Changes in the England team? (Rachael branch- Goatman sub-branch)

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Goatman

Don't agree I'm afraid.

Butcher opens for Surrey for goodness sake - he's a natural opener - he's actually playing out of position in the England Team - only because Vaughan and Trescothick are the openers - and they're failing!

Scott

Well, Butcher started off as a test opener and performed so poorly that he was dropped. He averages 29.54 as an opener. He averages 40.53 at number 3. "Natural" County opener or not, I would much rather see him continue at 3 where he has had genuine success int he past than go back to him opening and raking up the ghosts of what is, in essense, a failed career. Yet again we see what a difference there is between county and test cricket. He is not playing out of position due to external force, it is because 1) he is the best test no. 3 we have on offer and 2) because he is better at 3 than at 1/2.

Whether or not he is a natural opener, and whether or not he would be able to buck history and suddenly turn into a test class opener, moving him up the order would inevitably leave us without a natural no.3. In addition, even if he does open for Surrey he - now - does not open for England. He will have to change his game to do so, and this is likely to affect his form even though he knows what changes need to be made. Maybe he will straight away be able to get over the ghosts he must surely hold about test opening, change his form in this position around and get over the changes in technique and mindset he will have to make and do the job that until recently trescothick and Vaughan have been doing quite adequtely from his first innings. Who can tell. Absolutely no disrespect to Butcher here, but I'm not sure he can. He's a good no. 3, and he's suceeding. Leave the lad where he's happy.

Your argument that Butcher should be opening, because that is his natural position, is completely at odds with your suggestion that Vaughan should bat at 3, dispite this meaning that he would be out of position. Possibly it will help Vaughans mental approach to drop down the order. Possibly not. He's been captain for less than 12 months. Give the lad a chance to bed down. I think this is a bit of a knee-jerk. Forcing him to change his game this early into his captaincy is as likely to be detrimental to his form as it is to improve it.

If you have it in for Trescothick, then fair enough. I'm a supporter and personally I fail to see much evidence of a long term run of poor form that would require him to be sent back to the counties. It is yet to be 12 months since he had - dispite popular belief - a highly successful series against SA (as I said before, a 200, 3 50's and an average of 56 against one of the 2 best bowling line-ups in world cricket is a form slump I would be delighted to be in). If you must shove him down the order (which I am not averse to) or drop him completely (which I am), then bring in Strauss. Butcher is best where he is. Hussain fails to reach 20 nearly 1.5 times as often as Trescothick and has the poorest failure rate of any established specialist batsman in test cricket. To suggest he is the safe hands we need up the order, as some have, is a little odd.

You may not agree with any of this, but just a final sign-off point. I did some maths a couple of weeks ago looking at the number of balls faced by ENG openers. Trescothick and Vaughan both came out as - on average - facing roughly as many overs as Atherton did (somewhere in the region of 25 to 35 per innings. Incidentally,this was a median calculation and so completely unaffected by occasional big innings but is an estimation of consistency). Would you also have dropped him down the order in favour of Butcher and a debutant when his form suffered?

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Goatman

Well, Butcher started off as a test opener and performed so poorly that he was dropped. He averages 29.54 as an opener. He averages 40.53 at number 3. "Natural" County opener or not, I would much rather see him continue at 3 where he has had genuine success int he past than go back to him opening and raking up the ghosts of what is, in essense, a failed career. Yet again we see what a difference there is between county and test cricket. He is not playing out of position due to external force, it is because 1) he is the best test no. 3 we have on offer and 2) because he is better at 3 than at 1/2.

Whether or not he is a natural opener, and whether or not he would be able to buck history and suddenly turn into a test class opener, moving him up the order would inevitably leave us without a natural no.3. In addition, even if he does open for Surrey he - now - does not open for England. He will have to change his game to do so, and this is likely to affect his form even though he knows what changes need to be made. Maybe he will straight away be able to get over the ghosts he must surely hold about test opening, change his form in this position around and get over the changes in technique and mindset he will have to make and do the job that until recently trescothick and Vaughan have been doing quite adequtely from his first innings. Who can tell. Absolutely no disrespect to Butcher here, but I'm not sure he can. He's a good no. 3, and he's suceeding. Leave the lad where he's happy.

Goatman

You raise good points I'm happy to answer.

Those damned Sex, Lies and Statistics!

You know as well as I do, you can make stats say anything you want to - it depends on how you want to interpret them.
Question: Was Butchers poor form early in his Test Career down to him opening the batting or because of form/technique/confidence/inexperience at Test Level?
Question: Butchers average in the first half of his Test Career is a lot less than his average in the second half of his Test career - is this down to improvement, increasing experience and confidence or where he batted?

Depends on how you want to answer those questions doesn't it? The stats don't give us the answer.

Originally Posted by Goatman

Your argument that Butcher should be opening, because that is his natural position, is completely at odds with your suggestion that Vaughan should bat at 3, dispite this meaning that he would be out of position. Possibly it will help Vaughans mental approach to drop down the order. Possibly not. He's been captain for less than 12 months. Give the lad a chance to bed down. I think this is a bit of a knee-jerk. Forcing him to change his game this early into his captaincy is as likely to be detrimental to his form as it is to improve it.

Goatman, that's only *one* of the reasons I'm giving for Butcher opening and it's not in variance with my opinions on Vaughan at all. My main reason for suggesting Butcher should open is soley in his *form*. He's one of the 'in-form' England Batsmen at the moment and as such would be the best person to get England off to good start, he has also been relatively consistent in his form as well - exactly what's needed at the top of England's order. My comment that Butcher opens for Surrey is merely an 'aside' and that by moving him from number 3 to 1 would not be alien to Butcher as he's experienced at doing it for Surrey. I'm not saying get Butcher to open because he opens for Surrey - thats not my reasoning.

I agree to a certain extent on your comments on Vaughan, but I don't agree that we can afford the time for him to bed down. If the other opener was doing the business I'd completely agree with you - but he isn't - how long can you afford to have two openers failing before you do something about it? How many games do we have to lose (we havent yet, but they haven't really been tested and scraped wins out of them) before you're forced into doing something about the failures of those two openers? And its precisely Vaughan's role as Captain that's causing him these problems - read my reply to Mark Kidger on why I feel Vaughan needs to drop down the order.

Originally Posted by Goatman

If you have it in for Trescothick, then fair enough. I'm a supporter and personally I fail to see much evidence of a long term run of poor form that would require him to be sent back to the counties. It is yet to be 12 months since he had - dispite popular belief - a highly successful series against SA (as I said before, a 200, 3 50's and an average of 56 against one of the 2 best bowling line-ups in world cricket is a form slump I would be delighted to be in). If you must shove him down the order (which I am not averse to) or drop him completely (which I am), then bring in Strauss. Butcher is best where he is. Hussain fails to reach 20 nearly 1.5 times as often as Trescothick and has the poorest failure rate of any established specialist batsman in test cricket. To suggest he is the safe hands we need up the order, as some have, is a little odd.

Yes I do have it in for Trescothick. He's done nothing in his last 12 innings for England, and as I said above - if one of the two openers were doing the business - I'd leave them alone, but neither of them are - and thats whats causing the headache.

A lot of this is pivotal on 'how long is long enough and how long is not enough' for someone to find their form and start contributing some runs? Where our opinions on this are at variance is on the playing or 'in-form' players. I take the view if someones out of form - they should be dropped for a player who's in form. You take the view that players out of form should be given the time to get their form back - I'm afraid I feel this could be too costly for England to do.

Originally Posted by Goatman

You may not agree with any of this, but just a final sign-off point. I did some maths a couple of weeks ago looking at the number of balls faced by ENG openers. Trescothick and Vaughan both came out as - on average - facing roughly as many overs as Atherton did (somewhere in the region of 25 to 35 per innings. Incidentally,this was a median calculation and so completely unaffected by occasional big innings but is an estimation of consistency). Would you also have dropped him down the order in favour of Butcher and a debutant when his form suffered?

I honestly cannot see the relevance of this at all. But again it goes back to your love of statistics. I'm much more of a 'gut feeling' person rather than purely relying on stats to provide the answers.

In a way I'm offended by by this last paragraph, you don't seem too give me any credit for my views as to why both openers are the current England problem (which I've described in a lot of fine detail in other replies I've made) and challenge my intelligence by suggesting that because both Vaughan and Trescothick on an average have faced the same number of overs as Atherton did that the situation should be treated in the same way by suggesting Atherton should have been dropped down the order. I find this quite a ludicrous use of statistics to be honest as the two situations are COMPLETELY different.

Rather 'miffed' from Surrey
Scott

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Scott

I'd leave butch where he is and bring in strauss to open with vaughan. Tresco at 6. And now, why.

You stated than you think that vaughan is crumbling a bit under the pressure of opening and captaining, a view I totally agree with. BUT, I suggest a movement of captaincy rather than movement of vaughan. Picture this. Strauus and (sake of argument) butch open. Score 80 for first wicket. Great. In come vaughan at 3 safe in the knowledge that we've made a reasonable start and the new ball has lost his shine, and scores ....lets say 50odd. Which seems reasonable.

Now there is less pressure so he can build an inngs in that situation. Lets try this one. Butch and strauss open again.Butch wafts one to 1st slip for 5 in the 6th over. Again if it isnt butch it could be strauss, in fact it could be anyone. Now how much pressure is there ?? There isnt as much batting to come, we've a long tail (you wanted 4 seamers + freddie remember ). we're 10-1. That pressure is building up. Did we need 5 seamers, should I have batted second, would I have been out to that delivery ???

I know its full of ifs, buts and maybes but its not unthinkable. Our top 5 will never be consistant, never will. Our 3+ freddie have shown good signs and they should be trusted more than our batters - whoever and where ever they play.

[Goatman]

Apologies Scott. In no way did I intend to offend you, fail to give you credit, insult your intelligence or make a ludricrous point. I have obviously put your back up, for which I apolgise unreservedly. I have been told that my posts tend to be "tetchy", which is obviously a failing of mine because I was actually searching for a concensus! I certainly never meant you to become miffed, as your posts are always well argued and a pleasure to read.

On the use of stats, I prefer to use numbers to test gut feelings. I don't think they are the truth and the whole truth, but if something is true it should not be contradicted by the numbers at least. There are problems and complexities, and as you do with Butchers stats above you are right to find fault when my interpretations are too simplistic. It may be true that the change of position for Butcher was coincidental, and experience was the key. I would still be of the opinion that moving back to open is likely to upset his form though. I like him at 3. If we have to drop/move an opener, I'd prefer the change to be acheived by moving someone other than Butcher. Hussain, though he does seem to have the mindset of an opener, is really not a very good starter. He is very good at staying in having got set - which is what people rightly highlight when talking about his grittyness - but he really isn't very consistent. I would not see Hussain as opener.

I ahve read your comments on Vaughan (I did so before I made my post). I still think that Vaughan needs more time. At the end of the summer if things haven't picked up, we do need to take action. however, if it is the captaincy intself that is affecting his form not how he is trying to change his batting style, then to move him out of place would slow the recovery of form rather than accelerate it. We should make sure that we are right to think that he needs runs on the board before he goes out before we act, and I don't think that time is here yet.

Tresocthick seems to really excite debate, and I really meant that if you have it in for him that is fair enough - there is plenty of evidence on your side. Maybe he should be dropped down the order, allowing Strauss in. Actually, I would be in favour of this as Strauss looks like a good player and Trescothicks game (good eyes, no footwork) has been found out cruelly more than once in his career. He struggled to cement a place for Somerset as he kept getting done by county old hands. He got skewered by the Aussies. He has now lost form, and is batting worse than I do because he has nothing to fall back on. However, he has got good eyes he has scored runs and he can really batter the bowlers when he gets it right. I'd see him coming in at 5/6 when the bowlers are tiring, the ball is old and he can look to dominate from the start. He looks exposed as an opener, and I have to conceed that. Hopefully though, you will agree that he does have some class and we should be looking to get the most out of him rather than confining him to the dustbin of history.

I don't find the final paragraph irrelevent though, and here I think you do have it wrong. If a player is facing 25 overs more often than not (as is the case for both Trescothick and Atherton), then does it really matter how they are managing this? I would say not. If a players game (not just thier form) deteriorates, and they are no longer capable of this then that is a different sitution than dropping them for lack of form, and has to be acted on. If you are acting on poor form, I feel that at least you have to be fairly sure that your replacement is also capable of facing those 25 overs, as you can never know when the first choice players form will return and you may be losing more than you gain. Just because you don't like statistics does not mean that this is not true! I was not trying to challenge your intelligence, and I do think this point needs adressing particularly as I completely refute the argument that the two situations are completely different! They are all openers, they all on average face the same number of overs. They are all therefore weighing in with comparable performances. I can't see your problem. And I don't mean to insult you in any way here, I just happen to dissagree.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Scott

I'd leave butch where he is and bring in strauss to open with vaughan. Tresco at 6. And now, why.

You stated than you think that vaughan is crumbling a bit under the pressure of opening and captaining, a view I totally agree with. BUT, I suggest a movement of captaincy rather than movement of vaughan. Picture this. Strauus and (sake of argument) butch open. Score 80 for first wicket. Great. In come vaughan at 3 safe in the knowledge that we've made a reasonable start and the new ball has lost his shine, and scores ....lets say 50odd. Which seems reasonable.

Now there is less pressure so he can build an inngs in that situation. Lets try this one. Butch and strauss open again.Butch wafts one to 1st slip for 5 in the 6th over. Again if it isnt butch it could be strauss, in fact it could be anyone. Now how much pressure is there ?? There isnt as much batting to come, we've a long tail (you wanted 4 seamers + freddie remember ). we're 10-1. That pressure is building up. Did we need 5 seamers, should I have batted second, would I have been out to that delivery ???

I know its full of ifs, buts and maybes but its not unthinkable. Our top 5 will never be consistant, never will. Our 3+ freddie have shown good signs and they should be trusted more than our batters - whoever and where ever they play.

RBLC

Well you can start bunging in all sorts of variables and unknowns into the pot - no-one really knows how things will pan out.

I just feel that Vaughan would bat better at No 3 as Captain as there will be less pressure on his shoulders to get the side off to a good start. Yes, that pressure could well still be there if one of the openers fails, but in a way - how would that be any different to the current situation? Not doing anything will merely let it stay as it is, at least I've suggested putting in two (aat the moment) in-form, consistent players to open.

I don't have all the answers, neither am I looking for people to 'buy in' to my views. But all I seem to see from people here is to 'leave things as they are', 'let them play themselves back into form'. Yep that's the easy answer isn't it - when in doubt - do nothing - I can't see how this will help England improve and start to challenge the best sides in the world.

I want to see England beating sides convincingly - not scraping out wins relying on our bowlers to perform well to make up for shortfalls and inconsistency in our batting.

For all those people out there who don't want to 'tinker' with the batting in the side or want to keep things as they are - when was the last time Englands batsmen put on a decent 400+ match winning score? How long ago? Then ask yourself why.

Scott

[Goatman]

Unfortunately (fortunately?) I have to go to nets now, but if you require another apology I will be happy to give it on Monday, as you do not deserve to be insulted and I am quite upset at having done so.

Once again, Sorry.

Extremely apologetic of Utrecht,

Goat

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

RBLC

Well you can start bunging in all sorts of variables and unknowns into the pot - no-one really knows how things will pan out.

I just feel that Vaughan would bat better at No 3 as Captain as there will be less pressure on his shoulders to get the side off to a good start. Yes, that pressure could well still be there if one of the openers fails, but in a way - how would that be any different to the current situation? Not doing anything will merely let it stay as it is, at least I've suggested putting in two (aat the moment) in-form, consistent players to open.

I don't have all the answers, neither am I looking for people to 'buy in' to my views. But all I seem to see from people here is to 'leave things as they are', 'let them play themselves back into form'. Yep that's the easy answer isn't it - when in doubt - do nothing - I can't see how this will help England improve and start to challenge the best sides in the world.

I want to see England beating sides convincingly - not scraping out wins relying on our bowlers to perform well to make up for shortfalls and inconsistency in our batting.

For all those people out there who don't want to 'tinker' with the batting in the side or want to keep things as they are - when was the last time Englands batsmen put on a decent 400+ match winning score? How long ago? Then ask yourself why.

Scott

I am changing the openers scott, I'm taking tresco out and sticking Strauss in.Can you imagine what tresco could do to vetori at by playing at 6 ? You could open with butch but I think that would be a bad move to move a successful number3, , when was the last dent no. 3 we had prior to butch ? many tried and many failed. Besides to this left hand right combo really work now in international cricket ? Two new openers could be one step too far.

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

In my opinion No.3 is the most important batting position. The No.3 must either deal with the loss of early wickets (as Butcher has invariably been doing in recent times) or take advantage of a good start provided by the openers. Butcher is the most successful No.3 we have had for years and I am therefore reluctant to move him up the order on that basis (rather than because of concerns that he will fail to perform at No.1-2).

However, I agree that something must be done about the Tresco situation. Whilst moving him down the order is quite attractive, the middle and lower order batting has been performing reasonably well and I therefore see no reason to change it.

The solution IMHO is therefore simply to drop Tresco and bring in a replacement opener (I leave it open to others to suggest who - we don't have an English qualified specialist opener at Glamorgan after all!). The replacement should be assured of his place at least for the NZ series as opening the batting is not going to be easy on early season pitches against the NZ seam attack (although that said there seem to have been a few decent batting tracks in the recent round of CC games). It would then, of course, be up to Tresco to force his way back into the reckoning through weight of runs.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

There room for both if we drop giles for the extra bat.

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

Of course! Doh!