BCCI to review away performances | Can Duncan Fletcher be sacked?

[Switchblade]

We have been absolute bull crap away under Fletcher..even in the format which India loves.. Lost 3-0 in Eng, 2-0 in SA, 4-0 in NZ :facepalm: Somehow we bring our best in ICC tournaments though even if its away.. If we have a good show in T20 world cup, it could mean Fletcher will get an extension :((

He's getting it anyway till the 2015 WC.

[Switchblade]

Is Duncan Fletcher a soft target? http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/728267.html The headline writers were like kids in a candy store. "ECB reject", "1.5 out of 10", "No achievements" - take your pick. Sunil Gavaskar, the great man himself, was seething with rage. At the receiving end was a man who wouldn't win a popularity contest if he were the only one participating. Gavaskar's impassioned demand for Duncan Fletcher's immediate sacking has expectedly gained plenty of traction. Patience is running thin after a string of below-par results and India's cricket watching public wants a sacrificial lamb. Now with the endorsement of a legendary voice, Fletcher and his minions have been identified. "Off with their heads," Gavaskar exhorts. "Yes, yes we must," the followers chant excitedly. On cue, a chain of equally fierce opinion providers jostled for space. Farokh Engineer lowered Gavaskar's 1.5 rating for Fletcher to 0.5. Bishan Bedi described him as a "mercenary". Madan Lal bellowed that even his own record overseas as India coach was better than Fletcher's. The lynch mob was out in force. It is an almost patented Indian formula - once a prominent figure makes a fervent case, jump on the bandwagon and muscle into popular opinion. There is no debating the central point of Gavaskar's argument. India's record during Fletcher's term has been uninspiring. India began with a series win in the West Indies after Fletcher replaced Gary Kirsten in 2011 but the team has floundered dramatically since, especially in Test cricket. Starting with the wretched tour of England in 2011, India have lost ten of their 12 overseas Tests and drawn the other two. At home, while Australia and West Indies have been brushed aside, a series was lost to England for the first time in nearly three decades. In one-day cricket, while the Champions Trophy and a few others have been captured, India have been beaten in series in England, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. In the only World T20 under Fletcher's watch, in 2012, the team failed to make the semi-finals. Clearly, the record stacks up against Fletcher and in favour of Gavaskar's argument. What is surprising, though, is the lack of nuance in Gavaskar's attack. For a man of his eminence to identify Fletcher not just as the villain of the piece but question his hard-earned credentials is poor form. It might win him brownie points with equally irate "fans" but it borders on populism. Gavaskar described Fletcher as an "ECB reject". Fletcher's term as England coach may have ended after their inglorious exit from the 2007 World Cup but in eight years at the helm he oversaw a pretty special period. England won away series in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies and South Africa, besides the crowing glory of his reign - a first Ashes win in 18 years. His services, to quote Gavaskar, may have been "dispensed with" but he was no "reject". As India coach, Fletcher may have faltered but was it appropriate to tarnish his body of work simply to embellish an argument? Once warmed up, Gavaskar was unstoppable. "In Fletcher's tenure, there has hardly been any improvement as a team. There has been no improvement of players individually also," he argued. Now is that really the case? Were India as poor in South Africa and New Zealand as they had been in England and Australia over that wretched 0-8 run in 2011-12? Or were there signs that the men replacing the giants in the middle order were showing the gumption for their task? It's worth casting a close eye on the individuals who have been under Fletcher's tutelage since he took the India job. Virat Kohli made a shaky Test debut in Fletcher's first series as coach in the West Indies. He is now a much more assured player in whites, having made centuries in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Is Gavaskar convinced Fletcher has made no contribution to Kohli's evolution as a Test batsman? If Kohli has improved, and he undeniably has by leaps and bounds, has Fletcher perhaps played a minuscule role? Take Shikhar Dhawan. After a terrible series in South Africa, Dhawan succeeded in turning it around with a century and another near triple-figure score in New Zealand. Were the improved performances down to Dhawan's diligence alone? Was it perhaps possible that Fletcher identified flaws that were responsible for Dhawan's failures in South Africa and helped him iron those out in time for the challenge in New Zealand? After all, that is what coaches are hired to do. When Gavaskar says, "Fletcher has done nothing", is that an assumption or an informed view? Have these players, or any others for that matter, confided in Gavaskar that the coach has contributed nothing to their progress? If not, was Gavaskar's assertion simply a punchline for a narrative he was determined to push? With hindsight as an ally, Gavaskar questioned Fletcher's appointment after India's World Cup win in 2011. "His achievements as a cricketer weren't anything incredible. Fletcher never had the credentials of Gary Kirsten or John Wright, who were achievers in international cricket. "The way things work in India is completely different," Gavaskar said, going on to speak of how Indian teams had had success under former India players. Now any serious cricket follower will endorse that this has become an argument of convenience, routinely strutted out when a coach is to be ousted. Even with the rider that "things work differently in India", does history not provide evidence to the contrary? For all his achievements, was Kapil Dev's term as India coach not staggeringly forgettable? Sri Lanka isn't India's polar opposite culturally, so how does Gavaskar explain the success of Tom Moody and Dav Whatmore as coaches in that country despite moderate international records? In fact, look around the globe at the moment and one's stature as a former international appears to count for precious little. Darren Lehmann, credited with Australia's thrilling recent resurgence, doesn't own a record that makes jaws drop. After Kirsten's exit, top-ranked South Africa promoted his assistant, Russell Domingo, who had never played a first-class game, let alone a Test. Mike Hesson, another non-Test cricketer, replaced the pedigreed John Wright in the New Zealand job. And under Hesson's watch the Black Caps are not doing too badly for themselves. By accident or design, Gavaskar's onslaught focuses the spotlight on one individual and diverts attention off others. In the course of his bombast Gavaskar asked, "If Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir, Harbhajan Singh, all stalwarts of Indian cricket can be dropped on poor form then why not drop support staff for poor performance?" Reasonable you would think, but does Gavaskar hold the same position with regard to the Indian captain? Surely, if Fletcher is to lose his job, can Dhoni keep his, especially in Test cricket? Does Gavaskar believe a new skipper should be installed when India tour England in July? Surely he is not suggesting the captain sits below the coach in the pecking order, either while receiving accolades or shouldering responsibility? Or is Fletcher the soft target, conveniently offered up with his head on a platter at this uncomfortable time? Indian cricket functions in the chaos of unshackled opinion. The onus on men such as Sunil Gavaskar is not to fuel angst, but to bring balance to conversations. This is an onerous responsibility and isn't served by convenient outpourings of vitriol at carefully chosen moments. Leaders must provoke thought, not outrage.

[Switchblade]

Nice article though I want Fletcher to go but even if he is fired or if he was let go it won't solve our problems need a complete overhaul of things which means that the likes of corrupt Srini,Shukla or Jaitley have to go from BCCI as well.We have too many politicians in the BCCI making $$$$ while the performances are being ignored of the team.Even MS should only play as a player he should quit the the Test format and concentrate on shorter versions.Another thing was that at that time when Duncan was in contention to be the coach of Indian team I immediately felt that he won't fit with our team plus the thing which really baffled me was that he was 62 what was he going to add to the team will he have the same passion which he had for England when he took over in 1999-2000 ? We needed a young guy like Langer or someone who had the hunger in him to succeed presently it just seems that coach/selectors are more of a yes man type individuals.

[rkt.india]

Good article. A coach is more a tourist in Indian setup.

[Switchblade]

Good article. A coach is more a tourist in Indian setup.

Why do you think Kirsten did so well was it that he was lucky that we had players who were at their best at that time ?

[darkshubhpatil]

A lot of changes are going to happen after wc 2015 in indian cricket like end of srini's reign(before 2015 wc) ,end of dhoni's reign as captain from all formats,end of dhoni's test &t20i career,new mgmt,new coaches.So let those in charge now bear the consequences of what they have(or have not) done& then start afresh. Saddens me to say this but this seems to be general consensus at BCCI.So we need to be patients There' no use of whining & campaigning now.Just sit back & pray wemake it atleast past 1st rond.

[Switchblade]

A lot of changes are going to happen after wc 2015 in indian cricket like end of srini's reign(before 2015 wc) ,end of dhoni's reign as captain from all formats,end of dhoni's test &t20i career,new mgmt,new coaches.So let those in charge now bear the consequences of what they have(or have not) done& then start afresh. Saddens me to say this but this seems to be general consensus at BCCI.So we need to be patients There' no use of whining & campaigning now.Just sit back & pray wemake it atleast past 1st rond.

Uncle Srini might be there till 2017 had posted last month that he's preparing to get re elected

[Cricket_Hacker]

just wait for 2015 wc..we will crash out early(like in 2007 wc) and there will be a lot of changes

[rkt.india]

Why do you think Kirsten did so well was it that he was lucky that we had players who were at their best at that time ?

Kirsten did nothing. He was lucky to have in-form players. He did not have any vision. Why would you blame Fletcher for 8-0. I don't. I blame Kirsten and selectors then. They lacked vision and didn't prepare for great players aging and going out of form. We did not invest in new players, no bench in test cricket. We kept playing same guys even in home tests. England tour disaster was first set back and everything that happened after that was the consequence of Kirsten's tenure. Kirsten reaped the rewards of Wright and Chappel's effort. I judge Fletcher since SA and NZ tour with new players and team did pretty well in tests.

[Crookbond]

Is Duncan Fletcher a soft target? http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/728267.html

The headline writers were like kids in a candy store. "ECB reject", "1.5 out of 10", "No achievements" - take your pick. Sunil Gavaskar, the great man himself, was seething with rage. At the receiving end was a man who wouldn't win a popularity contest if he were the only one participating. Gavaskar's impassioned demand for Duncan Fletcher's immediate sacking has expectedly gained plenty of traction. Patience is running thin after a string of below-par results and India's cricket watching public wants a sacrificial lamb. Now with the endorsement of a legendary voice, Fletcher and his minions have been identified. "Off with their heads," Gavaskar exhorts. "Yes, yes we must," the followers chant excitedly. On cue, a chain of equally fierce opinion providers jostled for space. Farokh Engineer lowered Gavaskar's 1.5 rating for Fletcher to 0.5. Bishan Bedi described him as a "mercenary". Madan Lal bellowed that even his own record overseas as India coach was better than Fletcher's. The lynch mob was out in force. It is an almost patented Indian formula - once a prominent figure makes a fervent case, jump on the bandwagon and muscle into popular opinion. There is no debating the central point of Gavaskar's argument. India's record during Fletcher's term has been uninspiring. India began with a series win in the West Indies after Fletcher replaced Gary Kirsten in 2011 but the team has floundered dramatically since, especially in Test cricket. Starting with the wretched tour of England in 2011, India have lost ten of their 12 overseas Tests and drawn the other two. At home, while Australia and West Indies have been brushed aside, a series was lost to England for the first time in nearly three decades. In one-day cricket, while the Champions Trophy and a few others have been captured, India have been beaten in series in England, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. In the only World T20 under Fletcher's watch, in 2012, the team failed to make the semi-finals. Clearly, the record stacks up against Fletcher and in favour of Gavaskar's argument. What is surprising, though, is the lack of nuance in Gavaskar's attack. For a man of his eminence to identify Fletcher not just as the villain of the piece but question his hard-earned credentials is poor form. It might win him brownie points with equally irate "fans" but it borders on populism. Gavaskar described Fletcher as an "ECB reject". Fletcher's term as England coach may have ended after their inglorious exit from the 2007 World Cup but in eight years at the helm he oversaw a pretty special period. England won away series in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies and South Africa, besides the crowing glory of his reign - a first Ashes win in 18 years. His services, to quote Gavaskar, may have been "dispensed with" but he was no "reject". As India coach, Fletcher may have faltered but was it appropriate to tarnish his body of work simply to embellish an argument? Once warmed up, Gavaskar was unstoppable. "In Fletcher's tenure, there has hardly been any improvement as a team. There has been no improvement of players individually also," he argued. Now is that really the case? Were India as poor in South Africa and New Zealand as they had been in England and Australia over that wretched 0-8 run in 2011-12? Or were there signs that the men replacing the giants in the middle order were showing the gumption for their task? It's worth casting a close eye on the individuals who have been under Fletcher's tutelage since he took the India job. Virat Kohli made a shaky Test debut in Fletcher's first series as coach in the West Indies. He is now a much more assured player in whites, having made centuries in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Is Gavaskar convinced Fletcher has made no contribution to Kohli's evolution as a Test batsman? If Kohli has improved, and he undeniably has by leaps and bounds, has Fletcher perhaps played a minuscule role? Take Shikhar Dhawan. After a terrible series in South Africa, Dhawan succeeded in turning it around with a century and another near triple-figure score in New Zealand. Were the improved performances down to Dhawan's diligence alone? Was it perhaps possible that Fletcher identified flaws that were responsible for Dhawan's failures in South Africa and helped him iron those out in time for the challenge in New Zealand? After all, that is what coaches are hired to do. When Gavaskar says, "Fletcher has done nothing", is that an assumption or an informed view? Have these players, or any others for that matter, confided in Gavaskar that the coach has contributed nothing to their progress? If not, was Gavaskar's assertion simply a punchline for a narrative he was determined to push? With hindsight as an ally, Gavaskar questioned Fletcher's appointment after India's World Cup win in 2011. "His achievements as a cricketer weren't anything incredible. Fletcher never had the credentials of Gary Kirsten or John Wright, who were achievers in international cricket. "The way things work in India is completely different," Gavaskar said, going on to speak of how Indian teams had had success under former India players. Now any serious cricket follower will endorse that this has become an argument of convenience, routinely strutted out when a coach is to be ousted. Even with the rider that "things work differently in India", does history not provide evidence to the contrary? For all his achievements, was Kapil Dev's term as India coach not staggeringly forgettable? Sri Lanka isn't India's polar opposite culturally, so how does Gavaskar explain the success of Tom Moody and Dav Whatmore as coaches in that country despite moderate international records? In fact, look around the globe at the moment and one's stature as a former international appears to count for precious little. Darren Lehmann, credited with Australia's thrilling recent resurgence, doesn't own a record that makes jaws drop. After Kirsten's exit, top-ranked South Africa promoted his assistant, Russell Domingo, who had never played a first-class game, let alone a Test. Mike Hesson, another non-Test cricketer, replaced the pedigreed John Wright in the New Zealand job. And under Hesson's watch the Black Caps are not doing too badly for themselves. By accident or design, Gavaskar's onslaught focuses the spotlight on one individual and diverts attention off others. In the course of his bombast Gavaskar asked, "If Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir, Harbhajan Singh, all stalwarts of Indian cricket can be dropped on poor form then why not drop support staff for poor performance?" Reasonable you would think, but does Gavaskar hold the same position with regard to the Indian captain? Surely, if Fletcher is to lose his job, can Dhoni keep his, especially in Test cricket? Does Gavaskar believe a new skipper should be installed when India tour England in July? Surely he is not suggesting the captain sits below the coach in the pecking order, either while receiving accolades or shouldering responsibility? Or is Fletcher the soft target, conveniently offered up with his head on a platter at this uncomfortable time? Indian cricket functions in the chaos of unshackled opinion. The onus on men such as Sunil Gavaskar is not to fuel angst, but to bring balance to conversations. This is an onerous responsibility and isn't served by convenient outpourings of vitriol at carefully chosen moments. Leaders must provoke thought, not outrage.

[ThePhenomenal1]

omg results > all not won a test since june 2011, he has never come out and said anything. Rahane has his own batting coach and raina has had to have help from ganguly - fletcher couldnt fix raina's issues or anyone else's!

[zen]

From the reports, it does appear that Fletcher appointment has not worked for India. Gavaskar points have a case and he watches so many Ind games but ofc there is always more to the story - Ind is lacking a system which prepares cricketers for success at the international level. More often than not, cricketers become successful through their own hard work and by taking initiatives. May be some of the players take things for granted and wait for others to approach them One way to go about it would be to have a short training camp before a player is inducted to the national team. His key skills should be analyzed, weaknesses or gaps in knowledge if any (ability to bat against short pitched bowling, fielding errors, understanding of how to bowl at different stages, etc.) should be identified and the player given a report to what he needs to work on. The progress of the player should be monitored. All issues related to cricketing skills of a player should be addressed by this team. No need to say that the team doing such an analysis and monitoring should be experienced. When the players come on to the international stage - their focus should be on how to play against a particular opposition, preparations before the big game, etc. I think this is where a team coach should come in. Telling the players about leveraging on their strengths against a particular opposition and in a series. (It should not be about teaching a player to play short pitched bowling or teach how to bowl yorkers - the training team should be responsible for this). It is like in a battle field, you don't teach soldiers how to shoot, you tell them about the strategies, tactics and their roles When Fletcher took over, he had some of the most experienced players playing in the team. And if players such caliber cannot deliver, what can a coach do. As for the new players - he probably expected a much better finished products to come in. But many of our players learn more about cricket (and what they lack) when playing at the international level. Thus, Ind needs a change in approach to coaching the players and having a training team and a dedicated center. With all the money BCCI has, why can't it built a world class center? As Gavaskar pointed out, players need to be taught the basics at the grass-root level after he observed that the players were making elementary mistake of not calling for a catch!

[Pagalpanti]

Could well be, yes.. but we can never know. The whole system is just so behind closed doors, that when team doesn't do well. Everyone target the usual suspects the captain and coaching staffs... Do selectors really have power to select a full squad on merit? Every tour/World event there have been few questionable inclusions and also sometimes out of the blue picks.. while some players constantly ignored.. moreover no accountability for poor performances in the name of giving a long rope..

[Magneto]

Could well be' date=' yes.. but we can never know.[b'] The whole system is just so behind closed doors, that when team doesn't do well. Everyone target the usual suspects the captain and coaching staffs... Do selectors really have power to select a full squad on merit? Every tour/World event there have been few questionable inclusions and also sometimes out of the blue picks.. while some players constantly ignored.. moreover no accountability for poor performances in the name of giving a long rope..

+1. We will actually never know whether the coaches are lazy or the cricketers don't care or there are communication/motivation gaps, or lack of respect or whatever.

[ThePhenomenal1]

just watching that world t20 zone with pollard and knight and some guy giving throws just said that fletcher brought this insane idea that after bowling a yorker, you change things up with a slower ball or bouncer! Is that a reason why we dont bowl consistent yorkers now?!

[G_B_]

If Duncan fletcher is being undermined he should say so accordingly. Whats worrying about India is that we have become jekyll and hyde. Tests, we white washed WI and Aussies not done in Indian history, we are terrible away, SA i can understand NZ was plain disappointing. ODIs we win the champions trophy in emphatic fashion, tri series that follows, Zim Odis (note pakistan lost to them) and finally winning an ODI series at home v Aus for the first time? Then we fail to win a single ODI in Sa and NZ. So why are India such a see saw side? If the players dont respect Fletcher and dont work hard there needs to be a uniform decline

[darkshubhpatil]

I think we could also look at what ecb is doing like eng lions& eng colts.Playingyoung talented players against domestic teams of diff countries under some good coaches would help them in gaining experience in diff conditions & help selectors to assess whether they can adopt to diff conditions. Also selecting best performers in domestics &arranging for them a workshopof a 10-15 or so every e 3mths under say mcgrath,akram,kumble,etc would also help the youngsters a lot.

[Jersey #10]

He's soft. I dont know about target tho

[putrevus]

Fletcher set the tone of mediocrity and lack of inspiration when he listened to moron dhobi when they called of that chase in WI second test. His reign was doomed to fail from that moment onwards.

[moniker]

Fletcher set the tone of mediocrity and lack of inspiration when he listened to moron dhobi when they called of that chase in WI second test. His reign was doomed to fail from that moment onwards.

I remember Fletcher talking to the press and defending that decision. And by what he was saying it looked like he did play a part in taking that decision. It was after that series that he was gagged by the BCCI. By at least taking that incident into consideration we can safely assume what kind of approach is followed behind closed doors. And it doesn't look to be a forward thinking, aggressive approach. Not sure why he's being called a soft target. He's equally responsible, just because others like Dhoni or the rest of the team management aren't being targeted doesn't mean Fletcher becomes a "soft" target.