Marcus Trescothick

[Barney Rubble]

Whatever reservations people may have about his technique, what a masterstroke it was for Duncan Fletcher to throw him into international cricket on the back of one innings he saw against Glamorgan when he was coaching them.

There can't be many less likely candidates for international success - if someone had told you in the week before he was first picked that Marcus Trescothick would end up with almot 5000 Test runs at 45 in 61 Tests (and 1 Test wicket, that of Sanath Jayasuriya no less ) five years later, you'd never have believed them, would you? A round of applause for Mr Fletcher, and congratulations to Tresothick on having the confidence and the perseverance to establish himself in the way that he has. Hope he does well this summer.

 

[Hazza]

I think that Trescothick matured quickly as a test batsman and soon started scoring runs. This, in my opinion, is the main reason why he is so brilliant today. I agree- a stroke of genious my Mr Fletcher, but also the luck of being in the right place at the right time.

 

[Richard]

Marcus Trescothick would end up with almot 5000 Test runs at 45 in 61 Tests (and 1 Test wicket, that of Sanath Jayasuriya no less )

Imran Nazir, in fact.
Courtesy of a catch at short-extra-cover.

 

[Richard]

Whatever reservations people may have about his technique, what a masterstroke it was for Duncan Fletcher to throw him into international cricket on the back of one innings he saw against Glamorgan when he was coaching them.

Quite on the contrary - I am a massive admirer of Duncan in many, many ways but it's utterly absurd to suggest that someone can see enough of a player to justify picking him for ODIs courtesy of one single innings.
And Trescothick's first 2 years of Test-match success were courtesy of a lot of luck and very little good play - only since summer 2004 has he started to look like he might become a Test-standard batsman.
Even then I'm still backing a failure this summer rather than a success.

 

[steds]

I could have swore Barney Rubble mentioned the pope in there, but I can't find it now

 

[kendall]

I really do like Trescothick and i think he has proved himself a good test opener however he did look very bad on thursday and i am very doubtfull he can perform well agaisnt Australia. When he is good he looks great when he looks bad he just looks apauling that is pobably why he gets so much crtisism at times.

 

[marc71178]

Quite on the contrary - I am a massive admirer of Duncan in many, many ways but it's utterly absurd to suggest that someone can see enough of a player to justify picking him for ODIs courtesy of one single innings.

Says the bloke who writes people off as useless without even seeing them, even if they've had success.

 

[King_Ponting]

I think trescothics problem is he just cant score runs against australia, who have well and truly worked his game out

 

[Craig]

Says the bloke who writes people off as useless without even seeing them, even if they've had success.

Funny post.

 

[marc71178]

Well, that new off spinner from Aus (name escapes me) - took 40odd wickets last season, but is automatically written off as rubbish...

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Hauritz? Cullen?

Hauritz IS rubbish.

 

[marc71178]

Cullen, that's the one.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Who says he is rubbish?

He's actually on the tour.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Who says he is rubbish?

He's actually on the tour.

Richard said he was.

 

[Richard]

What I actually said was that he's a fingerspinner and, being Australian, is not going to amount to anything unless Australian wickets undergo a massive sea-change in the next 5 years (rather unlikely, I'm sure you'll agree).
And that it's ridiculous to think he'll amount to anything because of taking a few wickets in his 1st season.

 

[Richard]

I think trescothics problem is he just cant score runs against australia, who have well and truly worked his game out

Thing is, of course, most people have worked his game out, he was just very lucky between 2000 and 2002, then managed a handful of scores (most notably The Oval 2003) when under most scrutiny, and since summer 2004 has batted better than anyone could expect.
Whether another chapter is unfolding, we wait to see.

 

[Richard]

Says the bloke who writes people off as useless without even seeing them, even if they've had success.

I've never, ever written-off anyone who's had sustained success - I have told people to stop being stupid and going OTT about a player who's had a season or a handful of games of success - and usually I've been right, too.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What I actually said was that he's a fingerspinner and, being Australian, is not going to amount to anything unless Australian wickets undergo a massive sea-change in the next 5 years (rather unlikely, I'm sure you'll agree).
And that it's ridiculous to think he'll amount to anything because of taking a few wickets in his 1st season.

And how do you know, given that you've never seen him? I mean, for all you know he could be the modern incarnation of Jim Laker. It's just ridiculous to write off a player because of pre-concieved notions without even seeing them play.

 

[Richard]

And *if* he's a modern incarnation of Laker he'll be every bit as ineffectual as Laker would be had he been bowling in this day and age.

 

[kendall]

You are saying that you cant say a player is good after one season and not seeing him but you manage too come too the conclusion that a player is bad from the same thing?