The build up to the forthcoming World Cup started several years ago... and Fletcher's role was to get a strong and experienced squad in which everyone knew (and was confident in) his role and with enough strength in depth to cope with the odd player losing form. Fletcher's clearly not managed that... but was he completely misguided in he approach?

He identified his core players early... and whilst not every choice had universal backing, most were perfectly intelligible: in 2005 all the planning was in place for the following first Xi to be ready for the WC:

Core, world class players: Tresco, Flintoff and Harmison (all with around 100 caps) plus Pietersen and Simon Jones (both of whom started the 2005 Ashes with a realistic prospect of approx. 50 ODI caps by the time the WC started).

Core of VERY experienced and dependable ODI veterans: Vaughan, Strauss, Collingwood, Giles, Anderson (maybe Gough)

Pool of moderately experienced, solid ODI performers: Solanki, Geraint Jones, Blackwell

Fletcher was almost there: he was beginning to look at fringe candidates who might make superb reserves: players like Mahmood, Shah, Prior, Bell, Dalrymple and so on. Not even Buchanan could have asked for more in terms of organisation, planning and preparation. Moreover.. nothing that's happened since suggests Fletcher was on the wrong track at this point.

Now... take out the inspirational captain for 12 months or so... pretty much write off the best bowler... find the world-class opener fall apart mentally... witness a loss of form and then retirement of the other potentially unstoppable bowler... see the likes of Solanki and Geraint Jones just not live up to self evident promise... encounter injury problems with the talismanic all-rounder and BOTH dependable spinners... and then watch the one remaining World-XI player break a rib... no coach on earth is going to keep the plan on track!

Sure.. I think we've seen SOME poor calls... but the most obvious (Flintoff being made captain) was against Fletcher's better judgement (the selectors voted him down last summer). To be honest, the only thing he's completely ****** up on has been Read... who has clearly been imposed ON Fletcher (against his will), but whose handling has sucked. I'd also cite the aversion to Lewis (and preference for Plunkett) as a blip.... but many coaches would have made that call - even Marsh continues to view Plunkett as a seriously good prospect!

As for Flintoff... he's not a great captain... but he's not a bad vice-captain.... and that remains his role: I see no sense in him resigning from an acting role of captain that is actually completed now (with Vaughan expected back for the next game).

That's a debate which has gone on here for at least the last three years and I guess it will continue for another thirty-three. I am not convinced on this one at all - different games, in my opinion, with different skills needed. But certainly the same hunger to win is required in these games and in any other sport - if you don't want to win, you won't. But ...

... I am not sure I hold with this. I certainly accept that ODIs do not matter so much to English supporters as they do to supporters of other nations (though there will still be a huge number, self not included, who will genuinely care that England do not make the Super Sixes in the forthcoming World Cup), but to the players? I don't see it.

However good or bad they might be, and however well or poorly they might be playing on any given day (or month, year, decade ...), they are professional sportsmen. So sure it matters to them. If that is wrong - and admittedly it is an untested assumption on my part - then England has a much bigger problem than anyone has ever admitted, because they have people playing who are professionals behaving unprofessionally. In my trade, we fire people for that - a handful from my office every year, and it has always been thus and ever will be. Sportsmen, if professionals, cannot be exempt from the same treatment. So, as soon as any of them give the impression that ODIs don't matter, fire them. If that starts with a wryly smiling Strauss, so be it.

Mate - do it! I gave up on television 17 years ago - haven't owned one since 1990. I don't think I've missed much, judging from what I read in the papers. Just make sure that stubby is empty first though: otherwise you will be making a real waste.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Rachael, if those comments were meant to be a defence of Fletcher against my call for him to do the decent thing, well - good for you. Seriously, I take my hat off to you for mounting the argument. In fact, I'll be in touch when I am under pressure from my boss for totally failing to deliver. I'm not saying that Fletcher hasn't tried hard; nor that he hasn't made some good selections over the years; nor that he hasn't been unlucky with the injury list (although, to be honest, I am wondering if England aren't doing something wrong to generate an injury list of the length which they have been enduring since September 2005: none of the other test nations seems to be quite that "unlucky").

No - none of that. But what was his objective? You said it:

And:

Whoops! That's the defence out of the window then!

Thanks, Duncan. Now - shove off!

Now, as to Flintoff, I can't agree with your comment that he is not a bad vice-captain. One of the parts of that job - actually, by definition the most important part - is to step up and do the captain's job when the captain can't. In that most important part of the job, Flintoff has been - what did you say? ...

Rachael, Rachael: I'm as much in line for a little bit of literary litotes as the next man! But this takes it too far even for me. Flintoff has been, in this role, an abject failure.

Back to the ranks, Freddie: you can make a good living there and do a great job. As captain, vice or otherwise, you're finished.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

I am sorry OF but I can't agree with you on this one - there is not enough talent in the England team, and in particular the one day team.

Flintoff and Fletcher it would seem have failed to make this side into a competitive team, and I use the word seem because this side is a long way from the England Ashes winning side of 2005.

Bell has proved he can't compete against the Australians both in 2005 and in 2006/07, there have been injuries and players like Cook Mahmood and Tremlett - Joyce - Plunkett have not been shown how to compete by the senior players.

Strauss and Bell come in for most critisism because openers and top order batsmen are supposed to give the team a start - and in this they have singularly failed, time and time again the stroke makers and the middle order have been exposed to fresh bowlers with their tails up, bowling with a newish ball.

But lets for a moment blame both Flintoff and Fletcher - forget that Vaughan lost his two games by large margins - I would like to know who was to blame for England being #in the World one day cricket rankings log before Flintoff became captain, and at Test level before 2005 England have been mediocre at Test level also for most of the decades since the 60's as I can remember.
England fail at all sports - Tennis - Soccer - Olympics (for 60 million population our medal returns is worse than the cricket results).
We can go to winter sports - Equestrian sports (of which we used to compete well) even Ping Pong, failure at sport is an English thing, not a Flintoff nor a Fletcher thing - the fault lies with the counties not being able to produce enough quality players - if England had had two injuries in 2005 they would not have won the Ashes for the same reason they have done poor in Australia 2006/07 cricket England have no strength in depth with their players.

__________________
Ern

Anderson was dropped in 2004 for a bowler who could bat. He was in the top ten bowling rankings at the time and was taking more wickets than Harmison and Gough. I think they wanted Gough, Harmison and Jones. From 2005 they tried the following. Apart from Hoggard all the others can bat. He was really injury cover and not first choice. Now Panesar is in the team my first thought was that they won't play two bowlers who can't bat if they weren't willing to play one that didn't which makes me think Giles will replace Panesar in the World Cup. That Plunkett (only bowled 6 overs since last summer and only played a dozen ODIs) was ahead of Anderson to play in the 1st ODI meant that idea of batting all the way down was still there. Of course Anderson didn't help matters by being very expensive in the 20/20. Now having played well he is very likely to be one of the 15 with Lewis. How they find the two from Tremlett, Mahmood and Plunkett when all three haven't played for a while will be very hard. So a batting bowler without much experience seems to mean more to Fletcher than an experienced bowler who can't bat.

Gough (injury and form)
Hoggard
Ali (expensive)
Harmison (retired)
Wharf
Lewis
Tremlett (injury)
Jones (injury)
Plunkett
Mahmood
Chapple (injury)
Bresnan
Broad

Ok, Ern, let's accept all that you write. Isn't the short version then that no-one can make this unit work, either because the unit itself doesn't contain the talent or because England are just doomed to be the world's losers in all sport? If so, and if the unit doesn't contain the talent but it is out there somewhere, then change the unit - all of it: Flintoff, Fletcher, Vaughan, Strauss, Pietersen - the whole sorry bunch. If the talent is not out there at all, or if England really does just have losing as its destiny, then let's just abandon all pretence and give up now. Withdraw from all professional sport and spend the money on something else.

I'm afraid I don't like the sound of either of these options, and I don't buy the arguments that all of England is talentless and/or destined always to lose. I stick, therefore, to the hope that there is someone out there who can put a successful unit together - but it's neither Andrew Flintoff nor Duncan Fletcher. I suspect there are some problems in the county game which lead to good players being overlooked for international duty, but I also suspect that some of the best already are in the international pool - and in fact in Australia right now.

What we have, IMO, is a leadership crisis of gargantuan proportions. There is only one solution, which is to change the leadership, and there is no point waiting until England's early exit from the World Cup happens. Do it now. It may not change anything for the World Cup, but at least there will be a chance of recovery at some point. As I see it, the sooner the patient gets the treatment, the sooner it might recover.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

There's a change of leadership occuring as we speak: Vaughan's returning as captain and Flintoff's going back to the ranks. Vaughan's obviously got a tough assignment... but he's a remarkable knack of getting his team to relax, focus on the immediate task in hand and concentrate on doing what they were selected to do no matter what carnage is to be witnessed all around.

Fletcher's still going to be there... but probably without much authority: the players know full well that barring some sort of turn-around in the WC (quite feasible) there's likely to be a change.. and with a new core emerging in Bell, Joyce, Dalrymple, Anderson, Lewis, Tremlett, Panesar... the team is effectively renewed.

The days of Tresco, Strauss, Collingwood, Flintoff, Jones and Harmison standing out as senior players (towering over the above) and of desperate tinkering with the likes Mahmood or Plunkett (as if they were a threat to the above) look to be over: that's your change right there!

I would say that no captain could have made this team work in Australia 2006/07 - in truth it just was not good enough.
We don't change all the unit, we get rid of the rot IMO.
Even though I see Englands present personnel as not having the talent - I see an even greater problem and that is attitude, the belief that they are doomed before they start the game.
Even when England won in 2005 - that series was never over until the last matches because Australia put up a fight - England have to rely on favourable conditions to beat Australia, would England have retained the Ashes without the bowlers getting the ball to reverse swing? - I doubt it very much.
It's the Britich attitude that needs changing, sod the "it's the taking part that matters, not the result" - then perhaps in major sports Britain won't just be going to Wimbledon, or taking part in the Olympics just to make the numbers up.
A good example is Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski (who had a huge serve) they show promise then fall to pieces against big names, even those hat were ranked lower.

I don't mind a change of leadership at all even though I don't believe Flintoff has had the team to show his worth.

But please I have heard so many times Strauss should be captain, how when his own form is so poor could he turn this present team into winners?, IMO it's impossible.
In fact there is no player in the present England side capable of changing this sides fortunes, if England are to change then lets have a man with guts for coach, a good example would be Gatting, a captain who his hard and would have at least a chance would be Chris Adams - but whoever is at the top, major pruning is needed to this England team IMO, and the Australian winning attitude has to be taken on board - the best way to stop being losers, is to think you are a winner arrogant maybe, but this acceptance of defeat and apologies has to go.

And also central contracts have caused England harm, allowing wives at the start of the tour is a distraction, later yes - perhaps had England gone to Australia to practice after the ICC Champions Trophy instead of going home, then perhaps we might at least not have been humiliated.

__________________
Ern

Are you referreing to the Test team/squad or the ODI one? Because, while we've been poor at ODI's for quite some time, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you if you're referring to the Test squad, the squad which went to Australia for the Test series, and was available for the first Test contained all the players who were played in the series against Pakistan in the summer - where they showed themselves to be a good team, the differences were Trescothick going home before the Tests started due to illness, the additional players available and a different captain. If they had chosen, they could have played a team which had only one change from the team who won against Pakistan, so what do you think was responsible for the team going from a good strong team to so bad 'no captain could have made this team work'? Was it Trescothick leaving, Flintoff returning or the selection decisions made on tour by Fletcher and Flintoff?

Prove it.... You've made those statements without giving any evidence whatsoever to back them up, if you're going to make claims like that you need to provide evidence and arguments to support your claims.

Have you considered the logistics which would have been involved in that? They could not have made any arrangements to do that until they had actually been knocked out of the Champions Trophy, as to make arrangements to be elsewhere at the time of the finals of a competition you are due to participate in would be completely unprofessional. This means that they would have had to arrange flights, accomodation and somewhere to practice at the least all at the last minute - flying home all they needed to (re)arrange were the flights.

Well we are a little embarassing at the moment,never mind youth lets pick a world cup team to be competitive,dont laugh but what about this,
Vaughn
Irani
Rampracash
Pieterson
Hick
Flintoff
Foster
Cork
Gough
Anderson
Monty