Seems to back the long-standing suggestions that Fletcher needs the softening influence of an instinctive behind-the-scenes captain like Hussain or Vaughan (more than he needs talismanic on-field leadership) in order to manage players.
We will all have views on details (e.g. and FWIW I would emphasise the reluctance to stick with Monty more), but the general tenor is very sound, and the points well and fairly observed.
Good to read how he doesn't take a vehemently negative approach to anyone concerned. That really isn't the point. Very nice is the way he implies Read is not inherently lacking in confidence, but has had whatever confidence he has had undermined. Not all players selected on sufference (after public votes of categorical no confideence) thrive when they are "allowed" back in for a second time. The knife edge makes better Rambos than cricketers.
As has been said above, if (only) we could have Brearley as coach (or manager or indeed, psychologist).... we'd be far better off.
England's on-tour selectors in 2006 clearly had some such distorting glasses when viewing Read/Jones, and Ashley Giles/Panesar. I felt incensed at the injustice of it, especially the rude and insensitive demoting of Read. I admire Jones, too. He is a fighter who makes the best of his ability. He has been a more than useful batsman for England. But as a keeper he is not of the highest class. He takes the ball with tight hands. He often struggles up to the stumps. He lacks the ease with which Read takes the ball, the sense he gives of having time to spare. When Read catches a difficult catch, standing back, he makes it look as if he could have gone another few inches if he'd needed to; when Jones makes the same catch, one senses that there was a desperation about it, as if he were at the extreme of his capacity. And standing up to the stumps there is no comparison; one looks makeshift, the other born to it. I could see no good reason for the selection of Jones for the first Test. Read did well against Pakistan and scored more runs than Jones had been doing for some time. His batting failures in India, in totally different conditions and in a totally different kind of competition, were, to my mind, irrelevant. I felt an injustice had been done. To Panesar, too, though I could see the problem for the batting line-up.
Finally the fourth image, clearly related to image three. I think managers/coaches have a hard job in deciding what to say to the press. They can easily be misquoted or quoted out of context. They can easily say something that will come back to haunt them, something thought or felt in the heat of the moment, or in one part of the brain, that they wouldn't really believe in a more mature, or more rounded, state of mind. We all have such thoughts and feelings, and it is all too easy to spill them out. Fletcher spills less than almost anyone else. He is a master of saying nothing. He conveys such a dullness and even depression (even when winning) that it's difficult to envisage him arousing a team's positive emotions. But this is not a bad way of doing things, or at least it is one way. So why - and from where - did this potentially damaging comment about Read come from? What would it do for his confidence? Is there something about Read that annoys Fletcher, that gets under his skin?
Originally posted by PeterCS: As has been said above, if (only) we could have Brearley as coach (or manager or indeed, psychologist).... we'd be far better off.
I wonder whether the ECB might give some thought to hiring him as a consultant on a short-term basis.
England's on-tour selectors in 2006 clearly had some such distorting glasses when viewing Read/Jones, and Ashley Giles/Panesar. I felt incensed at the injustice of it, especially the rude and insensitive demoting of Read. I admire Jones, too. He is a fighter who makes the best of his ability. He has been a more than useful batsman for England. But as a keeper he is not of the highest class. He takes the ball with tight hands. He often struggles up to the stumps. He lacks the ease with which Read takes the ball, the sense he gives of having time to spare. When Read catches a difficult catch, standing back, he makes it look as if he could have gone another few inches if he'd needed to; when Jones makes the same catch, one senses that there was a desperation about it, as if he were at the extreme of his capacity. And standing up to the stumps there is no comparison; one looks makeshift, the other born to it. I could see no good reason for the selection of Jones for the first Test. Read did well against Pakistan and scored more runs than Jones had been doing for some time. His batting failures in India, in totally different conditions and in a totally different kind of competition, were, to my mind, irrelevant. I felt an injustice had been done. To Panesar, too, though I could see the problem for the batting line-up.
Finally the fourth image, clearly related to image three. I think managers/coaches have a hard job in deciding what to say to the press. They can easily be misquoted or quoted out of context. They can easily say something that will come back to haunt them, something thought or felt in the heat of the moment, or in one part of the brain, that they wouldn't really believe in a more mature, or more rounded, state of mind. We all have such thoughts and feelings, and it is all too easy to spill them out. Fletcher spills less than almost anyone else. He is a master of saying nothing. He conveys such a dullness and even depression (even when winning) that it's difficult to envisage him arousing a team's positive emotions. But this is not a bad way of doing things, or at least it is one way. So why - and from where - did this potentially damaging comment about Read come from? What would it do for his confidence? Is there something about Read that annoys Fletcher, that gets under his skin?
Spot. On. Say it again - Spot. on.
Some English forumers here apparently know a lot better than Brearley, and say so, loudly and regularly.
