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

[high_on_linseed]

You are obviously anti-tres, while I am more sympathetic. But let me just say centuries are arbitrary milestones. Hes made a lot of eighties and nineties in the course of his career that are just as worthy of consideration. We sometimes become too fixated on that magic number of 100. And the same for 50 actually.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by high_on_linseed

You are obviously anti-tres, while I am more sympathetic. But let me just say centuries are arbitrary milestones. Hes made a lot of eighties and nineties in the course of his career that are just as worthy of consideration. We sometimes become too fixated on that magic number of 100. And the same for 50 actually.

HOL

I'm not anti-Trescothick at all. No-one would be happier than me to see Trescothick smacking opposition bowlers around the park and ratcheting up plenty of runs for England. But the fact is - he's in really bad form right now. The more people spring to his defence and point out how good he's *been* the more I will point out how poor he is right now.

I'm not a great one for stats as you probably know, I just get tired of people constantly referring back to some of the 'big scores' he's made in the past, the reality of those 'big scores' is, he's only made 5 scores over 100 in the whole time he's been in the England side and only 1 of those actually helped win a game - you want statistical facts - there you are. Just another example of how you can make stats say anything you like - it all depends on how you want to interpret them.

At the end of the day I, like I'm sure all of the people who post here, want to see England at a point where they can challenge the best Team in the world - I'm not convinced, unless Trescothick radically turns his form round, that Trescothick should be an opener in that England side.

Scott

[Rachael]

Scott - you really need to step back a little on this Tresco issue.

I've never hidden a serious distaste for Tresco-style Test batsmen: I see no place in Test cricket (period) for guys who rely on instinct, who only seem happy when swinging the willow and cracking the ball around the park and look truly second rate when faced with scratching around until they find their timing and confidence.

Add in a personal preference for "bed and breakfast" openers (and aversion to Stewart style efforts to dominate against the new ball) and I've an aesthetic objection to Tresco stepping beyond the ODI arena that runs so deep that I cheer his every dismissal even though it's bad for the team.

With all that said... Mark Kidger's case for retaining Tresco is absolutely solid: the guy is one of the most reliable starters is Test cricket, he sees off the new ball with a consistency that is indisputable and (contrary to what you argued earlier) he is almost alone in the modern game in NOT having an average boosted by occasional huge scores - indeed, his principle failing is not converting his starts and 50s into matchwinning innings.

I'd love to be able to argue against Mark on this one... but the case would be very, very thin: it would rest on the notion that unlike guys like Kirsten and Hussain (whose worth to a team could never be measured in runs alone), Tresco's contribution CAN be measured in runs alone... and just ain't good enough.

The case basically boils down to this: {i} like Hayden and Gibbs, Tresco only really stands out from the crowd when destroying an attack, scoring so quickly and heavily that by the end of the first session his team is firmly in control; {ii} he doesn't perform this role as well as guys like Hayden and Gibbs; {iii} he doesn't play in a team with such great depth of batting that they can afford an opener that plays this way any less well than Hayden and Gibbs.

Like I said: the case is thin (and got thinner when we ditched Read for Jones.. and will get weaker still if we end up, long term, playing 6 front-line batsmen with a tail that reads 7. Jones, 8. Flintoff, 9. Hoggard, 10. Jones, 11. Harmison (as that will mean we've the depth of batting to be able to cope without "bed and breakfast" openers.

Like I said: the case is thin... and right now, even as a proponent I'm not sure it stacks up. Until I can make it more convincingly I'm doing what I think you should do: giving doe credit to Mark's case!

[Irish Left Armer]

I couldn't possibly claim to be as expert a commentator on English cricket as some of you people and certainly I am not nearly as up on my stats but I have been following England closely for about 8 years. I'm 20 now so I'm not doing too bad.

I reckon Trescothick is probably worth his place in the team. His overall average is still above 40 and while he is a bit of a feast or a famine player he does score enough runs to warrent England picking him. I don't think he is a great batsman, certainly not, his technique is almost non existent and he goes through terrible troughs but he has performed well for England for 4 years now and I don't see why he should be dropped. England have a reasonably settled side at the moment and moving players up or down the order can't help anyone. I am a believer that batsmen perform better when they have a set position in the side.

I understand your point Scott than with both openers failing a lot at the moment you are worried that the middle order cannot bail them out all the time. It is a valid point but I don't think changing now is the answer. Give them the summer and if both are still struggling and someone like Strauss is scoring runs for fun in county cricket then he should get a chance in the last test or in the winter.

Overall I am against many changes at the moment.

[James M]

Evening ILA et al. Is anyone going up to any C&G games this season? I mean second rounders. Surrey are playing Ireland at Clontarf CC. Should be an exciting match.

[Irish Left Armer]

Originally Posted by James M

Evening ILA et al. Is anyone going up to any C&G games this season? I mean second rounders. Surrey are playing Ireland at Clontarf CC. Should be an exciting match.

Yes I will be in attendance at that one. Should be a laugh to see how we do against Surrey.

[James M]

Yeah McCoubrey will be licking his lips. I mean it must be great to be gifted wickets.

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

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'.




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?



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?



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.




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'.



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.



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

Scott

Scott,

If a player fails often, and pads his average he will have a low median score (the halfway mark in his scoring history) and a large conversion rate of starts - ie he gets in rarely and then scores heavily when he does. Atapattu (the classic modern 200 or duck man) is a good example of this. He has a median of 16 (worse than Flintoff) but converts more than 1/4 of his 50's to 150's (26.4%), which is better than Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Waugh, or even past greats like Len Hutton or Garfield Sobers. As a consequence, he has a very respectable average of 37.78, which is fairly flattering and disguises more than it reveals. Graeme Smith is another in this camp. While you are correct in saying that in these cases the average is too crude a measure to judge the payer on, I feel that you ignore the fact that using the numbers properly we can actually show that Atapattu is the player everyone knows he is from thier gut-instinct. We can then use that as a template for comparison with other players. If they don't compare well with Atapattu, I simply can't agree that they are comparable to him. From what you say above, Trescothick (whose averages are being boosted by the occasional big one, and who fails far more often) should be absolutely comparable with Atatpattu. He is not.

Trescothick has a median score of 30, which is better than many quality modern batsmen, eg. Ponting (26), Inzamam (27), Youhana (28), Fleming (25), Langer (25.5) or Ganguly (25). The median score means he scores 30+ as often as he scores less than 30, and makes him a more consistent scorer than all those listed above. You say the reason AUS are so successful is because thier batsmen contribute every time, not every now and again. Well Tresco contributes more often than Langer, Ponting or Lehmann (or even SR Waugh!). Most players with a median of 30+ are much, much better than trescothick - we are well into the Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Gilchrist and Hayden group here. His inconsistency lies just on the far side of 30 - far too often he gets in, and then immediately gets out. As a consequunce he turns less than 1 in 5 of his 50's into 100's, which is poor. Of the specialist ENG batsmen he gets to 100 most rarely. Compared to Tresco, all the OTHER ENG batsmen are padding thier averages with occasional high scores. Tresco's high average represents consistent run making, not occasional 200's like Atapattu's. In fact, the closest ENG have to an Atapattu in terms of average-padding is actually Hussain. Surprising I know, but this for me is one of the great things about Nasser - just when you think he's down and out - as people are saying at present - he makes 3 figures and saves a match!

In essense, if it is really consistent scoring you are after you will not find many better than Trescothick, simply because there are not many around that good, dispite apparently being a feast or famine player! He is the exact opposite of the player you make him out to be in your post when you consider performance, rather than appearance. I think what you actually want is a player who "looks" consistent - which trescothick never has. However, I am one to go on performance and don't really give that much of a damn how they do it. It often seems to me to be a purely academic argument. Beauty really is only skin deep.

[Goatman]

One other thought on the "England changes" theme.


Hussain will soon have retired. Some are already advocating dropping him. Replacments seem to be Strauss (who is also recommended as replacment opener) and Collingwood. Strauss is rather Thorpe-like, which is excellent, and Collingwood has already been noted for his grit, making him most like-for-like replacement. However, G Jones has shown that he can shoulder some pressure too. He is a good bat. Now I've not seen the lad play, but I see no reason why he should not learn to become a middle order sheet-anchor in the Hussain mould especially as he weathered a storm on debut when those about his were being swept away. That would leave us with space for slotting in a replacment middle order bat without having to worry about what we are losing from the team with the departure of Hussain. People want to see Pieterson in for example, and I while I think he is a good prospect, don't think he offers what Hussain does to the team. Perhaps this is a good way of achieving the team balence as we move forward into the next couple of years? Or does Jones bat too low to do the same job? For argument the batting order would be something like:-

Vaughan
Trescothick/Strauss
Butcher
Thorpe
Pieterson
G Jones
Flintoff
Spinner (there is also discussion about this role, but I'll ingnore this for now)
Hoggard
S Jones
Harmison

[Mark Kidger]

People were trying to retire Hussain last summer. He went to Bangladesh and dug us out of some holes and was gritty in the West Indies. He really has to retire soon and surely he won't tour again, but writing him off is a hazardous occupation. I am very doubtful that we ought to let him see out the summer, but if he performs (unlike Stewart last season) I'm not too sure that he should be dropped. However, we really do need to look at his replacement now. Unfortunately for Strauss though getting a game this winter in a ODI seems to be mission impossible and throwing him into the Test side cold in May against a good attack on sporty pitches would do him no favours.