Sack Fletcher!!!!

[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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

[albo97056]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by albo97056

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by albo97056

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

Originally Posted by albo97056

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]

Originally Posted by albo97056

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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!