<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Idle Man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 26 2016, 10:06 AM 

Len Hutton's 364 was made on an absolute road against a depleted tired attack. Far too much was made of it and he should have been told to move to Essex.

(Login Tyke1950)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 26 2016, 1:52 PM 

A crisp and apposite response, Idle Man, to the often prolix Mr.Hatch.

(Login Rey2)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 26 2016, 2:27 PM 

You're on a roll Idle Man, second time you've made me laugh out loud with one of your comments.

John Hatch
(Login JohnSantaClaws)

A Bit Short-Changed?

March 26 2016, 5:41 PM 

Each to his own sense of humour but I thought this was a cricket forum.

Anyone who thinks Tim Bresnan's batting can be compared with Len Hutton's seems to live on a different planet.

I will merely stress that with Bresnan batting at number 6, Yorkshire lost to the MCC. If he continues to bat at number 6, Yorkshire will almost certainly lose the championship.

Batting below number 6, he looks set to become a reserve (dependent on injuries and unlikely Test calls) rather than a regular. In which case, there should be no recriminations if, after all his splendid service, he decides to leave us.

Idle Man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 26 2016, 6:36 PM 

No John, it was the circumstances which were being compared, though not very seriously. Personally I don't think one can diminish Tim's achievement against Durham, despite easing conditions. And his contribution over the season made him a close contender for player of the season.

(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 26 2016, 6:46 PM 

John ---- Tim will very rarely bat at 6 for us this season, if ever. We would have to have a serious lack of personnel for that to happen, and he is still one of our best 4 bowlers, so he will be selected anyway. One of the first names on the team sheet for me.

(Login EastYorkshireTyke)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 26 2016, 6:53 PM 

So you don't think that Bresnan is a number 6 but if he bats below 6 he's not good enough to be in the team?

(Login JollyD)

A bit short-changed ?

March 26 2016, 7:36 PM 

Stu is absolutely right. This was emphasized today by Martyn Moxon who stated that he believed the England players, including Joe Root, would be allowed to play for Yorkshire at the beginning of the season. Jason Gillespie would then have the best possible selection problem. Very soon after the departure of the England players, Kane Williamson would arrive. Travis Head would arrive while Williamson is here to acclimatize himself and to be ready to step straight in as required.
I think the argument about Tim Bresnan as a potential number 6 is a spurious one.

(Login Backward_Point)

Re: A bit short-changed ?

March 26 2016, 9:27 PM 

Last year Bresnan was our 4th highest First Class run scorer with 907 and an average of 45.35. Not bad for an all rounder.


The idea he's past his best and about to be shipped off to Leicestershire is as comical as it is wrong. The man is entering his peak and if anything his batting is likely to IMPROVE as he gets older and shifts from a bowling all rounder to a batting one, a la Craig White.

(Login sid-don)
Assistant Moderator

With the ball

March 26 2016, 10:11 PM 

John Hatch
(Login JohnSantaClaws)

A Bit Short-Changed?

March 27 2016, 2:18 AM 

When Bairstow is away, Yorkshire need a specialist batsman to replace him in the top 6. We should have enough in Lyth, Lees, Ballance, Gale, Leaning, Williamson, Head and (occasionally) Root. If Ballance is called up by England, Will Rhodes may now well be ready to step up.
However, this leaves a problem. We need a wicket-keeper and, if Andy Hood takes the 7th place, this leaves only 4 places for specialist bowlers.
With Bairstow playing, and batting in the top 6, we have had the luxury of playing Rashid plus 4 seamers.
With Bairstow away (and perhaps also Rashid for some games), we shall have to sacrifice a spinner OR one of the seamers OR one of our top 6 batsmen.
The question then is whether Bresnan is still one of our top 4, or possibly 3, seam bowlers.
He certainly was but the England selectors seem to think he has now lost some crucial zip. On this occasion, I fear they are probably right and Bresnan is now less effective as a bowler than he used to be.
More to the point, I suspect that Jason Gillespie will tend to pick other seam bowlers before him, and use him as a reserve.
The fatal trap would be to take the "convenient route" of putting Bresnan to bat at number 6 (replacing Bairstow) and pick 3 other seam bowlers. This compromise would weaken, perhaps crucially, both our top batting and our bowling.
The irony is that for weaker county sides (which probably includes most of them), Tim Bresnan would be regarded as the all-rounder who was the crucial backbone of the team. A pessimist might say that Yorkshire are likely to need just such a player in a couple of years time.

Geoff B
(Login Coastalview)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 27 2016, 9:00 AM 

Happy Easter to everybody. I don't think we are going to convince you John but here goes.

The test you apply to Tim is that the England selectors think he is no longer a good enough bowler for England. Well Siddy has failed that test too and our other bowlers, perhaps with the exception of Brooks briefly, have never even been in England's thinking.

You come up with a dream team of batsmen, who at no time will be available at the same time and don't seem to understand the concept of loss of form or injury.

Tim is vital, he might not play every match but he won't be far off.

Idle Man
(Login Idle_man)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 27 2016, 9:41 AM 

While I disagree with John's verdict on TB, he is correct in one issue we have raised before. Any balanced side needs a bowler or wk who bats on merit in the top six. For us that means Bairstow/Hodd, Rashid, Rhodes, or Bresnan. Two of them will be required by England. Bresnan is a better bat than Hodd and a better bowler than Rhodes. Last season his bowling recovered and for much of the season he was our second most reliable batsman. Now a genuine all rounder.


Dave Morton
(Login DaveMorton)

Re: A Bit Short-Changed?

March 27 2016, 10:36 AM 

Yes, in the absence of Bairstow and Rashid, it is always going to be a team-balancing act.

If Abu Dhabi proved anything, it was that Rhodes is not yet a 3rd seamer, which is what he became when Bresnan left the field. We didn't lose because Bresnan was batting at six, as JH suggested!

I suspect Dizzy will stick with the four major seamers (which now makes 4 from Sidebottom, Brooks, Bresnan, Patterson, Plunkett and Willey) of whom only Bresnan has REAL batting capability, though ALL of them have decent tailend qualities, and none is a number 11.

There might be a case for playing four of the seamers PLUS Bresnan and MINUS a specialist spinner, using Lyth when Rashid is missing, though Carver's exploits in UAE have made this less likely.

There is recent evidence to suggest that team management might know what they are doing, and I for one trust that the team they put out will be the right one for that place and time, whichever way they go.

For the opener, assuming full fitness and availability, my choice: Lyth, Lees, Root, Gale, Ballance, Bairstow, Rashid, Bresnan, Patterson, Brooks, Sidebottom.

But there is no doubt that Leaning, Rhodes (especially), Plunkett and Willey all have strong cases for selection, with Hodd, Fisher and Carver as really good back-up. The likes of Wainman, Coad and Waite will all have made a statement with their performances in UAE. Expect to see these guys in List A and T20. Their time is coming.

John Hatch
(Login JohnSantaClaws)

In Summary

March 27 2016, 11:42 AM 

In summary, some people think that Tim Bresnan is still one of our best 4 seam bowlers. I think this may no longer be true, and there seem to be a few who share my fear.
Some people think that Tim Bresnan is one of our best 6 batsmen. I think this is nonsense, I'm afraid; and there seem to be some others who share my view on this.
Accordingly, I think Bresnan will, in future, be used mainly as a reserve - to cover injuries and unlikely Test absences.
The irony is that some other counties (who are less strong than Yorkshire) would still regard him as one of their best bowlers and possibly even a number 6, or perhaps number 7, batsman. He might well be regarded as the all-rounder backbone of their side.
If Tim Bresnan finds he is not getting many championship games for Yorkshire, he has served us so well that I think he should be entitled to look elsewhere. (Although if things went badly wrong, and we lost players through injuries and loss of form, we might become desperate for Bresnan, not to win the championship but to help keep, or get, us out of the 2nd Division.)

John Hatch
(Login JohnSantaClaws)

Losing to MCC by 4 wickets

March 27 2016, 12:02 PM 

"We didn't lose because Bresnan was batting at six, as JH suggested!"

Dave Morton would, of course, be right to say that Tim Bresnan was not solely responsible for our losing to the MCC by 4 wickets. However, Bresnan was batting at number 6 where batsmen are supposed to score runs. In fact he made only 3 runs in the first innings and only 6 runs in the second.

Another 50 or so runs from our number 6 batsman might well have altered the result.


Dave Morton
(Login DaveMorton)

Re: Losing to MCC by 4 wickets

March 27 2016, 1:53 PM 

Lyth, Leaning and Gale also failed to make significant scores in this one-off match, which is why you judge players over a longer period. A season, for example, or a glittering career, in Bresnan's case.

Last season, Bresnan began by making a huge contribution to our win at Worcester. Having taken 3 top-order wickets for 48, he then shepherded us from a precarious 193 for 7 to 307 all out. His score was 83, batting at 7 on this occasion. He then took the first second innings wicket before Worcs were skittled out by Brooks and Patto.

He had a relatively quiet game at Trent Bridge on a road of a pitch, 3 wickets and 34 in his only innings, before taking 5 for 85 against Warwickshire at Headingley. He failed with the bat but took another two wickets in the second innings. Six of his seven wickets were top-order batsmen.

And so on - I'm not going to detail every match, but his batting contributions included an innings-rescuing 100 not out at Taunton (it was 225 for 6 when Rashid was out), as well as a vital match-saving 29 in the second innings after we had stumbled to 234 for 6.

It is not just the stats that are impressive, but the fact that this man makes his contributions when it really matters; tough runs, top-order wickets. He personifies the fighting spirit of this great team.

(Login ThirdUmpire)

Re: Losing to MCC by 4 wickets

March 27 2016, 2:32 PM 

Perfect county player for us now. Looks like England don't need him and he's too old for lions stuff so available all year.

He may not be in our top six best batsmen but two or three of them will not always be available. And few if any of out top 5 ahead of him can bowl (Lyth, lees, gale, leaning, Ballance, Bairstow)

John Hatch
(Login JohnSantaClaws)

A Large Measure of Agreement

March 27 2016, 8:52 PM 

I think that Dave Morton and I actually have a large measure of agreement.

Bresnan did indeed play a very valuable role for Yorkshire at the beginning of last season - but when 6 Yorkshire players were away on tour with England; Gale was suspended; and Sidebottom got an injury in the first game which kept him out of action for a few weeks.

I would say that this shows what a wonderful player he is to have in reserve for Yorkshire, and why county sides weaker than Yorkshire would love to have him as an all-rounder backbone of their side.

However, let us look at the current situation at Yorkshire. I hope that Sidebottom is good for at least one more season and that Brooks is good for at least two more. Opinions vary, but I think Patterson's control makes him a crucial part of the seam attack. This leaves one other place for a seam bowler - Plunkett will be returned from England duties; Willey has now been signed; and Fisher seems to be developing fast.

I think Bresnan's future selection for Yorkshire will probably depend on other bowlers getting injured; suffering loss of form; or being called away by England (or the IPL) for white ball cricket.

This is merely my opinion, of course - although I have tried to explain the reasons for my holding it.

(Login StuartRA)
Assistant Moderator

Re: A Large Measure of Agreement

March 28 2016, 9:58 AM 

We all have differing views on our best 4 bowlers, and I understand your reasoning for leaving Bresnan out. My choice would be Patterson, but I don`t think anyone agrees with me on this forum.

Siddy and Willey are both left arm, so doubt if they will ever play in the same CC side.

Plunkett has raw pace is an excellent fielder and a useful bat, so for me, he plays every match he is available.

Brooks, Bresnan, Patterson, Fisher fall in the same camp (right arm medium fast). I would play 2 of those alongside Siddy/willey & Plunkett. For me the two most likely to get wickets are Brooks & Bresnan, plus you get the added bonus of Bresnans vg batting and fielding.

Last season --- Brooks 74 wkts from 465 overs, Patterson 49 from 476 overs, Bresnan 48 from from 457.

What a great choice for the coach, which 3 of 7 excellent bowlers to leave out.

On another point -- We should have a cracking T20 and 1 day side this season as we have 4 of the current England T20 side in our ranks. Add Lees, Ballance, Bairstow, Bresnan, Williamson, Head & Fisher and it looks nigh on unbeatable.

Lees, Willey, Williamson, Root, Ballance, Bairstow, Head, Rashid, Bresnan, Plunkett, Fisher. Just wonder how many times this season all those players will be available at the same time. 3 maximum?

This message has been edited by StuartRA on Mar 28, 2016 10:45 AM

< Previous Page 12 3 4 5 6 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  
All IP addresses are recorded. We reserve the right to remove personal attacks, sexist, racist, homophobic, defamatory or abusive comments, comments likely to incite religious hatred, those disposed to wind others up, and unapproved advertising.

Email us: Whiterosecricket@hotmail.co.uk