Duncan Fletcher

[toons_39]

Hi,
i thought would post this message on the fact that Duncan Fletcher apparently deserves an apology from his critics. I however disagree. England on the whole tour of Australia won only 5 games 2 of which happened to be in the final.Obviously he must be congratulated on winning the commonwealth bank series aswell as the whole of the England team. But people are forgetting about the ashes.A 5-0 whitewash , the wrong team was picked on basiccly all the tests. Ashley Giles was a complete waste of time , and finally when monty came in he took 5 wickets. Why take players and injured players who havnt played any cricket for over a year. SO NO HE DOES NOT DESERVE AN APOLOGY.

Does anyone else agree with me..........

However the world cup team i am very happy with.

 

[social]

Hi,
i thought would post this message on the fact that Duncan Fletcher apparently deserves an apology from his critics. I however disagree. England on the whole tour of Australia won only 5 games 2 of which happened to be in the final.Obviously he must be congratulated on winning the commonwealth bank series aswell as the whole of the England team. But people are forgetting about the ashes.A 5-0 whitewash , the wrong team was picked on basiccly all the tests. Ashley Giles was a complete waste of time , and finally when monty came in he took 5 wickets. Why take players and injured players who havnt played any cricket for over a year. SO NO HE DOES NOT DESERVE AN APOLOGY.

Does anyone else agree with me..........

However the world cup team i am very happy with.

Seems to think that he deserves all the plaudits when the team wins but none of the brickbats when they lose

I've said many times that it's ridiculous how much control he has, particularly when so many of his decisions are biased (Jones' selection) or ****e (playing of injured players

 

[Stumped]

I dont think its all his fault i think his players have a case to answer for

 

[cover drive man]

I agree he doesn't deserve an apology.

 

[Richard]

Seems to think that he deserves all the plaudits when the team wins but none of the brickbats when they lose

Bull****.

DF has countless times refused to take any great plaudits for the team's successes.

 

[Richard]

Hi,
i thought would post this message on the fact that Duncan Fletcher apparently deserves an apology from his critics. I however disagree. England on the whole tour of Australia won only 5 games 2 of which happened to be in the final.Obviously he must be congratulated on winning the commonwealth bank series aswell as the whole of the England team. But people are forgetting about the ashes.A 5-0 whitewash , the wrong team was picked on basiccly all the tests. Ashley Giles was a complete waste of time , and finally when monty came in he took 5 wickets. Why take players and injured players who havnt played any cricket for over a year. SO NO HE DOES NOT DESERVE AN APOLOGY.

Does anyone else agree with me..........

However the world cup team i am very happy with.

Monty Panesar is no miracle-worker.

And IMO the presumption that he is has one hell of a lot to do with the anti-Duncan Fletcher sentiments currently flying around.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Who said he deserves and apology?
He gets praise if England win (that is win meaningful matches consistantly not a meaningless tin pot trophy) and criticism when we lose. The same applies to any coach in any sport (including Deep Sea Squid Wrestling).

 

[Richard]

Who said he deserves and apology?

David Graveney.

 

[Swervy]

Monty Panesar is no miracle-worker.

And IMO the presumption that he is has one hell of a lot to do with the anti-Duncan Fletcher sentiments currently flying around.

no, Monty isnt a miracle worker, but the appreciation of his bowling that many people have isnt down to anti-Fletcher sentiment, its down to him being quite obviously a good bowler with a very bright future, and also being quite easily the best England qualified spinner in the country.

The Giles selection debacle was one of the great English cricket farces IMO of the last 30 years, and there have been plenty of those

 

[Lillian Thomson]

David Graveney.

Ah! A totally unbiased independent source.

 

[Richard]

Well accoding to Nasser Hussain the Graveney-Fletcher axis hasn't always been a picture of serenity...

 

[Richard]

no, Monty isnt a miracle worker, but the appreciation of his bowling that many people have isnt down to anti-Fletcher sentiment, its down to him being quite obviously a good bowler with a very bright future, and also being quite easily the best England qualified spinner in the country.

Err, where on Earth did I say "the appreciation of his bowling that many people have is down to anti-Fletcher sentiment"? I said the anti-Fletcher sentiment is a result of his not picking MSP in those 2 Tests.

Sure, MSP is a good bowler and sure he'll probably have a good career, but his popularity is far more down to his enthusiasm and (perhaps - hopefully so - in the past) his comical fielding than good bowling.

And because of said popularity, his non-selection has engendered far, far more hyperbolic criticism than it deserved.

To suggest that had MSP played the first 2 Tests - instead of anyone - the result of those 2 games would've been different is laughable. Unless you're suggesting he was more likely to have caught Ponting than Giles was.

The Giles selection debacle was one of the great English cricket farces IMO of the last 30 years, and there have been plenty of those

Ha! Giles' selection was quite justified IMO, it was Anderson who should never, ever have been picked ahead of MSP.

 

[grecian]

Giles selection was ridiculous because he hadn't played any meaningful cricket for almost a year. Which did make his lack of batting and fielding sharpness predictable, supposedly the two disciplines that separated him from Monty. That's why it was a risible decision to play Giles. Importantly not just unfair on Monty, but terribly unfair to Ashley IMHO.

This was never an argument about a fully-fit Giles against Panesar or Anderson, which is a reasonable debate. So stop making it that.

I have no idea whether playing Monty would have stopped us losing the first two tests, because I have not got a crystal ball, but you're assertion that it wouldn't, suggests you do.

 

[Richard]

It suggests that all the evidence points to it not doing. There is nothing to suggest MSP's performances would've been superior to Giles'. Both pitches were incredibly flat (apart from the final couple of sessions at Brisbane), Giles barely turned a ball in either game, and so it's reasonable to suggest MSP's bowling would have made no impact. And his batting and fielding is inferior (even if, as is pointed-out ad nauseum, it's not as bad as it used to be) so there's no reason to suggest it'd have done so.

Giles, meanwhile, was quite fit - he just hadn't played. And he's had spells of not playing for ages before now, too.

 

[grecian]

He hadn't played, so wasn't sharp. Shouldn't of been selected. I'd rather Dalrymple had played.

 

[Richard]

I would rather he'd not have played, impossibly so. But the biggest reason of all for that is that I knew what would be said about Duncan Fletcher if he did.

But I wouldn't, ever, have wanted Dalrymple ahead of him. I can't ever see Dalrymple being Test-class as a bowler, not even close, and an Ashes series would, despite what some say, IMO have been the worst possible place to debut.

 

[grecian]

Hmm, but you said no spinner would of taking wickets for England, so surely Dalrymples inclusion would of improved our batting and fielding.

Still, Giles should not have played, because he wasn't match-fit. Its a fairly easy equation, IMO.

 

[Richard]

Dalrymple = batsman who bowls a bit.

So therefore to replace Giles with him would have made no sense. It'd have been like replacing, a few years back, Cork with Adam Hollioake.

Personally I'd have been more than happy to pick a side with 4 seamers in the first 2 Tests - but only if I was immune from criticism as I know that'd still have been wholly unlikely to have resulted in bowling Australia out cheaply, and you get criticised far more for having a poor attack of similar styles than you do if you have the precious "variety" nonsense.

 

[Swervy]

Err, where on Earth did I say "the appreciation of his bowling that many people have is down to anti-Fletcher sentiment"? I said the anti-Fletcher sentiment is a result of his not picking MSP in those 2 Tests.

no you didnt, you said this:

Monty Panesar is no miracle-worker.

And IMO the presumption that he is has one hell of a lot to do with the anti-Duncan Fletcher sentiments currently flying around.

 

[honestbharani]

It suggests that all the evidence points to it not doing. There is nothing to suggest MSP's performances would've been superior to Giles'. Both pitches were incredibly flat (apart from the final couple of sessions at Brisbane), Giles barely turned a ball in either game, and so it's reasonable to suggest MSP's bowling would have made no impact. And his batting and fielding is inferior (even if, as is pointed-out ad nauseum, it's not as bad as it used to be) so there's no reason to suggest it'd have done so.

Giles, meanwhile, was quite fit - he just hadn't played. And he's had spells of not playing for ages before now, too.

U need MATCH-FIT players for imp. series, Rich. Not guys who are certified fit.


And look, the only reason Giles over Monty is an issue for me is due to the fact that Monty was a better option than Giles in the XI and yet Giles was preferred. End of story. Would that have changed the result. Possibly not. Would that have given England more of a chance than what they had with Giles in the XI. Absolutely.


For how long are people going to contend selection issues with "so had X played instead of Y, would we have won the match?". You only win the match if you play well. Selection issues are reg. whether the best team was picked or not.