Back to the Future

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Rachael

To be honest, HOL, in 1992 the only cricketers who stood a chance were those with skins so thick that angle grinders wouldn't penetrate and minds so strong you could hit cricket balls with them.

If we'd had a series of great captains in the manner of Brearley, Reeve, Alleyne or even Hussain (and coaches and selectors to match) then the story of England from 1992 to the present day would, I'm sure, be one to celebrate - and guys like Caddick, Ramps, Hick and Tufnell (and possibly Salisbury) would have gone on to become England greats.

I'm pleased that in Fletcher we finally have someone in charge who can at least get the best out of SOME players... but I still incline towards despair: he seems committed to filling the team with tough nuts with the mental strength he admires (and forcing others to emulate them) rather than getting together the most technically gifted players and creating the conditions in which they might thrive.

There's a lot to admire in the way Fletcher and Hussain moulded a team in their own image... but I really do hope that in the next year or two someone like Reeve or Alleyne takes over and starts showing that it is possible to get ANY cricketer to punch above his weight.

Sadly, I don't see it happening: the damage of the Gooch era was just symptomatic of a deeper English prejudice that favours blood and guts give it all types with technical limitations over technically superb players who struggle with nerves, confidence or pressure.

Very sad.

Rachel..that's a very good point about mental strength. However, I feel you are being a bit too harsh on Fletcher - remember, he did manage to get the best out of Caddick when most of us had given him up as a Hick/Ramprakash type lost cause. So I think he is capable of creating conditions in which gifted players will thrive. Also, the Hussain/Fletcher double act did produce a side that punched above its weight, and it did so by moulding a cohesive, united team where no one thought they were better than anyone else and everyone played for the team. It was a lot different, and better, than the Gooch era, where there seemed to be no such thing as man-management, and Gooch seemed very arrogant.
Of the players you mention above, I think Hick and Ramprakash were too far gone for Fletcher to do something about. I have to say, though, I would have liked Fletcher to do work with Tufnell a bit more, but Tufnell's attitude was part of the reason he was dropped. Tufnell was, to my mind, much more of an attacking spinner than Giles, and much more likely to take wickets. I think Tuffers was dropped for the 2001 sub-continent tour, and because Giles ended up doing well and we won in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka, the decision was seen as a good one.

Also, now that Vaughan is captain, and seems to be more laid back than Hussain, I think we are getting into the situation where those with talent will thrive. Harmison's breakthrough is a sign of this. Despite all the trials he went through in Aus, Fletcher and Vaughan stuck with him, believing him to have talent, but also gave him the kick up the backside he needed by not giving him a central contract. It was a good example of carrot-and-stick tactics. I also think the central contract system will help. In the past, when we dropped Hick, he never knew where he was. Nowadays, if you have a central contract, you know you are still involved in the team. I think the Fletcher Vaughan partnership is ideal, and as you point out, we are still, in a way, recovering from the horror years of the early/mid-nineties.

You must also remember that individual mental strenght is still vitally important. It 's generally agreed that Mark was the more talented of the Waugh twins, but Steve's grittiness and toughness made him more important to the team. Look at Read's approach to being dropped - gets his head down and does well for the ODI side. Rob Key, for example, went off moaning to the press. Who would you rather have in your side?

[honestbharani]

Afzaal, Key, Solanki, Shah, Salisbury(!), Tudor, Silverwood, Ryan Sidebottom, James Ormond.



I watched Afzaal in a few county matches that I get here in India and I don't rate him too high.



Key isn't that great too and he was spilling catches against India in 2002 too.



Solanki and Shah might remain in the ODI picture, I don't know. I don't think they are test class. Salisbury is like Macgill. He bowls 4 decent or good or great balls and then 2 long hops or full tosses. And that was said by Geoffrey Boycott, not me. Tudor, if he is fully fit and is bowling well, then yes. Same with Sidebottom and Ormond. I know Boycott rates Sidebottom highly, atleast in the ODI set up. And of that lot, I have to say, I really liked Silverwood. I saw his first ODI against NZ when he protected Nick Knight with 10 to win off the last 1 or 2 overs. Nick had a broken hand, and I loved his spirit. Maybe he can come back, I hope.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by sostenurter

Rachel..that's a very good point about mental strength. However, I feel you are being a bit too harsh on Fletcher - remember, he did manage to get the best out of Caddick when most of us had given him up as a Hick/Ramprakash type lost cause. So I think he is capable of creating conditions in which gifted players will thrive. Also, the Hussain/Fletcher double act did produce a side that punched above its weight, and it did so by moulding a cohesive, united team where no one thought they were better than anyone else and everyone played for the team.

{...}

Also, now that Vaughan is captain, and seems to be more laid back than Hussain, I think we are getting into the situation where those with talent will thrive. Harmison's breakthrough is a sign of this.

I'm still very much in two minds about Fletcher: after all that went before him he's a godsend... and I think he and Troy C deserve huge credit for their work with, and handling of, their pet favourites.

That said... I was appalled at the handling of Ed Smith... the Read / Jones debacle (surely promted by a desire on Fletcher's part to make an executive decision whilst thousands of miles away from Rod Marsh) was truly shocking... and if there is any truth in the reports that Hoggard would be out if Vaughan hadn't demanded his inclusion (that Fletcher would have insisted on Anderson) then I'm even less impressed.

The success is welcome... and I think you may be right about talent being given it's head under Vaughan... but I'd still rather have Reeve in charge.

[Notts Exile]

Anderson bowled a very short spell of absolute rubbish on Saturday. He needs good performances in what may remain of this tour, otherwise he really ought to disappear back to county cricket for a while.

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'm still very much in two minds about Fletcher: after all that went before him he's a godsend... and I think he and Troy C deserve huge credit for their work with, and handling of, their pet favourites.

That said... I was appalled at the handling of Ed Smith... the Read / Jones debacle (surely promted by a desire on Fletcher's part to make an executive decision whilst thousands of miles away from Rod Marsh) was truly shocking... and if there is any truth in the reports that Hoggard would be out if Vaughan hadn't demanded his inclusion (that Fletcher would have insisted on Anderson) then I'm even less impressed.

The success is welcome... and I think you may be right about talent being given it's head under Vaughan... but I'd still rather have Reeve in charge.

I don't know that the handling of Read/Jones was so terrible - Read had had a good long run in the side, and in any case, Read knew he would be back for the one-dayers, so he wasn't completely out in the cold. I think Fletcher also judged Read's mental strength correctly - a more fragile player might have gone away and sulked, but Read came back and won a ODI for England. We are now in the enviable position of having two top-class glovesmen battling it out for a place in the side. The competition can only help drive up their batting standards.

I would also like to see Ed Smith back in the frame somewhere, it would be a shame if he's been completely forgotten about. However, he was taken on the A-team tour, where he didn't do too well.

In any case, Fletcher's record at unearthing and trying out new players over the past five years is pretty good - yes, there have been a couple of mistakes, but the nightmare years of the mid-90s are behind us and young players are on the whole given a decent run in the side to prove themselves. He does have his favourites, but so do most coaches/managers/captains - it's ok as long as it doesn't cause resentment/unbalance the side, and it doesn't seem to be doing that now. And he's not nearly as pig-headed about his favourites as Illingworth and Dexter were! Can't say that Reeve would be much better - I think Fletcher mixes up the carrot and the stick to great effect.

[Victor Frankenstein]

I know he retired from cricket altogther, but one blast from the past i'd always like to have seen would be dean headley, there was just something about him that i liked and feel if he hadn't had his injuries he could have been something special for england and a bowling attack of headley, gough and caddick could have lead to a few more wins in recent times.

As for others back in the side, i don't feel shah or ufzaal did anything wrong in their time and showed potential, their style of play was something that takes a while to get used to at international level and think they were dropped too soon, both could have been good company for thorpe. I don't think solanki should be back, he's had two good goes in the side and showed that he has a lot of talent but his head's not on right, if he displays some kind of evidence that this has changed then i'd have him back like a shot but until then we have to move on imo.

I'd like to see graeme swann given another go in the side (just because i like him as a cricketer), possibly as spinner instead of giles in the second half of the summer (for tests), but i would like our whole attitude to spin to change, a spinner should be used as a bowler trying to take wickets not just a maiden machine which is all they are in england, can't see it happening though.

[Teatime FatCat]

There were some very good arguments put in favour and (very definately!) against Salisbury. One theme seemed to be that he still had a future in test cricket even at 33, and also that with some decent specialist coaching and sports pschcology he'd be an option. Also added to that was a cry of where the next English wrist spinner would be coming from.


Instead of spending money and time on a 33 year old that has had a fair crack of the whip and is no better than county class - with a test record to back that up - lets look to the counties.

I may be wrong, but I bet that at least ½ the counties have a young wrist spinner on their books, be he 13, 15, 21 whatever. Find the top 3 in the country by having a net session with the best qualified coaches watching, spend the money advocated for someone like Salisbury on them. We are going to have tours (possibly) to Zimbabwe and I'm sure Bangladesh again - get the youngsters coached and ready for those as well as home series and get them playing week in week out for their counties. I'm sure something like this is supposed to be happening with Terry Jenner, or some kind of Brian Johnson scholarship - but you never hear anything come of it.

Don't nuture a 33 year old who might give 3 years service to england. Find an 18 year old, who might be with us for 12 - 15 years and break a wicket-taking record!

[Richard Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Teatime FatCat

There were some very good arguments put in favour and (very definately!) against Salisbury. One theme seemed to be that he still had a future in test cricket even at 33, and also that with some decent specialist coaching and sports pschcology he'd be an option. Also added to that was a cry of where the next English wrist spinner would be coming from.


Instead of spending money and time on a 33 year old that has had a fair crack of the whip and is no better than county class - with a test record to back that up - lets look to the counties.

I may be wrong, but I bet that at least ½ the counties have a young wrist spinner on their books, be he 13, 15, 21 whatever. Find the top 3 in the country by having a net session with the best qualified coaches watching, spend the money advocated for someone like Salisbury on them. We are going to have tours (possibly) to Zimbabwe and I'm sure Bangladesh again - get the youngsters coached and ready for those as well as home series and get them playing week in week out for their counties. I'm sure something like this is supposed to be happening with Terry Jenner, or some kind of Brian Johnson scholarship - but you never hear anything come of it.

Don't nuture a 33 year old who might give 3 years service to england. Find an 18 year old, who might be with us for 12 - 15 years and break a wicket-taking record!

Despite thinking highly of Salisbury, I agree with this

[Teatime FatCat]

In that case, does anybody out there know if there is a concerted effort on to find a wrist spinner, and more importantly - are there any wrist-spinning coaches in the country capable of turning any young men into heroes?

If we ain't got the expertise, it ain't worth spending the money. Troy Cooley / Rod Marsh axis sems to be slowly paying dividends - but has anyone thought of importing some spin coaching talent? Abdul Qadir springs to mind, I hear he may have lost a TV job recently and has said he likes England in the past.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I'd take them to bang, zim might be a bit too pressured for teenagers.