Fletcher expected to quit as England coach by BBC

[open365]

Sad to see him go tbh even though he deserves to leave.

Gave England one of our greatest triumphs and most memorable victories ever and left the test team in a hell of a lot better state than he recieved it in.

 

[Richard]

whats the betting you wont give any credit to a new coach if England do well?

I'll give credit to a new coach if he coaches well.

I'm not so shallow as to judge a coach by the results of the team he's coaching.

 

[Richard]

Anyway, time for him to go. He's left us in a far better state (test-wise) than he found us, but that doesn't mean the job should become his own personal sinecure because he once won us The Ashes.

Really, The Ashes 2005 has no bearing on anything - it was merely the peak performance of a tenure characterised for the most part by excellence.

 

[frey]

.........He's left us in a far better state (test-wise) than he found us, ..................

What???

Can you please explain??? I saw them get smacked 0- 5 in the recent Ashes?

Objectively speaking, not really a sound platform for future test success.

 

[Richard]

Has it occurred to you that the state of a side is not based on a single series?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Really, The Ashes 2005 has no bearing on anything - it was merely the peak performance of a tenure characterised for the most part by excellence.

You'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "no bearing on anything". For me at least, as impressive as it was, we spent far too long slapping ourselves on the back & congratulating ourselves on a job well done. Instead of being a foothold in our ascent to becoming the best test team in the world, it turned into the peak of our climb.

What???

Can you please explain??? I saw them get smacked 0- 5 in the recent Ashes?

Objectively speaking, not really a sound platform for future test success.

Fair enough, we were shocking in that series, let's all laugh at how arse the Poms are. What you have to remember tho is that when Fletcher took over we were ranked (unofficially as it was back then) below Zimbabwe. 2nd > 9th.

 

[Richard]

You'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "no bearing on anything". For me at least, as impressive as it was, we spent far too long slapping ourselves on the back & congratulating ourselves on a job well done. Instead of being a foothold in our ascent to becoming the best test team in the world, it turned into the peak of our climb.

I'm saying that The Ashes 2005 is not his sole achievement so therefore cannot be said to be the only thing that kept him in office.

I don't agree that we spent too long backslapping, not at all. I simply feel that we lost loads of players to injury and our depth (esp in the bowling) was not sufficient to sustain the climb. And don't give me that bull**** about "talking about injuries is just excuse-making" - any team will suffer if it loses 3 or 4 top players. Just imagine what might have happened in 2005 had Vaughan, Jones, Flintoff and Trescothick been unavailable? Do you really think we'd have won the series then? And if we'd not, how could we have spent ages congratulating ourselves for it?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm saying that The Ashes 2005 is not his sole achievement so therefore cannot be said to be the only thing that kept him in office.

I don't agree that we spent too long backslapping, not at all. I simply feel that we lost loads of players to injury and our depth (esp in the bowling) was not sufficient to sustain the climb. And don't give me that bull**** about "talking about injuries is just excuse-making" - any team will suffer if it loses 3 or 4 top players. Just imagine what might have happened in 2005 had Vaughan, Jones, Flintoff and Trescothick been unavailable? Do you really think we'd have won the series then? And if we'd not, how could we have spent ages congratulating ourselves for it?

Forgotten your valium tonight? Christ. Getting wound up over a question I haven't even asked.

I wish you'd read what I write rather than answering what you'd like me to have written. I didn't say the 2005 Ashes was his only achievement. It was his greatest achievement as coach &, from my way of thinking, it would've been better for all concerned if he'd gone then. I'm of the opinion most coaching tenures have a natural lifespan and, since then we've gone backwards, injuries or not. The only series we've won apres The Ashes was against a largely attack-free (the admirable Gul excepted) Pakistan. When Asif returned we were certainly coming second in the fourth test before the unpleasentness.

As that's without mentioning our frankly appalling ODI record. He certainly hasn't improved us there.

 

[Richard]

Forgotten your valium tonight? Christ. Getting wound up over a question I haven't even asked.

I wish you'd read what I write rather than answering what you'd like me to have written.

I did nothing of the sort, I've castigated countless people for doing that. I took issue with your talking of The Ashes as if that was all he'd done of note, and you did imply that purely by mentioning it and not mentioning anything else.

I didn't say the 2005 Ashes was his only achievement. It was his greatest achievement as coach &, from my way of thinking, it would've been better for all concerned if he'd gone then. I'm of the opinion most coaching tenures have a natural lifespan

And I'm of the opinion that that's an impossibly simplistic viewpoint. If you're good at something, you don't simply cease to be good at it because time passes.

and, since then we've gone backwards, injuries or not. The only series we've won apres The Ashes was against a largely attack-free (the admirable Gul excepted) Pakistan. When Asif returned we were certainly coming second in the fourth test before the unpleasentness.

Saying "injuries or not" is not good enough IMO. We've gone backwards because of the injuries. No other particularly significant reason. Had all the players who were fit in 2005 remained so, we might have done rather better than we did in said 3 series.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I did nothing of the sort, I've castigated countless people for doing that. I took issue with your talking of The Ashes as if that was all he'd done of note, and you did imply that purely by mentioning it and not mentioning anything else.

I did not imply anything of the sort. I explicitly stated "He's left us in a far better state (test-wise) than he found us" which sort of implies the reverse. I mentioned The 05 Ashes becuase it was the most praiseworthy thing Fletcher achieved. Do you agree this to be so or not?

And I'm of the opinion that that's an impossibly simplistic viewpoint. If you're good at something, you don't simply cease to be good at it because time passes.

FFS, of course you do. Tempers Fugit & all that. If people didn't cease to be good as time passes we'd still have Boycott opening & Willis spearheading the attack. Same principle with management, the anno Domini may not be as obvious, but eventually even the greats lose it: Clough's career ended in relegation & Ramsey's ended with us failing to qualify for the 1974 world cup.

Saying "injuries or not" is not good enough IMO. We've gone backwards because of the injuries. No other particularly significant reason. Had all the players who were fit in 2005 remained so, we might have done rather better than we did in said 3 series.

So what do you suggest we do? Refuse to play until we can put out our putative strongest XI? & what of the players who have gone backwards since the Ashes & haven't been injured (I'm thinking of Harmison & Strauss mainly)?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Depends how much the contract was worth if he were to see it out.

Impossible to see out a rolling contract.

 

[Richard]

I did not imply anything of the sort. I explicitly stated "He's left us in a far better state (test-wise) than he found us" which sort of implies the reverse. I mentioned The 05 Ashes becuase it was the most praiseworthy thing Fletcher achieved. Do you agree this to be so or not?

I actually don't - I don't believe he played a massive part in the victory, just as I don't believe he played a massive part in the subsequent downhill trend. As such, I don't feel it was fair to terminate his position after either.

FFS, of course you do. Tempers Fugit & all that. If people didn't cease to be good as time passes we'd still have Boycott opening & Willis spearheading the attack. Same principle with management, the anno Domini may not be as obvious, but eventually even the greats lose it: Clough's career ended in relegation & Ramsey's ended with us failing to qualify for the 1974 world cup.

And if they'd had the chance to keep going? Maybe they might have undone the damage. FFS, how many times has Ferguson been written-off? And yet still he keeps going. If you've got the resources and the adaptability, you can be a good sports manager ad infinitum.

So what do you suggest we do? Refuse to play until we can put out our putative strongest XI? & what of the players who have gone backwards since the Ashes & haven't been injured (I'm thinking of Harmison & Strauss mainly)?

Harmison IMO didn't go backwards, he was just exposed. Some (tec) would say the same about Strauss.

Of course I'm not suggesting we refuse to play - just that when we do play and fail it should not be put down to imaginary factors ("we partied too hard") but real ones (our side wasn't as good as it was before, because we lost players to injury).

 

[BoyBrumby]

I actually don't - I don't believe he played a massive part in the victory, just as I don't believe he played a massive part in the subsequent downhill trend. As such, I don't feel it was fair to terminate his position after either.

You're really making a broader point about sports coaches there. I think it's true that they get too much of the praise when things go well & too much of the blame when they don't. However given that, rightly or wrongly, coaches are judged on results sooner or later someone on the board of a club or country will have to make the decision as to whether a coach can take the side any further.

And if they'd had the chance to keep going? Maybe they might have undone the damage. FFS, how many times has Ferguson been written-off? And yet still he keeps going. If you've got the resources and the adaptability, you can be a good sports manager ad infinitum.

They'd almost certainly have tarnished their reputations further. They weren't isolated failures, rather (like the world cup for Fletcher) the culmination of slow downward spirals.

WRT Ferguson, save the garlands for a little while. He hasn't won anything yet this season.

Harmison IMO didn't go backwards, he was just exposed. Some (tec) would say the same about Strauss.

Of course I'm not suggesting we refuse to play - just that when we do play and fail it should not be put down to imaginary factors ("we partied too hard") but real ones (our side wasn't as good as it was before, because we lost players to injury).

Again, I made no mention of partying, too hard or otherwise. I said we spent too long congratulating ourselves. I really meant in the sense that we took our eyes off the prize, if you like. I think, in retrospect, the 05 Ashes was the event which allowed our players to believe they'd made it (not without some justification) but they haven't been able to push on to the next level.

 

[prakesh]

Fletcher's overrated.

England beat a good SA side at home in 98 a year before he came.

Even the clown David Lloyd oversaw a closer Ashes series than Fletcher managed in 3 out of his 4 attempts.

 

[adharcric]

It really is about time. Good move.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Fletcher's overrated.

England beat a good SA side at home in 98 a year before he came.

Even the clown David Lloyd oversaw a closer Ashes series than Fletcher managed in 3 out of his 4 attempts.

Well, fair effort us beating SA & all, but even as a Pom I'd have to say we had what might charitably be called the rub of the green in that series. Any yarpies might have stronger opinions as to some of the umpiring decisions.

As for 97; one live test win was hardly the cue for bunting going up round my way at any rate.

 

[prakesh]

Well, fair effort us beating SA & all, but even as a Pom I'd have to say we had what might charitably be called the rub of the green in that series. Any yarpies might have stronger opinions as to some of the umpiring decisions.

As for 97; one live test win was hardly the cue for bunting going up round my way at any rate.

And you DIDN't get the rub of the green in the 05 Ashes? I would think that series was probably the epitome of the term.

And 97 or 99 Ashes, take your pick. Both were improvements on the vast majority of Fletcher's Ashes nightmare,

 

[tooextracool]

About time IMO, should really have happened after the Ashes. Fletcher doesnt offer anything anymore to this England squad, he did at one point but his ideas are definetly not modern and his coaching techniques are nothing special.
Thank you and goodbye.

 

[Perm]

Good decision, he would've felt a lot btter if he had left after the 2005 Ashes.

 

[tooextracool]

Harmison IMO didn't go backwards, he was just exposed. Some (tec) would say the same about Strauss.

Harmison has for the large part of the last year been far worse than what he can be. Its one thing when his one-dimensional bowling is brought up, but when he continues to spray the ball over the park, something that we rarely saw during the 2004 and 2005 summer then you really have to question whats going. Even in the Ashes, in his first 2 tests he was significantly worse than he was in the last 3(which is more like the sort of performances that you'd expect from him) which begs the question about preparation. Maybe Kevin Shine deserves some or most of this criticism along with Harmison itself but the fact is that he should have been ready, fit and well done before what should have been the biggest series of his career.