Duncan Fletcher is England's former coach

Duncan Fletcher has joined the list of 'former coaches' after the World Cup, a few weeks after Greg Chappell announced his decision.

Fletcher took over as England coach after the 1999 World Cup. Eight years is a very long time! In that time span, England won 42 out of 96 tests and won 74 out of 165 ODIs.

Although England did win the 2005 Ashes, the overall scoreline against Australia is 4-14. England did overall become a better test side, like the series record of won 14, lost 7, drew 6 shows. But England regressed bigtime after the Ashes, winning only 5 out of 18 tests after the 2005 Ashes, one of them a forfeit.

It was in one-dayers that England proved quite hopeless, despite a shock win in the one-dayers in Australia earlier this year. Winning 74 out of 165 doesn't look too bad. Scratch beneath the surface and take out Bangladesh (yes, them!), Zimbabwe and other minnows and the scoreline becomes 'Played 128, Won 41, Lost 79'. There were 3 teams against who England played at least 20 games (after the 1999 World Cup). The highest was Australia (26). Number two was (surprise!) Zimbabwe (23), more than India and Pakistan. Maybe it was the ECB's ploy to do a lot of confidence boosting.

I'm not even going to harp on Fletcher's constant excuses on unavailability of personnel. When he had some chaps with ability, he chose to keep them under wraps!

Overall, I suppose England will miss him. He obviously could coach, but, like a lot of others have pointed out for a while, it was time for him to go!

Labels: coach, england, fletcher

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:24 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A name game

Assume you're England's coach.

Q: What do you call a "batsman" who scores @ 24 runs an innings, after 73 ODI innings? (I prefer using runs per inning rather than runs per completed inning)
A: You call him one of your top players.

Q: What do you call a batsman who's made 25% of his career runs against the combined might of Bangladesh, Namibia, Netherlands and Zimbabwe?
A: You say he can make a huge difference to your side

Q: What do you call a side which won "60%" of its games in 2004 (W 12 L 8 NR 1 overall, but a record of W 7 L 8 NR 1 against teams not named Zimbabwe - 43.75% effectively) and "45%" in 2005 (W 8 L 10 T 2 NR 2, but a record of W 5 L 10 T 2 NR 2 against teams not named Bangladesh - 26.3% effectively)
A: You say the side was heading in the right direction to put up a very good performance at the World Cup

Q: What do you call a "batsman" whose last 10 ODI scores are 1, 57, 0, 0*, 0, 59, 1, 15, 26 and 17?
A: You say that he's put up very consistent performances at the top of the order.

Read/Listen. Then react the way you want.

Labels: 2007 world cup, england, fletcher, vaughan, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:02 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Different attack, same results

In the summer, Tim de Lisle suggested that England employ a separate coach for one-day internationals. More recently, Mark Nicholas and His Lordship Sir Geoffrey of Boycott have also called for this to happen.

But what's partly escaped notice is that England's ODI side, while having an almost identical batting line-up (subtract Cook, add Dalrymple and maybe Joyce), has a completely different attack. Ashley Giles and Matthew Hoggard aren't in the squad. Steve Harmison has retired. Simon Jones, even when fit, has not got an outstanding ODI record. Monty Panesar is yet to play an ODI.

England have tried one-day 'specialists' in the past, to much condemnation. But the circle has turned since the last World Cup, and now it seems that separation is the key to success, the one element that will change England's fortunes for the better.

So how did this work, in its first trial?

Well, 77 runs doesn't sound too bad, but that's because it's a Twenty20 match - you need to adjust your expectations. 77 runs is a whopping 3.85 runs an over, which, in ODI terms, is the equivalent of losing by 192.5 runs. This was a hammering.

The only positive to take out of this is that Steve Harmison might come under greater pressure for his Test place. One of the keys to having a successful side is to keep pushing the incumbents. Some players don't need that pressure, because they're extremely professional - Dravid is one, McGrath another. But most do, and Harmison certainly does. Unfortunately the chances of England finding a superstar bowler to put the pressure on Harmison in this series are remote.

Labels: england, fletcher, odi

Thus spake Geoff @ 11:23 am | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

For Matthew Hayden

However, in order to paint a clearer picture of the scenario, it is worthwhile looking further back.

For so long winning a Test series against Australia had been our focus. England had failed so often over the years, and while we were winning other series on a consistent basis, the mountain was there for us to climb against Australia.

Overcoming that hurdle in 2005 was enormously satisfying, and much as happened to Australia after they reclaimed the Ashes, the series took a heavy toll on us all, physically and emotionally.

So after defeating Pakistan and drawing in India following that enormous campaign, we probably thought it was all just going to go our way again having started the Ashes series in such convincing fashion at...er...Adelaide? But as history now shows that certainly wasn't the case, and as the Ashes series unfolded I realised, probably two Tests too late, that I had gradually lost touch with the selectorial hunches that had been so successful for me in years gone by.

Signed, Duncan Fletcher.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2006, australia, england, excuses, fletcher, hayden

Thus spake Geoff @ 4:33 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]