Bracewell gets two more years

[armchairumpire]

I'm afraid, Richard, you know very little about this subject if this is what you think - and just because someone writes an article about the subject doesn't make it true.

Bracewell has a very unfortunate habit of rubbing people up the wrong way. He does this in several ways - dropping players for no reason and not informing them until they hear the team selection on the radio (Lou Vincent), selecting players who are woefully out of form just because he doesn't want to be seen to be wrong about one of 'his' selections (Hamish Marshall). He has no idea how to manage talented, arrogant, young players (Jesse Ryder). He's a stubborn, cantankerous oaf who is dragging New Zealand Cricket backwards in order to follow his own whimsical selection path so that if something goes right, he can take all of the credit away from the players. I would have thought that given the numerous failures over the past two years that even a new CEO could have seen through the layers of **** perpetuated by Bracewell to appoint someone slightly less abrasive, supercilious and egotistical.

The parallel with Duncan Fletcher isn't too far off... Just Duncan wasn't picking players in order to massage his own ego and he knew when to jump after successive failures. I just cannot see the justification for continuing to have someone so objectionable in such a key role.

Have to agree Heath. Bracewell's selection decisions are very strange. I've heard of keeping faith with players who are out of form but he must take the credit for ruining Hamish Marshall as an NZ player. It left Marshall so low on form and confidence that he was reduced to a fringe player, and in the end felt that he had no choice but to make oodles of cash as a county professional when he should have been playing for NZ for the next few years at least. Lou Vincent is a confidence player and a real crowd pleaser. He strikes me as someone who would be very sensitive to his treatment by selectors and the coach. So I am surprised that he has achieved as much as he has. New Zealand cricket has trouble getting crowds to their international games so why undermine someone who through their great personality and play would bring people to games.

I personally don't think it matters that much how the coach is perceived by the media as long as he is getting results and motivates the players. However, Bracewel strikes me as someone who can rub the players up the wrong way so that they don't achieve their best. I don't think NZ cricket has such depth that they can afford to burn a few and not get the best out of a few more - so 2 more years of Bracewell IMO is same old same old.

 

[Days of Grace]

Test team should look like this...

Michael Papps
Craig Cumming
Ross Taylor/Matthew Sinclair
Stephen Fleming
Scott Styris
Jacob Oram
Brendon McCullum
James Franklin
Daniel Vettori
Shane Bond
Chris Martin

Craig Cumming hasn't impressed me much t.b.h. I reckon Lou Vincent would be a much better option. He is attacking and would be a good foil for the more defensive Papps.
Heck, I would even have Sinclair opening over Cumming and put Taylor in at no.3.

We need to have an attacking top three. Not three batsmen that just scratch around and thus give the opposition bowlers a leg up and then get out. Seen it happen too many times.

 

[Will Scarlet]

Fairly good test and ODI teams Pup.

Firstly, Fulton deserves to be in the test and ODI teams - and he should be batting higher than Styris in both forms of the game. I think he should now open the batting in ODIs with Vincent, after showing considerable promise opening in the WC; Fleming should be moved down the order to protect him against the early movement that troubles him so much. Fulton does not scratch around for his runs and should play at #3 in tests.

There is not room for both Styris and Oram in the test team because neither will take regular wickets, and are thus not true all-rounders.

Cumming and Papps are the form FC openers and should be our test openers. This combination needs to be given an extended trial.

Ross Taylor has not yet justified his selection in the test team, and in my opinion is struggling to hold on to his ODI spot.

Vincent does not want to open in tests and performs better at #6 so should not be considered an opening option for non-ODI matches.

I wouldn't write-off Gillespie yet; he's got potential.

Sinclair is one of the most consistent FC batsmen NZ has and given a decent opportunity may achieve his potential.

Neil Broom must be near consideration for the ODI team initially, later the test team.

 

[Will Scarlet]

Under Duncan Fletcher England became consistently the worst ODI team among the true test nations. Yes, I believe that qualifies Fletcher's comparison to Bracewell.

So how does Fletcher qualify as England's best ever coach? England has, after all, been the best test nation in the past, not just the second best and a team that hardly wins away from home against decent opposition.

 

[Days of Grace]

From Will Scarlet: "Ross Taylor has not yet justified his selection in the test team, and in my opinion is struggling to hold on to his ODI spot."


Martin Crowe was perserved with in the early 1980s. I believe they should do the same for Ross Taylor. He doesn't strike me as the sort of lad that loses confidence after a few low scores.

 

[Will Scarlet]

From Will Scarlet: "Ross Taylor has not yet justified his selection in the test team, and in my opinion is struggling to hold on to his ODI spot."


Martin Crowe was perserved with in the early 1980s. I believe they should do the same for Ross Taylor. He doesn't strike me as the sort of lad that loses confidence after a few low scores.

I generally agree. Taylor is a great talent, but he shouldn't be in the team if he loses form. And he has never had the FC form that Crowe showed early in his career. In my opinion Crowe was perseveered with too long initially, but did achieve his potential by 1985.

 

[Flem274*]

With regards to Crowe, he mentioned somewhere that being brought in so early and humilliated damaged his confidence for good so instead of "Lets go out there and get a big score" it was "I have to go out and get a big score or I'll be humilliated again."

Taylor is not a test no.3 IIRC he bats at 5 in FC cricket.

hmmm I've had a brainwave, if you don't crucify me I'd like to analyse why the two best teams in the world are the best two teams.

Australia

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

England

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Flintoff
Prior
Harmison
Hoggard
Panesar

Both have one hell of a top order, thats obvious. Their number four is consistent. number five is reliable and can bowl a bit. Interesting point is a specialist number 6 batsman. Shot player at 7. Excellent spinner. Reliable bowler (Hoggard, McGrath) to go with the fast weapon(s)

Now the NZ team of the 80's

Turner
Wright
Jones
Crowe
Reid
Coney
Hadlee
Cairns
Smith
Bracewell
Chatfield

What immediately becomes apparent is the excellent combination of Hadlee and Chatfield, just like McGrath, Gillespie and Hoggard, Harmison. Good top three, reliable number four. Allrounder at five. Excellent balance. For our current team I'm going to take tips from that.

Papps
Cumming
Fulton/Sinclair
Fleming
Styris
Vincent/Taylor
McCullum
Vettori
Franklin
O'Brien
Bond

Why O'Brien? He's consistent at FC level and he's better than Martin. Reliable top order. Fleming is consistent. Styris can be our worker. Vincent or Taylor at six etc. Not saying this team will become the world no.1 but it has a nice balance to it.

 

[Richard]

I'm afraid, Richard, you know very little about this subject if this is what you think - and just because someone writes an article about the subject doesn't make it true.

Bracewell has a very unfortunate habit of rubbing people up the wrong way. He does this in several ways - dropping players for no reason and not informing them until they hear the team selection on the radio (Lou Vincent), selecting players who are woefully out of form just because he doesn't want to be seen to be wrong about one of 'his' selections (Hamish Marshall). He has no idea how to manage talented, arrogant, young players (Jesse Ryder). He's a stubborn, cantankerous oaf who is dragging New Zealand Cricket backwards in order to follow his own whimsical selection path so that if something goes right, he can take all of the credit away from the players. I would have thought that given the numerous failures over the past two years that even a new CEO could have seen through the layers of **** perpetuated by Bracewell to appoint someone slightly less abrasive, supercilious and egotistical.

The parallel with Duncan Fletcher isn't too far off... Just Duncan wasn't picking players in order to massage his own ego and he knew when to jump after successive failures. I just cannot see the justification for continuing to have someone so objectionable in such a key role.

Well I didn't know about certain aspects of that, no (specifically the bit about not letting players know about being dropped, which I've always found quite disgraceful) but most of it I'm well aware of.

You seem to know Bracewell fairly well to make such extremely harsh statements. A coach like that is a terrible coach, and I'd be pretty amazed if someone could do such things and enjoy any success at all or be spoken of highly by anyone at all.

BTW... read the article in question yourself, it was just before your time. Dig the thread to comment too if you want.

 

[Richard]

So how does Fletcher qualify as England's best ever coach? England has, after all, been the best test nation in the past, not just the second best and a team that hardly wins away from home against decent opposition.

Umm... the last time England were the best Test nation in The World was 50 years ago, 35 years before the first coach was appointed.

When the first coach was appointed (1990), we were bottom of the pile. When Duncan Fletcher was appointed (1999), we were also bottom of the pile (if only for a few months). Therefore, he is unquestionably England's best coach, not because he got us to #2 in some stupid ranking system, but because he played a part in the team winning 4 series in a row in 2000 and 2000\01, then 5 in a row in 2004 and 2005.

 

[Richard]

Now the NZ team of the 80's

Turner
Wright
Jones
Crowe
Reid
Coney
Hadlee
Cairns
Smith
Bracewell
Chatfield

Nice try, but Turner and Wright never opened together. They only played 2 games together (when Turner came back after 5 years out of the side) and in both, Wright was pushed down to three as Edgar opened with Turner.

Replace him with Edgar and you can, I think, have that side though.

 

[Days of Grace]

I assume Flem274* was referring to John Reid as the allrounder at no.5. Lad, Reid played in the 1940s-1960s!!

 

[Days of Grace]

Or, maybe you meant an all-time NZ team, not one of the 1980s?

 

[Will Scarlet]

There was another John Reid in the 80's. I believe he averaged around 50 with the bat in tests.

Why did it take England so long to employ a coach? I know coaches weren't very common until the 70's but does England have to be conservative about everything?

Bracewell hasn't enjoyed much success, which is testament to his methods.

 

[Flem274*]

I assume Flem274* was referring to John Reid as the allrounder at no.5. Lad, Reid played in the 1940s-1960s!!

Damn it. I knew I had someone wrong in there. And oh damn I forgot Edgar as well. Oh well I'm going to bend the rules and keep them there. The point was to show the similarities between three very good teams and what we could learn from them.

 

[Richard]

Why did it take England so long to employ a coach? I know coaches weren't very common until the 70's but does England have to be conservative about everything?

England were the second team to employ a coach, Micky Stewart.

Only Australia with Bobby Simpson preceded them.

 

[Days of Grace]

So who was NZ's first coach?

Wasn't Glenn Turner the coach in the 1980s, or was he the 'manager'?

 

[Richard]

Glenn Turner was the first coach in, what, 1993? 1994?

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

hmmm I've had a brainwave, if you don't crucify me I'd like to analyse why the two best teams in the world are the best two teams.

...

Both have one hell of a top order, thats obvious. Their number four is consistent. number five is reliable and can bowl a bit. Interesting point is a specialist number 6 batsman. Shot player at 7. Excellent spinner. Reliable bowler (Hoggard, McGrath) to go with the fast weapon(s)

So basically the best test teams in the world have good players?

 

[Richard]

Well it does tend to help...

 

[Will Scarlet]

England were the second team to employ a coach, Micky Stewart.

Only Australia with Bobby Simpson preceded them.

I thought the Windies had a coach during the 80's. Someone like Frank Worrell?

Anyway, counties had coaches back then didn't they?

I thought NZ took on a coach in the mid 80's. Turner has coached NZ on two occasions; the first time being in the 80's I think. Warren Lees was coach around 1990.