The Ashes are coming home!

[tooextracool]

Butcher & Atherton > Trescothick

butcher who was averaging in the 20s back then

 

[tooextracool]

It's not part of the scorecard - it is, however, something over which there can be no disputing.
And what I neglected to mention to you the last time was that all the relevant matches were in South Africa, so the readings are not in the least misleading.

yes its all so convenient how that happened. did it also say that pollock takes lucky wickets?

 

[Richard]

Ealham for Flintoff?? Egad. I suspect you may be alone there old cake.

Where in Capricorn did I say that?
Ealham < all the current seamers

I'd stick with Tres, poss Athers' for Strauss but I think it's my heart saying that.

Trescothick, better than Butcher or Atherton? Trescothick better than Strauss? None.
Out of the 4 Trescothick is the worst, by a little way IMO.

Vaughan far better than Creepy could dream of being.

Well, Crawley averaged 97 against the subcontinental teams - but against non-subcontinentals, obviously Vaughan is far, far better - I said that didn't I?

Giles now, better than Croft then.

Neither Giles nor Croft have changed much in their Test-careers - throughout both have been equal in almost every way.
Both extremely good bowlers on turners, both exceptionally poor on non-turners.

 

[Richard]

or because the sum of individual players dont always end up being equal to the actual teams performance. if you think that, that side with all the internal problems in there was just as good as this one with the teamwork, the fielding & and the captaincy, then you are obviously out of your mind.

The behind-the-scenes bliss might be better; the captaincy might be better (IMO Vaughan and Atherton haven't got a tremendous amount to divide them, Vaughan's just had far more circumstances in his favour); the fielding's a bit better, yes, but there are still days where it can be exceptionally poor, even if there's not been anything as bad as SSC 2003\04 since then.
The current side is better, by a very small margin, but that has nothing to do with the players being better.

 

[Swervy]

The current side is better, by a very small margin, but that has nothing to do with the players being better.

Oh my god....what are you talking about

This current England teams is light years ahead of any team England had in the late 90's

 

[Richard]

if you wanted a player to score against australia, i think i'd rather have tresco but in reality id rather have someone better than the 2 of them.

If you wanted someone to score runs against Australia in England you'd better not go for an opener because no-one can realistically expect to survive many of the deliveries McGrath (and others) bowled to Atherton (and others) on seaming pitches.
Which is why Bell's many similarities to Atherton don't extend to a likelihood of failing against Aus.

 

[tooextracool]

The behind-the-scenes bliss might be better; the captaincy might be better (IMO Vaughan and Atherton haven't got a tremendous amount to divide them, Vaughan's just had far more circumstances in his favour); the fielding's a bit better, yes, but there are still days where it can be exceptionally poor, even if there's not been anything as bad as SSC 2003\04 since then.
The current side is better, by a very small margin, but that has nothing to do with the players being better.

yes it does, because as i've said a million times 1 on 1 comparisons are totally and completely useless.
and i dont think a team that plays more like a team now, has better fielders(and doesnt put down a million chances in a series), and has no internal problems whatsoever is only 'slightly' better than one that has all of them.

 

[Richard]

Oh my god....what are you talking about

This current England teams is light years ahead of any team England had in the late 90's

Which has a lot to do with the fact that the behind-the-scenes team are better, not because the players are much superior.
Less injuries, less internal bickering, less chop-and-change selection, and 1 or 2 better players.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh my god....what are you talking about

This current England teams is light years ahead of any team England had in the late 90's

oh come of it, they were equal for the large part, then ramprakash came into it and they fell light years behind.

 

[Richard]

Atherton wouldnt get into this team, because he doesnt suit the teams character..Trescothick is a part of the very fibre of this team.

All you are doing is taking a wild guess at what there averages would be in different times..you have absolutely nothing to back you up on that at all.

Atherton was a good opening bat, who early in his career really looked like he would fulfil the potential he showed in his teens..in fact, he never really did fulfil that potential...he was solid and did some great work for England.

Trescothick is a completely different type of player, he is someone who typifies test cricket these days, he takes his chances sometimes it comes off, sometimes it doesnt..when he is in form there arent too many openers in the world who are as effective as he is...he has had his rough times, but he is becoming more consistant I think now.

Trescothick is an initiative grabber...which is the way the 'art' of opening is going these days..Atherton was a grinder, but thats how it was done then. At heart Trescothick isnt an opener, and if he played in the 90's I think he would have come in at 5 or something.
You just cant write Trescothick off like that, becuase the two players were completely different

And Atherton has far, far more basic cricketing skill than Trescothick will ever have - whether Atherton "wouldn't fit into the current team" or not is not relevant, because the fact is Trescothick has been moulded in the current team, as Atherton was in his.
It was not a case of Atherton fitted the 90s team, but the 90s team caused Atherton to be what he was.
And to think that such a shrewd, thoughtful character as Atherton couldn't fit himself to this team is ridiculous.
Yes, Trescothick has exceeded my expections since the start of summer 2004 (averaged nearly 50 since then) but for most of his career he's been extremely poor and very lucky and you've got to have more than 1 good season for me.

 

[Richard]

yes it does, because as i've said a million times 1 on 1 comparisons are totally and completely useless.
and i dont think a team that plays more like a team now, has better fielders(and doesnt put down a million chances in a series), and has no internal problems whatsoever is only 'slightly' better than one that has all of them.

Just how many times outside Ashes have England put down a million chances in a series since the mid-90s?
Not that often.

 

[tooextracool]

If you wanted someone to score runs against Australia in England you'd better not go for an opener because no-one can realistically expect to survive many of the deliveries McGrath (and others) bowled to Atherton (and others) on seaming pitches.

strange then that atherton's average got worse in australia. and the fact that hussain, thorpe and even butcher in 2001 managed to score runs against them.

 

[Richard]

yes its all so convenient how that happened.

No, it's not, it's basic speed-gun facts.

did it also say that pollock takes lucky wickets?

No, but his average on flat pitches did say that he wasn't that good a bowler on them.

 

[Swervy]

And Atherton has far, far more basic cricketing skill than Trescothick will ever have

oh yeah..and what skills did Atherton have that far exceeded those of Trescothick

 

[Richard]

strange then that atherton's average got worse in australia. and the fact that hussain, thorpe and even butcher in 2001 managed to score runs against them.

Atherton's average in Australia includes 1998\99 when he was never, ever going to score a thing because he simply wasn't close to being fit and his movements were badly restricted.
I don't know about 1994\95 because I've never seen a single ball from it, but I do wonder how many good balls he got then. I'd not be surprised if it were quite a few.

 

[tooextracool]

Just how many times outside Ashes have England put down a million chances in a series since the mid-90s?
Not that often.

have you heard of exaggeration?
and seriously, if you think that the england team didnt put down on average at learst 20 catches in the ashes series, then you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Where in Capricorn did I say that?
Ealham < all the current seamers

Trescothick, better than Butcher or Atherton? Trescothick better than Strauss? None.
Out of the 4 Trescothick is the worst, by a little way IMO.

Well, Crawley averaged 97 against the subcontinental teams - but against non-subcontinentals, obviously Vaughan is far, far better - I said that didn't I?

Neither Giles nor Croft have changed much in their Test-careers - throughout both have been equal in almost every way.
Both extremely good bowlers on turners, both exceptionally poor on non-turners.

I say, you really like a row don't you? Doesn't take much to get your back up, just a difference of opinion to your own seems to suffice. Apologies for the Ealham misunderstanding, as for the rest well, I won't bother wasting my time frankly, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Richard]

oh yeah..and what skills did Atherton have that far exceeded those of Trescothick

Er, the only really important one - his shot-selection was massively better.
He didn't tend to hook compulsively, or fail to know whether or not to play balls consistently pitched on and outside off.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it's not, it's basic speed-gun facts..

which again is never accurate. you only have to look at the last ODI between england and australia, the england bowlers were a lot faster than the aussies yet it only registered in the averages as 2-3 mph more.

No, but his average on flat pitches did say that he wasn't that good a bowler on them.

or rather his averages on flat pitches post 2001.

 

[Richard]

I say, you really like a row don't you? Doesn't take much to get your back up, just a differecet of opinion to your own seems to suffice. Apologies for the Ealham misunderstanding, as for the rest well, I won't bother wasting my time frankly, we'll agree to disagree.

I apologise if I appear to "have my back up" as you put it.
I'd genuinely be interested to hear your reasoning for Giles being better than Croft and Trescothick not being worse than Butcher, Atherton and Strauss.