Arthur Crabtree wrote:I understand all that, Flower is head coach in charge of all England related business. But I've never heard any suggestion that he is in charge of selection, from either Flower or Miller. So that's strange. Why do they seem to go out of their way to suggest the opposite? Taking Moores off the selection panel happened post the Schofield report, as was the whole of the Moores era. When Miller retired, press reports assumed he was in charge of selection. It's good that you've made clear Flower's role. I'll keep an open mind about the selection part.
I dont know if your being sarcastic or not, but thats the way I see it. Graveney originally rejected the selectors job and took the national development role because as rumour had it, he saw it as a step down from his job he had. He went on tour as per schofield recommendations under Moores in the Windies, but then the Team Director job was outlined and he made a lot of comments, leading to the ECB giving Miller their support for the new role and farming Graveney somewhere else he was a lot happier in. Originially as well, Miller even didnt nearly take the job because the pay level was considered too low for his full time involvement, having being made lower due to the heightened pay given to the Director role, which increased to a reported £300,000. I even remember Nasser Hussain complaining at the time because the ECB moved a lot of old hash around to new roles, and Hussain had been on the Commissions board that provided the report and felt that the changes were not made as recommended, as the coach would still have most power, making the new roles rather defunct.
Moores role was similar. He was seen as a coaches coach at a time when it was seen that a lot of his spectrum would be limited, and he was therefore the best technical coach in the business. When it became apparent that the ECB's interpretation of Schofield would include a more management role for the coach position, Moores was quickly dumped, and like Graveney was recategorised in a role more suitable to his strenghts at the national academy. it was clear, however poorly Moores dealt with his time in England(and the same could be said about KP with Flower in 2012 - but that did not lead to him being sacked, obviously rightfully so) that he was never the man they intended to take on that responsibility.
Flower then took over and Miller, already in his position after Graveney had run from the job after the Windies, then had to wait to the last minute to annouce the contracts and development squads for the year because Flower's say so was required. The ECB had tendered the job with lots of consideration, and because people had dropped out the decision was very late..... I think this was indication from the start that Flower's eye was required to validate anything Miller does or did at the time.
I also question Miller's influence in the current system. I think, judging on all thats said, that this current squad has Giles and Whitaker all over it, making me think that Flower trusts their opinion over his head man.
Whitaker for isntance made no secret that Bairstow and Ballance were two guys he dedicated much time to watching this year, and Flower has also made many statements to support the former, and his thinking that he both (a) is a good batsman (b) he keeps and therefore is a shoe in for the squad. Giles for his part spoke out before the selection committee met in October to state the case for Rankin(said he suited pitches) and Stokes (who he said working under in ODI's had much to impress).
Stokes is a curious case, especially when in the Lions Tour last winter Flower headed a meeting on arrival to throw him back home. I think Miller had been out there with Dave Parsons, and Stokes had been warned previously about drinking. When Flower arrived Stokes was whipped straight to a selectors meeting inside which Stokes got the boot from Flower, the latter stating afterwards that Flower or Miller did not take the time to speak to him on a 1-1 basis after. It would therefore seem that Giles won this selection, especially when he went out of his way in the press to state the case for Stokes attitude working under him... even if it conflicted with Miller and Flower. The whole issue again validates Flower's power, as no decision was made on kicking Stokes out until he arrived to chair the meeting.
I guess with Tremlett there has always been a shared belief, backed by the bowling coach, of his physical attributes being paramount to the cause.