Good eye or good technique ?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Or rather, after 5 years in the job, who is going to have the better average tresco or cook ? You have two openers with wildly different styles (admitedly one of the mis really going to play for england anymore but humour me).

Cook plays very a straight, classical game but still hasnt grasped where his off stump is. Tresco, from the get-go has/had the foot movement of stephen hawkins and gave the impression more often than not he didnt know where he was let alone his off stump. Yet he averages around 50 at home and has starred in both forms of the game in good times and bad. Cook started well in india and although was poor in the ashes still looks a good bet at test level.

So, who im umpteen years time will finish with the best career figures ? Also, are there any others where a good eye, grit and talent will score over a classical -striaght bat in other teams ?

[Rachael]

Interesting contrast... though it needs putting in a more nuanced manner.

1. Tresco's technique was built around doing one crucial thing that Cook hasn't yet mastered... which is playing the ball late. This is - technically speaking - the optimum way to play. It maximises one's chances when countering lateral movement... and is something Cook MUST master in order to progress.

2. Cook's technique (thus far) is at least in part founded around Gooch-like playing of the percentages: he uses his height to try and avoid having his technique tested. He's got absolutely NOTHING in the way of classical technique against spin... but has managed OK in this series by finding a way of surviving.

IN short... you could argue that Tresco's technique was better than Cook's technique....

ps. What I don't suppose ANYONE would dispute is that Tresco's ability to play the ball late would improve Cook's average and that Cook's footwork would have improved Tresco's average.

[greg]

In a way you could make the same sort of comparison between Bell and Pietersen as both of them have totally different styles but bring different qualities to the team.

Going back to the original question i think Cook will end up the more important of the two in tests as he has shown already that when he gets in he converts it into hundreds which was something Tresco struggled to do for a long time and only mastered after he had played about 40 games.If Cook continues like he is imagine how good a player he will be after the same period in international cricket.

Tresco has one major thing over Cook though,he was easily our best one day player for about 5 years until KP arrived on the scene and basically carried the team for quite a while singlehandedly,something which Cook will never be able to do as he is more of an accumulator than bighitter.

I am glad we have had both and look forward to many years of Cook at the top of the order,it is just a shame he never had the chance to learn off Tresco as i am sure he would have been able to pass on quite a few things.

[Rachael]

Bell seems to me to combine the best of both Tresco and Cook: he's got that wonderful ability to play the ball late... but combines it with a compactness at the crease (and mental discipline) that no other England player has matched since Atherton.

The contrast with Pietersen is good... but it's still not about technique vs eye for the ball... it's more a matter of an English style optimised for facing the new ball on pitches that offer seam movement (in climates that encourage swing) vs. a style optimised for taking advantage of an older, softer ball (and any tiredness on the part of the attack) on true pitches in less humid climates.

[pie_chucker]

A tough one. Tres was an invaluble opener because often he got us off to a good start and especially in 2005 this put the bowling team on the defensive and got us on a roll. A dont think that Cook will ever be able to do this.

Its aslo a tad unfair to say Tres has a poor technique, whilst his footwork is minimal he does transfer his weight well (either way) which is just as essential as your actual foot movement.

That said providing we can find Cook a positive opening partner and he continues his development he should become a very fine test player, with a better record than Tres.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

That said providing we can find Cook a positive opening partner and he continues his development he should become a very fine test player, with a better record than Tres.

Cook's most recent innings saw him put on 62 off 124 balls at exactly 3 an over on a slow and low pitch that made scoring tough. Kevin Pietersen, in the same innings as Cook, posted 45 off 79 balls at 3.36 / over. Cook's strike rate was marginally up on what Jayawardene managed in his exemplary 195.

As for an opening partner.... Vaughan should be around for a while... and his strike rate through the match was just about the best on show: highest of anyone in England's 1st innings, higher than any Sri Lankan managed and right up there in England's 2nd innings.

ps. Vaughan's now batting with the authority he had in Australia in the series that made his name... which might well also be the last time he was able to play as unimpaired by injury: now he's once again able to play the trademark swivel pull without his knee being a major concern he should be the perfect partner for Cook.

[pie_chucker]

Vaughan could well be Cooks ideal opening partner.

One thing Vaughan has always done well is convert starts into scores - against Australia only once has he passed 50 and not went onto a substantial (150+) score. As a downside Vaughan also gets a lot of low scores as well....

[Rachael]

As I recall, Goatman did some sort of analysis of this a few years ago... and found that Vaughan and Tresco were BOTH exemplary starters (in terms of reaching the 20s). Tresco was better at converting starts into meaningful scores (50+). Vaughan was less impressive at reaching 50 but was just about the best in the history of the game at converting 50s into 150s.