New Zealand 303-2 (Williamson 92*, Guptill 70, Latham 59, Taylor 47*) trail England 389 (Root 98, Stokes 92, Buttler 67, Moeen Ali 58 – Boult 4/79, Henry 4/93) by 86 runs with 8 first innings wickets remaining.
Dmitri doing the match update stuff today, so maybe this won’t be to everyone’s tastes!
The events of the past 15 months have seen my attitude to cricket change considerably. I had been a truly passionate supporter of England, and while I always appreciated the great players around the world, I would get to dislike some of them based on the fact that they weren’t from my team. You can’t help who you are. Now, with the nonsense of the past 15 months, with no sign of any meaningful contrition, I watch the matches with a more neutral perspective. This time a couple of years ago the performances this evening of Ross Taylor and Kane Williamson would have driven me mad. Instead I watched as a man struggling with his body, and to some extent his game, in Ross Taylor battle gainfully, fighting hard, grafting. I love that in a player. Then there was the almost too perfect Kane Williamson, looking every part the true class batsman he is. It was almost inevitable he made runs, looking totally in tune with his game, and rarely, if ever, looking threatened. I’m preparing the next instalment of Century Watch for the inevitable… (that’ll curse him). It’s early days, I know, and this will be just two tests, but do you remember how, in the mid 2000s, every time Mohammed Yousuf came to the crease, you knew he’d score runs? I felt like that with Kane today.
A lot of comment both here and on Twitter was focused on the Cook captaincy. It’s a default setting we have, that if things go wrong, it’s our beloved captain who is to blame. We knew what we were getting when we appointed him. Solid opening bat (at the time) with a penchant for run gluts, but also technically based, and vulnerable to flaws. The appointed vice-captain who had the label “not a natural captain” when he deputised for Strauss in Bangladesh. This is not a surprise, and I save my ire for Headingley Day 4 disasters rather than today. Those of us at The Oval in 2012 saw just how a pedstrian, out of sorts, bowling attack can struggle whoever is captain. Even his attempts at tactical changes, such as the leg trap and bowling round the wicket are almost by-the-numbers. I’m at the stage that having a pop at his captaincy isn’t worth it. He’ll have his days (Grenada Day 5 wasn’t just Jimmy Anderson) but he’ll have a lot of bad ones. This wasn’t in the same league as those that actually lose tests.
The match is set up well. England’s score was brilliant considering we were 30-4, and I thought it was more competitive than it looks right now. I was watching the Brisbane test on the flight home on Tuesday and saw how smug we were to have bowled out the Aussies for 280 odd, because it was a flat deck and the tail had put the runs together. We know what happened next. This score looked better because we scored quickly and there was a view that the pitch has something in it. New Zealand batted well, some chances were missed (rare is the game where every chance is taken), and they are pouring it on. Yes, if Wood’s over-stepping hadn’t been caught, the day might have been different, but that’s the game. The perceived weakness in the Black Caps, the supposed flaky opening partnership, put on a really decent platform (admittedly, I was catching up with sleep for most of it – still suffering) and now everyone is worried about McCullum. I’d be more worried about the bloke who is 92 not out and has a big double to his name in the very recent past.
For added reading today, have a laugh at Martin Samuel’s Daily Mail column – this is a football writer (and I despise him for that) trying to justify his varied sport portfolio and he spent yesterday bemoaning people going on and on about you know who, and wrote a whole column, it seemed, on you know who. I’m no fan of Newman, but when you have him and Lawrence Booth on your books, what’s the point of Samuel just showing up and writing this stuff? I’ve not read Selvey, so will go and look at it. I got a whiff of Simon and Smiffy at lunchtime on TMS, and FICJAM was in marvellous condescending form. I also had plenty of fuel to my anti-Lord’s fire with the constant looks at the spectators there today – I’m sorry, if you dress like that for a sporting event, there’s something up – and if you chucked, or allowed, a champagne cork on a football ground in this country you’d be banned for life (first for smuggling it in).
Lastly, from Vian and I, many thanks for the visits and comments. It’s the 22nd of May and this blog has had more hits in a calendar month than any here on BOC, or HDWLIA. This is, of course, down to the new writer, who is now outshining me at every turn 🙂 . I’m going to get The Analyst to write a piece like this on him any day now. Seriously, it’s been brilliant how his style has been received here and I know he’s going down really well. It’ll be his turn tomorrow night/Sunday morning…..
Cheers all, and looking forward to tomorrow’s play.
The start was calamitous, though having been put into bat you would expect conditions to be challenging. Lyth on debut simply got a good ball – it’s the peril of being an opening batsman. Ballance too got quite a good one, though he looked more than slightly out of sorts during his short innings. Bell was bowled by a ball that wasn’t far off unplayable. In essence, three of the first four wickets to fall were down to good bowling to greater or lesser degrees.
And then there’s Alastair Cook. Perhaps he doesn’t deserve separate treatment as such today, but the problem is that so many in the media are insistent that all is well and that he’s batting beautifully. He really isn’t. Today he was slicing at the ball – the bat came down from the direction of the slip region on a number of occasions, with drives flying in the air just out of the reach of fielders. Even a rare straight drive was an example of cutting across the ball. OK, conditions this morning were quite difficult, but if the media would accept that he has flaws he is trying to work through, it would be less necessary to continually point out that his technique is a problem. The dismissal itself can be considered “one of those things”, and again excuses have been made, such as him being unlucky. Let’s get this clear here, there is absolutely nothing wrong when the team is under the pump for a player to try and jump on a scoring opportunity. It’s a moderate degree of risk yes, but the alternative is to be terrified into blocking – something England have done far too often in recent years.
Therefore, even given the situation, there’s nothing at all wrong with taking the shot on, he simply didn’t execute it terribly well and lost his wicket. It happens. It always has happened, and it always will happen; players try and score runs, and sometimes get it wrong. All entirely normal, which is why the cries of irresponsibility when other players get out playing shots is so idiotic. It’s no different in degree of irresponsibility whoever it is when they are out attacking, so either accept that or don’t – but don’t be selective about making the excuses when it goes wrong.
Subsequently of course, we saw what happens when it comes off. Root and especially Stokes counterattacked in thrilling style – and that’s rather the point. In doing so, they took a risk. A calculated one, certainly, because it was anything but reckless, but had either been dismissed, the cries of anger would doubtless have been long and loud from those wishing to be wise after the event. It was exactly the right thing to do, and they did it brilliantly, turning the day around and taking England to a good position. Sometimes it will go wrong, but it’s still the right thing to do even then – the alternative we have already seen far too often.
After Root and Stokes came the Buttler and Mooen show. Given all the things so wrong with England cricket at the moment, it’s nice to be able to point to an area where a degree of hope is warranted. The middle order is exciting and with bags of potential. Buttler showed he could bat more than one way and turned a recovery into a position of some degree of strength. Moeen is a hell of a batsman to have coming in at number eight, and if he can be worth his place as the main spinner, then suddenly there is something to build on.
Moeen is simply not going to be a replacement for Graeme Swann, it’s not reasonable to expect that of him. But it needs to be borne in mind that for the previous 35+ years going back to Underwood, a spinner who averaged below 40 for England was regarded as a success. England must not make the same mistake that Australia did in trying to replace Warne and throwing bowlers out when they couldn’t do it. Swann wasn’t in that class, but England do not produce many great spinners. Debating whether Adil Rashid is a better choice is perfectly reasonable, because exactly the same degree of understanding would need to be given to him. There is a need to be realistic here – and assuming either one of them does well enough, then the potential of a number eight who can score runs like Moeen can is extremely attractive. And he’s great to watch too.
New Zealand’s bowlers looked tired towards the end of the day, and given that for a few of them they have come back from the IPL, perhaps it’s not surprising. It certainly hasn’t been a disastrous day for them, this looks a good batting pitch, albeit that conditions have been quite conducive to swing. While England have in the end had quite a good day, it’s somewhat alarming that Stuart Broad in his current batting malaise is now in at nine. The innings could be wrapped up quite quickly.
It’s all set up for an intriguing day’s play tomorrow, with no team at this stage entirely comfortable with where they are, but not entirely unhappy either. Which means it’s been a good day of Test cricket, and a reminder why it is that no matter how much the ECB try and wreck it, sometimes the cricket has its own way and tells a wonderful story.
As ever, comments below as the play unfolds, or if you want to take me to task!
With Dmitri back in the UK, and the summer of international cricket upon us in England, here is the traditional thread for you to comment on the day’s play and anything else that takes your fancy in the cricket world.
Don’t forget to read thelegglance’s column below on the series and his views on matters at the moment.
This is it. A new era. Moving forward. Fresh and exciting. Open and honest. Trust and honour. Go forth with new England, a team we can all get behind! Ra Ra!
And so after all the talking, double dealing and flat out fibbing, we come to the first Test of the summer and the beginning of the international season.
When the schedule was put together some years ago, New Zealand must have seemed the ideal opponents to provide a warm up for the main event of the summer. A side with a bit of talent, but no real challenge to England, allowing players to ease back into Test cricket, find a bit of form and then move on to a real challenge. It hasn’t worked out that way.
New Zealand are riding a crest of a wave. A little over two years ago they appeared in meltdown, a new coach had come in – one without any kind of cricketing background in terms of playing incidentally – sacked the captain and the ructions in New Zealand cricket were deep and ongoing. The best batsman was sufficiently hurt and humiliated as to drop out of the side, and the criticism was long and extensive, while the team were humiliated in South Africa. Yet there was talent in the side, and the installation of Brendon McCullum as captain, however clumsily done, did seem at least to show some indications of forward thinking. Ross Taylor returned, with all sides admitting that a lot of work needed to be done to heal the wounds. That this was largely achieved is a credit to everyone involved, and the irony of the difference in terms of how New Zealand have addressed such matters and certain other sides. New Zealand Cricket even had the gall to er, well admit they hadn’t handled things well.
Since the low point of being 45 all out, the team has gone from strength to strength. They had much the better of a 0-0 draw against an England team showing the first signs of the terrified negativity that’s become all too familiar, and although they were comfortably beaten in the return fixture in 2013, that was the last series in which they’ve been defeated. A home win against India was impressive given where they’d come from, while an away win in the West Indies was their first overseas series victory against a top eight side in over a decade.
Perhaps most impressive of all was drawing with Pakistan in the UAE, by no stretch of the imagination an easy place to get a result. Reaching the World Cup final in the 50 over format showcased an attacking, vibrant team unafraid to take risks. They take it into the Test arena too – McCullum might set the tone with his batting, but he is hardly alone.
Not all of the Black Caps batting order is in prime form, and the late arrival of some of the team from the IPL is less than ideal, but they do bat deep and they are dangerous. Martin Guptill for one has a modest Test record, but is pushing hard for inclusion on the back of good form in England this year. Kane Williamson and Ross Taylor are quality players, while Hamish Rutherford has flattered to deceive in his career to date, yet is clearly talented. Yet perhaps the key player may turn out to be the combative wicketkeeper BJ Watling, the antithesis of the flaky player.
It is the bowling where England will be in real danger. Test series in May often prove far too much for visiting sides to handle – precisely why the defeat to Sri Lanka last year was so abject, no matter how some try to pretend it never happened – yet in Trent Boult and Tim Southee the suspicion is that New Zealand have a significant advantage in the new ball stakes.
England have a fairly settled side, which is somewhat surprising given the shenanigans of the last month. Lyth will almost certainly make his debut at the top of the order, and given that the pitch appears the day before to be exceptionally green, it will be challenging conditions in which to make a debut. Despite claims that Cook is somehow in exceptional form on the basis of a century against modest opposition who were also missing their spearhead, the combination of a potent opening attack, cloudy overhead conditions and a damp track will ensure that he is under pressure from the off – not even taking into account his reported actions concerning the composition of the side.
The middle order is one area of solidity in the England team. Ballance, Root and Bell really ought to be a good combination. Bell himself has struggled somewhat since his aestas mirabilis in 2013, despite not looking out of touch. He needs runs.
The bowling looks to be extremely reliant on Anderson. Conditions should suit him down to the ground; the fear in his case is of being overbowled or getting injured. Without Anderson, England really would be in the mire. Broad did look to be returning to some kind of form in the Caribbean – with the ball anyway – and perhaps what he needs more than anything else is overs under his belt. Even so, his pace was patchy at best, and surely he won’t be looking to bang the ball in to the deck in such conditions.
The support seamers are a problem. Although it is a Good Thing to be patient with young players, neither Stokes nor Jordan looked especially penetrative in the West Indies, and it may be that Mark Wood gets the nod. England are casting about for a magic bullet here, and Wood is the latest to solve all difficulties no doubt. But if he is selected, then it should be for both Tests and the first couple against Australia. Like with Lyth, he’s been given something of a hospital pass by being overlooked for any of the Tests last month, and now will have to come in against markedly stronger opposition.
The question of the coach rumbles on, with mixed opinions on whether Gillespie was showing interest in the England job, or indicating that he would politely turn them down. Strauss has let it be known that there is no rush to find a coach, even if it involves going into the Ashes without one. In a sense this is reasonable, taking time to find the right one is a good thing. Yet if there was no rush, why summarily sack Peter Moores with no replacement lined up? It’s more muddled thinking and behaviour.
This is a defining summer for Alastair Cook. Appointing Joe Root to the vice captaincy has signalled that failure this summer will be the end of him as captain. By affirming his position England have effectively served notice on it. Winning is the only way he can survive, and scoring runs is an imperative. It’s the end game, and now it’s up to him.
I feel a a bit melancholy, to be honest. I’ve been out of the UK for the best part of three weeks and will be returning in the morning, weather permitting. I’ve had such a great time out here doing very little that the thought of returning to the office on Thursday fills me with dread.
It also got me thinking. There’s been a hell of a lot going on in those three weeks, those 21 days, and we’ve come a long long way in that time. I thought I’d jot down a few points to tide you over until the next piece (hope Vian can put one up in the next day or so) but also see where we were, and where we now are.
1. Grenada (Act Like You’ve Been There Before) – I left just after victory was secured and the growing clamour was that England had turned the corner and were continuing their form from the India series having got that “awkward first away test of the series” out of the way. Those who sought to belittle us doom-mongers were in full cry, and the reaction was less than pleasant. We had all that “real England fans” codswallop that cheeses me off. I don’t doubt their desire to see England do well and succeed in the long run, so don’t doubt mine. Also, it has to be said, the media went totally overboard, as if this was one of the great England test wins of recent memory. It reeked of what it was, a good win against a team that got into a slide they couldn’t arrest, and in Anderson, they came up against a bowler in a purple patch. Relying on miracles isn’t a long-term route to success.
2. KP (170) – Pietersen had made a flying start against the Universities, but had not set the County Championship ablaze with one half century in four knocks (albeit with two not outs). The anti-KP were as comfortable as they could be, as this was not the form of someone pressing for selection.
3. At last, a century for Cook – A couple of days into my holiday, and outside a massive department store in Mays Landing, NJ, I got the signal that told me that Cook had ended his long wait for a test century. This was his first century in England’s first innings, when the big boy runs are supposedly made, since Kolkata in 2012. His first international ton since a century to set up a run chase against New Zealand at Headingley 23 months ago. Just as Grenada proved England were back, this century, on the back of several more solid knocks, provided those who had waited with the ammunition to fire at those who had been right the last year. Cook was back, and no-one seemed to mind he was out to the last ball of the first day’s play because England looked like they had scored enough on a tricky wicket.
4. Mediocre – Then the West Indies scrambled back, with Blackwood keeping them in range of England’s first innings. I couldn’t watch it so lord knows what the captaincy was like. Then England, on that second evening, collapsed. In a heap. They tell me this middle order is set in stone, and yes, collapses do happen, but that’s a few times now against some of the less threatening attacks in world cricket. Buttler tried to get the score up, but the tail was abject, with Broad’s decline now reaching the almost “feel very sorry for him” stage. Still, it was just under 200 to win, but the WIndies did it. Suddenly a mediocre team had just had a rocket put up their arse (presumably said rocket doesn’t go off in Anitgua or Grenada) and a tag used by the Chairman Elect to describe the WIndies was now the greatest motivational thing ever, in the history of the world. A pity the press weren’t so hot on “outside cricket” eh?
5. Losing Minds – Suddenly, a week after Grenada, it appeared as though the appeals for calm and rational assessment after Grenada went as unheeded after Barbados. People started to just go bonkers. Suddenly a team every press member thought we should beat easily had been galvanised by Colin Graves. This despite the fact that the Australian media and punditry and players give England enough bulletin board material to last decades and it doesn’t seem to matter then. Geoff Boycott lost it with Alastair Cook, and the divine Cooky had a gentle pop at Yorkshireman in an interview – the sort of thing that is called ill-judged, or fanning the flames if someone else does it – and Boycs went nuclear. Aggers and many others in the press were going overboard on “mediocre” and meanwhile in an incredibly dignified and thoroughly professional manner, a man who has had his mental health picked apart for nigh on 18 months retired in a classy, decent way. Oh, and then there was Selfey and Smiffy, waging campaigns against bilious inadequates and social media minorities. But compared to what was coming, this was child’s play.
6. The Curious Case Of The Non-Leak – Peter Moores went to Ireland with a scratch England ODI team, and by the end of the day had been humiliated. This is the ECB. I don’t care how the story got out, someone at the ECB told someone, who told someone, who told someone else. It’s a leak, no matter how you deny it. A leak doesn’t have to come from the ECB directly, but as this was their information, their decision, that it got out in advance of when they wanted it to is their fault. In doing so they humiliated Peter Moores. It was wrong. Horrendously wrong. I was no fan of his appointment, and in test cricket it has to be said, he assimilated Ballance into the team, got Root in a place where he has made hay, brought in Buttler, and tried to get Jordan and Stokes firing. He’d not done an awful job with the test team, but was beyond awful in ODI cricket. Despite the massive workload required of a full-time, across-all-formats coach, Strauss (more of him in a minute) wants one man for the job. Remember when it was KP “alone” who wanted shot of Moores and no-one stood behind him. By his actions, one might judge the craven “leadership” of Strauss back in 2009. Hey, let’s go out there and say Strauss could possibly, even then said “you go ahead KP, I’ll be captain if you fail” to himself. His attitude to Moores was evident in the rapidity of his dismissal. Also, did he leak? So poor Peter Moores had people feeling sorry for him.
7. The Appointment of King, Andrew – After an exhaustive head hunt, which seemed to be of one person after Vaughan said this wasn’t the job he was looking for, the decision to appoint Andrew Strauss as Director, England Cricket was a poorly kept (leaked) secret. He pulled out of commentary for the Moores Debacle game, leaving Nick Knight to spill the beans, and was confirmed as the man for the job in one of those hastily compiled, corporate speak load of old crap we’ve got used to in the past few years. You didn’t need to be Einstein to work out this was bad news for KP. A lot of white noise was created over his educational background and potential political leanings, but you only had to watch how his successful teams won matches. Graft not glamour with individuality contained within a strict structure. With a strong captain this works, to a degree, but only for so long. With one perceived weak captain this is a recipe for disaster. Oh, and he called KP a c*** and had a big feud he would never have picked him for after if he had stayed on. So we knew what was coming. Even if some said that Strauss might surprise us.
You’re our only (choice) hope…
8. It’s All About Timing – The Sunday night saw KP in the 30s not out v Leicestershire, who on a pitch that was supposed to resemble a road, had been bowled out in a day upon. 24 hours later, and much glee up and down the Garden State Parkway, and in Atlantic City, KP finished the day 326 not out. Then we found out there was a meeting due that evening with Andrew Strauss and Tom Harrison, ahead of the formal launch of Strauss as Director, England Cricket the following day. Within minutes of that meeting the information leaked, and TMS was saying KP had been told it was all over. Frankly, you know the rest. We’ve done it to death. It’s all about trust. Andrew Strauss cannot trust KP. The ECB cannot trust KP. Senior players, supposedly, cannot trust ECB. Oh, and KP’s lack of trust with the ECB is a sideshow. An organisation that constantly leaked against him, most notably the heinous leaks of 2009, is not relevant. Only KP has to build the trust, no-one else, despite it being no-one to blame. It’s all a load of old nonsense.
9. 355 – The fact is that there are few who could have played that innings, despite some absolute fucking morons trying to – and yes Dominic Cork, you are an absolute fucking moron who should be slung off cricket punditry if that’s the wretched sort of analysis you are coming up with, you absolute cretin – and although he fell two short of Surrey’s all-time record, the statement made Strauss look rather stupid. We’ve debated it for days, and will do for days more. But, in the words of Hal Holbrook in All The President’s Men, Deep Throat could have been talking about KP, rather than Haldeman:
“you’ve got people feeling sorry for him. I didn’t think that was possible.”
Because this was all about a clean slate, giving up the IPL, and making a fist of county cricket. He’d been lied to. People like KP don’t give up £250k on a whim. If he did, it’s rather noble, don’t you think? It sort of smashes the selfish, money-grabbing tosser meme apart? The anti-KP media, while trying (and failing in the main) to be ever so fair, all fell in line. A non-playing suit with an ill-defined role will always be more important than a man capable of what KP did. Because, in the history of county cricket, only five people, is it, have scored more?
A Matter of Integrity
10. The Graves Delusion – The press statement issued on Friday was eerily similar to some that had gone before. We had questioned his integrity, and that no guarantees had been offered. We hadn’t really questioned the first, and no-one I know thought the second. The statement showed that in the 15 months since Paul Downton released the infamous “outside cricket” press release, one which raised barely a murmur among our stalwarts in the press at the time (some have woken up, most notably the Editor of Wisden), the ECB have learned nothing. They remain distant, aloof, dismissive, arrogant and supercilious in the extreme. Graves has become the media lightning rod now, and each press man is taking it in turns to line him up now Clarke is out of the way – how tremendously brave of you – either for betraying KP (which he was only a part of) or for opening the whole thing up again “needlessly” which he did, and for which many applauded him for reverting the policy, we thought, to picking on merit.
So, not a lot, eh? I’ll be back on line possibly tomorrow, although I’ll be getting over whatever jet lag I get, or Friday. We’ll have the usual posts up for comments on the game on Thursday, and until then, I’d like to thank all of you for saving me a ton of money by giving me much to read and not going out as often to drink such rot as Miller Lite. It has been a tumultuous 21 days.
It’s been quite striking the last couple of days how those who adore the establishment that is the ECB have adopted a “move on, nothing to see here” approach. As usual, they do not answer the questions or objections that have been levelled by the hoi polloi, but instead repeat the same old lines about it being about the future, and that for undisclosed reasons, this is the right decision, and indeed the only decision.
Strauss should be trusted to do the right thing, Colin Graves is an honourable man and certainly didn’t intend to mislead, and we all know what Kevin Pietersen was guilty of (I can’t tell you though) and therefore deserves everything he got.
It’s nonsense though.
Colin Graves’ self-serving statement did nothing but use the lawyer technique of picking something no-one had accused him of, and denying it strongly. No one ever claimed Pietersen had been guaranteed a place. No one. Not Pietersen himself, nor anyone else. Claiming that private conversations had been talked about in the press deliberately ignored his own public statements which no matter how the apologists try and squirm, were absolutely clear and repeated on more than one occasion. It was in any case more than slightly hypocritical given the BBC announced the outcome of the Pietersen/Strauss/Harrison meeting within minutes of it being over. Since then we’ve had reports that Pietersen went out “in a blaze of glory” shouting expletives at the other two. Since there were only three of them present, that means that if true, the information has come from either Strauss or Harrison – probably via a third party who likes to pass this on. It’s a matter of trust you see.
Ian Bell’s press conference statements appear to have been largely glossed over. But they are important because of who it was saying it, and what he said. One of the constant refrains in the whole affair has been about what the players think about it all. But the players won’t think about it overly because they will be thinking about themselves. For the batsmen, no Pietersen means that they are just a little bit more secure in their position. All players will first and foremost be interested in themselves and their own careers. Bell was telling the absolute truth when he said they didn’t think about it much when they were in the West Indies and nor should they either. Very few people in any walk of life are prepared to put their heads above the parapet for another, they prefer to keep their heads down, focus on themselves and hope it doesn’t happen to them. That’s why the ECB got away with it initially – not because of some overwhelming support in the dressing room, which seems to amount to two or three players, but because the others would not stand up and object when it risked their own position and own careers. It’s not malicious, it’s simply human nature.
Yet what Bell said contradicted so much of the ECB line. He didn’t come out firing, he quietly and firmly had his say and deserves credit for doing so. Much was made of his backing for Strauss in his new role, but again this should come as a surprise to no-one. Players will accept the hierarchy in which they work because they can’t individually change it, and the public comments will always be in favour, no matter what their private feelings. Yet there’s no reason to doubt that Bell absolutely meant it, because the players – especially the senior ones – will want stability. The problem is that the behaviour of the ECB does just the opposite, and that has been the criticism all along. Ignoring the rest of what Bell said, which runs so counter to the official line, simply reinforces the dim view taken of the way the ECB conduct themselves.
As much as the press obsess over Pietersen, they continue to miss the point about the whole matter and simply store up the resentment and indeed the story for later. The termination of Pietersen’s chances does not provide closure on the whole affair; it might do to an extent were England to carry all before them this summer, because as much as it might fester amongst the supporters, it gives the press something different to write about, and the lack of trust amongst the supporters that has been so vocally put forward would reduced to a rumble. That’s still damaging, especially when they don’t buy tickets, but it wouldn’t be front and centre in the media. That is unlikely and there is the distinct possibility the summer could be a complete cricketing calamity. If that were to transpire, every single one of these issues is going to be highly visible once again. The fundamental point the ECB cannot address, no matter how much they try and obfuscate, is that their new policy is not one of selecting the best players on cricketing merit. And that means should England lose Tests, the same questions will be put to them, as to whether England would be a better team if Pietersen were in it. They’ve managed to turn the whole issue of a single player into a fundamental question of how they operate, in which Pietersen is simply the catalyst for questioning that approach. At some point a player will step out of line. They don’t dare drop him without inviting the same opprobrium.
The same applies to the question of who they will appoint as coach. There have been enough indications that at best Gillespie is uncertain whether he would want to take a role where the Director, Cricket (that writing that title is in itself an instance of sarcasm demonstrates their problem) has already decided who can’t be picked and who is captain with no input or apparent authority from that coach means that there is the distinct possibility that the most able candidates will rule themselves out. And if that happens, and we are left with another Peter Moores – presumably whoever gets it is at most the second best coach of his generation – then they have indeed sacrificed the England cricket team’s ability to succeed on the altar of their dislike of Pietersen. This is a critical point, which has not been directly addressed in the discussion around the whole debacle. If the unqualified removal of Pietersen from consideration results directly in being unable to engage a coach of the highest quality, that is not acting in the interests of the England team, and undermines the repeated claims to be acting in the medium to long term.
With the gift for timing that we have come to expect from the ECB, Tom Harrison chose this week of all weeks to effectively kill off the prospects of cricket appearing on free to air television:
“Sky have been a great partner for English cricket, going forward, we need to be very careful about the way in which this argument is understood. Is there a role for terrestrial television post the current deal with Sky. Terrestrial is becoming, frankly, less relevant every single year in the context of how people consume media. I don’t think we solve all our participation concerns by terrestrial television.”
Again, it’s using an argument advanced by absolutely no-one to defend the actions of the ECB. No one has ever claimed putting cricket on free to air solves all problems, but it doesn’t mean for a second that at least some on there wouldn’t help. All comparable sports make the effort to put some of their output on terrestrial TV, even those who took the Sky shilling long ago like rugby league. Most sports try to ensure there is a balance – the money from Sky is undoubtedly important, but so is exposure on as wide a platform as possible.
Everyone is aware that consumption of audio visual output has changed and will continue to change over the years ahead, but failing to take into account how people discover the game is potentially crippling. Cricket tragics will tend to eventually pay up if they can so they can watch. The casual viewer will not, unless they are already interested in other sports and the bundling of content gives them cricket they would not specifically pay for. Yet the ECB consistently tries to ignore the wider issue in favour of re-writing history. Colin Graves – a man of integrity so he claims vociferously said:
“It would be nice to have some cricket on terrestrial television but the problem we have got is terrestrial television does not want cricket. It certainly does not want Test cricket. We have to get best of all worlds, but if terrestrial broadcasters don’t want cricket, then what can you do?”
This misses the point and is completely disingenous. It is hardly surprising terrestrial broadcasters are uninterested when it is abundantly clear that they have no prospect whatever of winning a contract to show it. Why should they invest time and effort in thinking about where they could fit it into their schedules when they know perfectly well they have no chance and that the ECB will go with the highest bidder – which will be Sky unless BT Sport decide to jump in. If the ECB were to state that they wanted Test cricket on terrestrial television and then no broadcaster showed an interest, then they could claim that. Unless that happens it’s simply more mendacity from an organisation that seems to find telling the truth challenging in all circumstances.
The argument has been made that young people consume their media in other ways than television these days. That is true, but whether via X-Box, Playstation, iPad (other tablets are available – they really are) or anything else comparable, you still need that Sky subscription to watch it. Unless you access illegal streams. One would presume the ECB are not advocating that approach.
In any case, it pre-supposes an existing interest. This does not happen by default, in order to develop an interest in a sport initially there must be some kind of exposure to it. That may be from a parent, in which case all is well because that parent may imbue the child with the enthusiasm for the sport, but what if the parent hasn’t the finance or the interest in cricket in the first place? The child will never casually come across cricket if the household does not have Sky Sports, and the idea that media output from the ECB will compensate for that is nonsensical – only those with an established interest will seek it out.
Cricket has become a niche sport, and the focus of the ECB’s response to criticism has been in terms of the England team. But that is not their whole role in cricket, they are responsible for it at all levels. The loss of cricket in schools has to some extent been offset by the clubs who have made astonishing efforts to drive interest; indeed the clubs have been instrumental in taking cricket into schools themselves. As much as the ECB like to congratulate themselves for that, much of the funding comes from Sport England, who have expressed serious concerns about the decline in participation and warned their funding cannot be taken for granted, and most of the effort comes from people down at club and village level, who despair of where the next generation of cricketers will come from unless they do it themselves.
Cricket Australia have taken a fundamentally different approach. The media position there is not radically different to the UK – and the point about youth televisual consumption is identical to here. CA insist on cricket being free to air, and even take out advertisments promoting the game on Australian television. By the ECB insisting their approach is the only one for the UK, they are directly saying that the Australian one is not the way. There might be differences in the structure of TV between the two countries, but they are not so vast a comparison cannot be made.
Whether it be on the continuing fall out from the Pietersen omnishambles, the question of the coach, the matter of Alastair Cook being affirmed as England captain, or the subject of cricket on television, it is possible the ECB are right, and others wrong. And in the last case, I would dearly like to be wrong.
Trouble is, I fear I’m not wrong at all.
UPDATE: Since this post was originally put up, the press have released articles concerning what Stuart Broad said about Pietersen. Essentially it amounts to saying he’d have no objection to Pietersen playing, that the differences between them have been exaggerated, and perhaps most tellingly that he’s not spoken to anyone above him in the ECB about it. Can anyone find anyone else in the England team apart from Cook who has a problem with him? Because it seems to be narrowing the field by the day.
Oliver Holt has spoken. The Lord High Priest of Sports Journalism has given his view, and you, you vile proles, are not worthy. You have made him leave the glory of European football, the wonder of Masters Golf, the joy of worthwhile world sporting events, to make him comment on cricket before an Ashes series. And he’s told you to pipe down.
Here endeth the blog. Holt has put me in my place.
So, yes, it is easy to pick holes in Strauss’s decision on Pietersen. It is easy to say blithely that we should always pick our best players irrespective of whatever they may have done or the way they are regarded by team-mates.
It is easy to ridicule Strauss, but the hard fact is that mocking him is a simplistic way out of a complex, regrettable situation. The knee-jerk reaction may be to say he got it horribly wrong. Cold analysis suggests he probably got it right.
English cricket is in a mess at the moment. Everyone can see that. But it is entirely possible that if Strauss had brought Pietersen back, it would be in an even bigger mess.
Stories circulated last week that Alastair Cook would have quit as England captain if Pietersen had been recalled. Strauss hinted in a briefing with Sunday newspapers at Lord’s that others would have considered their futures, too. If KP came back, the England cricket team would have split in two.
Quite why anybody is surprised by that is a mystery. It is not long ago that KP accused Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson of presiding over a bullying culture in the England team. Bullying is an emotive subject. It’s not something you level at someone lightly. ‘It’s an awful word to use,’ Broad told me in Melbourne when we discussed the subject during the World Cup. Anderson and Broad have not simply forgotten it.
I was blind, but now I see. Once Holt pronounces, that is it. The end of the matter. The Supreme Court of sport opinion has now spoken.
You know when there is trouble ahead. When an ECB press statement is delayed is a pretty decent indication that this one is a bit tricky. The last time one of these was delayed like this we got the gems of outside cricket and the moaning from the ECB that someone else was leaking. So we expected something interesting…
And they delivered with something so totally “lawyered up” that a new remake of LA Law was interested in it for a script.
I would like to start my stewardship of the ECB looking forward to next week’s Investec Test series against New Zealand and the Ashes later in the summer.
That’s very nice. I mean, you could say that if you’d been hiding in Paul Downton’s cupboard at Lord’s, but this takes wishful thinking a bit far.
But first there’s another point I want to address.
Ooooh. I wonder what that could be. If it’s what I’m thinking it might be, “want” might be a strong word.
Clearly, the question of whether Kevin Pietersen will play for England again has been a debate for media and cricket fans alike.
Er. Yes. Arguably you re-created the debate in a move welcomed by many. The odd concept that teams being picked on merit, good performance rewarded, clean slates and all that. I mean, we are debating whether these are good things, which seems odd to me, but it takes all sorts…
I understand why people feel it’s important. So I’ll tell you what I said to the First Class County Chairmen, at yesterday’s AGM, and our people across the ECB this morning, on my first full day as Chairman.
I understand why people might be a ickle bit cheesed off that our top run scorer was dumped without a reason given, and that for a year or so we’ve been chasing for an explanation as to why meritocracy takes second place to personal feelings, and despite what that two bob muppet Pringle says, we aren’t fairweather fans but passionate supporters of our team. That’s our team, not the ECB’s. So do tell me.
In the past few days my integrity has been called into question, something I can’t accept. Throughout my business career and my years at Yorkshire, integrity has been my watchword. It governs everything I do and is an important part of what I bring to the ECB.
You’ve not just joined the ECB, Graves. You were part of the gang who instigated this. So when you ease the position on his potential for selection, as you evidently did despite some less than convincing denials, we, and KP took note. So don’t try the “aww shucks, I’m new to this nonsense”. Now if you are bringing integrity into it, say what you said to KP on those phone calls. Admit you had them and say what you said. Then we won’t think of questioning your watchword.
So it saddens me that what was a private conversation with Kevin in March has been used to do just that.
What did you say? You said in private that there was a “clean slate” (you’ve not denied it) and now you are getting pissy because someone who might have relied upon it has used it to defend their position? Are these people for real? Don’t insult me with this faux naivety, Graves.
Back then, when we talked on the phone, Kevin asked if I thought his England career had ended in the right manner following the last Ashes series in Australia. I agreed that nobody particularly emerged with much credit from the whole episode, particularly given his achievements for England.
So, saddened as he was with private conversations being made public, he’s making some of it public. Note also that those who did not emerge with much credit, such as Flower, A and Cook, A are both still well entrenched and enjoy the full backing of the ECB. There’s not much credit going round, but they kept some.
Kevin felt he had a lot to offer and was interested in a dialogue with the ECB, sorting things out and working together. He would love to play for England again but he wanted to contribute, whether as a player or not.
Chairman of ECB indicating KP’s not a purely selfish pig. The zealots on the other side won’t be pleased, but this is all puffery. Did you say he had a clean slate, Colin? This stuff matters. It’s the key accusation against you old son, and you know it. So stop pretending.
I didn’t make any promises. There were no guarantees that if he chose to exit his IPL contract, play County cricket and score runs he would be selected for England. And I said he should make any decision on his future on that basis.
Deny an accusation that wasn’t made. Colin, this should not fool anyone with half a brain. He never sought guarantess for selection. He sought a clean slate. He sought an indication that he wasn’t wasting his time giving up a still lucrative IPL contract to play county cricket because he had a chance. Come on now. Stop letting the lawyers write this, you bluff, gruff, Yorkie.
I can see something has been misunderstood around the conversation and in the following debate – and perhaps how that happened.
You told him it was a clean slate. And it wasn’t. Ooooops. Someone cocked up. Probably you.
What I did stress was that when I took over as chairman I would back those people whose job it was to take decisions on team selection. I stand by that.
That’s very nice, but if you told them it was a clean slate, as leader of that organisation, they would have to listen or they would be out of jobs. Also, Andrew Strauss took the decision and he confirmed that he isn’t a selector, if we’re going to get all strictly legal on this. Also, you are his boss too. I don’t know, but I don’t reckon Giles Clarke gave a stuff about his underlings’ sensitivities, given he is supposedly one of the key drivers for KP’s exclusion and made it a key part, along with Downton (miss him) in the selection of a new Coach for England last year.
Ahead of a big, busy summer of cricket, a clear decision needed to be taken. Given the history and the book, the simple fact is that bridges have still not been rebuilt and trust needs to be restored.
Details, details. Still not there. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. What history are we talking about now and can you perhaps shed some light on it? The book was post-sacking so we can’t be using that as a reason for the original decision. You were there Colin, in post as Deputy Chairman, weren’t you? Were you dozing at the time? Were you on “Integrity Watch”? As for the trust, well, we’ve been down that road. Trust = Alastair Cook veto. Allegedly.
That takes time – as Andrew Strauss made clear this week.
The time it takes to lose an Ashes series and see KP sod off. Andrew Strauss is talking nonsense.
Kevin was told on Monday and I completely support the decision that was taken. He may not have liked what he heard but it allowed him to look at his opportunities.
A bit late for that. You had 355 reasons why your strategy has gone per-shaped. As for the last part of this particular sentence, he and his lawyers have to be taking the piss. He gave up a ton of money because of you. Don’t you dare say this allows him some freedom. This was a stitch up from the start. Whether you meant to lie to him is neither here nor there. You’ve not denied the key allegation, that KP took it from you that there was a clean slate, one made by Alec Stewart as well, so we’ll take that as truth. So don’t go acting as if you’ve done him a favour now by trashing what he thought he might have a chance, that’s all, a chance, at.
Despite everything, he can work with us to re-build the relationship and make a further contribution to English cricket. It was important he knew where he stood.
Hey, despite the fact we’ve led him up the garden path, leaked against him on many occasions, briefed against him, had the press slag him off, encouraged him to play county cricket and made runs, we can still trust him in the future. Jesus, do these people ever listen to themselves? Is anyone buying this drivel. KP’s no saint, I know that, but the last part of this statement is a kick in the teeth, He thought he knew where he stood in March. He acted on that. Did no-one think to tell him “no” then? When he gave up his IPL contract? You certainly don’t appear to have, Colin. That’s integrity if you are relying on your statements now.
Of course, I would like us to move forward and concentrate on the important matter of winning cricket matches. I don’t want to add any more or go deeper into private conversations.
Of course you would. Look over there. News for you mate. They tried that last year and won a test series as well. How did that work out? Of course you don’t want to go deeper into private conversations because you would be Donald Ducked if we did, and you know they will. I wish you luck if you stick to this line, Colin, because you will be shark-bait.
I want to look to the future. I’m excited by the England team that is evolving and I look forward to giving them my full support this week.
It is time to have an honest conversation about thelegglance. After Wednesday morning, with his blogging equivalent of a 355 not out under his belt with his post A Matter of Life And Trust, it was decided, unanimously, by the blog board, that he would no longer be retained by Being Outside Cricket. I cannot trust him not to overshadow me again, and he’s also upset my support staff, Armand the Rubber Duck, and my border collie (although I’ve not asked him yet, being in a different country and all that) and have decided that in the short term, Being Outside Cricket will move forward with a fresh and exciting skipper at the helm (me). HE IS NOT BANNED. DEFINITELY NOT. We’ll see, if he agrees to be utter crap in future, whether we can get that trust back. Until then, he can get on a plane to Dubai and write for The Full Toss for all I care. I just want the best for Being Outside Cricket, as long as they aren’t more talented than me.
Seriously, my thanks to Vian for the post. It meant I didn’t have to write much the same thing, but in a much less focused manner, and it was one of the best posts I’ve read anywhere. I’m biased, but as he knows, when we had that legendary Krusovice evening that I’d wanted him to come on board, and knew what an asset he’d be. He just better not do it too often!!!!
I thought I’d do a little bit on some of the side issues. I listened to the two podcasts on Tuesday night. The Switch Hit was interesting principally for David Hopps nailing the Alastair Cook issue. I hear many times that “no-one dislikes Cook” when there is a growing element that do. Hatred is too strong a word for me. When he said that the continued, repeated backing made Cook sound entitled, you could have heard the cheer from my mother-in-law’s kitchen. He got it. He actually got it. The rest of the podcast was a bit nondescript to me, missing a Butcher or a Dobell, and Jarrod went a bit OTT. But it got a damn sight nearer to the points we are making than most.
Then came the TMS podcast, weighing in at a brutal one hour and 45 minutes. At the end of it I felt thoroughly crushed. What the hell has happened to Phil Tufnell? He’s about as rebellious as Marks & Spencer. Is it too simple to ascribe his views to becoming a paid-up member of the Middlesex Mafia? “When I did wrong, at least I said sorry” he said. Phil Tufnell was a rebel who on his day, and I was there for one of them, was a brilliant bowler. He was a maverick. He didn’t seem to do well with authority. What possesses him to side against someone you would think was in his sort of field? I was surprised how willing he was to side with the authorities.
Jonathan Agnew was blaming it all on Graves. At the time Colin Graves reached out to KP, England were performing appallingly in the World Cup. Downton was a dead man walking. There, presumably, was no fixed thoughts on the way forward and who would be the new personnel. Moores was also probably a dead man walking, because I’m not 100% convinced this was a Strauss decision in its entirety, much as the KP one wasn’t either, in my view. He may have been too hasty, but lord, he thought he was dealing with adults, not children. Now he’s in a hell of a spot, probably, again as a mere “guess” because I don’t believe Giles Clarke is going to be a silent partner, but a very influential back seat driver (I must find where he was referenced in the decision making process) who has made sure, before he left that KP wasn’t getting back. (It wasn’t the book, I think, on that, but when KP listed who needed to go before he got back – Downton, Moores and Clarke). Agnew did admit that KP is entitled to feel let down, but that it was Graves’s promise, not Strauss’ nonsense that was the problem.
The other point that Jonathan made was one that’s really itching at me. He said that he speaks to other players in the team who feel that the support isn’t there for them from the fans. Instead of really focusing why, Jonathan seemed to be exhorting us to get behind the lads. I’ve heard the same from George Dobell, put in a slightly different way. The fact is that this is down, fairly and squarely to the ECB. I understand those people I see on Twitter who say the team matters more than any individual, and certainly more than any organisation. I understand, but I do not agree. I’m at an age where I’ve been taken the mickey out of enough by authorities to know they don’t care about me. If I disagree with them, I will tell them, and I will fight and get angry if needs be. The ECB couldn’t give a stuff whether I support them or not. They’ve shown that by their attitude to those of us “outside cricket”. Those who don’t care about that, fair enough. I think you are wrong not to.
The ECB sacked one of their best players in February 2014. They did not tell us why. They clearly believed over a short period of time we’d die down. They were wrong. They thought that a decent test series win against India would calm it down. They were wrong. They thought that the silent treatment of the book would mean the England community would turn against KP, but they were wrong. They thought that he might be permanently finished as a player on the basis of a poor T20 Blast season and a disappointing IPL. They were wrong. They have one hope left. That time will calm us down. 16 months on, and with the events of Tuesday, there’s absolutely no sign of that.
The Cook issue is for another post, but Jonathan ought to realise how much many of the angry brigade don’t like the way he’s been reinforced at every turn, and now, it seems, having a veto on selection. It’s hard to pull for a team, even with really exciting players like Buttler and Root, and really promising talent like Ballance, Stokes, Jordan and Moeen, when their positive results keep Cook in his position. I can’t betray my feelings, Jonathan. I really can’t.
Like so many others, the activities of the last couple of days have left me in despair about cricket in England. That the ECB can invoke a question of trust in their carefully rehearsed PR speak was roundly met with hollow laughs amongst professionals, amateurs and supporters alike. So much of the focus has been on Kevin Pietersen for obvious reasons, yet the ECB will be perversely pleased by that, because it avoids the wider questions and the wider problems.
That Pietersen has been treated dreadfully is a given even amongst those who are not remotely his fans – and let’s nail this particular straw man argument right here, there are a tiny number of people who are proper, out and out Pietersen fans. Most of the others are England fans who may or may not think the side would be better with him in it, but believe a team should be selected from its best players, and who know a stitch up when they see one.
There is no doubt at all that Graves told him it was a clean slate, not just from his public pronouncements, but in two phone calls. Pietersen responded to that by giving up his IPL contract to come and play county cricket. He did what was asked of him. Pietersen might be wealthy, but making someone give up a contract worth hundreds of thousands is not a small matter. There have been some comments that Graves is just one person and that no guarantees were given. This is sophistry of the highest order. That one person is the incoming chairman of the ECB, and Pietersen trusted what he said. More than that, if he has gone out on a limb then there was plenty of opportunity for the likes of Tom Harrison to talk to him and tell him that was not ECB policy. He didn’t do so.
Let’s call this what it is – a lie. They lied to him, an action of both commission and omission. Pietersen might be a controversial figure, but he did not and does not deserve that. At no point yesterday has there been so much as a hint of an apology for that. That is outrageous behaviour. Whataboutery concerning Pietersen is not the issue at hand here – it wasn’t him that kept banging on about trust. The ECB are the organisation comprised of people that promptly leaked the outcome of Pietersen’s meeting with Strauss and Harrison minutes after it happened, the organisation on whose watch the coach Peter Moores found out he was being sacked via the media before they’d bothered to tell him (leaks or otherwise is irrelevant to this – it’s what happened), who backed Alastair Cook vocally two days before sacking him as ODI captain, who allowed a private memo from the England captain in 2009 to leak to the press. What Pietersen has or has not done over the years does not for a single second justify any of this. To talk about trust is a sick joke.
Nasser Hussain tried to make the point that trust has to go both ways, and Strauss’s response that he isn’t blaming anyone for the breakdown of it simply isn’t good enough. He can refuse to talk about where Pietersen is at fault, that’s his prerogative, but he cannot avoid the complicity of the ECB, the organisation he works for. Tom Harrison apologised to Peter Moores for how he found out about his sacking. An apology to Kevin Pietersen for being led up the garden path is the very minimum that is needed.
It’s not going to happen of course. The arrogance of the ECB knows no limits. Over a year later they still haven’t addressed the realities of the “Outside Cricket” jibe and the utter contempt that signified for those who buy tickets and play the game. And here is the fundamental question of trust as it really is, not as the ECB would like it to be. There is none for the ECB. The way Pietersen has been treated – and indeed the way Moores was treated – are indicative of an organisation that considers human beings to be commodities and nothing more. Losing the trust of individuals barely scratches at the surface of the problem, because despite the ECB’s apparent belief, the public are not stupid. They can see how this translates into a wider lack of interest or concern for anyone that doesn’t fit into their narrow field of vision.
The media response has been fairly predictable in the way it has gone down the usual lines. What the ones who loathe Pietersen fail to understand is that it is not about that, it is entirely within their rights to despise him and not want him anywhere near the England team while at the same time recognising that the ECB have behaved poorly. The inability of some of them to see things through anything other than a Pietersen prism is the reason they attract such contempt. If Pietersen is a side show to the wider issue, then deal with the wider issue. Being an apologist for awful ECB conduct is not journalism, it is cheerleading. Let’s put it a different way, if it was someone other than Pietersen who was the central player in the drama, would there be such fawning coverage of the ECB itself? This goes to the crux of the matter, because if not, then it means that they need to ask themselves about the job they are doing – their loathing of Pietersen is blinding them to what are far more important questions.
It is abundantly clear Pietersen is not coming back. So given that, it raises a whole series more questions about where we go from here.
The first thing that Strauss and Harrison talked about was the plan for 2019. In itself, this is hardly surprising – all new arrivals give themselves a nebulous target some time in the distant future, usually when they’re fairly certain the near term is going to be catastrophic and don’t want to be blamed for it. But there are a couple of things about that. By focusing so relentlessly on it, they invite ridicule that it’s tantamount to a Soviet Five Year Plan that was simply replaced by another Five Year Plan when the previous one went wrong. In one day cricket, England cleared the decks for the World Cup, moved the Ashes with spectacular – in one sense anyway – results. Yet now they are telling us not to worry, there’s another new plan coming along, and this one will be a belter.
Ah, but we should trust them we are told. Why? For what reason should we trust these people who have made a monumental mess of everything they have touched. Trust needs to be earned, as Strauss himself banged on about with that terrified look in his eye, but he apparently again didn’t grasp that the horrible masses don’t believe him.
It’s nothing more than a permanent offer of jam tomorrow. That can work for a bit, yet they drew much greater attention to it by self-evidently rejecting a player who might be of value in the here and now. Anyone over the age of about 15 can remember rotten England teams, but it’s been a fair while since having a weakened side was specific policy.
The Ashes this summer are not sold out. It’s not disastrously so, but it’s not brilliant either. Next summer we have Sri Lanka (again – though doubtless they’ll compensate for that by not playing them again until about 2030) and Pakistan. If ticket sales are struggling for this year, what on earth is going to be like next year? The blasé talk about what happens in four years time is surely not a deliberate writing off of the near term, but once again it does give the impression of it, which is exceptionally clumsy, even if not intended. Those who have bought tickets are perfectly entitled to ask what the point of going is if the current team is not the focus. It can’t especially cheer up the players either.
Buried in the detail was the sacking of Ian Bell as vice captain and Stuart Broad as T20 captain. Poor Bell. He seems to be the favoured whipping boy, there’s no question that he has been briefed against – when Cook’s position came under scrutiny for captaincy (not exactly a rare event) there were a slew of articles talking about how badly Bell had done in team building events to make it clear he wasn’t a viable alternative. This is a minor matter in relative terms, but once again a player suffers in certain media quarters when the status quo is under threat. Broad’s removal as T20 captain is less surprising in itself, but replacing him with Eoin Morgan perhaps is, given his recent troubles. Broad might wonder quite how he has been booted while the Test captain is so strongly backed.
As for Cook himself, although at first sight it seems he’s been thoroughly backed, in reality he’s already been given notice on his captaincy. The appointment of Root as his second in command is the first time the ECB have deliberately chosen someone who they feel (the “they” is important here) can take over. The ECB are plainly not optimistic about this summer, and Cook now appears to be in place as a firebreak for when it all goes horribly wrong. Not remotely the first time they’ve used this tactic, and whatever the opinions on Cook, it seems quite likely he is the next sacrificial lamb. What that does suggest though, is that the Ashes themselves are not regarded as the priority. It may also just be dawning on Cook that if he doesn’t win this summer, he’s probably out (it is the ECB of course. So they could decide to grant him life tenure – funny how we don’t trust them…), and therefore if Vaughan is right and Cook said he would resign if Pietersen was recalled, then he’s signed his own death warrant by refusing to include a player who might give them a better chance, and thus him a better chance of keeping the captaincy.
And then we come to the question of the coach. The sacking of Moores was nothing other than a panic response. That he shouldn’t have been appointed in the first place doesn’t alter the truth that Moores had a point when he complained he hadn’t been given enough time. Although you could equally argue he’d had far too much time given the results were pretty dire, if you are going to appoint a coach with a brief to build a new team, and then sack him a year later when the said new team doesn’t do too well then you’ve sold him a pup.
Both Strauss and Harrison responded to questions about Jason Gillespie by saying that he is certainly one of those they will want to talk to. In ECB speak, this is tantamount to openly saying he hasn’t got a prayer, because the front runner never seems to get the job with them.
The Pietersen affair has rightly re-opened the question as to what sort of coach will take on a role where certain players are denied to them through policy. It may well be the case that Gillespie wouldn’t want Pietersen anywhere near the team, but there has to be significant risk that he will feel having that principle enforced at a level above him will be considered an interference in his ability to do his job. There remains the feeling that the lack of high profile coaches applying last time was directly related to interference in team selection. And here’s the rub – if by their actions against Pietersen they have limited their ability to obtain the best coach, that is a far wider impact than a single player, and a direct failure on the part of the ECB to do their job. This has already happened with the choice of Director, Cricket (I wonder how much it cost to have the consultants decide on that format?) where Vaughan hinted, and Stewart openly stated, that they would want to select from all players. Repeating this with the coach is an abrogation of their responsibilities to English cricket to play the best team, with the best support staff, to give them the best chance of winning.
The ECB have tried to pretend the Pietersen omnishambles is a discrete issue. It isn’t, it pervades everything they are doing and everything they have done. The consequences of it are ongoing and extremely deep. If high quality coaches are uninterested in the England job because of how they’ve dealt with Pietersen, that is appalling mismanagement not of a single player, but of the entire England structure.
The question must be posed, what is the ECB actually for? If it is a governing body of cricket domestically, then their lack of interest in the game below the exalted professional level is a savage indictment of them not doing their job in any way. Participation levels have dropped, viewing figures for England on Sky are now lower than they are for darts. There are huge swathes of supporters disaffected and disillusioned. Ed Smith’s ridiculous attempt to claim that all those NOT using social media are silently delighted with the ECB merely reinforces the cosy image of those Inside Cricket, talking amongst themselves. They don’t see the anger, and are taken aback by it, because they don’t understand why. The ECB hierarchy see the world through the prism of their own experiences, while the media have absolutely no idea whatever about the supporters and their world. When did any of the journalists last queue for 90 minutes to get a beer? When did they last find themselves squeezed into a tiny seat with inadequate legroom? When did they discover that lunchtime is a terrible time to try and get some food at a Test?
They have no idea about any of this, because it’s not part of their world. The reaction to the Pietersen debacle is one of puzzlement as much as anything else – the confusion of people for whom the masses might as well be speaking a different language. There is simply no doubt the ECB have succeeded in keeping the bulk of the cricket press onside, while at the same time driving a huge wedge between them and the wider cricketing public. Bloggers, commenters and tweeters might not be representative of the wider public (although they might well be too), but they are extremely important for one reason alone – they tend to be the kind who care sufficiently to consider buying tickets. How many bilious inadequates not attending does it take to become noticeable? One for you to work out Ed.
It’s a matter of trust we are told. There is none. And the worst part of it is, they don’t even realise why it is, or what they’ve done wrong. That’s why there are some English cricket fans actively hoping for Australia to hammer England this summer. Think about that. That’s the ECB legacy. Well done chaps.
Being Outside Cricket 