Illingworth & Fletcher set English cricket back 10 years

So says my boyhood crush Robin Smith:

You didn't get the same kind of support from his successors?
I'm sitting here in Perth and I'm a million miles away from the days when I played the game, but in my opinion those two [Ray Illingworth and Keith Fletcher] were the most appalling man managers, the most appalling coaches and the most appalling people that I've met. My career went downhill very rapidly because they didn't want to understand me and were just too quick to knock and criticise. It wasn't just me, though. It was such a shame during that period, because I played with about 74 players for England in about five years. Nobody knew what the hell was going on. In my opinion they set English cricket back 10 years.

http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/469055.html

Fair comment? Seems like the quality of management of the England team in the early-mid 90's was akin to that of Pakistan in the present day. Illingworth inparticular was a genuine relic of a bygone era.

Eric Air Emu wrote:So says my boyhood crush Robin Smith:

Is this Tom or Rachel speaking?

It has to be Tom ..........

Smith's right though ...
Both were absolute dickheads.
But a stronger minded skipper during those years might well have tempered the iron and ham fisted rule of those two twats.
There was so much rotating dressing room doors that I've forgotten just who the skipper/s was/were back then!

That's a double Merls.

I also used to enjoy watching the Judge - especially against the quicks.

Michael Atherton would agree with Smith to a point. In his autobiography, he expresses a fair degree of respect for Kieth Fletcher, but is much more ambivalent regarding Raymond.

When he (Athers) was appointed skipper for his first WI tour, he was aware that the old guard were all in the later stages of their carreers, and whilst all still good players - they'd had years of hidings at the hands of the West Indian quicks. In discussion with the selectors, he expressed a desire to start a rebuilding process around a nucleus of young players all in their early/mid 20s, including Graeme Thorpe & Nasser Hussain among others. He said he wasn't primarily concerned with winning per se - a couple of good battling draws would be a good series result with the squad he'd have liked.

His aim was to have a strong team over the medium to long term, and having left with the impression that he'd get pretty well what he wanted - he was well disappointed when Illingworth put his foot down and over-ruled the young captain .... a process which was repeated on several occasions. He seemed to have a revolving door policy for opening partners to Atherton, and bowlers. New selections were under enormous pressure to do well from the off - very few got the chance of a full series if they were not scoring or taking wickets.

Illingworth, as self-appointed "supremo" of English cricket, also had a nasty habit of going AWOL at press conferences especially after a drubbing. Atherton often had to justify the selection of a player who - if the truth be told - he never wanted in the XI in the first place.

So IMO, whilst they may have not quite set English cricket back by 10 years, they almost certainly held it back by four or five.

Aye, Smith gave the Aussies in their full pomp (89 and 93) some hurry-up at times. Class act.

When Illingworth was captain he insisted on having total control of the selection and of the team environment. He had the confidence of his players and his captaincy record was arguably better than Brearley's, including England's last series win over the Windies for 3 decades and regaining and retaining the Ashes. They went 26 Tests unbeaten. It was his own age (he was nearing 40 when appointed) that eventually undermined him.

However when he was coach he refused to allow Atherton that very same freedom that he had demanded. He became the very same interfering establishment figure he had once fought against, undermining the confidence of players like Smith, Hick, Ramprakash and Malcolm.

Alomst like a cricketing version of Chairman Mao.

Hehehe. Illy - the ultimate "do as I say, not as I do" merchant.

Yeah. It was probably that unshakeable belief that made him such a good captain.... and such bad coach.

Illy was the first English captain I truly hated. I was barely in double-figures age-wise and just understanding the history and gravity of the great game when the MCC toured Aus in 1970-71. Illy and the Poms (particularly the mighty John Snow) were ruthless and I thought "fark, how do we ever beat these qunts."

I thank Illy for setting up my passionate quest to always smash the Poms at cricket!!!

Merlin wrote:It has to be Tom ..........

Smith's right though ...
Both were absolute dickheads.
But a stronger minded skipper during those years might well have tempered the iron and ham fisted rule of those two twats.
There was so much rotating dressing room doors that I've forgotten just who the skipper/s was/were back then!

Gary's post above says it all though Merls. Athers was as strong-minded a skipper as anyone else around at the time, but Raymond wasn't going to truck dissent of any kind from any player - they'd have been shown the door in short order.

Got a lot of respect for Keith Fletcher, top county captain & shrewd tactician and not a mug at test level as a batsman either.

Maybe Allan Border was being polite but he's always mentioned he learnt a lot about captaincy in his 2 years at Essex.

KWF' in interviews has always bemoaned that he got the job at the wrong time really saying England had 3 or 4 test class players but the rest were merely county standard.

Illingworth was just a stubborn Yorkie, probably couldn't get over why modern day 90's England were so shoite compared to his era.

Illy's choice of assistants was also questionable. Wasn't it Peter Lever who said of Devon Malcom on a tour of SA that he was shoite?

What's your point, Bas?

skully wrote:What's your point, Bas?

Ok, he probably was - but it was possibly untactful to say it in public on a tour.

Indeed. What Devon clearly needed was to be bounced by the opposition's strike bowler, ala AD at The Oval in 1994. He came out breathing fire that day.

I saw him bowl live (and on TV) in Aus in Ashes 94/95 and he was pretty anaemic.

Devon was no world beater - but on his day and given his conditions, he was both bloody quick and viscious with it.

His problem was that he was, unlike most quicks with attitude, a soft c*ck and a genuinely nice bloke who was easy to roll over. Attempting to "change his action" was farking stupid and whoever mooted it needed castration ....

Still cringe at Devs debut - without looking at crocinfo I can see something like 300-0 in a days play.

0-301. Devon took 1-166 in that innings.

0-301. Devon took 1-166 in that innings.

skully wrote:0-301. Devon took 1-166 in that innings.

skully wrote:0-301. Devon took 1-166 in that innings.

No need to rub it in...

Hehehe, oops, apologies.

Opening partnership of 329 between Mark Taylor and Swampy Marsh was (and still is) a record v England.

A dire, dire year all round.

As people have touched upon there was no sense of a strategic approach for England under Illy and Fletcher. Everything seemed to be looked at,at a series by series or even match by match basis using ye olde cricket logic. Terms like innovation and man managment were utterly alien. The only plan seemed to be to wait until some genuinely talent players rocked up and muddle through in the meantime. I'm sure someone can do the stats but I'm sure a high percentage of England's one or two cap wonders got their chances during this period. Ramps was probably always too much of mental (as was C Lewis) but Hick, Malcolm, Smith and Caddick should have been far better handled.

All I remember from Devon's debut is the big, horn rimmed glasses.