Date-stamped : 03 Nov93 - 06:12
Win, lose or draw, Fletcher's reign must end
by Robin Marlar (The Sunday Times 8 Aug 93)
  So, the glorious reign of the new King  Michael  lasted  a
whole  day  and  a half.   Yesterday's cricket was stolen by
Australia, this time by Ian Healy, their keeper with a  Test
batting  average of 25, who joyously thumped 80 off the many
bad balls bowled by the seamers and  several  good  ones  by
spinners.
  Now a new cry of anguish is to  be  heard  at  Lord's:"Our
problem  is that we have no cricketers, especially bowlers."
Attention is switching to the rising generation appearing in
the Under-19 series against West Indies.  In my mind's eye I
can see  Mike  Atherton  and  Martin  Bicknell  together  in
Colombo  six  years  ago:  one  wonders  how much either has
improved.
  Apparently such concern with other levels  of  cricket  is
one  of  the activities which prevents Ted Dexter's coherent
attendance at Test matches.
  For years we have been  pleading  in  this  newspaper  for
somebody  in authority to go out and find some fast bowlers.
Curiously enough, they are more likely to be  found  outside
the  dragooning ranks of first-class cricket than within it.
What is so infuriating is that it  was  Dexter  himself  who
pioneered the last sensible scheme to find bowlers, but gave
up when it failed at the first time of  asking.  What  about
try, try and try again?
  Judging by the groundswell of opinion,  Dexter's  position
is  now  doomed.   But  what  of  Keith Fletcher, his second
sidekick after Micky Stewart?  Those who know Fletcher  well
are fond of him.  His deeds and his influence with Essex, an
amusing  Cinderella  before  his  arrival   and   relentless
pothunters ever since, are the stuff of legend.
  He may be small, Gnome to all and sundry, but  he  is  not
somebody   nice   people  wish  to  push  out  of  the  way.
Incredibly, he has a five-year contract, so the act of doing
so  could  be  expensive.   However,  his  record  is now an
embarrassment, a nettle to be grasped if Atherton is to have
any hope of success.  Ever.
  The preparations for the Edgbaston Test provided yet  more
evidence of lack of organization - or was it just stupidity?
England, just now, can afford neither, and  a  new  general,
reviewing  his  staff  officers,  should  not  tolerate  bad
service.
  But is Fletcher a staff officer or a  general?   Sometimes
referred  to  as  manager,  sometimes  as  coach, he is like
Dexter, and indeed Stewart, in that there  is  no  published
job description for him.  Alan Smith, the chief executive of
the TCCB, cannot escape  blame  any  longer.   The  national
torment  called  Test  matches  unfolding fortnightly on the
field before us is the product of chaos in the pavilion.
  Why  was  Fletcher  surprised  by  the  bareness  of   the
Edgbaston  pitch?  Are  he  and Andy Atkinson, who until two
years ago was his groundsman, no longer speaking?   If  not,
Fletcher should have been on his guard.
  If they are, a phone  call  should  have  provided  enough
information  for  there  to  be  no  need for Devon Malcolm.
Dennis  Amiss,  for  years  the   rugged   staff   alongside
Warwickshire's  bear,  saw the pitch last Saturday.  Was his
report inaccurate or ignored?
  The dash for a second spinner was necessary  but  bizarre.
Does Fletcher not know the history when England have fielded
two similar spinners?  Is he aware that the bowlers  who  do
well  in  Birmingham are the likes of Jack Bannister and Tom
Cartwright, in whose steps  the  man  he  sent  away,  Steve
Watkin, treads as ably as any?
  Fletcher's mistakes have been catastrophic.  This  is  the
man  who  shares  the  responsibility  for  going  into  the
Calcutta Test without a spinner, for choosing Richard Blakey
ahead  of Atherton in Madras, for all but ruining the career
of Paul Taylor, a left-arm bowler who could once  swing  the
ball consistently, whereas Mark Ilott cannot.
  Fletcher also bears responsibility for  failing  to  blood
Mark  Lathwell  when he was in form and for tossing him into
the fire when he was not.  He was, presumably, a major voice
in  the  decision  to  go  into  the  first and second Tests
without  a  left-handed  bat,  and  for  throwing  too  many
youngsters in at the deep end in the third Test.
  Next week the county chairmen have a  chance  of  clearing
out all England's current management.  They must not balk at
it.
  The really bad news is that Mike Smith of Warwickshire,  a
possible  successor  to  Fletcher,  was  quoted yesterday as
saying that selection is a matter of  opinion.   No,  no,  a
million times no.  It is a matter of judgment.
<END> Contributed by oxley (oxley@*math.lsu.edu)