Sack Fleming says Parore

[Richard]

Would any other country keep a captain with a 47% win ratio? That's a losing ratio, for those at home who couldn't work that out.

Well I could tell you a million teams that do. Exeter Third XI, for one.

Good captaincy is reflected in more things than results. In terms of Exeter Third XI, it's impossible to appreciate how much good Jeff Stanyer has done for our club, even if we do play some teams who are much stronger than us.

Captaincy is about doing a good job - results are about the calibre of the players.

 

[nate-d]

No no no. Chris Harris should not play against Australia or be anywhere near the world cup final squad. When was the last time he played at international level? Even if he plays, where is he going to bat? Our middle order and lower orders are packed. Harris would be a step backwards. There is no place in the team for him. You could, in fact, say Harris is a poor man's Styris.

I have to disagree with you Macka, Look, I know Harris hasn't played an International match in years, however, he should be tried out in the C-H Trophy. The blackcaps are missing experience and the grit determination like Cairns and Harris. Its quite hard to get that back. However, the objective here for every team is to win the world cup and that means even going backwards to win it, so be it, look at India, Sourav Ganguly, went from being the prince of Calcutta to being absolutely disastrous.

WINNING is the objective, Ross Taylor and Fulton have got another fours years after the world cup, come on, give Harry another chance!

 

[Macka]

Why can't giving something as captain be continuous?

Why can't you give something different (and, hell, even the same thing over and again) series after series?

Sure, there's no reason why someone can't give the some thing series after series. And, of course, captains have to adapt as the game evolves (power plays, keeping wickets in hand for later in the innings, etc).

I believe there's a level that a captain can take a side to, and I believe that Fleming has taken us to that level long ago. We're definitely better -- better players, more professional, sometimes more consistent -- than when Fleming took over. However, we're currently not playing at a level that we're capable of: we're losing tight games, losing games we should win, and everyone from the team seems happy that "everything is on track".

 

[Macka]

Well I could tell you a million teams that do. Exeter Third XI, for one.

Good captaincy is reflected in more things than results. In terms of Exeter Third XI, it's impossible to appreciate how much good Jeff Stanyer has done for our club, even if we do play some teams who are much stronger than us.

Captaincy is about doing a good job - results are about the calibre of the players.

Like nate-d pointed out below, it's all about winning. We watch professional sport because we want our team to win. Professionals play to win. I don't like the comparison of Exeter Third XI to New Zealand, and I don't think it has much credibility in a professional sport age.

Captaincy in cricket is about leading your team to victory -- more in any other sport, the captain in cricket plays a huge role.

 

[Macka]

I have to disagree with you Macka, Look, I know Harris hasn't played an International match in years, however, he should be tried out in the C-H Trophy. The blackcaps are missing experience and the grit determination like Cairns and Harris. Its quite hard to get that back. However, the objective here for every team is to win the world cup and that means even going backwards to win it, so be it, look at India, Sourav Ganguly, went from being the prince of Calcutta to being absolutely disastrous.

WINNING is the objective, Ross Taylor and Fulton have got another fours years after the world cup, come on, give Harry another chance!

I'm not too sure. I think Harry could be effective enough on the West Indies' pitches, but that role seems to be Jeetan Patel's. I don't see where he plays. We have two allrounders in the side: Styris and Oram. I don't see any place for Harris in our current team.

 

[Fiery]

Hu-hum...

I'm honoured that you remember everything I say Richard. That post you've dug up is over 2 years old. It's called changing your mind, a concept you seem unfamiliar with. Harry is in great form atm and others who have been used in similar roles, e.g Adams, have not stepped up. I think he should come back into consideration.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Like nate-d pointed out below, it's all about winning. We watch professional sport because we want our team to win. Professionals play to win. I don't like the comparison of Exeter Third XI to New Zealand, and I don't think it has much credibility in a professional sport age.

Captaincy in cricket is about leading your team to victory -- more in any other sport, the captain in cricket plays a huge role.

And I'm not taking for a moment that sending me round the boundary at Babbacombe while everyone else stays in the ring is much fun either!

 

[Richard]

I believe there's a level that a captain can take a side to, and I believe that Fleming has taken us to that level long ago. We're definitely better -- better players, more professional, sometimes more consistent -- than when Fleming took over.

Why is there only a certain amount one captain can achieve? Why can't he achieve one thing, then set himself new goals, and keep doing so?

However, we're currently not playing at a level that we're capable of: we're losing tight games, losing games we should win, and everyone from the team seems happy that "everything is on track".

Unless you can find something specific in the Fleming captaincy that is causing said losses I hardly see how they're relevant.

 

[Richard]

Like nate-d pointed out below, it's all about winning. We watch professional sport because we want our team to win. Professionals play to win. I don't like the comparison of Exeter Third XI to New Zealand, and I don't think it has much credibility in a professional sport age.

Captaincy in cricket is about leading your team to victory -- more in any other sport, the captain in cricket plays a huge role.

You think no-one in our team gives a damn about winning? Well, I suppose I can't speak for everyone but I (and, Neil will assure you, plenty of others) play to win every bit as much as any pro or international does.

Captains can't "lead" their team to victory. Captaincy can only play a small part in victory - if the players aren't good enough, there's nothing a captain can do to change that.

There are, however, all sorts of things - sometimes impossibly small ones - that a captain can do to improve his team, and it's those that count, not results. The results are almost solely down to the players.

 

[Richard]

I'm honoured that you remember everything I say Richard. That post you've dug up is over 2 years old. It's called changing your mind, a concept you seem unfamiliar with. Harry is in great form atm and others who have been used in similar roles, e.g Adams, have not stepped up. I think he should come back into consideration.

I'm glad you do and have.

I don't remember, BTW, everything you say any more than anyone else. You might recently have spotted something I linked to from deeps that was 3-and-a-half years old.

I change my mind plenty, too, but I was just a bit surprised that you'd say such a thing without mentioning that you'd once thought he was a hasbeen and now believed he was the best man for the job after-all.

 

[Richard]

And I'm not taking for a moment that sending me round the boundary at Babbacombe while everyone else stays in the ring is much fun either!

I have from good sources that such a thing was a punishment...

 

[Fiery]

I'm glad you do and have.

I don't remember, BTW, everything you say any more than anyone else. You might recently have spotted something I linked to from deeps that was 3-and-a-half years old.

I change my mind plenty, too, but I was just a bit surprised that you'd say such a thing without mentioning that you'd once thought he was a hasbeen and now believed he was the best man for the job after-all.

Yeah it does sound a bit contradictory, admittedly. I would just love to see him selected again. It would be a great reward for his outstanding service to NZ cricket and he's been in blinding form with the bat so would deserve to be there on form. Windies pitch might suit his bowling too. There's an extra spot up for grabs now with Mills unable to play too, so it's not totally out of the question imo but not sure whether he's in the selectors minds or not.

 

[Richard]

My guess would have to be not, it's sad but we've the same thing over here with Mark Ealham... albeit Harris has always been a rather better bat than Ealham, Ealham is certainly a better bowler.

 

[Fiery]

My guess would have to be not, it's sad but we've the same thing over here with Mark Ealham... albeit Harris has always been a rather better bat than Ealham, Ealham is certainly a better bowler.

He's in the 30

 

[Richard]

I know, which is mildly encouraging but if New Zealand's selectors were seriously suggesting that Harris is not one of the 30 best OD cricketers in NZ, well... they'd be stretching credulity far more than Aus's were by suggesting Gillespie wasn't.

 

[Fiery]

I know, which is mildly encouraging but if New Zealand's selectors were seriously suggesting that Harris is not one of the 30 best OD cricketers in NZ, well... they'd be stretching credulity far more than Aus's were by suggesting Gillespie wasn't.

Yeah, I don't think he'll make the 15, but he might be the next cab-off-the-rank if there are injuries during the Chappell-Hadlee or the WC tournament itself (which is highly likely).

I'm quite looking forward to this game tonight now that you Brits have struck a rich vein of form.

 

[Jono]

Lol, NZ please don't recall Harris. Yeah he's awesome but if I have to see his unplayable dibbly dobblers coming out of the side of his hand again, for the millionth time in my life, I'll explode.

 

[Richard]

 

[Craig]

Well if a captain has his bowlers, and they are not bowling well in the game, what else can a captain do, likewise if other batsmen are getting out to stupid shots and converting any starts into big scores.

 

[Slow Love™]

New Zealand's overall win record in ODIs is about 45 per cent, while the winning ratio under his leadership is about 47 per cent. So he's only a whisker better than average.

Even Martin Crowe managed 49 per cent from his 44 games and he had some pretty ordinary players to work with. Fleming has had the cream of the crop in terms of talent.

Actually, unless I'm mistaken, Fleming's winning record is more around the 43% mark, which, if the other stat reproduced here is correct, makes the winning record under his captaincy lower than NZ's overall average.

That's actually a really surprising stat to me. But this is one of those times where you really have to question the correlation between winning percentages and level of captaincy. Fleming's generally been described as one of the better captains in world cricket during his tenure, so it's hard to blame him specifically for the team's shortcomings. His winning percentage is actually quite poor - it's possible that simply being captain for so many matches might have something to do with it, but looking down the list of the 20 or so captains who have led their side in more than 70 matches, he's only got Tendulkar (32%!) and Zimbabwe's Alistair Campbell (35%) below him. Still, more an indictment on NZ than on Fleming, I would have thought.

Does Parore perhaps have an axe to grind where Fleming is concerned? Or has he just been a longtime Vettori advocate?