The Future of English Cricket

[adharcric]

England have just been completely outclassed by Australia en route to an Ashes defeat, which is rather disappointing after the marvellous effort turned in by the Michael Vaughan-led side last year. Duncan Fletcher has been heavily criticized for his controversial selections and Andrew Flintoff hasn't fared so well as the newly appointed England captain.
Does the situation call for massive changes?

Should Duncan Fletcher be sacked? Why? Why not? Replaced by who?

Should Andrew Flintoff be sacked? Why? Why not? Replaced by who?

Let's get some discussion going here.

 

[Burgey]

IMO, no to Fletcher being sacked, but they need to do what Australia did when Simmo was coach and take selectorial responsibilities from him. Now is not the time to decide his future in the face of such a pizzling. Wait until things settle down. FWIW, I think he's been pretty good for England during his tenure and has taken them to new heights. Some of his selections were rubbish, but they all make mistakes - people here wanted Buchanan's head after '05 and since then they haven't lost a match.

With Flintoff, his head shouldn't roll, but they need to re-assess his role if he is to stay as skipper. Despite his score yesterday, he is really a test match number 7, not a number 6 but because of his injury, they need to play 5 bowlers on this tour. Long term, if he's 100%, they may need to look at playing him as part of a 4 man attack, especially with Monty in the team, who is a genuine wicket-taker. If Vaughan is fit, he'll be skipper,but otherwise it's tough to sack Flintoff after a bad tour to the home of the best side in the world who were as driven as they have ever been to get revenge for last year.

 

[aussie]

Nope Fletcher shouldn't be sacked, just like how all good palyers have bad series, so can a good coach. I'm willing to wait until the end of the WC then decide whether England should look for a new coach, but for now i still think he's the right man to be coach.

On Freddie, i don't think he's that bad a skipper, just look at how well he lead in India. If he had come into the Ashes playing through the English summer maybe he could have done similar, in this series he has just shown his best in patches, i'e the 4 fa @ the Gabba & his 50 in perth. I really don't think if Strauss was skipper it would have made a difference, but some credit should be given to how well Australia played though all blame can't go towards England, its not like if many teams have managed to go down under & win in the last decade. But with Vaughan looking like he's going to come back now, Freddie should be Freddie again.

Overall the future of English cricket is in good order, majority of the side is young & will be together for a good 5-10 years from now. In the future English fans could be looking back at this Ashes series and laughing..

 

[mavric41]

Although the score so far is 3-0, England have played some good cricket at times and have always tried to fight even when they are behind the eight ball. This shows there is character in this side. The Australians have been outstanding and are in a class of their own. England have a young side that will learn from this. In fact the next Ashes in England will be a beauty with the English side maturing and the Australians bringing some new players into their side.

Fletcher took the accolades when they won, he needs to take responsibility when they lose. The big factor is the favourite players he has (Jones, Giles etc). Selectors should pick teams on performance. Picking Giles over Panesar when Giles had not played for a year was criminal.

Flintoff should bat at 7 with Pieterson and Collingwood doing the part time bowling when required. The fourth bowler hardly ever gets a full go any way and Pieterson is quite useful as a spinner.

 

[honestbharani]

I agree with what has been said above. England haven't played bad cricket. They have just been outclassed by this Aussie side and let's face it, almost every side in the world has been outclassed by this particular Aussie side, esp. when they are so full of determination and are so hungry.


Cook and Strauss have the potential to be a really good world class opening pair, Bell is finally starting to shred some nerves at this level and may go on to be a really good no.3. Collingwood is a good gutsy old styled test match batsman and although I think he should bat at 5 than 4 and do what Thorpe used to do, he is still a test class batsman. Pieterson is awesome and should bat at 4 than 5. Flintoff, right now, doesn't look like a no.6 but he is a good batsman and can come good at any time. When he is fit, it won't be a bad idea to pick someone else at 6 and play him as one of the four bowlers, but then again, most of England's success has been because they have played 5 quality bowlers. The keeping issue needs to be sorted out, and soon. Panesar SHOULD be their no.1 spinner. The idiocy of picking Giles for his batting has to stop. And Harmison should get his act together more often. And hopefully Jones will come back and won't injure himself again for a while. So, it is not as bleak as people think.

Mainly, I think it is just the disappointment of losing the Ashes in this fashion. I really feel for England for with a bit more luck and better selections, they could have put up a better fight. Also, it didn't help that everyone of the Aussies seem to be playing to their potential, which is a frightening thought for anyone who is playing against them.

 

[Tim]

England aren't the first to lose to Australia. But the current series shows just how big the gulf is between 1st and then the rest.

I think the current England squad would beat pretty much every other side right now. Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen in particular could form a very strong top/middle order and throw in Strauss and Flintoff when they build some form. Jones is crap, but I can't see Chris Read being much better so I guess the selectors will be hoping the next domestic season throws up a new name into the mix.

Obviously the manner in which they have lost the Ashes is very disappointing, but I think England are still clearly #2 at the moment and they have the basis of a very good test side..they've just got to get their act together over a few issues.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Fletcher should go after the World Cup. Flintoff should go after this series, and should never have been captain in the first place. If Strauss was a lesser man he'd have been fuming at the decision, after winning three of your four Tests in charge you expect not to be unceremoniously turfed back into the ranks.

Players-wise, our XI doesn't need much work - we just need to stop picking players when they're not fit. The only obvious change that needs to be made in time for next summer is the removal of Geraint Jones from the selectors' thoughts. It should be Read vs Foster next summer.

 

[Matt79]

While I'd be one of the last people to suggest sacrificing test performances to pursue ODI form, it should be pointed out that under Fletcher England have been one of the worst outfits going around in the shorter form - which makes no sense when you consider the talent they have and the amount of short cricket (50 or 20 overs) the players are exposed to domestically.

I personally think England have almost no chance of making an impact at the World Cup, and given the teams talent, most of that has to come down to a lack of nous as to how to play the game - stuff that Pickup mentioned in his recent article. A new coach would hopefully improve England quite quickly in this aspect.

As I said, for three years out of every four I really wouldn't give two hoots about one day form, BUT it is the lead-up to the World Cup now, and England are not just average, they're woeful in ODIs...

 

[aussie]

It should be Read vs Foster next summer.

If Read last that long, his performance between now & the world cup will decide that. Foster should definately be in the mix but i have my doubts over him TBH. We all know i want Pothas to be picked, but really its gonna be really interesting to see who solves England's keeper puzzle in the post Stewart era. Its getting kind frustrating that we kind find a good replacement as yet.

 

[wpdavid]

One bad series may not make Fletcher a bad coach, but some of the choices made over the last month & a bit - especially the selection of Jones & the dropping of Panesar - have been poor enough to be sacking offences in their own right. tbf I doubt whether they changed the overall result of the series, but that's not the whole point.

As for how the side lines up in the future, I've long been part of the Fred-at-number-7 line of thought, and I've seen nothing to change my mind in this series. As well as Jones, Harmison should go, maybe to be replaced by Broad. But there's not too many changes needed. The batting's mainly young and should improve with experience. Obviously Vaughan should come back if he's ever fit. I doubt whether Tres will be able to, but I'd love to be proved wrong. All we need is a decent keeper and a couple of wc opening bowlers. Something along the lines of Donald/Pollock or McGrath/Gillespie in their pomp would be nice.

EDIT
I should have added that, if Vaughan doesn't return, then the captaincy should go back to Strauss as soon as humanly possible, for all the obvious reasons.

 

[Matt79]

Would sir like a side of Sir Garfield Sobers with that order?

 

[wpdavid]

Would sir like a side of Sir Garfield Sobers with that order?

Yes please, that would be lovely.

 

[aussie]

While I'd be one of the last people to suggest sacrificing test performances to pursue ODI form, it should be pointed out that under Fletcher England have been one of the worst outfits going around in the shorter form - which makes no sense when you consider the talent they have and the amount of short cricket (50 or 20 overs) the players are exposed to domestically.

England have been woeful in ODI's since the they left the 92 World Cup, its just continued under Fletcher, but yet under fletcher they managed to get to the final of the CT in 04, beat SA in the 2003 Natwest series, come from behind to draw 3-3 in India and one or two excellent one off performances but they just haven't managed to get the right blend together. As i keep saying even though England have become a very good test side producing some very good test players since Fletch came in 99, some of them are just no suited to ODI's & i don't think the coach can't be blamed for that, i.e look at Australia you could say Macgill, Langer (up until recently) was never suited to ODI's but because Australia have produced so much good ODI players they could afford to do without them.

In fletcher time in charge only Trescothick, Knight, KP, Freddie, White, Gough, Caddick, Giles (to an extent), Collingwood, Anderson (to an extent), Stewart, Thorpe have been able have good ODI careers. While blokes like Vaughan, Hoggard, Harmison, Hussain, Croft, Cork, Strauss (up until recently vs Pakistan & the recent CT) bar the odd flash of brilliance have really struggled to carry foward their test success into the ODI area which hasn't helped with the balance of ODI set-up at all over the past 7 years.

I personally think England have almost no chance of making an impact at the World Cup, and given the teams talent, most of that has to come down to a lack of nous as to how to play the game - stuff that Pickup mentioned in his recent article. A new coach would hopefully improve England quite quickly in this aspect.

Well i have to disagree, i do think if England play to potential they can surprise a few at the world cup, the may depend a lot on KP & Freddie but they can do it.

Again i don't think a new coach will fix the problem, the players themselves have who naturally may not be suited to the OD arena unlike KP, Freddie & Trescothick have to do what Strauss has done recently and try to adapt because its not like England have quality enough players coming through to domestic set-up to be considered quality ODI specialists like other nations who can come in & give the OD side some added spark. So the likes of Cook, Bell, Vaughan, Harmison have to make a conscious effort when they step into the OD arena to adapt.

As I said, for three years out of every four I really wouldn't give two hoots about one day form, BUT it is the lead-up to the World Cup now, and England are not just average, they're woeful in ODIs...

True, but England's ODI team has been hit by injuries all year & unlike their test side, the bench strenght in ODI's is woeful and India & Sri Lanka exposed it cruelly earlier this year. But when they got close to full-strenght they managed to limit the all-poweful Pakistan OD side to a series draw which was a fair achivement AFAIC

 

[Matt79]

Well i have to disagree, i do think if England play to potential they can surprise a few at the world cup, the may depend a lot on KP & Freddie but they can do it.

Well Pietersen's being really good in ODIs for a while now, and it hasn't led to the team winning much of anything. And I don't really recall Fred being bad in many ODIs when he's been fit.

Its true a coach can't do much without the players, but he doesn't seem to have a knack for developing the one day potential of the players he does have, so far as I can see. He's been there long enough to have had the opportunity to develop the current squad quite a bit.

But as I said, I'd rather he focus his efforts on Tests, if a choice must be made...

 

[Natman20]

One bad series may not make Fletcher a bad coach, QUOTE]

One bad series? All I recall is one fluke of a series last year!

 

[PhoenixFire]

I think England have proved that they haven't been 'Totally outclassed'. There is no doubt in my mind that Australia have deserved this win 100%, and that England really haven't played well, but Collingwood's 200, Pietersens 100, Cook's 100, Hoggard's general bowling and other good performances have proved that we can compete, just we need to to it over a sustained amount of time to have a chance of winning.

 

[silentstriker]

I think England have proved that they haven't been 'Totally outclassed'. There is no doubt in my mind that Australia have deserved this win 100%, and that England really haven't played well, but Collingwood's 200, Pietersens 100, Cook's 100, Hoggard's general bowling and other good performances have proved that we can compete, just we need to to it over a sustained amount of time to have a chance of winning.

I don't know about that. A couple centuries don't mean you weren't outclassed. Someone usually does score against anyone, including the Aussies. It was nonetheless a complete domination.

 

[PhoenixFire]

England were on top for the first 4 days of the Adelaide test in my eyes, they just ****ed it up on the 5th day.

 

[marc71178]

Selectors should pick teams on performance. Picking Giles over Panesar when Giles had not played for a year was criminal.

It wasn't a simple straight pick though.

 

[marc71178]

One bad series? All I recall is one fluke of a series last year!

Which clearly shows you weren't following the Test game for the 12-18 months before the Ashes.