Fletcher uncorks a scandal

We had all heard the rumours about Andrew Flintoff's alleged drink problems - and the pedalo wobble was there for all to see during the World Cup - but the revelation in Duncan Fletcher's autobiography that Flintoff used to show up for practice during the Ashes tour in Australia still under the influence of booze has caused an understandably large hoo-hah.

Many will condemn Flintoff for his lack of professionalism and self-control. Regardless of being the captain, an England player should not appear drunk on duty. Yet why must this blame fall only on Flintoff? Fletcher writes in his book that Flintoff went to bed at 7am, three hours before an England practice, because he had been out all night with Ian Botham. Flintoff has spent his whole career being likened to Botham, generally favourably, and yet this was one comparison he could have done without. Botham, the former wild boy but now Mr Establishment who is very keen to use his knighthood title, should have had more care for his pupil's reputation.

My colleague Richard Hobson places the blame on Fletcher's shoulders, saying that as England coach he should have shown more loyalty to his team. Richard accuses Fletcher of stirring up these stories to make money. Yet why shouldn't he? Fletcher spent most of his career as England coach being desperately dull. The last thing we wanted was an autobiography that contained lots of "Belly and Straussy put their hands up and came to the party" quotes. At last, a cricket memoir with some interesting stories.

But Richard is right to suggest that there are two valid criticisms that should be made of Fletcher and his time in charge. Flintoff was not the only one to have problems in the past few years: there was also Marcus Trescothick's descent from rock to flake and Stephen Harmison's all-too-visible disintegration on tour. Something happened that mentally traumatised three of England's finest ever players. Some may blame the heavy burden of cricket that modern players must face, others may wonder at the support structure in place to help players deal with problems. Have these been rectified since Fletcher left?

And the other thing is whether Flintoff should ever have been captain in the first place. His record as captain before the Ashes tour was pretty poor anyway, and Fletcher says: "The areas which concerned me were his tactical nous and man management under pressure. And there was always going to be a worry about his self-discipline." If you have fears about a man's tactics, ability under pressure and lack of discipline, why on earth make him captain?

The sad thing is that not making Andrew Strauss captain for the Ashes, as by far the best qualified candidate in Michael Vaughan's absence, may have had an impact on the Middlesex opener. The loss of confidence from not being trusted may have affected Strauss's form and started the spiral that has ended in him being dropped for the Sri Lanka tour. Perhaps Strauss is a bigger casualty of Fletcher's failings than Flintoff.

Comments

[Paul Stephens]

I'm no fan of Duncan Fletcher (he made an astonishing number of selection gaffes last winter), but I wonder if he's entirely to blame for the debacle of Flintoff's captaincy.

It seemed clear at the time that Flintoff was made Ashes captain for all the wrong reasons, namely that he was a highly marketable figure who'd bring in audiences and sponsorship. So perhaps there was pressure from the commercial side to give the media the figure they wanted, not the less glamorous Strauss, even though the latter had just led England to test and one-day series wins against Pakistan, hadn't been out of the game for six months and didn't have a habit of drinking himself into near-oblivion.

The result was humiliation for England and the ruined career of Strauss. Perhaps the cricket authorities should remember that next time.

[James]

It must be very difficult to manage the expectations of marquee players with populist support (look at the tensions in Australia over Warne's captaincy ambitions once Ponting and Gilchrist were cemented in). I don't know what the English press was saying before the last Ashes series, but Flintoff certainly had an enormous amount of popular support from Ashes 2005 on and knew it. Without meaning to disparage him in any way, it would be very easy for his normal ambitions to give the selectors the worry that with the wrong decision their leading player might go sulk in his tent.

[Rusty]

I agree that it's probably Strauss who is the real victim here. Being sidelined for the people's boy, rather than being recognized as the man who really could be captain, has probably greatly contributed to poor Strauss's decline. Loss of confidence on the world stage is bad enough - ask Trescothick or Damien Martyn - but for others to show lack of confidence in you is terribly undermining.

I have little sympathy for Fletcher, and less for the over-coddled Flintoff. Saying that others should take responsibility for Fred only confirms that the problem is not just the drinking, but people's attitude to him. Of course he can take responsibility for himself. He's a big boy isn't he, and he was Captain, for God's sake. A captain should be doubly responsible for his actions.

Perhaps it's Flintoff who should've showed more loyalty to his team.