Duncan Fletcher: Lose the Ashes and Lose Your Job?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

The rot, if you can call it that, started as soon as we won the ashes.
"we should drop vaughan from ODIs" - sorry he was in the side that won the ashes he has to stay
"harmos form has been patchy"- but he was in the side that won the ashes
"jones is pants" - but he was inthe side that won the ashes etc etc e tc etc

IMHO, winning the ashes, in the long term has caused more problems than its solved.

[dickies dragons]

All coaches at every level have sell by dates,you can say the same things to the same players for a set time period only.
We caught The Aussies cold last year<poor team selection/umpiring decisions/usual arrogance/injuries> and we played bloody well.
Recent decisions by Fletcher et all regards selection/prearation have been flawed,and yes the taxi for fletcher will be waiting at the end of the series,,,,,
Who next?
Woolmer favourite,Moody possible!

[Oliver]

I think Woolmer is probably past his sell by date, besides if we employ him all sorts of shenanigans could go on in the England set-up... you know... like players throwing matches for money...

...didn't we do that on Monday?... No surely not.

I quite like Tom Moody, though perhaps that might mean a come back for Graeme Hick.

But he's probably a better spin option that Ashley Giles right now... and also a better number eight.

[first change]

The case for the prosecution:

Panesar

From the start, Panesar has received some odd treatment in the press from Fletcher. He was pretty luke-warm when he was picked, and then utterly bizarre in the summer. When he took wickets on a helpful pitch, Fletcher wanted to see what he's like on unfriendly pitches. When he won a match on such a pitch (Headingley?), he had a go at his batting and fielding. Then, out of the blue, he says he's the best finger spinner in the world. Then promptly drops him. Which leads us to

Panesar v Giles

Interesting to see the story in today's mail. Whatever the facts, at best it seems that Fletcher wanted Panesar to play instead of Anderson, not Giles. But nobody suggests that Monty is Fletcher's no. 1 spinner, which is ludicrous. To play Giles instead of Monty in the first Test was an error, to play him in the second a serious a mistake, but his justification of the selection after Adelaide that it was still the right choice is laughable. He said that Giles had scored 27 in the first innings, justifying his place. Incredible! He also said that Warne had batted very well at eight. Quite right, and very valuable. But that's not why he's in the side. Warne is a great bowler, very good fielder and decent bat, but he plays fo4r Australia because of his bowling. If he fielded like Devon Malcolm and batted like Chris Martin (of either New Zealand or Coldplay fame) would Australia have played Cameron White? Of course not. If we're so desperate to bat to number eight, why not just stick Ed Joyce there and be done with it.

Incidentially, Giles may have scored 27. But he came in with England 491-6. Hardly pressure is it? Then, when we needed runs in the second innings, he bottled it. To be fair, we shouldn't be pinning this defeat on Giles, but to suggest he contributed much to the game simply isn't true.

Let's hope Fletcher wins over that fearsome management committee before Perth.

Read

Without re-hashing the same old debates, Fletcher's treatment of Read in this series was, IMHO, disgraceful. To publicly drop a player in the middle of a match (one in which he wasn't even playing) is outrageous. Read had a poor champions trophy - who didn't - but his Test performances had been good. Jones was hardly setting the world alight in the practice games - Phil Jacques, anyone? - and I can not remember a precedent for such a public dropping. Fletcher's comments - basically that Read had no bottle - were utterly uncalled for and, frankly, shameful.

One Day Cricket

Let's start caring about this, shall we? I know it's not as important as Test cricket, but it still matters. It certainly matters how we do in the world cup. England's attitude to it is appalling, and Fletcher is at least in part responsible.

I could go on. Fletcher's been fantastic, but it's time to move on. Whatever the result in the Ashes, I personally hope Fletcher will make way. The time is right.

[Harmy's Army]

It's more a question of when than if with respect to Fletcher losing his job (assuming we lose the ashes, that is). I'm clueless as to how, but if England somehow conjure a win and a draw from Perth and Melbourne, and keep the series alive going to Sydney, Duncan will keep his job until after the World Cup. Lose at Perth (particularly if he plays the same team) and he'll be gone before 16th March. Abject failure in the VB series after the Ashes is gone (and with morale at an all time low in the England camp would any other outcome be plausible?) would only increase the pressure on the ECB to get the broom out and do a bit of sweeping.The English press will crucify him, as they have done on numerous occasions to national managers/coaches of the football, rugby and cricket teams who have failed dismally - to the extent where their respective governing bodies have been forced to ditch the man in charge.

[TopperHarley]

Panesar - Judging by a piece on teletext on the BBC, it may not have been Fletcher who ruled Panesar out of the team for the first test, apparently that honour might go to Fred.

Jones - Should not have been recalled in the first place. However, his keeping has been good, his sledging better, and his batting woeful. It is a rich irony that the clamour for his dropping has (both times) reached fever point when his keeping has been acceptable, and at times very good. Most people could see Jones being picked, however it was the crass comments about Read's inability to handle pressure which irked.

It's common knowledge that England have failed to fill the gap left by Simon Jones' absence. Mahmood is consistently inconsistent, Plunkett offers little, Anderson has been unfit and Lewis needs favourable conditions. to be fair to Fletcher, he has tried different bowlers, but nobody has stepped up to the plate. This may explain his obsession with increasing the batting options, to cover for the inability to keep up pressure with a rotating bowling attack.

I think there may be a case of unrealistic expectations, not many sides go to Austrailia and win. Especially not a side missing a strike bowler, having a spearhead there in body but not mind, an all-rounder who has just returned to fitness, and is burdened with captaincy (not fletcher's sole choice IIRC) and missing both captain and senior batsman. I could not see England winning in aussie anyway this summer, so blaming fletcher is neither here nor there. Fletcher to stay, he has done far more good than harm, and has made england a respected force again.


One other thing, I completely fail to see how Rod Marsh gets the reputation he has among some people on this board. You'd think he was the chief architect of englands renaissance, rather than a guy who had the cushy job of working with the cream of the young players at the academy, before, by several accounts, championing his young players when they clearly were not ready, and comparing chris read's batting to adam gilchrist and mark boucher's!

At the time those comments were made (2003-2004) Gilchrist batting blindfolded with no bat would have scored twice as many runs as read. Marsh was blinkered in his viewpoint, had little respect for coach or captain(s) and, naturally, having not been heard of in a while, has resurfaced to say "i told you so" despite having to wait nearly three years for the opportunity, as the players he derided were winning series and playing good cricket.

As for Troy Cooley, Fletcher had nothing to do with his departure, and was on record as being highly appreciative of the way he had helped mould the fast bowlers into a unit both on and off the pitch. Is there anything else we shoudl unjustly blame fletcher for? War in Iraq?

Another criticism of fletcher is his championing of temperament over talent on some occasions. Perhaps we shoudl look at which england batsman averages over 100 for the series?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by TopperHarley

Jones - Should not have been recalled in the first place. However, his keeping has been good, his sledging better, and his batting woeful. It is a rich irony that the clamour for his dropping has (both times) reached fever point when his keeping has been acceptable, and at times very good. Most people could see Jones being picked, however it was the crass comments about Read's inability to handle pressure which irked.

Excellent piece by first change.

But the thing about Jones' keeping is: it's not really been acceptable, it's just that the media and commentators are so embarrassed by his continued inclusion that they feel the need to talk about how much he's come on - all the time.

For me that was the most interesting thing about the two Tests that Chris Read played last summer, we didn't have people constantly talking about the wonderful man behind the stumps: "ooh he had no right to get to that one, but he did" and "Oh I say what a marvellous take by the little Notts. man."

Just once or twice I heard Blofeld saying: "isn't it fun having a real 'keeper to watch."

Jones is 6o11ocks.
Read is good.

It's the same for me as the Giles/Panesar issue. One is no longer good enough, and to tell the truth Giles had lost it due to injury after our last but one Pakistan tour - before that I was a huge advocate of his "work" - the other is young, promising, and already good enough to remove sub-continental masters of spin on unresponsive English pitches.

That he has not played in at least one of the first two Tests is just a joke.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by TopperHarley

One other thing, I completely fail to see how Rod Marsh gets the reputation he has among some people on this board. You'd think he was the chief architect of englands renaissance, rather than a guy who had the cushy job of working with the cream of the young players at the academy, before, by several accounts, championing his young players when they clearly were not ready, and comparing chris read's batting to adam gilchrist and mark boucher's!

Has Rod Marsh resurfaced? I didn't know.

But the thing is, it takes rather longer than a week for a well built management set-up to collapse.

Unless of course, it is a house of cards.

Rod Marsh gets my vote, because he could see that Chris Read was a decent wicket keeper and that Geraint Jones was not.

Geraint Jones was a chancer who failed to make the grade in Australia, and therefore decided to become Kentish in order to attempt to make the grade in England.

He's a good team man apparently. Flintoff likes an Aussie to drink with.

But he can't keep wicket, and as first change said - blimmin fantastic Giles managing 27 under absolutely no pressure at 496-6 at Adelaide.

How much pressure was there on Jones at 496-5?

None at all... and how many did he make?

Rod Marsh also gets my vote because he is a no nonsense Australian cricket and he calls a spade, a spade.
Oi no 6o11ocks!

Duncan Fletcher seems to be more of a diplomat, and with most of the decisions he had made in the last four months he has had to be.

I know Cooley's departure is well documented, but sites like this can always do with a little devilment.
Besides what did they say to each other when the journalists weren't there?
Aha you don't know that do you?

And nor do I.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by John

So yes Fletcher did make mistakes.
1. Not playing Panesar.

Was that really his mistake?

Originally Posted by Robert Craddock, Fox Sports

A MAJOR internal rift is brewing in the England camp following the revelation that coach Duncan Fletcher has been wrongly blamed for snubbing spin bowling cult hero Monty Panesar. Fletcher is privately fuming at being held accountable for omitting Panesar from the Adelaide Test, a match where England's No.1 spinner Ashley Giles took just 2-149 to leave his career hanging by a thread. The Courier-Mail has learned that at team selection meetings in Adelaide, Fletcher leaned toward Panesar to play in the Test but captain Andrew Flintoff went for his Lancashire teammate, swing bowler Jimmy Anderson, who went on to perform poorly and may not play another Test on tour. Flintoff won out after the issue was discussed by a committee of senior players including Geraint Jones and Andrew Strauss. The fallout over the omission of Panesar has become so great in England that it is threatening to undermine Fletcher's future as England coach and also drive a wedge between Fletcher and Flintoff. Full Article here

I've said it before, I'm saying it again, its just plain ridiculous to blame Fletcher alone for all the selection disasters England have made on this tour. FLINTOFF, I'm now convinced, more then ever, is much more responsible then Fletcher. I had always suspected it was the captain who'd have the final say in who should be in the XI, and now I'm convinced. To go with all his tactical blunders on the field, and the ridiculous shot he played to get out the last day (and his history of playing such similarly ridiculous shots in such circumstances), I think England should think first of sacking their over-rated captain before they think of sacking the coach, who is always an easier scapegoat.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

In that case its DEFINATELY fletchers fault for letting players tell him his job ! Can you imagine ryan giggs telling fergie who to pick ? I dont think so.