England's Selection policy and player management systems

[D/L]

I dont per se dislike Bresnan, but it was clear that in recent times he needed to go away for a long period, get fit, find form.... throwing him to the lions half cocked did nothing for him, and no amount of your pro Bresnan propaganda can excuse his performance before this summer. He went too long serving up half paced pies. I will give you the argument that it might be because he was fit, but in that case he shouldnt play..... if he was fit then quite simply, he shouldnt be near the team

Its that inflexibility that is my problem, and not as you may think an attack on Bresnan.... England would have been better to look elsewhere in that 10-12 match period...

The fact is that they didn't and the reason for that may well be that even a half fit Bresnan, given his ability with the bat too, was a better option than anyone else.

[meninblue]

Now i feel that England's player management system could have been better, in aspects such as succession planning which also affects the workload management of core players.Probably the form of core players, injuries and the retirements/pullouts from tour are side effects of that.

[hopeforthebest]

There was an interesting discussion on cricinfo's switch hit which dealt with this very subject. The general opinion was that the standard of the County game was in decline since the restrictions on kolpack and overseas players were introduced and the Lions games and performance programmes were having little positive effect. When one sees how many players pass through the Lions and how the selectors struggle to find new test talent it's difficult not to agree with that. George Dobell said the the home Lions games were in particular a waste of time and disruptive for the Counties.

[Kim]

There was an interesting discussion on cricinfo's switch hit which dealt with this very subject. The general opinion was that the standard of the County game was in decline since the restrictions on kolpack and overseas players were introduced and the Lions games and performance programmes were having little positive effect. When one sees how many players pass through the Lions and how the selectors struggle to find new test talent it's difficult not to agree with that. George Dobell said the the home Lions games were in particular a waste of time and disruptive for the Counties.

The incentives for playing under 25 year olds and the academies have also had a big effect. Its made second team cricket much younger - and much less competitive - and players are coming through when they really aren't ready at all. And whether ready or not, they still play in the second half of the season cos its worth 6 figures to the counties.

[SaintPowelly]

Only playing 1 overseas player I can somewhat understand, but limiting what overseas player you can pick is ridiculous..would love to know who made that decision

[Arthur Crabtree]

After initially supporting Flower, I think I've been persuaded by some on this thread that he is probably going to be an impediment to the future development of the team. I'm hoping that his leaving might draw the team together and encourage them in their need to take more responsibility on the field and allow the captain to lead. But I do wonder if Flower's absolute control has led to the creation of a support staff that is close to him in philosophy, and there may be a possibility in Giles we will get the seamless transition that is normally sought, but cere would prove a missed opportunity. If Cook is to remain as skipper, he needs to be consulted to find what he needs as a coach in order to supplement his own strengths.

[D/L]

Not sure what’s meant by needing to take more responsibility. It’s a vague term that could encompass many things. It is a change of attitude, a willingness to play according to the needs of the situation and not throw in the towel that seems to be most needed.

These are ingrained character traits and may have been eroded by, amongst other things, the security of the central contract system and it’s difficult to see how a change of coach would make any difference.

If there were a type of coach that Cook needed to supplement his captaincy strengths, insomuch as they are required on the field, it would seem a difficult task, not only for him to express it, but to identify it too.

[sussexpob]

I think the problem is D/L, and this is what AC was getting at, is when a captain is spoon feed everything from his endless backroom staff and given an execution plan that is worked out over months of apparent boffin crunching, then when it comes to the plan failing these guys dont have the wits about them to adapt. Cook is clearly a perfect example of this, he never deviates from the plan because he doesnt know how to.....when his positioning is successful it isnt him.

I think that is the point D/L, and one that I know you semi-share with your views on modern captains. Nowadays you still need a man in charge who takes the balls by the horns and is capable of being a leader on the pitch, no matter what is said of it. Clarke does that, he tinkers with his fields and makes bold decisions, he doesnt let the game drift.

A big exampe is Shane Watson. Incredibly the victim of the only lbw England got in the series. Watson himself has a huge lwb ratio in tests, but England allowed him to make 3 centuries when it was apparent even at times at the Oval that he had changed his trigger movement to correct it.... but no one in the England team changed the way they bowled to him and he scored 3 centuries in 6 matches, more than his whole career previously for 60 odd tests. Rodgers was the same, we didnt target his weakness outside off because we still harked back to Saker dismissal when he chips into the leg side... we kept fielders close on the leg side all series.

I hark back to Flintoff from Cardiff at 09 when, in an innings of 20 odd runs, Flintoff worked out Phil Hughes in a few overs and Phil Hughes never recovered.

I dont think currently our bowlers or batters had a plan B. You criticise KP for shot selection, but then again he was the only person who, series wide, at least tried to force Australia on the back foot. Everyone else waited for their death.

We beat Australia at their own game in England, but they were simply more determined at home... the gritty partnerships came when England needed to be positive, and the over the top positivity came when England needed to dig.

I think its entirely acceptable to expect the players to make more aware decisions, but can we expect that from the modern English cricketer? The way that some people played made no sense, and KP obviously takes that blame because his Perth dismissal was pure stupidity, much like Bells though

[Making_Splinters]

Fiddling while Rome burns seems the most apt description of Flower's role during the recently concluded Ashes series.

[Durhamfootman]

I think the problem is D/L, and this is what AC was getting at, is when a captain is spoon feed everything from his endless backroom staff and given an execution plan that is worked out over months of apparent boffin crunching, then when it comes to the plan failing these guys dont have the wits about them to adapt. Cook is clearly a perfect example of this, he never deviates from the plan because he doesnt know how to.....when his positioning is successful it isnt him.

I think that is the point D/L, and one that I know you semi-share with your views on modern captains. Nowadays you still need a man in charge who takes the balls by the horns and is capable of being a leader on the pitch, no matter what is said of it. Clarke does that, he tinkers with his fields and makes bold decisions, he doesnt let the game drift.

this was also true when Strauss was captain. Even back when Ottis Gibson was the bowliong coach (so this is most of Flowers tenure), If a bowling plan didn't work, nothing changed until lunch when Gibson suggested something else. If that didn't work, nothing would change until after tea.

Used to drive me nuts watching (I had sky in those days)

The arrival of Saker pretty much coincided with the 'Broad the enforcer' nonsense. Even though the world and his dog could see that it was a stupid tactic, they persisted with it until finally Saker himself got the point and came up with something different

This might just be a symptom of bringing young players with lots of potential into the side, of course. It almost has to follow that 'learning on the job' means 'do as you're told', and so we end up with lots of cricketers with little understanding of the game, and then make one of them captain, and expect him to think on his feet. I'm not even sure that modern England coaches even want a captain with a mind of their own..... might rock the boat!

I might be completely misremembering this, but I seem to recall a time when England captains were expected to already be, or have been, captain of their county............ and when times were tough, and we were running out of captains, we had to resort to calling up Chris Cowdrey as captain of the national side, despite having very little international experience. Seems that no matter what we do we *modded* it up.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Vaughan wasn't a Yorkshire captain. We know how his relationship with Fletcher worked, as both have written about it. And that sounds like Lehmann and Clarke's. We don't know much about Flower and Cook. Strauss has said that he as skipper was in charge of anything that happened on the field, including final decision on selection. It's possible that he was just given that impression, though really, I have to take him at his word.

Strauss wasn't a particularly intuitive captain. You certainly don't get the same insight in the box from him as you do from MPV.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Last England captain to have county experience? Maybe Gooch?

[Making_Splinters]

I'd suspect Strauss had more say in selection and tactics than Cook does, both he and Flower started the job at the same time and had to work together to improve the dressing room and on field performance.

Cook on the other hand has taken over a team where Flower has already asserted himself as the cricket chief in England, his only major action one can see, was bringing KP back from his exile - fairly obviously know Flower would have in hindsight ensured Cook didn't even have enough say to do that.

What has never helped is both Strauss and Cook were picked as company men for the Captaincy, rather than having demonstrated at any level they had the on field brain to be a skipper. I've said it before, and no doubt I'll say it again, the captaincy should have been given to Bell, who has shown at least domestically, that he has the nouse to skipper a side on the field.

[Making_Splinters]

Last England captain to have county experience? Maybe Gooch?

It's strange that the lack of county experiance has started in the Lions as well, wasn't too long ago that an experianced county skipper would be given the reigns of the team

[Arthur Crabtree]

Last England captain to have county experience? Maybe Gooch?

It's strange that the lack of county experiance has started in the Lions as well, wasn't too long ago that an experianced county skipper would be given the reigns of the team

Yes, good point. That used to mean Rob Key did it a lot. Really, the experienced skipper could still be a candidate for the Test team. Though, as I've seen suggested, England now like to groom players from schoolboy level, rather than rely on the quality of the CC at any particular time.