Mark Butcher Retires

[sledger]

Probably one for the "cricketers that had potential" thread if he's not already had a nod. Martyr to injuries both real and imaginary, sadly.

Yeah I would agree with that, had he actually lived up to his potential and remained uninjured then he would have made a far superior option to the likes on display at the present.

 

[Richard]

Interestingly, it seems more than ever to have been that horrific blow he was crashed at The WACA in 2002/03 that turned him from expensive wicket-taker to expensive palm-tree (ie, almost harmless unless you are careless enough to get in the wrong place and let a coconut fall on you but still pretty and scenic in the background). Until then his First-Class strike-rate, when he did play, was superb; since returning from Australia in 2003 it's been poor indeed.

Whether he'd have been of significant use even if he'd carried-on as he was up to 2002 though is a moot point.

 

[nightprowler10]

Didn't even know Butcher was still playing! Always liked him. Only one from the English team who ever kicked my ass in Cricket 2004.

 

[wpdavid]

That innings at Headingley was by no means his most important knock for England. Arguably, withouit some absolutely vital efforts from Butcher (and Hussain), the revival under Vaughan would have been still-born. Notably the hundred at Trent Bridge which set up a series levelling win and without which we'd have probably gone two down in the series. And then there were those innings in the Caribbean - first 2 tests iirc - after the openers had gone for next to nothing and only Thorpe to come which set up those wins. I think Vaughan made quite a big deal about those innings, and quite rightly so.


Obviously under-achieved a lot of the time though, and often frustratingly gave it away when set. But his role in setting up the highs of 2004 & 2005 shouldn't be underestimated.

 

[GIMH]

I did try and acknowledge his importance to our revival in the OP in my defence

 

[Richard]

Didn't even know Butcher was still playing!

Possibly because, even though he was still "playing", as such, he's barely actually "played" in the last couple of years.

 

[Richard]

That innings at Headingley was by no means his most important knock for England. Arguably, withouit some absolutely vital efforts from Butcher (and Hussain), the revival under Vaughan would have been still-born. Notably the hundred at Trent Bridge which set up a series levelling win and without which we'd have probably gone two down in the series. And then there were those innings in the Caribbean - first 2 tests iirc - after the openers had gone for next to nothing and only Thorpe to come which set up those wins. I think Vaughan made quite a big deal about those innings, and quite rightly so.

Yeah, he certainly played decently-ish early in the Vaughan era. Nonetheless, that Headingley knock, to chase down a target which would prove far too much on perhaps 95-98% of occasions, maybe more, is far and away his best for me, even if not neccessarily the most important.

Don't underestimate its importance either. Without it, we'd have fallen to our first-ever five-nil home Ashes whitewash. As it is, we're still waiting for that.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Very surprised to see Butcher being described by some as having unfulfilled potential. Very ordinary technique full of holes against all types of bowling. Played many more times for England than he should have.

 

[Richard]

Which occasions specifically are you referring to? Should he have not been called-up in 1997? Should he have not been recalled in 1998? Should he have been dropped at any point between 2001 and 2004?

The only time when I'd have left Butcher out in which the selectors picked him would've been 1999 and 1999/2000, when his game was all over the place, and in fact in 2001 when he was recalled despite doing nothing much to merit it. From 1997 to 1998/99 he looked a well-organised opener (even if he was hopeless against spin) who could potentially have had Test success (and briefly in 1998 he did). From 2001 onwards he again looked a well-organised player, even if he was batting out of position, who did well enough to keep a hold on a place. He was certainly never going to be a truly top-shelf Test player but he managed, in the end, to be a serviceable one for a time, and in my view could have done better earlier than he ended-up doing.

Certainly far better than anyone else to open with Atherton between Gooch in 1993 and himself in 1998.

 

[tooextracool]

Worst man ever to play more than 70 Tests for England as a batsman.

Not like that comment means a lot. Him playing 70 tests puts him in an elite group as it is.

 

[tooextracool]

Certainly far better than anyone else to open with Atherton between Gooch in 1993 and himself in 1998.

and Stewart when he wasn't keeping. Stewart was a far far better player opening than he was anywhere else in the middle order IMO. Loved ball coming nicely onto bat and he enjoyed the new ball as a result.

 

[tooextracool]

Very ordinary technique full of holes against all types of bowling.

Out of curiousity, what do you think was wrong with Butcher's technique? I know he had significant issues against spin early on in his career but on his return in 2001 he was a much improved player.

 

[Pigeon]

****. I read it as Mark Boucher retires and almost had a heartache.

 

[Richard]

and Stewart when he wasn't keeping. Stewart was a far far better player opening than he was anywhere else in the middle order IMO. Loved ball coming nicely onto bat and he enjoyed the new ball as a result.

Forgot about Stewart, somehow, TBH. Though I was never in favour of him opening and not keeping, because I believed England were stronger with him keeping than not keeping.

Interestingly, though, Stewart's record with the bat is best as a middle-order batsman and non-wicketkeeper. Not opener-non-wicketkeeper, as is often believed.