Fletcher defends Giles selection

[Withdean Wanderer]

We're just looking for a scapegoat.

At the end of the day, one player wouldn't make a difference. One innings aside, we've been a complete SHAMBLES

 

[sten_super]

We've no shortage of scapegoats, they've been a bunch of jokers out on tour... I don't particularly think this is looking for a scapegoat, as people were saying well before the start of the 1st test that they preferred Panesar over Giles. Giles is fundamentally limited as a test cricketer, in that he is a decent county bowler who can bat a bit, but cannot really do either up to test standard. Panesar is a fantastic bowler who has time on his side to improve potentially his bowling, batting and fielding.

I think the same is true of the captaincy... I was certainly pro-Strauss and anti-Flintoff, and a fair few other people around here were as well, before the series started. The problem is these controversial selections meant people (Graveney, Fletcher, Flintoff, Giles) put themselves up to be shot at if it all went tits up. Now that it has, they are rightly in the firing line.

 

[Gritt23]

It's not a case of looking for a scapegoat, it's a case of looking at how we have turned up in Australia in such a mess, and for me there are loads of people to blame.

Picking good old Ash, is a symptom of what has gone wrong, not the root cause, but that's perhaps one area to look at to try to understand how we have become so complacent. We look like we are just on a big lap of honour for our achievements in 2005, and we could just turn up and give the best team in the World a damn good game. Well guys we can't.

Preparation has been awful.
The itinery has been a joke.
Our management of injured players.
Poor attitude.
Unfit players - but still picked.
Out of form players - but still picked.
Players just back from long injuries, so with unknown form - still picked.
Wrong captain, leading to bad field placings and bowling changes.
Wrong spinner
Wrong wicket-keeper.

There are LOADS of people to take a proportion of the blame here, and maybe if we'd have escaped in Adelaide with a draw the cracks would be papered over, but such a shocking last day (not just a bad hour Freddie!) and the cracks are wide and for all to see.

It's not about finding one single scapegoat, it's about finding what has gone wrong, who has made the mistakes and the bad decisions that has left us in this state.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

who should have been picked instead though?

I think the reasoning behind the selection policy must have been along the lines of "If we play A, B & C we will definitely lose as they just aren't up to the very difficult task, whereas X, Y & Z although currently out of form/returning from injury/not perfect COULD do it if they come good on the day..."

 

[sten_super]

who should have been picked instead though?

I thought that was the point of this thread (and many others like it)?

Panesar for Giles, and Read for Jones, for starters. And then you can argue whether a coming-back-from-injury Anderson or a fit but apparently less-rated Mahmood should have played.

I don't see/understand any logic that says 'with Panesar and Read in we are going to lose, but with Giles and Jones in we COULD do a job'.

I'm sorry to go over old ground, but the worst part of the whole debacle regarding Giles/Panesar is that Monty was going to play in the first test, had Trescothick played. That is why he played in the final warm up game. But all of a sudden it's Tresco out and Colly/Bell in (two of the 3/4 players that have actually performed thus far!) and we need to strengthen the batting at 8?! Madness I tell you, madness.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

having been in this position for a while, one of the issues that normally cloud judgement is "playing your best team".

One of the problems we have had since the last ashes series is the loss of Vaughan, Trescothic, Jones...injury to Harmisson, Giles and Flintoff...and the lack of depth in the English game to cover these injuries.

last year we tried Plunkett, Broad, Anderson, Mahmood...all of whome are much of a muchness when it comes to quick bowlers.

Giles was always going to be picked as once Flintoff is out at number 6, we all know that , that is it as far as runs are concerned....the trouble is most test sides bat down to at least number 9, we do not. At least Giles had the nous to hang around to provide support from a front line batsman.

The side I play for has three spinners, I tend to get in cos I can bat a bit and I can "rip" it a bit. The other two tend to bowl a bit quicker than me, whereas I vary my pace.

In the England set up, Giles does bowl very one dimentional and that is why i would rather face him that panesaar who does loop it and gets sharp turn.

We were always on for a hiding for nothing in these ashes series, as to beat the best team in the world you need everyone fit and at the top of their game......only a couple of English players are any where near that.

I think the panesaar/Giles issue is a bit of a red herring to cover up for the fact that the only one looking likely to get wickets is Hoggard.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I thought that was the point of this thread (and many others like it)?

Panesar for Giles, and Read for Jones, for starters. And then you can argue whether a coming-back-from-injury Anderson or a fit but apparently less-rated Mahmood should have played.

and the whole point of my comment was that I think people are talking a lot of bollocks about Panesar for Giles, Read for Jones and Mahmood for Anderson creating a line up that would have been more likely to produce the massive team performance required than the side that the hugely experienced and successful (at least in Test matches) England coach selected...

 

[keaton]

according to Mail (i know). Fletcher wanted to play Panesar and it was Flintoff's decision not to. But that's just week coaching really. Also he apparently consults a player committee about the team which is made up of Flintoff, Strauss, Collingwood (!) and Geraint Jones (!!!!).

 

[Moshe Gariani]

according to Mail (i know). Fletcher wanted to play Panesar and it was Flintoff's decision not to. But that's just week coaching really. Also he apparently consults a player committee about the team which is made up of Flintoff, Strauss, Collingwood (!) and Geraint Jones (!!!!).

yeah and my old man's a dustman... it's a good story but absolute nonsense

 

[Publius Ovidius]

according to Mail (i know). Fletcher wanted to play Panesar and it was Flintoff's decision not to. But that's just week coaching really. Also he apparently consults a player committee about the team which is made up of Flintoff, Strauss, Collingwood (!) and Geraint Jones (!!!!).

That is a very easy point to make really( the mail not you), because if asked directly, Fletcher would always say he consults his "senior pro's" about team selection.

The trouble with this piece of journalism, is Fletcher would be in a no win situation when asked, ie...."I wanted him in but freddie said no" - read as, lost the team respect.....or " I wanted him in and Freddie said no" - read as, I dont pick the team.

 

[aftershavedave]

That is a very easy point to make really( the mail not you), because if asked directly, Fletcher would always say he consults his "senior pro's" about team selection.

The trouble with this piece of journalism, is Fletcher would be in a no win situation when asked, ie...."I wanted him in but freddie said no" - read as, lost the team respect.....or " I wanted him in and Freddie said no" - read as, I dont pick the team.

welcome back dave.

where were you last night? lokki and moh had to lead the smooth talking!

 

[Barrel of Fun]

That is a very easy point to make really( the mail not you), because if asked directly, Fletcher would always say he consults his "senior pro's" about team selection.

The trouble with this piece of journalism, is Fletcher would be in a no win situation when asked, ie...."I wanted him in but freddie said no" - read as, lost the team respect.....or " I wanted him in and Freddie said no" - read as, I dont pick the team.

It is a shambles. I think the buck should stop at the coach and he has the final say in the matters.

This clique business has meant we rarely see Read behind the stumps and we end up with Batty or Giles, when someone like Monty would be much more suitable. By all means consult the players, but the head coach must make the final decision.

Ps Why on earth is Jones or anyone that isn't captain or vice-captain on the selection committee?!

 

[sten_super]

Giles was always going to be picked as once Flintoff is out at number 6, we all know that , that is it as far as runs are concerned....the trouble is most test sides bat down to at least number 9, we do not. At least Giles had the nous to hang around to provide support from a front line batsman.

But then why did Panesar play the last warm-up game?

I agree that the major problem is no-one (bar hoggard) looking like getting wickets. But that is largely to do with the pitches. Surely this is key to the Giles/Panesar debate? The point being that we all think (quite possibly completely wrongly) that Panesar will get more wickets than Giles, and should therefore play. It might be that Mahmood, or Broad/Plunkett whoever, would look no more dangerous than Anderson. At least Mahmood can bat better, and would be a decent replacement for Giles at 8.

and the whole point of my comment was that I think people are talking a lot of bollocks about Panesar for Giles, Read for Jones and Mahmood for Anderson creating a line up that would have been more likely to produce the massive team performance required than the side that the hugely experienced and successful (at least in Test matches) England coach selected...

Of course this is a matter of opinion, but I certainly think that, if nothing else, these 2 defeats should lead to the England camp saying (or at least thinking) 'Maybe we've made a mistake in picking Giles/Jones/Anderson, maybe we should change' whereas I fully expect England to go into the next test unchanged. And even if they may not have made a difference, test cricket and selection for test cricket under Fletcher has been a case of the man in possession being picked unless he gives the selectors a reason not to pick him. Now suddenly (and this may well be down to Flintoff, we will never really know) players like Jones and Giles have taken over from the men in possession (Read and Panesar) when they've done nothing worthy of losing their places.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

welcome back dave.

where were you last night? lokki and moh had to lead the smooth talking!

We had loads of customers with power issues in North london last night so I was busy building systems ....bloody London Electricity.

it was canary Wharf area on Monday....God knows what is going to happen tomorrow!!!!

 

[Publius Ovidius]

But then why did Panesar play the last warm-up game?

I

To see how he was faring IMHO....I think if he had ripped through the side then certainly he would have had to be picked.

I agree about the wickets.....personally I would have thought Monty was a better bet when the Brisbane wicket was cracking up as he appears to be a more accurate bowler.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Of course this is a matter of opinion, but I certainly think that, if nothing else, these 2 defeats should lead to the England camp saying (or at least thinking) 'Maybe we've made a mistake in picking Giles/Jones/Anderson, maybe we should change' whereas I fully expect England to go into the next test unchanged. And even if they may not have made a difference, test cricket and selection for test cricket under Fletcher has been a case of the man in possession being picked unless he gives the selectors a reason not to pick him. Now suddenly (and this may well be down to Flintoff, we will never really know) players like Jones and Giles have taken over from the men in possession (Read and Panesar) when they've done nothing worthy of losing their places.

I agree with most of that considered opinion... (i.e. something other than the more common "Fletcher's shit and we'd be winning the series if it wasn't for his inert selections/management"...)

 

[Gritt23]

and the whole point of my comment was that I think people are talking a lot of bollocks about Panesar for Giles, Read for Jones and Mahmood for Anderson creating a line up that would have been more likely to produce the massive team performance required than the side that the hugely experienced and successful (at least in Test matches) England coach selected...

Similar to the point Sten made about all of sudden we ditch the "man in possession" stance, I don't see where this "experience" argument suddenly comes from. Up until now, I've always been impressed by Fletchers willingness to bring through talented youngsters even if that means the "old guard" miss out.

Where was this requirement for "experience" in the decision to drop 100 Tests of experience in Graham Thorpe to give a Test debut to Kevin Pietersen in the summer of 2005? It was a brave attacking selection to meet fire with fire. What's so different now?

For me, it just looks like members of a cliche getting selected, and the justification is arrived at afterwards, because the reasoning just doesn't seem to add up, or offer any sort of consistency with the approach we've seen previously.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

.....personally I would have thought Monty was a better bet when the Brisbane wicket was cracking up as he appears to be a more accurate bowler.

Quite. Considering Fletcher himself, said that Monty is the best finger spinner in England.

Sticking with the old guard as they have the experience is very dangerous and has backfired enormously.

Monty was second in the wicket stakes this year, behind Hoggard.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

For me, it just looks like members of a cliche getting selected, and the justification is arrived at afterwards, because the reasoning just doesn't seem to add up, or offer any sort of consistency with the approach we've seen previously.

this could of course get very boring but then I guess that is one purpose of the internet forum...

the case for the defence is based on the straightforward opinion that Panesar for Giles, Read for Jones and Mahmood for Anderson would not have created a "more likely to retain the Ashes" line up...

this view was based on a number of factors and held by the man uniquely qualified to decide

clearly it is possible to take a different view but talk of cliques and accusations of incompetence are both wrong...

 

[Gritt23]

I don't think I've ever suggested incompetence, as up until recently I think Fletcher has done a fantastic job, but I do suggest a cliche, or clear favouritism which is blind to form, fitness and the abilities of the alternatives. I haven't detected it before, but I can't explain his decisions on this tour any other way.

I stand by that because I just cannot fathom how he can make the decisions he has done on Jones and Giles, unless its simply that they are the players he wants and he'll make a case for their inclusion.

I would also disagree with your view that he's "uniquely qualified to decide". He's in the position to make the decision, but "uniquely qualified" to make the decision, no! He (along with Flintoff) does actually make the decision, but plenty are sufficiently qualified to have a right to seriously question his judgement.