Sack Fletcher!!!!

[tooextracool]

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.

 

[tooextracool]

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/story/0,,1989872,00.html
Easily the worst decision on tour, far worse than the lets play Geraint and Gilo at Brisbane.

 

[tooextracool]

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'

 

[tooextracool]

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.

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.

 

[GIMH]

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.

 

[albo97056]

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...

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[pasag]

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.

 

[Richard]

Yet that's stock-in-trade tec... and also virtually everyone else, just that they routinely use more veiled terminology.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

 

[Richard]

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?"

 

[tooextracool]

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?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
Gough was a bit better with 26.4:
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=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.

 

[Richard]

What I meant was before The Ashes, as I quite clearly stated.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

i couldnt be bothered to check how many they were, but from memory there were plenty and geraint nearly got himself out a half dozen times playing the sweep shot as well. I think we've seen many many dismissals to the sweep shot over the last year and half or so and theres enough from DFs autobiography to suggest the reason behind them as well.

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.

false, Butcher and Thorpe alone were responsible for about half a dozen dropped catches during the WI series in 2004. Where on earth do you come up with this? Butcher dropped more catches during that time than he caught.

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.

Whether the previous coaches have been any good is rather irrelevant. Fielding standards have dropped recently, and at the end of the day the coach is responsible for it. Whether it was better before, and honestly its been woeful since the Ashes 2001

 

[tooextracool]

What I meant was before The Ashes, as I quite clearly stated.

Logic? Both Caddick and Gough were fully fit and in form during that series so no excuses. You cant just pick and choose their best periods and then stop at the times when they face a quality batting lineup.Caddick and Gough were good, certainly not the 'best you can ever wish for',not when they couldnt bowl out quality lineups.

 

[tooextracool]

Geez, why the hell didn't they just give Strauss the captaincy in India?

He should have been made captain back then yes, but again doesnt change the fact that it was a poor decision.

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.

again point being? England were never going to win with Flintoff as captain because he simply wasnt good enough, and he was quite likely to break down given that he just got back from injury. Nobody in England is going to say that Freddie lacks cricketing intelligence but its pretty obvious when you watch him bat or when hes captaining on the field that he clearly does so. Again DFs fault

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.

Nicely done contradicting yourself. Now you yourself claim that it might well have been 4-0 instead of 5-0. Anyhow im fairly certain that the scorecards would have been a lot closer if we had a better captain, and the 4-0 or 5-0 would have hurt a lot less.
I have no doubt that the captaincy was only one factor in the loss, there were several others which i have mentioned before, but again you digress how does that prove the point that DF made poor selection and other decisions?

The fact that he'd been made captain before Strauss and Strauss only got the captaincy because of injury?

And strauss had done his job admirably by leading his side to a 3-0 victory against pakistan as well as contributing positively with the bat. Flintoff's shortcomings had already been seen in the home series against SL and he even managed to injure himself by bowling himself like an old shoe.

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?"

You are once again missing the whole point. Since when do you care about the masses of cricket fans? Ive provided enough reasons, most of which you havent found any answers to, to prove to you why it was a bad decision to have flintoff as captain. And i think its common sense really.
Even when ponting made those poor decisions in 2005 i backed him as a captain and said that he has been a decent one and anyone who watched him could see that. In flintoffs case there is nothing to back him with. Hes simply been miserable from day one. Despite appearing to be physically and emotionally drained by his teams performance he didnt relinquish the captaincy during the series which IMO he should have done. I dont rate Strauss very highly as captain but he wouldnt make those rather dull errors that flintoff committed and it might well have helped his game and Flintoffs as well. Really for mine Vaughan and Tresothick are far better tacticians than either of the 2.

 

[marc71178]

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.

It could be argued that Strauss was the man in possession from having been the most recent captain.

As for the not recovering - is it a mere coincidence that his best 2 performances of the tour have been this week?