• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Is Strauss & Tresco opening the right way to go?

Which combo would you go for?

  • Tresco & Strauss - if it's not broken don't fix it

    Votes: 15 48.4%
  • Tresco & Cook - let the skipper come in later

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Strauss & Cook - Tresco can face the spinners

    Votes: 9 29.0%
  • Other - maybe Harmy & Monty should open?

    Votes: 7 22.6%

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Not so long back, I advocated dropping Trescothick, because his recent form has been so disappointing. He scored a fine hundred in his first match back, and since then I think he has only passed 50 once, and against Pakistan he averaged less than 20, the first time he has ever had such poor figures in a Test series.

However, I would not drop him for the Ashes, but for a long time I have heard and read people saying that Tresco should move down the order, as he has such a good player of spin. How good he is is somewhat debatable because he didn't exactly dominate Murali. However, Tresco dropping down would mean Strauss and Cook opening, which worked in Nagpur.

Strauss, for my money, though, looks set to captain us in our forthcoming Ashes defence. It's often said that Captaincy and opening shouldn't be combined, and this would make a case for Strauss dropping down the order. He has proved a success at 3 or 4 in One day Cricket, and one wicket down is perhaps where you should have your best batsman. Whether this is Strauss is highly debatable ; but I wouldn't have the other contenders to that throne at 3. Pietersen should bat no higher than 4 in Tests as far as I'm concerned, in fact I'd have him at 5 : his record of playing spin, and shepherding the tail is already pretty impressive. Trescothick, for me the other contender, is out of sorts at the moment, and well, I've already discussed him dropping down elsewhere - needless to say I think Strauss is quite possibly England's most gifted batsman, and I can certainly see a good case for him batting at 3.

On the other hand, though, it's hard to feel sorry for Strauss having to carry the burden of captaincy and opening, when you consider that Flintoff captained, opened the bowling and scored four fifties and a 41 in 5 innings in India. As well as that, he and Trescothick have a fine record opening together in Tests, and Strauss's recent form, when captaining and opening, has been excellent. It's also worth nothing that Tresco and Cook haven't really batted together very often, as more often that not this summer it's been Tresco's wicket that has fallen first, though I think they did put a few on together at Lord's against Sri Lanka.

The final option, is, of course, that status quo. England have won four Tests out of seven with Tresco-Strauss-Cook as the top order, even if one was by forefeit. Strauss and Cook have weighed in with a fine share of runs, and surely Tresco has runs up his sleeve?

Cook, despite being a natural opener, seems to have taken to the number three role, and let's be honest, there's not been a whole lot of difference between batting at 1 or 3 lately, in terms of when you come in. However, in spite of Cook's impressive start to Test Cricket - he averages 54.35 - he does appear to have a weakness against spin. This will sound bizarre to some, but if Tresco and Strauss where to make great starts, andCook was coming in at 100+ for one down, Warne would be on, and I don't think he would score that many.

I don't know who I would drop down the order to be honest, but I would have Cook opening.
 

Barney Rubble

International Coach
Personally, although you make a good argument in terms of Cook's fairly obvious weakness against spin, I can't see any reason why you'd break up England's most successful opening partnership in decades at a time like this.

Trescothick might be going through a poor patch, but I don't think dropping him down the order would help - the quick starts he helped us make were vital last time around, and I think opening with Cook might just serve as a greater reason for them to bring Warne on earlier, which could well lead to Strauss getting out!

I can see a future for Strauss in the middle order - but not yet. Maybe when Bell is ready to become a regular number three for England - Bell-Strauss-Pietersen looks like a very solid middle order. :)
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Definately they are, Trescothick has proven over the last 6 years that he is England's best openers. His only other poor run like this was back in the West Indies in 2004 but he came back in the preceeding ODI series & did well. I wont be surprised if he does the same vs Pakistan.
 

Tomm NCCC

International 12th Man
Ive had my doubts about Mr. Consistents form of late, but he's just in a bit of a slump, I dont think there's a player in the world who hasnt had a loss of form. I expect him to come fighting back with a double century in the first test. So Strauss and Trescothick to open...... with Harmison coming in at number 7
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
aussie said:
Definately they are, Trescothick has proven over the last 6 years that he is England's best openers. His only other poor run like this was back in the West Indies in 2004 but he came back in the preceeding ODI series & did well. I wont be surprised if he does the same vs Pakistan.
Takes a real special talent to do something like that
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
GeraintIsMyHero said:
Takes a real special talent to do something like that
:laugh: , well thats true they aren't the greatest but seriously i dont think we should all go worrying about dropping him just yet. He has been too good for too long, maybe if he doesn't make runs in the next few series mayve but not yet.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I voted for the status quo. I think an unintended effect of Pakistan's, er, issues with Hair is that it may've saved Tres's bacon. If Colly had gone on to make a big ton Banger could've (IMHO) been the one to make way for Sir Fred's return. As it is (& I realise Fred's fitness can't be taken for granted) I suspect Colly may make way. Not my call, I'd drop Bell, but I think that's the way the selectors will go.

Then again we might just say balls to it & go with seven batters! ;)
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
I`m up for keeping Trescothick. Class is permanent and all that.

And I swear Aussie still doesn`t get it... :D
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
aussie said:
:laugh: , well thats true they aren't the greatest but seriously i dont think we should all go worrying about dropping him just yet. He has been too good for too long, maybe if he doesn't make runs in the next few series mayve but not yet.
What's even better about this is you've still missed the point. Almost as good as Jaso trying to email my imaginary email address, but not quite.
 

greg

State Captain
Tresco isn't nearly as good against spin as some people try to make out. He can be effective on occasion, but that should be seen in the context of him rarely getting to face them under pressure and before he has played himself in with a useful score on the board.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Neil Pickup said:
What's even better about this is you've still missed the point. Almost as good as Jaso trying to email my imaginary email address, but not quite.
i missed the point yea, life goes on....
 

Alysum

U19 Debutant
they are doing very well together so leave them...

Re the middle order, Cook should stick at #3 and when Freddie come back they should put Bell in for Collingwood at #4 and Pietersen at #5 so he can slog everything with freddie at #6
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
The whole purpose off Colly at 5 was to separate Fred and KP. Though I personally thought it worked quite well last summer.
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
GeraintIsMyHero said:
The whole purpose off Colly at 5 was to separate Fred and KP. Though I personally thought it worked quite well last summer.
Except Colly only played 1 Test last summer, and he batted at 7?
 

Top