Tom Moody will he stay with Sri Lanka ?

[Richard]

I would've thought that with some of the decisions made at the start of the Ashes, you'd have been in favour of seeing Fletcher go. I know that you don't think Monty Panesar would have won the first two Tests for England, neither do I, but I still think that it should be looked at logically and a bit of common sense applied. Panesar and Read had done absolutely nothing to suggest that they needed to be dropped, their recent international form had been quite good.

So you'd sack a coach for 2 bad decisions?

I sure wouldn't.

And it's been said a few times - Jones' re-promotion over Read wasn't completely and totally devoid of sense.

 

[Salamuddin]

So you'd sack a coach for 2 bad decisions?

I sure wouldn't.

And it's been said a few times - Jones' re-promotion over Read wasn't completely and totally devoid of sense.

Add to the fact that England have been absolutely dire in ODi's under Fletcher and they haven't really been that impressive in test cricket since wiining the Ashes in 2005.
Why should he be retained, Dicko ?

 

[Perm]

So you'd sack a coach for 2 bad decisions?

I sure wouldn't.

And it's been said a few times - Jones' re-promotion over Read wasn't completely and totally devoid of sense.

No I certainly wouldn't sack a coach for 2 bad decisions, but sometimes the time comes when a side, even if they are succesful, could do with a different hand on the steering wheel.

 

[Richard]

Add to the fact that England have been absolutely dire in ODi's under Fletcher and they haven't really been that impressive in test cricket since wiining the Ashes in 2005.
Why should he be retained, Dicko ?

Because being crap in ODIs is nothing new, we were little better in the 7 years before he took over. I can't say I really blame him for that - put almost anyone else qualified in charge and the situation'd be the same IMO - virtually no England-supporting pundit is prepared to come out and say Sajid Mahmood is crap or something along those lines.

And to suggest we've been absolutely dire since summer 2005 is nonsense - we managed to lose a series in Pakistan which bar 2 collapses we'd have won; and lost a series in Australia 5-0 against a vastly better side, which no amount of good coachwork could have changed. Other than that, our performance has been perfectly adaquete.

 

[Richard]

No I certainly wouldn't sack a coach for 2 bad decisions, but sometimes the time comes when a side, even if they are succesful, could do with a different hand on the steering wheel.

I honestly don't think so. I'm a big hater of change for change's sake.

 

[Swervy]

I honestly don't think so. I'm a big hater of change for change's sake.

do you not feel that in some circumstances, a fresh way of looking at a situation can inject a new vigour into a team.

The question needs to be asked whether England are developing as a team in both forms of the game.

you cant just dismiss England in the ODI, I seem to remember one of the aims for Fletcher (set either by himself , or the people who employ him) was to make the England team reach number one in tests by 2007 and win this WC. At the moment they dont look like doing either, and so he has actually failed in his quest. So do you move on with fresh ideas, or continue with a coach who ultimately hasn't reach his objectives????

 

[Richard]

do you not feel that in some circumstances, a fresh way of looking at a situation can inject a new vigour into a team.

The question needs to be asked whether England are developing as a team in both forms of the game.

Any team at any given time will always be developing. The real question that needs to be asked is: is the coach making a positive impact on the team? That is all. Nothing else matters to the judgement of a coach.

you cant just dismiss England in the ODI, I seem to remember one of the aims for Fletcher (set either by himself , or the people who employ him) was to make the England team reach number one in tests by 2007 and win this WC. At the moment they dont look like doing either, and so he has actually failed in his quest. So do you move on with fresh ideas, or continue with a coach who ultimately hasn't reach his objectives????

It wasn't a Fletcher target at all, it was a general 10-year target set by The ECB in 1997 - and I thought in 1999 when I heard about it it was a wholly silly one. You should never aim to be the best in The World "by" a certain time - you should simply aim for it every second of every cricket-related thing you do.

I can and do dismiss England's ODI problems as not DF's fault because so many of those who criticise him simply by looking at his results fail to state that they'd do anything regarding selection differently (and he's not the only selector in any case).

 

[Swervy]

Any team at any given time will always be developing. The real question that needs to be asked is: is the coach making a positive impact on the team? That is all. Nothing else matters to the judgement of a coach.

well I would be taking the word developing as meaning getting better in theis situation.

And yeah, is Fletcher having a positive effect on the team at this moment?

It wasn't a Fletcher target at all, it was a general 10-year target set by The ECB in 1997 - and I thought in 1999 when I heard about it it was a wholly silly one. You should never aim to be the best in The World "by" a certain time - you should simply aim for it every second of every cricket-related thing you do.

I can and do dismiss England's ODI problems as not DF's fault because so many of those who criticise him simply by looking at his results fail to state that they'd do anything regarding selection differently (and he's not the only selector in any case).

to be honest I thought it was more like 2001 when that target was made public...if it was 10 years ago, wow that has gone fast!!!

 

[Richard]

well I would be taking the word developing as meaning getting better in theis situation.

And yeah, is Fletcher having a positive effect on the team at this moment?

I honestly think so. I think the good parts of him as a coach outweigh the bads. I think he's worked with enough players now to know that he can do well with just about anything. In time, if given the chance, I think he and Panesar, for instance, would become huge mutual admirers (indeed, I think there's probably far more there currently than most realise).

to be honest I thought it was more like 2001 when that target was made public...if it was 10 years ago, wow that has gone fast!!!

Yeah, it has - and it was the mission statement with the formation of The ECB, when it replaced the TCCB in 1997.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Your opinion on Moody has definitely changed Jason from 18 months ago

To be honest, I thought that there were a lot of people wanting to jump on Moody's back very early, when there's always going to be a transistion period - and I think a lot of that was a time where the SL team was undermanned. A number of posters were also very happy to attribute all the success to the players, but if something went wrong it must've been the coach's fault...

 

[Dasa]

Your opinion on Moody has definitely changed Jason from 18 months ago

He's been a bit moody about him.

 

[adharcric]

To be honest, I thought that there were a lot of people wanting to jump on Moody's back very early, when there's always going to be a transistion period - and I think a lot of that was a time where the SL team was undermanned. A number of posters were also very happy to attribute all the success to the players, but if something went wrong it must've been the coach's fault...

Sounds familiar.

 

[honestbharani]

Don't understand that mentality really. Even if SL win the World Cup there'd still be plenty left to do to improve SL cricket, the most important of which to be to help SL rise in the Test Rankings and maybe build up towards that top spot.

yeah, but his stocks would have risen and he will get much better offers in places where he will be even more comfortable, like England or somewhere.....

 

[Richard]

He's been a bit moody about him.

One must ask why he has ceased to be, TBH. Maybe he navigated his way out of the situation with a TomTom.

 

[JBH001]

Looks like Tom Moody is heading home to WA.

http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/wc2007/content/current/story/289772.html

A pity, I would have loved it if he could have remained the coach for another 2 years, and certainly during the SL tour of Australia thus summer. Still, one can understand his wanting to focus on family time, especially given two young children.

Hopefully, Sri Lanka help him to sign off in good fashion, and find another good coach (Dav Whatmore perhaps?) to continue the work he has done.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Would going back to Whatmore be a backward step for SL though? I mean, he's already had two tenures there hasn't he? And IIRC his second tenure wasn't all that successful...

SL are best off getting another coach who will present new ideas to the older players, rather than keeping them in a comfort zone whom a number of the players have already had before.

 

[Perm]

Is there some sort of bad blood between Langer and Moody? In the article it said that Langer is going to step down as captain because Moody is going back to Western Australia.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Is there some sort of bad blood between Langer and Moody? In the article it said that Langer is going to step down as captain because Moody is going back to Western Australia.

I don't think so. And the article I read (The Age) didn't indicate that Langer stepping down wasn't related to Moody coming.

 

[Richard]

Is there some sort of bad blood between Langer and Moody? In the article it said that Langer is going to step down as captain because Moody is going back to Western Australia.

Seemed the opposite to me. Suggested that Langer was happy to step down once he knew Moody was coming, knowing things would be in safe hands.

 

[Richard]

Would going back to Whatmore be a backward step for SL though? I mean, he's already had two tenures there hasn't he? And IIRC his second tenure wasn't all that successful...

Had more to do with the team at the time IMO. There is far more talent around currently than there was 3 and 4 years ago, and IMO Whatmore could be a far better choice than almost anyone to harness that - again.

SL are best off getting another coach who will present new ideas to the older players, rather than keeping them in a comfort zone whom a number of the players have already had before.

Like who, though? How many players will SL have after this Cup who'll qualify as "old"? There are virtually none in the 30-35 range, there's just the Jayasuriyas, Atapattus and Vaases who can't have much if any more in them. Then there's the Jayawardenes and co who're still merely in their late 20s.

There's also Murali, of course, but would you really suggest he needs any motivation or to be taken out of his comfort zone? He always strikes me as one who loves to be loved and performs best when he feels so.