Mangongo under spotlight, it seems...

[eugene]

Mangongo's main coaching tool is banging a few heads together and assuming the players will perform once they are told to. Tell someone to score a double century, they will.

[Jemisi]

That method seems to be used in Zim football quite a bit. When teams are going badly, the coach tries yelling louder.

[bayhaus]

Where did it all go wrong. We looked soooo on target in 2010/11 when we were winning.

All smoke and mirrors my friend. Zim cricket has been rotten since the late 90s, much like the country itself.

I didnt buy it when AC, GF, and HS came on board and JUST decided to bury the hatchet. It was definitely smoke and mirrors. The big trade off I called it. That kind of about turn with no alterior motives only happens when people repent of their sins and come to Christ. Anything else is strictly business. For your own info even white guys have been calling AC and asking him what the he is doing to Zimbabwe cricket and that he has become even worse than Ozias.

[Googly]

Mangongo doesnt get it.

There is a huge difference between setting up a club and identifying junior talent than coaching the NATIONAL team.

And the background comment shows he has a chip on his shoulder.. more hellbent on saying 'us blacks can do this' than performing as a nation. We have known for 15 years that blacks can play!!


I do not question his credentials a a talent scout and probably there is no one better at that role. But an elite coach he is not. Militant he is.

I tried to find (but failed) an article (in a shona magazine) that quoted him as promising his support base that if he was elected as national coach he would never select a white player again. I've seen the article though. He is very outspoken and controversial. He stands out as a black coach because he calls a spade a spade. He overplays this in my opinion, because he wants to live up to his reputation. I know he had a stand up row with PJ Moore. Apparently had him in the nets for an unnecessarily long spell facing short stuff as a means of punishment until the guy eventually walked out. I'm not suggesting it was racial at all, just pointing out his methods. I do think most of our players need to toughen up but there's a better way. He is a real Jekkyl and Hyde by all accounts. He's done a lot for development cricket though and is a driven guy, and knows a bit. Doing a lot for development cricket is not the same as doing a lot for cricket in this country. I know I'll get shouted down for this but personally think cricket would be stronger if it wasn't spread so thin. If it was more concentrated it would be stronger. What happens is strong schools end up having to play weak schools where cricket plays second fiddle. You end up weakening the strong guys and not greatly improving the weak ones. It's perceived that the strong schools are white, which is only partly true because the ratio is usually 60:40 black or more. The teams are mostly white because the black guys generally prefer soccer and basketball (or don't make the team). That's their choice. In the desperate need to spread cricket to the people (not sure why) it's made the game weaker, not stronger. During the Flower era it was unbearable for a number of people to only have Olonga in the team. Their success was the beginning of the end. Had those guys not won a single game ever, I wonder if there would have been such a push to include more players of colour? Would the feeling have been "damn these white boys are useless, let's help them?" I doubt, more-like "Hell these guys are making some cash and are famous, we need a piece". It takes generations to foster a cricketing culture and I don't believe it will ever happen here, in fact I know it won't. At school level they should have a two tier system so strength is always against strength. Top side from tier two goes up, bottom side from tier 1 goes down. Talent scouts pick really promising players and get them scholarships. HPC for top players, if they are 90% white (or black) so be it. The snag with pushing development cricket at the expense of keeping a firm base is that you rarely find good batters. Of course there are notable exceptions, not disputing, but they are rare. Top batters generally have access to really decent facilities, good coaching, strongly supportive fathers, uncles and brothers, and hit countless balls year round. You're not likely to spot a talented batter at 15 years old and make him front line. When cricket was strong here and there was money, such was the desperation to bring on black players that they got lots of opportunities, now when the coffers are empty there's still the same level of expectation and it's lead to much disillusionment. In the bygone Currie Cup days when we were strong, players were amateurs. They had day jobs, they played for the love and paid their way more often than not. They bought their own drinks, lunch, kit, club subs, paid for coaching, transport, accomodation (not always but certainly supplemented it). Nowadays folk stand with their hands out. We're going to see shortly who really loves the game!!
Andy Flower's parents, Hick's etc, all pulled together and were tremendously supportive of their little darlings and their dreams, and in may instances went without and gave hugely of their time and money in order to give their boys a real chance I don't see much of this at development level. In fact have never seen one parent at a single game or trial, ever!! I accept that they are trying to hustle a living and life can be tough but still.. to never watch one game or practice? I'm sure they have but I haven't seen it. Same as rugby actually. Some great talents out there but very little noticeable support from home. Soccer is different. Go figure.

Forgot the point to my ramblings, was bored.

[aydee]

Interesting.

For what it's worth, I actually completely disagree with you on the "spread too thin" argument. Whilst I accept that you could potentially have a point when it comes to purely the standard of the national team in the immediate future, I think any governing body in any sport should not take such a shortsighted view (in the literal, rather than rude euphamistic sense). Actually they also have to worry about other things as well, and in my opinion driving interest and participation levels in the sport is very important. I also believe that in the long (possibly very long...) term, if you reached a stage where cricket was as widely followed and played as football, this couldn't help but raise the standards.

No hhm style argument, name-calling or mud-slinging. But simply, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on that one point. I accept that I may naive...

[Googly]

Interesting.

For what it's worth, I actually completely disagree with you on the "spread too thin" argument. Whilst I accept that you could potentially have a point when it comes to purely the standard of the national team in the immediate future, I think any governing body in any sport should not take such a shortsighted view (in the literal, rather than rude euphamistic sense). Actually they also have to worry about other things as well, and in my opinion driving interest and participation levels in the sport is very important. I also believe that in the long (possibly very long...) term, if you reached a stage where cricket was as widely followed and played as football, this couldn't help but raise the standards.

No hhm style argument, name-calling or mud-slinging. But simply, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on that one point. I accept that I may naive...

Of course. It's what the forum is all about. If we all thought the same the world would be a boring place.

[aydee]

Interesting.

For what it's worth, I actually completely disagree with you on the "spread too thin" argument. Whilst I accept that you could potentially have a point when it comes to purely the standard of the national team in the immediate future, I think any governing body in any sport should not take such a shortsighted view (in the literal, rather than rude euphamistic sense). Actually they also have to worry about other things as well, and in my opinion driving interest and participation levels in the sport is very important. I also believe that in the long (possibly very long...) term, if you reached a stage where cricket was as widely followed and played as football, this couldn't help but raise the standards.

No hhm style argument, name-calling or mud-slinging. But simply, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on that one point. I accept that I may naive...

Of course. It's what the forum is all about. If we all thought the same the world would be a boring place.

Word.

[brmtaylor.com admin]

You raise a good point Googly. It will take generations, maybe 60 years or more, for cricket to be potentially ingrained in black communities such that fathers are playing cricket with their kids in the backyard or on the street or whatever. That sort of culture shift won't happen overnight; it's already happened in white communities all over the world because our parents, and their parents, and their parents and so on have all grown up with the game from the time their ancestors migrated from England. And I think growing up with it in the backyard (in the Australian vernacular) is important because the skill set is being developed very early on.

I say potentially because I think cricket in Zimbabwe is at a crossroads right now. This is just my opinion.

The survival of cricket as a mass-participation sport probably relies on this current group of players. If they don't improve then the sport won't get the publicity it needs, it won't get the money it needs. Without these things, then how can Zimbabwe hang on for the next 10 years, let alone 60 years (see above), so that generations of kids are growing up with cricket? This current group doesn't have to become world-beaters, but having the belief of the supporters that the team is more likely to win any given Test match than get beaten by an innings and 300 runs would be a good start. So that is Highway Optimistic, that Zimbabwe are still playing Test cricket in 10 years time and are about 8th in the rankings.

Then there's Highway Worst Case Scenario. If Zimbabwe lost Full Member status, the money would literally dry up and people would be jumping ship in every direction. It's too sad to contemplate the chain of events, but I can see a situation where cricket would have to be built from the ground up. Probably private school cricket would be the only thing to be unscathed. The few clubs that survive would only do so because people continue to stay involved because of a love of the game and are paying out of their own pocket. Anything resembling a national team would consist largely of amateurs who hold a day job (like Netherlands or some country like that). Who knows, maybe a few loyal patriots would make room in their freelance T20 schedule for the odd Intercontinental Cup match. No matter which way you look at it though, it's a sad situation because if Zimbabwe loses Full Member status I don't think they will get it back.

So let's hope that the current squad improves by the way of more winning scores, that advertisers start jumping on board and there is money in the game again. And like I said about 5 years ago, let's enjoy every televised match we see Zimbabwe play because none of us know how many more there will be.

[Googly]

I personally believe that the national side is playing for our future this series. If we get thumped, we're gone. If that were to happen we would never regain our status. I wonder if that's been pointed out to the players?
I've just remembered that thread by that hhm guy about it not being the end of the world if we did lose our status!
I'd like to see Masakadza make a big score, difficult to believe that such a talented player can have such a shit average. He tries to hit the ball too hard and doesn't leave often enough. He only has to lean on the ball, he's a giant.

[eugene]

Masakadza is like Santa Claus. He is large, dresses in red, and only shows up once a year.