Sack Fletcher!!!!

[McKanga]

..... is it a mere coincidence......?

Almost certainly. Might as well also credit:
a] his family returning north
b] proximity to Antarctica
c] new shoelaces
d] whatever

.....his best 2 performances of the tour.....

Either your dictionary lacks the word 'hyperbole' or you write for one of the London tabloids.

 

[marc71178]

Either your dictionary lacks the word 'hyperbole' or you write for one of the London tabloids.

Please tell which of the Test performances come close to either batting effort this week (not to mention bowling in the NZ game when he was rightfully not given the new ball)

 

[McKanga]

Please tell which of the Test performances come close to either batting effort this week (not to mention bowling in the NZ game when he was rightfully not given the new ball)

He just played with a steady degree of competence. He isn't suddenly performing cricketing miracles. His tactical decision making is no better in that with plenty of wickets in hand around 40 overs he was surely capable of more than the dot..dot..single...dot etc that led to the close finish?

 

[marc71178]

I see that you couldn't give me any Test performances then - thus justifying my initial comment.

If he was playing so many dot balls, how did he manage to score his runs at almost run a ball, unless you're going to blame him for Lewis hitting those dots at the end?

Also, did he not go for a big shot, and nearly get caught, thus deciding to calm it down a bit so that he didn't get out?

 

[GIMH]

I don't see why a post where a person who calls others who don't share the same opinion as him "fools" and "clowns" who have a "complete lack of cricketing intelligence" should get any award for it tbh.

Ah well I only said I agreed with most of it, don't even remember reading any insults tbh, but fair enough. Take them away though, and it's a very good post.

 

[GIMH]

He just played with a steady degree of competence. He isn't suddenly performing cricketing miracles. His tactical decision making is no better in that with plenty of wickets in hand around 40 overs he was surely capable of more than the dot..dot..single...dot etc that led to the close finish?

Yes, but what Marc said was "his best performances of the tour" and as such it's clearly accurate. He bowled well at Brisbane, and batted well in the 1st dig at SCG, but he hadn't put together any all-round performances like the Flintoff everyone knows and loves. Noone said he'd performed miracles, just that he's looked a different player in the OD series thus far.

 

[McKanga]

I see that you couldn't give me any Test performances then - thus justifying my initial comment.....

Sorry I didn't realise you expected a reply on that, thought it was rhetorical. But then there was no noticeable difference for me. He's an honest and capable player who has achieved slightly more in the ODI stuff. 47 n.o. batting, no wickets bowling against us. A stoic but pedestrian performance against NZ. If that is what you consider supercharged, adventurous Freddie you are easily pleased.

....If he was playing so many dot balls, how did he manage to score his runs at almost run a ball, unless you're going to blame him for Lewis hitting those dots at the end?.....

Freddie lifted England back into contention when we all thought the required run rate was beyond them, but then stopped. His average means little, he was unproductive when the game was in the balance. The fact that Lewis was stuck there frittering away England's chances was down to Freddie being so determined to hold his wicket when it no longer mattered. You had three wickets in hand.

.....Also, did he not go for a big shot, and nearly get caught, thus deciding to calm it down a bit so that he didn't get out?

Yep I commented on that elsewhere, must be on another thread. But as I said above there came a point where the dot balls he was accruing were worse for England than him losing his wicket. And if you had lost he'd be copping it big time and he would have received no credit whatsoever for being not out.

 

[McKanga]

Yes, but what Marc said was "his best performances of the tour" and as such it's clearly accurate.....

Well I'm sorry then. Shan't go back X posts to see where I stuffed up, will take your word.

......he hadn't put together any all-round performances like the Flintoff everyone knows and loves. Noone said he'd performed miracles, just that he's looked a different player in the OD series thus far.

I think we'd all like to see that.

 

[Richard]

i couldnt be bothered to check how many they were, but from memory there were plenty and geraint nearly got himself out a half dozen times playing the sweep shot as well. I think we've seen many many dismissals to the sweep shot over the last year and half or so and theres enough from DFs autobiography to suggest the reason behind them as well.

I assure you, I did check and in those last-innings collapses just 1 wicket fell to a sweep. As I said - I don't deny that there are times when English batsmen have been preoccuppied with the sweep and I don't think DF is blameless on that front. But rare indeed is the cricketer without falt.

false, Butcher and Thorpe alone were responsible for about half a dozen dropped catches during the WI series in 2004. Where on earth do you come up with this? Butcher dropped more catches during that time than he caught.

Butcher and Thorpe were poor, but they had been for a time - who else dropped many?

Whether the previous coaches have been any good is rather irrelevant. Fielding standards have dropped recently, and at the end of the day the coach is responsible for it. Whether it was better before, and honestly its been woeful since the Ashes 2001

It's been very poor often, but not invariably.

Why is the coach neccessarily responsible for it? I say again - do you really think he's not intelligent enough to realise that catching as many catches as possible is about the most important thing in cricket?

 

[Richard]

Logic? Both Caddick and Gough were fully fit and in form during that series so no excuses. You cant just pick and choose their best periods and then stop at the times when they face a quality batting lineup.Caddick and Gough were good, certainly not the 'best you can ever wish for',not when they couldnt bowl out quality lineups.

So New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, West Indies, Pakistan and Sri Lanka didn't have quality line-ups? No, they certainly did, and Caddick and Gough were simply good enough to use the conditions to make them look wholly ordinary, often.

Gough and Caddick were damn superb in that period, and they were pretty rubbish in The Ashes. Yes, they were fully fit, but they damn sure weren't in form. Only a fool would claim that they didn't bowl far, far worse than they had been for the previous 2 years. And in Caddick's case, he never recaptured that consistency, and more reverted to his 1993-1998 case.

 

[Richard]

He should have been made captain back then yes, but again doesnt change the fact that it was a poor decision.

So you think he should've been made captain even though around that time you were arguing that he was barely good enough to be in the side?

Flintoff was picked ahead of him because he was more established, and once that was done the only way Strauss could captain was when Flintoff was injured.

again point being? England were never going to win with Flintoff as captain because he simply wasnt good enough, and he was quite likely to break down given that he just got back from injury. Nobody in England is going to say that Freddie lacks cricketing intelligence but its pretty obvious when you watch him bat or when hes captaining on the field that he clearly does so. Again DFs fault

What, it's his fault that Flintoff isn't a good captain? Or that he was picked as captain? Assuming the latter, no, not exclusively his fault (maybe not even his fault at all - some people have claimed that Flintoff was not his preferred choice).

Nicely done contradicting yourself. Now you yourself claim that it might well have been 4-0 instead of 5-0. Anyhow im fairly certain that the scorecards would have been a lot closer if we had a better captain, and the 4-0 or 5-0 would have hurt a lot less.
I have no doubt that the captaincy was only one factor in the loss, there were several others which i have mentioned before, but again you digress how does that prove the point that DF made poor selection and other decisions?

I said might just, not might well. Big difference.

The point I'm making is that choosing the captaincy for this tour could never have been described as a poor decision because there was no obvious candidate - the selectors (and there are more than 1) had to take a punt whoever they chose (they could've chosen Alastair Cook and it'd have been the same), and for that reason I don't see that they deserve any real criticism for who they gave the captaincy to.

And strauss had done his job admirably by leading his side to a 3-0 victory against pakistan as well as contributing positively with the bat. Flintoff's shortcomings had already been seen in the home series against SL and he even managed to injure himself by bowling himself like an old shoe.

I said it a million times then - dropped catches were no shortcoming of Flintoff. You can bowl whoever you want, it won't make an iota of difference if you put down as many catches as England did that game.

I do not see that Strauss' captaincy was massively better against Pakistan than Flintoff's was against Sri Lanka - England just played far better.

You are once again missing the whole point. Since when do you care about the masses of cricket fans? Ive provided enough reasons, most of which you havent found any answers to, to prove to you why it was a bad decision to have flintoff as captain. And i think its common sense really.
Even when ponting made those poor decisions in 2005 i backed him as a captain and said that he has been a decent one and anyone who watched him could see that. In flintoffs case there is nothing to back him with. Hes simply been miserable from day one. Despite appearing to be physically and emotionally drained by his teams performance he didnt relinquish the captaincy during the series which IMO he should have done. I dont rate Strauss very highly as captain but he wouldnt make those rather dull errors that flintoff committed and it might well have helped his game and Flintoffs as well. Really for mine Vaughan and Tresothick are far better tacticians than either of the 2.

You've provided reasons why Strauss might - and only might - have done a better captaincy job than Flintoff. You've provided no reasons as to how that might have changed the scoreline, and you certainly haven't provided reasons why appointing Flintoff as captain was a mistake, because there cannot be any. As I said, whoever the selectors picked as captain they were taking a gamble, and whatever happened the captain was likely to be made to look foolish, because all captains make mistakes and all mistakes get magnified when the team you're captain of gets beaten badly. And England getting beaten badly in this series was pretty close to inevitable.

As for why do I care about the masses of cricket fans? Because they're the ones making the comments like the "Vaughan outwitted Ponting at every turn" nonsense that eminated time and again from last summer. And they're the ones who turn on the selectors for no good reason when they make a marginal line-call and a very bad loss follows.

As for giving-up the captaincy mid-series when you've been appointed on a short-term basis - for me that's the ultimate admittance that you haven't been good enough and one I don't expect any cricketer to possess the humility to countenance.

 

[Richard]

It could be argued that Strauss was the man in possession from having been the most recent captain.

No, it couldn't, because he wouldn't have had the captaincy had Flintoff not got injured (twice).

As for the not recovering - is it a mere coincidence that his best 2 performances of the tour have been this week?

ODIs... Tests. Does that mean anything to you?

Unlikely, I suppose, given your history.

 

[marc71178]

Freddie lifted England back into contention when we all thought the required run rate was beyond them, but then stopped. His average means little, he was unproductive when the game was in the balance. The fact that Lewis was stuck there frittering away England's chances was down to Freddie being so determined to hold his wicket when it no longer mattered. You had three wickets in hand.

Those 3 wickets were Lewis, Anderson and Panesar.

Freddie's wicket most definitely mattered with those 3 at the other end.

 

[tooextracool]

I assure you, I did check and in those last-innings collapses just 1 wicket fell to a sweep. As I said - I don't deny that there are times when English batsmen have been preoccuppied with the sweep and I don't think DF is blameless on that front. But rare indeed is the cricketer without falt.

well anyways if there werent many in that innings, there have been plenty over the last 2 years from poor sweep shots and many that should have fallen given how poorly they are often played. When someone says that the only way anyone should play a spinner is by sweeping, its quite clear that hes talking ****

Butcher and Thorpe were poor, but they had been for a time - who else dropped many?

Why do they not matter? Improving fielding standards is a part of coaching. If poor fielders remain poor then it clearly defeats the point of coaching itself. As such even someone like Freddie has gone backwards in recent times.

It's been very poor often, but not invariably.

Why is the coach neccessarily responsible for it? I say again - do you really think he's not intelligent enough to realise that catching as many catches as possible is about the most important thing in cricket?

Its not just about realising there is a problem, its also a case of coaching methods. Flintoff for example has been bowling no balls for donkey's years and youd think coaches would actually work with him so that he can solve the problems in the nets. Similarly plenty of coaches have diverse fielding drills, australia often employ baseball coaches, but whatever it is, its quite clear that england havent been focussing on that aspect. Teams like NZ have maintained relatively good fielding standards for ages now, so it clearly depends on coaches rather than the players themselves.

 

[tooextracool]

So New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, West Indies, Pakistan and Sri Lanka didn't have quality line-ups? No, they certainly did, and Caddick and Gough were simply good enough to use the conditions to make them look wholly ordinary, often.

SA? Both Gough and Caddick were largely very ordinary against SA in the 99/00 series and any fool could see it. Caddick had one stand out performance, the 7/46 with the ball swinging around corners. Gough didnt even manage anything of the sort, and his 5/70 was a complete fluke filled with poor strokes and very poor bowling.
By and large Gough was good, but not great(if he was he would have been able to take wickets against australia more often than he did), while Caddick was clearly conditions reliant and it was quite obvious when he came on flat wickets that he was very ordinary. Thats certainly not 'the best you can wish for IMO', and im fairly certain everyone would take Mcgrath/gillespie, Wasim/ Waqar, Ambrose/Walsh etc everyday of the week.

Gough and Caddick were damn superb in that period, and they were pretty rubbish in The Ashes. Yes, they were fully fit, but they damn sure weren't in form. Only a fool would claim that they didn't bowl far, far worse than they had been for the previous 2 years. And in Caddick's case, he never recaptured that consistency, and more reverted to his 1993-1998 case.

they werent rubbish, they simply werent good enough against what was a very good lineup with the Waughs, Martyn, Gilchrist and Ponting.

 

[tooextracool]

So you think he should've been made captain even though around that time you were arguing that he was barely good enough to be in the side?

He never came close to being dropped from the England side though, it certainly wasnt even going through their minds. At the end of the day you choose from your options. No one expected Strauss to take the responsibility of captaincy as well as he did and play in the manner which he did, but after he did it should have been an easy choice to decide between the 2.

Flintoff was picked ahead of him because he was more established, and once that was done the only way Strauss could captain was when Flintoff was injured.

Err much like Strauss was a stand in captain, Flintoff was too. Clearly neither captain was settled in stone. If you get injured and someone performs better than you did then you get replaced, we've seen plenty of players replace players that get injured, it happened with butcher and its not much difference with the captaincy.when someone is a injury hazard it makes that case even more favorable.

I said might just, not might well. Big difference.

The point I'm making is that choosing the captaincy for this tour could never have been described as a poor decision because there was no obvious candidate - the selectors (and there are more than 1) had to take a punt whoever they chose (they could've chosen Alastair Cook and it'd have been the same), and for that reason I don't see that they deserve any real criticism for who they gave the captaincy to.

There was an obvious candidate in Strauss.

I said it a million times then - dropped catches were no shortcoming of Flintoff. You can bowl whoever you want, it won't make an iota of difference if you put down as many catches as England did that game.

Err bowling himself for 51 overs in the final inning(which incidentally was more than everyone else in the side)? especially when he had panesar at his disposal on the last day. It was a clear absence of logic

You've provided reasons why Strauss might - and only might - have done a better captaincy job than Flintoff. You've provided no reasons as to how that might have changed the scoreline, and you certainly haven't provided reasons why appointing Flintoff as captain was a mistake, because there cannot be any. As I said, whoever the selectors picked as captain they were taking a gamble, and whatever happened the captain was likely to be made to look foolish, because all captains make mistakes and all mistakes get magnified when the team you're captain of gets beaten badly. And England getting beaten badly in this series was pretty close to inevitable.

As said earlier, there are mistakes and there are things which are out of this world stupid. Flintoff was about as wise as a ******** 2nd grader in that series. all captains make mistakes, but most make some good decisions as well, some like flintoff instead seem to try and enlarge their mistakes as far as possible.

As for why do I care about the masses of cricket fans? Because they're the ones making the comments like the "Vaughan outwitted Ponting at every turn" nonsense that eminated time and again from last summer. And they're the ones who turn on the selectors for no good reason when they make a marginal line-call and a very bad loss follows.

except that to any ordinary person vaughan did outwit ponting last summer and vaughan is quit clearly a superior captain that ponting and any aussie would admit it.

As for giving-up the captaincy mid-series when you've been appointed on a short-term basis - for me that's the ultimate admittance that you haven't been good enough and one I don't expect any cricketer to possess the humility to countenance.

Im sorry what? What on earth is wrong with being man enough to admit that you are not good enough at a certain skill? Flintoff is a damn fine player, a brilliant bowler, a good captain and usually an excellent fielder and for him to think of himself as a failure because he couldnt excel as captain would be downright stupid. Ian Botham had no problems relinquishing the captaincy in 81 so it certainly disproves your last sentence completely. you could see for yourself that Flintoff was clearly sullen and completely out of it during that series as a result of the burden of captaincy(Certainly compared to the last ashes) and it was quite depressing just to have to watch him reduced to such a pitiable state. Flintoff had more than enough on his plate to worry about, his own form tailed and really he should have been focussing on the more important aspects of his own game rather than worrying about his 'best mate' steve harmison and the rest

 

[Richard]

well anyways if there werent many in that innings, there have been plenty over the last 2 years from poor sweep shots and many that should have fallen given how poorly they are often played. When someone says that the only way anyone should play a spinner is by sweeping, its quite clear that hes talking ****

Has he seriously said "the only way to play a spinner is by sweeping"?

Why do they not matter? Improving fielding standards is a part of coaching. If poor fielders remain poor then it clearly defeats the point of coaching itself.

No coach could ever change the post-2001 Butcher and the post-2003 Thorpe into anything less than hopeless catchers.

As such even someone like Freddie has gone backwards in recent times.

Has he?

Its not just about realising there is a problem, its also a case of coaching methods. Flintoff for example has been bowling no balls for donkey's years and youd think coaches would actually work with him so that he can solve the problems in the nets. Similarly plenty of coaches have diverse fielding drills, australia often employ baseball coaches, but whatever it is, its quite clear that england havent been focussing on that aspect. Teams like NZ have maintained relatively good fielding standards for ages now, so it clearly depends on coaches rather than the players themselves.

England have employed the same baseball coach, and Australia employed him several times between 2002 and 2005, their fielding was still mostly poor in that time.

Flintoff is certainly not the only one who's been bowling far too many no-balls for donkey's years, far more bowlers than not do, even the strict disciplinarians like Pollock and Ambrose. No-balls are just a problem that are not taken anywhere near seriously enough by the vast majority of people. Even some spinners bowl no-balls, when there's never, ever an excuse for someone with a 4 or 5 pace run-up to ever bowl a single no-ball in his career.

 

[Richard]

SA? Both Gough and Caddick were largely very ordinary against SA in the 99/00 series and any fool could see it. Caddick had one stand out performance, the 7/46 with the ball swinging around corners. Gough didnt even manage anything of the sort, and his 5/70 was a complete fluke filled with poor strokes and very poor bowling.
By and large Gough was good, but not great(if he was he would have been able to take wickets against australia more often than he did), while Caddick was clearly conditions reliant and it was quite obvious when he came on flat wickets that he was very ordinary. Thats certainly not 'the best you can wish for IMO', and im fairly certain everyone would take Mcgrath/gillespie, Wasim/ Waqar, Ambrose/Walsh etc everyday of the week.

What about the Wasim\Waqar of 2001\02? The McGrath\Gillespie of 2005? The Ambrose\Walsh of 1988?

The fact of the matter is, Gough and Caddick for that time were excellent, even if Caddick remained conditions-reliant to take wickets and Gough still had the odd poor spell. It was only a brief spell and doesn't make them better than many other partnerships because they were only opening together for a couple of years. But it doesn't change the fact that they were both superb for most of that time.

they werent rubbish, they simply werent good enough against what was a very good lineup with the Waughs, Martyn, Gilchrist and Ponting.

They weren't rubbish, they just weren't good enough? O...K... same thing in my mind.
Either way, that doesn't change how they'd bowled in the previous 18-24 months.

 

[Richard]

He never came close to being dropped from the England side though, it certainly wasnt even going through their minds. At the end of the day you choose from your options. No one expected Strauss to take the responsibility of captaincy as well as he did and play in the manner which he did, but after he did it should have been an easy choice to decide between the 2.

Not if the seeming better candidate was the 2nd appointment and only appointed ITFP due to injury.

Err much like Strauss was a stand in captain, Flintoff was too. Clearly neither captain was settled in stone. If you get injured and someone performs better than you did then you get replaced, we've seen plenty of players replace players that get injured, it happened with butcher and its not much difference with the captaincy.when someone is a injury hazard it makes that case even more favorable.

A clear feudal order had been established, and that would've been broken by giving Strauss the captaincy.

There was an obvious candidate in Strauss.

Obvious to you. There were many good judges (in other scenarios) making the case for Flintoff. It was not a straightforward choice and once it went wrong (which was inevitable) there was always going to be criticism.

Err bowling himself for 51 overs in the final inning(which incidentally was more than everyone else in the side)? especially when he had panesar at his disposal on the last day. It was a clear absence of logic

You've completely ignored my point. Had he bowled Panesar the game would still have been drawn because that amount of catches going down is always going to cost a victory whoever bowls.

Had the catches been taken there'd have been no criticism aimed his way for bowling himself lots. Indeed, it might've been praise instead.

As said earlier, there are mistakes and there are things which are out of this world stupid. Flintoff was about as wise as a ******** 2nd grader in that series. all captains make mistakes, but most make some good decisions as well, some like flintoff instead seem to try and enlarge their mistakes as far as possible.

So you reckon Strauss wouldn't have made any mistakes and\or wouldn't have been criticised for poor captaincy had he captained us to that 5-0 loss.

except that to any ordinary person vaughan did outwit ponting last summer and vaughan is quit clearly a superior captain that ponting and any aussie would admit it.

He's quite clearly a better captain but he didn't "outwit" him because there is no stage in cricket where captains' captaincy skills go head-to-head. Nor did Ponting captain anywhere near as poorly in England as most Brits claimed.

Im sorry what? What on earth is wrong with being man enough to admit that you are not good enough at a certain skill? Flintoff is a damn fine player, a brilliant bowler, a good captain and usually an excellent fielder and for him to think of himself as a failure because he couldnt excel as captain would be downright stupid. Ian Botham had no problems relinquishing the captaincy in 81 so it certainly disproves your last sentence completely. you could see for yourself that Flintoff was clearly sullen and completely out of it during that series as a result of the burden of captaincy(Certainly compared to the last ashes) and it was quite depressing just to have to watch him reduced to such a pitiable state. Flintoff had more than enough on his plate to worry about, his own form tailed and really he should have been focussing on the more important aspects of his own game rather than worrying about his 'best mate' steve harmison and the rest

Botham relinquished the captaincy because he would've been pushed had he not. And in any case, it has nothing to do with that because it was a home series. Many captains have resigned in the middle of a home series. Only Mike Denness has ever done so in an away one, and even that was just stepping-down for 1 Test.

How many times did Flintoff state, before and after being given the captaincy, that being England captain was to him the ultimate honour? What would that then say about and to him were he to relinquish it in the middle of a tour?

If he's man enough to admit that he can't do everything at the start of next summer and that he doesn't ever want the captaincy again, well, good for him, but the middle of a tour is no time for such a thing as far as I'm concerned.

 

[tooextracool]

Has he seriously said "the only way to play a spinner is by sweeping"?

IIRC he said something along the lines of players that play with a straight bat make themselves vulnerable to the turning ball(and he provided detailed reasoning for it), that the best players of spin in the world like Hayden, Thorpe and Lara were all very good players of the horizontal bat stroke and that when you sweep you completely take lbw out of the equation and that it was therefore risk free. Therefore it couldnt be any more obvious what case he was making and that has been influencing some of the England players to do the same.

No coach could ever change the post-2001 Butcher and the post-2003 Thorpe into anything less than hopeless catchers.

A good coach would. Nor is it particularly surprising that their standard of fielding went down during Duncans reign.

Has he?

You havent noticed? His fielding used to be considered the best in the England side and he had pulled off some absolute blinders. Recently he's dropped some absolute dolly's.

England have employed the same baseball coach, and Australia employed him several times between 2002 and 2005, their fielding was still mostly poor in that time.

From what i remember they employed a baseball coach for a 4 week period once before the series of SA. Did they employ anyone for a consistent period?

Flintoff is certainly not the only one who's been bowling far too many no-balls for donkey's years, far more bowlers than not do, even the strict disciplinarians like Pollock and Ambrose. No-balls are just a problem that are not taken anywhere near seriously enough by the vast majority of people. Even some spinners bowl no-balls, when there's never, ever an excuse for someone with a 4 or 5 pace run-up to ever bowl a single no-ball in his career.

Ive seen Shoaib Malik bowl plenty and it is clearly unacceptable. IMO bowling coaches really need to work on that. Duncan fletcher maybe the batting coach but its certainly a big issue that he should be bringing up to his players.