Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Carberry interview
57 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Dixon
Apr 1, 2014, 7:19:58 AM4/1/14
to
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/31/michael-carberry-england-ashes
...which I found interesting.
Richard
...which I found interesting.
Richard
Artic
Apr 1, 2014, 8:39:24 AM4/1/14
to
Richard Dixon scribbled...
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/31/michael-carberry-england-ashes
>
> ...which I found interesting.
>
He's working class, so he's stuffed. If he'd been looking to do
something in the 'city', he'd be playing for England for years, like
multi-millionaire Phil Edmonds.
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/31/michael-carberry-england-ashes
>
> ...which I found interesting.
>
something in the 'city', he'd be playing for England for years, like
multi-millionaire Phil Edmonds.
Mike Holmans
Apr 1, 2014, 1:27:02 PM4/1/14
to
On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 04:19:58 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
<richsdi...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/31/michael-carberry-england-ashes
>
>...which I found interesting.
One item in that for me buries Giles as a potential head coach. He had
been the limited-over coach for 18 months but was unable to give
Carberry a coherent reason why he wasn't being picked. It doesn't
matter much what the reason was, but there had to be one, and Giles
had to have known it.
Given that Carberry isn't in the first flush of youth, it may be the
tough-but-fair decision to leave him on the sidelines in the interests
of building a team which can challenge in the medium rather than the
short term, and that's the sort of decision one would expect selectors
to make. (Not that specific decision as such, but I do expect the
selectors to think beyond the next game.) But if that's the decision
they make, then players who are hopeful of being selected but are in
fact too old for the new regime's taste are entitled to be told.
It's very enjoyable to tell a player he's been picked and see the
smile on his face. But it's just as important to tell people why they
haven't been, and if Giles can't do that, he has no business being
head coach.
Cheers,
Mike
--
<richsdi...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/31/michael-carberry-england-ashes
>
>...which I found interesting.
been the limited-over coach for 18 months but was unable to give
Carberry a coherent reason why he wasn't being picked. It doesn't
matter much what the reason was, but there had to be one, and Giles
had to have known it.
Given that Carberry isn't in the first flush of youth, it may be the
tough-but-fair decision to leave him on the sidelines in the interests
of building a team which can challenge in the medium rather than the
short term, and that's the sort of decision one would expect selectors
to make. (Not that specific decision as such, but I do expect the
selectors to think beyond the next game.) But if that's the decision
they make, then players who are hopeful of being selected but are in
fact too old for the new regime's taste are entitled to be told.
It's very enjoyable to tell a player he's been picked and see the
smile on his face. But it's just as important to tell people why they
haven't been, and if Giles can't do that, he has no business being
head coach.
Cheers,
Mike
--
max.it
Apr 1, 2014, 2:24:33 PM4/1/14
to
I didn't like what I heard about Giles's Warks Ire ultimatum to
Rankin, and what was reported at the time (declare for Eng and you
will get selected). Giles didn't want two 'non overseas' international
players on his county team that could be called away to play for
Ireland, and Warks would get zilch from it, so he scundered the dopey
one until 2016.
It's backdoor cuddle club management and it does stink.
max.it
Mal
Apr 1, 2014, 5:38:52 PM4/1/14
to
communication when being dropped was bad. He said
"It's that age-old word: man-management. I've accepted over my short and
breezy England career that that's the way the selectors tend to do
things. I wouldn't say I've been in the loop when it comes to why I've
been left out. I've had to try and work it out for myself which, again,
is disappointing."
I thought with this vast team of man managers, psychologists, caring
selectors etc that those bad old days had well and truly gone and that
everyone was kept in the loop and counselled if necessary 24/7. Can't go
back to the times when, for example, Bill Lawry learned his fate when a
journo asked him how he felt! And I'm sure it happened here as well.
D Ramapriya
Apr 1, 2014, 10:29:36 PM4/1/14
to
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 9:27:02 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It's very enjoyable to tell a player he's been picked and see the
>
> smile on his face. But it's just as important to tell people why they
>
> haven't been, and if Giles can't do that, he has no business being
>
> head coach.
I'd have thought that that's Miller's bloody job?
>
>
>
>
> It's very enjoyable to tell a player he's been picked and see the
>
> smile on his face. But it's just as important to tell people why they
>
> haven't been, and if Giles can't do that, he has no business being
>
> head coach.
Ramapriya
Artic
Apr 2, 2014, 4:20:56 AM4/2/14
to
D Ramapriya scribbled...
He's gone.
Mike Holmans
Apr 2, 2014, 4:37:16 AM4/2/14
to
On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 19:29:36 -0700 (PDT), D Ramapriya
<d.ram...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Who's Miller? The former selector?
Giles is a selector, as well as acting coach. As I said, if Giles
didn't know why Carberry wasn't being picked, he has no business being
head coach.
Cheers,
Mike
--
<d.ram...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Giles is a selector, as well as acting coach. As I said, if Giles
didn't know why Carberry wasn't being picked, he has no business being
head coach.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Richard Dixon
Apr 2, 2014, 5:06:11 AM4/2/14
to
On Tuesday, 1 April 2014 18:27:02 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> One item in that for me buries Giles as a potential head coach. He had
> been the limited-over coach for 18 months but was unable to give
> Carberry a coherent reason why he wasn't being picked.
Get your Dulux colour chart out...RH
> One item in that for me buries Giles as a potential head coach. He had
> been the limited-over coach for 18 months but was unable to give
> Carberry a coherent reason why he wasn't being picked.
> Given that Carberry isn't in the first flush of youth, it may be the
> tough-but-fair decision to leave him on the sidelines in the interests
> of building a team which can challenge in the medium rather than the
> short term
> It's very enjoyable to tell a player he's been picked and see the
> smile on his face. But it's just as important to tell people why they
> haven't been, and if Giles can't do that, he has no business being
> head coach.
Richard
David North
Apr 2, 2014, 8:21:12 AM4/2/14
to
"Richard Dixon" <richsdi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef5a147c-a256-4d6e...@googlegroups.com...
with far more Test experience) did a lot better.
--
David North
news:ef5a147c-a256-4d6e...@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday, 1 April 2014 18:27:02 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> One item in that for me buries Giles as a potential head coach. He had
> been the limited-over coach for 18 months but was unable to give
> Carberry a coherent reason why he wasn't being picked.
"Get your Dulux colour chart out...RH"
> Given that Carberry isn't in the first flush of youth, it may be the
> tough-but-fair decision to leave him on the sidelines in the interests
> of building a team which can challenge in the medium rather than the
> short term
"Hopefully we retain him for the Tests. If Root was still deemed as a
struggler against the new ball then I'd be happy to see Carberry and Cook
continue up top in Tests. It actually made me revisit Carberry's numbers for
the Ashes: 40, 0, 60, 14, 43, 31, 38, 12, 0, 43. No great shakes but
hopefully enough to keep him in the side. (Contrast this, say, with Graeme
Smith's 10, 4, 9, 14, 5, 3 against similar opposition and Alviro Peterson's
similar hopelessness)"
I agree. It's not as if any of the other batsmen in the England team (some
> One item in that for me buries Giles as a potential head coach. He had
> been the limited-over coach for 18 months but was unable to give
> Carberry a coherent reason why he wasn't being picked.
"Get your Dulux colour chart out...RH"
> Given that Carberry isn't in the first flush of youth, it may be the
> tough-but-fair decision to leave him on the sidelines in the interests
> of building a team which can challenge in the medium rather than the
> short term
"Hopefully we retain him for the Tests. If Root was still deemed as a
struggler against the new ball then I'd be happy to see Carberry and Cook
continue up top in Tests. It actually made me revisit Carberry's numbers for
the Ashes: 40, 0, 60, 14, 43, 31, 38, 12, 0, 43. No great shakes but
hopefully enough to keep him in the side. (Contrast this, say, with Graeme
Smith's 10, 4, 9, 14, 5, 3 against similar opposition and Alviro Peterson's
similar hopelessness)"
with far more Test experience) did a lot better.
--
David North
Dave Cornwell
Apr 6, 2014, 10:56:37 AM4/6/14
to
Agree entirely. He may not be part of the long term plan but at the time
I thought he was being treated shabbily. He got a couple of unlucky
decisions as well that he had no control over including being run out
(by Pietersen?)I seem to remember and got dropped immediately after
having done ok before.
dmike
Apr 7, 2014, 11:14:27 AM4/7/14
to
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:56:37 PM UTC+1, Dave Cornwell wrote:
> Mike Holmans wrote: > On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 04:19:58 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon > <richsdi...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth: > >> http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/31/michael-carberry-england-ashes >> >> ...which I found interesting.
>> > One item in that for me buries Giles as a potential head coach. He had
>> been the limited-over coach for 18 months but was unable to give
>> Carberry a coherent reason why he wasn't being picked. It doesn't
>> matter much what the reason was, but there had to be one, and Giles
>
> Mike Holmans wrote: > On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 04:19:58 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon > <richsdi...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth: > >> http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/31/michael-carberry-england-ashes >> >> ...which I found interesting.
>> > One item in that for me buries Giles as a potential head coach. He had
>> been the limited-over coach for 18 months but was unable to give
>> Carberry a coherent reason why he wasn't being picked. It doesn't
>> matter much what the reason was, but there had to be one, and Giles
>
> haven't been, and if Giles can't do that, he has no business being
> head coach.
>
> head coach.
>
> Agree entirely. He may not be part of the long term plan but at the time I
> thought he was being treated shabbily. He got a couple of unlucky decisions
> as well that he had no control over including being run out (by Pietersen?)
> I seem to remember and got dropped immediately after having done ok before.
Quite so, but unless Carberry really piles on the runs in the next few
> thought he was being treated shabbily. He got a couple of unlucky decisions
> as well that he had no control over including being run out (by Pietersen?)
> I seem to remember and got dropped immediately after having done ok before.
weeks, I think that they might try someone younger, whether its root
or robson, form and injury allowing. Whoever becomes head coach may
determine team selection: will it be youth or experience or a bit of
both?
mike
0 new messages