IMO unless you have specific examples of what a man has done wrong and how you yourself would have done better \ would do better, you cannot call for his head.
Fair enough, I'm not going to be able to change that point of view so I'll move swiftly on.
That's about the first coherent explanation of the "stale" stuff I've heard, TBH. Though I still can't see that the Mahmoods et al can do any better by doing what they usually do.
I'm sick, though, of all this implication that the players have grown tired \ lost faith in DF. I've heard it from sooooo many people, both respectible and not, and unless people are actually willing to name some names and tell us exactly who's dissenting I'm not prepared to believe it for a second. It's more than likely to simply be reporters making stuff up to suit what they're trying to say, stuff which cannot be conclusively disproved.
Firstly, I should explain that the process I described doesn't necessarily involve anyone "dissenting". Usually when one lapses into a state of "going through the motions" in any aspect of life, one isn't aware of it until one snaps out of it.
Secondly, my explanation was borne out of personal experience. I've played in teams that have gone through extended patches of poor form, of varying length. The longest was about two years. It's very easy to fall into the trap of believing that circumstances are not going to change, and that the only way to improve the way you are performing is simply to adjust certain aspects of your own game.
Very few players would immediately turn on their coach, just as very few coaches would immediately turn round and place the blame squarely on the players - the natural reaction for a player when the team aren't playing well is to blame yourselves, especially if you personally aren't scoring runs or taking wickets.
This in turn leads to a lack of confidence, which means improvements in individual performances become even more difficult. It's no coincidence that the members of England's squad who have been succeeding with the bat in recent months have been Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collingwood - Pietersen is the most naturally confident member of the squad as it is, and Collingwood must be an expert in backing himself by now, what with all the people (including myself) who've been all too eager to write him off on more than one occasion.
My basic point is that the players are often completely unaware that the coach is the problem - unless the coach does anything to actively place blame on the players, or uses any methods that are particularly disliked by the players, it is very unlikely that the players are going to see any problem with him. After all, they all enjoy playing cricket, and if they are still enjoying their cricket under the tutelage of a particular coach, the assumption is that the problem lies with the players, and not said coach. It also explains why the England players have still been making all the right noises to the media about Fletcher recently - they still like having him as a coach.
This is what the journalists who talk about a "stale" state among the players - they're perfectly happy to continue under Fletcher, despite the fact they aren't winning games. Clearly there is something wrong with that state of affairs.
Heh. Guess I've just seen plenty enough of the Sajid Mahmoods in all imaginable circumstances to know they're never, ever going to amount to anything.
Poor players = unsuccessful team, IMO. Not the other way around.
Again, whilst you're probably right about Saj, it's not always as simple as "talent will out". Coaching and management are fluid processes, and the right environment has to be present for success to occur. The reason why it is so difficult for teams to snap out of long-term poor form is because anyone who is brought into the team is immediately placed under pressure to succeed, and if their presence in the team does not result in an immediate turn-around in fortunes (which it seldom does), then they can easily be suckered into the same state of mind as the players who've been playing in a losing team for a long time, and the process of bringing them into the side to "liven things up" becomes counter-productive, because all they're doing is having their confidence lowered by playing in a losing team, and making themselves less likely to succeed.
In summary of this extraordinarily long post by my standards, poor form is self-perpetuating - there is no quick fix for any long-term problem in sport, and while sacking Fletcher may not necessarily result in an immediate improvement in results, and while the next coach of England may not be a superior coach to Fletcher, sacking him would, if nothing else, allow the players to make a fresh start without the millstone of responsibility for recent performances around their necks.
It was very interesting.