Bracewell

[Kent]

with regard to no other options, opening with fleming doesnt exactly open a place for someone brilliant at 3 or 4 does it? sacrificing your best batsman by playing him out of position and possibly being worse off for the sake of not having someone else to open the batting doesnt exactly sound like the right idea.

I don't agree that it's inherently "sacrificing" Fleming at all. Batting at #3 hardly stopped him from getting out to decent balls in the AUS series. Pitches are now so good in general that even Gayle and Sehwag are successful, so IMO Fleming would be letting his own talent down if he can't make it work.

If Fleming's prepared to forgo the chance of a blank canvas at 0/0 and is willing to come in regularly with sharks already circling at 0-20/1, that's up to him. But they have to stop playing Sinclair as an opener - it's just a foolish concession of psychological advantage and a waste of what he's actually capable of.

 

[Richard]

Pitches are now so good in general that even Gayle and Sehwag are successful, so IMO Fleming would be letting his own talent down if he can't make it work.

IMO Gayle has more discretion than most people give him credit for.
I think he'd make a pretty decent Test opener, the way he's played for the last year, had he debuted 10 years ago.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't agree that it's inherently "sacrificing" Fleming at all. Batting at #3 hardly stopped him from getting out to decent balls in the AUS series. Pitches are now so good in general that even Gayle and Sehwag are successful, so IMO Fleming would be letting his own talent down if he can't make it work.

If Fleming's prepared to forgo the chance of a blank canvas at 0/0 and is willing to come in regularly with sharks already circling at 0-20/1, that's up to him. But they have to stop playing Sinclair as an opener - it's just a foolish concession of psychological advantage and a waste of what he's actually capable of.

oh he wont fail, because anyone whos as good as he is wont. but IMO he will be less successful, less consistent and will struggle in conditions that offer seam movement early on.
as far as sinclair is concerned, yes he shouldnt be playing as an opener. i dont know about the state of NZ domestic cricket but surely there must be some other promising young opener somewhere who hasnt been a proven failure?

 

[tooextracool]

IMO Gayle has more discretion than most people give him credit for.
I think he'd make a pretty decent Test opener, the way he's played for the last year, had he debuted 10 years ago.

of course the fact that its highly unlikely that he will ever succeed on seamer friendly wickets must be taken into account. not too surprising that his worst performances in that england series came at old trafford either....

 

[Richard]

Well I genuinely hope he plays in some seaming conditions sometime, because IMO he's much better than just a purely flat-track bully... not that it's not highly likely he'll get better averages on flat tracks, because that applies to any batsman.

 

[tooextracool]

Well I genuinely hope he plays in some seaming conditions sometime, because IMO he's much better than just a purely flat-track bully... not that it's not highly likely he'll get better averages on flat tracks, because that applies to any batsman.

you mean like the eng-WI series in the WI?

 

[Richard]

No, he didn't distinguish himself - how many balls that seamed did he actually get out to, incidentally?
Most were just his customary rashness, trying to cut or drive balls that weren't there to.
The Kensington Oval dismissals were clearly two instances, but the others IIRR all resulted from misjudgement of line or length rather than movement.

 

[tooextracool]

No, he didn't distinguish himself - how many balls that seamed did he actually get out to, incidentally?
Most were just his customary rashness, trying to cut or drive balls that weren't there to.
The Kensington Oval dismissals were clearly two instances, but the others IIRR all resulted from misjudgement of line or length rather than movement.

there were at least 3- one in the 2nd innings in jamaica when he was undone by away movement and edged it to slip, the first iining at queens park where he edged an angled ball to read and then of course when hoggard got him out at barbados in the first innings lbw to one that was swinging in, irrespective of the fact that it might have gone down leg.
and of course cutting those balls due to rashness or whatever you want to call it is something that he gets away with on flat wickets, and things that he wont get away with on wickets that offer something for the bowlers.

 

[Richard]

OK, let's just say "we'll see" - whenever the next time he plays on flat wickets is.
BTW, I did mention the Hoggard lbw in the first-innings at Kensington.

 

[tooextracool]

OK, let's just say "we'll see" - whenever the next time he plays on flat wickets is.

remind me why you dont rate tresco and rate gayle again? gayle has even worse foot movement and one of the worst temperaments you'll ever see.

BTW, I did mention the Hoggard lbw in the first-innings at Kensington.

yes and there were 3 out of 6, and thats not counting the one at old trafford.

 

[Smudge]

On topic please...

 

[Craig]

This is CW Voltman, apparently they do not go hand-and-hand.

 

[Smudge]

This is CW Voltman, apparently they do not go hand-and-hand.

I know - I was seeing if it worked though...

It shut them up for a while.

 

[Richard]

remind me why you dont rate tresco and rate gayle again? gayle has even worse foot movement and one of the worst temperaments you'll ever see.

Because Gayle has scored runs on flat pitches - Trescothick has scored runs only because he's had luck or in very short spells (summer 2001 and summer 2004).
Trescothick's weaknesses aren't when the ball is moving, they're simply when the ball is pitched in the right place.

yes and there were 3 out of 6, and thats not counting the one at old trafford.

Well I only looked at the series in West Indies, which is what you mentioned.

 

[tooextracool]

Because Gayle has scored runs on flat pitches - Trescothick has scored runs only because he's had luck or in very short spells (summer 2001 and summer 2004).
Trescothick's weaknesses aren't when the ball is moving, they're simply when the ball is pitched in the right place.

trescos weakness is when the ball is pitched on the right place at the right pace. but the reason for that stem down to his foot movement, which is a touch better than gayles.

Well I only looked at the series in West Indies, which is what you mentioned.

well whatever way you looked at, he still hasnt succeeded on seamer friendly wickets, and hes had plenty of chances.