Duncan Fletcher and the England revival

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Shaka

I don't think England's emergence from a long stagnant period is just down to Harmison's and Flintoff's either. For me the turning point was the appointment of Duncan Fletcher, a coach who has really moulded the team in his image for me.

That's something I posted in response to another thread in the Pakistan forum...I was commenting on the role a coach can play in a team's fortunes and as I'm relatively new here haven't seen any threads on Fletcher although no doubt there's been a few.

Just wondering what people here think of the job he's done. I think of all the national coaches around today he must rate up there with the best: very focused...very tough...and a great thinker. Is that the general opinion?

[Ernest]

Well Shaka, I am not dunkon Fletchers best supporter after the trick he and vaughan played in the West Indies, concerning C Read, I think that was shabby, only made worse when thet dropped read from the one day matches.

Ok England are a good side now, a couple of series away from being a great side,

But look at the players Fletcher has, I think I could mansge those players.

Ern

[Rachael]

It's still early days to be saying that England have TRULY turned the corner. Just imagine England without Harmison to lead the attack (fast bowlers DO break down) or Flintoff to balance the side (do we have the bowlers for a 4 man attack? Maybe) and then think about facing the Aussies next summer - that's not GREAT progress.

Anyone who has followed English cricket these past 2-3 decades has seen too many false dawns to get carried away... but that the Fletcher-Hussain-Troy C triple act has been central in getting England to a point where a rosy future looks possble strikes me as incontrovertible. I'm not sure it's the ONLY way we could have got to where we are (or necessarily the best) but one thing is for sure: Fletcher and his team have been making this approach work.

There's a second side to all of the recent progess, though, and that's Rod Marsh and the more progressive lights in clubs and at the ECB. Fletcher leads the flagship "Team England" Team (and deserves credit for turning them froma collection of county players INTO a team).. but the real promise, today, lies in the signs for tomorrow: it's the way the academy has identified young talents, shown them what's needed, helped tailor them the sort of individual plans needed to develop their game.. allied to the way the ECB, the academy and the clubs have changed the youth-developent culture of cricket, nationwide.

Long term I can see us growing out of this intense Fletcher phase and relaxing into a more self-assured and Rod Marsh led return to the very top of the tree. To take a footballing analogy.. I can see us moving from our current, Alex Ferguson like war footing to a more cultured, Wenger like (or, switching to rugby, Clive Woodward like) professionalism.

ps. I wouldn't be surprised to see Fletcher drift off once his job of turning England around is done: I could see him, instead, trying to turn around WI setup when the board finally sorts its act out. That sort of role is where I'd see him being at his best.

[Shaka]

Well Earn, I was a fan of Fletcher's even before the likes of Harmison, Strauss and others emerged. Along with Nasser Hussain I think he played a big part going back to winning a first ever series in Pakistan. I thought the team went there with a great attitude compared to the past and got due reward for it. A lot of more talented teams have been there and come away with nothing.

Also cast your mind back to the tour of Sri Lanka recently. England were in dire straits in a couple of matches but a tremendous backs to the wall job which required a lot of application from the batsmen to defend every ball paid off. That takes a lot of collective team discipline and i think the management deserve some credit for it. I don't think treatment of individual players without knowing the reasons for it can detract from the overall direction of a team.

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Rachael

There's a second side to all of the recent progess, though, and that's Rod Marsh and the more progressive lights in clubs and at the ECB. Fletcher leads the flagship "Team England" Team (and deserves credit for turning them froma collection of county players INTO a team).. but the real promise, today, lies in the signs for tomorrow: it's the way the academy has identified young talents, shown them what's needed, helped tailor them the sort of individual plans needed to develop their game.. allied to the way the ECB, the academy and the clubs have changed the youth-developent culture of cricket, nationwide.

Rachael, I saw you raised this point in the other thread and it's very valid. The foundations have to be right to be sure, but even so I think the coach has a very important role to play during the game itself. Maybe there's an Arsene Wenger out there for England, but at the moment, given the players he's had in his duration as coach he's had pretty good results, even prior to emergence of some key players. After all, anyone can manage a good team, but getting the most out of an ordinairy bunch or maximising potential of decent players is real coaching isn't it?

[Ernest]

Oh I agree with a lot you say here Shaka, I am sorry for using your thread as a soapbox to show my dislike for how managment have behaved at time, but I think you will agree, D Fletcher has has a good team to work with, unlike others in the recent past.


Ern

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Shaka

I think the coach has a very important role to play during the game itself. Maybe there's an Arsene Wenger out there for England, but at the moment, given the players he's had in his duration as coach he's had pretty good results, even prior to emergence of some key players. After all, anyone can manage a good team, but getting the most out of an ordinairy bunch or maximising potential of decent players is real coaching isn't it?

Absolutely. There's perhaps more than one way of getting to where we've got.. but there's no questioning (for instance) that Fletcher's determination to build "team England" through aggressive use of central contracts, pressure for a largely common Test and ODI side and pressure for the selection of "Team" players based on "character" rather than "talent" players based on technique HAS paid dividends.

The England Team ARE a team now. They are a pleasure to see performing AS a team. There's perhaps a few Test players (Trescothick, Collingwood) and ODI players (GO Jones) who have been rather fortunate beneficiaries of this influence and strategy.. and one has to question the guy's competence as a batting coach (Strauss and Bell, having developed through the academy, are the hits: Fletcher's batting coachign seems only to have benefitted Giles and Hoggard).. but that's nit-picking.

Fletcher's best move, though? Appointing Troy C. Fletcher get's the plaudits.. but it's the bowling coach that's turned this team into something promising!

[The Len Ganley Stance]

I find it very difficult to direct any criticism at Fletcher, due to the vast improvement in Englands fortunes since his appointment. He certainly has the respect of the players and the captain whilst the media certainly seem to hold him in a certain regard. A far cry from the days of Illingworth.

My only slight problem is, he could have been more vocal on the issue of Zimbabwe since he will have a different perspective on the whole issue. The ICC and British government would still have done their own thing but it would be interesting to know his true feelings.

Saying that, his remit and job title probably exclude him from commentating on political affairs.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Well Shaka, I am not dunkon Fletchers best supporter after the trick he and vaughan played in the West Indies, concerning C Read, I think that was shabby, only made worse when thet dropped read from the one day matches.

Ern, not sure if I understand that - did ditching Read there have a detrimental effect on team morale or results? The only negative impact so far, was probably on Read's ego.. but surely massaging everyone's ego is not the main criteria by which you should judge the England Coach?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Ern, not sure if I understand that - did ditching Read there have a detrimental effect on team morale or results? The only negative impact so far, was probably on Read's ego.. but surely massaging everyone's ego is not the main criteria by which you should judge the England Coach?

Maranello,
I take your point to a degree, I did not like the way he or Vaughan handled the Jones/Read affair, It was against the rules, as touring selectors, they did not have the right to say "jones will be given the same chance as Read", that was a matter for the full selection board,not two men touring the Windies, and Vaughan did have his wrists slapped for his part in it, and I 'think' he appologised.

That said, yes the results have been good, in particular in Test Cricket, not so good in the one day stuff, but I think Jones contributions declined from such a good start, South Africa will tell a story, and with Fletcher it will be wait and see for me, he has after all got a squad of players that could manage themselves.

Ern