Flowers..The HC Star Falls Ignominiously

[mapoui2]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/con ... 16851.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jono Makim on (February 6, 2014, 16:00 GMT)
Seems to me that Andy Flower can't help but take Pietersen down with him. To be honest Flowers continuing role as a selector, to me, is just about the most baffling aspect of this whole fiasco, I can't imagine him NOT letting personalities come into it. What an absolute nightmare for English cricket fans.

Danuka Perera on (February 6, 2014, 15:40 GMT)
I m a sl fan.the only player entertained me in english team is kp.with out him english cricket is boring to watch
Posted by The_other_side on (February 6, 2014, 15:39 GMT)
KP has fallen foul to English Revolution!! or Revolution was created to oust KP!!!! He is the best player and probably only matchwinner in tests, considering Eoin Morgan plays only ODIs...
The malaise that English cricket always suffered is visible here, in that they want only "YES BOSS men". Compare it with Aussie culture, where innovation is applauded, speaking out opinions is encouraged...
Too bad England leave a man cos they cant manage him. Hopefully they can get a replacement half as good as KP.
One cannot take everything that people like KP say and look under microscope before deciding their careers. He behaves like larger than life on the field and delivers performances that are amazing, and speaks his mind in the team meetings- all goes with the personna!!!!
WAKE UP England.

[mapoui2]

Flowers the dictator...put together a 'yes man, weak and lily livered side that bruk under presshah and scatter in Australia.

this is the real Andy Flower that the author of this article here, tries very hard to cover up for, to hide.

Flower is the villain in the piece, the cause of it all.

the england team is a flowers creation. he is responsible. and as it is now revealed he was a dictator all along.

and the resident skunt here who supports coaches and celebrated Flowers, never knew,..although the principle is power corrupts and absolute power means disaster.

in the first place to put all the power in any ones hands is a recipe for disaster. humans fight for democracy for a reason: to spread out the power to ensure there are checks and balances in order to prevent disaster and max chances of success

a head coach is opposite to good reason. who creates and appoints such positions save they intend to prevent the development of democracy, to hoard power and prevent its diffusion into many hands

[Gils]

They gave him a ceremonial position as selector, personally I couldn't care less if they cut off their nose to spite their face.

This clearly proves there are limits and boundaries to this ability, as Gibson is known to lament " you can only tell them the same thing so many times " .

If the coach is strong in the task-oriented role but weak in the other role he should appoint someone in the leadership team who is strong in that role to cover his weakness.
Mickey Arthur, a former coach of Australia, was a very hard taskmaster who appeared to play the maintenance role poorly. He had multiple problems with his players and never got the best out of them. He was unceremoniously removed from his job and was replaced by Darren Lehman who at the moment seems to have struck the right balance between the two roles. He is now the coach of a happy, united and successful team.

Task-oriented and autocratic coaches who rely solely on the power of their position to get things done and ignore the feelings and motivation of their players and the management of important relationships in the team usually fail. An inherent power gap prevents them from reaching their goals. That gap can only be bridged by empowering the players, by building harmonious and cooperative relationships with them and by creating an enabling and learning environment in the team.

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/T ... ndy-Flower" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

[mikesiva]

"When Andy Flower was appointed team director to the England cricket team, the team was in sorry state and was playing well below its potential. At that time, Flower was the right man for the job and his values, coaching philosophy and coaching strategies soon reversed the form of the team. He improved the players’ self-belief and self-confidence and transformed them into a highly motivated, disciplined and successful unit. During his five-year tenure the team won three Ashes series, two series against India, a World Twenty20 title and for brief periods was at the top of the rankings in the three formats of the game....Flower is an intensely task-oriented coach. His attention to detail, planning and preparation, his autocratic style and demanding personality, his commitment to the highest standards and his fixation to constantly challenge and drive his players took a toll on them. Fear and anxiety followed and his players seemed to lose their confidence, concentration, and enjoyment of the game as well as their ability to cope with the pressure situations that they faced. Two of his best players left the team mid-series, another lost his place in the team and there were strong rumours that the team’s best batsman would be discarded at the end of the series. The pursuit of excellence by the coach and his staff somehow appeared to distract them from addressing the basic needs of the human being inside the players."

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/T ... 06001.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Ottis Gibson, the coach of the West Indies team has been, and probably still is the epitome of the autocratic, inflexible, controlling and task-oriented coach. During his tenure his team has performed very poorly but unlike Flower and Arthur he has retained his job. I hope that he appreciates his good fortune, learns from the mistakes of these two coaches, commits himself to becoming the best coach that he can be, adjust his teaching style to fit the learning style of his players, and adopt a new and productive set of values and coaching techniques that will bring the best out of his players. Former players from the Worrell/Sobers and Lloyd/Richards eras who took their teams to the pinnacle of success, as well as the millions of loyal West Indies supporters deserve no less."

[mapoui2]

When Andy Flower was appointed team director to the England cricket team, the team was in sorry state and was playing well below its potential. At that time, Flower was the right man for the job and his values, coaching philosophy and coaching strategies soon reversed the form of the team.

Flower was not the only way...

english cricket could have been resurged in the traditional way by the right people.

I mean the power of the captain could have been preserved and a figure like flower made MANAGER..or director above the team.. to ensure the right people were available to be chosen from, selected all along the line

but with those titles there would not have been the slightest possibility for Flowers' dictatorial personality to flower as such, to rise up and dominate all around him, ultimately with disastrous consequences

the problem is in the head coach position, along with the attachment of all the power in the team concentrated in his hands

power corrupts. the power attached to the HC position guarantees that almost every HC appointment will end in failure

[mapoui2]

and if there is no power attached to the HC what is the point of the appointment?

none at all for he would just be a coach like any other coaching flunky who may be around a team for whatever reason.

the power corrupts ensuring ultimate failure... that is if the coach like Flower has some redeeming qualities. but in most cases the failure is almost immediate..or very soon into the appointment

if you are going to create/appoint such a figure as a HC..why call him HC when his role has absolutely noting to do with coaching..or his duties include only the most minor involvement with actual coaching. he is a manager glorified is what he is..a manager with too much power that usurps completely the role of the captain.

the HC has made the captain much less of a figure..undermined him completely. why do we want to hamstring the captain of a team when he is the most important figure of all?

I guess if you appoint HC's then you can have captains like Sammy. and Cookie in england..McCullum in Kiwi etc.

only Clarke and Dhoni remind of the old captains we used to have..strong personalities who are the natural leaders of their teams..once they play they are leader period

[mapoui2]

there are types of people who fill all jobs...

ask a kid what he wants to be when he grows up and you will know the type they are already as a kid. I want to be a policeman, in the military, a doctor, lawyer etc..

as they grow they will solidify into what their personality is. and so here will be applicants for every job according to their specifications.

so if you have a head coaching position in which all power in the profession reside why would it not attract its type of personality..the personality who likes cricket, can play cricket and who loves power for its sake?

that is the kind of personality cricket will get because that is the type of personality who fits the specifications of a head coach.

he is the same guy who coaches soccer... only that he chose to play cricket and only recently cricket opened up in that way for such as he is as HC. he fits soccer that type as coach..but not cricket.

the position of HC does not fit cricket and the personality type fits cricket only as player.that type would be just as destructive as cricket captain, as he turns out to be as HC

[Googley]

Maps, you tink WICB looking to hire Flowers? I would not be surprised if that is true!

[mapoui2]

nidah wud I!

but Flowers might not take it if offered

unless yuh want to eff around it shud be real hard doin' wuk fuh this wicb

[mikesiva]

Ashley Giles, who is being touted as his successor, doesn't look much better....

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/con ... 33211.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"I had a brief chat with Ashley Giles during the fifth ODI in Adelaide and his response was that he didn't really know," Carberry said in an interview with the Guardian. "If you don't know, mate, I sure as hell won't know. 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." Despite being one of England's more solid performers during the Ashes defeat, Carberry said that response from Giles left him wondering about his international future in all forms of the game, especially if Giles is named as Andy Flower's replacement as Test coach. "Leaving Adelaide after our brief chat I've got to be honest, it didn't fill me with a great deal of optimism," Carberry said. "I feel that this is a question he should have answered. And, okay, if it's not him answering, it should be one of the selectors. But that's the way England like to do things. It disappoints me because I'm quite an approachable guy. Maybe I'm a bit straight-talking but it's the best way to be in this world - say what's on your mind." Carberry said that "some very, very strange decisions have been made" since the tour of Australia, not least the ending of Pietersen's England career despite him being the team's leading run getter in the Ashes. As a 33-year-old trying to make a success of his second chance in the Test side, Carberry said he benefited from Pietersen's advice on the mental side of the game during the Ashes tour. "It was a big surprise because I don't think anyone saw that coming," Carberry said. "Through the tour, certainly, Kev was very helpful to me. Over the years Kev, as one of the greats of the game, has always been very helpful in talking about the mental side. In England's position you want to retain that knowledge as much as you can. You hope he will still be around the county game for the benefit of the next generation." Carberry also said he felt he received better feedback from the Australians than he had from within the England camp. "I've played against enough Australians to know they're very cagey with their compliments," he said, "so I must have shown a glimpse of something for them to say: 'Look, mate, you stood up through some serious spells'."

It's really sad when a black player in the England team can feel so unwanted that he gets treated better by the Aussies....