No one said it had to be a positive team culture.
#J.Hobbs; #L.Hutton; #D.Bradman; #V.Richards; #G.Sobers; #A.Border; #A.Gilchrist; #K.Miller; #I.Khan; #S.Warne; #M.Marshall;
A lot of critics of this Indian team repeat, "sack the stars, save Team India"- but under the Fletcher regime, you've had three stars and one old non-star hand phased out- Dravid and Laxman retired, while Harbhajan and Mishra were thrown out. You had Pujara, Kohli, Ojha and Ashwin inducted- and all of them bar Pujara (under no pressure) have failed, and their failures have affected the team badly- the spin duo have been very poor in this series and handed two games on a platter. Kohli's form has had a dramatic reversal, and Pujara hasn't been as impressive under pressure of a first-innings deficit.
Just how much of a positive change can bringing in more youngsters make? Instead, the management should work on restoring the drooping form of the best players. Merely dropping the droops won't help when they're your best blokes. We've seen better from off-colour Kumble/Harbhajan/Kartik than we have of Ashwin/Ojha, and already we're talking of dropping a youngster (and a productive one) so soon. Surely, the management is at fault? When so many players, including the best ones, are failing, the responsibility lies with the management.
I don't buy the BCCI-gives-no-room excuse so easily. Other coaches managed well despite it, with the exception of Greg Chappell, who wanted fit athletes, but was forced to make do with stodgy geriatrics drafted by Dilip Vengsarkar, then Chief Selector. Even Chandu Borde and Lalchand Rajput have big trophies against their name- these blokes, with the least opposition to the BCCI, won an away Test series in England, the first World T20, and a triangular ODI series in Australia. Fletcher can't even win at home.
"Talent is nothing without opportunity"
"You're not remembered for aiming at the target, but hitting it"
Twenty20 used to be boring.
Didn't like Fletcher's appointment at the time, and though it's harsh to blame him for all the problems the team has had since his appointment it's fair to say he has added not much unlike Kirsten who clearly did.
Will probably be sacked alongside Dhoni if India lose the 3rd test too.
Although I don't think coaches play a very big role in individual matches or series..I think Fletcher was a bad choice for India....
A coach's role is to groom players..develop their already existing skills..manage their work load, training, fitness.. I don't think you can blame Fletcher the last 1 year though..lot of factors like work load and poor fitness levels of senior players are beyond his control.
Bangladesh have just won a series against an established side and they don't even have a proper full time coach but the development of players like Tamim, Shakib, Rahim, Mahmudullah..you have to attribute that to Jamie Siddons..
So on that point, I don't think Fletcher has a lot to give to the Pujaras, Kohlis, and Sharmas in India which they already don't have.
India need a real hardass coach imo.
Double his wages to get Kirsten back, imo.
I think BCCI has enough money to pay Kirsten probably 5 times of what he was getting previously.
Wouldn't be a bad investment and Kirsten probably will find it hard to turn down that kind of money
IIRC of our Ashes winning XI (12 if you count Collingwood) in 2005, I think only Flintoff had actually played cricket in the 1990s.
edit: wait, that can't be right, Vaughan debuted in South Africa in 1999.
The nucleus of the England side from around 2004 until pretty much now is full of players identified and given debuts by Fletcher, even if it's taken a change of coach for some of them (particularly Anderson and Swann) to really flourish at international level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)