Fletcher - Time To Go?

[Matt79]

Pathetic that Paneser hasn't played in this test. He does realise that England are 1-0 down and will now have to WIN some matches rather than play for the draw doesn't he?

 

[GIMH]

In retrospect, maybe he should have gone on September 13th. He's in serious danger of destroying his legacy now - he's well on course to be the man who masterminded Australia regaining the Ashes

That's not to take anything away from what the Crims so this season, but you get my point

 

[tooextracool]

I think its absolutely stupid that Monty hasnt played yet. On a turner, Monty>>>>> Giles and poses a much greater wicket taking threat. How on earth can anyone justify going in with the same attack that took 10 wickets for 800 runs last game? It really does look like hes trying to relive the past Ashes series atm. Theres no other explanation for why Giles and Jones are both in the side, as well as for not tampering with the side for the 2nd test.I wouldnt be too surprised if he got upset with Bell for batting too slow and not dominating the bowlers a la Edgbaston tbh.
I've certainly never rated Duncan Fletcher too highly, especially after reading his autobiography and how hes actually been recommending that the England batsmen continue to play the sweep shot, despite half of them getting out to it every test match. Boycott was right, he needs to go. Who should replace him though? I think England could really use someone similar to Nasser Hussain, although i dont think hes open for coaching.

 

[tooextracool]

i'd admit he made some bad selection decision & selections in his time, but overall i think he is doing a good job. I won't blame him for England's poor ODI performances in his time incharge, it has more to do with the quality of players England have had available in his 7 years which with the exception of Trescothick, Knight, KP, Freddie, Collingwood, Stewart, White, Gough have not been able to take the test success over to the ODI side. .

You do realise that you could make an entire side with that?
Fletcher has been disgraceful in ODIs period. its not a question.

 

[Matt79]

I think its absolutely stupid that Monty hasnt played yet. On a turner, Monty>>>>> Giles and poses a much greater wicket taking threat. How on earth can anyone justify going in with the same attack that took 10 wickets for 800 runs last game? It really does look like hes trying to relive the past Ashes series atm. Theres no other explanation for why Giles and Jones are both in the side, as well as for not tampering with the side for the 2nd test.I wouldnt be too surprised if he got upset with Bell for batting too slow and not dominating the bowlers a la Edgbaston tbh.
I've certainly never rated Duncan Fletcher too highly, especially after reading his autobiography and how hes actually been recommending that the England batsmen continue to play the sweep shot, despite half of them getting out to it every test match. Boycott was right, he needs to go. Who should replace him though? I think England could really use someone similar to Nasser Hussain, although i dont think hes open for coaching.

Thought Geraint's actually not been too bad tbh. Not in the Gilchrist (in form) or Flower category with the bat certainly, but provided some stubborn resistance at times, and held up an end. And his keeping's been ok, from what I seen.

 

[tooextracool]

Thought Geraint's actually not been too bad tbh. Not in the Gilchrist (in form) or Flower category with the bat certainly, but provided some stubborn resistance at times, and held up an end. And his keeping's been ok, from what I seen.

Thats besides the point though. Whether Geraint scores 200 or 300 runs and takes 10 catches this game is irrelevant. When you make selections, you dont have the benefit of hindsight. Read deserved to get as much of a chance as Jones did, he certainly didnt deserve to get dropped from the test side after doing nothing wrong while Jones had done nothing right. And now unless Jones makes a complete mess of things i doubt we'll see Read in the side this series or perhaps ever.

 

[Slow Love™]

Here is the case:
(conversation between English Ashes tour selectors, Duncan Flether and Andrew Flintoff)

DF - We seem to have a bit of a problem with a long tail in our batting.
AF – Hmmm…what can we do about it. We can’t have a long tail.
DF – I know, we’ll include Ashley Giles, he should be fresh and really up for the battle. Hasn’t played for 12 months you know.
AF – 12 months, really. That long is it. Well yes then he should be really fresh and up for the battle.
DF – And he was a major part of our 2005 Ashes success. It was even named after him.
AF – Funny I never realised that, you’re right, Ash’s success.
DF – And he’s great to have in the dressing room.
AF – But I thought we were going to include him in the team to go out onto the ground.
DF – No, I mean before play, during breaks etc.
AF – Oh yes, good point.
DF – He averages 21 with the bat, you know. But it’s not just the runs he gets, it’s the way he gets them. Really sticks it up them he does. And it’s the runs that the other player scores whilst batting with him.
AF – Averages 21? What’s his average against Australia?
DF – How’s your ankle coming along?
AF – Fine, you know I was reading the other day that Brett Lee averages 30 with the bat against England, and Shane Warne about the same during the last 10 games or so. So lucky we’ve got a proper number 8.
DF – Yes but Warne and Lee haven’t had to face Warne during this period. Great spinner.
AF – Yes, they’ve only had to deal with our spinner, that wouldn’t be hard. Avearges 55 against them, strike rate 90, economy rate 3.7 rpo. Who is our spinner again anyway?
DF – Ashley’s just has a few unlucky games.
AF – What’s his batting average against Australia then, I bet it’s higher than Warne’s and Lee’s, they’re just sloggers? I read the other day Dennis Lillee averaged 17 with the bat against England, Merv Hughes and Geoff Lawson 16, and none of them could bat. Ashley must average at least 30 in Ashes contests?
DF – Panesar can’t bat, you know. Can’t field and I no longer think he’s the best left arm orthodox spinner of Indian descent playing for England in the world. I was only saying that anyway. PR exercise. He was getting a bit too popular. For some unknown reason, people really seem to like him.
AF – yeah, you’re right, Giles must play. Averages 55 with the ball against Australia, 16 with the bat, and he’s great in the dressing room. And he’s fresh.
DF – Glad you see it my way old boy. Big future for you as captain of this team you know.

LOL. Did you write this (at the other forum)?

 

[Matt79]

Thats besides the point though. Whether Geraint scores 200 or 300 runs and takes 10 catches this game is irrelevant. When you make selections, you dont have the benefit of hindsight. Read deserved to get as much of a chance as Jones did, he certainly didnt deserve to get dropped from the test side after doing nothing wrong while Jones had done nothing right. And now unless Jones makes a complete mess of things i doubt we'll see Read in the side this series or perhaps ever.

What the? A decision to drop a player can't be justified, even if the player you replace them with does well? It was harsh on Read but its a reasonable speculation to say that he wouldn't have done as well as Jones has - makes it a quite good selection by Fletcher I'd have said, given as you say he didn't have the benefit of hindsight, just his knowledge of the two players involved.

 

[tooextracool]

What the? A decision to drop a player can't be justified, even if the player you replace them with does well? It was harsh on Read but its a reasonable speculation to say that he wouldn't have done as well as Jones has - makes it a quite good selection by Fletcher I'd have said, given as you say he didn't have the benefit of hindsight, just his knowledge of the two players involved.

By quite as well as Jones has, you mean average 26 then?
Look you dont just drop players for no reason, Read had done nothing to justify being dropped and Jones had done nothing to justify his selection. At the end of the day, much like at school everyone deserves to be given exactly the same treatment. If Jones got 2 years to display his prowess then Read deserves to at least fail before being dropped.
A decision is only justified when you have enough reasons to make it in the first place, not by what gets accomplished by making the decision.

 

[steds]

Shaun Udal. The prosecution rests its case.

 

[Matt79]

I disagree with that - I think results justify decisions. Its obviously a difference of opinion, but you can make a decision for an impeccable set of reasons, and it can turn out to be the wrong call. Results on the board at the end of day are what any decision should be judged by.

I don't think Read would have averaged anything like 26, from what I've seen of his batting. Maybe 16. But I admit this is speculation.

I agree you don't drop players for no reason. Fletcher had a reason - he thinks Jones is a much better batsman than Read. He would have seen them play in the nets and would be around them quite a bit, so he's pretty well placed to say how they're looking now, which is probably just as relevant as what they respectively looked like in matches 6 months ago.

You would agree Jones has kept wicket adequately, at the least?

 

[tooextracool]

I disagree with that - I think results justify decisions. Its obviously a difference of opinion, but you can make a decision for an impeccable set of reasons, and it can turn out to be the wrong call. Results on the board at the end of day are what any decision should be judged by.

i dont see how that works. Luck plays a significant role in results. As such you could have dropped Gillespie before the last Ashes and with the results it might have been a great decision, but based on logic it would not have been. its really like playing a poor shot. If Collingwood had connected and hit a 6 of Warne on 95 at Brisbane would you say it was a good decision to play the shot given the situation? Similarly would you say Kevin Pietersens second ball 4 today(a pull over mid on) was a good shot given that it went for 4? At the end of the day, a good decision IMO should be judged on how logical it is, ie what reasons there are to make that decision, rather than based on how many runs or wickets it produces.

I don't think Read would have averaged anything like 26, from what I've seen of his batting. Maybe 16. But I admit this is speculation.

I agree you don't drop players for no reason. Fletcher had a reason - he thinks Jones is a much better batsman than Read. He would have seen them play in the nets and would be around them quite a bit, so he's pretty well placed to say how they're looking now, which is probably just as relevant as what they respectively looked like in matches 6 months ago.

Jones is always going to 'look' better in the nets than read because hes a more extravagant batsman. Its a similar comparison to looking at Collingwood and Pietersen in the nets. Jones' problem has always been that he been a little bit of a dumba**, and you cant measure that quality by watching someone in the nets.

You would agree Jones has kept wicket adequately, at the least?

Yes but thats clearly not the reason why he was favored over Read, otherwise he wouldnt have been dropped ITFP.

 

[techno t]

Way too much being made of England needing a strong tail. You took 10 wickets for 850+ runs for goodness sake. Panesar surely is needed.

your right dude, you dont win sod all by only bowling out half a side each innings. And with Monty he would be a bigger danger than Giles. But Fletch has got his own way again, which pee's me off. And the dropping of Read was out of order, he didnt deserve it.

*

 

[greg]

You would agree Jones has kept wicket adequately, at the least?

Well with this team, and on the assumption that Jones has batted better than Read would have done (which is a pretty big assumption considering he's scored 19 and 33 and looks to have gone so far into his shell that he will be incapable of scoring match turning 50s, let alone hundreds), then you can just about argue the selection.

We'll probably never know how well his keeping would hold up if Monty was in the side. It should be pointed out that Jones arguably cost Monty a place in the first and second test by missing (I think) a couple of stumpings vs SAustralia and NSW that could have made all the difference.

 

[Goughy]

I am surprised that there are ZERO votes that say he's doing well.

Here is 1.

When was the last time England were this high in th rankings and challenging for 1st place (Yes I said it. If England turn this series around they go top IMO. There are still 4 tests to go).

Also how many Englishmen would walk into a World XI? 1 only. Its not as if he is making a meal of XI superstars.

I wouldnt mind getting rid of him if we all thought we would improve and we knew who his replacement would be.

Cant get rid of someone without have a top quality replacement lined up. Suggestions? Who is available and better?

 

[open365]

By quite as well as Jones has, you mean average 26 then?
Look you dont just drop players for no reason, Read had done nothing to justify being dropped and Jones had done nothing to justify his selection. At the end of the day, much like at school everyone deserves to be given exactly the same treatment. If Jones got 2 years to display his prowess then Read deserves to at least fail before being dropped.
A decision is only justified when you have enough reasons to make it in the first place, not by what gets accomplished by making the decision.

No they don't, different people deserve to be treated differently, i agree with Fletcher on picking Jones, i just couldn't imagine going into an ashes series with Read batting at 8.

 

[Goughy]

The key issue,IMO, regarding Read or Jones is that neither of them are good enough.

A long term replacement that can bat must be the next priority for English cricket.

The reason why there is discussion and disagreement over who should play is not because either deserve their place but that they are both too flawed to command it.

I know that this is no help in the short term, but I can help thinking something could have been done before this point. Even (amonst other options), if available, selecing Pothas for the CT to prepare him for the Ashes.

 

[silentstriker]

No they don't, different people deserve to be treated differently, i agree with Fletcher on picking Jones, i just couldn't imagine going into an ashes series with Read batting at 8.

Eh? Its not like you're comparing Gilchrist with a fella who can't bat...you're comparing a guy who can't bat almost all of the time with a guy who can't bat most of the time.

 

[techno t]

Eh? Its not like you're comparing Gilchrist with a fella who can't bat...you're comparing a guy who can't bat almost all of the time with a guy who can't bat most of the time.

yep thats about right. But atleast Read can catch the bloody ball. Jones seems to drop/miss the ball too often to be a keeper at test level. Reads glove work is top notch, which is what you need

*

 

[aussie]

You do realise that you could make an entire side with that?
Fletcher has been disgraceful in ODIs period. its not a question.

yes i could, but its not as if England have had some good times in ODI in Fletchers time in charge, they beat SA here in 2003, drew in India 2002, got to the final of the last CT, no much i'd admit. But as i said England's poor ODI performances is more down to the players themselves not being able to adapt to the shorter form of the game rather than faults in Fletcher's coaching.