Is the English cricket team in crisis?

I honestly haven't seen such rubbish selectorial decisions since the late 80s/early 90's. It's really becoming beyond a joke. Vaughan and Miller don't appear to see eye to eye, Vaughan himself is struggling for runs and is on the verge of being axed, and an unhealthy "Only my mates get picked" culture has clearly developed.

Worrying times.

English cricket in crisis...

were you around in the late 80's?

Henry wrote:I honestly haven't seen such rubbish selectorial decisions since the late 80s/early 90's. It's really becoming beyond a joke. Vaughan and Miller don't appear to see eye to eye, Vaughan himself is struggling for runs and is on the verge of being axed, and an unhealthy "Only my mates get picked" culture has clearly developed.

Worrying times.

Wishful thinking Trev ?

I am genuinely shocked by the selections.

can some one explain to me how on current form Collingwood is a better batsman OR a better bowler than Braod?

Better bowler.

PlanetPakistan wrote:can some one explain to me how on current form Collingwood is a better batsman OR a better bowler than Braod?

He's not been taking wickets and looked decidedly knackered in the last test. It should just be a tempoaray rest though. This bloke is the real deal and has a long term future in the side, hopefully at seven.

They are definitely lacking a selection 'policy'.

Comparing it to the late 80's/early 90's is perhaps going a bit far - we're probably about where we were last time SA toured, particularly in terms of not quite knowing how to put together the right bowling line-up (we used 7 different front-line seamers in the 2003 series) and a batting line-up with plenty of experience but struggling to put together big scores on a consistent basis.

The major difference is that due to the shorter cycle of England-Australia tours we have only a year to sort it out for the Ashes this time! I suppose we just have to wait and hope that it will all just click into place like it did for those amazing 18 months leading up to the Oval '05...

I don't think England are in crisis so much as just stuck in a rut of mediocrity and too arrogant/complacent/inept to do anything about it.

Dello wrote:I don't think England are in crisis so much as just stuck in a rut of mediocrity and too arrogant/complacent/inept to do anything about it.

beamer wrote:Comparing it to the late 80's/early 90's is perhaps going a bit far - we're probably about where we were last time SA toured, particularly in terms of not quite knowing how to put together the right bowling line-up (we used 7 different front-line seamers in the 2003 series) and a batting line-up with plenty of experience but struggling to put together big scores on a consistent basis.

The major difference is that due to the shorter cycle of England-Australia tours we have only a year to sort it out for the Ashes this time! I suppose we just have to wait and hope that it will all just click into place like it did for those amazing 18 months leading up to the Oval '05...

Yis. Yer both reet.

Why is Collingwood loved so much by the English management? how many match winning innings has he played in his 40 tests long career?

PlanetPakistan wrote:Why is Collingwood loved so much by the English management? how many match winning innings has he played in his 40 tests long career?

None.

I think Steve Waugh once said he liked Collingwood, and such is England's bed-wetting obsession with all things Australian (see also: D. Pattinson, Victorian second XI cricketer), they're convinced that Waugh's opinion is gospel.

I can't work out how a guy with a FC career average of 35 ever got picked in the first place. But what can you do?

English cricket has been in crisis since Brearley, if not Cowdrey.

Live with it. Move on. Take the positives. And the prozac.

Dello wrote:I can't work out how a guy with a FC career average of 35 ever got picked in the first place. But what can you do?

Trescothick averaged about 29 when he first got called up didn't he? He didn't do too badly. Vaughan must have been similar to Collingwood in terms of career average at that stage as well.

The county game has improved in recent years, in the top division at least. But it still doesn't produce world class players - look at the top of the averages every season and the list is full of FTBs who failed at international level, both English and overseas/Kolpak. And the selectors at least recognise that they have to look beyond the county averages to find players with England potential.

If anything in English cricket is in crisis - I think it's the relationship between captain and coach on one side, and the selectors on the other. I suspect that MPV and Fletcher dropped heavy hints about who they did and did not want - Graveney would was only too happy to oblige and take reflected glory in the team's success.

Miller, I suspect, is his own man and performs his role to the letter of the job desription. I cite the selection of a certain Mr Pattinson as proof. It is clear that there is not a meeting of minds on selection between Vaughan and Miller. I reckon MPV's position as skipper is more vulnerable than it has ever been.

Basil wrote:If anything in English cricket is in crisis - I think it's the relationship between captain and coach on one side, and the selectors on the other. I suspect that MPV and Fletcher dropped heavy hints about who they did and did not want - Graveney would was only too happy to oblige and take reflected glory in the team's success.

Miller, I suspect, is his own man and performs his role to the letter of the job desription. I cite the selection of a certain Mr Pattinson as proof. It is clear that there is not a meeting of minds on selection between Vaughan and Miller. I reckon MPV's position as skipper is more vulnerable than it has ever been.

Wasn't it strongly hinted that Flecther basically ran the whole show when he was in charge, that Graveney and the other selectors lacked the backbone to challenge him on anything?

He stayed too long, but I think England miss a bloody-minded, hard-to-please leader like Fletcher right about now. There's a lot of wishy-washy buck-passers in the England set-up.

Fletcher knew what he wanted - pace and identikit, orthodox batsmen - and identified all the young talent that conformed to his blueprint and promoted them (many, like Mahmood, Plunkett, Anderson and Bell, before they were really ready).

Whether he was right or wrong, at least it was a tangible selection policy, based upon some kind of thinking.

England are a rudderless ship at present.

Dello wrote:

Basil wrote:If anything in English cricket is in crisis - I think it's the relationship between captain and coach on one side, and the selectors on the other. I suspect that MPV and Fletcher dropped heavy hints about who they did and did not want - Graveney would was only too happy to oblige and take reflected glory in the team's success.

Miller, I suspect, is his own man and performs his role to the letter of the job desription. I cite the selection of a certain Mr Pattinson as proof. It is clear that there is not a meeting of minds on selection between Vaughan and Miller. I reckon MPV's position as skipper is more vulnerable than it has ever been.

Wasn't it strongly hinted that Flecther basically ran the whole show when he was in charge, that Graveney and the other selectors lacked the backbone to challenge him on anything?

He stayed too long, but I think England miss a bloody-minded, hard-to-please leader like Fletcher right about now. There's a lot of wishy-washy buck-passers in the England set-up.

Fletcher knew what he wanted - pace and identikit, orthodox batsmen - and identified all the young talent that conformed to his blueprint and promoted them (many, like Mahmood, Plunkett, Anderson and Bell, before they were really ready).

Whether he was right or wrong, at least it was a tangible selection policy, based upon some kind of thinking.

England are a rudderless ship at present.

All of which tends to suggest that Moores is the weak link. It was he who left MPV to face the awkward questions about Pattinson's selection, and yet Miller is at pains to point out the selection of the XI to take the field is a joint decision by captain and coach.

I've always maintained that Moores should not be judged until the end of the SA series and I stand by that. But he's not making life easy for himself.

England are a rudderless ship at present.

N'er a truer word spoken.
For all his faults latterly, Fletcher was a strong coach who knew exactly what was needed, got what he wanted, and followed his instinct rigidly (with great assistance from Sony Vaio laptops and a web of spies littered around the county circuit).
He commanded loyalty and stability and got it ... and he looked hard for opposition foibles and frailties (and invariably nailed those too).
His demise was in losing it by letting that self same loyalty (and his emotion) - Giles/Flintoff - Aus 2007) govern his natural instinct. Then the wheels came off .....

But ... right now England sadly lack that rigidity and stability.
Moores is clearly a 'yes man' who is perfectly happy to pass the buck;
Vaughan seems at odds now with both Moores and, since Headingly, the selectors - also loking to pass the buck (something not previously seen in him);
and the selectors clearly are not on the coach/captain's wavelength.
Result : Turmoil, uncertainty and three sets of hymn sheets.

Unless England turn things around - and with authority - at Edgbaston, I foresee the whole set-up - team, captain, management - sliding deeper into chaos and uncertainty with the ultimate disasterous reckonings immediately following this series.

No pressure there then !

And they also had Rod Marsh - another bloke who knows what he likes and likes what he knows - running the Academy as well as having a vote in selection: a sensible link between the fringe candidates and the first XI.

I don't even know who runs the Academy any more? Is it that spinner no-one's heard of?

Michael Clarke only averaged about 36 when he first got picked for us but with Collingwood his talent doesn't scream PICK ME.

Dello wrote:And they also had Rod Marsh - another bloke who knows what he likes and likes what he knows - running the Academy as well as having a vote in selection: a sensible link between the fringe candidates and the first XI.

I don't even know who runs the Academy any more? Is it that spinner no-one's heard of?

Is it Kevin Shite? I know he's had ahand in Jonah's recuperation.

Basil wrote:

Is it Kevin Shite? I know he's had ahand in Jonah's recuperation.

Blimey - it's a wonder SiJo can even land it on the cut strip now...

Red wrote:Michael Clarke only averaged about 36 when he first got picked for us but with Collingwood his talent doesn't scream PICK ME.

Perhaps not, but he's a battler, a great fielder, useful 5th/6th bowler and regarded as a good team man who had done well in the ODI side. Was fair enough to give him a chance in the Test side and he's perhaps done as well as anyone could have expected.

Still think we should have tried someone else as a sixth batsman this time though. He just doesn't have any form behind him at this level so I'm not really sure how much his selection is going to improve the batting line-up, other than the psychological effect of having a batting specialist at number 6 in the order rather than a keeper or bowling all-rounder.

Red wrote:Michael Clarke only averaged about 36 when he first got picked for us but with Collingwood his talent doesn't scream PICK ME NOSE, MON.

Fixed.