Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael  I'd just like to see them made without the unsustainable argument that Ramps "couldn't make the step up to Test Cricket": one only need prove one's worth once against the strongest opponents to dispense with that argument.. |
As Pie Chucker rightly mentioned, a Test Cricket average in the high 20's IS a sustainable argument not just beleived by me, but pretty much the whole world, or are you happy for our middle order batsmen to have an average in the high 20's after 52 tests, because I sure as hell know that I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael IThe argument that ditching Ramps was right can be made (more coherently) without that argument. |
Ummmm, okay !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael I continue to regard getting the most out of such talents as the principle responsibility of the coach: I don't doubt for one moment that a different coach could have got much, much more from Crawley, Ramps and Caddick back then... and from Bell, Read and Harmison more recently. |
Fair enough, I think we simply need to agree to disagree on this one. As far as I'm concerned Fletcher has been this countrys most successful cricketing coach in the past 50 odd years and certainly within my own cricket watching and playing lifetime which is now about 30 years. He not only took the side from virtually bottom of the rankings to second, he won back, albeit briefly the Ashes, something else not really achieved in recent times. To me, that's some achievement, and demonstrates quite unequivocably, that his methods worked, because the results show they did.
Some people may not have liked some of the methodologies and techniques he employed as a coach, but no-one can say they were not effective.
But you're arguing that he could have got a lot more out of his players than he did and I simply do not agree and the results speak for themselves.