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

[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!

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by 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.

Mark

Great post and excellent use of statistics to support your opinion. Whilst I agree with much of that you're saying here, there's some interpretation here I think you're missing, so I'll add to it.

I accept your view that the Captaincy has affected Vaughans batting for the reasons you've stated, I don't necessarily follow the view that moving him in the order will be beneficial - for these reasons.

I think we're generally agreed that England's openers are the biggest problem affecting the side right now, and something needs to be done to solve this problem - but why has Vaughan gone off the boil? I think we're both agreed that the Captaincy has had an effect on Vaughan's batting - and the statistics you used pretty much confirm that. But why?

The obvious answer is - he's got a lot more going on in his mind that he had before. But its more than that. Think about what Captains do, what their responsibilities are. In my mind Vaughan is trying to 'lead by example' he's trying to get the side off to a good start by putting runs on the board, and we're both agreed that he's trying to play his 'shots' too early and this is being his downfall. But its that 'pressure' that's being created by Vaughan taking the sides performance on his shoulders and desperately trying to get them off to a good start thats causing this problem. So whats the answer?

In my mind we need too take some of this pressure off of Vaughans shoulders, if he can't do it mentally himself, then it needs to be done in a different way. Whats the cause? Leading by example, trying desperately to get a good start for the side. Thats the cause. Solution? Get someone else to do it! By bringing in (lets just focus on Vaughan for the moment, I'll post separately on Tresco) another person to open in place of Vaughan you relieve some of the pressure off Vaughans shoulders and (assuming they do the job they're there for - ie get the side off to a good start) Vaughan can come in at No. 3 and play his natural game - strokemaking, reassured that there are runs on the board and he can play naturally. This is the reason I feel Vaughan should drop down the order even though your stats don't actually suggest that Vaughan bats better down the order than opening - in this situation with Vaughan as Captain I beleive he will do better down the order.

So who to open in place of Vaughan? The in-form guys. I accept to an extent your view that Butchers happy at No. 3, so 'if it aint broke don't fix it' should apply, but it is broke (not Butcher) but Vaughan and it does need fixing. Butchers a natural opener he opens for Surrey, hes played virtually an openers role in the recent tests due to the consistent failures of both openers, so I don't think it would phase him at all. Other possibles - Strauss? Even Hussain!

Hussain is another natural opener, he opens for Essex. He's got the temperament for opening - his game is a gritty, dig in one, and what England need is someone to crease occupy at the start of the innings, someone to anchor, and if necessary, to open with someone who can tick the runs over - Strauss? Butcher?

I don't have all the answers, but something needs to be done at the top of the order - because its England's biggest problem right now.

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

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!

Mark

The second half of my reply on this one, this time focusing on Tresco.

I have to confess, I'm in two minds regarding Marcus Trescothick. I agree with you, he's due some big scores, but when are they coming? Should England perservere with a talent that is Tresco, at times brilliant, at times woeful? Can we afford this luxury? Can we afford the time for him to find his form again?

If Vaughan was on song, I'd say yes, give him the time to find his form again - but Vaughan isn't. The failures of BOTH openers are, in my mind whats causing England to post such low scores, they're relying far too much on basically 3 middle order batsman - how much longer is that going to continue?

Something needs to be done and it needs to be done now.

A while ago, I did my own calculation on Tresco's form. I looked at I think it was the last 10 innings (not 15 as you did) and discounting his innings in the last test he'd scored 2 scores over 50 and his average in those 10 innings was in the mid teens! Goes to show how misleading stats can be huh? - I take 10 innings and make his average mid teens, you take 15 and make it mid 40's! One thing I think we can both agree on is that Trescothick is inconsistent.

Can England afford to have an inconsistent talent opening the innings? In my mind the answer is no. I'd much rather an opener did his job - seeing off the new ball, tiring out strike bowlers and consistently scoring 30, 40, 50, than someone getting out in the 2nd 3rd 4th over of an innings and scoring 2, 15, 3, 110, 26.

For that reason I think its time Tresco went back to county cricket for a while and for him to work on his technique, his consistency and his confidence. I really don't see why England should perservere with someone out of form and give him the luxury of 'batting himself' back into form. We can't afford that luxury when there's perfectly capable batsman in the likes of Strauss knocking on the door for a chance. Tresco needs to go back to the beginning - and push again for a Test place because at the moment he's just not up to it.

Scott

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

I have to confess, I'm in two minds regarding Marcus Trescothick. I agree with you, he's due some big scores, but when are they coming? Should England perservere with a talent that is Tresco, at times brilliant, at times woeful? Can we afford this luxury? Can we afford the time for him to find his form again?

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. 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?

Only 8 months ago Marcus Trescothick won a Test and saved a Test series that had seemed lost by scoring a brutal double century in rapid time. No other current or recent England player would have been able to score enough runs fast enough to give England the remotest chance of overhauling a first innings total of nearly 500 and allowing the bowlers time to knock over the opposition in the second innings. We'll come back to this later.

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

If Vaughan was on song, I'd say yes, give him the time to find his form again - but Vaughan isn't. The failures of BOTH openers are, in my mind whats causing England to post such low scores, they're relying far too much on basically 3 middle order batsman - how much longer is that going to continue?

Something needs to be done and it needs to be done now.

"Something needs to be done". The phrase is often continued like this:

Something needs to be done.
This is something.
Therefore we must do this.

(in "Yes Prime Minister" they called it "politicians' logic")

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.

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

A while ago, I did my own calculation on Tresco's form. I looked at I think it was the last 10 innings (not 15 as you did) and discounting his innings in the last test he'd scored 2 scores over 50 and his average in those 10 innings was in the mid teens! Goes to show how misleading stats can be huh? - I take 10 innings and make his average mid teens, you take 15 and make it mid 40's! One thing I think we can both agree on is that Trescothick is inconsistent.

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!

The fact is though that over a career spanning 47 Tests he is one of only three current English batsmen to average over 40. Inconsistent, he is, unproductive in the medium term, he most definitely is not.

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Can England afford to have an inconsistent talent opening the innings? In my mind the answer is no. I'd much rather an opener did his job - seeing off the new ball, tiring out strike bowlers and consistently scoring 30, 40, 50, than someone getting out in the 2nd 3rd 4th over of an innings and scoring 2, 15, 3, 110, 26.

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?

He started the series 277, 85, 259, right?

However, look at his scores against England in the ODIs before the Test series and in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Tests:

ODIs - 15, 22, 45, 7

Tests - 35, 5, 2, 14, 18, 19

His Goatman median over Tests and ODIs was a miserable 18 and in just the Tests, 19. Inconsistency personified.

Where are the calls to drop him because he is unbalancing the entire South African batting line up?

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

For that reason I think its time Tresco went back to county cricket for a while and for him to work on his technique, his consistency and his confidence. I really don't see why England should perservere with someone out of form and give him the luxury of 'batting himself' back into form. We can't afford that luxury when there's perfectly capable batsman in the likes of Strauss knocking on the door for a chance. Tresco needs to go back to the beginning - and push again for a Test place because at the moment he's just not up to it.

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.

[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

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Great post and excellent use of statistics to support your opinion. Whilst I agree with much of that you're saying here, there's some interpretation here I think you're missing, so I'll add to it.

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.

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

I accept your view that the Captaincy has affected Vaughans batting for the reasons you've stated, I don't necessarily follow the view that moving him in the order will be beneficial - for these reasons.

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

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

I think we're generally agreed that England's openers are the biggest problem affecting the side right now, and something needs to be done to solve this problem - but why has Vaughan gone off the boil? I think we're both agreed that the Captaincy has had an effect on Vaughan's batting - and the statistics you used pretty much confirm that. But why?

The obvious answer is - he's got a lot more going on in his mind that he had before. But its more than that. Think about what Captains do, what their responsibilities are. In my mind Vaughan is trying to 'lead by example' he's trying to get the side off to a good start by putting runs on the board, and we're both agreed that he's trying to play his 'shots' too early and this is being his downfall. But its that 'pressure' that's being created by Vaughan taking the sides performance on his shoulders and desperately trying to get them off to a good start thats causing this problem. So whats the answer?

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.

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

In my mind we need too take some of this pressure off of Vaughans shoulders, if he can't do it mentally himself, then it needs to be done in a different way. Whats the cause? Leading by example, trying desperately to get a good start for the side. Thats the cause. Solution? Get someone else to do it! By bringing in (lets just focus on Vaughan for the moment, I'll post separately on Tresco) another person to open in place of Vaughan you relieve some of the pressure off Vaughans shoulders and (assuming they do the job they're there for - ie get the side off to a good start) Vaughan can come in at No. 3 and play his natural game - strokemaking, reassured that there are runs on the board and he can play naturally. This is the reason I feel Vaughan should drop down the order even though your stats don't actually suggest that Vaughan bats better down the order than opening - in this situation with Vaughan as Captain I beleive he will do better down the order.

So who to open in place of Vaughan? The in-form guys. I accept to an extent your view that Butchers happy at No. 3, so 'if it aint broke don't fix it' should apply, but it is broke (not Butcher) but Vaughan and it does need fixing. Butchers a natural opener he opens for Surrey, hes played virtually an openers role in the recent tests due to the consistent failures of both openers, so I don't think it would phase him at all. Other possibles - Strauss? Even Hussain!

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.

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?