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

[Mark Kidger]

I don't know if anyone has read the article on the BBC tonight, but it seems that changes in the England team may be in order sooner rather than later and Andrew Strauss is eyeing an opening in the middle order.

The suggestion seems to be that Trescothick is, for now, safe - as he does average over 40 still one could say that he has proved that he is a class act - but that Nasser Hussain's place is, once again, under threat.

This was a perenial topic of debate on the BBC MB. Hussain would reach his 100th cap this summer in the 2nd Test against the West Indians (assuming that he doesn't miss a game). I, for one, have assumed that his intention is to reach the 100th cap and then announce that he will be retiring from international cricket at the end of the summer, leaving it to the selectors to decide whether to let him see out the series or try his replacement.

However, seeing as last year the selectors probably erred by letting sentiment allow Alec Stewart to reach his 100th cap when his form with bat and gloves was slipping a little (not that we noticed until Read took over and we saw an artist at work with the gloves), it may be that Hussain isn't given the same leeway.

I would argue strongly that only incremental changes in the side should be carried out. We have already had one significant change with Read handing over to Jones and a second major change could just unsettle the side (particularly as Ashley Giles must, surely, find himself surplus to requirements against New Zealand and that will also imply a change in the side and its balance). Would the selectors be right to drop Hussain now? Or should they wait until after the New Zealand series to make further changes - possibly Strauss for Hussain?

If we apply the rule of thumb: "no more than 2 changes in the side from the 4th Test", what changes should they be? Assuming Giles is dropped, who should replace him in the side? One assumes that it would be an extra batsman rather than another seamer or spinner and that England will rely on 4 seamers plus Butcher/Trescothick/Vaughan, which should be enough on green, seaming May pitches.

[Rachael]

I'd like to see us grit out the NZ series (where experience is likely to be critical) and then muck around a bit in the WI series (late summer, ball not doing as much, weaker opposition: good time to blood youngsters).

Am I right in thinking that if Hussain did the NZ series.. and then led an old guard to Zimbabwe (all ex-Test players).. he'd make his 100 caps?

I was thinking that the Zim tour team might read something like: Crawley, White, Hick, Hussain, Thorpe, Ramprakash, Hegg / Read, Croft, Caddick, Gough, Bicknell - players mature enough to cope with all the **** that will be flying around.. good enough to put up a good show.. and mostly on their way out of the International scene anyway.

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Am I right in thinking that if Hussain did the NZ series.. and then led an old guard to Zimbabwe (all ex-Test players).. he'd make his 100 caps?

You are quite right. He is on 95 now. However, if dropped, I am quite sure that he will announce his retirement. Your idea is an intriguing one because it is not going to be a series for the faint-hearted, nor for debutants.

The New Zealand series will be the tougher one of the summer and will require plenty of grit and determination. That certainly sounds like a call for Nasser rather than a debutant, although Collingwood might argue his own case on this score and add this he bowls better than "Saddam".

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'd like to see us grit out the NZ series (where experience is likely to be critical) and then muck around a bit in the WI series (late summer, ball not doing as much, weaker opposition: good time to blood youngsters).

Am I right in thinking that if Hussain did the NZ series.. and then led an old guard to Zimbabwe (all ex-Test players).. he'd make his 100 caps?

I was thinking that the Zim tour team might read something like: Crawley, White, Hick, Hussain, Thorpe, Ramprakash, Hegg / Read, Croft, Caddick, Gough, Bicknell - players mature enough to cope with all the **** that will be flying around.. good enough to put up a good show.. and mostly on their way out of the International scene anyway.

Rachael

Gough doesn't want to play Test Cricket any more, as he's concerned about his fitness and injury problems and just wants to focus on ODI's, but I kind of like your thinking on this one.

Another point you don't address, which is for me, the single biggest problem area for England right now - what do you propose to do about the two openers?

Scott

[Mark Kidger]

It seems to be generally agreed that there are real problems with the openers. Both Trescothick and Vaughan started down the order and were turned into openers. I remember Trescothick generally batting at around 6 or 7 for Somerset and everyone remembers (with horror), Vaughan's welcome to Test cricket. He batted at 4 and watched as Atherton (0), Butcher (1, opening), Hussain (0) and Stewart (0) combined with an Allan Donald wide to leave England 2-4. Vaughan went on to second top score with 33 (top score was Freddy with 38 and the 56 runs that Vaughan and Freddy put on together for the 6th wicket represented practically half of England's final total.

Since becoming captain he has scored 814 runs in 13 Tests, at an average of 33.91 and has 2 centuries and 3 fifties. His Goatman median is 22 - i.e. exactly half his scores have been 22 or lower.

In 26 innings (including 2 not outs), he's only been dismissed in single figures 5 times.

7 times from 10-19 (one was a not out)

6 times from 20-29

3 times from 30-49

and then the 3 fifties (one not out) and two centuries.

What is interesting is that he is almost always getting some kind of start - more than 80% of his innings he gets into double figures but, when he does, 13 out of 21 times (62%), he doesn't reach 30. If he does reach 30 he usually goes on to make a big score. In other words, something is going wrong in the early part of his innings - he gets started and then gets out. That suggests that the theory that he is being too expansive is right and that he is going for his shots too quickly.

What is striking is the contrast with his scores before he got the captaincy. In his first 31 Tests he scored 2549 runs at 51.0, with 9 centuries and 5 fifties. His Goatman median was a strikingly high 31.

Before getting the captaincy his distribution of scores was:

Single figures - 12 times (23%)
10-19 - 5 times ( 9%)
20-29 - 9 times (17%)
30-49 - 13 times (25%)
50-99 - 5 times ( 9%)
100+ - 9 times (17%)

In other words, he had a much higher proportion of failures than before taking the captaincy, but when he got started he tended to get greedy. As captain he's only passed 30 in 31% of his innings. Before becoming captain it was 51%.

This seems to lend support to the theory that the captaincy has affected his batting - he's getting his head down at the start of the innings and avoiding quick dismissals, but then tries to move up a gear too fast.

Would this be cured by dropping back down the order to number 4? I don't think so.

It also would create the problem that you start shuffling a middle order that is doing well. Why make Mark Butcher open when he's doing fine where he is? About the only way to accomodate Vaughan at 4 would be to drop Nasser Hussain and bring in another opener - presumably Strauss. Would the cure be worse than the illness? It would unsettle a very settled batting lineup, although the cynics would say that Nasser will be retiring soon anyway (we've been saying that since last July and he's still scoring runs in a crisis).

What about Marcus Trescothick?

Here ones has a big surprise. Supposedly he's been right out of form since the start of the Ashes tour. His career average is 41.2 over 47 Tests. Quite respectable. 5 hundreds, 22 fifties - a 50+ score every 1.7 Tests. Not bad at all.

Now let's look at his last 15 Tests, through his big slump. This takes us back to the 2nd Test v Zimbabwe and includes that Test, the series v South Africa, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the West Indies, where we all agree that he has not impressed at all.

The odd thing is that for those 15 Tests, his average is 42.8 - rather better than his career average. Some slump!

He has 2 hundreds and 6 fifties, a 50+ score every 1.9 Tests - virtually identical to his career figures.

Is his slump then just a "misconception" due to the fact that he is naturally very inconsistent and mixes huges scores with failures with gay abandon and that he has just had a run of failures that happen to have fallen together?

If it is just his inconsistency that we are seeing, we may be due a string of big scores again as the dice fall the right way up for him.

I fear that this post will be greated with howls of outrage, but I have been very surprised by the results, particularly for Trescothick and what I have written in the end bears no relation to what I had intended to write at the start.

Ps: Clive, I defy to you to find a double-meaning in this post!

[Whips_off_the_bails]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Ps: Clive, I defy to you to find a double-meaning in this post!

As if I would...!

Very interesting post, Mark. I do feel those statistics don't tell the whole story, though - Tres's average is bumped up by the 219 at the Oval (scored, interestingly, when there was serious discussion of dropping him for the first time), a century against Bangladesh, and a couple of not outs in low second-innings chases and in the rained-affected Edbaston match.

I only seriously had doubts about him as an opener after the Colombo test match, in which he scored 77 in the first session and then got out just before lunch. An opener should be able to bat for more than one session, and he is just not occupying the crease long enough. To say nothing of his poor conversion rate of fifties to 100's.

I also have nightmares about his first innings shot in Antigua... Unfair, perhaps, after he'd fielded for two and a half days in that heat...

Anyway, I've finally (and reluctantly) come to the conclusion that he should drop down the order in order to extend his test career.

Saving my best reason for last, as I was taught in French composition class: openers like Gooch, Atherton, Boycott etc. were able during their careers to correct faulty technique through long sessions in the nets. We are told that this is not much good to Tresco, as he doesn't rely much on technique anyway. "He needs time in the middle" is the standard verdict. But this is costing England very dearly, since an opener sets the tone for the entire innings. Too much burden is being placed on Butcher & Hussain, and, while they have done a stirling job, this can't continue indefinitely and anyway Hussain is to be going soon. If Tresco needs time in the middle, he should be made to play in county cricket, central contract or no. We can't afford another series of failures from England's no.1.

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Whips_off_the_bails

I do feel those statistics don't tell the whole story, though - Tres's average is bumped up by the 219 at the Oval (scored, interestingly, when there was serious discussion of dropping him for the first time), a century against Bangladesh, and a couple of not outs in low second-innings chases and in the rained-affected Edbaston match.

Is it really justified to pick and chose the innings that are valid in his stats? And you are conveniently ignoring the fact that he is getting scores of 50+ just exactly as often now as he has done all through his career.

[Irish Left Armer]

I can't see Trescothick ever scoring consistently against a good bowling attack. The Aussies found him out big time. However, when he is in form he will plunder runs against lesser attacks. I just don't think he's a really top class test batsman. Whether or not England have anyone better to open the batting with is debatable though.

I agree about Vaughan, he is simply trying to dominate the bowling too early, his good shots are getting him out, like the drive. He needs to bide his time a bit more, wait until the ball is 10 or 15 overs old and the main bowlers are tired and then he should start dominating the attack. It would seem that the captaincy is affecting him too but I tend to think that he will eventually conquer this and it may lead to greater dividends for England as captains tend to fight harder than anyone else.

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

It seems to be generally agreed that there are real problems with the openers. etc, etc, etc
Ps: Clive, I defy to you to find a double-meaning in this post!

Nice Post Mark. Nice to see someone else finding little real evidence for trescothick being on the verge of being dropped. People talk about the SA series as a failure for him, but I fail to see how 1 200, 3 50's and an average of 56 can be considered a failure by anyone! Good God, I'd love to go through that sort of slump in form!

As for Vaughan, I think we have to consider him our lead batsman. Even if his Big Summer was just a purple patch, I can't see any other ENG bastman capable of producing form like that even over a single summer. What is important is that he did that as opener, and so he's not only to be considered our lead batsman but also our lead opener. He's not been quite the same since he became captain, but we should bear in mind that he has been in harness for less than 12 months. We have to give him some time to let it bed in. He has a track record for hitting lots of runs:- he have to have faith that history will repeat itself.

The situation seems to me that ENG have a natural No. 3 (Butcher) and two openers who are proven performers in that position, but are going through an inconsistent patch. I strongly dislike the idea that the batting order should be rearranged every time a player loses touch, particulalrly when it might lead to others (eg. Butcher) being caused to play out of position as they are likely to lose thier own touch in the process. Its a tough call to open on debut. If Strauss comes in he should be allowed to come in in the middle order at least for a test or two. NZ have a good attack, and we should be wary of over-exposing him. So as I see it, the only batting change that is possible is to replace Hussain. I am against this - looking at career stats, Hussain is shown to be the most inconsistent batsmen in any major test team (median 20), but (witht he exception of Vaughan) hits 100's more often than any other ENG batsmen. Even more than Tresco, Nasser needs his dice to fall the right way. He is an appallingly bad starter. As I see it, Nasser has spent his entire career on the vrge of being dropped for the reasons Mark highlights for Trescothick. He should be careful whether we are dropping Hussain because "he is out of form", which I feel would be unjustified given his career history, or because we have a middle order that is collectively nearing retirement and we need to give some younger players a chance to gain some experience. If this is the case, I feel that we need to make the replacement without losing too much of what Hussain gives us. ENGs strength in the recent past has partially related to the fact that we no longer collapse quite so badly. The middle order is rather better known for its mental toughness, and ability to succeed in attritional situations than its ability to dominate the bowling. Strauss is a farily attacking opener. Pietersen is, in reality, a lower middle-order thunderbat. I can only see Collingwood being a natural replacement for Hussain. The question of Giles apart, the only replacement I can see is justified is Collingwood for Hussain, and then only if it is done for future good of the team.

[Essex Eagle]

Do people really see Collingwood as a viable test player?

Good improviser yes but i have my doubts about his technique in tests.