Sport Today

> Vaughan: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

> Butcher: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

> It's not the second-ball ducks which worry me about the performances
> of these three. Those are an occupational hazard for openers, although
> for Butcher to get out twice in the first over was something of a
> non-achievement. But the approach they have adopted all winter has
> been most positive in the Australian style and I don't want to see
> them abandoning that any time soon. I'd like them to carry on with
> what they are doing but do it better: if they could regularly make it
> to 120 before losing the second wicket, I'd be pretty satisfied.

> Thorpe: B A double hundred and not much else.

> Ramprakash: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

> Giles: C Did what he was asked to do adequately, though his batting
> was pretty feeble. I'm not a fan of his bowling over the wicket to
> right handers; Murali and Saqlain may well do the mirror image bowling
> to left-handers, but they aren't notably successful when they do it,
> and neither is Giles.

> Vaughan: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

> Butcher: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

> > Vaughan: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

> > Butcher: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

> > It's not the second-ball ducks which worry me about the performances
> > of these three. Those are an occupational hazard for openers, although
> > for Butcher to get out twice in the first over was something of a
> > non-achievement. But the approach they have adopted all winter has
> > been most positive in the Australian style and I don't want to see
> > them abandoning that any time soon. I'd like them to carry on with
> > what they are doing but do it better: if they could regularly make it
> > to 120 before losing the second wicket, I'd be pretty satisfied.

> I don't think you want all of your top three to bat in such a style, unless
> they're really good at it.  Of the three, I suppose on reputation I expected
> most of Trescothick.  Looking back at their performances, Vaughan looked
> comfortably the best of the three.  The frenetic approach isn't the best in
> all situations: given New Zealand's ability to collapse quickly, there were
> times during the series where starting more steadily might have served them
> better.

> Yes, anyone can get out early - never more true than in this series.  The
> thing about Butcher which would worry me was not so much that he got out
> twice in the first over, but more that both were dismissals to pretty
> innocuous deliveries on middle and leg - there seems to be a big technical
> deficiency there, caused by the bat coming through from first slip to mid
> on.

> > Hussain: A+ Easily his best series personally since RSA 99-00. Played
> > the crucial innings at Christchurch, and followed up with plenty of
> > runs in the other two Tests, mostly scored under pressure. Captained
> > well too.

> > Thorpe: B A double hundred and not much else.

> > Ramprakash: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

> Less true of him than some others given the same comment.  He was protected
> from the new ball, and the shot in the first innings at Auckland was truly
> dismal.

> > Flintoff: B+ At last! He showed that he can get runs in a Test match
> > after failing dismally for so long. He still has only the barest
> > rudiments of a defence, but that may not be all that necessary if he
> > is regularly able to contribute fast 50s. However, his bowling was
> > less than truly menacing. Vic Marks suggested that this may have
> > something to do with him having little experience of bowling in fairly
> > helpful conditions because he's one of Lancs's backup bowlers and
> > doesn't get much of a chance to exploit such things. Even so, this
> > performance and his efforts in India show him to be easily the most
> > improved England cricketer.

> Fair comment.  One word of caution about the batting: my memory of his
> batting is that he always had the ability to dismiss cafeteria bowling,
> which is basically what he did in this series.  Better attacks await?

> > Foster: C+ He's not (yet) a very good keeper. He is also very young
> > and may well get better. But his keeping has not come on as far this
> > winter as has his batting, which is looking more than handy.

> > Giles: C Did what he was asked to do adequately, though his batting
> > was pretty feeble. I'm not a fan of his bowling over the wicket to
> > right handers; Murali and Saqlain may well do the mirror image bowling
> > to left-handers, but they aren't notably successful when they do it,
> > and neither is Giles.

> Giles' batting momentarily worried me today - certainly some ability there.

> > Caddick: A+ Irritatingly, I can't find anything to really criticise
> > England's (and the series's) best bowler for. He even bowled fewer bad
> > spells than usual.

> Perhaps an inability to adjust when put under pressure?  England really
> needed him on the fourth afternoon at Eden Park.  He was brought back after
> tea at a time when NZ were utterly bogged down, but from the first ball of
> his spell the pressure was released as Harris and Astle scored comfortably
> off him.  Remembering also that he really didn't bowl well in the first
> innings at Christchurch, although the three wickets in one over was a strong
> redeeming feature.  None of which changes the fact that Caddick had a
> fabulous series.

> Andrew

>Vaughan: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

>Butcher: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

>It's not the second-ball ducks which worry me about the performances
>of these three. Those are an occupational hazard for openers, although
>for Butcher to get out twice in the first over was something of a
>non-achievement. But the approach they have adopted all winter has
>been most positive in the Australian style and I don't want to see
>them abandoning that any time soon. I'd like them to carry on with
>what they are doing but do it better: if they could regularly make it
>to 120 before losing the second wicket, I'd be pretty satisfied.

>Foster: C+ He's not (yet) a very good keeper. He is also very young
>and may well get better. But his keeping has not come on as far this
>winter as has his batting, which is looking more than handy.

>Giles: C Did what he was asked to do adequately, though his batting
>was pretty feeble. I'm not a fan of his bowling over the wicket to
>right handers; Murali and Saqlain may well do the mirror image bowling
>to left-handers, but they aren't notably successful when they do it,
>and neither is Giles.

>Caddick: A+ Irritatingly, I can't find anything to really criticise
>England's (and the series's) best bowler for. He even bowled fewer bad
>spells than usual.

>Only the 19th time that a side has gone through a 3-match series
>unchanged.

>Cheers,

>Mike

>> Trescothick: D+ Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in, but
>> reached 80 once.

>> Vaughan: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

>> Butcher: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

>> I'd like them to carry on with
>> what they are doing but do it better: if they could regularly make it
>> to 120 before losing the second wicket, I'd be pretty satisfied.

>I don't think you want all of your top three to bat in such a style, unless
>they're really good at it.  Of the three, I suppose on reputation I expected
>most of Trescothick.  Looking back at their performances, Vaughan looked
>comfortably the best of the three.  The frenetic approach isn't the best in
>all situations: given New Zealand's ability to collapse quickly, there were
>times during the series where starting more steadily might have served them
>better.

>Fair comment.  One word of caution about the batting: my memory of his
>batting is that he always had the ability to dismiss cafeteria bowling,
>which is basically what he did in this series.  Better attacks await?

> >> Trescothick: D+ Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in, but
> >> reached 80 once.

> >> Vaughan: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

> >> Butcher: D Too prone to getting out to a lazy shot once in.

> >> I'd like them to carry on with
> >> what they are doing but do it better: if they could regularly make it
> >> to 120 before losing the second wicket, I'd be pretty satisfied.

> >I don't think you want all of your top three to bat in such a style,
unless
> >they're really good at it.  Of the three, I suppose on reputation I
expected
> >most of Trescothick.  Looking back at their performances, Vaughan looked
> >comfortably the best of the three.  The frenetic approach isn't the best
in
> >all situations: given New Zealand's ability to collapse quickly, there
were
> >times during the series where starting more steadily might have served
them
> >better.

> Indeed. I too thought that Vaughan looked the best of the bunch, which
> was why (to answer Jan) I didn't give him the E his numbers deserved.

> I seem to remember that I advocated Trescothick and Vaughan as openers
> with Butcher at three when the squad was announced last summer, with
> my main reason being that it would give us a left-right combination at
> the start. I think this series shows that this is probably the wrong
> theory.

> I thought that Tresco/Butch worked pretty well in India, and I'd like
> to go back to that and bring Vaughan in first drop. Because I think
> Vaughan's the more adaptable player and would be much better suited to
> be the one to come in when the opening spell is going torridly and
> help settle things down until the shine goes off.

> This also makes sense because the next cab off the rank is Ian Bell,
> who apparently wants to be Michael Atherton when he grows up, and I'd
> rather be losing Butcher than Vaughan when his claims become
> unanswerable.

> >Fair comment.  One word of caution about the batting: my memory of his
> >batting is that he always had the ability to dismiss cafeteria bowling,
> >which is basically what he did in this series.  Better attacks await?

> Oh, absolutely. Thing is, he can no longer be dismissed as a joke
> batsman - he is obviously dangerous if he gets going. Which may make
> things a bit easier for him too. But until he develops some defence,
> he's only going to be able to play cameos against decent attacks if he
> gets anything at all. Wait for those "What's up with Freddie?"
> articles after the first three Tests of the Ashes series in which he
> averages 2.83.

> But he looks pretty useful for a 23 year old.

>> I thought that Tresco/Butch worked pretty well in India, and I'd like
>> to go back to that and bring Vaughan in first drop. Because I think
>> Vaughan's the more adaptable player and would be much better suited to
>> be the one to come in when the opening spell is going torridly and
>> help settle things down until the shine goes off.

>> This also makes sense because the next cab off the rank is Ian Bell,
>> who apparently wants to be Michael Atherton when he grows up, and I'd
>> rather be losing Butcher than Vaughan when his claims become
>> unanswerable.

>Yes.  My impression is that Trescothick and Vaughan should be automatic
>selections for the side, whilst Butcher is perhaps more keeping a seat warm
>until the right player is found to replace him.  That's an observation based
>mostly on watching the natural arc of Butcher's bat going across rather than
>through the ball - I realise the stats from last year's Ashes series plus
>the winter tours don't necessarily bear it out.

>> >> Flintoff:

>> But he looks pretty useful for a 23 year old.

>Absolutely, not least because both he and Hoggard appear to strengthen the
>team's resolve to fight through long sessions when things aren't going well
>(with the ball, that is!).  Although Flintoff has developed hugely in both
>disciplines since I last saw him play in 1999, the bowling improvement still
>impresses me more than the batting. Not yet the most consistent third seamer
>around, but compared to my memories of him sending down a few half-trackers
>then retiring to the pavilion with a sore back, this season's model is a
>revelation.  England really needed Flintoff in this series - White didn't
>look (in the odos at least) half the player he was in 2000.

> >> I thought that Tresco/Butch worked pretty well in India, and I'd like
> >> to go back to that and bring Vaughan in first drop. Because I think
> >> Vaughan's the more adaptable player and would be much better suited to
> >> be the one to come in when the opening spell is going torridly and
> >> help settle things down until the shine goes off.

> >> This also makes sense because the next cab off the rank is Ian Bell,
> >> who apparently wants to be Michael Atherton when he grows up, and I'd
> >> rather be losing Butcher than Vaughan when his claims become
> >> unanswerable.

> >Yes.  My impression is that Trescothick and Vaughan should be automatic
> >selections for the side, whilst Butcher is perhaps more keeping a seat
warm
> >until the right player is found to replace him.  That's an observation
based
> >mostly on watching the natural arc of Butcher's bat going across rather
than
> >through the ball - I realise the stats from last year's Ashes series plus
> >the winter tours don't necessarily bear it out.

> It's also where his being a retread comes into play for me. We've seen
> enough of Butcher in the past to know that he hasn't got it in him to
> be a world-class player. He's good enough to be more than decent, but
> I don't think anyone suspects there are as yet untapped wells of his
> talent.

> On the other hand, quite how far Vaughan's talents go and how far they
> will take him is unknown. It could be no further than where he is now,
> but he has the ability to be much better. He's younger than Butcher,
> too.

> >> >> Flintoff:

> >> But he looks pretty useful for a 23 year old.

> >Absolutely, not least because both he and Hoggard appear to strengthen
the
> >team's resolve to fight through long sessions when things aren't going
well
> >(with the ball, that is!).  Although Flintoff has developed hugely in
both
> >disciplines since I last saw him play in 1999, the bowling improvement
still
> >impresses me more than the batting. Not yet the most consistent third
seamer
> >around, but compared to my memories of him sending down a few
half-trackers
> >then retiring to the pavilion with a sore back, this season's model is a
> >revelation.  England really needed Flintoff in this series - White didn't
> >look (in the odos at least) half the player he was in 2000.

> Can we find something to disagree about, please? I had basically
> expected that if he got enough chances, he would eventually play at
> least a few spectacular innings with the bat, as no-one can spend a
> career of any length and not get the chance to bat against some tiring
> mediocre bowlers on a flat pitch. But when I saw his bowling in India,
> I was flabbergasted. Bowling long spells which were mostly fairly
> hostile on flat Indian pitches was definitely not what I had been
> expecting from him. The fitness regime he must have gone through to
> effect such a transformation hardly bears thinking about, but it's
> greatly to his credit.