Trescothick

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by eng fan

I can't believe you're still saying that Trescothick can only hit boundaries, or (in other posts) that he can't graft out a score when out of form or get better during a Test series. [...] Double standards?

Tresco can do a lot of things: he showed his ability to graft many years ago when he batted for something like 4-5-6 hours against Pakistan; he's shown time and again he's actually pretty good at leaving the ball outside off stump; he's damn fine at getting starts in Test cricket; he's a damn fine ODI batsman who can rotate the strike as well as blast boundaries.

Does not alter the following: he's very ordinary when NOT playing thuggish cricket... and struggles TO play thuggish cricket when he's not seeing the ball well and feeling in good touch... which all ties in with his apparent need for decent net facilties (especially away from home)... and with a tendency to either be on a good run of form.. or be consistently ordinary - he just doesn't have the sort of record that butcher does of finding a big score from no-where in the middle of a very indifferent series.

I've never said that Tresco's not up to playing Test level cricket though.. I've just said he's player who's succeeding despite an evident lack of class (as many other have done: Robin Smith springs to mind).. where Vaughan is one who's perhaps underachieving despite having far, far more class (let's hope he doesn't end up underachieving on the scale of the (by common consent) spectacularly classy Ramps).

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'd not picking on Tresco here: Flintoff's no better, and nor (going back) were Stewart or Robin Smith... and the same could be said of a stack of players from around the world. Thing is.. when the guys who actually know what they are taling about (ex pros, coaches, etc) talk about Vaughan they say he is different, that he's actually got it.

As they all seem agreed on this.. I'm inclined to accept their judgement: we seem to have one very special player as the English captain

Problem is though Rachael at the moment Vaughan seems to have lost it, like I said before, I am sure he will come back, you don't get to be no 1 in the world without having that certain somthing.
He has had a very prolonged lack of form, the reasons I gave earlier, but he will have to start performing.
You can't keep saying Vaughan has class, and Tresco gets his runs with thuggary, it wears a bit thin when Vaughan is getting no scores(for whatever reason), and Trescothick is.
You say Flintoff is no better, but what can you mean,"no better at what", I would say the man has "class", when he can play defencive and stick arround with the likes of Thorpe, Jones and Strauss, then, and only then, does he swing his arms.

Take todays match, it was the concensus of all the talkSPORT commentators that he was the pick of the bowlers, not for the first time.
vaughan asked him to contain, so he switched down a gear, bowling a consistant back of a length, with a good line, that takes "class" BTW, Atherton was one such commentator.
To go back to Vaughan, I am not one who says he has no class, he has.
But at the moment he is struggling for form, and as with other such players, nothing his happening for him, maybe he should drop down the batting order, to try and play himself into some form.

[eng fan]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I've never said that Tresco's not up to playing Test level cricket though...

Really?

Originally Posted by Rachael

Tresco played the ungainly innings of a man who just doesn't really belong at this level

And how about this:

Originally Posted by Rachael

Tresco was, by all accounts, exposed as a real ugly duckling by comparison: got the job done, but left the impression he really didn't belong at this level.

and this:

Originally Posted by Rachael

Tresco (the weakest of the top 6 in my book).

highest England run scorer in the calendar year? Four centuries and three fifties? One half of England's best ever opening partnership? The guy who wears down the bowlers so the other members of the top 6 can cash in? You really think he is the weakest link?

Originally Posted by Rachael

He is either "in the zone" (and middling everything) or in the doldrums (and contributing nothing). Unlike Thorpe (and to a lesser extent Butcher) he has proven singularly unable to play from memory, to contribute when not able to time anything, to play himself INTO an innings or a series. He either goes off with a bang.. or goes off to the pavillion

How does that square with the 47 he got in the first Test? Seemed like playing himself in to me.

Originally Posted by Rachael

beside Strauss, in this Test, he looked a complete shambles... always has done.. and one suspects he always will). This leads to the impression that he's getting away with being second rate because of the quality of the bowling.. and to a fear that he'll rarely deliver when the going gets tough.

So Pollock and Ntini are poor bowlers then? I thought Pollock was one of your favourites - and as well as the 100 in the second Test and the grafted 47 in the first Trescothick has also scored a truly amazing matchwinning 219 against him in 2003. Was the bowling second rate then?

Originally Posted by Rachael

without much evidence of a Thorpe like class that can win out through indifferent form.

Trescothick actually played himself in in this series in a very similar way to Thorpe - both came into the series undercooked, with little match practice. Both made small, ugly but vital contributions in the first Test where they played second fiddle to Strauss. Both made important centuries in the second Test. Trescothick's was arguably more important than Thorpe's, because he was up against fresh bowlers and the psychological barrier of a 191 run deficit. By the time Thorpe came in, the bowlers had been worn into the ground by Tres and Strauss, the ball was softer and England were back in the game. Not to take anything away from Thorpe (a player I admire hugely) just to point out the importance of Trescothick's century.

Again, I'm not arguing that he is a Lara or Tendulkar, just that he does a vital job in the England set-up, is well worth his place, is no way out of place in Test cricket and is much, much better than you give him credit for.

[Zainub]

Interesting thread here England Fan.


From the looks of things, Trescothick seems like one of those players people are either massive fan of or completely opposite they're totally on the other side - both parties though, can't possibly deny that he is, all said and done, an effective player, with a decent enough record at the highest level. Weather he is "class" player is irrelevant really. It's alright if people are discussing that just for the sake of it, as we are perhaps doing right now, but I doubt it has bearing on selection. I mean, you select players you think will do the job for your team. Sometimes, in fact many times in England's case, you've had 2 players, one with visibably more class than the other, and yet, the guys with supposed lesser class comes in and does the job more often.

On personal level, I've never been critical of people's technique as long as they keep scoring enough runs with it, and to be fair to Trescothick he has scored plenty of runs. I mean you've had all sorts of unorthodox players come and go by and be successful. Don Bradman, test batting average of 99 odd, I read somewhere, had the most unusally styled grip on his bat you're ever likely to come across, and he had a somewhat highish backlift as well. Brian Lara, your world record holder, doesn't have too much of an orthodox technique either. Even Geoffry Boycott, who is by popular consensus the more orthodox of test batsmen we have all seen/heard of, will tell you that if you've got a particular style of batting like does Tresco (less reliant on foot movement more reliant one good eya and hand eye co-ordination) there is no point in trying to change that - that'll confuse you too much.

I'm fine with Tresco not moving his feet. Because that's the way he plays. I for once don't think it has a lot to do when he's out of form. Whenever I have seen Trescothick in a bare patch, like for instance in the Carribean last year, his head postion at times was not right, and shot selection, obviously, was poor. Perhaps, my only criticism of him has been that he's too much a hitt-miss player, in the sense, that he's either in sublimely imperious run scoring form, like he was in last summer, or completely out-of-sorts getting out for single figure scores, like he was in the last Ashes and in the Carribean. Trescothick over a series either averages in the 20s or in the 40-50s...there's no middle ground really.

Justin Langer and Mathew Hayden by all standards had a quite series in India, as Martyn and Clarke did most of the run scoring buisness. There were no big 100s from them, but they kept chipping in his the odd fifty and 30 odd. And ending up averaging in the mid 30s for the series. For my money Trescothick doesn't do that enough. And they day he does start doing that he'll be a much more complete test batsmen. Right now what happens to him is that at certain times he goes through phases when his forms sounds like 50, 100, 35, 70, 150, 44, 0*, 5, 9, 11, 9, 6...or the other way round 6, 9, 11, 9, 5, 0, 44, 150, 70, 35, 100, 50...I'd rather want it to be something on these lines 50, 6, 100, 9, 35, 11, 70, 9, 150, 9, 44, 0*, 5..that way it seems way, more consistent, doesn't it?

The really very good players, like some of the Aussies, don't really go into such single fingure score periods, and oppositely when they are in form, the tend to make it count a lot more. Perfect example in this case is Ricky Ponting, he supposedly had a bad 2004, and yet he still averaged in the 40s, and scored five 50s, two of those where actually 90s. On the other hand, Martyn had one hell of a year, made 6 tons, and 5 fifties, at least one of them if not more, if my memory is correct was a 90 something. He's carried that form into the new year, and is now batting like a man who can do nothing wrong. People in the box have been promted to say this period is the best form he has ever managed to be in in his entire career.

I'm not comparing him with Punter or Martyn or anyone for that matter, but just saying that Trescothick could do away with many of those critics you are unhappy with by being a shade more consistent than he is right now...making big hunreds, really big ones (anything above 130 is big in my books) once you have got some form going, and try and avoid (somehow) those single figures scores steak. You speak of that conversion rate not being as good as he would have liked, may be that's got something to do with that too...may be there is a bit of pshycology involved as well. Who knows?

My personal beliefe is that he's getting there slowly and steadily. The last year or two even may be have been a massive improvement from before that.

[Rachael]

England Fan: can you not accept that there's a difference between being up to playing at Test level (something true of pretty much every batsman in the world's top 50) and being up to performing at the sort of level England are aiming at with their intention of being the best in the world by 2007?

These past 4 years England have been able to live with all but the best sides with players like Hussain, Butcher and Tresco. Great. But at the level they want to reach they are up against the following batting order:

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
Katich
Clarke
Gilchrist

None from Hussain, Butcher and Tresco would ever have got even close to playing in the Aussie side this past four years.. but Thorpe or Vaughan would have done. Signs are that Strauss might now be joining that illustrious duo who have moved beyond being journeymen batsmen. That's more than just Test level batting: that's top tier batting.

Nothing unrespectable about being a journeyman... but why pretend that the journeymen are MORE than that?

I really don't see why you have a problem with this.

[Trescothick]

I agree with your comment on Thorpe earlier.. He is just a stunning batsmen. 100% in control virtually all the time and he just knocks it around the park all day scoring quick singles etc etc.

I also believe England need that strong hitter like Trescothick: Boundarys to bowlers and fielders are humiliating and it dents the confidence of them all and helps raise the score a huge way and sets England back on track.

I also have respect for Vaughan bt if he was in the Australian team he would have been dropped temporaily due to bad form. It is difficult to say whether Tresco wouldn't be in, i believe hes a world class player: Easily in Top 15 batsmen currently, You don't: Difference in opinion... But i just say wait til the Ashes and watch who steps up for England. My money is on Trescothick.

Good discussion by the way...

[Chuck Palumbo]

Well my two cents on Trescothick is that he is a very fine ODI batsman- Possibly the best ODI opener in the world but on the test arena he sometimes flatters to decieve. Now don't get me wrong, an average of 42 is very respectable at test level but IMO he should be averaging about 5 runs more- The big problem Tresco has had though is turning half centuries into big centuries- He has scored 24 50s compared to 9 centures- I feel top class batsman should at least convert over half of their 50s into centuries. He has showed signs of improving that during 2004 as he scored 4 100s and hopefully he can continue his run of form in 2005.

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Trescothick

I also have respect for Vaughan bt if he was in the Australian team he would have been dropped temporaily due to bad form.

With the pro-tresco lobby on this one - he is test class. I ahve been banging his drum, often alone on this board and the other place, for a long time. He is a player which people like or hate, but most of the anti-tres lobbies ideas are utterly bizarre. Three of the criticisms I have heard (and refuted) time and again, that I am sure will rear thier ugly and irrational heads the moment Tres's form falters, are:-

1) "He's too vulnerable early on, due to his poor footwork- he's not good enough to be an opener".

- in fact, in turns of runs scored, he is the most assured starter in the ENG team, a fact well reflected by a Median score of 30 which puts him into Hayden/Langer class as a starter (and thus opener), above GC Smith (who still languishes in the lower 20's), above Atherton (24), and above most of the batsmen playing the game right now. In fact, it makes him the most assured starter ENG have had since Boycott (36) (and yes - I have checked that!).

2) "His decent average is only so high due to occassional double centuries"

- His conversion rates of 50 - 150 or 100 - 150 are the worst of all the ENG bats. Just stop to crunch the numbers and you'll find that this argument is complete rubbish in about 5 minutes. In fact, it is Butcher that is the lead average-packer. Followed by Thorpe.

3) "He doesn't see off the new ball well enough - opening is not just about scoring runs! Atherton is what you need to aim at"

- Again, crunch the numbers and you find that Tresco sees off 22 overs as often as he fails to - which is equal/better than Atherton depending how you calculate it. Boycott's figure is 36.........

However, I have also heard the comment quoted above time and again, and I see no justification for it. A few years back, Taylor hit such poor form immediately prior to an Ashes series that when the English press found out he'd bought himself a wider bat he received a barrage of derisive laughter. Yet, AUS stuck with him. Ponting went through a period of very poor form for 19 months in 2002-2003, much of which was prior to the captaincy. He wasn't dropped - he was given the captaincy! Langer's form has gone up and down, and he isn't in and out of the team like a yo-yo. Hayden was a very slow starter in tests, and they stuck with him. I could go on!

This is a myth put out by Aussie cricket fans to try and cause other teams to stupidly drop thier best players every time they get out for less than thier average!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by eng fan

Trescothick's was arguably more important than Thorpe's, because he was up against fresh bowlers and the psychological barrier of a 191 run deficit.

Well this is the job of an opener, and think has to be bourn in mind, Trescothick and Strauss were up againsr the fresher bowlers, but on the other hand, they were able to knock the harder ball about with ease.

Originally Posted by eng fan

By the time Thorpe came in, the bowlers had been worn into the ground by Tres and Strauss, the ball was softer and England were back in the game just to point out the importance of Trescothick's century.

Again this is arguable, the game was not safe, by any means, after the failures of vaughan ans Butcher.
Indeed it was the innings of Thorpe, and that magninificent defencive knock by Flintoff, that allowed G OO Jones the licence to swing his arms, ride his luck, and put by this time England into an even stronger possition.

Originally Posted by eng fan

Again, I'm not arguing that he is a Lara or Tendulkar, just that he does a vital job in the England set-up, is well worth his place, is no way out of place in Test cricket and is much, much better than you give him credit for.

He does a different job than Lara ot Tendulkar, you should back your man for what he is"an opener", I have no problem whatever in saying Flintoff is just as useful to England, than those 2 for their respective teams, in his role as an all-rounder.

Trescothick will always come under fire(for his away form), but I would not drop him, we have no one to replace him with, and he does do a job, and when in form he looks good " to some ".

PS to Rachael.
You need to take care when selecting an Austraia batting line up, that would keep England players out.

What does anyone know about Clarke, he has not been playing at this standard for 5 minutes, noware near established, I will say, Astralia would give him for Flintoff, or Strauss.
His short run of good form may not last, well Flintoff comparable run of poor form earlier in his career, did not last,did it?.

My verdict on Trescothick, a good England opener, no more, but his place is safe, because there is no other to take his place, and on his day, as good to watch as anyone.

[admin]

This thread has been split to preserve it's quality. The remaining posts were moved to the Secondary forum.