*Official** New Zealand in England

[PY]

Technically speaking, if we account for Butcher's shocking start to his Test career, it looks a little better.

Hmm, actually, looking at it, me and Craig have clashing numbers. Need someone to check too methinks.

Butcher at 3 (mine) - 2594 runs @ 41.17 with 6 centuries and 15 fifties.

EDIT : Sorted it out now.

 

[Craig]

is 40.53 a bad average?

Of course not.

I'm just want to know Marc's reasoning behind in saying Butcher is one of England's greatest ever no.3's.

If Vaughan is going to miss this Test, then Butcher should open and Colingwood bat at 5.

If this is long term (ie 3-9 months), then yes Strauss should play.

 

[tooextracool]

If Vaughan is going to miss this Test, then Butcher should open and Colingwood bat at 5.

If this is long term (ie 3-9 months), then yes Strauss should play.

dont agree with you there....3 is where butcher has played his best cricket for england, and 3 is where he should stay. i think strauss should come in regardless of how long vaughan is out because he performed better than colly in the ODIs in the WI and because our other opener is always going to be right under the axe.

 

[Craig]

If it is a one off event, then I'm sure Butcher is able to cope at opening for one match.

 

[Loony BoB]

Of course, just because Collingwood is available doesn't mean he should go first choice without consideration for the man he's replacing. What's important is that it's a batsman capable of playing a similar position/role to Vaughan within the batting lineup... It's not a question of who is the better batsman, but rather who would be a better replacement for Vaughan?

I haven't seen enough of either of them, but from what I have seen in the ODI's I feel that Strauss looks more promising. But I really just haven't seen enough of them, so yeah.

As for all the Butcher stuff - well, Fleming spent years upon years at #3 and he still moves up the order if and when required. Well, if and when the selectors feel it is required, anyway.

 

[twctopcat]

I hope the selectors choose Strauss over Colly not because of his ODI form but for the other obvious reasons that he opens for Middlesex in county cricket and because his home ground is Lord's, making him better suited for this test. However due to the fact that England never seem to take "risks" when selecting, i doubt this will happen.

 

[marc71178]

Mark Butcher at 3 - 2594 runs @ 40.53, with 6 100s and 15 50s.

I'm sure there has been more successful first drops for England then Mark Butcher.

Actually, you'd be surprised - and I did say one of the most, not the most.

 

[marc71178]

I'm just want to know Marc's reasoning behind in saying Butcher is one of England's greatest ever no.3's.

Hmm, could it be his consistent scoring and the solidity he gives to the top 3?

 

[marc71178]

Of course, just because Collingwood is available doesn't mean he should go first choice without consideration for the man he's replacing.

Definitely agree - hence he only got called up when the opener was injured - if there's a middle order player missing then Collingwood steps in (unless they pay heed to the CW idea of dumping Giles - although with Vaughan out that's not as good a plan!)

 

[Rich2001]

Of course not.

If Vaughan is going to miss this Test, then Butcher should open and Colingwood bat at 5.

I think Marc is simply saying why change something that is obviously working well.

Opener - Avg 29.54 from 49 inng(s)

3 - Avg 40.53 from 68 inng(s)

4 - Avg 0.00 from 1 inng(s)

5 - Avg 22.00 from 1 inng(s)

7 - Avg 28.00 from 1 inng(s)

Mark Butcher at 3 - 2594 runs @ 40.53, with 6 100s and 15 50s.

Mark Butcher In Total - 4086 Runs @ 35.53, with 8 100s and 21 50s

 

[tooextracool]

(unless they pay heed to the CW idea of dumping Giles - although with Vaughan out that's not as good a plan!)

because giles is going to pick up wickets? giles does provide variety but if it comes at a cost of giving away 100 runs before he gets a wicket, id rather go in with an all pace attack

 

[marc71178]

But without Vaughan we have no spin option, and that is suicidal IMO - Giles can tie up an end, and his role is often that.

 

[badgerhair]

if there's a middle order player missing then Collingwood steps in (unless they pay heed to the CW idea of dumping Giles - although with Vaughan out that's not as good a plan!)

Don't quite understand your logic here, old chap. What has Vaughan's absence to do with the advisability of playing Giles?

I'm a fan of the "leave Butcher at 3 because he has made such a success of the number three position" line, too - not least because by outperforming Tresco, Strauss would make it that much more difficult to retain a failing Tresco when Vaughan returns. On the other hand, I'm also an adherent of the "bring Collingwood in so that we can see that he's now better than Hussain" school of thought, so I'm quite keen to see both of them play, and only one of them can. Yet. So I don't really mind.

Back on the subject of El Rey de Espana, I see no point at all in picking a spinner at Lord's or Headingley in May. So perhaps we can pick both Strauss and Collingwood and assume that Butcher and Tresco can wheel in for a dozen or so overs of medium pace - or do as we did at Headingley last summer, and play five pace bowlers but let Freddy have a light load.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

Don't quite understand your logic here, old chap. What has Vaughan's absence to do with the advisability of playing Giles?

Vaughan can feasibily slip in a few overs - without him we have no variation, and that is important against a batting line-up with the depth the Kiwi's have (especially considering that they have a few men who like to "have a go" and a spinner might tempt them into holing out!)

or do as we did at Headingley last summer, and play five pace bowlers but let Freddy have a light load.

5 seamers means 1 is always vastly underused, and with the 5 we have that would mean Hoggard at 8?!

 

[badgerhair]

Vaughan can feasibily slip in a few overs - without him we have no variation, and that is important against a batting line-up with the depth the Kiwi's have (especially considering that they have a few men who like to "have a go" and a spinner might tempt them into holing out!)

I understand the point, but it really only works as a theory when Vaughan isn't captain, unless Vaughan has finally decided that he will bowl himself in such circumstances, which hasn't been the case up to now.

In fact, the theory worked very well for RSA in the last Test of their recent series in Kiwiland, in which Boje took about seven more wickets than he had any reasonable right to expect. So perhaps we should pick the wheelie-bin after all.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Wazim]

yes i saw that test, and kiwis played some dumb shots and well got stumped or caught so giles could be useful....

as for vaughans spin, it is like greame smiths spin...it just goes one way...too predictable..

 

[Kent]

What are you Brits worried about! We're playing a makeshift opener and a makeshift #3, both of which are huge LBW candidates early on.

I just hope the English management are debating how important it is to have "someone who can hold up an end", rather than smelling our blood in the water.

 

[Kent]

Just on Giles - whilst it's true that we have some macho batsmen in Styris, Macca and Cairns who can have their wickets bought, it generally has to be a spinner that takes risks.

If Giles bowls into our pads and tries to frustrate, England will just be wasting time they can ill-afford IMO. Even with mainly fine weather, to beat us they'll still need to dismiss roughly 16 test centurions (McCullum hasn't got a ton yet but will soon enough) inside 7 sessions.

 

[marc71178]

18 Test centurions?

 

[Kent]

Well, technically 8 of our 11 have test tons to their name (10 out of 11 have f/c tons I think, and McCullum an early test average close to 40).

If Chris Martin isn't shielded very well he'll provide 2 cheap wickets, but the other 18 will have to be fairly hard-earned.