Debating The Data Later

The first interview granted by Peter Moores was to George Dobell on Cricinfo. The text of it you would have read by now (well most of you would have). This piece is written on the tablet, with not so much ability to cross-refer and post links. I have limited time and ability with the tools at my disposal to do a thorough job. But I thought I should post some initial reactions.

“Peter Moores, the head coach at Lancashire should succeed Andy Flower, of that I have no doubt. Were I Paul Downton, I would scan the list of contenders – some self-promoted, others having hats thrown into the ring by third parties – and then I would get in touch with the man who is not only arguably the most accomplished coach in the county system but one of the best in the world, whose skill deserves to be on the international stage” – Mike Selvey (12 Feb 2014)

“I have to accept that my time as England coach has gone. But Iam frustrated. The portrayal of me as a coach in the media is just wrong. If people said “I don’t rate you as a coach” then fine. But when it’s not what you are, it’s really frustrating.” – Peter Moores (interview with George Dobell) (22 June 2015)

George Dobell’s interview is fascinating, but I found it frustrating. Peter Moores, despite grave reservations from this parish and others was allowed to have a go at a job he failed in before. The portrayal of him as a coach hasn’t really changed and it has little to do with his use or otherwise of data. That’s a point he is zeroing in on the BBC for and he is abjectly wrong to do so. He’s using it is as a fig leaf. I don’t really care that Nathan Leamon nearly went home because he wasn’t being used enough (that sounds an interesting conversation, me being a former scorer and all that), or over the slip or otherwise about looking at the data. Peter Moores first obstacle was that he had failed before. Ordinary rebuilding would not have done, it had to be better. His second problem is that he is English, and I find it hard to believe a man from these isles can be a long-term successful coach. His third problem was that he was English and did not play international cricket. Lots of egos had to be checked at the door for that to work, and given what we are reading from those not in that inner sanctum, those egos ran amok. Fourthly, he accepted the job with the strings attached, and although tied to Downton through that infamous “best coach of his generation” statement, it was his acceptance of the KP ban that immediately set a good number of people against his appointment.

None of us are denying he’s a good bloke who treated his players with great respect and attention. Try going to a job interview though and say that I should get the job even if results err on the disappointing side, I blew the World Cup, but the players like me. It’s a results business, and it’s a perception business. Moores is not, in my eyes, hooked to the data quote, but to, as one person said to me “an alarming inability to get his point across”. No-one I know perceives Peter Moores as robotic, something he thinks he’s thought of. Many believe he’s a management speak man, a safe company appointment, a man not to ruffle feathers. Most of us, when he was appointed, when Selvey was blowing smoke up his arse, thought “er, wow. That’s an interesting one. He was a failure. Good luck with that.” I’ll bet a number of senior pros thought the same.

Interesting to in this interview are the copious mentions of the BBC apologising for the “data/later” issue, but nothing about Sky saying it (other than George’s mention) and the later role Sky (and one member of their team in particular who, if not the conduit, has a fair number of fingers pointing at him as being so) had in the disgrace that was the handling of his dismissal. No, it seemed, from my purely guesswork point of view that Moores refusal to speak about his dismissal by the ECB is either (a) the ECB showing their usual sensitivity and not allowing it and/or (b) Peter Moores wish to work for them again. Yet again, another dismissal, another cock-up by the ECB, shrouded in secrecy and mistrust. Yeah, just a bunch of KP fanboys, us.

Peter Moores, in my view, gave the authorities the chance to sack him because of the World Cup. When Strauss moved in as supremo, it was clear that the rumours of Jazzer not rating him were true. Strauss then took the decision to fire him because he wanted one man in the job, but at ODI level, Moores was hopeless. Whether Strauss fit the reason to sack Moores, or Moores was going to be sacked due to it seems the point. It had, in my view, naff all to do with Moores’ perception or otherwise. Attacking the BBC is a fig leaf. A comfort blanket.

I didn’t go in hard on Moores. He did what we’d probably all do if we were him and in the position he was in. He was Downton’s appointment and that never helped. But don’t mythologise him. I love the bit where “he made Swann England’s number one spinner”. Well yes, just. Swann played the role inhabited by Blackwell, Dawson, Udal, Swann and Tredwell, as being the second spinner selected on a tour – Swann behind Monty. Unlike the others he out-performed Monty. But let’s not go mad about it, eh? Moores being credited for Joe Root also seems a little odd. Sure, he’s come on a bundle in the recent tests, but let’s see him up against top notch stuff this summer?

Moores is a genuinely decent guy who had a bad thing happen to him. His interview is not the worst of its type, but leave off the I deserved longer schtick. You may well get the plaudits later on in life, but for now, the ODI team’s performance without you at the helm speaks volumes, Peter. It’s pretty damning. It may not have been all your fault, but you cannot be surprised.

Read George Dobell’s interview on cricinfo. Link to follow later.


62 thoughts on “Debating The Data Later

  1. SimonH Jun 23, 2015 / 12:40 pm

    “(b) Peter Moores wish to work for them again”.

    Moores quite explicitly is pitching for a job at Loughborough so of course he is going to pull any punches he might have thrown in the ECB’s direction:

    “Yes, I’d work for the ECB again. A role at Loughborough would be exciting. I love coaching and that would be working with the best players and coaches. Yes, it appeals”.


    • LordCanisLupus Jun 23, 2015 / 12:46 pm

      This was bashed out in short order and I knew Moores wasn’t burning bridges. Going back for more. ..


  2. Arron Wright Jun 23, 2015 / 1:00 pm

    I find the whole thing as absurd as Dave Tickner does. I find the reluctance to criticise the ECB *and Sky* particularly transparent and embarrassing.

    Paul flew away without leaving too much self-justifying guff in his wake. Now fly away Peter.


    • MM Jun 23, 2015 / 4:31 pm

      “Paul flew away without leaving too much self-justifying guff in his wake. Now fly away Peter”

      I like that, Arron – bang on the money. I read the interview. At the end, I knew I wasn’t getting those minutes back. Data/later/whatever. There’s money in them thar Loughborough hillocks, Peter.


  3. Benny Jun 23, 2015 / 1:10 pm

    Thought that interview didn’t tell us very much new. Would have been interesting if Moores had revealed why England failed so badly in WC. “great players don’t always play great cricket” isn’t much of an assessment.


    • "IronBalls" McGinty Jun 23, 2015 / 1:19 pm

      …but for them all to play shit cricket, all at the same time, has all got to be down, in my book, to Moores coaching ethos and strategy?


  4. Sherwick Jun 23, 2015 / 1:50 pm

    re. the Dobell article, I’ll take a look at it later. 🙂


  5. thelegglance Jun 23, 2015 / 2:05 pm

    The danger is conflating “Peter is a nice bloke” with what he did in his job. It’s understandable that when you’ve been fired you cling on to those saying nice things about you, and it’s equally understandable to think that if only you’d had more time it would have been much better. It’s pretty much human nature – who wants to admit to themselves that they’ve failed?

    I can also understand his focus on the BBC stuff, but he did say it on Sky, and to pretend otherwise is nonsensical. It might not be an accurate reflection of his tenure, but it’s still what he said. Likewise he came out with a stream of technobabble at every opportunity.

    I have sympathy for him on a human level, because it’s a blow to the ego whenever something like this happens – and most of us don’t have to go through it in public. The ECB are just disgusting for how they fired him, and it was interesting to read that Paul Downton also found out via the media. It’s not an error when it happens more than once.

    But Moores ran the side at the World Cup, he ran the side before the World Cup. For all the stuff about laying foundations, he didn’t play the players who could do what we saw against New Zealand. Let’s not forget it was Moores who spoke about Alex Hales being “found out”, Moores who chose Gary Ballance who hadn’t picked up a bat in months, Moores who left out the most economic bowler in the party only to then pick for the following Test. And so on and so on.

    Sympathy for the man, yes. Historical revisionism, no.

    Liked by 1 person

    • MM Jun 23, 2015 / 4:33 pm

      Yep, he deserved the boot. He didn’t deserve the cyberboot, or e-boot, or whatever it was. Total brainfarting cricket the minute the guy was re-employed.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Mark Jun 23, 2015 / 2:50 pm

    There is so much to says about this.

    First Dmitri, thanks for re printing Selveys crayon scriblings about why he thought Moores should be appointed. I wonder if he wrote that after being tipped off by his chums at the ECB that the appointment was already decided. Making Selvey look like a genius, albeit only for about a month. Now he looks like an idiot, along with all the other pro Downton luvies.

    Peter Moores should never have been reappointed coach. There was enough evidence and input from ex players and captains to say he was not up to the job. It smacked of a yes man appointment who would leave darling Cook alone. Nothing was to be done to upset darling Alastair. The irony being that he played a role in sacking Cook from the ODI side.

    Moores use of DATA was poor, as is his timing of this interview. Why the hell do you choose now, when England have just had a huge transformation and improvement in performance.? Nobody wants to hear from Moores right now. (Maybe that’s why he has done it)

    His singling out of The BBC should bother Agnew and his BBC chums. They are obviously not seen as very important in the cricket pecking order. Upsetting Sky and the ECB is obviously much more critical for your future career.

    I knew the World Cup was going to be a disaster from the start when we got all that guff about ground size and boundary distance statistics. If a ground has a 60 metre boundary the par score is this, and short bowling is the way to go. It was like a surveyors convention. All showing off their new shiny theodolites.

    At the beginning of the WI tour I saw a picture of all the players and backroom staff all sitting on the grass while the coach gave yet another long winded speech about gawd knows what. His final dismissal was in keeping with an employee who is not respected. He was a yes man appointment, and he was shown the door with the same amount of respect. Virtually none. The idea he would consider yet another job at the ECB means I have little respect for the man. FFS, they have fired you twice already. Go somewhere else. The trouble is he is exactly the kind of person the ECB so prefers. Obedient and loyal, rather than talented.

    Liked by 2 people

    • MM Jun 23, 2015 / 4:36 pm

      “they have fired you twice already. Go somewhere else.”

      True enough, Mark. The man needs to move on. And please nowhere near the media.


    • paulewart Jun 24, 2015 / 12:39 pm

      The Peter principle at play? Coat grabbed….


  7. Zephirine Jun 23, 2015 / 3:23 pm

    Moores as England coach struck me as an anxious soul, desperately keen to do well and for his players to do well. Hence the long-winded explanations, hence the last-minute changes in the squad, etc. But at international level, it seems to be the imperturbable coaches who do better, the ones who soak up the pressure and don’t pass it on to the players.

    Liked by 2 people

    • SteveT Jun 23, 2015 / 3:32 pm

      IMHO Moores was appointed as he was the only candidate who was a big enough yes-man to accept the twin conditions of no KP and being saddled with Cook as ODI captain (we must invest in…..). Yet another example of the ECB putting petty politics and personal prejudices before the good of the England team.


  8. SimonH Jun 23, 2015 / 3:30 pm

    Meanwhile, in the latest edition of Pravda we have –

    And they’re just, you know, being satirical –


    • LordCanisLupus Jun 23, 2015 / 3:37 pm

      Seen them both. Put a couple of the best bits of Pringle’s article on twitter (and here? )


    • Mark Jun 23, 2015 / 3:50 pm

      Unbelievable bitterness from the ECBs in house magazine. They just can’t move on from KP.

      Who wants to read Pringles love letter to Strauss? Not long ago The Cricketer wrote a love letter to Peter Moores. That worked out so well. Of course no one will mention they all supported Downton. They are very good at air brushing history. They have to do it so often


      • MM Jun 23, 2015 / 4:40 pm

        When the readership tanks they might alter their approach. Just don’t buy it. Wait six months. If they don’t go bust they might get some objective journos on board.


  9. SimonH Jun 23, 2015 / 3:34 pm

    Captain Fantastic further underlines his return to form with a first ball duck against Gloucestershire.

    ECB celebratory messages and Guardian reports of fluency levels and glorious drives unfurled to follow.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thelegglance Jun 23, 2015 / 3:38 pm

      I think it’s very good of them all to make my attempt at satire come true like this.

      Liked by 1 person

    • paulewart Jun 24, 2015 / 12:41 pm

      Yeah but his captaincy in the dressing room was first rate…..


  10. man in a barrel Jun 23, 2015 / 3:41 pm

    To be honest, the interview struck me as totally disingenuous…either that or Moores is an idiot.

    The quibble about whether he said “data” or “later” is nit-picking pedantry. Nothing alters the fact that he could have done a David Lloyd and said “we flippin’ murdered them” to general ridicule, or he could have said, “We were totally outplayed and we need to have an inquest once the dust has settled.” Instead he muttered some unintelligible crap which got misinterpreted. I have to say that I think most people who heard the interview thought he had said “data”.

    He should have been picked up on the stuff about Ballance and Taylor. Clearly they were last minute decisions born of total panic. If he thought Ballance could do a job at number 3, why was he not used in the 10 match series in Sri Lanka or the tri-series in Australia? To drag him in without any recent ODI experience was a shocking thing to do.

    Similarly, if he thought that they needed a finisher and that Bopara was not the right man, why did he not try out Taylor in that role beforehand? It is not as if there was no time for preparation. I don’t think Alf Ramsay had that many matches as England manager before he won the World Cup!

    And he should have been grilled hard on why they took Rashid to the West Indies to carry gloves and drinks.

    These were all errors which were obvious in advance to everybody. Only Moores and Cooky could have thought they were strokes of genius. Add in the selection of Trott, the use of Woakes and frankly his tenure looks terrible. And notice where they placed the cut-off in terms of tests played and won, in order to make his record seem decent. He might be a nice man but, frankly, he needs to find a new job as far away from the ECB as possible.

    Liked by 1 person

    • SimonH Jun 23, 2015 / 4:03 pm

      Didn’t Ballance have a broken finger during the Tri-series?


      • hatmallet Jun 23, 2015 / 4:07 pm

        Yes. Should have been sent home. Given that Stokes had found form in the Big Bash, it should have been an easy decision.


      • man in a barrel Jun 23, 2015 / 4:19 pm

        You are correct Simon but it just makes the decision look all the more bizarre.


    • man in a barrel Jun 23, 2015 / 9:03 pm

      Why the cut – off at 8 tests, rather than 10 or 12, more obvious places of demarcation.


    • pktroll (@pktroll) Jun 23, 2015 / 9:57 pm

      Is it me or did I recall that the likes of Morgan and Broad were interviewed and talked about data, especially with regard to bowling short in the death overs?

      Liked by 1 person

      • pktroll (@pktroll) Jun 24, 2015 / 7:27 am

        Apparently the analyst was having a moan at the team not using his data enough, so it can’t have been him………….

        Liked by 1 person

        • LordCanisLupus Jun 24, 2015 / 7:29 am

          I’m still gobsmacked that we got to a position where the stats guy felt he should issue an ultimatum. He should think himself lucky he’s got the job he has. And I say that as a former scorer.

          Liked by 1 person

      • man in a barrel Jun 24, 2015 / 9:00 pm

        Lcl, the analyst’s response was surely caused by the fact that the finger of blame was being lined up in his direction


  11. hatmallet Jun 23, 2015 / 3:42 pm

    Moores doesn’t reveal much at all in these interviews. It’s all rather fluffy, though less so in the Cricinfo one (for example, he’s more decisive about being over-enthusiastic in his first spell).

    Unfortunately, 2 spells in charge have revealed he wasn’t good enough. I say unfortunately because no-one wanted to see him fail, we all want to see England playing great cricket and winning.

    But, despite some good things he has done, results under Moores are quite clear. And given the lack of interesting answers or forthrightness in the interview, I’m not sure he understands why he wasn’t good enough or why certain decisions/tactics were poor.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thelegglance Jun 23, 2015 / 4:04 pm

      It’s an astute point that he probably doesn’t understand why it didn’t work. There’s no shame in not being quite good enough. Plenty of exceptionally competent football managers wouldn’t be good enough for the Champions League, plenty of very competent managing directors wouldn’t be good enough for a FTSE 100 company.

      The shame is in the appointment. Moores did his best, it just wasn’t good enough.

      Liked by 1 person

      • MM Jun 23, 2015 / 4:44 pm

        Oh, I don’t know. I’d be up for another 12 months of Mooresy. Just to make sure he really was that awful.


  12. thelegglance Jun 23, 2015 / 5:25 pm

    Fascinating listening to Farbrace talking. For all his “get out before I get found out” banter, it’s pretty obvious where his influence is, and that’s in taking all the pressure off the players and telling them to do their thing. However some try and say Moores set this up, it’s quite clearly entirely different, and most importantly, as he himself made clear, player led not coach led.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mark Jun 23, 2015 / 6:25 pm

      Which will be interesting when Captain Doofus returns to lead the side. Can he lead without being told what to do? And if he can lead, will he lead England over a cliff?


      • escort Jun 23, 2015 / 6:42 pm

        Perhaps we will have a repeat of what happened to Nasser when Michael Vaughan took over as ODI captain.


    • paulewart Jun 24, 2015 / 12:45 pm

      Which is the one thing Strauss and KP agree on. The coach’s role should be to ease pressure not create it.


    • Mark Jun 23, 2015 / 8:32 pm

      I wondered when someone might see it from KPs point of view. Unfortunately the ECB Pravda has not the balls or the integrity to write it.

      “Naturally you won’t see this in any of the English press. They will simply claim it is England moving with the trends and blooding new talent. Sure, plausible reason, but England aren’t pioneers in sport. They have sort of invented many of them, but they are crap at them when compared to other countries.”

      Which of course leads to this……….

      “Kevin Pietersen wanted to change all of that. He was brazen, unapologetic about his ways, and keen to challenge everything that had gone before in order to get ahead. This frightened many, and lead to divisions. Not because it was necessarily wrong, but simply because it was different and not very English.

      But you won’t read this version in your English papers. Instead we get clap trap from The Ministry of truth from Pringle on Strauss as the hero. Nothing would have changed had it been left to the English media muppets. They should admit that.


      • Zephirine Jun 23, 2015 / 9:03 pm

        That bloody ‘we didn’t start the fire’ promo was just on Sky again – it’s a joke. How can you leave out Pietersen from a compilation like that? His debut should have been in there at least. It stands out a mile that he’s been left out and it just makes Sky look as stupid as the ECB.

        Good T20. Lots of happy kids watching in the evening sun. The way it ought to be.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Zephirine Jun 23, 2015 / 9:10 pm

        That shot in the T20 when Joe Root changed his mind at the last minute – would he have done that if he’d never seen Pietersen bat?


      • BoerInAustria Jun 24, 2015 / 4:30 am

        And He who is not to be Named spake all these words saying
        – Thou shalt play less cricket
        – Thou shalt play with a good leader of men
        – Thou shalt play without a dour coach of men
        – Thou shalt play with free with no fear or numbers
        – Thou shalt not bully thy fellow member
        – Thou shalt play IPL and learn
        And then Thou shalt prosper. But I will be cast out into the desert and I shalt not see the Promised Land.

        Liked by 2 people

    • dvyk Jun 23, 2015 / 9:18 pm

      Pure and simple common sense would have had Flower sacked in 2014, KP not sacked and continuing to play, Downton not appointed, Moores not re-appointed, Cook sacked as Test & ODI captain, Bell & Morgan (I guess) captains, and would have had KP helping the young guys and supporting Bell (or whoever the captain was), and a decent coach, or at least one two is not actively destructive.

      Instead it was comedy gold for a year and a half.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Zephirine Jun 23, 2015 / 9:48 pm

        Comedy gold for you, Dvyk, not for us… As Charlie Chaplin didn’t quite say, England cricket is tragedy in close-up and comedy in long-shot.

        Liked by 1 person

      • waikatoguy Jun 23, 2015 / 9:53 pm

        Except the part about KP in the side I think England will get there in the end, perhaps by the end of this summer.


      • pktroll (@pktroll) Jun 24, 2015 / 7:26 am

        The last 18 months have been the most absurd counter-revolution in how not to run a cricket team. Firstly they move who had largely faltered for two years and been responsible for the dour and laboured cricket that culminated in a whitewash and had caused collateral damage to a large number of previously effective and high quality players. They could have moved him out but instead they move him onto a cricketing development role when he had shown few signs of being able to successfully integrate young players.

        Secondly they decide to ‘invest’ in one of the least tactically bright, who showed little charisma on the pitch and little in the way of intellect off it and had been in a dreadful run of form with the bat. Not only that they carried on with him to the detriment of the development of the One Day team until it was too late to really imbed players like Hales.

        Thirdly they reappointed a failed former coach who was accused of being overly data-centric the first time he managed. Of course it may have been missed by many of the press pack that their bête noire was the one who had made that one his chief issues in his fall out with him.

        Fourthly they remove the man who was the most vocal about the inadequacies of the former three (albeit before Moores was reappointed), rather than do so for reasons of actual form, even if there were signs that he wasn’t quite the player he was.

        Fifthly in the months after this idiotic coup, they picked the wicket-keeper whom despite his chronic injury condition to be the captain’s lap dog because they acknowledged the lack of real leadership skills of said captain. Then there were rumours, and from more than one source that his lap-dog tendencies were far more part of a problem than they ever were a solution.

        I could go on and mention Downton’s contribution, but I get the impression now that he was the full guy who was brought in to make that decision early in the piece and it was he who copped the flack instead of the likes of Clark etc. However I will say this of his replacement. If you were going to truly look forward and not back, why the hell do you go back to a former captain, one who in terms of batting prowess, should have been eased out of the door a year before he eventually did. One whose modus operandi was very much part and parcel of issue one and who was too close to a number of senior players from his playing days, not to mention his falling out with a certain someone and his obvious lack of objectivity with him. Perhaps if it had been a couple of years down the line from now he MIGHT have been in a better place to deal with the situation but I have my doubts about his managing skills given what seemed to take place under his watch in the last year or so of his international career.

        Liked by 2 people

    • LordCanisLupus Jun 24, 2015 / 7:44 am

      If I had the time today I’d be all over that crap. I remember being told that I shouldn’t criticise those two because they are England supporters and love cricket. Well so am I and so do I. Don’t they dare question me and everyone else here and BTL on that.


      • Arron Wright Jun 24, 2015 / 7:54 am

        I remember a Guardian poster turning up here just the once and saying we shouldn’t criticise other posters over here, even when they are spectacularly wrong and gratuitously rude.

        Well, suck on that thread. My god it’s ridiculous. DDB’s latest effort is a real tour de force of misinterpretation, double standards, selective historical revisionism and downright pig-ignorance.

        Liked by 1 person

        • LordCanisLupus Jun 24, 2015 / 8:09 am

          They fired my favourite player without a clear explanation. I’m so awfully sorry if I’m not keen on the people who did it and those who support it. I had this with my football team. Support isn’t blind faith. It is always conditional. I love and support my wife but if she were dishonest, unfaithful or abusive then my support would be withdrawn. I fail to understand how people don’t get this.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Arron Wright Jun 24, 2015 / 8:45 am

        I just can’t decide on my favourite bit: auto-crediting Strauss for the transformation; calling people like quebecer and TheHarry a “shabby mob”; invoking “fan loyalty”; saying very little has changed at the ECB apart from grudgingly acknowledging that Moores has gone, so we were all wrong; Pietersen “fading into the insignificance he deserves”; and of course defending a man who calls people “bilious inadequates”, “fringe idiots”, “impertinent” and “know-nothings”, a man who doesn’t think social media is an invitation to dialogue, a man who calls a high-achieving professional “a fruitfly, a pest that won’t go away”, against outrageous rudeness.


      • Mark Jun 24, 2015 / 9:02 am

        Pringle and his gang of morons just make themselves look more stupid and dishonest everyday. They backed the wrong horse over and over again. Each time having to invent their own facts because the truth didn’t fit with their agenda.

        Everyday more evidence emerges that proves KP right and them wrong. Only now they look even more duplicitous because they have to tie themselves up in knots trying to get their bozo word to fit with reality.

        The English cricket media is a clown car of no nothing cretins who were wrong, over and over again. The cricketer magazine is a joke. It’s like The Onion. A satire of cricket. Except the editor doesn’t realise what a joke it is. He thinks it is serious publication. Which makes him and his chums even more clown like and ridiculous.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SimonH Jun 24, 2015 / 9:34 am

        On LCL’s support is conditional, I support cricket first and foremost, then teams and individual players who play the game the way I think it ought to be played (with intelligence and flair).

        Chesterton famously said that ‘my country, right or wrong’ is like saying ‘my mother, drunk or sober’. In the last 18 months the ECB has emptied the drinks’ cabinet and is on to the meths. There is nothing admirable or authentic in supporting that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Zephirine Jun 24, 2015 / 9:48 am

        Not worth bothering. They simply trot out the same stuff every thread. ‘The usual suspects’, ‘ the malcontents’, ‘fair-weather supporters’, ‘Cook abusers’, ‘KP fanboys’. I don’t think they even read what anyone else writes.

        That’s not to say I think they should get away with it (or be treated as superior, which at least one of them so obviously craves). But life is too short, and most people who comment on the G have seen through them by now.


  13. cricketjon Jun 24, 2015 / 12:45 pm

    Moored To His Owned Anguish referred to the tour of the WI. What he did not say is that England were utterly unwatchable and but for a stunning spell by misery guts Anderson including a fine catch and a run out, England may well have lost the series! But all this Moores ” if I had bollocks I’d be the Auntie ECBs coach” simply won’t wash.

    He was shit.

    I still maintain that in a business where the top 0.1% are performing against each other, if the players are giving 98% instead of 100% then the difference in outcome will be evident. look how the WI played on the back of CGs comment. James Sutherland forgot to do the same ( he may wish he had one day…..)

    Look how the players are performing now regardless of the merit or outcome. They love performing and hopefully Bayliss will see to their below par fielding. All in time of course. But Peter Dudley and I ( sorry Peter Dudley and me) would be well served doing something at county level and not wondering what might have been.

    Liked by 1 person

    • man in a barrel Jun 24, 2015 / 9:02 pm

      Cricketjon, Peter Dudley and I was “correct”. Unless you are being ironically Flintoff or Swanny


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s