Andy Flower it is then....

Come on, Flower might have only been a caretaker for this tour, but what little responsibility he has had, he has made an absolute shit-pit of. Together with Strauss they've managed to drop and recall Steve Harmison a million times. The OD cricket has been a disgrace, we were poor in the Test series, and had a number of dropping, recall palavers therein as well. These are pretty much the players he has to go on, and even if you excuse him for it not being his side, one can only assume that he had a hand in the call-ups of Amjad Khan and Gareth Batty, as well as the heavy-handed dropping of the Buddha, as well as the continued ignorance of Adil Rashid's existence.

He might not have had much responsibility, but Andy Flower has still managed to divide by zero on this one. He has shown all the makings of his predecessor; horses for courses garbage, no idea how to get the best out of players, higgledy-piggledy selection, loads of positives, etc.

F*ck him off he's sh*t.

I'd like to know why people in high places think that Flower has done a "good job" so far. Last time I checked, a coach was judged on results, and England's results have been poor against a side that even post Pietersen-Moores spat they were supposed to beat comfortably. If he's doing a "good job" because the England players think he's a great guy, then that's a crap way to judge a coach. Results should be the bottom line at the end of the day.

Wow. I am pretty perplexed that someone can come out with that twaddle and expect even inbred hairlips to believe it.

As Dello said, the level of delusion is frightening.

Perhaps Morris is just looking at the only proposed alternative (I think), and thinking ..... "Piles???????? Would only send the Titanic down faster. I'd better start bigging Handy Andy up, big-time ....."

But he is outpositivising Virgil himself.

To be honest, they don't have a shortlist basically.

Who do they have? Flower, Piles...... and.... um.... well thats about it then.

So they are trying to make Flower out to be the best man for the job, to cover up the fact that any decent experienced coach in the world does not want the job!

And I'm not surprised. A fairly average talent pool at present, the 3 blind mice as selectors, a complete donut as MD of cricket. Who'd want it??

Fark me, just wish we could tear all the appointments up and start again!

A. Flower by any other name would smell like feet.

Or possibly piles.

Do piles smell?

I have no idea. Ask some of the crumblies that frequent this board!

Brass Monkey wrote:Wow. I am pretty perplexed that someone can come out with that twaddle and expect even inbred hairlips to believe it.

As Dello said, the level of delusion is frightening.

It's so ECB, though, isn't it?

They know they've f*cked it up again, spent all this money hiring head-hunters only to end up with one candidate - who is already employed by them.

It's just a bullshit PR exercise to try and spin the idea that Andy Flower has been their first choice all along and the best man for the job, and his selection is in no way an indictment of the ECB's ability to do anything with even a modicum of competence.

I feel a bit sorry for Hugh Morris. He comes across as such an apologetic, weak, pathetic, middle-management lick-spittle - it's like watching Peter Such batting against fast bowling.

But at least Suchy had the redeeming walk out side leg and flay the ball through the covers shot...

What does Morris have?

So we're agreed then: Peter Such should be English cricket's new Overlord.

For some reason I suspect that mandatory pink balls and "fabulous" coloured clothing will be fast-tracked into the game...

Henry wrote:I'd like to know why people in high places think that Flower has done a "good job" so far. Last time I checked, a coach was judged on results, and England's results have been poor against a side that even post Pietersen-Moores spat they were supposed to beat comfortably. If he's doing a "good job" because the England players think he's a great guy, then that's a crap way to judge a coach. Results should be the bottom line at the end of the day.

Exactly, the England team need someone to sort them out like Capello has done with the footballers. Someone who won't take any shit, won't take anyone not pulling their weight and won't tolerate any unrest within the squad. Our football team were an absolute shambles under Steve McClaren who let the players do what they liked and now, even if they're not world-beaters yet, they're back to being a solid and competitive side, with most of the same players.

Results on this tour should have been enough to rule out Flower even if there were no other candidates. What we've seen has been enough to make you want Moores back. Come on ECB, just up the money on offer and re-open the recruitment process, otherwise there's no point in us even turning up for the Ashes.

Don't know about "upping the money" - I hear it's £300k+ per year and the highest paid coaching position in world cricket.

The fact that so many people have ruled themselves out would appear to be more to do with them not wanting to perform CPR on the corpse that is English cricket, rather than anything financial.

Would you want to work for Giles Clarke?

Also, apparently it'll cost the ECB over £1 million to terminate the contracts of the current coaching staff, so they'd be a lot happier if they could maintain as much of the status quo as possible - a brand new coach would probably want to bring in a lot of his own staff.

Dello wrote:

The fact that so many people have ruled themselves out would appear to be more to do with them not wanting to perform CPR on the corpse that is English cricket, rather than anything financial.

Don't know about that - there is a core there to work with for any aspiring coach. The side did compete with SA & IND recently, and I'd have thought it better to take a new coaching position when the team you inherit is a load of pap?

I think Ray Jennings might be a good choice. Straight talker. A bit old fashioned, but he doesn't tolerate any shit.

JKLever wrote:

Dello wrote:

The fact that so many people have ruled themselves out would appear to be more to do with them not wanting to perform CPR on the corpse that is English cricket, rather than anything financial.

Don't know about that - there is a core there to work with for any aspiring coach. The side did compete with SA & IND recently, and I'd have thought it better to take a new coaching position when the team you inherit is a load of pap?

But you'd be working in an environment where everything you hope to achieve is undermined by a system seemingly designed to prevent that; a system that thrives on incompetence, mediocrity, buck-passing and self-serving politicking.

The new coach will be handed a turd and charged with making it shine.

JKLever wrote:

Dello wrote:

The fact that so many people have ruled themselves out would appear to be more to do with them not wanting to perform CPR on the corpse that is English cricket, rather than anything financial.

Don't know about that - there is a core there to work with for any aspiring coach. The side did compete with SA & IND recently, and I'd have thought it better to take a new coaching position when the team you inherit is a load of pap?

Doesn't mattter really, as any coach is hamstrung by the three blind mice, and the system we have in place.

As Dello said, he'd just be handed the same turd's over and over again!

Well we obviously did a decent job of turd-polishing earlier this decade. The same county system and ECB structure was in place. The quality of players available wasn't that much better, it's just that a few of them hit form at once, as opposed to the normal pattern where one player has an amazing year among all the dross then fades back to mediocrity again.

At the top level it's about the players and getting the best out of them. At the moment they are getting the worst out of them.

holcs wrote:

JKLever wrote:

Dello wrote:

The fact that so many people have ruled themselves out would appear to be more to do with them not wanting to perform CPR on the corpse that is English cricket, rather than anything financial.

Don't know about that - there is a core there to work with for any aspiring coach. The side did compete with SA & IND recently, and I'd have thought it better to take a new coaching position when the team you inherit is a load of pap?

Doesn't mattter really, as any coach is hamstrung by the three blind mice, and the system we have in place.

As Dello said, he'd just be handed the same turd's over and over again!

The thing that really bends my brains is the idea that the coach and captain carry the can for all results, but the selectors who pick the side and are in many ways more responsible for the quality of the team than anyone else, they keep their jobs for years and appear to be answerable to no-one.

If I was the new England coach (I won't be, I missed the deadline for applications - bloody Royal Mail), my first port of call would be to sack all of the selectors and demand that, if my head is going to be on the block should the team turn out to be shit, it's sure as hell going to be my team.

The current set-up presumes that not only is the coach "world class" but also that the selectors are at the same level of competence as him. Because if they're not, if they don't know what they're doing, then everything the coach is trying to achieve he's doing with his hands tied behind his back.

So what's the point?

beamer wrote:Well we obviously did a decent job of turd-polishing earlier this decade. The same county system and ECB structure was in place. The quality of players available wasn't that much better, it's just that a few of them hit form at once, as opposed to the normal pattern where one player has an amazing year among all the dross then fades back to mediocrity again.

At the top level it's about the players and getting the best out of them. At the moment they are getting the worst out of them.

Somehow we stumbled upon a coach who was stubborn, single-minded and refused to back-down and compromise over any issue. David Graveney has all but admitted that, as far as selection was concerned, he and the other selectors essentially brought nothing to the table as during Duncan Fletcher's tenure, as he always got what he wanted.

The success England had under him was not a success borne of the system, it was a success borne of going against the system.

The ECB also somehow managed to employ, in Rod Marsh, a guy to set up and run their Academy who had a proven track record of success in that field, who brought with him the best bowling coach in the world.

That was then.

Now, the Academy is run by someone no-one has ever heard of and is total shite - the original principle of it being a combination of a finishing school for fringe England players and fast-tracking the development of gifted youngsters has been abandoned in favour of a meaningless re-branding to the "Lions" with the intake of players being a mish-mash of nothing in particular, a combination of old lags like Michael Vaughan looking for a bit of form, injured players doing their rehab, some decent county players, one or two kids, and some shocking pap like Gareth Batty.

And the best bowling coach in the world has been replaced by Kevin Shine. Who wasn't even good enough to be kept on as Somerset's bowling coach, back in the day.

So it's hard to say it's the "same system". Everything is worse. As are the results. It's almost like the two go hand in hand...

Dello wrote:

holcs wrote:

JKLever wrote:

Dello wrote:

The fact that so many people have ruled themselves out would appear to be more to do with them not wanting to perform CPR on the corpse that is English cricket, rather than anything financial.

Don't know about that - there is a core there to work with for any aspiring coach. The side did compete with SA & IND recently, and I'd have thought it better to take a new coaching position when the team you inherit is a load of pap?

Doesn't mattter really, as any coach is hamstrung by the three blind mice, and the system we have in place.

As Dello said, he'd just be handed the same turd's over and over again!

The thing that really bends my brains is the idea that the coach and captain carry the can for all results, but the selectors who pick the side and are in many ways more responsible for the quality of the team than anyone else, they keep their jobs for years and appear to be answerable to no-one.

If I was the new England coach (I won't be, I missed the deadline for applications - bloody Royal Mail), my first port of call would be to sack all of the selectors and demand that, if my head is going to be on the block should the team turn out to be shit, it's sure as hell going to be my team.

The current set-up presumes that not only is the coach "world class" but also that the selectors are at the same level of competence as him. Because if they're not, if they don't know what they're doing, then everything the coach is trying to achieve he's doing with his hands tied behind his back.

So what's the point?

Aye that's the bit I don't get and really irks me.

Seems to me that the selectors are immune to any responsibility and the coach cops it, gets tanked, and hence the cycle continues.

Also why we seem to be going for a high profile coach, and yet the blokes who provide him with his players pool, are a no bit county pro from some county who played in green, a spinner who couldn't spin it and doesn't have an eye for spotting talent, and Miller who seems to have the backbone of a jellyfish.

All in all, you'd have to if you were a coach look at the package as a whole and think, after what happened at the beginning of the year.... whats the point, i'll just be given tosh by a group of inadequates.

How about having a manager instead of a coach, like in other sports. Get the best man in and give him full control of the team, from selection to coaching to whatever else is required. Let him bring in his own network of specialist coaches and assistants to help identify the best players. The captain is simply a player with the added tasks of bowling changes and field setting, otherwise the manager is in charge.

Sounds sensible - which is exactly why it hasn't yet occurred to the ECB.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/Cricket/245/f583475781304846bba90a143b34f01f//Hussain_backs_Flower_as_coach

Hussain backs Flower.

I'm not against Flower- but I'd put him on something like a year long contract initially. He's got negligible experience so there's no point in declaring him the new permanent absolute master of the realm of English misery yet. Give him the series against Windies, OZ & South Africa (plus assorted hitty-giggly sticks tournaments) and see what comes out.

And yes, just what is the point of a panel of selectors?