More power, not less
John Stern on Duncan Fletcher - England's back-seat driver
John Stern
26-Oct-2006
![]() |
![]()
|
Peter Moores, England's academy director and one of the favourites to
succeed Duncan Fletcher, believes a coach has two choices: change the team
or change himself.
Football managers like Sir Alex Ferguson, who has been running Manchester
United for 20 years, can and do change the team on a regular basis with
transfers. Cricket coaches, at club or international level, do not have that
luxury. It is a more organic process. Cricketers' careers last longer than
footballers' and winning teams tend not to change much.
Everyone knows what a football manager does. They pick the team, decide the
tactics and live or die by the results. The nature of cricket is different.
It is impossible and undesirable for the coach to have complete control. The
captain is the man who calls the shots on the field and in most cases is the
primary interface between management and players.
Fletcher, who has been a successful businessman in a previous life, likened
Michael Vaughan's role to that of the company managing director while the
coach is a consultant. For the traditionalists and the sceptics (eg: Geoff
Boycott), this analogy is a screen behind which an unsuccessful coach can
hide. In reality, it is a legitimate articulation of a complex and unique
sporting relationship.
Unless the coach has total control over every aspect of team affairs (as a
Ferguson-type manage would) then it seems logical to think that they have a
shelf-life, that players switch off because they've heard it all before. But
most cricket teams do not work this way. Cricket does not work this way. A
rousing, tub-thumping speech might get everyone going for a 90-minute
football or rugby match but it's a pretty pointless exercise if the captain
has just won the toss, decided to bat and nine of the players are about to
put their feet up.
Fletcher's England makes the captain centre stage. Fletcher is the
strategist, the back-seat driver. He heads up a coaching team; it is not
just about one man.
Fletcher has been England coach for seven years so he may well be coming to
the end of his natural span. It was generally assumed that he would go after
the World Cup but the timing of Boycott's comments this week is bizarre, not
to say destabilising just as the Ashes hovers into view.
Although the target of Boycott's criticism is the appalling run of one-day
form, the underlying tone of his newspaper column was that Fletcher was
presiding over a group of players who had become cosy and complacent, also
that Fletcher himself is now beyond reproach.
Unusually for a man in his position, Fletcher is not on a fixed-term
contract. He is a permanent member of staff at the ECB. When he ceases to be
England coach, it seems likely a position would be found for him should he
wish it.
I don't believe Fletcher has exhibited complacency. He has though shown
exceptional loyalty to the players who won the Ashes, even the ones who have
barely played since. He has appeared reluctant to embrace the inevitable
changes. He clung to Geraint Jones until his position became untenable and
he was initially suspicious of Monty Panesar. It is believed that Andrew
Flintoff was not his preferred choice as captain.
Football managers always get the team they want. Maybe Fletcher needs more
power not less.
Click here to comment on this piece
John Stern is editor of The Wisden Cricketer