The England batting line up

[Richard]

With Prior's dreadful fielding and pretty hopeless batting hopefully that'll only be a matter of time.
I never, ever thought Prior should've been anywhere near the side.

 

[GIMH]

He didn't exactly set the world alight in Pakistan either did he

Whjat does everybody think of James Foster, the forgotten man?

 

[wpdavid]

He didn't exactly set the world alight in Pakistan either did he

Whjat does everybody think of James Foster, the forgotten man?

By all accounts, Prior is even worse behind the stumps than Jones, so no thank you.

As for Foster, he's scored a lot of runs for Essex, including some very big 100's. For a 20 year old, he actually batted quite well in India 4 years ago, and that side of his game seems to have developed.

I haved absolutely no idea about his keeping though. In 2001/02, it was pretty iffy, and he missed a lot of chances, IIRC. Of course, it may have improved since then.

 

[tooextracool]

Chris Read has a Test average of 15.30, which compares unfavourably to Geraint's 27.75. Read has played eleven matches for England, after 11 matches Jones averaged 33.93.

jones average has fallen from 40 at the start of his test career to 27.75. one would think his average is barely above Reads' record. regardless that is besides the point. An average in the low 20s is not good enough for any wicket keeper batsman in world cricket, especially one that isnt especially brilliant with the gloves. Meanwhile read has been scoring runs in FC cricket....

And obviously you can't read too much into this, but after 11 matches each, Read had made 31 catches to Geraint's 38, though he had 4 stumpings to Jones's 2.

ooooh, because that proves so much. could it not be that read had to contend for the large part with some rubbish bowling in SL or against NZ at the start of his career?
anybody wishing to compare the 2 as keepers obviously has no idea what hes talking about given that one is clearly and by a distance better than the other.

There is no doubt that Jones's batting is better than Read's, and the strides he has made and is making with his keeping have been mentioned by many - he is going through a slump with the bat ironically, but dropping him would be pointless, and I for one feel he has earned his place in the side.

and could it not be that reads batting has improved? could it not be that Read, not Jones, has made great strides in domestic cricket? there is certainly major doubt whether Jones' batting is better than read and at least one can guarantee that with read we arent going to keep seeing the utterly pathetic brainless dismissals that have been a pattern off Jones throughout his test match career.

 

[tooextracool]

Yet he was scoring First-Class runs in 2002 and 2003, as well. Not quite so many as in 2004 and 2005, no, but enough.
Read simply IMO lacks the temperament for Test batting. There's nothing obviously wrong with his technique.

scoring runs with an average of 30 is not exactly brilliant. scoring runs by averaging nearly 50 as Read has since being dropped, is quite remarkable and would put him in consideration for a place in the side for his batting alone.
and it was glaringly obvious that Read had a very very poor footwork when he last played. hes never had temperament problems and infact hes one of the better players in pressure situations in ODIs. maybe his footwork might havent have improved, but at least it would be a change from having to see some moronic dismissals from the current # 7.

 

[grecian]

Yes, Reads figures have definitely improved in recent times, and I still can't make out why hes not the second wicket-keeper in one-dayers at least, because he has late six-hitting ability, he showed that in the West Indies.

Back on topic Colly has to play, his determination to work at his limitations and come back stronger is admirable, and these reasons, may also be the reason for a Read recall

 

[BoyBrumby]

scoring runs with an average of 30 is not exactly brilliant. scoring runs by averaging nearly 50 as Read has since being dropped, is quite remarkable and would put him in consideration for a place in the side for his batting alone.
and it was glaringly obvious that Read had a very very poor footwork when he last played. hes never had temperament problems and infact hes one of the better players in pressure situations in ODIs. maybe his footwork might havent have improved, but at least it would be a change from having to see some moronic dismissals from the current # 7.

If I were Read I'd wonder what more I have to do, frankly. He's comfortably our best keeper & has gone away and scored heavily. Yet he still missed out on the tour to Prior who a) can't field to save his life & b) avearged about 33 in FC cricket last year!

IIRC Big Dunc justified it because "he scored his runs quicker than Read". Far be it for me to demure, but I think on this occasion Fletch's acumen has failed him.

What I find interesting now is that Geraint's average is more-or-less the same as Jack Russell's was &, of course, his vastly superior glovework was deemed surplus to requirements when Stewie took up the gauntlets. Geraint needs to score runs to justify his place for me.

 

[superkingdave]

the more i think about it the more i think there must have been some personality clash between Fletcher and Read. Can't think of any other explanation.

 

[Richard]

Whjat does everybody think of James Foster, the forgotten man?

Never thought he should have been anywhere near being picked when he was, but certainly he's a better batsman and wicketkeeper now than he was then.
Still doubt he's as good as Jones or Read, though.

 

[Richard]

If I were Read I'd wonder what more I have to do, frankly. He's comfortably our best keeper & has gone away and scored heavily. Yet he still missed out on the tour to Prior who a) can't field to save his life & b) avearged about 33 in FC cricket last year!

IIRC Big Dunc justified it because "he scored his runs quicker than Read". Far be it for me to demure, but I think on this occasion Fletch's acumen has failed him.

I genuinely think there's a chance that that might have had something to do with "Big Dunc"'s worrying near-obsession with having an aggressive wicketkeeper opening the batting in ODIs.
For a normally so astute thinker, I'm really worried that he's going off on a single-minded pursuit here - it's merely a coincidence that Gilchrist happens to be a wicketkeeper, Duncan! You don't have to try more wicketkeepers to find a batsman like him!

What I find interesting now is that Geraint's average is more-or-less the same as Jack Russell's was &, of course, his vastly superior glovework was deemed surplus to requirements when Stewie took up the gauntlets. Geraint needs to score runs to justify his place for me.

Indeed - the days of Russell being Read and Jones being Alec have rapidly gone!

 

[marc71178]

Do you really imagine it's deliberate on the part of either of us?

So you find replying to be an involuntary act then?

 

[social]

Can anyone please explain to me why Duncan Fletcher apparently has such a big influence over the team's selection.

He's a coach not a selector.

Furthermore, he was a very average cricketer and wouldnt have a clue what it took to succeed at test level.

His influence, should it be as strong as everyone seems to think, is far above his station.

 

[Swervy]

Can anyone please explain to me why Duncan Fletcher apparently has such a big influence over the team's selection.

He's a coach not a selector.

Furthermore, he was a very average cricketer and wouldnt have a clue what it took to succeed at test level.

His influence, should it be as strong as everyone seems to think, is far above his station.

seems to have had a good effect though.

And from what I can remember, he wasnt that bad a player either

 

[marc71178]

He certainly knows a thing or 2 about beating Aussies!

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/WC83/GROUP-B/ZIM_AUS_WC83_ODI3_09JUN1983.html

 

[luckyeddie]

Can anyone please explain to me why Duncan Fletcher apparently has such a big influence over the team's selection.

He's a coach not a selector.

Furthermore, he was a very average cricketer and wouldnt have a clue what it took to succeed at test level.

His influence, should it be as strong as everyone seems to think, is far above his station.

Your captain thinks the world of him - and that's good enough for me.

Seriously, it's part and parcel of the 'Team England' ethic, where everyone has roles but there are no hard and fast rules about demarcation lines. Fletcher and Vaughan obviously has a huge influence regarding the 'in your face togetherness' style of play, and presumably that comes down to the sort of player they want to see in the side.

A coach is probably in the best position to think about balance and blend, and that naturally has an impact on who gets picked. After all, he has regular 'conversations' with David Graveney and Geoff Miller - regular enough to think in terms of him actually being an 'honorary' selector.

Perhaps that's where Australia are going wrong?

 

[social]

Your captain thinks the world of him - and that's good enough for me.

Seriously, it's part and parcel of the 'Team England' ethic, where everyone has roles but there are no hard and fast rules about demarcation lines. Fletcher and Vaughan obviously has a huge influence regarding the 'in your face togetherness' style of play, and presumably that comes down to the sort of player they want to see in the side.

A coach is probably in the best position to think about balance and blend, and that naturally has an impact on who gets picked. After all, he has regular 'conversations' with David Graveney and Geoff Miller - regular enough to think in terms of him actually being an 'honorary' selector.

Perhaps that's where Australia are going wrong?

2 recent examples of a coach's position being over-estimated.

a. Clive Woodward

Hailed as the all-conquering hero when Eng won the RWC and granted the biggest honour of everybody associated with that great team.

Unfortunately for Sir Clive, after the RWC, the real hero of the campaign, Martin Johnson (a Kiwi incidentally - just had to throw that in ) retired and Eng suddenly lost the ability to steer their opponents into positions where Johnny could kick goals.

Sir Clive then had to really "coach" for the first time and the rest is, as they say, history.

b. Bob Simpson

Like Duncan Edwards, fantastic for his team to a point.

However, it was only when Steve Waugh took over virtually all aspects of running the team (and Warne, McGrath, etc came to their peak) that Aus truly became a great side.

Lesson: a coach is only as good as his players and the coach of a national team generally has bugger-all to do with the development of those players to that level.

Or, as a great Aus rugby league coach once said, ''you can't run a great stud without great cattle."

 

[luckyeddie]

Or, as a great Aus rugby league coach once said, ''you can't run a great stud without great cattle."

Oh, I totally agree with everything you wrote.

You have to have the raw materials - and that's grass roots up. The academies are paramount to the future of the English game, because that's where the raw ability is nurtured, moulded and eventually something akin to a half-decent player comes out the other end. Get enough of them who are good enough early enough at any one time, and then the coaches can start to earn their wages - but sow's ears don't make for great silk purses.

 

[BoyBrumby]

2 recent examples of a coach's position being over-estimated.

a. Clive Woodward

Hailed as the all-conquering hero when Eng won the RWC and granted the biggest honour of everybody associated with that great team.

Unfortunately for Sir Clive, after the RWC, the real hero of the campaign, Martin Johnson (a Kiwi incidentally - just had to throw that in ) retired and Eng suddenly lost the ability to steer their opponents into positions where Johnny could kick goals.

Sir Clive then had to really "coach" for the first time and the rest is, as they say, history.

b. Bob Simpson

Like Duncan Edwards, fantastic for his team to a point.

However, it was only when Steve Waugh took over virtually all aspects of running the team (and Warne, McGrath, etc came to their peak) that Aus truly became a great side.

Lesson: a coach is only as good as his players and the coach of a national team generally has bugger-all to do with the development of those players to that level.

Or, as a great Aus rugby league coach once said, ''you can't run a great stud without great cattle."

That's the same Martin Johnson who was born in Solihull, then?

& I imagine dying in the Munich disaster did lessen Edwards's effectiveness somewhat, yes.

 

[Goughy]

2 recent examples of a coach's position being over-estimated.

a. Clive Woodward

Hailed as the all-conquering hero when Eng won the RWC and granted the biggest honour of everybody associated with that great team.

Unfortunately for Sir Clive, after the RWC, the real hero of the campaign, Martin Johnson (a Kiwi incidentally - just had to throw that in ) retired and Eng suddenly lost the ability to steer their opponents into positions where Johnny could kick goals.

Sir Clive then had to really "coach" for the first time and the rest is, as they say, history.

b. Bob Simpson

Like Duncan Edwards, fantastic for his team to a point.

However, it was only when Steve Waugh took over virtually all aspects of running the team (and Warne, McGrath, etc came to their peak) that Aus truly became a great side.

Lesson: a coach is only as good as his players and the coach of a national team generally has bugger-all to do with the development of those players to that level.

Or, as a great Aus rugby league coach once said, ''you can't run a great stud without great cattle."

It certainly help so have good players. This I do not doubt. But it only takes a look at the ICC World XI to show you cannot just throw talent into a team and have success.

Fletcher deserves a huge amount of credit for the improvement in Englands fortune. He has fostered a new level of professionalism into the team and system.

He has defined roles for players, used specialist coaches to help them improve and allowed continuity of selection to allow players to grow into their roles.

This has led to a team with clearly defined roles and responsibilities and this in turn has led to a cohesive unit. If a player drops out then the replacement slots in and automatically knows that is expected.

Team harmony and player unity has grown and this has strengthened the team as a unit and helped them perform better.

Under previous regimes the England players have just been thrown together like the ICC World XI and many never felt comfortable or fully understood what their future was or what was expected of them. There was also bias in the selection policy (see the other Fletcher).

Central Contracts have helped and his success has been helped by having disciples like Hussein and Vaughan as captains.

Not related to the quote post, but to an earlier one, As for him not being experienced as a enough as a player to be a good coach. This is nonsence.

Many of the best coaches were good players who never reached the highest levels or going on to become greats. This helps them as they understand how hard things can be for players and how to explain things.

Fletcher and Woolmer will never enter the fratenity of international cricket greats but they are great coaches. Top quality players often get where they are through abnormal talent and instinct and have issues understanding the problems mere mortals face in their efforts to improve their game.

Take a look at soccer. Ferguson, Wenger and Ranieri were not great players but often the average player understands the problems normal guys face far better than an ex-stud and can relate to their personal needs and struggles.

 

[social]

It certainly help so have good players. This I do not doubt. But it only takes a look at the ICC World XI to show you cannot just throw talent into a team and have success.

Fletcher deserves a huge amount of credit for the improvement in Englands fortune. He has fostered a new level of professionalism into the team and system.

He has defined roles for players, used specialist coaches to help them improve and allowed continuity of selection to allow players to grow into their roles.

This has led to a team with clearly defined roles and responsibilities and this in turn has led to a cohesive unit. If a player drops out then the replacement slots in and automatically knows that is expected.

Team harmony and player unity has grown and this has strengthened the team as a unit and helped them perform better.

Under previous regimes the England players have just been thrown together like the ICC World XI and many never felt comfortable or fully understood what their future was or what was expected of them. There was also bias in the selection policy (see the other Fletcher).

Central Contracts have helped and his success has been helped by having disciples like Hussein and Vaughan as captains.

Not related to the quote post, but to an earlier one, As for him not being experienced as a enough as a player to be a good coach. This is nonsence.

Many of the best coaches were good players who never reached the highest levels or going on to become greats. This helps them as they understand how hard things can be for players and how to explain things.

Fletcher and Woolmer will never enter the fratenity of international cricket greats but they are great coaches. Top quality players often get where they are through abnormal talent and instinct and have issues understanding the problems mere mortals face in their efforts to improve their game.

Take a look at soccer. Ferguson, Wenger and Ranieri were not great players but often the average player understands the problems normal guys face far better than an ex-stud and can relate to their personal needs and struggles.

I didnt say that the guy wasnt a good coach - I was implying that it's ludicrous to give him control over facets of the English game such as team selection (as appears to be the case with Geraint) when this is well beyond his brief AND there is a panel in place for such a purpose.

As for credit, give him some but 99% is due to the players. I can teach anybody to play a forward defensive BUT only a player is responsible for his actions on the pitch.