England Have The Batting!,Have They Got The Bowling?.>

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Pabs

I find it bizarre that you should single out Thorpe - the guy has averaged 59 in tests since his comeback in 2003! I would say his place is as secure as anyone's, and certainly more so than Strauss, Butcher or Tres.

I said in my thread starter we had riches to a point with our batting, in contrast to the bowling, we have players who could replace a gap in the batting, the point was I was stating a fact, that younger guys are breathing down the older guys necks, I think Thorpe makes the grade, but he could be replaced, were Harmison could not.
[quote=Milo 27372]

Originally Posted by Milo

Thorpe, who you question, is a dead cert. He has rescued England on a number of occasions over the last year and has been the top player in the side for the last five years, when he played. The likes of Bell and Key are not alternatives to Thorpe. That's like saying Saggers is an alternative to Harmison.

Point being that Thorpe as good as he is, could be replaced if injured causing less effect to the England team, but should Harmison be injured, sad to say, I can not think of one bowler who we could put in his place to make the slightest difference.
Thorpe is good, but we could get along if he was injured, Harmison is good but we could not get along if he was injured.
And yes Milo Thorpe did rescue England on a number of occasions with partnerships with Flintoff quite a good proportion, and Flintoff also rescued England with partnerships with Strauss and G O Jones.

All this proves is, we have more strength in depth to our batting, and none with our bowling.

[Milo]

The four main times this year that Thorpe steadied/rescued the England innings (Trinidad, Barbados, Trent Bridge v NZ and Old Trafford v WI), Flintoff was nowhere to be seen. In total he scored 50 runs. Giles offered important support in two of these innings. Without Thorpe we would probably have lost all four. I think that is pretty irreplacable. Noone else in the England team has any pedigree of batting under pressure.

My point still stands. If you think that the batsmen you mention equates to strength in depth, then one must conclude that Saggers, Kirtley and Anderson is strength. I do not think Thorpe, Vaughan and Trescothick can be replaced in our batting line up. You clearly do.

Final point - we managed to win 7 tests this summer, many of which Harmison did not do an awful lot. One minute you claim our bowling is better than Australia's and now you appear to be implying that it is one man attack. Which one is it???

[Ernest]

Milo either I am going stupid or my memory is failing me, Flintoff has had a match winning stand with Thorpe this year, and he for sure did with G O Jones, and he did with Strauss.

This year Flintoff was Englands leading bat according to the Stats at around 65, Bell was in front with 70, but you can't count that because he just had the one game.

Who was the player with the most 50s or over in all games this summer, it was Flintoff not Thorpe.

This thread really is not about Flintoff or Thorpe, it was just showing that we have more strength in our batting than our bowling.

Originally Posted by Milo

Final point - we managed to win 7 tests this summer, many of which Harmison did not do an awful lot. One minute you claim our bowling is better than Australia's and now you appear to be implying that it is one man attack. Which one is it???

I have said in many threads we are a 2 man pace attack, Harmison and Flintoff, and Giles return to form helped a lot.

I stand by my claim that the England attack "as it is " is better than Australia's, but we could not afford any injuries, because our squad has no depth to it, bowling wise.

PS I was only naming Harmison as an example, as to if one of out major bowlers were to be injured.
PPS It has to be proved yet, Rob Key may be as good as anyone in the squad for his batting.

[Maranello]

The key question, if we want to judge the quality England's batting, is not to compare it with the past, but to compare it with other Test playing nations. We all know the weaknesses of guys like Trescothick and Butcher, and the current weak form of Vaughan etc, but despite all this, how does England's batting compare with India, Pakistan, South Arica, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and the Windies ? (these are the teams immediately below England in the ICC Test Championship).

[Zainub]

Decide for your self:

ENG Batting Pool Trescothick Strauss Key Butcher Vaughan Thorpe Flintoff Bell Piterson Collingwood G.Jones + plus anyone I have forgotten

VS

IND Batting Pool Sehwag Ghambir/Chopra Dravid Tendulkar Laxman Ganguly Kaif Yuvraj Karthick + plus anyone I have forgotten

PAK Batting Pool Farhat Umar Hameed Butt Y.Khan Inzamam Youhanna Malik Razzaq (Asim)Kamal (Kamran)Akmal + plus anyone I have forgotten

SA Batting Pool Gibbs Smith Kallis Rodulph Dippenar Hall Amla ....(the keeper with the name starting from T) ....(and a couple of another young guys whose name I can't recall now) + plus anyone I have forgotten

NZ Batting Pool Fleming Richardson Sinclair Astle Styriss Oram McCullum McMillan (Hamish)Marshall + plus anyone I have forgotten

SRI Batting Pool Jayasuriya Attapatu Sangakkara Samraweera Jayawerdene Dilshan ...(some keeper I have no idea what his name is, not Kalu, he has retired) + plus anyone I have forgotten

WI Batting Pool Gayle Darren Ganga Devon Smith Sarwan Lara Chanderpaul Dwayne Smith + plus anyone I have forgotten

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Ernest

It has to be proved yet, Rob Key may be as good as anyone in the squad for his batting.

Well, he certainly had a good knock today, and Butcher didn't. We have only one more warm up game before the first test and I wonder if that is enough to separate Key and Butcher in the selection race, whilst also giving a practice opportunity for Thorpe (who ran out of time today), Trescothick (who had a good knock, but to whom I would certainly want to give another run out to allow him to settle down before the real stuff starts), Vaughan (who ought to play one in country before he comes out for a Test), Strauss and Flintoff (who hasn't wielded the willow at all this winter)?

My instinct says that England have to name the last five of these guys for the weekend game in order to give them practice, and that only leaves room for Key or Butcher. So - did Butcher blow his chances today (certainly it would be difficult to argue that Key did not make his case for a test place)? Should we say that Key has made the grade, name him for the weekend and the first Test? Or should we say thanks to him, give Butcher a chance at the weekend, risk him not performing again and then field Key for the Test a full ten days after his last game? Ideally, I suppose we'd have one more warm up game, but we haven't.

My instinct again: Rob - you got the job; Mark - there's the drinks tray.

Last two series:

Butcher (WI away): 58 & DNB; 61 & 46*; 5 & 13*; 52 & 61/(NZ home): 26 & 6; 4 & 5*; 5 & 59.
Key (Zim home 2003): 18; 4/(WI home): 221 & 15; 29 & 4; 6 & 93*; 10 & DNB.

Last time in South Africa:
Butcher: Johannesburg: 1 & 32; Port Elizabeth: 4 & 1; Durban: 48; Cape Town: 40 & 4; Centurion: DNB & 36.

[Zainub]

I'm a fan of Rob Key, quite a substantial one too, but I'd still give Butcher at least one more chance.Not saying Key isn't capable, I have a lot of faith in him, but just that I feel Butcher has not done that badly to be discarded this early. Key is young and can wait. If I were an England selector I would pick Butcher for the first two test against SA, see how well/poorly he does and then give Key a chance.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan 27437

Well, he certainly had a good knock today, and Butcher didn't. We have only one more warm up game before the first test and I wonder if that is enough to separate Key and Butcher in the selection race,

Well I would say that it puts Key in front by a nose.

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

My instinct says that England have to name the last five of these guys for the weekend game in order to give them practice, and that only leaves room for Key or Butcher. So - did Butcher blow his chances today (certainly it would be difficult to argue that Key did not make his case for a test place)

Hard one this, glad it is not me picking, do we give Butcher another chance to shine?,or have we made our mind up, and give Key match practice?.I really dont know.

Originally Posted by occasional fan

My instinct again: Rob - you got the job; Mark - there's the drinks tray.
.

Well you could well be right, I like Robert Key, and stuck by him when he was getting stick as the pie eater, but I am sure he has plans for his spare pie's.
I have a lot of respect for Butch though, when he was recalled to the England team, he could not even get into the Surrey side, and he took his chance well, i don't think he is fit.

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi 27440

I'm a fan of Rob Key, quite a substantial one too, but I'd still give Butcher at least one more chance.Not saying Key isn't capable, I have a lot of faith in him, but just that I feel Butcher has not done that badly to be discarded this early. Key is young and can wait. If I were an England selector I would pick Butcher for the first two test against SA, see how well/poorly he does and then give Key a chance.

Tough one this Zainub, so glad I am not a selector, but Butcher does seem out of sorts at the moment, I don't mind either way, but I think Rob Keys chance will come soon.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

ROb Key will be a very good fat flat track bully. If its a flat track in the first test i'd pick him ahead of butcher.

[Occasional Fan]

First outing is Port Elizabeth. That's about as flat as they come, isn't it? (This is a genuine question, and if someone can answer it to confirm my memory, I'd be grateful.) And Butcher certainly didn't distinguish himself there in 1999.