Richard Johnson

[marc71178]

However, Flintoff, IMO, offers less penetration than Vaughan and Butcher (Butcher's bowling average is significantly lower)

Butcher's average is only what it because he's picked as a batsman and only if the conditions are right for him.

When a player is picked as an all rounder, he has to bowl in all conditions.

 

[Richard]

I was just wondering, what would you say IF,

all but one of the bowlers had an average of 19 or 18 with the ball, the exception had an average of say, 25.

Would you [anyone here] drop him because he was worse than the rest or would you keep him because his average is still great.

This situation is hypothetical and (i hope that it will happen to England) is opposite to the current England one...

I actually thought something similar when I read a scorecard for England v Zimbabwe in the World Cup - Mullally, Gough and Fraser were all outstanding (less than 2.7-an-over, all), Ealham was OK (10 for 35). Ealhie was poor compared to the rest of them but he still went for less than 4-an-over, so he did perfectly acceptibly - he reached the standards expected of a good one-day bowler.
But that's a good point, gibbsnsmith, I wish I'd thought of that.
I suppose, if someone who had played in a previous Test and taken, say 13 for 80, was waiting in the wings, you'd consider - and that's all, consider - giving him a call.
The guy averaging 25 could still consider himself unfortunate, though.

 

[Richard]

Depends on the competition for places.

VVS Laxman in the Indian batting is a fairly similar scenario.

In the one-day team, maybe, though Laxman's ODI average is disappointing. In the Tests he's averaged 60 for nearly 3 years - no-one can possibly contemplate dropping someone with that record. A few batsmen manage 60 in domestic Indian cricket, but not in Tests. And those runs weren't all courtesy of popgun bowling.

 

[Richard]

Butcher's average is only what it because he's picked as a batsman and only if the conditions are right for him.

When a player is picked as an all rounder, he has to bowl in all conditions.

Butcher doesn't only bowl when the conditions suit him, but yes, he bowls more when they do. I never actually said "Butcher is a better bowler than Flintoff".
However, at least Butcher has conditions in which he will be a big threat, even if has some in which he will pose a microscopic one. Flintoff will be a small threat in all conditions and a big one only on an uneven surface. Fortunately we don't get many of them.
In swinging, seaming conditions I'd have Butcher over Flintoff any day. With ball and bat. Whereas, on the evidence of Flintoff's most recent Test series, I'd have him ahead of Butcher with bat and ball on flat, grassless, non-turning wickets.

 

[Craig]

IIRC he had a superb series relative to the rest of the side (except for Vaughan) against India.

Hence he was performing well in excess of the numbers and was definitely the key absentee in Australia.

IMo he didnt achieve all that much in his two FC games or so he played when in Australia. White was a better performer.

IMO I suspect Warne would of made him look lstupid with the bat and Ponting probably would of taken him to the cleaners.