It would hardly be a surprise if Duncan Fletcher were to join in cricket’s craze for retirement and throw in the towel after seeing his players transformed from heroes to five-zeros in quite such short order. Yet that doesn’t seem to be about to happen any time soon. The England coach, insisting he retained the support of his players, yesterday robustly announced his intention to carry on and even seemed to be thinking about the next Ashes series in 2009, stating he believed his team was in a stronger position now than it had been when it lost in Australia on the last tour.
If he could turn 1-4 into 2-1 between 2003 and 2005, he seemed to be saying (or at least thinking) then it wasn’t beyond him to turn around 0-5 this time with a better group of players. “This young group will learn from the experiences and we can take a lot of benefits for the next series,” he said. “We’re in a better position having lost 5-0 than last time. This is a group of young cricketers who have performed at a high level in difficult conditions. We just need to play as a unit for longer, and get the experience required to beat a side of this calibre. We put up some very good performances and there were a number of occasions when we had Australia in trouble but couldn’t nail them.”
On his own position, he said: “I will look after the World Cup, but I believe I can take the team forward. I believe I’ve got the confidence and backing of the players and that’s important. Even if we’d come out with Vaughan, Trescothick and [Simon] Jones and a fully fit Giles, it would have been a difficult task.”
A couple of hours later, David Collier, the chief executive of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), insisted the board was not considering sacking Fletcher, though Collier admitted that the role of the coach would be looked at by an independent review the ECB is commissioning into the running of the national team in the light of the Ashes whitewash.
If the English public is looking for scapegoats for the humiliation Down Under, it may have to be satisfied with the removal of Andrew Flintoff as captain, even though all he is set to do is hand the reins back to the man he has been deputising for, Michael Vaughan, who will lead the one-day side this week. Flintoff says he wants to carry on, but one can only assume that pride is talking. He needs releasing from his torment.
Anybody expecting sweeping changes from the review does not know how cricket operates, or how most large organisations react when experiencing sustained periods of hostility. The ECB knows it needs to be seen to be doing something, and this review is it. The review panel will be chaired by somebody from outside cricket but perhaps with links to the game, and otherwise made up of former players or coaches with international experience. Its brief is to assess the management of the side over the past four years and recommend how things ought to be done over the next four years, which will see two Ashes series and the 2011 World Cup. The aim is to regain the Ashes in 2009 and win an ICC one-day tournament — the World Cup, the Champions Trophy or the Twenty20 championship — during that time.
Collier would like the review panel to report before the World Cup, which starts in March, but as it may not be assembled until the end of this month, it is more likely to present its conclusions shortly before the first Test of the domestic season, against West Indies on May 17.
Collier did not want to pre-empt the panel’s work, but did provide clues as to areas in which changes might be made. Top of list is the programming of tours and the way that teams are selected. England have been anxious for some time to get away from a cycle that places an Ashes tour of Australia in the same winter as the World Cup.
As the ECB recognises, this places an intolerable burden on its own players. It was this winter’s brutal schedule, with the Ashes tour sandwiched between the Champions Trophy and World Cup, that was chiefly responsible for the disjointed preparations. Perhaps mindful of the effects of touring life on Marcus Trescothick, the board consulted the players about the build-up and declared themselves happy with what they got, which was five days at home between India and Australia, and seven days of warm-up cricket before the first Test. The long winter was also behind the reasoning to allow wives and girlfriends to accompany their partners for so much of the time. Expect to see more warm-up time and less of the Wags in future.
Collier has been talking to James Sutherland, his counterpart at Cricket Australia, about moving an Ashes tour either forward by a year or back by a year to remove it from the World Cup. As there are huge amounts of money at stake, expect it to come forward, though as Collier pointed out this might mean England and Australia facing each other twice in the same year.
On selection, Collier batted down the idea of England having a selector on site for every overseas Test, as the Australians do. He accepted that there ought to be more consistency between selection for home and away Tests but stressed that whoever picked the side, the captain (who doesn’t formally vote on selections at home) had to have some input. This was another clear signal that Flintoff was at least as much responsible for the controversial selections in Brisbane and Adelaide as Fletcher.
There may be a case for Peter Moores, head of England’s academy and the A team’s coach, joining the England team at the World Cup. If the World Cup goes badly, Fletcher might look to step down, in which case Moores’s experiences would enhance his candidature; on the other hand, if Fletcher wants to continue until 2009, Moores could act as an assistant at some one-day tournaments at which Fletcher’s teams have struggled.
When Fletcher speaks of missed opportunities to nail Australia, he is primarily thinking of the game in Adelaide, where England’s inexperience allowed Australia off the hook. Had Vaughan been in charge, that game would probably not have got away from them. After Australia’s stunning victory that day, the morale of a young side unfamiliar with touring Australia predictably collapsed, especially among the batsmen. England’s scores subsequent to that game were 215, 350, 159, 161, 291 and 147. This was only partly due to good bowling by Australia. On the first and second days in Adelaide, England had far less trouble scoring freely against the same bowlers, scoring in each session respectively 58, 86, 122; 81, 121, 83 (partial session).
For four days of that match England lived on equal terms with Australia. And do not listen to Australian talk that England scored too slowly during their first innings of that game. They scored faster than Australia did, despite Warne often bowling round the wicket in a blatantly negative fashion.
We must await, with trepidation perhaps, England’s performance at the World Cup. But for their next Test match, at Lord’s in May against a West Indies side that failed to win a Test in 2006, they should expect to field the XI that played in Sydney except: Vaughan (fitness permitting) for Paul Collingwood, Matthew Hoggard for Sajid Mahmood and a wicketkeeper — any wicketkeeper — except Geraint Jones or Chris Read.
