Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2nd July 2007, 09:56   #21
William
International Cricketer
 
William's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Worcestershire, Hawthorn
Posts: 2,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
I haven't seen too much of young Broad but after the big fanfare he was a bit of a disappointment in the two games I finally did see.
What were you expecting him to be like?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
I'd like to see him given more time to develop his game but patience with Plunkett, Mahmood and Anderson must be wearing a little thin.
Prehaps Tremlett's name may fall into the ring at some point. Although I note that he didn't play for Hants last night...
William is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 10:14   #22
Lancastrian
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 135
I'd like to join the consensus - I really like Borad, but the last thing I want to see is any more of the "fast tracking" that went on under Fletcher and has done so much damage to the likes of Anderson and Plunkett.

His bowling was great yesterday - he really looked the part.
Lancastrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 10:40   #23
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
[quote=William;68021]What were you expecting him to be like?



After hearing so much about how good he was I expected him to be a bit more than a pretty average looking fast medium bowler. But as I said, he's played better games than the ones I saw.

As for "fast tracking"; I agree with what Fletcher was trying to do. The previous regimes had been content to allow young bowlers to plod around the county circuit for years, by which time they had usually lost an edge of pace and enthusiasm, or started to learn bad habits. Then they were picked and when they failed to bowl out a side single-handed in their first two games, were unceremoniously dumped. Fletcher realised the power of a young quick to really set the cat among the pigeons and the good ones often come along in leaps and bounds if given the chance (e.g. Lillee, Gough, Lee, Akram, Younis) since fast bowling relies on an ability to satisfactorily harness the speed and energy of youth with the required degree of accuracy. However, they do need to play to learn their trade and that hasn't always been true as far as England's young bowlers are concerned, the most notable case being Tremlett who was kept in the squad all season and then dropped through lack of cricket. Ridiculous.

Personally, I do think that Mahmood etc.need to play regular cricket at the moment. It is difficult to establish yourself in an international side when you only play the odd game here and there though the current crop have had quite a lot of chances. I've always thought that Anderson was a flash in the pan but only time will tell. Taking another plane load of crocks who have barely broken sweat all season on the winter tour ought to see the chairman sacked as should have been the case last winter.
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 10:41   #24
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancastrian View Post
I'd like to join the consensus - I really like Borad, but the last thing I want to see is any more of the "fast tracking" that went on under Fletcher and has done so much damage to the likes of Anderson and Plunkett.

His bowling was great yesterday - he really looked the part.
Borat in the England side? Nyyyce!
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 11:11   #25
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post


As for "fast tracking"; I agree with what Fletcher was trying to do. The previous regimes had been content to allow young bowlers to plod around the county circuit for years, by which time they had usually lost an edge of pace and enthusiasm, or started to learn bad habits. Then they were picked and when they failed to bowl out a side single-handed in their first two games, were unceremoniously dumped. Fletcher realised the power of a young quick to really set the cat among the pigeons and the good ones often come along in leaps and bounds if given the chance (e.g. Lillee, Gough, Lee, Akram, Younis) since fast bowling relies on an ability to satisfactorily harness the speed and energy of youth with the required degree of accuracy. However, they do need to play to learn their trade and that hasn't always been true as far as England's young bowlers are concerned, the most notable case being Tremlett who was kept in the squad all season and then dropped through lack of cricket. Ridiculous.

Personally, I do think that Mahmood etc.need to play regular cricket at the moment. It is difficult to establish yourself in an international side when you only play the odd game here and there though the current crop have had quite a lot of chances. I've always thought that Anderson was a flash in the pan but only time will tell. Taking another plane load of crocks who have barely broken sweat all season on the winter tour ought to see the chairman sacked as should have been the case last winter.
There's always a balance though. We have had a situation though with particularly Mahmood and Anderson through either injury (Anderson) or not being picked for their county (Mahmood) have played precious little cricket at domestic level and despite both having considerable talent, have not surprisingly struggled at international level for consistency. The last point you make is particularly poignant.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 11:17   #26
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
Don't think we disagree too much here. Select early and develop by all means. But that does mean "pluck out of the county system and leave to stagnate". There's no reason to protect these guys at the moment (include Harmison in that). they need the work.
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 11:29   #27
Lancastrian
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 135
I like the Borad typo so much I won't even edit it!

I'm not aginst Fletcher's fast tracking per se, I just think it got taken too far. Most of his success came when picking players like Jones and Harmison who whilst unproven were a little bit older than Anderson and Plunkett.
Lancastrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 12:02   #28
sharky
Posting God
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 10,045
I think that now they have Allan Donald (presuming he signs a contract and the ECB don't completely screw it up like they did with Cooley) then fast-tracking isn't as ridiculous an idea. Broad seems to have the in-built ability to actually bowl straight unlike Anderson, Mahmood and Plunkett who need rhythm to do so. There was something McGrath-like in the way that he used the slope yesterday. The comparisons are inevitable due to their height and pace, he could be nearly as good as Glenn and should be given some Test cricket this summer if possible
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 12:13   #29
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancastrian View Post
I like the Borad typo so much I won't even edit it!

I'm not aginst Fletcher's fast tracking per se, I just think it got taken too far. Most of his success came when picking players like Jones and Harmison who whilst unproven were a little bit older than Anderson and Plunkett.
Yep. if you look at how australia have handled Tait, he was selected for the squad a lot but released to his state team immediately when not picked in the playing side. Tait now seems to be coming through. The situation with Tremlett in 2005 was ludicrous and England appear to have a batch of promising young fast bowlers (not to mention a flaky older one) who actually play very little competitive cricket, but have had numerous opportunities at international level though never quite made it, despite occasional good performances.
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 13:13   #30
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,510
If the improvement in the bowling can really be credited to Donald, then of course he should be given a contract.

However, I do have a proviso. What seemed to happen with Cooley was that one or two players (Harmison) became totally dependent on him, so that, when he left, their bowling regressed to a stage worse than it was in the first place. We need Donald to work with the bowlers and help them learn what suits them best and how to access it when it counts. Imagine a situation similar to the Cooley one whereby Donald has a contract with England covering the winter tours. Then South Africa decide they want their own man back and he goes. South Africa are visitors here next summer so there would be AD working with the SA bowlers, plus passing on what he has done with England. That may be an improbable scenario but the main point is that bowlers should not become dependent on an England coach on hand at all times to nursemaid them.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 13:29   #31
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
If the improvement in the bowling can really be credited to Donald, then of course he should be given a contract.

However, I do have a proviso. What seemed to happen with Cooley was that one or two players (Harmison) became totally dependent on him, so that, when he left, their bowling regressed to a stage worse than it was in the first place. We need Donald to work with the bowlers and help them learn what suits them best and how to access it when it counts. Imagine a situation similar to the Cooley one whereby Donald has a contract with England covering the winter tours. Then South Africa decide they want their own man back and he goes. South Africa are visitors here next summer so there would be AD working with the SA bowlers, plus passing on what he has done with England. That may be an improbable scenario but the main point is that bowlers should not become dependent on an England coach on hand at all times to nursemaid them.
I think its ridiculously early to credit Donald with too much on this though I agree with your dependency point.
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 13:30   #32
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 764 Wagner 118 TCurran 5 SCurran 0 Cummins 85
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 19,925
Young bowlers just starting out will need a couple of years to develop and not just a half a dozen games before being dropped. Some will start off well and have blips and others will start off slowly and get better but they have been identified because they have something different to offer in all conditions around the world.

I don't agree that they must just play county cricket until they are ready because the first thing to go will be their speed. What English fast bowler is going to bowl 500 overs at 90mph throughout the season. They should play some county cricket but not stay there until they are the finished article. If you have two experienced bowlers in Test cricket there is a need to bring a young bowler through to learn from their experience. We had Caddick and Gough and Hoggard was the young bowler. SA had Donald and Pollock with apprentice Ntini and now it looks as if it will be Pollock and Ntini bringing through Steyn. England at the moment have 3 bowlers roughly the same age. No one is being brought through in Tests and I think Moores wants more experienced bowlers in the ODI's.

Bowlers aged under 25 -

7 ODI's 8 wickets at 29.62 econ 4.67 s/r 38.00 - Broad (21)

16 Tests 46 wickets at 38.39 econ 3.81 s/r 60.45 - Anderson (24)
67 ODI's 96 wickets at 27.41 econ 4.76 s/r 34.54

8 Tests 20 wickets at 38.10 econ 4.04 s/r 56.50 - Mahmood (25)
25 ODI's 29 wickets at 38.89 econ 5.85 s/r 39.82

9 Tests 23 wickets at 39.82 econ 3.57 s/r 66.86 - Plunkett (22)
26 ODI's 34 wickets at 35.32 econ 5.85 s/r 36.20

2 Tests 5 wickets at 42.00 econ 4.37 s/r 57.60 - Tait (24)
15 ODI's 28 wickets at 24.46 econ 5.54 s/r 26.46

18 ODI's 26 wickets at 27.88 econ 5.33 s/r 31/38 - Johnson (25)

1 ODI 1 wicket at 26.00 econ 3.71 s/r 42.00 - Hilfenhaus (24)

11 Tests 42 wickets at 31.54 econ 3.89 s/r 48.57 -Steyn (24)
5 ODI's 5 wickets at 32.40 econ 6.43 s/r 30.20

1 Test 3 wickets at 37.00 econ 4.62 s/r 48.00 - Morkel (22)
3 ODI's 8 wickets at 20.75 econ 5.53 s/r 22.50

9 Tests 49 wickets at 20.12 econ 3.09 39.06 - Asif (24)
28 ODI's 31 wickets at 34.32 econ 4.61 s/r 44.61

14 Tests 61 wickets at 30.62 econ 3.56 s/r 51.49 - Gul (24)
30 ODI's 39 wickets at 27.02 econ 4.60 s/r 35.23

25 Tests 91 wickets at 30.79 econ 3.31 s/r 55.80 - Pathan (22)
73 ODI's 115 wickets at 25.91 econ 5.02 s/r 32.91

8 Tests 37 wickets at 25.97 econ 3.37 s/r 46.18 - Sreesanth (24)
29 ODIs 38 wickets at 34.94 econ 5.66 s/r 37.02

7 Tests 25 wickets at 29.00 econ 2.90 s/r 60.00 - Patel (23)
22 ODI's 26 wickets at 30.80 econ 4.54 s/r 40.65

23 Tests 57 wickets at 38.17 econ 3.21 s/r 71.24 - Mortaza (23)
68 ODI's 90 wickets at 30.02 econ 4.63 s/r 38.86

22 Tests 76 wickets at 30.96 econ 3.86 s/r 48.09 - Malinga (23)
38 ODI's 57 wickets at 24.94 econ 4.81 s/r 31.07

27 Tests 72 wickets at 43.01 econ 4.05 s/r 63.70 - Edwards (25)
23 ODI's 26 wickets at 32.26 econ 4.67 s/r 41.42

13 Tests 35 wickets at 39.68 econ 3.67 s/r 64.74 -Taylor (23)
35 ODI's 49 wickets at 29.69 econ 4.86 s/r 36.65

The New Zealand bowlers are all over 25.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 13:47   #33
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancastrian View Post
I'd like to join the consensus - I really like Borad, but the last thing I want to see is any more of the "fast tracking" that went on under Fletcher and has done so much damage to the likes of Anderson and Plunkett.

His bowling was great yesterday - he really looked the part.
England genuinely fast bowlers pre-Fletcher -

the erratic Malcolm Devon,
Darren Gough (fast-tracked to the extent he was first picked on promise over performances, in fact he was listed as medium-fast when he made his ODI debut!)
the injury plagued Neil Foster?
Martin McCague?
Alex Tudor?
Craig White? (initially picked under Illingworth as a batting all-rounder, I think he was only briefly genuinely quick and that was under Fletcher)

England fast bowlers under Fletcher -

Simon Jones
Steve Harmison
Freddy Flintoff
Sajiid Mahmood

Anderson?
Plunkett?
Broad?

Its easy to criticise Sir Duncan Fletcher for "ruining" bowlers like Anderson and Plunkett, but his methods of fast-tracking also developed a far better crop of fast bowlers than England had at their disposal in the decade or so before under Keith Fletcher, Ray Illingworth, Bumble and Ted Dexter.

Now, I think someone like Jimmy Anderson could have been handled better. I think he should have played more county cricket, but past experience suggests that he may well have got lost in county cricket (I'm sure there was potential fast-bowling talent which got completely lost in county cricket, so much so that I don't even know their name to list them as an example), he may well have been crippled with injury (Foster), or been just as erratic (Devon Malcolm). I don't think Sir Duncan Fletcher got the balance quite right, but at the same time I wouldn't completely rule out his methods, because they were an improvement on developing fast bowling over what we had previously.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 13:56   #34
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
England genuinely fast bowlers pre-Fletcher -

the erratic Malcolm Devon,
Darren Gough (fast-tracked to the extent he was first picked on promise over performances, in fact he was listed as medium-fast when he made his ODI debut!)
the injury plagued Neil Foster?
Martin McCague?
Alex Tudor?
Craig White? (initially picked under Illingworth as a batting all-rounder, I think he was only briefly genuinely quick and that was under Fletcher)

England fast bowlers under Fletcher -

Simon Jones
Steve Harmison
Freddy Flintoff
Sajiid Mahmood

Anderson?
Plunkett?
Broad?

Its easy to criticise Sir Duncan Fletcher for "ruining" bowlers like Anderson and Plunkett, but his methods of fast-tracking also developed a far better crop of fast bowlers than England had at their disposal in the decade or so before under Keith Fletcher, Ray Illingworth, Bumble and Ted Dexter.

Now, I think someone like Jimmy Anderson could have been handled better. I think he should have played more county cricket, but past experience suggests that he may well have got lost in county cricket (I'm sure there was potential fast-bowling talent which got completely lost in county cricket, so much so that I don't even know their name to list them as an example), he may well have been crippled with injury (Foster), or been just as erratic (Devon Malcolm). I don't think Sir Duncan Fletcher got the balance quite right, but at the same time I wouldn't completely rule out his methods, because they were an improvement on developing fast bowling over what we had previously.

To be fair - and I was never a Fletcher fan for even a single day - it wasnt so much fast tracking as pushing on the only feasible bowlers available to him. OK, maybe he missed Sidebottom, but so did just about everyone else judging by the reaction when he was picked.
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 14:04   #35
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 764 Wagner 118 TCurran 5 SCurran 0 Cummins 85
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 19,925
but he did try

Silverwood
Giddins
Ormond
Johnson
Kirtley
Saggers
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 14:10   #36
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post
To be fair - and I was never a Fletcher fan for even a single day - it wasnt so much fast tracking as pushing on the only feasible bowlers available to him. OK, maybe he missed Sidebottom, but so did just about everyone else judging by the reaction when he was picked.
Harmison and Simon Jones were far from the only feasible bowlers available. Both were long shots plucked from obscurity. Fletcher (and the other selectors) deserve credit for picking those two.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 14:11   #37
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Harmison and Simon Jones were far from the only feasible bowlers available. Both were long shots plucked from obscurity. Fletcher (and the other selectors) deserve credit for picking those two.
Agree. But once the injury problems set in, who else was there apart from Mahmood/Plunkett/Anderson?
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 14:19   #38
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post
Agree. But once the injury problems set in, who else was there apart from Mahmood/Plunkett/Anderson?
That is the problem at the moment who is the realistic starting quartet of bowlers for the first test v India. That's easy, Harmison, Hoggard, Sidebottom and Panesar. It won't frighten many of the better batting sides will it.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 14:27   #39
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
That is the problem at the moment who is the realistic starting quartet of bowlers for the first test v India. That's easy, Harmison, Hoggard, Sidebottom and Panesar. It won't frighten many of the better batting sides will it.
If you were to add a fit Flintoff it would.

Even now, I'd say that attack matches up to any other in the world at the moment, although that probably reflects more the paucity of international bowling than any real strength of England's.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2007, 14:39   #40
Lancastrian
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 135
I very much admire Fletcher and what he did for English cricket, but I do think that there are legitimate criticisms to be made of the way he handled some England bowlers.

If I recall correctly Flintoff was first picked by David Lloyd, and was viewed as a potentially world class all rounder for years (ie a schoolboy) before he actually made his debut. Harmison was very much identified as a bowler with brilliant potential before he was selected (I remember Justin Langer raving about him long before his England selection). Simon Jones was an inspired choice I agree, but Hoggard had bowled lots of overs in CC and played for Orange Free State in South Africa when first selected.

More generally we shouldn't overlook the impact that central contracts, Troy Cooley and the Academy had on the England team, which all coincided with Fletcher taking charge.

I think that my point more accurately would be that yes fast tracking worked for some slightly older bowlers - Jones and Harmison, but has been less successful with younger bowlers - Plunkett and Anderson. My concern was that this could happen to Broad who obviously comes in the same younger category as LP & JA.
Lancastrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:31.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org