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

[Pabs]

Originally Posted by Ernest

I am talking about when Trescothick had his best form when he started, all the commentators thought he was the best thing since sliced bread.

He's still got it on his day. His 132 at Headingley last year was one of the best innings I've seen (though admittedly against a poor attack). He makes batting look so simple, especially from side-on where all the play-and-misses look like elegant leaves!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Pabs

He's still got it on his day. His 132 at Headingley last year was one of the best innings I've seen (though admittedly against a poor attack). He makes batting look so simple, especially from side-on where all the play-and-misses look like elegant leaves!

Trescothick is worth his place for that reason alone, OK at times his form is ordinary, but when he clicks, he is capable of being a match winner, who could replace him?.

[Lee Johnson]

no one could replace hime, he'll always have his critics but at home he's one of the best batsmen statistically england have produced in a long time. Tresco just has to improvee his game away from home and he'll be rembered as a very good player.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Lee Johnson

no one could replace him

Hmmmm. Though a long term sceptic.. dating back to his initial selection.. I've been won around to his merits in terms of his consistency.. in that he has a good record of seeing off the new ball... but actually his record for doing anything contructive once he's played himself in is execrable.

I've long said that England wil only have finaly "made it" when the likes of Trescothick are kept as ODI specialists who only figure in Tests as injury replacements.

Replacements? I prefer seeing Vaughan at 4.. but even leaving him aside there's Key (plays as an opener, perhaps not technically competent to open at Test level, but still better on that front than Tresco) and (better still) Bell.. who's been singled out for several years now as having the game to be an outstanding opener and now carrying the "new atherton" label very, very comfortably indeed.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Bell.. who's been singled out for several years now as having the game to be an outstanding opener and now carrying the "new atherton" label very, very comfortably indeed.

I hate this concept of labelling people as the "new" anyone. Atherton record was over the course ofhis career woeful compared with his talent. I would rather see Bell forge his own career.

Personnaly I like Trescothick, and as pointed out by others, if he can get his away form to reflect his home form, then he will be up there with some of the best openers in the World.

I would prefer to see Trescothick as an opener than two non-specialists like Key or Bell (neither of whom open for their counties)

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

I would prefer to see Trescothick as an opener than two non-specialists like Key or Bell (neither of whom open for their counties)

well lets put Atherton into perspective, he was no great, he could not hack it against the likes of McGrath and Walsh, and his average of 37 was no great shakes, and I am a Lancastrian.

However before I mention Trescothick, I think his record as captain would have been better, if he would have had better players to work with.

Trescothck I would keep as opener at Test level also, he will regain his form, and when he does the wait will have been worth it.

Key would be wasred as an opener, as he is a natural 3 or 4, bell I don't know enough about him.

When having a go at Trescothick, we also should look at the form of his captain Michael Vaughan, he has been poor, but I am sure he will come good again.

[vosser]

I do find Trescothick far too inconsistent to open the innings in a Test Match. As far as Robert Key goes I dont think he'll make the grade technically and England will find themselves in the same position as Tresco for different reasons. I do like the look of Ian Bell he has the technique and temperament to succeed at the highest level. One of the issues standing in his way as mentioned by flanfinger, he needs to open regularly for his county. This again raises the question, how far can the England setup go in getting Warwicks to regularly open the batting with Bell. Surely they should have input as it is of national consequence.

Ulitmately you want your openers to take pressure off your top order, surely a technically sound Bell would release Vaughan and co. more often to fully utilise their runscoring intent. Too often England's 3,4 and 5 are left under pressure, especially away from home which does make the task of building an innings far harder than relaible opening stands.

[Rachael]

Two things on Bell.

{i} It's no reflection on Bell's aptitude as an opener that he doesn't play in that position for his county: Bell's played as an opener in many OTHER contexts.. and would undoubtedly play there for Warks if there was a vacancy.. it's just that right now there's a settled order that accomodates him slightly lower (not least because, in Nick Knight, Warks have a dream opener).

{ii} His game is very much "block or bash": he's a guy who waits for the poor delivery (patiently) and then takes what's on offer with an orthodox effort to find the boundary. With that sort of game.. he's ONLY really any use in the top 2 or 3. Even as an enthusiast I couldn't see him as a long term no 4 or 5: he's just no got the wristy improvisational skils to push the scoring along off good balls that is needed when coming lower down.

On the Atherton front: might have averaged nothing that remarkable.. but so what? He was THE class act of his generation.. targetted by the array of sensational bowlers including (notably) Ambrose, McGrath and Donald.. but also including Wasim and Waquar, Pollock, Gillespie, Warne and Walsh.. and he understood very, very well (better than his critics) that his value to the side was most as a punchbag (draining the bowlers) and shield to the middle order (who just couldn't cope when bowlers of that callibre were fresh and had the new ball at their disposal).

It's true he wasn't the player he MIGHT have been.. simply because his back injury blighted his entire career.. but Atherton was, nevertheless, exemplary.. and suggesting he couldn't cope with Ambrose, Donald or McGrath is doing his a GRAVE injustice - he coped admirably.. but against the very best that those all time great bowlers could manage.. facing spells that few others could have even contemplated surviving.. he rarely got offered anything to hit.. and (rightly) rarely troubled the scorers as much as he might had he gone after the bowlers and tried riding his luck.

Lesser batsmen (including Stewart) routinely outscored Atherton whilst simultaneously doing less for the English cause and gaining less respect from the opposition bowlers: emphasises what has always been said - stats don't tell the whole story.

ps. Tresco isn't inconsistent.. he's actually almost sensationally consistent.. he gets through the new ball more than 50% of the time (which is itself exceptional).. and he gets to 50 with astonishing regularity. His failings generally come in converting those 50s to big scores...

[flanflinger]

Rachael,

Atherton who you praise-

115 games 212 innings 16 centuries (a century every 13 innings) and an average of just 37..H/S 185*

Only 4 of his centuries(20%) came in matches England won....


Trescothick who you malign so often-

54 games 103 innings 8 centuries (a century every 12 innings) but an average of 42, and a highest score of 219

6 of his centuries (75%) have come in winning games...

I would take Tresco anyday...

[Zainub]

Trescothick has been a fine batsmen for England for a while, a little bit inconsistent away from home, when he has at times been guilty of getting him self out after he's well set, but in England, he's done one hell of a job. Credit where its due, technically he's not the nicest of openers you'll see, but that record of his, even with the inconsistencies away from home is quite comendable. Would not think of replacing him right now, or in the near future. He's done a good job overall, perhaps capable of doing even better.