Dire Times Ahead For England

[Richard]

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.

“Experts” have an incorrect definition of luck, you know that. Bad luck is missing-out on wickets which would have come from good balls. Having an innocuous delivery outside off cut to cover and dropped is, if you like, poetic justice, for the bowler at least. For the batsman it’s lucky, because he’s done something that under normal circumstances would result in his dismissal, but for the bowler it’s just exactly the same result in the scorebook as if the ball had been let go to the ‘keeper.
In the recent series these wickets and chances came off his bowling:
A Long-Hop gloved to the ‘keeper down the leg-side.
Another Long-Hop, top-edged to the ‘keeper.
An lbw decision given to a ball that was not hitting the stumps.
A tail-ender played a poor shot, edging a ball that a top-order batsman would have left, to slip.
A fairly innocuous short-ball, which the batsman somehow managed to glove to slip.
A Long-Hop pulled straight to long-leg.
A full, straight ball which a batsman looking for quick runs missed.
A good, away-swinging delivery, edged to slip. Justice was done to all as the catch was taken.
An innocuous delivery outside off, back-foot drive attempted, edged to Trescothick. Justice done to the bowler as the catch was grassed.
An innocuous short-ball, which could have been ducked easily, hooked to long-leg, justice done as the chance put-down.
Yet another Long-Hop pulled straight to deep-backward-square-leg.
Seeing a pattern? Of course you won’t set any stall by it, because you believe that just by bowling economically a bowler deserves every wicket he gets, but the pattern is undeniably there – most chances come with short balls (6 out of 10, given that the Chandana lbw was not a chance). 1 wicket in the series was through good bowling – Jayasuriya with a well-pitched away-swinger.
His economy-rate was very good indeed, no denying that, he’s a very accurate bowler, but in Test-cricket you need more than just accuracy.

 

[Richard]

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...

Just because Kent have enough good batsmen (Fulton, Key, Smith, Symonds, Walker) to bat him at seven when he could perfectly easily be batting three or four for a weaker batting side doesn’t take anything away from the runs he’s scored. Anyway, I can’t believe he’ll bat below Ealham next season, if he hasn’t broken into the England side.

 

[Richard]

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

In that 161 he was absolutely plumb lbw to Charitha Buddhika Fernando on 27. Decent Umpiring and he’d have made no more than 27. Simple as. Played well for a 134 after that, no denying that.
If you want, I can even go through Trescothick’s Test-career and his luck:
66 in 1st Test innings (Old Trafford); dropped at square-leg on 3.
71 in 4th innings (The Oval); dropped at slip on 7.
Century and half-century at Galle; dropped 3 times in first-innings, once in second-innings.
66 v India at Mohali, first-innings; absolutely plumb lbw to Kumble on 24, for some reason Bucknor gave it not-out.
99 v India at Motera, first-innings; again, absolutely plumb to Kumble on 36, not given by that idiot Robinson.
76 v SL, Lord’s, second-innings; lbw on 44, not given.
161 v SL, Edgbaston, already mentioned.
80-odd v SL, Old Trafford, first-innings; dropped twice in 2 balls, 64 and 66.
23* v SL, second-innings, dropped at deep-backward-square on 22.
72 v Aus, ‘Gabba; dropped in the gully on 1.
31 vs SA, Edgbaston, first-innings; dropped at first-slip on 0.
52* v SA, second-innings; dropped at first-slip on 51.
68* v SA, The Oval, second-innings, dropped at first-slip on 1.
Single-figures against SA at Lord’s; still managed to get dropped.
See? He’s been lucky on many occasions. In 2001 he had no luck all season and scored 3 fifties and a hundred; he got one chanceless fifty each in the series’ in Pakistan, New Zealand and Sri Lanka (2003\04, not 2000\01); he got twin fifties chancelessly at The Oval against India; and of course the 217 in the first-innings at The Oval.
Now I’ve lost count of his first-chance average, but I can tell you for certain it’s far lower than the scorebook one, especially if you exclude the Bangladesh games.
Basically Trescothick’s flaws have been exposed and, for the best part of the last year-and-a-bit, decent bowlers have exploited them (Bangladesh haven’t, not surprisingly). Trescothick’s First-Class average is anything but impressive. We can only now wait until the West Indies tour. While runs are flowing against his name, no case can be made for his exclusion, that’s all I’ll say.

 

[Richard]

Regarding the future of English batsmanship, a few comments:
First and foremost, Anthony McGrath’s name has been mentioned several times. WHY? He was mistakenly selected for 4 Tests, and while his batting average is over 40 and his bowling average under 20, I still hope he never plays Test-cricket again. His First-Class average is just over 30, he’s our captain, and basically I’d much prefer see him making a few runs for us than failing for England. He’s not even young; let’s just leave his name out of these discussions as we do of the less recent selection mistakes like Afzaal, Maddy and Adams, all selected for Test-cricket when their First-Class records advised otherwise.
People have branded Kent batsmen Key and Smith failures. Smith has played 5 innings, which is something approaching a fair go but not yet a complete one, not for someone with a First-Class average of 40. As for Key, he’s played 3 innings in his proper position. Don’t judge an opener on his failures in the middle-order. He’s averaged over 40 in each of the last 3 seasons, just like Smith. Don’t write him off just yet, but don’t pick him in the middle-order either.
Some batsmen I believe are good prospects for England (NOT saying these are the only ones):
Strauss - FC ave over 40.
Key – domestic FC ave over 40 for each of last 3 seasons.
Solanki – good FC ave, disappointing last season, confident he can pick it up.
Shah – always had a good FC ave, just never been in the right place at the right time.
Bell – poor last 2 seasons, brilliant in 2001, can’t have meant nothing.
Troughton – brilliant in 2002, very good for first half of last season, tailed-off.
Wagh – never been brilliant at stringing good seasons together; when he’s good he’s very good, when he’s bad he’s horrible.
Ed Smith – FC ave over 40 for each of last 3 seasons (and in 1999), over 60 last season.
Matthew Wood – 1998 good, 1999 terrible, 2000 limited, 2001 very good, 2002 terrible, 2003 very good. Notice a pattern? If he could only string two decent seasons together, he’d be pushing for a place.
Pietersen – minute he is available must surely come into consideration, FC ave superb over last 3 seasons.
Collingwood – FC ave over 40 in 2001 and 2002; limited in 2003. Played a couple of reasonable Test-innings.
Two vital things that seem often to be forgotten:
A player can only be selected if a place is available. I presently think Butcher, Hussain and Thorpe should hold down three, four and five, though it would be better if it was Butcher one, Trescothick two, Hussain three, Vaughan four.
There really is no point picking openers to bat in the middle-order. No-one ever seriously considers picking middle-order players to open, do they (with one notable exception)? So why do it the other way around? In my list there are 3 openers, 1 of whom has already played 10 Test innings as a middle-order batsman and failed miserably.
Some other important things:
I never think it’s a good idea to pick a batsman who has not made many runs recently (ie if a batsman has a season’s average of less than 30 I can never condone his selection, even if he has a career average of over 40). However, just to pick a batsman because he is making runs in one season is not a good idea either.
So many players have been selected for the wrong form of the game recently, not just in Pakistan, but in England too. Afzaal for Tests; Solanki for ODIs; Shah for ODIs; Strauss for ODIs; Collingwood in 2001 was top FC runscorer and selected for ODIs; Troughton for ODIs; Johnson for ODIs.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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)

You're not one of the Clarke detractors are you?

 

[iamdavid]

though it would be better if it was Butcher one, Trescothick two, Hussain three, Vaughan four.
There really is no point picking openers to bat in the middle-order

One is contradicting one's self :P

But I agree 100% with everything you say in this post.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In that 161 he was absolutely plumb lbw to Charitha Buddhika Fernando on 27. Decent Umpiring and he’d have made no more than 27. Simple as. Played well for a 134 after that, no denying that.
If you want, I can even go through Trescothick’s Test-career and his luck:
66 in 1st Test innings (Old Trafford); dropped at square-leg on 3.
71 in 4th innings (The Oval); dropped at slip on 7.
Century and half-century at Galle; dropped 3 times in first-innings, once in second-innings.
66 v India at Mohali, first-innings; absolutely plumb lbw to Kumble on 24, for some reason Bucknor gave it not-out.
99 v India at Motera, first-innings; again, absolutely plumb to Kumble on 36, not given by that idiot Robinson.
76 v SL, Lord’s, second-innings; lbw on 44, not given.
161 v SL, Edgbaston, already mentioned.
80-odd v SL, Old Trafford, first-innings; dropped twice in 2 balls, 64 and 66.
23* v SL, second-innings, dropped at deep-backward-square on 22.
72 v Aus, ‘Gabba; dropped in the gully on 1.
31 vs SA, Edgbaston, first-innings; dropped at first-slip on 0.
52* v SA, second-innings; dropped at first-slip on 51.
68* v SA, The Oval, second-innings, dropped at first-slip on 1.
Single-figures against SA at Lord’s; still managed to get dropped.
See? He’s been lucky on many occasions. In 2001 he had no luck all season and scored 3 fifties and a hundred; he got one chanceless fifty each in the series’ in Pakistan, New Zealand and Sri Lanka (2003\04, not 2000\01); he got twin fifties chancelessly at The Oval against India; and of course the 217 in the first-innings at The Oval.
Now I’ve lost count of his first-chance average, but I can tell you for certain it’s far lower than the scorebook one, especially if you exclude the Bangladesh games.
Basically Trescothick’s flaws have been exposed and, for the best part of the last year-and-a-bit, decent bowlers have exploited them (Bangladesh haven’t, not surprisingly). Trescothick’s First-Class average is anything but impressive. We can only now wait until the West Indies tour. While runs are flowing against his name, no case can be made for his exclusion, that’s all I’ll say.

Richard very few batsman make any significant innings without giving a chance. That's cricket. Live with it! If it weren't part of the game, there would be a rule saying that once the ball makes contact with the fielder's hand off the bat, the batsman is out regardless of whether the ball is held or not. That would support your dropped catches theory. The fact is that that is ridiculous and will not happen.

All fielders drop catches. Every international cricketer has dropped several catches in his or her career.

 

[Richard]

They say Walter Hammond dropped 13 catches in his entire First-Class career...
IMO the standard of catching has degenerated badly in the last 2 or 3 years. I can't produce any statistics to prove it, but I have just been reading match-reports and far more large innings seem to result from let-offs.
If the rules were made like you say, cricket would not be cricket, even if scorebook averages would give a fairer reflection of a batsman's ability.
Dropped catches are a part of cricket, I have never disputed that, but I really just think they should be remembered rather more than they are. As you can see from my lists, I don't forget them quickly. I really disagree with the notion that most big innings need let-offs, though; it's just something that is said to quicky fob-off any mention of the innings being lesser because of let-offs.

 

[Richard]

One is contradicting one's self :P

But I agree 100% with everything you say in this post.

IMO Vaughan is a better middle-order player than he is opener.
He's easily up-to-standard as a county opener, even at Headingley, but I still think he's better at three or four.

 

[Richard]

You're not one of the Clarke detractors are you?

Presuming you mean Rikki, no, I'm not. I think he's a pretty good batsman.
But what has that to do with that part you quoted.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Presuming you mean Rikki, no, I'm not. I think he's a pretty good batsman.
But what has that to do with that part you quoted.

I was referring to Michael Clarke.

The intention was to show that that's the same attitude of many Aussie supporters which is getting frowned upon by many non-Aussies (English).

Clarke is accepted by many as a good enough batsman to play in Tests and seems to be considered a Test success already. He's yet to play one...

 

[PY]

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.

That statement about Steve Harmison makes me think you didn't see that spell of bowling. He took those wickets BUT he also had several ripping deliveries (ie rising cutting off the seam on off-stump) that didn't take wickets.

Those balls deserved wickets but didn't get them. Surely you can't begrudge him the one's he did get? Think the key is that it all evens itself out when it comes to bowling, not so sure i does with batting but hell, they've scored the runs.

Why don't you invent a new game if you want one that involves people being finished if they offer a chance? It sure as hell wouldn't be cricket.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Am I the only one who doesn't think that Geraint Jones is all he's cracked up to be with the bat?

Granted, haven't seen any of him but he was averaging ~60 for the first half of the season and then fell away quite badly in the second. This is is first year in the CC and finished with an average of 44 and a fairly poor 2/9 conversion rate.

I want a bit more yet before I'm convinced.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Am I the only one who doesn't think that Geraint Jones is all he's cracked up to be with the bat?

Granted, haven't seen any of him but he was averaging ~60 for the first half of the season and then fell away quite badly in the second. This is is first year in the CC and finished with an average of 44 and a fairly poor 2/9 conversion rate.

I want a bit more yet before I'm convinced.

This is what I've been saying. Hence my mention of Michael Clarke syndrome. Admittedly, Clarke does seem to be a very good batsman, but it's essentially the same thing - people are convinced that he will be a success as a top-class batsman, when he's yet to play a Test.

I think they should call up Jonathan Batty because he's a Surrey player and Surrey players never get a genuine opportunity. :P Life's a bitch.

 

[marc71178]

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.

I wouldn't rate him that highly - quite an expensive bowler.

 

[marc71178]

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.

So of his 12 matches so far, he's had impressive spells or innings in 7 of them - terrible.

As far as Flintoff goes: has there ever been a worse bowler whose ability continues to be believed in?

So it's my imagination that he was far ahead of the rest of our seamers in SL then?

 

[marc71178]

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

Right - for their counties, Flintoff bats in the top 4 or 5, Jones at 7.

Flintoff's non-Test average (over about 5 times as many games) is 38.73, whereas Jones has played 1 season for about 41-42.

Flintoff's recent Test record is more than passable (averaging 40.42 in 2003 and beginning to regularly pass 50 - note that in this time he did not play against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh - where he would almost certainly have made good scores)

So yes, I do think Flintoff is a better batsman than Jones.

 

[marc71178]

Just because Kent have enough good batsmen (Fulton, Key, Smith, Symonds, Walker) to bat him at seven when he could perfectly easily be batting three or four for a weaker batting side doesn’t take anything away from the runs he’s scored.

Key, Walker - come off it!!!!!!!

And you think he would make the England team purely as a batsman when he came in after them AND Ealham last season?

Anyway, I can’t believe he’ll bat below Ealham next season, if he hasn’t broken into the England side.

Of course he won't, but if Ealham had stayed at Kent, I expect he would've done.

 

[marc71178]

though it would be better if it was Butcher one, Trescothick two, Hussain three, Vaughan four.
There really is no point picking openers to bat in the middle-order.

Talk about contradicting yourself!!!!!!

 

[Rich2001]

Key, Walker - come off it!!!!!!!

And you think he would make the England team purely as a batsman when he came in after them AND Ealham last season?

Of course he won't, but if Ealham had stayed at Kent, I expect he would've done.

Firstly you guys need to remember that this was Jonesy first season and nobody really had any clue how he would go, so obviously Fults and the Coach went with experiance and known players ahead of him, and it was basically a like-for-like swap with Nixon, who batted at 6-7 the seasons he was here... Who was a fine batsman to, but was relied for getting a few runs down the order and being able to smash a few if required.

I also think your under estimating Ealy's the guy was scoring 800-1000 runs every season from 6, so would be a bit harsh on him to drop him down the order for a unkown player


As for the Walker and Key comment iam shocked, those have been two of our best players in recent season, with Key I think you read to much into his England failures and forget the guy has scored 1,000+ runs for about the last 3/4 seasons, admittly last season was very bad form him but he still managed to come out of it with like 700 runs, and considering how bad he was playing was a fair effort.

As for Walker iam in pain, the guy has been Mr Consistan with us, he has been in the 1,000+ runs mark every season, not to mention that he has been one of the best One Day players we have ever had, he is our answer to M.Bevan and N.Fairbrother he keeps the scores going and can hit if if wants to, and just to top of the point he ended 2003 with one of his best seasons ever - Considering how poor we were all season to come out of it with a Personal Best was pretty impressive, considering also how many many of our runs Ed Smith scored alone