Robert Key to replace Butcher?

[marc71178]

Well Bell has been picked so we'll just have to see, IMO there's only one spot between them for the tour and Key has it nailed on so Bell is only going to get this game unless another injury occurs

I could see them both going

That only gives us Vaughan, Trescothick, Strauss, Thorpe, Key, Bell, Butcher - 7 men for 5 spots.

 

[superkingdave]

Even with the recent tendency to only take 14 or at most 15 players?
Theyll take Batty, a spare fast bowler, a spare batsman if they take a 15th id say it would be another pace man, maybe even Chris Read.

 

[steds]

I could see them both going

That only gives us Vaughan, Trescothick, Strauss, Thorpe, Key, Bell, Butcher - 7 men for 5 spots.

And then there's Pietersen, when he qualifies in October

 

[marc71178]

16 minimum they should take - look what happened to NZ on only a 3 match tour when they took 14?

With 16 you get 7 bats, Jones, Read, Fred, Giles, Batty, Jones, Anderson, Harmison, Hoggard.

 

[marc71178]

And then there's Pietersen, when he qualifies in October

At the start of the summer he was expected to walk in.

Now I don't think he will.

 

[superkingdave]

16 minimum they should take - look what happened to NZ on only a 3 match tour when they took 14?

With 16 you get 7 bats, Jones, Read, Fred, Giles, Batty, Jones, Anderson, Harmison, Hoggard.

IMO they'll take one more pacer than that - the paper suggested Kabir this morning

Sorry it was yesterday in the sunday times
not sure if i'm allowed to post a link so remove if not ok
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1216859,00.html

basically says fletcher wants 5 fast bowlers and flintoff with Kabir favorite for the last spot, 6 batsmen, 2 wicket keepers, 2 spinners.

 

[Richard]

Would that not be more because Clarke's First Class Record is distinctly poor, whereas Lehmann's is not?

But it's not distinctly poor, it's pretty promising.
The point is in England I am very sure the young player who had made a promising but not particuarly special start to his First-Class career would have been picked ahead of the infinately-more-deserving player.
Anyway, I always thought you hated judging Test selection on First-Class records?

 

[Richard]

Butcher hasnt had the best time with the bat in the run up to his injury...Thorpe would deffo walk back in as he's too important to england.

He had 2 bad games - hardly think that cancels-out the very, very good time he'd had before the New Zealand series.
Not as if he hasn't had bad series before that, either - he had a very poor New Zealand series in 2001\02, an average India series in 2002, a very poor Ashes (to score even the runs he did he needed lots of luck) and a poor Sri Lanka series.
However, so good has he been when he's been good that his average since 2001 is still comfortably over 40, and if you're averaging over 40 for England it's hardly fair for anyone to be questioning your place.

 

[badgerhair]

So,
Take this as a hypothetical situation:
Key and Bell both play at The Oval (not too much hypotheses needed here, it's very likely) and put-on 240 for the 3rd wicket. Key makes 110, Bell 153.
Do the selectors have the courage to restore Butcher and Thorpe to the team for the First South Africa Test, the way Australia's almost undoubtedly would? Because I really don't think they would - there would be outcry at the perceived "looking back" by picking players who've earned their place.
Australia's have had the sense to ignore Michael Clarke several times and stick with Darren Lehmann, finally allowing him to show what a brilliant player he is.
My bet is that, though Lehmann is palpably a massively superior player, England selectors with similar players would have picked the Clarke type every time.

If they didn't restore Thorpe immediately, they would be mad.

If they kept Key rather than restoring Butcher, they would also be mad.

But if Bell made an impressive 150, then hmmm.

As has been pointed out, Butcher's record in the year before his injury wasn't quite as impressive as the previous year. Furthermore, Butcher's record away from home is still pretty poor - the 40 average since his 2001 recall is largely made up of averaging 50 at home and 30 away.

I would be very inclined, in the hypothetical circumstances outlined, to take both Butcher and Bell to South Africa and let them duke it out in the warm-ups and so on.

But this would depend on Bell being seriously impressive at The Oval - an innings like Key's 221 at Lord's, in which he was dropped early on and proceeded to make mincemeat of appalling bowling on a very flat track, wouldn't do it for me.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

But it's not distinctly poor, it's pretty promising.

37.83 isn't that great.

And his record over here is most definitely not good - I believe his average was about 15 for the first half of the season, and it's only after 3 consecutive centuries that it's now up at (the still poor for an overseas pro) 35.45

The point is in England I am very sure the young player who had made a promising but not particuarly special start to his First-Class career would have been picked ahead of the infinately-more-deserving player.

I disagree - if that were the case, how come Bell has yet to play, especially considering his early career form?

Anyway, I always thought you hated judging Test selection on First-Class records?

No - I always say that in domestic cricket it's not how many, but how - meaning a massive number of runs is not that big a hint as to how they will score against Test quality bowling, just as masses of wickets in CC don't mean the person will take masses in Tests.

 

[Richard]

37.83 isn't that great.

And his record over here is most definitely not good - I believe his average was about 15 for the first half of the season, and it's only after 3 consecutive centuries that it's now up at (the still poor for an overseas pro) 35.45

Yes, and I'm still far from being convinced that he's got the potential to be a Test-class player. And very definately 35.45 isn't good enough for someone expected to be a top-class overseas-player.
But 37.83, allied to subjective interpretation of talent, would IMO have seen Clarke selected ahead of Lehmann on at least 2 occasions had England-type selection been applied to Australia's team.

I disagree - if that were the case, how come Bell has yet to play, especially considering his early career form?

Because Bell in 2002 - the only place when there was really a slot available and talk of him being picked - was more than nothing-more-than-promising, he was downright poor.
Even England's selectors aren't insane enough to pick someone with a seasonal average of 27.

No - I always say that in domestic cricket it's not how many, but how - meaning a massive number of runs is not that big a hint as to how they will score against Test quality bowling, just as masses of wickets in CC don't mean the person will take masses in Tests.

It doesn't certainly mean so but mostly it does.
Usually someone who will score more than someone at one level will also score more at another.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Usually someone who will score more than someone at one level will also score more at another

We've done the correlations before and proved that this wasn't the case.

 

[marc71178]

But 37.83, allied to subjective interpretation of talent, would IMO have seen Clarke selected ahead of Lehmann on at least 2 occasions had England-type selection been applied to Australia's team.

Which 2 occasions then?

Because Bell in 2002 - the only place when there was really a slot available and talk of him being picked - was more than nothing-more-than-promising, he was downright poor.

What about when he flew halfway round the world in 01/02?

Usually someone who will score more than someone at one level will also score more at another.

But by no means always - CIP would be the notional England middle order of Hick, Crawley, Ramprakash.

 

[Richard]

We've done the correlations before and proved that this wasn't the case.

I'm pretty sure I remember the one and if so I remember very clearly saying why I don't think it means anywhere near as much as you do.
To brand the likes of Steve James, Ed Smith, Matthew Maynard etc. as conclusive Test failures is IMO unfair and as such they shouldn't be included.
Most players who have succeeded in Test-cricket have had good domestic-First-Class records.
Equally, to look at someone with a First-Class average of 33 and a Test average of 15 (often after just a handful of innings, too) and say they mean much is also mistaken.
A graph such as yours cannot, IMO, prove much. Individual cases have to be looked-at much more closely.

 

[Richard]

At the start of the summer he was expected to walk in.

Now I don't think he will.

Not to the Test team but for the ODIs, beyond all reasonable question.

 

[Richard]

Admittedly you did say this is all hypothetical, but it does seem harsh to damn England's selectors for a situation that has never occurred and therefore has no basis for your assumptions. Yes, some would criticise the "looking back" if Butcher & Thorpe were recalled (notably idiot Lawton in "The Independent"), but most serious commentators would not. Certainly not where Thorpe's concerned, anyway, and I can't imagine him not playing in the 1st SA test, whatever happens at The Oval. Butcher, if we're honest, is a slightly different situation. We all know he's done quite well over the last 3 years, but against today's test attacks on today's wickets, an average of 41 over that period isn't *that* special, and, if someone better were to come along, surely that player should replace him. Obviously it's a debateable point whether Key or Bell falls into that category.

As for the Australians, they haven't been completely unwilling to ditch players with a decent track record if they think better options are available. Healey & Slater spring immediately to mind, but I'm sure there are others.

The way I understood it Healey's retirement was clearly imminent and he was pensioned-off without a fairwell on his home ground, for the IMO logical reason of starting a summer with the new man in place.
Slater, meanwhile, never had any quibbles to make about his place and AFAIK never made any. Throughout the entire tour of 2001 he looked wholly unconvincing, after a less-than-inspiring India series. 1 half-century in 12 dismissals is not good enough, and for a 31-year-old Australian batsman it can signal the end of your career. Very sadly indeed, Slater's whole professional career has been brought prematurely to a halt too.
Regarding Butcher, his golden period began with a series of the highest class against an unrelenting attack in a series just before the proliferation of flat tracks began. His next two successful series were both against not-especially-inspiring bowling, sandwiching a failure in a series of very seam-friendly pitches, his next success after that against the substandard Zimbabweans, but his next two good matches were masterpieces on very, very difficult pitches in which he scored a century and twin 50s. Then he did reasonably on a very tricky Galle pitch, failed on an equally tricky Kandy one and wasted a chance on an SSC belter. In West Indies he did pretty well in fairly trying conditions. Against New Zealand he wasted a chance to cash-in on toothless bowling.
So I think he's actually done pretty well - if he'd had the pitches Australia have had I reckon his average from 2001 onwards would be in the 50s.

 

[Richard]

Which 2 occasions then?

The first time, when Mark Waugh was axed, and after Martyn's injury meant a slot opened-up at the start of the West Indies series.

What about when he flew halfway round the world in 01/02?

As cover for an injury for a single Test, before his annulus horriblis which was 2002.

But by no means always - CIP would be the notional England middle order of Hick, Crawley, Ramprakash.

Crawley and Ramprakash's recent Test-careers have been far from failures, Hick is a CIP of not always, rather than hardly ever.

 

[Craig]

16 minimum they should take - look what happened to NZ on only a 3 match tour when they took 14?

With 16 you get 7 bats, Jones, Read, Fred, Giles, Batty, Jones, Anderson, Harmison, Hoggard.

What about James Kirtley anyone?

I have strong doubts whether Anderson or possibily even Simon Jones are up to Test standard.

Certainly Anderson needs overs, overs, overs, overs, and overs of bowling.

 

[Andre]

What about James Kirtley anyone?

I have strong doubts whether Anderson or possibily even Simon Jones are up to Test standard.

Certainly Anderson needs overs, overs, overs, overs, and overs of bowling.

Kirtley couldn't get a bowl in a chinese resturant these days with England.

Anderson doesn't need more bowling - infact, over bowling is what cooked him in the first place and made him lose his sharp edge. Slowly but surely, that edge is coming back as the selection panel is taking good care of his body and workload.

It's Jones who needs overs.

 

[Craig]

Personally Anderson should go back to County Cricket and get his touch back then hoping he will do it at Test level.

If Kirtley isn't of Test standard, then fine, I have the impression Anderson is not. And of course Kabir Ali is hardly a great bowler.

Not much there after Harmison and Hoggard.