Fletcher - Vaughany's the best.

Vaughan must remain captain - Fletcher

It has been over a year since Duncan Fletcher left as England coach, and although he has slipped quietly into the shadows, his views on English cricket remain as forthright as ever.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Guardian, Fletcher looks ahead to next year's Ashes series - and back to the last two against Australia which he coached England through - and insists that Michael Vaughan is the only plausible England captain who can help them regain the Ashes, for all the detractors' concerns over his wavering form with the bat.

"I can't see anyone else doing the job," he told the newspaper. "He is a very, very good captain. What sums him up is quite simple for me. Look at his performances against Australia [Vaughan averages nearly 48, with four hundreds]. I don't see how people can question him. He loves playing them, even though it's the toughest job in international cricket. But it's what he wants. He wants to take those guys on.

"Of all the injuries we suffered in 2006-07 Vaughan was the biggest loss. If you go to Australia you have to have a very experienced captain. We needed him there. If you go out with an inexperienced captain it's very difficult. The Australians respected him first of all as a captain and also as a batsman. He would have held that batting side together."

For all his crystal ball gazing, the painful 5-0 hammering England received in the last Ashes still tugs remorselessly at Fletcher. Injuries, he said, weren't necessarily the sole reason for Australia's utter dominance, but the absence of so many key players for England certainly affected their ability to challenge them on an even keel.

"I've never seen anyone write this," he said. "All I would like someone to do one day is sit down and say: if we'd been at full strength, and they were missing McGrath, Warne, Ponting and Hayden - that would be the equivalent of what happened to us - what would the result be? I'm not saying we had better players than them but our losses were huge.

"Look at Simon Jones. If he had developed further, who knows where he would have got to? I don't think we've seen the best of him. We knew what we were missing with Vaughan, Trescothick and Giles - they couldn't have got much better. But Simon Jones could have actually got better with the experience that he'd gained."

Looking ahead, Fletcher - who often plucked relative underachievers out of county cricket and put them onto the world stage, most notably Vaughan and Marcus Trescothick - spoke highly of Stuart Broad, England's coltish fast bowler and potential No.8.

"He's a very exciting character for England cricket. They can play around this guy because he's so strong mentally. England have got potential there but they've got to make sure they keep 11 fit players on the field. That's really been the problem."

Merlin wrote:Has Felch got another book due out shortly?

Thus spake the man who cleverly chose his pet Piles ahead of Monty for the first 2 Tests in the last Ashes series down under ... hmmm, breathe on that one!!

Yup ... the man sure has got heaps of credence and judgement !!

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Interesting that he's seen something in Broad that he likes. Giles apart, Fletcher's generally a good judge of talent.

Merlin wrote:Has Felch got another book due out shortly?

Thus spake the man who cleverly chose his pet Piles ahead of Monty for the first 2 Tests in the last Ashes series down under ... hmmm, breathe on that one!!

Yup ... the man sure has got heaps of credence and judgement !!

Thus spake the man who cleverly chose his pet Piles ahead of Monty for the first 2 Tests in the last Ashes series down under ... hmmm, breathe on that one!!

Growler wrote:Doc - I agree - on the whole, Fletch didn't make many bad calls. I'd say though doc, that his picking of Giles after a year out ws his second worst error.

The worst by far was his handling of James Anderson in the latter half of 2003. By the end of the third test v SA, it was plain as daylight that the lad was physically exhausted, and his confidence was disappearing like water down a plug hole. Virtually every commentator on TV and in the press remarked on the need for him to be taken out of the firing line.

Fletcher allowed Smith & Co to flay him another couple of tests, then took hin on tour. Nothing wrong with that - except for the fact that when he got injured he missed the Bangles games - and got thrown back in the third S/L test ....... as difficult a place to play as anywhere in the world - where, it shud be noted, he was no worse than the more experienced seamers.

His reward? Out for a certain Simon Jones - parachuted back into the side after a year with bugger all first class cricket whatsoever.

And that's been his career since then - game here or there - injury - odd game back with no practice to get flogged then dropped again. Is it any wonder the lad is so hit and miss? IMHO, he's been handled shabbily by the England management the whole time - THAT is where Fletcher erred par excellence.

Growler wrote:Doc - I agree - on the whole, Fletch didn't make many bad calls. I'd say though doc, that his picking of Giles after a year out ws his second worst error.

The worst by far was his handling of James Anderson in the latter half of 2003. By the end of the third test v SA, it was plain as daylight that the lad was physically exhausted, and his confidence was disappearing like water down a plug hole. Virtually every commentator on TV and in the press remarked on the need for him to be taken out of the firing line.

Fletcher allowed Smith & Co to flay him another couple of tests, then took hin on tour. Nothing wrong with that - except for the fact that when he got injured he missed the Bangles games - and got thrown back in the third S/L test ....... as difficult a place to play as anywhere in the world - where, it shud be noted, he was no worse than the more experienced seamers.

His reward? Out for a certain Simon Jones - parachuted back into the side after a year with bugger all first class cricket whatsoever.

And that's been his career since then - game here or there - injury - odd game back with no practice to get flogged then dropped again. Is it any wonder the lad is so hit and miss? IMHO, he's been handled shabbily by the England management the whole time - THAT is where Fletcher erred par excellence.