Sack Fletcher!!!!

[albo97056]

No, the test of a coach (like players) is his imput (though if you want to look at results, look beyond the banal ledger of the most recent series, and at the bigger picture, which is extremely impressive).

And given that there seems little dissatisfaction in the England ranks with him, and that most people (TdL, CMJ, Nasser Hussain to name a couple) with a balanced view (ie not Boycott who doesn't like DF because DF doesn't listen to him) see him as a very, very fine coach who has made a huge impression on English cricket, I'd say him continuing is probably the best idea.

To suggest that the 5-0 scoreline is any fault whatsoever of Duncan Fletcher is to show a pretty dismal knowledge of the game of cricket.

Im sorry, england are doing great at the moment and fletcher certainly deserves to stay, i mean its not like anybody else coulds improve on 5-0. 85 years isnt such a short time is it? This is probably the first time anybody has said that a side has the chance to win a five match series and ended up coming home whitewashed...

Some pretty abysmal results in the last year also:
Lost to pakistan,
Drew with india,
Drew with sri lanka (awful result)
Had a decent win against pak,
The 5-0 drubbing,

In odis,
lost practically every game in the last year,
india 5-1,
pak 3-2
Sri Lanka 5-0
Almost lost to ireland
Pak drew only just
Complete rubbish in champ trophy.

To my mind that is a pathetic last year, probably worse than the 90s when everyone knew we were rubbish. And if you cant sack a coach for that i dont know why anybody should bother changing them ever, might as well let him keep going until he dies

 

[Richard]

Im sorry, england are doing great at the moment and fletcher certainly deserves to stay, i mean its not like anybody else coulds improve on 5-0. 85 years isnt such a short time is it? This is probably the first time anybody has said that a side has the chance to win a five match series and ended up coming home whitewashed...

And that's the fault of those who believed England had a chance. The reality was different. Don't blame the coach for your own shortcomings.

Some pretty abysmal results in the last year also:
Lost to pakistan,
Drew with india,
Drew with sri lanka (awful result)
Had a decent win against pak,
The 5-0 drubbing,

So, how exactly was DF to blame for the two collapses that cost the Pakistan series, the dropped catches that cost the Sri Lanka series, and the brilliance of the Australians that meant England never had a hope in hell in Australia?

In odis,
lost practically every game in the last year,
india 5-1,
pak 3-2
Sri Lanka 5-0
Almost lost to ireland
Pak drew only just
Complete rubbish in champ trophy.

Once again... how, exactly, was Duncan Fletcher to blame for such things? He's supposed to make utter rubbish like Yardy, Broad, Loudon, Bresnan, Plunkett, Tremlett, Prior, Jones, Wharf, Mahmood, Jones, Strauss, Kabir Ali, Key, Clarke, Harmison, Anderson, Batty, Blackwell, Shah, Collingwood, etc. into good players, is he?

Yes, indeed, most of them shouldn't have been selected but hardly anyone was saying that at the time, I was about the only one to denounce near enough all those players before they were selected. And any fool can realise a player's rubbish in hindsight (though there are people still plugging some of the more recent on that list).

To my mind that is a pathetic last year, probably worse than the 90s when everyone knew we were rubbish. And if you cant sack a coach for that i dont know why anybody should bother changing them ever, might as well let him keep going until he dies

Indeed - there would be worse things to do.

Incidentally - everyone didn't know we were rubbish in the 1990s, not in Tests anyway. It's mostly a myth.

 

[albo97056]

No, he wasn't - Panesar ahead of Anderson would've been better for the First and Second Tests, too, and that'd have done damn-all to change the result of either, as well...

Unless, of course, you think Panesar could've got something out of two of the flattest pitches in history (until the cracks started assisting the seamers at The 'Gabba), which he patently couldn't have, because he's a mortal fingerspinner.

No amount of ingenius selection was going to give England a chance in that series, probably even with Trescothick, Vaughan and Jones available, and certainly not without them.

Therefore, blaming the selectors (whoever they be) for any one of the losses shows cricketing illiteracy.

I wouldnt put his failings all down to selection, hes just become stale, someone else deserves a go, the judge of a coach is their success and im afraid its dried up for him. Its only because of the recentness of the last ashes that hes still in the job, if it were someone else whod started after the last ashes say, theyd be long gone, never to coach a side again!

 

[albo97056]

Incidentally - everyone didn't know we were rubbish in the 1990s, not in Tests anyway. It's mostly a myth.

We were bottom of the test championship behind zim at one stage, thats pathetic. I knew all through the 90s we were bollocks, dont know about anyone else, when we won that series against sa in 98 i though it was the most amazing performance id ever seen, from a bunch of nobodys

 

[Richard]

I wouldnt put his failings all down to selection, hes just become stale, someone else deserves a go, the judge of a coach is their success and im afraid its dried up for him. Its only because of the recentness of the last ashes that hes still in the job, if it were someone else whod started after the last ashes say, theyd be long gone, never to coach a side again!

You seriously imagine someone would be given just a year in the job?

Even Keith Fletcher, who had the most horrendous of starts imaginable, got longer than that.

The judge of a coach is how much he contributes to the team - he's not the one going out and doing the playing, so it's stupid to judge him by results - and unless there's some serious evidence that he's gone stale (which there patently isn't) then you're going mad if you sack someone who's contributed so much to the English game.

 

[albo97056]

And that's the fault of those who believed England had a chance. The reality was different. Don't blame the coach for your own shortcomings.

So, how exactly was DF to blame for the two collapses that cost the Pakistan series, the dropped catches that cost the Sri Lanka series, and the brilliance of the Australians that meant England never had a hope in hell in Australia?

Once again... how, exactly, was Duncan Fletcher to blame for such things? He's supposed to make utter rubbish like Yardy, Broad, Loudon, Bresnan, Plunkett, Tremlett, Prior, Jones, Wharf, Mahmood, Jones, Strauss, Kabir Ali, Key, Clarke, Harmison, Anderson, Batty, Blackwell, Shah, Collingwood, etc. into good players, is he?

Yes, indeed, most of them shouldn't have been selected but hardly anyone was saying that at the time, I was about the only one to denounce near enough all those players before they were selected. And any fool can realise a player's rubbish in hindsight (though there are people still plugging some of the more recent on that list).

Indeed - there would be worse things to do.

Incidentally - everyone didn't know we were rubbish in the 1990s, not in Tests anyway. It's mostly a myth.

So when would you sack him? after a first round exit in the world cup ( im putting money on us losing to kenya), after a loss to india in the summer and maybe a draw against wi? Thats where i see us going. Is mediocrity ok?

 

[Richard]

We were bottom of the test championship behind zim at one stage, thats pathetic. I knew all through the 90s we were bollocks, dont know about anyone else

Which just shows the stupidity of including one-off Tests.

Let me assure you, we were bottom of the Test Championship in 1989, too, behind SL, who were far worse in 1989 than Zim were in 1999.

Most of the time, England were pretty good in the 1990s, there was no more than the odd hopeless series.

when we won that series against sa in 98 i though it was the most amazing performance id ever seen, from a bunch of nobodys

Bull****, Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash, Cork, Gough, Fraser certainly weren't a bunch of nobodies, they were high-class cricketers all.

 

[Richard]

So when would you sack him? after a first round exit in the world cup ( im putting money on us losing to kenya), after a loss to india in the summer and maybe a draw against wi? Thats where i see us going. Is mediocrity ok?

If we seriously fail to beat West Indies and India I'll... well, not eat my computer, but I'll go somewhere close.

Do you really imagine we're that bad that we can't beat those two at home, having failed to beat Sri Lanka at home so recently?

Lightning rarely strikes twice.

And I'm interested to know how the hell sacking him will improve our chances of beating WI and Ind at home?

And don't start banging on about "new ideas" unless you can give some examples of what these ideas may be.

 

[albo97056]

Which just shows the stupidity of including one-off Tests.

Let me assure you, we were bottom of the Test Championship in 1989, too, behind SL, who were far worse in 1989 than Zim were in 1999.

Most of the time, England were pretty good in the 1990s, there was no more than the odd hopeless series.

Bull****, Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash, Cork, Gough, Fraser certainly weren't a bunch of nobodies, they were high-class cricketers all.

They were ok, certainly nothing to shout about, I mean we heralded atherton as a hero for havin an average of 38! Nowadays you wouldnt get a lookin with that, certainly overated imho.
Considering one off tests or not, being bottom is being bottom, we still played those one off tests and lost.. not the iccs fault!

 

[albo97056]

If we seriously fail to beat West Indies and India I'll... well, not eat my computer, but I'll go somewhere close.

Do you really imagine we're that bad that we can't beat those two at home, having failed to beat Sri Lanka at home so recently?

Lightning rarely strikes twice.

And I'm interested to know how the hell sacking him will improve our chances of beating WI and Ind at home?

And don't start banging on about "new ideas" unless you can give some examples of what these ideas may be.

New ideas: well id start by keeping them in a closed environment, no girlfriends wives around them 24/7. Spend more time playing cricket! which is definitely part of fletchers decision - (he had input on the lets only play a couple of mickey mouse games before the ashes idea)- hes being too soft on them, Stop giving people chances - like mahmood who i know you dont rate. Tell people like pietersen where to bat i mean hes good but come on he cant be commanding the coach to put him where he likes! Play monty in every game.

Well that would be a start, but overall he needs to get less chummy with them i reckon, let them know its a bloody priveledge to play for their country and any more whinging about "weve bowled 200 overs on this tour and we're knackered" and the like mentality should be rewarded with the boot.
There rant over!

 

[Richard]

They were ok, certainly nothing to shout about, I mean we heralded atherton as a hero for havin an average of 38! Nowadays you wouldnt get a lookin with that, certainly overated imho.

Bull****.

1, had Atherton played at the current time he'd probably have averaged 45-50. If Matthew Hayden can average nearly 50 Atherton certainly could. Had Andrew Strauss and Marcus Trescothick faced the calibre of bowling and catching on show in the 1990s they'd probably struggle to average 30.

2, Atherton is a perfect example of why judging someone on the banal ledger of overall-average is so utterly stupid. His average is not an accurate reflection of his career. He was brought in prematurely, slipped a bit towards the end of his career, and had 2 series which meant absolutely nothing as he was playing half-fit. Knock-out these series (and it's utterly fair to do so, because they're meaningless as far as the vast majority of his career is concerned) and he averaged 41.55 from 97 Tests, which is STILL as good as Trescothick (not including Bangladesh games) even though the standard of bowling and catching Trescothick has faced bears no resemblance whatsoever to that which Atherton did.

Considering one off tests or not, being bottom is being bottom, we still played those one off tests and lost.. not the iccs fault!

Err, it's the fault of those stupid enough to organise and count one-off Tests as series (not ICC, combination of the ECB and Wisden).

That's totally different to losing a series.

 

[Richard]

New ideas: well id start by keeping them in a closed environment, no girlfriends wives around them 24/7. Spend more time playing cricket! which is definitely part of fletchers decision - (he had input on the lets only play a couple of mickey mouse games before the ashes idea)- hes being too soft on them, Stop giving people chances - like mahmood who i know you dont rate. Tell people like pietersen where to bat i mean hes good but come on he cant be commanding the coach to put him where he likes! Play monty in every game.

Well that would be a start, but overall he needs to get less chummy with them i reckon, let them know its a bloody priveledge to play for their country and any more whinging about "weve bowled 200 overs on this tour and we're knackered" and the like mentality should be rewarded with the boot.

Great ideas, let's really **** the players off by forcing them to do stuff they feel uncomfortable with, let's bowl them into the ground, let's create even more stress-fractures and wear-and-tear injuries. Let's ignore the fact that cricket is difficult enough to interweave with relationships and break-up every single marriage in the English game... make cricket completely into a bachelors' game... seriously, you should read this.

Playing Monty in every game won't make as much impact as some would like to believe. Best fingerspinner in The World he may be, but he's still a fingerspinner, and as such can NEVER be a miracle-worker.

I'd be interested to know how much you were ranting about the presence of wives and girlfriends when we were winning in South Africa in 2004\05, for example...

 

[albo97056]

Great ideas, let's really **** the players off by forcing them to do stuff they feel uncomfortable with, let's bowl them into the ground, let's create even more stress-fractures and wear-and-tear injuries. Let's ignore the fact that cricket is difficult enough to interweave with relationships and break-up every single marriage in the English game... make cricket completely into a bachelors' game... seriously, you should read this.

Playing Monty in every game won't make as much impact as some would like to believe. Best fingerspinner in The World he may be, but he's still a fingerspinner, and as such can NEVER be a miracle-worker.

I'd be interested to know how much you were ranting about the presence of wives and girlfriends when we were winning in South Africa in 2004\05, for example...

Im sure the rate of break ups hasnt changed much in cricketing circles since the advent of the whole bring the kitchen sink ethos...
Playing monty might not make a massive difference, but its the right thing to do.
There are far too many distractions and beating a poor sa side 2 years ago makes little difference (theyve been on the slide for a while)

Yes lets make them realise as with any career - you have to make sacrifices, turn them into men for god sake, lets not pander to their every whim - i can understand that pay has increased in the last decade or so - as it should - the current pay is probably about right - but that should not mean that they have the right to use the ecbs money to bring along london zoo. God knows how much money has been spent where it could have been used benefitting the game over here.

 

[albo97056]

Bull****.

1, had Atherton played at the current time he'd probably have averaged 45-50. If Matthew Hayden can average nearly 50 Atherton certainly could. Had Andrew Strauss and Marcus Trescothick faced the calibre of bowling and catching on show in the 1990s they'd probably struggle to average 30.

2, Atherton is a perfect example of why judging someone on the banal ledger of overall-average is so utterly stupid. His average is not an accurate reflection of his career. He was brought in prematurely, slipped a bit towards the end of his career, and had 2 series which meant absolutely nothing as he was playing half-fit. Knock-out these series (and it's utterly fair to do so, because they're meaningless as far as the vast majority of his career is concerned) and he averaged 41.55 from 97 Tests, which is STILL as good as Trescothick (not including Bangladesh games) even though the standard of bowling and catching Trescothick has faced bears no resemblance whatsoever to that which Atherton did.

Err, it's the fault of those stupid enough to organise and count one-off Tests as series (not ICC, combination of the ECB and Wisden).

That's totally different to losing a series.

Still think hes overated. Fair enough some of the pitches were a little more bowler friendly - and their were some better attacks, but comparing him to some of the others of the day - thorpe , stewart etc who get far less credit than atherton and they average a good 10% more as far as i recall.Did atherton play zimbabwe? shouldnt you factor out those games aswell?
Noone could convince me that that load of losers and defeatists are better than the side of the last few years - at their peak.

As far as the one off tests go, if a side is good enough to defeat us in one - fair enough i mean if you fcator out those games what sort of difference does it make really? might we have nudged ahead of zim? GREAT

 

[Richard]

Im sure the rate of break ups hasnt changed much in cricketing circles since the advent of the whole bring the kitchen sink ethos...

The rate of break-ups has increased massively (faster even than the broader increase in society in general), and quite what you mean by "the whole kitchen sink ethos" I'm not sure.

Playing monty might not make a massive difference, but its the right thing to do.

Right thing to do, yes, but it WOULD NOT, no chance whatsoever, have made a difference to the result, and therefore you can't blame the loss on DF because of that.

There are far too many distractions and beating a poor sa side 2 years ago makes little difference (theyve been on the slide for a while)

It makes a lot of difference, as you'd have seen had you watched that series that for the most part they were anything but poor. Nor is it by any means the only one - since the "no wives, no kids" nonsense of 1996\97 English players have generally had families on tour and there've been plenty of successes in that time.

Yes lets make them realise as with any career - you have to make sacrifices, turn them into men for god sake, lets not pander to their every whim - i can understand that pay has increased in the last decade or so - as it should - the current pay is probably about right - but that should not mean that they have the right to use the ecbs money to bring along london zoo. God knows how much money has been spent where it could have been used benefitting the game over here.

So you'd be willing to sacrifice a relationship for the sake of playing cricket for your country?

I can assure you you're in a small minority there - most people have their priorities straighter. I'd give one hell of a lot to play for England were I good enough but my ladyfriend is not one of them.

 

[Richard]

Still think hes overated. Fair enough some of the pitches were a little more bowler friendly - and their were some better attacks, but comparing him to some of the others of the day - thorpe , stewart etc who get far less credit than atherton and they average a good 10% more as far as i recall.

Where do you get that idea? Most people credit Thorpe as England's best batsman of the past 14 years and Pietersen has a hell of a lot to do yet to surpass him (only Bell of the rest of the current crop also has a chance IMO), while virtually anyone will tell you that Stewart 1996-2002\03 was easily the best wicketkeeper-batsman England have ever had.

Atherton was, however, one hell of a good opening batsman for the vast majority of his career - only when half-fit (or less) and at the end when he went downhill (like so many) did he ever look less than that. And given the bowling and pitches he often faced in his day, that's quite some achievement. And anyone who rates Trescothick and Strauss ahead of him just because their overall averages are 3 or 4 runs higher and were lucky enough to play in a team that won quite a lot doesn't really know what they're on about.

Did atherton play zimbabwe? shouldnt you factor out those games aswell?

I did - Zimbabwe (who were quite Test class in those days) were one of the series where he played half-fit (if even that), so I knocked them out. I included them in 2000, though, because he was fit then.

Noone could convince me that that load of losers and defeatists are better than the side of the last few years - at their peak.

Which losers and defeatists, Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash, Cork, Caddick, Fraser and Gough?

I'd love you to go up to any of them and tell them that they were defeatists. That's an utter insult to their integrity.

As far as the one off tests go, if a side is good enough to defeat us in one - fair enough i mean if you fcator out those games what sort of difference does it make really? might we have nudged ahead of zim? GREAT

It would indeed have been great, because then we wouldn't have this "England were the worst side in The World" nonsense that we've had pretty much ever since then. Even the Championship's creator, Matthew Engel, said "even we wouldn't go so far as to claim this meant England were anything other than the worst-performing of the 9 Test nations".

 

[Langeveldt]

Which losers and defeatists, Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash, Cork, Caddick, Fraser and Gough?.

Post of the day for me that.. Unlikely source??

 

[Craig]

And yet... really, what good can come of that?

Indeed, of course, I'd argue that little good can come of changing coach at all, but surely the week (something like that) between Australia tour and World Cup invites chaos?

TBF your ODI team has been rubbish for a while so would it make much difference? I don't mean to be patronising/insulting in that context (and I know you would agree that some of the players picked should never have been called up in the first place).

 

[Richard]

Well... maybe it couldn't make things that much worse but there's no prospect of it making things any better IMO and there's no point in change unless you think it's going to result in improvement.

 

[Richard]

Post of the day for me that.. Unlikely source??

Source of?