Warne blasts Bracewell

[marc71178]

There has never been any instances where Snickos or The Mat has got anything wrong

Snicko hasn't ever got anything wrong you reckon?!

And as for the talk of Hawkeye, seeing as it's not used to make decisions, how is it relevant?!

 

[Richard]

No he doesent and why should he, its their peoblem not his. He can live his life the way he wants and dosent need to hide himself so that people that are jealous of him cant take pot shots at him all the time.

Also your Michael Jackson analogy is way off the mark and shows what lengths people will go to muddy the waters when talking about Warne.

Wise people insulate themselves against those sharks that lurk out there - as the Jackson case shows only too well. A more blatant set-up I've not often seen. Yet Macko just can't keep himself clean.
And it's exactly the same with Warne. There are *******s who are out to get him (lots of them) and he doesn't help himself with lots of the stuff he does.
There are also lots who'd leap on anything SRT gave them - but he sensibly doesn't give anyone the chance.

 

[Richard]

Snicko hasn't ever got anything wrong you reckon?!

And as for the talk of Hawkeye, seeing as it's not used to make decisions, how is it relevant?!

Because it's used to make decisions on which decision was right or wrong. Not by the Umpires, by the spectators.
And no, Snicko hasn't ever got anything wrong - it's been inconclusive occasionally, but it can't get things wrong.

 

[Richard]

very few have that have come out with the quality and quantity of JB's.

Of course everyone says stupid things, but this guy takes the cake.

And we've been subject to Kevin Sheedy. One of the great coaches, who's been in the AFL for 20 years and has made some quite strange post-match comments - probably the most perplexing was mentioning aliens having some sort of effect on his team (Can't remember the comment exactly - was about 5 years ago, but i think it was when he's team beat the opposition by some un godly amount)

I'll grant you he makes more than most but I still don't think he can be blamed for the team's poor form - which is the crux of the matter.

 

[Black Thunder]

I'll grant you he makes more than most but I still don't think he can be blamed for the team's poor form - which is the crux of the matter.

Maybe he can't be blamed, but that's not my problem with him. My problem with him is the stupidity of him as a human being.

On a sidenote, I think coaching in cricket is pretty irrelevant. If i wanted someone to have a look at my bowling action i'd take Glenn McGrath or Jason Gillespie's advice looooooooooong before i'd take John Buchanan's.

If someone has an off test match, they will be able to identify the problem before anyone else can. Coaches in sport are generally there for tactics and inspiration. In cricket, inspiration is very much driven from within the team - inspiration comes during a match (not from training talks) and during a match you'll only get to speak with the coach during lunch and tea. And tactics, for the greatest part come from the captain with a bit of input from the vice-captain on the field and maybe something from the coach who might want them to try something.

Other things coaches are there for - training, analysis, team selection etc,. i refuse to believe can't be done better by the player themselves. When Glenn McGrath, Andrew Johns, Johnny Wilkinson finish a test match and analyse their performance there's only a handful of people who could offer advice that they wouldn't already be able to pick up on......

 

[Richard]

Having a great action doesn't neccesarily mean you're good at judging what ingredients need to be added to an action (remembering that each individual has his own needs). Same with batting. Duncan Fletcher's an unbelievable batting-coach but he was no more than reasonable as a batsman in his day.
Good player does not = good coach, and from what I saw when Bracewell was at Gloucs, he is certainly a good coach.

 

[Black Thunder]

what your talking about there is really moulding a young cricket. Things like technique and actions in young guys is where coaching becomes important.

But once guys make it through the ranks, they've got their own certain style of play and you can only offer little bit's of advice.

I'm not saying a good player = good coach. As i said, i think coaching in cricket is unnecesarry at the top level.

I'm saying if they're a good player, they'll able to pick up where they've faulted in a partciular match, and work on that problem in the nets. A coach may also be able to pick up that problem, but i couldn't often see a player of international calibre not being able to pick up a fault they're having in a particular match.

Take Warne's catch that he just dropped where he just snatched at the ball a bit. Do you think if Buchanan goes up to him after the match and says "Warney, i know why you dropped that. you just snatched at it a fraction and close your hands to early. just wait on the ball a bit more next time and practice it." that's gonna give Warney any more insight then he wouldn't have known.

A coach though does have a new role now as an interpreator of data for the players. Will all this modern technology that measures exactly were a player pitches the ball, the amount of turn/swing they get, how the batsmen players each shot depending were it pitches etc,. probably the main thing a coach does now is interperate to a player what it all measn......

 

[anzac]

Sorry, that's what they are doing or that's what you think they should be doing?

yeah that's what they have been doing for some time with their preoccupation with having an 'allrounder' at #6,

but my strategy goes the other way - a 6-4 split with the 'allrounder' as 1 of your 4 bowlers (if they're not good enough to be counted as such then don't select them in the 1st place).............take a leaf out of IND's playbook & make batting your strength & post BIIIG totals to compensate for your weak bowling - you can then look to 'advance the game' via your run rate so as to give your bowlers more time (& runs) to try to take 20 wickets..........I'd also go so far as to have 5 specialist bats with 1 other being a part time bowler to tie up an end..........an Astle / Styris / Lehmann / Clarke etc...........

 

[anzac]

Thing about McMillan is he's always filled his boots when the going's good. Sinclair has rarely done very well, either in or out of position, except for that unbeaten-double vs Pak on the doped pitch, and that one against the modest WI attack on another very flat pitch... it's poor selection to pick him as an opener, but I really would prefer that to wasting Fleming - which he now seems to be about to do in the upcoming matches.

agreed in general terms but more recently McMillan has failed to achieve his Test average in successive series / seasons - he's been going backwards re average & 50+ scores for several seasons.............

Sinclair has had few opportunities during the same time until the 3rd Test v RSA last season, followed by missing out v ENG & being recalled to replace Papps as opener v BAN & AUS. During this time his efforts with the bat were no worse than any other batsman esp when considering his weakness v seam movement & batting out of position......now he gets the treatment again after a poor ODI series, whereas Macca has been involved in some of the worst batting collapses this decade!!!! Not forgetting that Macca is a senior player in the team & a former Vice Captain...........

to me it's just another example of the bias by the NZL selectors to a core of players..........

They went with Sinclair as opener in AUS with Richardson, but with the latter's retirement & no specialist opener established in the team, Flem had to step up to the mark for this series as he did in ENG...........

 

[Son Of Coco]

And no other (good) coaches have ever come out with stupid comments, have they?

It's the regularity Richard..........the regularity!

 

[Slow Love™]

Maybe he can't be blamed, but that's not my problem with him. My problem with him is the stupidity of him as a human being.

On a sidenote, I think coaching in cricket is pretty irrelevant. If i wanted someone to have a look at my bowling action i'd take Glenn McGrath or Jason Gillespie's advice looooooooooong before i'd take John Buchanan's.

If someone has an off test match, they will be able to identify the problem before anyone else can. Coaches in sport are generally there for tactics and inspiration. In cricket, inspiration is very much driven from within the team - inspiration comes during a match (not from training talks) and during a match you'll only get to speak with the coach during lunch and tea. And tactics, for the greatest part come from the captain with a bit of input from the vice-captain on the field and maybe something from the coach who might want them to try something.

I pretty much agree with this (particularly the part about Bracewell ). Although I would add the caveat that a coach can be very instrumental where the shaping of an inexperienced side is concerned. Ultimately though, great sides coach themselves.

 

[anzac]

I don't think the failure to compete with Australia and England in the Test-matches says much except that there aren't currently an enormous amount of quality players knocking around. That fact had been disguised for quite a while (you read my article on the merits of England beating New Zealand in 2004, didn't you...?) and Bracewell I think was just unlucky to take-over almost at the precise point where the Test results started going downhill.

yeah I read your article and from memory I agreed with it..............

my verdict is still out regarding the quality of players in the wings for NZL for the following reasons;
*I disagree with the general 5-5 split - as outlined above;
*I disagree with the usual Styris, Astle, McMillan, Cairns/Oram, McCullum, Vettori type middle & lower order - too many 'hitters' in a row with no one to build a partnership / innings;
*not enough specialist batsmen with batting backgrounds (eg Styris, Astle, Oram);
*too many 'core' players have had it too easy & been carried for too long;
*those batsmen that have been dropped have usually been playing out of position in favour of one of 'the core';
players that have been brought into either the Test or ODI sides have had a habit of being selected out of position or in the 'wrong' version of the game for their playing style - both batsmen & bowlers;
*I'm also an advocate of 'horses for cources' regarding a sparcity of resources - IMO players have also been asked to perform on surfaces their game is not suited for;
*the selectors have not used opportunities to blood new players - eg BAN.

The NZL bowling has been weak since that ill fated Tour to RSA, yet the batting had remained injury free on the whole. During the team's run of success IMO the series results flattered as a result of playing teams in worse state than ourselves / lower on the ladder / placid pitches & 2 Test series draws. During this decade as I've highlighted elsewhere NZL has had probably the worst record for batting collapses of any team. Now they have been playing the better Test sides they have not had the luxury of any margin for error and have been exposed.

Sure Bracewell was unlucky to take over when they started to play the better sides, and I don't lay all the blame with him. The main focus with his appointment was to address the form slump in ODIs, as it was assumed the Test side was looking ok all things considered. Last year looked reasonable & much had been made of the winning %. However when push has come to shove v the top sides NZL has continually fallen short.

As I understand it the Coach has a philosophy as to how the team should be playing the game, and then works this thru with the Captain as to how to go about achieving it.

This series they have been totally out classed in every aspect of the game - not just the bowling although this has been the most obvious. While others will say that the Coach has very little to do with the performance of the team on the pitch & individual player performances, I still maintain that the Coach keeps the team & players on track & the Captain is responsible for the execution of the tactics & strategies on the field.

 

[Richard]

yeah I read your article and from memory I agreed with it..............

my verdict is still out regarding the quality of players in the wings for NZL for the following reasons;
*I disagree with the general 5-5 split - as outlined above;
*I disagree with the usual Styris, Astle, McMillan, Cairns/Oram, McCullum, Vettori type middle & lower order - too many 'hitters' in a row with no one to build a partnership / innings;

It's a familiar, valid gripe. Trouble is, I simply can't see that the (Test) side's stronger without Astle, Oram and McCullum. And while I've never rated Styris, you can't argue - yet - with his average. I can't remember if Murali is going to play, but if he doesn't I won't be surprised to see McMillan getting runs there. I'd love to see him hammering the Aussies, too - but I can't see it sadly.
As for the ODIs, I've always firmly believed that the best mix is Astle opening, McMillan three. When was the last time Macca was given a run there? And disappointing as Cairns has been recently, his presence can't possibly weaken the side.

*not enough specialist batsmen with batting backgrounds (eg Styris, Astle, Oram);

It's always amazed me how few specialist batsmen seem to come from NZ the normal way - so many seem to be converted bowlers.

*too many 'core' players have had it too easy & been carried for too long;
*those batsmen that have been dropped have usually been playing out of position in favour of one of 'the core';

Trouble is, surely it's not possible to argue with the selection of most of the core most of the time? The trouble always seems to me to be the need for batting-order changes for ODIs and Tests, and the fact that just when things are getting a bit settled an injury jigs the whole thing up again. CIP - Astle in the recent ODIs.

players that have been brought into either the Test or ODI sides have had a habit of being selected out of position or in the 'wrong' version of the game for their playing style - both batsmen & bowlers;

It's exasperating, ain't it? Over here we've had it countless times, mostly players being picked for ODIs when they should be considered for Tests.
Yet - more often than not it'll even itself out. How on Earth Craig Cumming possibly played ODIs is totally beyond me. But now he gets his Test chance, and starts well.
It's infuriating while it's happening - but when it comes right in the end it's that much sweeter.

*I'm also an advocate of 'horses for cources' regarding a sparcity of resources - IMO players have also been asked to perform on surfaces their game is not suited for;

Couldn't agree more.

Sure Bracewell was unlucky to take over when they started to play the better sides, and I don't lay all the blame with him. The main focus with his appointment was to address the form slump in ODIs, as it was assumed the Test side was looking ok all things considered. Last year looked reasonable & much had been made of the winning %. However when push has come to shove v the top sides NZL has continually fallen short.

Yet - the only team who've caused them problems has been Australia. Despite all the injuries, by-and-large they've been too good for everyone else (including a pretty strong West Indies and a more than decent Pakistan side).

While others will say that the Coach has very little to do with the performance of the team on the pitch & individual player performances, I still maintain that the Coach keeps the team & players on track & the Captain is responsible for the execution of the tactics & strategies on the field.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Richard]

agreed in general terms but more recently McMillan has failed to achieve his Test average in successive series / seasons - he's been going backwards re average & 50+ scores for several seasons.............

Sinclair has had few opportunities during the same time until the 3rd Test v RSA last season, followed by missing out v ENG & being recalled to replace Papps as opener v BAN & AUS. During this time his efforts with the bat were no worse than any other batsman esp when considering his weakness v seam movement & batting out of position......now he gets the treatment again after a poor ODI series, whereas Macca has been involved in some of the worst batting collapses this decade!!!! Not forgetting that Macca is a senior player in the team & a former Vice Captain...........

to me it's just another example of the bias by the NZL selectors to a core of players..........

They went with Sinclair as opener in AUS with Richardson, but with the latter's retirement & no specialist opener established in the team, Flem had to step up to the mark for this series as he did in ENG...........

I just can't see that the side's better with Fleming at the top.
I see what you mean with Sinclair and taking the can for what really was just poor performance from all the batsmen... I've just never rated Sinclair the way I rate McMillan, mainly because, for all McMillan's failings, he's been more consistent than Sinclair, who tends to put all his eggs in a few baskets. It's amazing, I added it up a while ago and I think (excluding the Bangladesh matches) something like 1\8th of his entire Test-runs had come in 3 innings.
The problem now (hopefully might be allayed if Cumming can be a success) is that openers are being injured and retiring all over the place... hardly helps the situation with regard makeshift openers.

 

[Richard]

yeah that's what they have been doing for some time with their preoccupation with having an 'allrounder' at #6,

but my strategy goes the other way - a 6-4 split with the 'allrounder' as 1 of your 4 bowlers (if they're not good enough to be counted as such then don't select them in the 1st place).............take a leaf out of IND's playbook & make batting your strength & post BIIIG totals to compensate for your weak bowling - you can then look to 'advance the game' via your run rate so as to give your bowlers more time (& runs) to try to take 20 wickets..........I'd also go so far as to have 5 specialist bats with 1 other being a part time bowler to tie up an end..........an Astle / Styris / Lehmann / Clarke etc...........

Certainly I look at the current lot and I just don't see what there is against a line-up something along the lines of...
Cumming
Papps
Fleming
Sinclair
Astle
McMillan
Styris
Oram
McCullum
Vettori
AN Other
It certainly looks less fragile, and there's plenty of scope for rotation around the order. And it's not like the bowling's any worse than when it includes Martin, Tuffey, Butler, Wiseman, Mills and the like. Styris and Astle, and to a lesser extent McMillan, are relatively capable bowlers and certainly I don't see they're much worse than the aforementioned.

 

[Richard]

what your talking about there is really moulding a young cricket. Things like technique and actions in young guys is where coaching becomes important.

But once guys make it through the ranks, they've got their own certain style of play and you can only offer little bit's of advice.

I'm not saying a good player = good coach. As i said, i think coaching in cricket is unnecesarry at the top level.

I'm saying if they're a good player, they'll able to pick up where they've faulted in a partciular match, and work on that problem in the nets. A coach may also be able to pick up that problem, but i couldn't often see a player of international calibre not being able to pick up a fault they're having in a particular match.

Take Warne's catch that he just dropped where he just snatched at the ball a bit. Do you think if Buchanan goes up to him after the match and says "Warney, i know why you dropped that. you just snatched at it a fraction and close your hands to early. just wait on the ball a bit more next time and practice it." that's gonna give Warney any more insight then he wouldn't have known.

A coach though does have a new role now as an interpreator of data for the players. Will all this modern technology that measures exactly were a player pitches the ball, the amount of turn/swing they get, how the batsmen players each shot depending were it pitches etc,. probably the main thing a coach does now is interperate to a player what it all measn......

You've picked-up here on something I've thought for years...
Does anyone seriously think players don't know what they've done wrong? Does anyone seriously think that "inexperience" is much use as an excuse for waywardness? Does inexperience = stupidity? The bowler just doesn't know where he needs to bowl?
No, nothing could be more ridiculous.
Trouble is, there are so many tiny little things that contribute to speed of delivery, ability to hit the spot you're trying to, ability to move the ball in the air and off the pitch - and the fact is some players genuinely don't know how to meddle around with all the biomechanics and physics involved. All the little modifications in foot-position, wrist-position, arm-action, knees, elbows, everything (and it comes into batting, too) - sometimes it just takes a small tweak of one or two things to make all the difference.
And that's where a coach comes in - you can't analyse the thing yourself, you've got to concentrate on doing what you're doing, otherwise there's nothing to analyse, or the analysis is misleading, etc.
Added to the fact that a coach provides invaluable insulation between players and management, is a public figure, etc... coaches are a vital part of cricket as far as I'm concerned.

 

[anzac]

I just can't see that the side's better with Fleming at the top.
I see what you mean with Sinclair and taking the can for what really was just poor performance from all the batsmen... I've just never rated Sinclair the way I rate McMillan, mainly because, for all McMillan's failings, he's been more consistent than Sinclair, who tends to put all his eggs in a few baskets. It's amazing, I added it up a while ago and I think (excluding the Bangladesh matches) something like 1\8th of his entire Test-runs had come in 3 innings.

agreed re Sinclair's stats over his whole career, but my arguement centres around his performances since his return v RSA...........

aligned with my belief in the need for a less aggressive player & innings builder in the batting lineup (enter H Marshall!!!)..........

and IMO Macca's poor approach to his responsibilities as senior player & former vc as expressed in his press statements from time to time.............along with his too often predetermined shots leading to inappropriate dismissals - not so much to a good delivery, but more so a soft dismissal.............

It's not so much that I'm an avid Sinclair supporter, rather it's what I see as the injustice of the selectors (see previous rants re the dumping of the likes of Franklin after the 2002 VB series - ODIs v Tests etc), if Sinclair was given an extended opportunity in the Test middle order & was to 'fail' then I'd not have a problem with his being 'dropped', and my views re the batting lineup requirements as outlined earlier.............

 

[anzac]

It's a familiar, valid gripe. Trouble is, I simply can't see that the (Test) side's stronger without Astle, Oram and McCullum. And while I've never rated Styris, you can't argue - yet - with his average. I can't remember if Murali is going to play, but if he doesn't I won't be surprised to see McMillan getting runs there. I'd love to see him hammering the Aussies, too - but I can't see it sadly.

Trouble is, surely it's not possible to argue with the selection of most of the core most of the time? The trouble always seems to me to be the need for batting-order changes for ODIs and Tests, and the fact that just when things are getting a bit settled an injury jigs the whole thing up again. CIP - Astle in the recent ODIs.

My basic gripe re the Test batting has been that IMO there are too many players who are converted from ODIs with a bowling background and as such are mentally more suited to the shorter game................and that these players appear though the middle & lower orders....IMO Astle, Styris & McMillan should all be competing for the same spot in a 6 man batting order in the Test side (at best 2 spots)........Oram & McCullum would be part of my starting lineup........

my arguement re player selections is much the same as your observation re Sinclair's batting - most eggs in 1 or 2 baskets.........and a 5-5 split does not offer many opportunities to ease a player in without requiring them to contribute from the start........too much pressure & thus the selectors err on the side of caution & experience.........

it appears now with the demise of Tour mid week matches, that the NZL selectors are using the ODI format to 'blood' the new players to the highest level of the game - IMO this only works if the player is suited to the limited overs game, otherwise they will more likely be inconsistant regarding performance & their opportunities will drop & so will their confidence..............IMO in such instances the 'A' side should then be used as the proving ground for the longer game - esp such Tours as the recent one to RSA..........

bottom line even with the showing & success of H Marshall thru the above 'system', IMO we have not tried enough players at the highest level in the longer game.............

 

[Richard]

agreed re Sinclair's stats over his whole career, but my arguement centres around his performances since his return v RSA...........

aligned with my belief in the need for a less aggressive player & innings builder in the batting lineup (enter H Marshall!!!)..........

and IMO Macca's poor approach to his responsibilities as senior player & former vc as expressed in his press statements from time to time.............along with his too often predetermined shots leading to inappropriate dismissals - not so much to a good delivery, but more so a soft dismissal.............

It's not so much that I'm an avid Sinclair supporter, rather it's what I see as the injustice of the selectors (see previous rants re the dumping of the likes of Franklin after the 2002 VB series - ODIs v Tests etc), if Sinclair was given an extended opportunity in the Test middle order & was to 'fail' then I'd not have a problem with his being 'dropped', and my views re the batting lineup requirements as outlined earlier.............

Right, I understand, and certainly see the point about McMillan and the premeditated strokes.
Why on Earth he doesn't just cut the darn things out I don't know - it's not as if he often gets lots of runs from them.

 

[Richard]

it appears now with the demise of Tour mid week matches, that the NZL selectors are using the ODI format to 'blood' the new players to the highest level of the game - IMO this only works if the player is suited to the limited overs game, otherwise they will more likely be inconsistant regarding performance & their opportunities will drop & so will their confidence..............IMO in such instances the 'A' side should then be used as the proving ground for the longer game - esp such Tours as the recent one to RSA..........

bottom line even with the showing & success of H Marshall thru the above 'system', IMO we have not tried enough players at the highest level in the longer game.............

Couldn't be better put - nothing I hate more than seeing a player dismissed from the Test thinking because he's failed in ODIs, when the simple reason he's failed in ODIs is just because he's not a good one-day player - as I say, there are countless examples of this over here, too: Key, Troughton, Clarke, Kirtley, Shah, Solanki... (and Afzaal the other way around)
As for the success of Hamish Marshall, in both Tests and ODIs, if anyone could possibly have guessed that, I'll eat my computer! No pedigree at all - but he's turned-out to be some player. No-one can use his case to justify anything at all.