Feltch has a sook

Former England coach Duncan Fletcher says Steve Harmison and Matthew Hoggard may struggle to regain their Test spots after being dropped in New Zealand.

And Fletcher also believes that Andrew Flintoff needs to improve his batting as he is "not a Test match number six".

He told the Sunday Telegraph: "(Harmison) will find it hard. He'll need some consistent performances.

"I was not surprised (about Hoggard being dropped) - he always struggled when he was the main strike bowler."

Apart from when he was getting 7fers overseas.

Fletcher led England to their first Ashes series win in 18 years when his team beat Australia 2-1 in 2005, as Harmison and Hoggard weighed in with 33 wickets while Flintoff scored over 400 runs and took 24 wickets.

However, Flintoff missed the recent Test series win over New Zealand with injury, while Harmison and Hoggard were dropped after England lost the first Test - and went on to win the series without them.

But the fact that the pace pair are no longer first choice does not surprise Fletcher.

"It's typical Harmy - he could and should be the number one bowler in the world but he can't seem to put it all together," he said.

"I saw an interview where he was having a go at some current players who had criticised him and saying something about not being able to wait to see them from 22 yards.

"Why does he need things like that to motivate himself?"

Hoggard's lack of pace is a worry for Fletcher, and he explained: "His speed hs been dropping for a while.

"I heard someone say he's lost his nip, but I thought it had gone a while ago."

And on Flintoff, Fletcher added: "I hope his foot does allow him to bowl properly because otherwise his batting will need to improve.

"I think it has become pretty obvious he is not a Test match number six. He is a number seven.

So what did you put him at six for Feltch?

Everything he says is spot on. You can't call everything a "sook" all the time.

Flintoff's problem is the same as India's Pathan issue. The potential is there but no one quite knows how to put it together. In Pathan's case it is obvious he is among our better test number 7s, but Flintoff is lucky to be promoted to merely no.6. Poor Pathan has gone all the way up at no. 3 and then no. 1 as well.

Harmisson going onto become a basket case reminds me of another India pacer who had good swing, cutters and all but went downhill after a couple of good series soon enough. Lost his pace, swing and all. Venkatesh Prasad comes to mind.

The issues England and India have faced haven't been too different. Including issues with having ahd a couple of good bats but flop WKs and all.

Don't accept the Harmison, Prasad comparisons because Prasad never came close to 140 even and neither had the action to cut any serious pace. But Hoggard is comparable to Pathan.

And even more than that, it seems to me that the English players get too soft too soon. It doesn't even take them a good series sometimes and they just seem all set to give up on the rigors of tough competitive cricket. Something in the air over there perhaps . . .

Rob I wrote:
So what did you put him at six for Feltch?

Where else could he really put him?

It also clarifies why he was so desperate to find a keeper who could bat and also a number eight who could really contribute - picking Flintoff compromising the balance of the batting line-up.

Fletcher knows his onions. He's sucked some lemons in his time, but he's the best coach England have had in twenty years.

He was a number 6, it coincided with a decent average over a while, his batting now seems shot to bits however.

Dello wrote:

Rob I wrote:
So what did you put him at six for Feltch?

Where else could he really put him?

It also clarifies why he was so desperate to find a keeper who could bat and also a number eight who could really contribute - picking Flintoff compromising the balance of the batting line-up.

Fletcher knows his onions. He's sucked some lemons in his time, but he's the best coach England have had in twenty years.

He picked Fred at 6 because at the time he was a 6.

The deterioration in Fred's batting came with his foot injuries. He was batting on one leg for a while. For the three years or so prior, he was averaging 45 which is certainly #6 material.

Rob I wrote:The deterioration in Fred's batting came with his foot injuries. He was batting on one leg for a while. For the three years or so prior, he was averaging 45 which is certainly #6 material.

...or when Jones was injured and he had to shoulder more bowling responsibility ?

Brass Monkey wrote:He was a number 6, it coincided with a decent average over a while, his batting now seems shot to bits however.

In 2003 he scraped an average of 40. One hundred.

In 2004 he averaged 52 with two hundreds.

He's scored one hundred in his last 29 Tests (50 innings) @ 33.44

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

He picked Fred at 6 because at the time he was a 6.

And then he spent the rest of his tenure trying to bolster seven and eight because he knew he was only a six on his day - and his day didn't come around with the regularity expected of a specialist batsman.

Batman wrote:Flintoff's problem is the same as India's Pathan issue. The potential is there but no one quite knows how to put it together.

Not really comparable....

Fred 5 x 100 24 x 50 v Pathan 1 x100 6 x 50

Since 2003 - Flintoff has delivered whenever he has taken the field. Fitness is now his main issue as opposed to 'potential unfulfilled'

Fred went through a dream spell averaging about 40 with the bat and 25 with the ball for 3 years - every international team would kill for that. His batting has tailed off but you can't really expect a guy who averages 34 in Fc cricket to average 40+ consistently at a higher level.

He isn't a number 6 though, agreed - which totally farks up the balance...

Dello wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

He picked Fred at 6 because at the time he was a 6.

And then he spent the rest of his tenure trying to bolster seven and eight because he knew he was only a six on his day - and his day didn't come around with the regularity expected of a specialist batsman.

Agree with this. Flintoff was a fine allrounder for England but he was only a genuine number 6 when circumstances were favourable. His 40+ average in the 2003-2006 period is good but its mainly based on three series at the start of that period when he got to play a weak west indies side twice and New Zealand. A more reasonable reflection of his batting and maybe when he was at his best given the strength of the opposition, was the series against South Africa in 04/5 and the 2005 ashes, two series when he averaged around the 35 mark.
Its tough for an allrounder to bat at 6 and consistently score runs and take wickets, Botham who was probably the better batsman was poor at 6, dont think he averaged 30 in that position.

Gildas wrote:His 40+ average in the 2003-2006 period is good but its mainly based on three series at the start of that period when he got to play a weak west indies side twice and New Zealand. A more reasonable reflection of his batting and maybe when he was at his best given the strength of the opposition, was the series against South Africa in 04/5 and the 2005 ashes, two series when he averaged around the 35 mark.

Fred:

in SA av 28
vs Aus av 40
in Pak av 20
in India av 52