Cricket Player Manager
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 105

Thread: Sack Fletcher!!!!

  1. #61
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Honestly im appalled with the way people who have barely watched a ball during Hussain's reign treat him. Thrown into captaincy and then being booed off the balcony would have been enough for most, but to have managed to achieve so much with so little resources available is something that he deserves to be hailed for. Along with Duncan Fletcher not only picked England up from the floor and took them half way across the sky.
    When Hussain came into captaincy the England team was completely disunited, most players didnt care much for the game other than what they got from it themselves. County cricket was even more of a disgrace with very few half decent players coming out of the system. The selection process was even more muddled. Without Hussain there would have been no central contracts and without Hussain there would probably not have been England's Ashes in 2005. For all that talk about Englands darkest era of the 90s, who was the one that pulled them out of it? It wasnt Michael Vaughan, nor Michael Atherton or Alec Stewart.
    For those who actually watched Atherton captain rather than read his autobiography, comparing him to Hussain is an absolute disgrace. Atherton may have been nearly as good as Hussain was tactically, but no one was as bloody minded as Hussain and no one got more out of his players than Hussain. It was essentially the same core of players that Atherton had- Gough, Caddick, Ramprakash, Hussain, Atherton, Stewart, Thorpe all played under both, yet it was Hussain that managed to achieve far more success against all sides bar Australia. More importantly he won series away from home and was responsible for englands 4 consecutive test series winning streak. Referring to him as 'loser', 'defeatist' and a whole bunch of absolute codswallop is not just insulting its a complete lack of cricketing intelligence. Ive heard so many members on here deride Hussains decision to field first at Brisbane and then heard the same fools go on to rate Steve Waugh as though hes the best captain since brearly despite the fact that Steve Waugh himself said that he would have bowled first had he won the toss. England are still reaping all the benefits from the Hussain era, unfortunately too many of clowns on here seem to think that it has more to do with the talent coming in. By bringing a deal of candidness for the press and a whole lot of discipline and grit to the job Hussain accomplished more and is the best captain i have ever seen.
    Last edited by tooextracool; 16-01-2007 at 07:16 AM.
    Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
    Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
    Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

  2. #62
    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 Richard View Post
    Nor was the captaincy a bad decision (or completely his) - had Strauss been picked, criticism would be equally flying, the captaincy was a no-win situation IMO.
    Not a bad decision? Lets see now, Experienced county captain whos batting blossomed under captaincy vs All rounder with major fitness concerns, with enough trouble on his shoulders with ball and bat and the lack of absolutely any captaincy experience. Lets go with the latter then?
    As far as his tactical decisions on field, ive never seen an English captaincy in 15 years of watching make worse bowling changes and set worse fields without any cricketing sense than Flintoff. Mike Brearly explains a case in point in this article:
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport...989872,00.html
    Easily the worst decision on tour, far worse than the lets play Geraint and Gilo at Brisbane.

  3. #63
    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 Richard View Post
    Gough and Caddick between 1999\2000 and Lord's vs Pakistan 2001 were IMO as good an opening pair as you could wish for. That, of course, falls outside our scope here. Gough, however, when fit, was a brilliant bowler for most of the time. Caddick was rarely any good before summer 1999.
    Caddick was marginally worse than Hoggard, but with far more potential. As such he too was completely conditions reliant and failed when there was no swing on offer. Gough was good, but having 2 bowlers averaging in the late 20s is hardly the 'best you could wish for'

  4. #64
    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 Richard View Post
    So, how exactly was DF to blame for the two collapses that cost the Pakistan series
    Have you read DF's autobiography? The fact that he subscribes to the sweep shot as being the shot every player must play against spin is evidence enough, let alone when you consider how many of our players got out playing that shot during those collapses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    the dropped catches that cost the Sri Lanka series
    err quality fielding drills? When has our fielding ever been any good under his reign? Fielding drills and disciplined bowling(no balls and wides) are all part of the coaches responsiblity. Even during the ashes in 2005 we saw plenty of it.


  5. #65
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Remembering The Prince - 63*
    Posts
    49,143
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool View Post
    Honestly im appalled with the way people who have barely watched a ball during Hussain's reign treat him. Thrown into captaincy and then being booed off the balcony would have been enough for most, but to have managed to achieve so much with so little resources available is something that he deserves to be hailed for. Along with Duncan Fletcher not only picked England up from the floor and took them half way across the sky.
    When Hussain came into captaincy the England team was completely disunited, most players didnt care much for the game other than what they got from it themselves. County cricket was even more of a disgrace with very few half decent players coming out of the system. The selection process was even more muddled. Without Hussain there would have been no central contracts and without Hussain there would probably not have been England's Ashes in 2005. For all that talk about Englands darkest era of the 90s, who was the one that pulled them out of it? It wasnt Michael Vaughan, nor Michael Atherton or Alec Stewart.
    For those who actually watched Atherton captain rather than read his autobiography, comparing him to Hussain is an absolute disgrace. Atherton may have been nearly as good as Hussain was tactically, but no one was as bloody minded as Hussain and no one got more out of his players than Hussain. It was essentially the same core of players that Atherton had- Gough, Caddick, Ramprakash, Hussain, Atherton, Stewart, Thorpe all played under both, yet it was Hussain that managed to achieve far more success against all sides bar Australia. More importantly he won series away from home and was responsible for englands 4 consecutive test series winning streak. Referring to him as 'loser', 'defeatist' and a whole bunch of absolute codswallop is not just insulting its a complete lack of cricketing intelligence. Ive heard so many members on here deride Hussains decision to field first at Brisbane and then heard the same fools go on to rate Steve Waugh as though hes the best captain since brearly despite the fact that Steve Waugh himself said that he would have bowled first had he won the toss. England are still reaping all the benefits from the Hussain era, unfortunately too many of clowns on here seem to think that it has more to do. By bringing a deal of candidness for the press and a whole lot of discipline and grit to the job Hussain accomplished more and is IMO the best captain i have seen.
    Agree with most of this. Should get an Afridi IMO.
    Phil Hughes 1988-2014

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  6. #66
    U19 Cricketer albo97056's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    London and UEA Norwich
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    1988\89.

    Not ninth out of nine, but sixth out of six.
    Yeh but im talikin about the good australia of the 90s, the aussies then were in the same position asd england when they were ninth,ie. just not very good...

  7. #67
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool View Post
    Not a bad decision? Lets see now, Experienced county captain whos batting blossomed under captaincy vs All rounder with major fitness concerns, with enough trouble on his shoulders with ball and bat and the lack of absolutely any captaincy experience. Lets go with the latter then?
    Experienced county captain? Had captained for all of 1 season?

    Flintoff was the man in possession, and to pick Strauss ahead of him would have been not only inconsistent but a massive put-down on Flintoff's part. One that he might not have recovered from.

    And what's more, Strauss being captain would have made no difference whatsoever to the result and the selectors would be being castigated for picking Strauss when Flintoff was the incumbent.
    As far as his tactical decisions on field, ive never seen an English captaincy in 15 years of watching make worse bowling changes and set worse fields without any cricketing sense than Flintoff. Mike Brearly explains a case in point in this article:
    Yes, he made some bad decisions, did I say otherwise? Despite his chess expertise, he's clearly not the most tactically aware captain.

    Yet defeat magnifies bad tactical awareness, victory almost completely hides it.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  8. #68
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool View Post
    Caddick was marginally worse than Hoggard, but with far more potential. As such he too was completely conditions reliant and failed when there was no swing on offer. Gough was good, but having 2 bowlers averaging in the late 20s is hardly the 'best you could wish for'
    Caddick 1993-1998 was pretty poor full-stop. Hoggard comparisons are neither here nor there.

    However, Caddick 1999 to First-Test-2001 was superb. Yes, still conditions-reliant (though he wasn't completely swing-reliant, he could and did exploit seam and uneven bounce), but far more consistently accurate than in any of the other phrase of his career and usually kept it tight even when there was nothing to help him get wickets.

    Gough, meanwhile, was pretty good for most of his career (excepting, obviously, that last 2 Tests), but I've always felt he could've achieved more had he been less injury-prone.

    And incidentally, between 1999 and 2001 Gough averaged 23 and Caddick 24. Hardly "averaging in the late 20s". And that's what I was talking about (because that's the only time the two of them bowled together apart from a very brief period at the start of 1997). And in that 1999-2001 period they were as good an opening pair as you could reasonably ask for.

  9. #69
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool View Post
    Have you read DF's autobiography? The fact that he subscribes to the sweep shot as being the shot every player must play against spin is evidence enough, let alone when you consider how many of our players got out playing that shot during those collapses.
    Sorry, what? How many top-order batsmen fell to sweep-shots in either of those second-innings? Flintoff (to a slogged-sweep) at Multan, that's it. Everyone else got out because they misplayed shots, not picked the wrong one.

    I don't disagree that he sometimes gets preoccupied with the sweep-shot, but it certainly wasn't to blame for the loss in Pakistan.
    err quality fielding drills? When has our fielding ever been any good under his reign? Fielding drills and disciplined bowling(no balls and wides) are all part of the coaches responsiblity. Even during the ashes in 2005 we saw plenty of it.
    Err, 1999-2001? Before Nick Knight dropped that one at Old Trafford to set-off an epidemic which lasted 3 whole Tests (the nadir being Gilchrist being given 4 let-offs in a couple of sessions at Lord's) I can barely recall a significant dropped catch in that period. Nor, for that matter, in 2004 (no coincidence that those two were the most consistent periods of success in recent years.

    The dropped catches and no-balls were appalling in The Ashes 2005 from both sides (cost Australia far more than it cost England) but to suggest catching has always been a problem in Duncan Fletcher's reign is utterly wrong - the truth is it's veered from brilliant to hopeless, several times.

    And given what Hussain says about his fielding-drills in his autobiography, I hardly see that he can be blamed for it being poor when it has. D'you think he's stupid enough not to realise that taking catches is about the most important thing in cricket?

    And, for that matter, was England's catching any better under previous coaches? About as long as I can remember, England have dropped crucial catches, sometimes series-losing catches.

  10. #70
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by albo97056 View Post
    Yeh but im talikin about the good australia of the 90s, the aussies then were in the same position asd england when they were ninth,ie. just not very good...
    So you're saying that it's inconceivable for a good Australia to be bottom?

    And what about a good England to be bottom?

    It's equally inconceivable.

    What you have just said makes no sense at all.

  11. #71
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    Agree with most of this. Should get an Afridi IMO.
    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.
    Rest In Peace Craigos
    2003-2012

  12. #72
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Yet that's stock-in-trade tec... and also virtually everyone else, just that they routinely use more veiled terminology.

  13. #73
    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 Richard View Post
    Experienced county captain? Had captained for all of 1 season?.
    Hmm id always thought he captained for more than that, but 1 year is still far better than none especially considered that he excelled at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Flintoff was the man in possession, and to pick Strauss ahead of him would have been not only inconsistent but a massive put-down on Flintoff's part. One that he might not have recovered from
    Yea it appears as though the whole country is worried about 'not letting down the big man'. Please someone had to be let down at the end of the day, if not Flintoff it was Strauss. Flintoff is a professional cricketer, hes already had enough up and downs as a cricketer and if he couldnt recover from not being given captaincy, then he shouldnt be playing cricket at the highest level.
    Further if he was that soft so as not being able to recover from not being given the captaincy(despite there being a clear case for Strauss), then one wonders how on earth he is going to recover from a 5-0 thrashing against australia at the helm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    And what's more, Strauss being captain would have made no difference whatsoever to the result and the selectors would be being castigated for picking Strauss when Flintoff was the incumbent.
    Richard how many times do i have to tell you that you arent a soothsayer? what you predict isnt fact. I find it inconceivable that a lot of those games would not have been far closer if we had a captain who had a brain greater than the size of a pea. Furthermore what on earth does the result have to do with whether it was the right decision? Its like the bangladesh selectors saying why dont we pick a bunch of schoolboys cause we are going to be whitewashed against australia anyways.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Yes, he made some bad decisions, did I say otherwise? Despite his chess expertise, he's clearly not the most tactically aware captain..
    So logic behind giving him captaincy? Or should we just assume that whatever duncan does is right because of his past accomplishments?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Yet defeat magnifies bad tactical awareness, victory almost completely hides it.
    Nothing masks anything. If you are rubbish you are rubbish, its simple as that. With vaughan back in the most recent ODIs anyone can see despite the results that his captaincy has been outstanding thus far and his tactical decisions even better. Same with Hussain and Atherton while they lost plenty of times during their career. People might not point out mistakes when you win, but never have i seen someone captain a side with such a lack of intelligence(other than Hashan Tillekratne) in all my years of watching cricket

  14. #74
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool View Post
    Yea it appears as though the whole country is worried about 'not letting down the big man'. Please someone had to be let down at the end of the day, if not Flintoff it was Strauss. Flintoff is a professional cricketer, hes already had enough up and downs as a cricketer and if he couldnt recover from not being given captaincy, then he shouldnt be playing cricket at the highest level.
    Further if he was that soft so as not being able to recover from not being given the captaincy(despite there being a clear case for Strauss), then one wonders how on earth he is going to recover from a 5-0 thrashing against australia at the helm?
    Geez, why the hell didn't they just give Strauss the captaincy in India?
    Richard how many times do i have to tell you that you arent a soothsayer? what you predict isnt fact. I find it inconceivable that a lot of those games would not have been far closer if we had a captain who had a brain greater than the size of a pea. Furthermore what on earth does the result have to do with whether it was the right decision? Its like the bangladesh selectors saying why dont we pick a bunch of schoolboys cause we are going to be whitewashed against australia anyways.
    Let me assure you, if England had won the series the decision to appoint Flintoff captain would be being hailed as a masterstroke. By most people. Regardless of how good or poor his captaincy had actually been. You might be different, because you often are, but 99.99% of the country would be hailing Freddie The Greatest Captain There's Ever Been.

    And if you seriously think good captaincy would have changed any of those results (with the possible minute exception that we might just have scrambled a draw at Adelaide) you don't really know much about cricket. Most of the England players simply weren't a patch on those the Australians could put out. Captaincy, as I've stated countless times re the Stephen-Waugh-was-the-greatest-captain-ever nonsense, can't change the calibre of the players on view.
    So logic behind giving him captaincy? Or should we just assume that whatever duncan does is right because of his past accomplishments?
    The fact that he'd been made captain before Strauss and Strauss only got the captaincy because of injury?
    Nothing masks anything. If you are rubbish you are rubbish, its simple as that. With vaughan back in the most recent ODIs anyone can see despite the results that his captaincy has been outstanding thus far and his tactical decisions even better. Same with Hussain and Atherton while they lost plenty of times during their career. People might not point out mistakes when you win, but never have i seen someone captain a side with such a lack of intelligence(other than Hashan Tillekratne) in all my years of watching cricket
    Habibul Bashar?

    The fact that (most) people don't point-out your mistakes if you win is precisely what I meant. For most people, it's not as simple as if-you're-rubbish-you're-rubbish-simple-as. Most people will just look at the results and say that someone was good because they won and poor because they lost - witness some of the utter crap that was (was, at least, we might be hearing less of it now) spouted about Vaughan-vs-Ponting in 2005.

    Had Strauss been captain he would have made some mistakes because everyone does, and they'd have been magnified with the defeats and it'd have been "why wasn't Freddie given the captaincy?"

  15. #75
    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 Richard View Post
    Caddick 1993-1998 was pretty poor full-stop. Hoggard comparisons are neither here nor there.

    However, Caddick 1999 to First-Test-2001 was superb. Yes, still conditions-reliant (though he wasn't completely swing-reliant, he could and did exploit seam and uneven bounce), but far more consistently accurate than in any of the other phrase of his career and usually kept it tight even when there was nothing to help him get wickets.

    Gough, meanwhile, was pretty good for most of his career (excepting, obviously, that last 2 Tests), but I've always felt he could've achieved more had he been less injury-prone.

    And incidentally, between 1999 and 2001 Gough averaged 23 and Caddick 24. Hardly "averaging in the late 20s". And that's what I was talking about (because that's the only time the two of them bowled together apart from a very brief period at the start of 1997). And in that 1999-2001 period they were as good an opening pair as you could reasonably ask for.
    Caddick between the start of 99 until 2001 averaged 28:http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?s...ields=viewtype
    Gough was a bit better with 26.4:
    http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?s...ields=viewtype

    Not exactly legendary really, especially considering the amount of favorable conditions they got over those years. They were good without being great. Gough moreso than Caddick who only succeed when the wickets suited him.
    Im sure however you'll claim how we should ignore the Ashes because it doesnt suit your point. Mind you im not sure why we should look at Caddicks record until 2001 only given that he didnt exactly decline as a bowler after that.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Fletcher - Time To Go?
    By superkingdave in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 18-01-2007, 04:07 PM
  2. Fletcher rules out Vaughan
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-12-2006, 07:28 AM
  3. An open letter to Duncan Fletcher
    By Scmods in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 05-12-2006, 09:36 PM
  4. Boycott calls for Fletcher to go
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 25-10-2006, 05:39 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
  •