View Poll Results: Should Fletcher go?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, after the Ashes

    24 57.14%
  • Yes, after the World Cup

    9 21.43%
  • No, He's doing a good job

    5 11.90%
  • Just leave me to go into the fetul position for a few hours

    4 9.52%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 50

Thread: Fletcher - Time To Go?

  1. #31
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  2. #32
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by 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 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79
    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.
    Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
    Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
    Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

  3. #33
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer techno t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    65

    Icon4

    Quote Originally Posted by Nnanden
    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.

    *
    For total off topic chat and randomness, try out this place

  4. #34
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79

    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.


  5. #35
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,078
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker
    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?
    Last edited by Goughy; 01-12-2006 at 12:45 PM.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

  6. #36
    International Vice-Captain open365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    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.

  7. #37
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,078
    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.

  8. #38
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,746
    Quote Originally Posted by open365
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  9. #39
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer techno t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    65

    Icon5

    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker
    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

    *

  10. #40
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    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.

  11. #41
    U19 Captain
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    England.
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy
    A long term replacement that can bat must be the next priority for English cricket.
    Step forward Steve Davies, the boy does look very gifted. Future England keeper/batsman.

  12. #42
    PY
    PY is offline
    International Coach PY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Posts
    10,736
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie
    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.
    Surely part of the coach's job is to make the players better prepared for the conversion from Tests to ODIs?
    A True Champion - Bob. Rest in peace. 15/04/06
    "People today have too big a devil and too small a God"

    - Stephen Currie

    "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" Psalm 27:1

  13. #43
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie
    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.
    the coach's job is to pick the right players(although like Chappell i think the coach shouldnt be involved in the selection), not pick the lights of Plunkett, Kabir Ali and Sajid Mahmood when none of them will probably ever be good enough for ODI cricket. England may have won a few fluke series, but they are yet to win a major ODI trophy since Fletcher has come into charge and they havent won a triangular series that didnt involve bangladesh or zimbabwe. and the only reason they drew the series in India was because of Nasser Hussain.

  14. #44
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by open365
    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.
    Right, players averaging 20 for 2 years without exceptional keeping ability should be retained while players averaging 40 in their last series with better keeping skills should be dropped.....

  15. #45
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    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.



    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.



    Yes but thats clearly not the reason why he was favored over Read, otherwise he wouldnt have been dropped ITFP.
    Dropping Gillespie before the last Ashes would have been a good decision because he was bowling tripe in the ODIs and tour matches, and didn't look to be improving at all.

    If Collingwood had hit Warne for six, it would have been hard to criticise him. The poor decision making there lay in not understanding his capabilities, not the shot itself. It was only poor shot selection for a player who was incapable of hitting that ball (which granted would be most batsmen).

    You are just pretending that Jones isn't a better batsman than Read, when its a pretty evident fact that he is. Yes his top score to date is 33, but if you're assessing him on the criteria of "which of our two keepers is a better batsman", rather than "Is Jones really a quality keeper/batsman" then the answer is obviously that he is better than Read.

    You say Read had done nothing wrong. I'd say that he hadn't done enough right. They dropped their incumbent, offered the understudy a couple of opportunities to stamp himself on the role and make it his own. He failed to do that, and when it came to the crunch, Fletcher preferred the guy who he has faith in and believes to be the better player. That's logical from his perspective. You might disagree with the criteria he's used or the weight he's placed on different arguments, but its unfair to say he's acting without a reason or logic.

    And if watching players in the nets doesn't tell you anything about a player's form with the bat, why does every coach and selection panel in the world pay attention to it. Form in the nets probably shouldn't come into consideration if a player's got a proven record of achievement in recent games, but in situations where you're tossing up between a couple of players, what other basis are you meant to compare them on? What Statsguru tell you about them?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 16-11-2006, 05:50 AM
  2. Well, It's Time to Go, But first...
    By benchmark00 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 24-10-2006, 04:56 AM
  3. Time to step aside
    By Blewy in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 13-07-2006, 09:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •