It depends. Jenner pretty much coaches one way for everyone. Rather than working with what you've got, he tries to completely remodel and change everything. Personally, for me I've had a couple of sessions with him; one was awesome and the other was rubbish. A lot of people don't rate him, talk about how he has ruined more bowlers than he's helped. I don't mind him, but he's not really the God-like figure that gets made out because he was Warne's right hand man.
Whilst not denying the truth of what you say (heard the same, to be honest), there's a lot of bitchiness and ego's of young bowlers when it comes to specialist coaches too. Even Troy Cooley doesn't have a spotless rep.
Oh no doubt. But you look at how pace bowling coaching has changed over the years, you don't completely remodel actions these days - you change an arm position here, and a foot angle there - but Jenner has only one way to bowl. Your back foot must be side on, and your front foot must point to the batsman, etc. etc.
Can't claim personal experience on either pace bowling coaching or Jenner so I'll take your word on that.
True enough, but at 5/120 they could have been all out 180 and left India 250 to get with their tails up. Honestly think they went about it the right way on this occasion.
Jenner talks a lot about forward momentum, and having all actions forwards towards the target. I think that's good for wrist spinners, but for a finger spinner there needs to be some sort of "resistance", or upwards motion to get over your front leg, so you get that "up and over" motion which he doesn't really care for. He doesn't really talk about length of the last stride, which is a much bigger issue for fingerspinners.
Thats okay.
Bingo.
AWTA. Sporting declarations are fine if you need to do something to push for a result and the series is really on the line. In the first Test of the series, with three to go, no point in risking a loss when you've been ahead all game. Ponting left plenty of time for his bowlers to do the job and they didn't for whatever reasons. The declaration didn't influence that at all, I'd hazard, the Aussies only batting for 5 overs as it was.
Re: Gilly's declaration, that was a good one. On batting form, no-one would have picked England to score 300 in a day. Mark Butcher just batted out of his skin.
Well, again, I agree with you on the whole but at least from my side, I never really felt Kaif should be recalled now for what he did in the Windies back then.. In fact, right after that, he had a poor Ranji, as you pointed out. And, as with Rohit Sharma, my problem with him is not about ability to bat well at test level, but more about him carrying on to score big.. Obviously, Rohit and Kaif are different types of players but both of them seem to have one problem, which is converting starts. Kaif always seemed to get in and score the 30s and 40s or even 50s and 60s but never really seemed to go on. I didn't follow this last year's domestic season as well as I have done in the past, but from whatever I saw, he seemed to putting up some big scores, the 100s and all more than earlier. I still don't know about how consistent he was between those innings but the fact that he is able to get the big scores, even though in the FC scene, is a big plus for me and that is why I feel he is ready for another run at test level.Thats okay.
The point I was trying to make was that its different how we look at Kaif and other aspirants of the same spot today than we did then. Surely the same should be true to some extent for the selectors too. No one protested or made a case for Kaif's inclusion (not just you) then though his Windies exploits were so close in time. Now, after three years we seem to remember those Windies exploits so vividly and feel he was hard done in. The time to condemn the selectors was surely then, but no one did it. So surely, the selectors were not that much off the radar. To hint that it was just politics that kept him out is not correct.
I have mentioned here and on many earlier occasions that some players are more equal than others in India, not just with the selectors, much more so with the media and the fans too. Its just that time changes our favourites. Somewhere there are the performances as we see them, and also our frustrations with the side in general and some other players in particular.
Being objective is not that easy for any of us
His big failure up here was his "rip ut up & start again" approach to Jimmy Anderson's action. I think with his head position the coaching urge to tinker must be pretty big, but it cost him his swing. Set the bowler back a couple of years, which he's only really just recovered from in the past 18 months or so.
In retrospect it does look quite a generous closure, but at the time chasing 300+ on a 5th day Headingley pitch livened up by the rain that'd forced the declaration (Oz clearly fancying the whitewash) didn't look the world's biggest piece of philanthropy.
Indeed. Burgey, I'm guessing you'll be staying in hotels and the like, so I'm not sure what channel they'll have it on, but on a normal Sky Digital decoder, the series is on channel 32, which is Sky Sports 3.
Of course what Jenner might have done with Warne would have worked for Warne and that's why Warne talks so highly of him, but as it has already been mentioned Jenner seems to have a pre-set perception as to how a guy should bowl wrist-spin or finger-spin, and i don't think he respects individuality of a spinner, likes of White, Cullen(s) worked with him and it hasn't seemed to help them at all, on the contrary their bowling just has gone even more downhill after their stints with him and that to me is hardly a coincidence.
When Katich got out, they were 99/3 after 44.3 overs and a grand run rate of 2.22. You have got 8 batsmen at your disposal and a lead of 70 and you are a bowler short. Surely they should have shown more urgency to get the runs to get maximum overs to bowl India out. I don't mind some one playing a sheet anchor role like Katich in this instance but the over all innings run rate should have been near 3 from the beginning to take it to a run rate of near 3.5 with an attack in the end. The 3 wickets falling quickly can mean a team goes on the go defensive but that approach was not needed before. The defensive approach cost Australia in that they could have had a better chance of winning with a more positive approach.
Interesting. What was awesome about the first session? (i presume the awesome one came first..)