I'm angry at McMillan

[marc71178]

Butcher thinks he's better at three than opening. Despite the fact he's been an opener all his life.
Sometimes players misperceive even their own ability.

Right, so the actual player who is out there doing it knows less about himself than you do now does he?

 

[Richard]

Yep.
Have you never countenanced the thought that on some matters concerning ourselves there are others who know better than us?
My mum constantly tells me she knows me better than I do.

 

[marc71178]

Have you never countenanced the thought that on some matters concerning ourselves there are others who know better than us?

I think that Butcher knows a hell of a lot more about his game than you do, and he thinks he is better at number 3 (as the record he has there shows)

 

[Rik]

I think that Butcher knows a hell of a lot more about his game than you do, and he thinks he is better at number 3 (as the record he has there shows)

I'm pretty sure batting at 3 hasn't made Butcher a better player, if you put him back to opening or dropped him down the order he'd still score the same ammount of runs. It's just that he's a solid player to have coming in after the aggressive Trescothick and Vaughan, who also, due to their success, have made Butcher the recognised number 3. Also Butcher has been given the number 3 position because his major success innings, that 173*, came from batting there. But if you look at the team, Butcher also bats at 3 because Tresco and Vaughan are the recognised opening partnership, Hussain likes batting at 4 even though his main success came at 3 (that 207 for example) and Thorpe is the perfect player to have coming in at 5. Any young batsmen bat at 6 with Flintoff at 7 and Read at 8. Butcher still opens the batting for Surrey, and he still plays the same as he does when he's at 3 for England, basically when he's in form he'll attack, when he's not, he'll stick in and work his way to a score. Whatever though, despite his recent low scores, I wouldn't want anyone else batting at 3.

 

[marc71178]

But the point is he himself feels he is better at 3 than opening, and that to me suggests we never move him (especially as there's no-one else jumping up and down saying "bat me at 3")

 

[Craig]

Ed Smith would of be ideal there if Butcher gets injured.

 

[Mingster]

My mum constantly tells me she knows me better than I do.

It's called a mummy teaching their little children to listen to the mummy.

 

[Richard]

Believe me, if you knew my mum, you wouldn't say that!

 

[Richard]

I think that Butcher knows a hell of a lot more about his game than you do, and he thinks he is better at number 3 (as the record he has there shows)

No, it shows nothing of the sort - it simply shows that he is a better player from 2001 onwards than he was for most of the period between 1997 and 1999\2000.
Butcher, meanwhile, has fallen into the trap of believing that misleading outlook on his record and has looked by no streatch of the imagination better at three than one.

 

[Richard]

But the point is he himself feels he is better at 3 than opening, and that to me suggests we never move him (especially as there's no-one else jumping up and down saying "bat me at 3")

No, there's not - the best option would be to get Vaughan back to four and put Hussain back where he belongs.

 

[Rik]

No, there's not - the best option would be to get Vaughan back to four and put Hussain back where he belongs.

If Vaughan continues to build on his starts I would agree with you, but at the moment Trescothick and Vaughan provide the strongest opening-partnership England could field. Vaughan did nothing at 4, 3 or 5.

 

[marc71178]

No, it shows nothing of the sort - it simply shows that he is a better player from 2001 onwards than he was for most of the period between 1997 and 1999\2000.

Which is of course just coincidental that he's batting at 3 then.

 

[marc71178]

No, there's not - the best option would be to get Vaughan back to four and put Hussain back where he belongs.

Not again - why break up something that has been very successful for something that is much much less successful and the players are less happy doing?

 

[Tom Halsey]

I would have to agree with Marc there.

 

[Mingster]

I don't want to know your mum though.

If McMillan doesn't perform, instep Taylor at 3, pushing Marshall down to 4, Styris to 5 and Cairns below him. That looks more solid.

 

[Craig]

I'm prepared to wait to next season and see how well he does before we harp on how great Taylor is.

Anyway cant taylor bat at 4?

 

[Linda]

McMillan seems to have done alright today in the ODI. 71* of 69 balls, not a bad effort. Still I suppose the test is doing it again...

 

[Tim]

By the looks of it...NZ may persist with this idea of McCullum at #3, playing him as a pinch-hitter.
McCullum is capable of playing some explosive innings but he's yet to really do it successfully at international level.

 

[Richard]

Which is of course just coincidental that he's batting at 3 then.

Yes, it is.
If you look at the 1997-1999\2000 record opening and at three, there's negligible difference.
If you look at the 2001-2003 record opening and at three, there's negligible difference.
The notable difference is between the periods, not the positions.

 

[Richard]

Not again - why break up something that has been very successful for something that is much much less successful and the players are less happy doing?

To make the players realise that there's no reason they shouldn't be happy doing it.
If Vaughan's failures as an opener continue (and exclude the Bangladesh games - like it or not, they're worth nothing more than CC games - and they are failures).
There has been no difference between Hussain's successes and failures at three and four, Butcher is actually better opening than at three, even if the average that matters shows a difference of about 4 in the opposite direction; and Vaughan is better at four than opening, that is shown clearly by his first-chance average when opening - and recently the first-chance average has started to become the same as the scorebook one, so maybe you'll have to accept the pattern before long.
That's why break-up something for something else.