead of guys like Mike Hussey. Didn't you see Langer in the later one day domestic games this season? He was easily tied down, scoring 15 from 50 odd balls + 1 or 2 similar innings. Don't get me wrong I rate him as one of the best limited overs players in Australia (see his 115 earlier in the season http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/DEC/022059_AUS_18DEC2003.html) but he is not better than his rivals: Hussey, Hodge, Katich and Maher.

 

[Craig]

actually hes played 4....you hafta wonder who the wise guy on the selection committee came up with the idea of richardson for an ODI game.

Because Nathan Astle was injured.

And showed some form in the Tests before hand.

 

[Eclipse]

Why do people still consider Langer defensive? He's been rather much more attacking of late. His Test SR is 52.68 (perfectly acceptable when there are 2700 scheduled legal deliveries in a Test).

His last 4 significant innings...

166 from 295 balls
13 fours, 2 sixes
56.27 SR

117 from 149 balls
17 fours, 1 six
78.52 SR

58 from 72 balls
7 fours, 2 sixes
80.55 SR

121 from 194 balls
17 fours
62.37 SR

yeah he is way more inclined to be aggresive than he is deffensive these days.

He even scored a hundered for WA off about 70 balls last season.

 

[marc71178]

Which is still better than Rikki Clarke.

Debateable...

And also balanced out by Clarke being a better one day bat and far better fielder.

 

[blackcapsrule]

Mark Butcher deserves a try

 

[marc71178]

Based on what? His List A record isn't outstanding.

 

[blackcapsrule]

But he hasn't had a chance to show what he has at this level yet.

 

[Eclipse]

But he hasn't had a chance to show what he has at this level yet.

Well if he has got a poor record at a much lower level then why would he do better in ODI's.

 

[Gaijin-san]

I guess the selectors wanted to try him out. But as those stats show, Richarson is not an ODI batsman.

As those stats show?? My God, after 4 games, Michael Clarke was averaging 208. If we're gonna pigeon-hole a player after 4 matches, then I've been right all along: He is the best!

 

[luckyeddie]

Well if he has got a poor record at a much lower level then why would he do better in ODI's.

Doesn't always work that way, of course.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well if he has got a poor record at a much lower level then why would he do better in ODI's.

Michael Vaughan, Marcus Trescothick, Hamish Marshall, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Steve Harmison...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Debateable...

And also balanced out by Clarke being a better one day bat /QUOTE]
He is? I always pictured a 27.72 avge with 1 hundred and 17 fifties to be > a 20.44 avge with 4 fifties.