England's openers at Headingley.

[Sudeep]

Let's not get into this discussion here. I am for Ramesh to open. Let's end this here.

I am doing a feature article on India's possible opening pairs, where I will discuss the pros and cons of each.

Maybe after I've done with that, we can start a thread on that.

 

[chicane]

I am for Ramesh to open.

Interesting. When will you post the article?

 

[Sudeep]

But you said a specialist opener should not be dropped down the order. Vaughan, Strauss and Trescothick are all specialist openers. That implies one of them should be dropped from the side.

How can you drop the captain or someone who has made 200 runs?

First and foremost, I am presuming Hussain won't retire, and Giles will be left out.

So the discussion of either of the three being dropped from the side is over.

Vaughan hasn't always been an opener, as far as I stress my memory. He has suffered from a not bad, but ordinary form. He hasn't been able to score big ones on a regular basis. I wont do in to the stats, but he seems to be getting out too often to delieveries that he could have easily well not get out to. He needs some settling back.

 

[Sudeep]

Interesting. When will you post the article?

Yes, interesting indeed.

I'm not sure. Exams are looming over my head, to start from June. So I'm not entirely sure.

But definitely before India play their next Test.

 

[badgerhair]

Vaughan hasn't always been an opener, as far as I stress my memory.

Vaughan hasn't always opened for England. When he first got into the side, Atherton and Butcher were the established openers, with Stewart as the other one in case, and by the time he'd stopped being injured every other match, Trescothick had ensconced himself. So there was never a Test vacancy for Vaughan in the position in which he had played 98% of his first-class career until Atherton retired and he could assume his normal position.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Sudeep]

there was never a Test vacancy for Vaughan in the position in which he had played 98% of his first-class career

Cheers,

Mike

Is that correct?

I thought David Byas and Martyn Moxon opened for a long period for Yorkshire, while Vaughan was number 3 or 4.

I might be wrong. Correct me if I am.

 

[PY]

You are partially correct as I saw Michael Vaughan score a fifty live against Nottinghamshire at number three a while ago.

Reason I remember is because it was at the end of my road.

 

[Sudeep]

I think it was Byas, Moxon and Vaughan as 1,2 and 3 in a revolving system.

 

[badgerhair]

Is that correct?

I thought David Byas and Martyn Moxon opened for a long period for Yorkshire, while Vaughan was number 3 or 4.

I might be wrong. Correct me if I am.

I will. Byas was never an opener in county championship games. I rarely bother to go to one-dayers of any stripe, so I've got no personal knowledge of this, but I believe Byas opened quite a bit in pyjama cricket, so it's entirely possible that Vaughan has been a middle-order player in what I still think of as the Sunday League, even if they do play a lot of matches midweek these days.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Sudeep]

Ok, I think 98% might be correct.

I went through past scoreboards. Vaughan seems to have opened in most.

 

[Sudeep]

I will. Byas was never an opener in county championship games. I rarely bother to go to one-dayers of any stripe, so I've got no personal knowledge of this, but I believe Byas opened quite a bit in pyjama cricket, so it's entirely possible that Vaughan has been a middle-order player in what I still think of as the Sunday League, even if they do play a lot of matches midweek these days.

Cheers,

Mike

Yes, I you're right on that. Byas hadn't opened in many County Championship games before Moxon left. He opened only in those what you called pyjama cricket matches.

 

[badgerhair]

I'm going to save Eddie the trouble.

You said Trescothick shouldn't open because of Headingley being a seamers' paradise but it isn't. As Eddie pointed out, and Marc in the Eng v NZ thread, Headingley has been a bit of a spinning paradise so far this season. As Trescothick is a far from bad player of spin, your argument becomes redundant.

I'd love to know where this "Headingley has become a spinner's paradise this season" bit comes from. MacGill (rated 22 in the world) took a reasonable bag on a last day, and Dawson (a Test bowler) and Udal (an ODI bowler) have taken some tailenders out. Good bowlers have undone bad batsmen, but that doesn't make Headingley a dustbowl all of a sudden. The Test is going to be my first visit this year, but I shall be immensely surprised if it is anything other than the usual seamer-friendly track.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[luckyeddie]

I'd love to know where this "Headingley has become a spinner's paradise this season" bit comes from.

Don't rob me of my best TEC wind-up in weeks, Mike

 

[a massive zebra]

I'd love to know where this "Headingley has become a spinner's paradise this season" bit comes from. MacGill (rated 22 in the world) took a reasonable bag on a last day, and Dawson (a Test bowler) and Udal (an ODI bowler) have taken some tailenders out. Good bowlers have undone bad batsmen, but that doesn't make Headingley a dustbowl all of a sudden.

Are you calling Richard Dawson a good bowler?

 

[Craig]

Are you calling Richard Dawson a good bowler?

And where did he say that?

 

[PY]

I'd love to know where this "Headingley has become a spinner's paradise this season" bit comes from. MacGill (rated 22 in the world) took a reasonable bag on a last day, and Dawson (a Test bowler) and Udal (an ODI bowler) have taken some tailenders out. Good bowlers have undone bad batsmen, but that doesn't make Headingley a dustbowl all of a sudden. The Test is going to be my first visit this year, but I shall be immensely surprised if it is anything other than the usual seamer-friendly track.

Cheers,

Mike

The spinners' paradise was a slight exaggeration in response to a slight exaggeration. It isn't and never will be a dust bowl. Apologies Mike.

Pete

 

[superkingdave]

RE: Trescothick

For all you Treco haters out there, here's someone who agree's with you...

Why Nasser Hussain should stay
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13649-1123140,00.html
Hussain's feats start great England debate
By Shane Warne



SELECTION can be simple at times, but on other occasions it needs a bit of thought and a lot of guts. Unless England drop a batsman at Headingley, they will be fudging the issue. Andrew Strauss must stay and so should Nasser Hussain. The best way to keep both and still maintain the balance of the team is to leave out Marcus Trescothick.
Trescothick is a very good one-day player, but I think he has been found out at Test level over the past two years. You do not have to be Einstein to work out the way to bowl at him and his technique does not seem to be adaptable. A batsman who keeps getting out in the same way needs to make a few changes.



Michael Vaughan has to come back if he is fit. He is England’s best batsman, simple as that. The easy option then is to leave out Ashley Giles on the basis that Headingley is not usually a great ground for spinners. But even if he takes only one wicket in each innings, it might be the vital one. Captains like to know that they have that variety up their sleeve.

Hussain was probably next in line to go before Lord’s. Since then he has played a vital innings, which was one of the main reasons for England’s victory. I must admit, I expected New Zealand to win on the final day. Hussain helped to prove me wrong and he deserves to hold his place.

I have been surprised at the number of negative comments about Hussain around the county circuit. It seems he is not all that popular around the country among fellow players and people he has played against. One reason for that might be the way he has treated younger players in his squads.

As much as people might want him to go, though, this is not the right time. I certainly do not think he should retire just yet. If he finishes at the end of the summer — which has probably been at the back of his mind all along — it will enable Trescothick to go back to Somerset and learn how to play again. A few hundreds in four-day cricket might be the best thing for him. Perhaps at the moment he thinks he is untouchable.
Strauss looked very calm and accomplished at Lord’s. He should have gone on to his second hundred in the match. I don’t want to stir things up, so let’s just say that the run-out with Hussain was unfortunate. In the Australian vocabulary, poor old Strauss was left to cook on the barbecue. Opening alongside Vaughan would keep that left-hand/right-hand balance, which can be difficult for bowlers. I just hope his tyres aren’t pumped too soon. Often the guys who succeed in the long term in Test cricket are not those who make a phenomenal start. When things go wrong, they don’t always cope.

I can think of Greg Blewett, who rattled off a couple of quick centuries back home without ever really kicking on. On the other side are people such as Steve Waugh, Ian Healy, Glenn McGrath and myself, who began slowly, realised how hard Test cricket is and eventually came through.

Having said that, it was a great Test match, which really sets up the series. New Zealand, with their excellent captain, Stephen Fleming, always prepare thoroughly and will hatch some plans for Headingley. If Shane Bond is fit, I still think they’ll win the series. But for now, well done England. I’m sure the call is starting to go out: “Bring on Australia.”

 

[luckyeddie]

For all you Treco haters out there, here's someone who agree's with you...

I think you'll find there's one - just that he's got a big gob.

His real name is M T Wessels

Saying that, it is a very astute article

 

[a massive zebra]

And where did he say that?

Here.

Dawson (a Test bowler) and Udal (an ODI bowler) have taken some tailenders out. Good bowlers have undone bad batsmen

 

[Sussexshark]

Welcome to CW.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a Giles fan. However, I know a bit about cricket, having watched and studied the game for nearly 40 years.

I don't think that foot outside leg line would have been a decision Giles took on his own (certainly not on this occasion) - furthermore, under the circumstances which prevailed at the time it was absolutely perfect tactics. The one thing you never ever do with Nathan Astle or Chris Cairns is give them room to free their arms unless you have fielders 20 rows back.

A few months ago, I would have snatched anyone's hand off if they were going to give me Daniel Vettori as England's spin option - until recent times, a real class act as far as finger spinners go. In this game, Giles bowled him off the park, no contest.

Move along, this is not the 'droid you are looking for.

Eddie

I don't know why you mentioned Vettori. I hadn't as I was concentrating on English spinners. It may or may not have been preplanned that Giles bowled the way he did; I just feel he bowls like that too much and is therefore can legitimately be considered a defensive bowler. The great spinners never do that as they have more confidence in their ability, as do/did their captains.

I too am an old hand having been a cricket nut now fore 48 years. I still remember getting listening to cricket commentary on the radio in 1956 in the days when the BBC covered county games. Oh joy! Specially when Keith Miller was got out for a duck!!!

Cheers