Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Splints,

The action of Leach has only become a "thing" since England lost the series and chose Dawson, which has gone down in some ranks as an understandably unpopular decision. I think this reeks of the typical Flower style of discrediting, rather than say they made a bad choice they release a bubble of negative information about the player they should have picked. It occurred at the start of the winter when he wasnt picked, with questions about his attitude and readiness questioned, and as England have taken more beatings the information has transformed into ever more depthly negative vibes. Like I say, this was always the case with Flower when he didnt like a player.

The Somerset player you mention is George Dockrell, but I dont think his 4 day form was the reason for the hype, more his perceived control in the one day game (he had a high profile performance in an ICC tournament against a few teams). I dont think he ever had a season at Somerset where he forced himself in the team, in fact the season after his international breakout he was loaned to Sussex and benched quickly, because he was such a limited bowler (akin to a Michael Yardy type player).

As for the grounds thing, Leach took 6 wickets in the 2nd innings at Headingley to beat yorkshire this year. He also took a 5 for at Lords against Middlesex..... the two best opponents of the year in the league away.....

And as for Kerrigan, we could write a book on those 7 overs in international cricket, but its suffice to say that Flower's England were deft at destroying careers.

i made a comment early in the tour about whether the selectors were scared to risk leach because of what happened with kerrigan, but they cant hold that against leach imo as the mistake was in the way the management/captain handled the kerrigan situation and if that was part of the reason the didn't want to pick leach then its a tacit admission of their own faults

the other apsect is surely it makes more sense to pick someone in the hope he can continue his domestic form into the international game than pick guys like ansari and dawson who dont have any form in domestic cricket to begin with. effectively hoping they will be better in the international game than they have ever been domestically.

I think you missed the point Rich. The fault was never the way Kerrigan was handled, in the mind of Flower it was the fact Kerrigan didnt have the mental gumption to cope with the requirements of the system, and that was used to define him as a person and player. In 7 overs and a few days of observing him, Flower decided he didnt like him, so there was no point extending him the benefits of the full "future England player" package.

Leach seems the same. The setup have decided tht its Dawson and Ansari that are superior people, so they will no doubt have resources thrown at them, and Leach will be a nobody. The way he is treated will probably lead him to losing all his confidence, and at that point the self certifying nature of this "plan" will be said to have been proved. The system didnt break him, he was broken when he arrived.....

not sure we are disagreeing tbh, maybe i'm assuming a more passive flaw in how they handled the kerrigan situation to your active flaw but it all comes down to the management off the field and captain on the field not being able to effectively work with a guy and get the most out of the talent he had.

it kinda comes back to the psychological stuff we talked about a few weeks ago, there is no right or wrong "type" in those profiles and the way that profiling is most often mis-used is by pigeon-holing people based on their type rather than managers understanding that they need to adapt their own style to get the most out of a different "type". good managers can do this, bad managers cant and assume a one size fits all approach will work and if it doesn't work for an individual the manager will blame the "employee" rather than see it as a flaw in their management style.

A little apprehensive about reports that while away with England that Leach had his action manipulated (the one no one had a problem with). Apparently the same happened with Riley after a good season brought him to the attention of the performance squad people.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:A little apprehensive about reports that while away with England that Leach had his action manipulated (the one no one had a problem with). Apparently the same happened with Riley after a good season brought him to the attention of the performance squad people.

I read that the test he took identified faults in his action that needed work. Nothing sinister from the way he spoke in his interview. Presumably if he didn't change his action he'd be banned, Maynard the Somerset coach said he was relieved to hear his action had been adjusted and he was able to play in UAE.

You can believe what you want to believe, I guess. I find it personally too convienent beyond words that this action problem was leaked as soon as England lost yesterday.

Its a masterful counter stroke for the no doubt critical statements that were going to come against those responsibile for his non-selection.... couldnt pick him. Simple as that. No one mentioned his action ever, but Flower's tests in a lab picked up he was dodgy and needed changing. I wonder why they leaked the fact it was his attitude previous to this, as slagging him off as a person and saying he "didnt have it" was a much preferrable way of covering up an action problem? Only then to stop hiding it and leak that as well.... christ, you cant make this up sometimes.

What a mess. Spinning the spin about spinners...... the player concerned must love his time with the England setup. Hes been labelled an emotional *modded* who cheats, and is considered a worse person at his professional vocation than those who do not profess to even have the same skills.

I guess though, the action "leak" will disappear when they pick him and he fails, and they will go full circle back to the "not a test player because he failed the multiple choice test" party line....

I think you should see a doctor and have that conspiracy growth surgically removed.

hopeforthebest wrote:I think you should see a doctor and have that conspiracy growth surgically removed.

Its not a conspiracy theory to suggest that the reasons given for not picking Leach changed as soon as England lost yesterday, so why do that?

hopeforthebest wrote:I think you should see a doctor and have that conspiracy growth surgically removed.

wait til you hear his thoughts on how Andy Flower was behind the JFK assassination because he didn't like the way JFK whistled

rich1uk wrote:

hopeforthebest wrote:I think you should see a doctor and have that conspiracy growth surgically removed.

wait til you hear his thoughts on how Andy Flower was behind the JFK assassination because he didn't like the way JFK whistled

How many times, there was more than one whistler!!! Flower and Downton, double team act. And Strauss was on the grassy knoll.

sussexpob wrote:Splints,

The action of Leach has only become a "thing" since England lost the series and chose Dawson, which has gone down in some ranks as an understandably unpopular decision. I think this reeks of the typical Flower style of discrediting, rather than say they made a bad choice they release a bubble of negative information about the player they should have picked. It occurred at the start of the winter when he wasnt picked, with questions about his attitude and readiness questioned, and as England have taken more beatings the information has transformed into ever more depthly negative vibes. Like I say, this was always the case with Flower when he didnt like a player.

The Somerset player you mention is George Dockrell, but I dont think his 4 day form was the reason for the hype, more his perceived control in the one day game (he had a high profile performance in an ICC tournament against a few teams). I dont think he ever had a season at Somerset where he forced himself in the team, in fact the season after his international breakout he was loaned to Sussex and benched quickly, because he was such a limited bowler (akin to a Michael Yardy type player).

As for the grounds thing, Leach took 6 wickets in the 2nd innings at Headingley to beat yorkshire this year. He also took a 5 for at Lords against Middlesex..... the two best opponents of the year in the league away.....

The Leach action issue sort of depends on how much of a cynic you are. Talking about and casting aspersions on a bowlers action is something you simply don't do unless there is an issue and it's not something a board would do about a prospect unless they were called in a match. Sure it is convenient, but it would have been madness to send a spinner which a slightly suspect action to India.

The point I was making with Docktrell is that plenty of promising spinners have popped up then vanished without a trace over the years. I could have mentioned Ravi Patel, Rilley, Craddock etc etc, but Dockrell seemed a bit more potent as his performances were on the international stage.

The stats you give for Leach are exactly the point I was making, it doesn't matter if your home ground suits spinners, if you can go away from home and put in performances, it's the player not the pitch.

I seem to remember a poster on here talking about Leaches action and that it was a bit dodgy. This was before the present tour.

It seemed to be known that he was close to being called.