Fletcher to quit

[darksideofthemoon]

I would have two separate teams and coaches.

Tests
Selector - Miller
Coach - Fletcher
Batting coach - Fletcher
Bowling coach - Bob Cottam
Team - Strauss, Cook, Vaughan(c), Bell, Pietersen, Flintoff, Read, Harmison, Hoggard, Jones, Panesar

ODIs
Selector Rod Marsh
Coach - Adam Hollioake
Batting coach - Andy Flower
Bowling coach - Gough
Fielding coach - Collingwood
Team - Trescothick, Benning, Benham, Bopara, Collingwood (c), Prior, Gidman, Blackwell, Plunkett, Broad, Anderson

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Ernest

You make a good point there OF.

Thanks - but I wish it were original and new! In fact, as I suggested, it is neither: England should have been doing it for years already, just as the old enemy has been.

[Harmy's Army]

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

ODIs
Team - Trescothick, Benning, Benham, Bopara, Collingwood (c), Prior, Gidman, Blackwell, Plunkett, Broad, Anderson

No Pietersen, no1 ODI batsmen in the world according to the rankings?

One thing puzzles me. Alastair Cook has played only 2 ODI's - against Sri Lanka last year - scored 41 and 39 at a strike rate of 87 with 12 4's (he out-scored both Bell and Strauss over the two games he played in at the back end of the series) and yet everyone wrote him off as a potential ODI player - he never got a look-in down under. In retrospect, and in view of the abject performances of England's top order in the Carribean, could he have been the batsmen to hold England's innings together where others failed miserably?

[pie_chucker]

Why do people rate Gatting as a coach?? Thankfully he'll get no where near the test team.

However if Moody were to come available then I'd be very happy about appointing him as coach. Although I think we should have some extra coaches for the one day game.

[darksideofthemoon]

Originally Posted by Harmy's Army

No Pietersen, no1 ODI batsmen in the world according to the rankings?

One thing puzzles me. Alastair Cook has played only 2 ODI's - against Sri Lanka last year - scored 41 and 39 at a strike rate of 87 with 12 4's (he out-scored both Bell and Strauss over the two games he played in at the back end of the series) and yet everyone wrote him off as a potential ODI player - he never got a look-in down under. In retrospect, and in view of the abject performances of England's top order in the Carribean, could he have been the batsmen to hold England's innings together where others failed miserably?

We didn't need him in Australia when we won the last four matches.

I also think Cook should have been in the ODI team but maybe his fielding let him down.

[Younis Khan #1]

I think there is already a thread that discusses how England tend to succeed when pietersen fails. Rather intersesting.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I think the problem in both of these is the inclusion of Coach. I actually see no reason at all why the coach should be included as a selector, and in fact I see some good reasons why he should not be included on principle.

Heya OF, hope alls well with you and where you are. I don't get to post much about Cricket these days, too busy with other things, but I still retain my obesession for the game generally.

I have to say I don't agree with your view here for two reasons -

1) The Coach has to have some input into the side selected, he has to take 'personal ownership' of the players and back them to be successful otherwise how can he be culpable for the performance of the team if he has no input into the players selected? He can just shrug his shoulders and say 'not my problem they failed, I didn't select them'.

2) The problems you outline with the coach being a selector is protected by the fact that there are two other selectors that can both overrule the coach if they don't agree with what he's saying - that's the 'safety net' in place to ensure that the problems you outline don't actually happen.

Now, if the selectors are too weak that the Coach can twiddle them both round his little finger and they do what they're told, then they're too weak minded to be selectors in the first place. Saying that the Coach shouldn't be a selector because 'potentially' the two existing selectors are too weak to stand up to him is rather pointing the finger in the wrong direction is it not? The finger should be pointed at the two selectors as being unsuitable for the job.

Following on from that I'd suggest that both Graveney and Miller are now both beyond their sell by dates and also need to be replaced alongside Fletcher. If Fletcher is being made the 'scapegoat' for Englands recent poor performances (which it appears he is) then both Graveney and Miller are equally culpable seeing as they selected the players - and they need to go as well!

I have a lot of reservations about Peter Moores in a number of different areas, but I'm open minded enough for him to be given a chance. I can't help but feel though that they're very much following in the England football sides precarious footsteps. They got rid of Eriksson after a poor World Cup (take a look at Erikssons record in charge of England, it's way WAY better than McClarens has been) and appointed McClaren in his place as an 'evoloutionary' step forwards (appointing someone already in the England setup) rather than a more 'revolutionary' one in appointing someone like big Phil Scolari or Martin O'Neil. See the similarities with the England Cricket coach appointment?

I just hope they're smart enough to take note from the England football example and get rid of Moores if it becomes apparent he's not up to the task, (which they should be doing with McClaren) and then go about recruiting a succesor in the correct way. That means interviewing a number of potential candidates and selecting the correct one, rather than a rapid knee-jerk reaction in recruiting someone that happens to be highly regarded within the England setup but has zero international playing experience and zero International coaching experience. See more similarities with McClaren?

Yes, I have big reservations about Peter Moores, as I did with McClaren and I can't help but feel that he's not the right person for the job, as Mcalaren wasn't either. But time will tell.