Sack Fletcher!!!!

[chris.hinton]

Todays loss comfirms that the man who is in Chage of the English Cricket team is simply a Buffon, who has clearly lost the plot, if this man stays as coach of the England team then we will go Backwards.

SACK HIM NOW ECB

 

[silentstriker]

I think if 5-0 did not convince someone, a 20/20 match won't really do anything.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Todays loss comfirms that the man who is in Chage of the English Cricket team is simply a Buffon, who has clearly lost the plot, if this man stays as coach of the England team then we will go Backwards.

SACK HIM NOW ECB

Dunc=

 

[steds]

SACK HIM NOW ECB

Now, there are plenty of reasons to sack Fletcher, but you don't sack a coach in the middle of a tour.

 

[Richard]

Todays loss comfirms that the man who is in Chage of the English Cricket team is simply a Buffon, who has clearly lost the plot, if this man stays as coach of the England team then we will go Backwards.

SACK HIM NOW ECB

How on Earth does a Twenty20 game do anything of the sort?

 

[Stumped]

if a team does poorly the first person everyone blames is the coach!...wrong asumption, mark philloposues for example has been through about 20 coaches in 5 years. i think we should be looking at the players and maybe even the selectors rather than the coach.

 

[Richard]

Interestingly, that's not strictly true.

Duncan Fletcher has (rightly IMO) rarely been blamed much for England's few disasters since he took the position.

What's changed now is probably nothing more than a matter of things coming around eventually.

Nonetheless, changing coach now is about the worst idea possible.

 

[Kweek]

after the ashes, before the WC is the way to go in my opinion.

 

[Richard]

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?

 

[luffy]

It sometimes annoys me how the coaches get the blame. I mean he had a large part in them winning the ashes in 2005 it was the players to blame this time as none of the players consistenetely stood up and performed.

 

[albo97056]

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?

It might make the players sit up and take notice, i mean how much worse can it get? If the coach goes then the players have to work harder to adjust to a new coach, gives them a kick up the arse. Exactly what they need i say.

 

[Richard]

So the loss of the man who could quite justifiably be called the best coach in Test history would be a worthwhile price to pay for that?

I don't think so.

Far better to drop someone like Anderson to "give the kick up the arse", as he's someone who can come back from such a thing.

There are sound reasons why most of the current team (coach included) should stay. Equally, there are sound reasons for the return of Trescothick and Vaughan should they be in suitable state.

 

[albo97056]

So the loss of the man who could quite justifiably be called the best coach in Test history would be a worthwhile price to pay for that?

I don't think so.

Far better to drop someone like Anderson to "give the kick up the arse", as he's someone who can come back from such a thing.

There are sound reasons why most of the current team (coach included) should stay. Equally, there are sound reasons for the return of Trescothick and Vaughan should they be in suitable state.

I think best test coach in history is a bit much, I certainly never thought of him a s such. Hes done a great job mind, but his time has come, england havent really progressed at all since the last ashes.

 

[Richard]

Who's been better then? Bobby Simpson? Bob Woolmer? They're the only ones even close to his class.

Why haven't England progressed much since the last Ashes? All sorts of reasons. How many of those are due to poor methods from Duncan Fletcher? I'd say precisely none. His only real mistake of this series was sticking to his guns and picking Anderson ahead of Panesar at The 'Gabba and Adelaide.

Other than that, he's done little wrong and I'd be very, very worried about what the future might hold if he were not to have his contract extended after the World Cup.

 

[albo97056]

Who's been better then? Bobby Simpson? Bob Woolmer? They're the only ones even close to his class.

Why haven't England progressed much since the last Ashes? All sorts of reasons. How many of those are due to poor methods from Duncan Fletcher? I'd say precisely none. His only real mistake of this series was sticking to his guns and picking Anderson ahead of Panesar at The 'Gabba and Adelaide.

Other than that, he's done little wrong and I'd be very, very worried about what the future might hold if he were not to have his contract extended after the World Cup.

The test of a coach is his results and 5-0 is ****. Get rid of him...

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[marc71178]

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.

And how exactly do you work that out?

Who do you think picked Geraint Jones?

 

[Richard]

Read's presence in all 5 Tests would have made such a difference to the scoreline?

Bull**** would it.

It may or may not have been the best selection but if you seriously believe Read's presence could have altered the outcome of any of the first 3 Tests you need your head checked.

 

[marc71178]

And of course, Jones was the only wrong selection wasn't he?

I need my head reading when you're the one saying that 5-0 was absolutely no fault of Fletcher...

 

[Richard]

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.