Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs

Besides, even if he has actually revealed very little that we haven’t heard or suspected before, why shouldn’t Fletcher have his say? It may all be somewhat self-serving, but so what? Surely, having been constrained and discreet for so long, he is entitled to give his point of view. That he should have kept those lips firmly buttoned while he was in charge of the England dressing rooms and tour buses went with the territory. He was evasive, yes, but, in declining either to draw attention to himself or criticise players publicly, he was only doing what you or I would do in his shoes. Those particular shoes, of course, being those of the foreign coach of a national squad, England’s first such in a major team sport. He was certainly a more robust advertisement for Zimbabwe than Sven was for Sweden.

Fletcher’s most serious complaint, about the panic-stricken response to England’s Ashes debacle, is also well-founded. Thanks in no small part to media overkill, the hand-wringing dismay that greeted that 5-0 massacre was understandable, even forgivable. Much as we Poms tried to kid ourselves, the facts remain: muddle-headed selection, opponents who just happened to be one of the greatest sides ever to grace a greensward, vengeance-hungry home crowds and the weight of excess expectation were always going to prove too potent an antidote to English hope. To launch an inquiry into the health of the game back home, less than 18 months after those same opponents had been vanquished in one of the most memorable of all Test rubbers, was knee-jerkiness at its most repugnant.

The result of all this navel-gazing, the so-called Schofield Report, headed by the former chief executive of the European PGA, seems merely to have created a couple more layers of authority at the ECB while emphasising how vast the gulf remains between cricket and thoroughly individual pursuits such as golf. Sir Clive Woodward, a man steeped in team culture and club versus country squabbles, might have brought something worthwhile to the party, but Ken Schofield, ex-Holy Roman Emperor of the world’s most selfish sport? Pur-lease!

How soon we forget. Before Fletcher brought his forward presses and clamped lips aboard, England had not won a Test series in Pakistan since 1962, nor in South Africa since 1965, nor in the Caribbean since 1968. Never had they won a rubber in Sri Lanka. That all these droughts ended on Fletcher’s watch, thanks in no small part to his technical innovations against spin and that insistence on favouring players of a multi-dimensional nature, was anything but coincidental.

I’m not suggesting he should have kept his job. His time had come. He’d done his bit. If that Ashes triumph represented a career-defining peak, injuries and sudden loss of form ravaged any medium-term plans. Come next month’s Tests in Sri Lanka, there may be just five survivors of the XI that beat Australia at Trent Bridge in 2005: Michael Vaughan, Ian Bell, Kevin Pietersen, Steve Harmison and Matthew Hoggard – and lack of match fitness may keep out the last two. A new team had to be rebuilt far sooner than anticipated, which meant checking out the counties’ wares, an option Fletcher was ill-placed, not to say ill-disposed, to take. Too quick to make up his mind, too slow to admit errors, stubbornness nobbled him, as it can be relied upon to do with those who enjoy prolonged success so much their egos prevent them from adapting to changed circumstances. Had Peter Moores not been at the helm, Owais Shah, Ryan Sidebottom and Graeme Swann would not be limbering up for five-day duty.

The major casualty in all this, sadly, is Andrew Strauss. Had Flintoff not been handed the captain’s stripes for Australia, a decision fit to rank among the most grievous selectorial cock-ups in the boob-riddled annals of English cricket, it is difficult to imagine that the Middlesex man would now be preparing for a winter in Ealing. While skippering the side to victory against Pakistan, he had done little wrong, and quite a lot right. Flintoff’s suitability, on the other hand, had already been brought into question when he overbowled himself against Sri Lanka at Lord’s. Imran Khan and Richie Benaud may have defied such a generalisation, but genuine all-rounders find life too easy to make good international captains.

Granted, perhaps Strauss has been found out by a few bowlers, especially those happy to feed that compulsive hook, but he strikes me as too intelligent not to be able to come up with an alternative strategy. Unfortunately, having to suppress his disappointment over the captaincy, not something Boycott was ever shy about doing, may well have undermined the pace of his recovery.

Unlike the now unemployed Fletcher, Strauss has kept schtum, albeit less out of choice than contractual obligation. But what was the worst he could have said? That the decision to appoint Flintoff was misguided but that he’d have to lump it? Blimey. Stop the presses. Alert the libel lawyers. I’ll bet Strauss would have felt better for getting it off his chest; Mrs Strauss too, not to mention the family cat.

One can only conclude that the world would be a better place if those of us gazing into that goldfish bowl, let alone its inhabitants, were treated like adults.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Fletcher didn't see his time had passed and stayed on too long. His flaws were exposed and his legacy now is that he did some good things for English cricket, one great thing but his handling of certain players was poorer than my cover drive and his decision to publish now tastes more of a desire to get a few quid and his own back than anything else and mask his lack of cojones in Australia when some simple ass kicking would have bought the team into line.

Fletcher had better hope he has enough money for his retirement - were I a county chairman I wouldn't employ him because of the timing and content of his writings. County cricket clubs are very much like families. You don't need a senior family member being the arsey emo teenager spewing mindless sour bile everywhere.

Geoff Boycott warned that the Ashes riposte from Australia was coming. A 5-0 hammering says he was right. The only people who didn't see that England needed to be harder than ever for this Ashes tour were the selectors and the coach. Flintoff as captain was a ludicrous decision. Your go to man (as he was so often during 2005) shouldn't be your captain because that diminishes his effectiveness.

The overreaction was as predictable as the series result after Steve Harmison's first ball. "Who to blame? Who to blame?" and the inevitable response was "Let's bring in a consultant". Pathetic. Nothing like a good stuffing to bring on a mindless panic.

Enjoy your retirement Fletch. Had you gone when you should have, your legacy would be a very good one. Now it's tainted. Truly great people know when to quit. Justin Langer, David Shepherd, Geoff Boycott all knew when that time was.

You didn't and look what a bloody awful mess you've left.

An interesting 'lob' Mr. Steen, as usual well written and argued. There is no doubt that Duncan Fletcher was a great coach. Unlike Rahul Oak, I feel a coach's role is key in international cricket for reasons that are obvious; a good coach can interpret flaws and strengths and help to sharpen the technique. Like the late, great Bobby Woolmer, a coach can make use of the latest technologies and dissect an opponents weaknesses and strong suits. When the coach is someone who has played the game at the highest level, he can offer invaluable advice on how to deal with the mental strain of being a top-flight athlete with the constant weight of expectations.

However, I digress. Should Fletcher have pulled the pants down on what was happening while he was at the helm? Last time I checked, there was no gag order in place on his revealing what he did, so yes he was fully within his rights to say what he did. Was it disloyal? I feel it was. If he had been a class act, he would have bowed out gracefully. Some might argue that he was not given the opportunity to do so by the ECB after the Ashes and had his own axe to grind, however he COULD have taken the higher road.
The Pakistan team of the 80's and early 90's was one of some pretty crazy characters with peculiar peccadiloes and idiosyncracies, however the coach/manager Intikhab Alam has never written a tell-all book. Believe me, if he had, I know I'd be lining up to buy it!
"Skip" chose not to divulge stories regarding the notorious feuds between Miandad and Imran Khan, Younis Ahmed accusing Imran of smuggling drugs and countless other juicy behind the scenes narratives.
More power to him. I personally agree with Boycott in the view that what happens in the dressing room, should stay there. However given the modern media's excessive forays into the lives (personal and professional) of public figures, and our perverse fascination of the same, the deal Fletcher was offered to write and serialise his memoirs was obviously too sweet to resist. Thus, I feel he had every right to write what he did, however I wish he had shown more integrity and class.

Very thoughtful piece. I thought I was the only person in England who thought the media orchestrated reaction to the Ashes loss was ridiculous and hysterical. The people let off the hook here are the media themselves. They are taking up postures of shock and horror about Fletcher and yet they obviously feed on such stories. However my main objection to them is that they play too destructive a role in English cricket. They are already busy trashing Fletcher but frankly it could be anyone they fancy destroying today or tomorrow. This is what made Fletcher so cowardly about disciplining Flintoff. He knew it would provoke a huge media response and how right he was. That response incidentally in the middle of an Ashes tour. It is easy to say he should have been tougher, which he should, but who can face our media today in full war cry? Not even our prime minister it seems. Is the media going to criticise itself for its part in this shambles? Not a chance. Meanwhile I just have to feel really sorry for world class wicket keeper Chris Read who kept immaculately in the two Ashes Tests. It was the media who called for him to be dropped again. The complaint Duncan had against him apparently was that he was too quiet behind the wicket. Enter Nixon and Prior. Then Prior gets rubbished for talking too much behind the stumps during the India Test Series. The media wants him dropped. You can't make it up. Duncan Fletcher was wrong about Flintoff as captain instead of Strauss, he was wrong about Jones/Nixon/Prior instead of Read. Two major decisions that have had profound implications for our England team. Strauss should be given another chance and so should Read. I think Graveney comes out of it as badly regarding these selections. Was Botham in his ear? If so then Graveney was under undue bombastic influence and I'm not talking about booze. At one point during the World Cup Botham was advocating Flintoff to open the batting. So it could have been even worse.

After what Duncan Fletcher the then English coach has just said about Flintoff and Darrell Hair, I am sure that the time is not far away when the truth will be unfolded as to “who really was behind the Oval incidence where the match was forfeited.”

As stated by Duncan himself that he wanted to see the ball on the fifth day morning (having no authority or right) it-self explains how things were put into the upper chamber of Darrell Hair. Also informing him about the English men using Binoculars watching Pakistan players during that test match, and specially Styress & Peterson continuously talking to Hair also gives a fair idea as what was going on out there.

Now the situation is such that Hair cannot even say this in public but seem eminent that he was influenced by what happened or how much he was influenced by the continuous talk about ball tempering by the English men specially the coach which forced him to make such an error on the field.

One thing is sure that the coach and team trailing and fearing defeat will try every possible thing (specially when its an English team) but should not go to the level where there act or continues influencing skills brings embarrassment to those who should be respected for what they are doing, that is the Elite penal of World cricket umpires. Bad approach Duncan, I am sure this was not the English way or was it.
Hope you now realize what harm you gave to cricket and come out with the truth.

Derek and Ismail, Please Please, where in my note did I say that the Pakistani players were previously not involved in ball tempering or for that matter where did I defended the foolish step of Inzi when he decided not to play.What I am saying is totally different. If you go by the cricket rule Hair after proving that yes the ball is being tampered could have made the decesion. But more then that he concentrated on the feed back.I respect him as a Umpire and what I am saying is that game within the game which was going on forced such an error. Derek as far as cricket goes I am a cricket lover first and then a Pakistani, I will request you to please go through my mail once again and tell me where I have sided with the Pakistani team.The only thing that I am saying is that things were put into hair head and he jumped to a conclusion with out having any thing to prove.Watching the match with binoculars is OK what my poit is why say this to match refree and umpire. And Ismail I an sure if there was a brass zipper being used then Hair ( a professional umpire)could have noticed it. You can see the replays as how hair was alart and watching the filders and the bowlers. Its the Cricket and ICC and us that suffered the most.
REQUEST... JUST READ MY NOTE AS A CRICKET LOVER AND NOT AS A ENGLISH OR PAKISTANI PLEASE.