puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
That's it, I'll get behind them as I've always said I would, but if we lose the Ashes, I'd join the bandwagon asking for Fletchers removal. I won't even say to give him the World Cup as he has never had a clue regarding the shorter format.
The most worrying part of all this, is that the supposed positive steps taken regarding Panesar and Read in the first place, were essentially forced upon him. Injuries to Giles, and the fact that Jones wasn't even selected for the second half of the Pakistan series, means that he himself basically hasn't done anything particularly ground-breaking since the Ashes. He was forced to play Panesar and Read, and after both have had successful times of it, more successful than their counterparts, when given the choice, he has immediately reverted to his old favourites.
As I seem to be saying all too often in this thread, I await a slice of humble pie, and would eat it more than willingly, but it is yet another decision in the last few months from Fletcher that is almost impossible to understand. He is entering this series with a defensive mindset, one that says we must look to contain the Aussies. It has never worked for anyone, attacking them is the only way to get anything, and I fear the series is now already lost
To continue, with the loss of such a big influence on the last series in SiJo, surely the sensible option would have been to pick a spinner that could possibly have proved far more dangerous than the alternative, instead he has gone with the same option that went at over 3 runs an over last time and averaged close to 60 with the ball (I believe Ponting went for less picking up Vaughan! )
My major gripe with all of this, is that it reaks of "Fletchers Favourites". That by ousting and outperforming your counterpart you do not necessarily keep your place. I feel he has it completely the wrong way round. If Jones and Giles fail, you have to thrust in a keeper who has not had a warmup game, and a spinner who is inexperienced.
If he had started with Panesar and Read, and it had gone badly in the first two tests, he could have had the option of turning to experience. This way around, I fear he will trot out the same line throughout the series of, "they are experienced players, and will come good."
Shame on you Fletcher, you just lost one of your most dedicated supporters
The most worrying part of all this, is that the supposed positive steps taken regarding Panesar and Read in the first place, were essentially forced upon him. Injuries to Giles, and the fact that Jones wasn't even selected for the second half of the Pakistan series, means that he himself basically hasn't done anything particularly ground-breaking since the Ashes. He was forced to play Panesar and Read, and after both have had successful times of it, more successful than their counterparts, when given the choice, he has immediately reverted to his old favourites.
As I seem to be saying all too often in this thread, I await a slice of humble pie, and would eat it more than willingly, but it is yet another decision in the last few months from Fletcher that is almost impossible to understand. He is entering this series with a defensive mindset, one that says we must look to contain the Aussies. It has never worked for anyone, attacking them is the only way to get anything, and I fear the series is now already lost
To continue, with the loss of such a big influence on the last series in SiJo, surely the sensible option would have been to pick a spinner that could possibly have proved far more dangerous than the alternative, instead he has gone with the same option that went at over 3 runs an over last time and averaged close to 60 with the ball (I believe Ponting went for less picking up Vaughan! )
My major gripe with all of this, is that it reaks of "Fletchers Favourites". That by ousting and outperforming your counterpart you do not necessarily keep your place. I feel he has it completely the wrong way round. If Jones and Giles fail, you have to thrust in a keeper who has not had a warmup game, and a spinner who is inexperienced.
If he had started with Panesar and Read, and it had gone badly in the first two tests, he could have had the option of turning to experience. This way around, I fear he will trot out the same line throughout the series of, "they are experienced players, and will come good."
Shame on you Fletcher, you just lost one of your most dedicated supporters
It's a bit of a myth that Giles is the "tighter" bowler.
:
