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

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Victor Frankenstein

I agree with your statistics and you use them to good effect, just wanted to say that if it wasn't for gut feelings, tresco and vaughan wouldn't even be playing in the first place, so there is sometimes call for gut feeling over statistics

Quite true. Tresco's numbers for Somerset are abysmal. He was a Duncan Fletcher gut feeling that was in no way supported by statistics!

[honestbharani]

In fact, Brian Lara personifies inconsistency over the last few series, mixing centuries, double centuries and even quadruple centuries, with strings of poor scores. Should the West Indies persist with him?

I agree with your points about Marcus Trescothik and I see why you are using the Brian Lara analogy but just to point out something, Lara has been very, very consistent since late 2001 in all the series he has played..... Just because he converts all his starts into hundreds (unless he gets out early) doesn't mean he has been inconsistent. He is either getting dismissed early in his innings, or if he gets a start, he is converting it into big scores. That is not inconsistency.




But yes, I see your point about Trescothick........ I live in India and I don't know as much about English county scene as you guys do, but as long as there is no one better than him, you must persist with him. Perhaps, he could be given a break from opening for a while, since Butcher can do it, but it must be left to his choice, whether to drop down the order or to open. He must be allowed to do what he is more comfortable with in order to regain his form.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Flattery will get you everywhere, although if you were Kirsty it would get you even further!

I'm not really trying to interpret the numbers. What I wanted was just to present them and let people form their own conclusions. Actually, that is the way that I like to operate and it is particularly interesting to read the thoughts of an informed cricketing audience based on the facts or evidence that I put before them - I'm just an enthusiast, I make no pretence to be an expert of any kind on cricket.

Mark

Well I'm not going to comment on your first sentence, I'll let Kirsty comment on that if she feels so inclined!

Well you do interpret the numbers to an extent, as is witnessed by this reply to me! I'm only an enthusiast as well, and in no way could be considered an expert, but I have been watching International Test Cricket for about 20 odd years now, played Cricket at school level (against Harrow was one notable game) had County schoolboy trials and played at good Club 2nd XI level.

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Er... You appear to have contradicted yourself here. Below you seem to argue that it will be beneficial.

Yes, not sure what happened there, but I think you got the general drift of what I was saying.

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

We are both agreed on this. It was only when I started running through his scores that I realised just how many double-figure scores he had got, but they all seemed to be in the teens or low twenties. That's when I kept on digging.

It may be that Vaughan is actually growing into the job. last summer there was no doubt that the sudden transition from being just another member of the side to being the PwC number 1 and then to being captain had left him completely disorientated. As time has gone by he has steadily looked more and more comfortable, but his mind is not quite right for the batting yet. If you're right, he'll continue to get nice 10s and 20s and get out. If I'm right he may suddenly recpature the murderous form of Australia. Eith way, we'll know by the end of the New Zealand series. In the Windies he's looked in good knick and his scores prove it - it hardly ever fails - it's just a matter of getting the last piece of the puzzle in place. If he can do that, fine. If not, you're right, we'll have to look at an alternative solution.

Well we're both agreed on the cause of his current problems, but divided on the solution to it. I assume you're playing the 'lets wait and see' game so favoured by many of the posters to these boards! Yes if you're right - he'll continue to 'grow' into the job and slowly get his form back as he comes to terms with the extra mental pressures that Captaincy brings. If I'm right he won't and will be stuck in that 'inconsistency' ground of getting starts and failing to go on to make useful big scores.

As I've said before - I'm a 'gut instinct' person, I rely on it and it rarely lets me down. Whilst you're clearly happier digging into Statistical figures, playing with numbers and looking for 'logical patterns' that emerge from them, I'm more of a 'lateral' thinker - I may come to the same conclusions as you, but will probably get there via a different route.


[quote=Mark Kidger]If he comes in at 3 you have to move Mark Butcher and we're all agreed that that is a non-starter. Thorpe is fixed at 5, Jones and Freddy share 6 and 7, we're certainly not going to bat Vaughan as low as 8, so your logical solution would be to drop Nasser Hussain and put Vaughan back at 4? That way Strauss would open with Trescothick and Vaughan would be protected for a few overs from the new ball.

We're not all agreed that bringing Butcher in to open is a non-starter! It's unlikely to happen, but it's still an option that can and should be considered - don't write this off, just because the consensus here don't agree with it. My only concession so far in this discussion is that changing *both* openers would probably be too extreme, and that one change may be all thats needed - whether that is dropping Vaughan down the order or replacing/dropping Tresco down the order is something I'm not sure about. Clearly Vaughan is the more important of the two, and for that reason alone it looks like any changes that can be made will concern Trescothick and not Vaughan. A lot of this will become clearer at the end of the summer after the home NZ and WI series, but what I will say is - if both those two openers are still failing - they'll be people howling for both of them to be changed not just one!

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Vaughan though has been opening for a long time for England now. Initially he was shuffled around like a pack of cards. He batted at 4 in South Africa. At 3 at home to the Windies. At 6 in Sri Lanka. At 3 again against Pakistan. At 4 in India. And finally opened for the first time in Christchurch against New Zealand in his 14th Test.

While he was being shuffled around his figures were pretty poor and he was regularly out of the side for several matches at a time. His average was well below 30 for his first 10 Tests and until he opened in his 14th Test it was just 34 (and even that was a big improvement over what had come before thanks to some good scores in India).

As an opener, what is his average? Remember that it was 34 playing down the order...

He averages 51.1

You still want to drop him back down the order?

Come on Mark you know full well, as I do, that you cannot draw simplistic conclusions from this use of Statistics! You see, this is exactly why I don't rely on Statistics to draw conclusions from them, but prefer 'gut-instinct'.

You've admitted yourself in your post that Vaughan was 'shuffled around like a pack of cards' early on in his Test Career - how an earth can a new batsman to the side give his best when a) he's new to Test Cricket, b) he's being shuffled round the order c) Not even having the opportunity to have a regular consistent run in the side d) Inexperienced and new to Test Cricket? Is it not surprising therefore his early scores playing down the order are not as good as his later ones? This is exactly the same argument I'm using with you, as I used with Goatmans use of statistics on Butcher - how can you rely on these statistics to ascertain Vaughan's capabilitys batting in the middle order?

You then go on to state gleefully that his average as an opener is a lot higher than his earlier average being 'shuffled' around the middle order. It's not too surprising it's better is it? a) He got a regular place in the side, b) he got a regular batting spot - as opener c) he'd gained confidence and importantly experience at Test level.

How can you draw simplistic conclusions from this? It's obvious that as a Test batsman matures in the game, becomes more experienced at batting at Test level, gains confidence from crease occupation and runs on the board their whole batting game improves. You want stats evidence for this? Look at most Test batsmens averages in the first half of their Test career, and compare it with the second half of their career - which is better?

You're trying to tell me that in Vaughan's case its because hes batting as an opener rather than as a middle order batsmen? BALONEY!!!!!!!

I still feel, despite your inconclusive use of statistics, that *in the current situation* Vaughan will bat better down the order than opening for all the reasons I gave in my first post.

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Scott, as you know, I have a lot of time for you and your opinions, but occasionally you seem to let gut feelings overrule common sense.

Mark

Flattery will get you no where LOL!

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Trescothick is a proven performer over a number of years. Even Brian Lara has had slumps and strings of low scores in his career. In fact, Brian Lara personifies inconsistency over the last few series, mixing centuries, double centuries and even quadruple centuries, with strings of poor scores. Should the West Indies persist with him?

Yes Trescothick is a proven performer over a number of years - I agree. So are you saying that Test Batsmen maintain thier places in a Test side based soley on what they've done in the past?

Comparing Brian Lara with Marcus Trescothick is a very dangerous comparison. Firstly because Trescothick simply isn't in the same league as Brian Lara, secondly Lara has a wonderfull technique to fall back on when things go awry for him - Trescothick does not, thirdly do the West Indies have an instant replacement for Brian Lara? Do England have one for Trescothick? Hint hint his name begins with S and he opens for Middlesex.

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

You are not going to change Trescothick. I also think that he really has to open, because that's where he's been proved. Players have been dropped down the order occasionally, even Sir Geoffrey suffered that indignity in the Carribean in 1974, and it was an utter failure. He was restored to opening and celebrated by scoring 99 and 112 to set up the win in the 5th Test and square the series. Batsmen generally react very badly to being shuffled up and down the order.

I've never been one to advocate Trescothick be shuffled down the order, I've always said that he should be dropped and go back to County Cricket till he gets his confidence back and/or he does something about that woeful technique of his.

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

I used his last 15 TESTS, not innings. In fact, if you take his average over the last 10 Tests and not the last 15, it is 48.6. Okay, you can cut down the number of Tests you include until you get the answer you want, but that is generally known in the business as "fiddling the numbers" (the fewer the number of matches the less stable and reliable the statistics hence, by carefull selection one really can get the answer that one wants). Over those 10 Tests he has 2 centuries and 4 fifties and thus a 50+ score every 1.7 Tests, bang in line with his career average frequency of fifties. Statistically, if his scores are distributed completely at random, it is possible for him to go 5 Tests without a 50 and 7 innings without a 50 is actually quite normal. His Goatman median over these 10 Tests was 23.5 - better than Vaughan's!

So how do you advocate assessing someone's current form then if you don't use their last 12 innings as 'barometer' for form? In my last post to you regarding Vaughan, I pointed out how dangerous it is to use Career statistics in the way you use them to draw conclusions from them. You seem to be more concerned with what players have done in the past, to justify what they're going to do in the future, than you seem to be on 'current' form. Yes statistics can be a good guide as to someones capability for the future, but is it really thaat accurate a guide to use?

A good example here of how statistics can tell you a completely different story to the reality of the situation - do you consider Lara's average of mid 80's in the last Test Series against England a is good indication of his current form against England even though the West Indies lost 3 Tests and drew one? The important point here is - even though Lara's average for the Test Series is second best to Thorpes, none of those innings he made actually helped the West Indies win one single game.

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

This is a moot point. Graeme Smith win the man of the series award in the England v South Africa series. Was that a crass error? Where are the calls to drop him because he is unbalancing the entire South African batting line up?

Once again your reliance on statistics is skewing the situation and you're reading the wrong conclusions from it. Notice how our 'differences' of interpreting situations is so different - you rely almost soley on statistics to prove your points - I use 'gut-instinct' and what I see with my own eyes.

You ask whether Smith should be dropped for his inconsistent form because he's unbalancing the whole SA side. Is he? By who's definition? How can you compare the two situations - they're completely different! You seem to forget that the main thrust of my argument for doing something about Vaughan OR Trescothick is because THEYRE BOTH FAILING! That's whats unbalancing the side. I've repeatedly said that if only one of them was failing it would be a different situation. Coming back to Smith and SA, the reason its different is that while Smith failed as an opener - Gibbs did not! BIG DIFFERENCE!

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Trescothick has never been a big scorer in county cricket. That's why it was such a surprise when he was called up by England. It just so happened that Duncan Fletcher had seen one of his rare murderous good days in a match v Glamorgan and put his name up. If you send Trescothick back to county cricket then you admit that he should never play for England again because he is going to be as inconsistent, or more, for Somerset.

Trescothick is that rare breed who has a much higher average in Test cricket than in first class cricket. Even with his good England numbers included he averages just 34.5 in first class cricket. Take away his Test runs and his average is a miserable 31.7 over 121 non-Test first class matches.

I admit he may never play for England again? Tough luck. England's Test Side isn't here for the benefit of Marcus Trescothick and unless he can start putting runs on the board his place is going to be under severe threat from the likes of Andrew Strauss, if that means Trescothick doesn't play Test Cricket again, then that's just the rub of the cloth.

It's unfortunate in many ways that Trescothick is currently going through a purple patch whilst Vaughan is the same, as I've said - if one of them was performing it would be a different situation, as they aren't - something must be done, and as Vaughan is more valuable - Trescothick's the sacrificial lamb.

Scott

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Yes Trescothick is a proven performer over a number of years - I agree. So are you saying that Test Batsmen maintain thier places in a Test side based soley on what they've done in the past?

Certainly not. But one is entitiled to use past record as it is somewhat more solid than "gut feelings". Everything has to be considered, not just the aspects that give the answer that you want.

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Comparing Brian Lara with Marcus Trescothick is a very dangerous comparison. Firstly because Trescothick simply isn't in the same league as Brian Lara, secondly Lara has a wonderfull technique to fall back on when things go awry for him - Trescothick does not, thirdly do the West Indies have an instant replacement for Brian Lara? Do England have one for Trescothick? Hint hint his name begins with S and he opens for Middlesex.

Nobody is comparing Lara and Trescothick. However, Lara's technique against the moving ball was given as the reason why he had his slump and why, apart from one innings, he's struggled against England in the last two series. The situations though, are similar - two highly destructive, but very inconsistent batsmen, capable of mixing big scores and runs of failures.

As for Strauss, please back up this assertion with something. Is he proven at the highest level, like Trescothick?

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

I've never been one to advocate Trescothick be shuffled down the order, I've always said that he should be dropped and go back to County Cricket till he gets his confidence back and/or he does something about that woeful technique of his.

A "woefull" technique that has given him a Test average over 40 over a long career, murderous centuries and an average more than 10 runs higher than in county cricket? Many good county players get found out in Test cricket - Hick averages about 15 less for England than for Worcestershire - but Trescothick is one of the few who has an awful record in the first class game and an excellent one in Test cricket. That's not a "gut feeling" that's an irrefutable fact.

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

A good example here of how statistics can tell you a completely different story to the reality of the situation - do you consider Lara's average of mid 80's in the last Test Series against England a is good indication of his current form against England even though the West Indies lost 3 Tests and drew one? The important point here is - even though Lara's average for the Test Series is second best to Thorpes, none of those innings he made actually helped the West Indies win one single game.

That is not a good example of anything except the sort of wanton abuse of statistics that Goatman and I have been denouncing. It's the reason why I so often quote the median because people happily use a single huge not out score to pad out averages. If you read my posts carefully you'll see that I try to avoid that and if a single number skews things, use an alternative stat to compare.

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Once again your reliance on statistics is skewing the situation and you're reading the wrong conclusions from it. Notice how our 'differences' of interpreting situations is so different - you rely almost soley on statistics to prove your points - I use 'gut-instinct' and what I see with my own eyes.

Is it? But your conclusions based on gut feeling are correct? I saw Trescothick score a match-winning murderous double hundred against the second best team in the world only 8 months ago. Said innings won a match for England and saved a series that appeared to have been lost after 2 days of the 5th Test. Duncan Fletcher saw Trescothick murder the Glamorgan attack for 168 and put Trescothick's name up for the side. When England struggled for runs in Bangladesh, with Butcher and various others having a torrid time, who made a century?

Statistics are like a crutch, you can lean on them, but they are not a substitute for your body. I use statistics to illustrate and know their limitations. It's an important distinction. But you have to use them jointly with other things.

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

It's unfortunate in many ways that Trescothick is currently going through a purple patch whilst Vaughan is the same, as I've said - if one of them was performing it would be a different situation, as they aren't - something must be done, and as Vaughan is more valuable - Trescothick's the sacrificial lamb.

Purple? You've been arguing that he's been doing badly!

Winning team. Don't panic. Let players try to sort this out first.

[admin]

Well done, Scott and Mark. This is a good example of correct usage of quotes. There are two posts between Mark and Scott's post. Now, as an exercise switch to the Hybrid mode via the Display Modes menu. Look for Scott's post in the tree and click it. Now, below the tree window should be displayed Scott's, Mark's and my post in that order without other posts in between. See how much easier it is to follow a discussion in Hybrid mode when you can see the relationship from the tree structure.

You can easily find your own post after you have just added it because it will have an orange (new post) icon beside it.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Certainly not. But one is entitiled to use past record as it is somewhat more solid than "gut feelings". Everything has to be considered, not just the aspects that give the answer that you want.

Mark

No-one's saying you can't use historical statistics as basis to predict future performance, but it needs to be interpreted as just that - 'an indication' of future performance, there's no guarantee whatsoever that future performance will be a reflection of historical performance; that's the biggest weakness in using statistics to predict the future - it's not guaranteed in any way. And you're now contradicting yourself - you stated yourself many times in this thread that Trescothick was picked on 'gut-instinct' by Fletcher as his County stats were quite poor, yet you're now saying 'one is entitiled to use past record as it is somewhat more solid than "gut feelings'. You seem to be the one who's picking on the aspects 'that give the answer that you want'.

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Nobody is comparing Lara and Trescothick. However, Lara's technique against the moving ball was given as the reason why he had his slump and why, apart from one innings, he's struggled against England in the last two series. The situations though, are similar - two highly destructive, but very inconsistent batsmen, capable of mixing big scores and runs of failures.

Ok, so you're making a comparison of the 'similar situations facing both players in terms of current form', and not the players themselves, fair enough. But the situations aren't the same are they? You wan't to bring things down to the lowest common denominator - you want to compare the situations and not the players. Well the situations aren't the same - in Lara's case he's a middle order batsman and Trescothick is one half of an opening partnership who are both failing - where's the 'situation' similarity?

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

As for Strauss, please back up this assertion with something. Is he proven at the highest level, like Trescothick?

No he isn't, but then neither was Geriant Jones but he still got his chance. So are you saying that because players aren't proven at Test Level they should never get a chance?

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

A "woefull" technique that has given him a Test average over 40 over a long career, murderous centuries and an average more than 10 runs higher than in county cricket? Many good county players get found out in Test cricket - Hick averages about 15 less for England than for Worcestershire - but Trescothick is one of the few who has an awful record in the first class game and an excellent one in Test cricket. That's not a "gut feeling" that's an irrefutable fact.

I've never 'disputed' any facts, I've never disputed Trescothicks career record or Test average. I'm disputing whether England can afford to perservere with a player who can't 'cut it in county cricket' due to his lack of technique, and frequently goes through 'inconsistent' periods in Test Cricket due to his 'lack of technique'. Trescothick is an 'instinct' player when he's in form he'll play well, when he's not he wont. Is that the kind of opener you want to see in a future England side? You may as well bring out the roulette wheel and give it a 'spin' at the beginning of a Test Match as to whether Trescothicks going to score any runs - because that's what its like that the moment.

I've said it time and again on here, but I'll repeat it again, if Vaughan was making runs and Trescothick wasn't - I wouldn't be too bothered about Trescothick - but neither of them are and thats putting an enormous amount of pressure on England's middle order. In this situation I'd much rather see a player like Strauss who does have a solid technique opening with Vaughan, he may not make as many 'big-ones' as Trescothick, but one would hope he'd be more consistent.

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

That is not a good example of anything except the sort of wanton abuse of statistics that Goatman and I have been denouncing. It's the reason why I so often quote the median because people happily use a single huge not out score to pad out averages. If you read my posts carefully you'll see that I try to avoid that and if a single number skews things, use an alternative stat to compare.

And that's exactly the way you're using Trescothicks stats to make up his 40+ average in Test Cricket. The fact is his averages are being boosted by the odd very big score he's made in the past - just like Lara's was in the West Indies series. What that average doesn't tell you, is how very inconsistent he is, and that he fails far more often that he scores a 'big one'. The real question here is - should we have an opener who is very inconsistent, but can make a big one now and again? In my mind I'd rather have someone with a bit more consistency but not making so many 'big' scores. I'd rather see England consistently winning Test Matches due to consistent performance - than winning the odd one here and there due to an outstanding individual performance. Consistency is the key to Englands future - not 'inconsistent prima-donna's'.

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Is it? But your conclusions based on gut feeling are correct? I saw Trescothick score a match-winning murderous double hundred against the second best team in the world only 8 months ago. Said innings won a match for England and saved a series that appeared to have been lost after 2 days of the 5th Test. Duncan Fletcher saw Trescothick murder the Glamorgan attack for 168 and put Trescothick's name up for the side. When England struggled for runs in Bangladesh, with Butcher and various others having a torrid time, who made a century?

Thanks Mark, you just confirmed what I said in the above paragraph - every now and again Trescothick pulls off a 'big-one' that helps win or save a Test Match - but what does he do in between to those big scores? Please explain to me Trescothicks contributions to winning the Test Series in the West Indies, because I'd really like to know.

Our differences here are clear - you prefer someone who can now and again put in a Match winning performance, I want to see someone who can play consistently - consistently putting in scores that help the side win games. Cricket and this England side are Team games, they're won by team performances - that means everyone contributing - in every game. Thats how England will become good enough to challenge the likes of Australia. Thats why Australia reign supreme - everyone in their sides contributes, not just one or two prima donna's - now and again.

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Winning team. Don't panic. Let players try to sort this out first.

Winning team - yes, but thats no reason to be complacent - they need to deal with the problems in the batting department.

Scott

[honestbharani]

I know I am not an Englishman and I don't know if there are other deserving people out there who can take Tresco's spot but my humble opinion is, with a player of his proven ability, he should be given a reasonable run before dumping him. Maybe he just needs a series where he is told that this would be his last chance.....a perform or perish sort of situation. IF he comes out of it, it will be good for all and if not, hard luck to him.

[Kirsty Harris]

honestbharani

Well said! Form is temporary, class is peremenant!

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

I know I am not an Englishman and I don't know if there are other deserving people out there who can take Tresco's spot but my humble opinion is, with a player of his proven ability, he should be given a reasonable run before dumping him.

honestbharani

You make a good point.

However, how do you define 'reasonable run'? Marcus Trescothick started his Test Career in August 2000, so its nearly four years since he started playing for England, I would consider that a pretty reasonble run.

Originally Posted by honestbharani

Maybe he just needs a series where he is told that this would be his last chance.....a perform or perish sort of situation. IF he comes out of it, it will be good for all and if not, hard luck to him.

Well that's just the problem.

Trescothick seems to have this unique ability to be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat every time the pressure begins to mount on his place, and just, *just* about manages to stave off calls for his replacement.

I'll give you some stats from his last two Test Series and you'll see what I mean.

In the 3 match series in Sri Lanka he scored 23, 24, 36, 14, 70, 0. For a series average of 27.83 compared to a Test Average of 41. Take out that single score of 70 and you get a series average of 12.2. He pulls off a single good score once again and again in a game England didn't win.

Take the series in West Indies - he scored 7, 6, 1, 4, 2, 42, 16, 88 for a series average of 20.75 almost exactly half his overall Test average. Take out that 88 and its 11.14. Yet again he pulls of a single good score to stave off calls for his replacement, and note yet again that 88 was scored in a game England didn't win.

Exactly how much more time do you want to give him?

I'll give you some more interesting stats about Trescothick - in 89 Test Innings he's scored 5 century's, only one of which was made in a winning match. He has this ability to pull off a decent score every now and again to stave off calls for his replacement - yet rarely actually contributes an innings that helps England win Test Matches.

Trescothick is a player, as you say 'of proven ability' that is so inconsistent England can well do without.

Scott