Author: thelegglance

A Matter of Life and Trust

thelegglance277 Comments

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.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

Strauss Press conference – live blog:

thelegglance214 Comments

I’m aware not everyone is going to be able to get to a TV or radio today, so the idea is to post and update as it happens.  Lots of refreshing of the page will be required I’m afraid, we’re not at BBC levels of automatic updates just yet!

10:38 – Sky have just had Atherton and Hussain previewing it, with Atherton describing the ECB as having led Pietersen up the garden path.

10:49 – how’s your blood pressure?

10:50 – we’ve had a chorus of former players and captains absolutely outraged so far.  To me it seems the rage is far higher than it was with the original sacking.  Though Ed Smith of course believes social media and the public are not just different things, but on a Venn diagram don’t actually coincide at all.

10:53 – of course Strauss will be talking about some other items today as well, and we’re supposedly due to hear from Colin Graves, who will have a lot to answer for.  Let’s be honest, it’s one subject that’s going to dominate.

11:02 – here we go

11:03 – Strauss “massive trust issue between Kevin and I”

11:04 – “not part of our plans for this summer, can’t say about the future”

11:04 – “can’t have a situation where there’s no trust.  If there’s a way to build trust let’s look at it”

11:05 – “trust is absolutely imperative.  It’s a board decision.  My job now is to look to the future”

11:06 – Note that he throws it all on Pietersen.  No mention that the ECB ought to do something about it.

11:08 – wonder if calling him a bad name live on air has something to do with that trust

11:09 – full backing for Alastair Cook for this summer.

11:10 – will look at the selection structure.

11:11 – Joe Root to be vice captain of the Test team.

11:11 – “far more separation between the Test and One Day teams”

11:12 – Kevin Pietersen is now on 347*

11:13 – blah, blah, blah.  This is not a terribly impressive performance.

11:13 – and that is that.  The press conference is to come.

11:13 – oops missed out that Jason Gillespie is in the running for England coach, be interesting to see if he wants it.

11:17 – quite remarkable that Strauss actually comes out and confirms that the problem with Pietersen is a personal issue.

11:18 – they have a bloody cheek talking about trust.  No one trusts the ECB.  Oh and Pietersen passes 350.

11:22 – Harrison speaks now.  Says it’s an ECB position and that Colin Graves agrees.

11:23 – Harrison comes up with the usual guff about moving forward.  Ignores the question about Pietersen being led up the garden path.

11:25 – And Surrey are all out.  Pietersen selfishly red inks a 355*

Ha, you have to be kidding Strauss!

11:49 Not sure if we’ll get to see coverage of the press conference or not.  I’ll try and keep abreast of it.

Looks like we won’t get to see that though. So it may be Twitter updates as they come in.

12:18 – apparently Sky will be running an interview with Strauss from Atherton and Hussain shortly.

12:43 – Hussain telling Strauss trust goes both ways.

12:46 – this is a whole load of blather, it really is.

12:47 – it’s quite extraordinary how Strauss talks about trust and that asking him to be an advisor is part of that, yet ignores the trust issue of the chairman telling Pietersen that if he scores runs he can’t be ignored.

12:53 – Well that interview told us nothing at all.  If there was one thing I thought Strauss might to better, it was to actually come up with a rationale for exclusion.  He failed.  Miserably.

It’s quite astonishing actually – the disdain from professional sportsmen is almost universal.

Bob Willis:  “I don’t often feel sorry for Kevin Pietersen but having been told by the chairman-elect to go and score runs in the County Championship if he wants to get back in the England side, Kevin’s been sent on a wild goose chase.

It’s another case of the ECB shooting themselves in the foot. After the appalling way the Peter Moores sacking was handled, that he was the last to know, I think this is another faux pas by the ECB and they need to get their act together.”

13:09 – seems that’s more or less it for the moment.  Doubtless more will come out across the day and I’ll update as and when. But for now, hope it was of some use to you all.

The Downfall thing has been done many a time.  But OK, this one is funny

13:33 – first response from the written press to their press conference:

Ryan Harris chimes in: “I know that Strauss and him probably don’t get on, (but) I’m not going to believe it until we get over there and they pick their squad. He’s just peeled off a triple-hundred. If he keeps going on and playing for Surrey – he may quit now – but if he keeps going and scoring hundred after hundred there’s going to be a lot of pressure to pick him. Although it has been said by the new cricket director, I’m not going to believe it until we play five Tests and Kevin Pietersen doesn’t play. If he keeps scoring runs the way he is it’s going to be very hard not to pick him.”

Alec Stewart speaks:

And boy is he not happy.  He’s not happy at all.

15:39 – I’ve just seen Dominic Cork try and say we don’t know what Colin Graves said.  Well Dominic, here you go – irrespective of what was said privately, this was entirely public and is a direct quote:

“It is very simple. What happened in the past is history and there is no point talking about it, I was deputy chairman when the decision was made [to sack Pietersen] and I supported it so there is no point pulling that to bits. But if he wants to play for England then he has to play for a county. That is his decision.

“If he does that and then comes out and scores a lot of runs they can’t ignore him I would have thought but that is up to him. You can’t pick someone when he is not playing.”

“Forget personalities. Selectors pick the best players in form, taking wickets and scoring runs. That is their job.”

16:10 – Interesting interview with Alec Stewart on Sky right now, directly addressing the point about what he would have done had he got the DC job.  He said he would want to pick from the best players available, and if that included Pietersen so be it.  His implication was fairly obvious that that wasn’t acceptable to the ECB.

Let’s think about that for a second.  A prospective Director of Cricket isn’t considered because he wants to pick the best players available.  Let’s think about that again.  Jesus.

18:03 – Kevin Pietersen article on the Daily Telegraph is imminent…

19:01 – Perhaps not so imminent.  I’m out for an unavoidable birthday tonight, so this will be it from me for now.  No doubt when the article is published there’ll be a whole lot more to come, and I’ll come back to it in the morning with a longer piece.  Comments are of course open as ever.  It’s the first time we’ve tried a live blog on events across a day, so let us know if (even given the subject matter) it’s been useful for you, and we can do it again.  We could even do it for a Test match perhaps!

The Moores things change

thelegglance194 Comments

So I picked a good few days at the end of last week to be snowed under…

Dmitri has highlighted a few things about the peculiarities of the ECB actions, and as the days go by it seems they have learned absolutely nothing.

Firstly the sacking of Moores has handled with a complete lack of respect.  Whether he should have been appointed for a second stint as England coach is one thing, but he was.  Dumping him after a year is an open admission they got it completely wrong, just as they did with Downton, though with fewer excuses given Moores had done the job before.  Naturally, there’s been no admission from the ECB of that, and naturally they managed to make a mess of it.

On Friday Moores took the England side to play Ireland in Dublin, and the morning papers were full of articles about his impending sacking.  The television coverage consisted of commentators openly talking about it while the camera focused on him.  Moores retained his dignity after his first period in office, refusing to criticise the ECB or complain about his treatment, indeed his conduct would have been part of the reason that they considered his return.  He deserved far better than the public humiliation of leading the team to Ireland and having his removal an item of discussion while the camera focused in on him, just as he deserved far better than being the subject of numerous press articles that morning.

Moores may not have been the right person to be England coach, but that doesn’t make it remotely acceptable for someone in the ECB to have briefed the press about it all before the official announcement.  The journalists are doing their jobs, there’s no criticism of them.  There is criticism of the ECB for failing to treat an employee with the respect due to them. One must hope that Moores had already been advised of what was to happen before then, because anything else goes off the scale of dreadful treatment.  It is to Moores’ immense credit if so that he still did his job that day.

The point here is that you don’t have to approve of Moores’ appointment or the job he was doing to be be aghast at his treatment.  This is a decent man doing his best for the England team.  Whether or not his best was good enough is entirely beside the point.  Treating people like commodities to be discarded without recourse to their feelings has been a pattern of behaviour within the ECB for quite some time, and it seems clear that nothing has changed.  Doubtless they will wonder what all the fuss is about; after all, the bilious inadequates weren’t happy about Moores’ appointment in the first place, so surely they got what they wanted and should pipe down and move on.  No.  Moores deserves an apology, and a public one.  It is unacceptable in the extreme to treat him with such contempt.

Of course, the appointment of Strauss has led to numerous articles about what this means for Kevin Pietersen.  Like others, it is intensely amusing to read the usual suspects who lament that Pietersen dares to be an issue write extensively about him while demanding that everyone else move on.   Like a dog returns to his vomit so fools repeat their folly.  But there is an important point here – if Pietersen is once again going to be told that he won’t be selected for England, then the ECB have told him lies.  He came back into county cricket because he was led to believe there was an outside chance of him winning back his place in the England side.  He gave up his IPL contract, and he donated his salary with Surrey to charity.  He would not have done so if told he could forget any possibility of selection.   Leave aside the practical matter of whether it is remotely sustainable should England have a poor summer, a restatement of his banishment is at odds with the indications they have given him.

Pietersen has a limited number of years left in the game.  Leading him up the garden path and messing around with the remainder of his career would be a spiteful, vindictive thing to do.

And this is where the treatment of Moores and the treatment of Pietersen coincide.  Not for the first time, the ECB have behaved with nothing but contempt for others.  The defenders of them try to argue that the dreadful disaffected people are the problem, and that nothing the ECB could ever do would satisfy them.  They can’t even treat their own employees or players with respect, it is hardly surprising that they don’t care about anyone else.

Let’s be abundantly clear.  The treatment of Moores was loathsome.  If they do what has been trailed in the press to Pietersen, that is repugnant.  There are no justifications, no weasel words that make it more palatable.  Simply an organisation that cannot even abide by standards of common decency towards other human beings.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

Coronation

thelegglance110 Comments

So it’s Strauss.

There seems little doubt that the man who appeared nailed on to be a blazer at the ECB post retirement is indeed going to be a blazer at the ECB.  That people are sceptical about this is hardly a surprise, if you were to pick an Inside Cricket candidate, it could only be Strauss whose name would come up.  The line from the media is that he should be given a chance to address the doubts, and that’s a fair line as far as it goes, but it doesn’t acknowledge a fundamental point – that the ECB have broken any level of trust with the supporters that they once had, and don’t deserve it either.   It is possible Strauss will surprise us, and to that extent a degree of patience is warranted but only a degree.

The ECB have never addressed the relationship with those who provide the money for them.  The “Outside Cricket” jibe festers for good reason.  It’s never been apologised for and fundamentally there are only two options – that the ECB don’t realise the damage it caused, or that they don’t care.  Neither is exactly to their credit.

It’s always a matter of conjecture how representative those who Tweet or comment in the newspapers or on blogs are of cricket supporters, but Ed Smith’s preposterous argument that because those who do are only a small minority, that is evidence that it’s an unrepresentative minority is nothing but an example of confirmation bias at its worst.  For a man who basks in a reputation of high intelligence, it’s a remarkably stupid argument to attempt to make.  The truth is that all the indications are the dissatisfaction and indeed contempt for the ECB is widespread.  Proof is impossible to come by, but evidence is still evidence.  If Smith wants to try and reject that, he needs to demonstrate that there is support for how the ECB conduct themselves.  Claiming the support of the silent majority on the grounds that they are silent is desperate.

Of course, what the usual line of dismissal focuses on is Kevin Pietersen.  It is a classic example of a straw man argument, as I’ve said on so many occasions, Pietersen is a symptom not a cause.  And this is where the question of how Strauss will handle the matter becomes critical.  It will without doubt be the first or second question that is put to him, meaning that within seconds of his getting the job, the disaster of the ECB’s own making will once again be front and centre.  Strauss is hardly in a good position already, having notoriously been abusive on air about him.  His response to that question is going to be what creates the headlines, however he addresses it, that much is in no doubt.  Some of the press reports are suggesting that the line will be that a return will cause too much disruption, and this remains ludicrous.  Of course it would cause disruption to the cosy little world the ECB live in – whose fault is that?  It is because of the incompetent, ham-fisted, unprecedented decision to sack a player that it is still an open sore.  The continuing refusal to acknowledge that it is the bed they made for themselves is precisely the problem – and precisely the reason for the scepticism about Strauss himself.

Should England have a bad summer, as seems distinctly possible, this will become even more acute an issue, so long as Pietersen scores runs.  The only way of responding that will give Strauss credibility is a simple statement that all players who merit a place will be considered for selection.  Stick to that line, and don’t move off it, for that is the only one that won’t involve the potential for having to make a U turn.  And here’s the rub, how on earth can it be controversial to consider selecting your best players?  If he’s not one of them it doesn’t matter – the only reason they tangle themselves is knots about it is because of a fear deep down that he might be.

Let us cast this forward – if indeed England play badly, and Pietersen scores runs, then a failure to state all players are available for selection is simply going to be unsustainable.  Players who aren’t in the team always improve in status anyway, for such a famous one to be ignored is going to be constantly questioned.  Do they really believe that will be less disruptive than the alternative?

Yet again it ends up coming back to Pietersen.  The irony is that this is frustrating whatever side of the debate one is on.  The previous regime are actually correct in that it shouldn’t be.  Everyone would like to move on.  Including those awful people who buy tickets.  Strauss’s hardest problem is finding a means to do it, and for his own benefit that means being open to his selection, should it be merited.  Any other decision will quite simply undermine his credibility from the outset.

And what of captain and coach?  It’s been noted that Straussy and Cooky are close, and that’s another problem.  Not in itself, there’s clearly nothing wrong at all with people being friends, but the captain is himself in considerable trouble.  Will Strauss be clear sighted enough to see that and take action when needed?  There have to be doubts.  It is not the job of a Director of Cricket to prop up his mate, nor to refuse to see reality.  Strauss’s commentary has hardly been overcritical of his captaincy to date.  Does he really believe Cook is the best captain England could have?  For it really is as simple as that.

For all the debate about Peter Moores as coach, there is doubt he would go as far as to sack him.  Moores may well be out of his depth, but Strauss’s own likely appointment is because of the conservative nature of the ECB, that conservatism is no different when it comes to the choice of coach.  Whatever Moores’ failings, he’s exactly the kind of man the ECB will want to see at the helm.  That limits things to Peter Moores type coaches in the first place, and Moores is probably a good example of that kind of coach.

Fifteen years ago England chose Nasser Hussain as their captain.  Hussain was abrasive, incredibly unpopular on the county circuit, difficult, opinionated and hard to handle.  It is impossible to imagine the current ECB ever appointing such a person.  It is equally impossible to imagine the ECB appointing someone like Darren Lehmann.  That doesn’t mean that Lehmann would be the correct choice, it means that the ECB limit their choices from the outset.  Which is why we end up with an Andrew Strauss.  Safe, comfortable and quite probably the right kind of chap with the right kind of family.  So much of the dismay about his likely engagement is less about Strauss himself and more about what it represents.  A refusal to admit that they might have got things wrong before, and a refusal to admit that they might need to change.  It is unsurprising in any way.

Washing up

thelegglance48 Comments

And so the dust begins to settle.

Let’s get something clear here, before the start of the Test series, an England win was expected by everyone.  No one in the media said that the West Indies were an improving side, no one in the press said that there were grounds for concern.  England might be a “developing” (a delightful euphemism for “not very good”) team, but the result of the series would be that England would win it. And they haven’t.

And here come the excuses.  Colin Graves was at fault for motivating the West Indies by calling them mediocre apparently.  Let’s just look at that for a moment.  Say that what he said did motivate them, did do their team talk for them.  Are we really saying that a few words from the chairman of the ECB, a man most of the West Indies team have probably never heard of, made the difference?  Firstly, that’s incredibly insulting to the West Indies team, it implies that without such words they would have rolled over to defeat.  It also says that England could only win if they were scrupulously polite about the opposition.  How fragile must this England team be?  How shallow must the West Indies be?

It’s a nonsensical line of argument, particularly so when Alastair Cook talked only a few days ago of how the West Indies would crack under pressure.  If anything were to motivate the opposition, those words would have done it – but to suggest they did is still silly, for all the reasons above.  The series was drawn because of what happened on the field, not what was said off it, especially when both instances are pretty mild.

As it happens, Graves shouldn’t have said what he did – but not because of what happened in the series, simply because it was impolite.  But people who are outspoken sometimes say things, weirdly enough.  That four paragraphs have been written about something so supremely irrelevant is a reflection of how some have grasped at straws.  Let’s move on.

It is genuinely pleasing to see some signs of life in West Indies cricket.  The wider picture is important, and they do seem to have found some young players who have a bit about them.  Jermaine Blackwood had a terrific series, averaging a shade under 80.  There’s little question that his innings first time around in  Bridgetown  went a long way towards the eventual result; his team were dead and buried without him, and he kept them in the game.  Jason Holder equally looks a good prospect, while Darren Bravo played with a discipline yesterday that’s been lacking in much of his career.  In all cases it’s up to them to ensure it’s not just a one off, but something to build on.  It’s hard to see this side seriously troubling Australia in a month, but nor should they be expected to.  It’s at the bottom of a very long and winding hill – there’s a heartbeat, that’s enough for now.

As an aside, what a sad cricketing irony it was to see Shiv Chanderpaul look like he’s reached the end.  A player who almost single handedly kept them alive over a grim decade, but whose age catches up just as there seems to be some hope.  No one ever said life was fair.

England lost this game in their batting.  First innings wasn’t good enough; the pitch was at its best, and scoring under 300 was abject.  Cook held the innings together, with an innings that was obdurate and stubborn, and he certainly deserves credit for that.  His dismissal at the close of day one was likely a loss of concentration.  It’s not that surprising shortly after a hundred he so desperately wanted and needed, and blaming the bloke who got the hundred for getting out misses the point as much as it always did.

Yet Cook’s hundred was not evidence of him being back and it’s wishful thinking on the part of those who worship at the altar of the blessed Alastair to assume it is.  His technique remains flawed and there are serious concerns about how he will shape up against a better attack this summer and next winter.  He deserves immense credit for getting it, because even the longest journey begins with a single step, but that’s as far as it goes.

Bell had a poor Test, and not a great series.  Indeed, he’s struggled since his Ashes mirabilis in 2013.  He clearly deserves the patience his record warrants, but it is concerning as we go into the summer that he seems so adrift from where he could be, especially so given that he doesn’t appear out of form.

We are probably saying goodbye to Jonathan Trott.  There’s an extensive piece elsewhere, so there’s no point going over that again. His near tearful reaction at the end of the match suggested he knows it too.  There’s no shame in attempting to come back, and no shame in not succeeding. He’s been a fine servant for England.

England’s second innings of 123 showcased all the problems that have been evident for some years, especially the way that they freeze when put under pressure.  The irony of Cook’s comments about the West Indies cracking under such pressure is evident, and this is nothing new.  The tour to New Zealand two years ago had a few instances of England becoming strokeless and terrified of defeat.  For all the talk about England playing fearless cricket, they do the opposite.  Only Stokes and Buttler tried to reverse the position, and Stokes then received criticism for the way he got out.  That’s just not good enough.  When a player tries to change the momentum they are taking risks to do so – sometimes it doesn’t come off.  The reality is that it still has to be attempted.  That England got as many as 123 is down to him, and then Buttler.

Buttler was again left high and dry.  At number eight in the order that’s clearly going to be a risk, but given the side England selected, should he be any higher in the order?  Probably not.  The issue is that England’s lower order fold even when there is a batsman to play for.  Jordan was a bit unlucky, and Anderson fought.  Broad’s batting is simply not good enough for someone of his ability.  There were signs in the first innings of the smallest smidgen of progress – he stayed in line at the point of delivery (he stayed legside of the ball, true) which is more than he’s being doing recently.  But he’s in pieces still.

Root and Ballance both had good tours, one of the most striking features of the second innings shambles was how England fell apart when those two failed with the bat.  Like always, we cannot rely on players having unsustainable runs of form to bail us out of a hole.  At some point, they won’t manage it.  Still, in the wider context, those two have been a success.

Moeen Ali had a curious time of it.  His bowling wasn’t great, but compared to what?  His first class record hardly suggests he is a world class spinner, but he is a hard worker and improving.  Bringing him in after an injury and with little bowling behind him was a gamble, and one that didn’t work.  He batted well in the first innings before Cook ran him out, but he needs to deliver more than he is.  He’s flattering to deceive and becoming a bit of a frustration.  He clearly has talent and desire, even if the blame game is trying to highlight him.

Buttler himself did well throughout the series.  His keeping was good, and he’s still inexperienced in that discipline.  His missed stumping yesterday cannot and should not be used as an excuse (another one).  Keepers do make mistakes.  The specific missed stumping is one of those that commentators and journalists who have never done it talk about as being easy.  It is an abiding frustration that those who know nothing about keeping are so keen to dispense their lack of knowledge.  When the ball goes between bat and pad, there is a tendency not to follow the line of the ball, but the expected path of the shot.  It’s a bad miss because every keeper who has ever done it (and every keeper has) berates themselves for the error.  But it happens, and happens a fair bit.  A perfect example of the complete lack of understanding about wicketkeeping comes when a catch standing up to the stumps is described as good reactions.  It’s nonsense.  When standing up, the keeper isn’t even aware that there has been an edge until AFTER the ball is in the gloves or on the ground; the brain simply cannot process information that quickly.

None of which means that Buttler won’t be bitterly disappointed not to have taken the stumping, but some understanding is required here. He made very few mistakes behind the stumps this series, and for a young player making his way in Test cricket, that’s a good effort.  Wicketkeepers drop catches and they miss stumpings.  It was ever thus.

Chris Jordan is another who showed promise without ever fully justifying his inclusion.  His catching in the slips was genuinely astonishing, and he bowled some fine spells without seeing quite the rewards.  Like Ben Stokes, his wicket taking was below what would have been hoped for.

Broad with the ball seemed to be getting his mojo back.  He needs overs under his belt more than anything.

And then there’s Anderson.  The best compliment he can be paid is the frightening thought of him getting injured this summer.  Like with Root and Ballance, England cannot be so reliant on him going forward and hope to succeed.  He was overbowled in the last home Ashes due to desperation, and largely ineffective thereafter.  He’s a fine bowler, but he’s not invincible.

Peter Moores spoke after the game talking about how players had developed over the series.  Presumably he meant that Lyth, Wood and Rashid have become particularly expert on which bats to carry out to those playing, and what combination of drink they prefer.  In any tour, players are left out, and often become little more than a spare part, yet this was a missed opportunity.  If Rashid is not to be selected for pitches like Bridgetown or St Georges, when is he going to be selected?  Is it remotely likely that he will play in the Ashes or in May/June Tests against New Zealand?  England were on a tour against one of the weaker sides in world cricket, and chose not to introduce new players, but to stick with the tried and presumably trusted.  Perhaps the worst part of that is the fear about what a player can’t do, not what they can.  This is symptomatic of the problems in the England team, the negative considerations always outweighing the positive.

James Whitaker looks likely to pay the price for this tour, having been described (as was Moores) as a “dead man walking” at the outset.  Yet it wasn’t the selectors who ignored the fringe players on this tour, that was down to the captain and coach.  Whitaker has been something of a PR disaster in his role, but it would be somewhat cruel for him to ultimately be blamed for the reluctance of Team England to trust the selections he and his colleagues made.

Moores himself is now extremely vulnerable.  Both he and Cook specifically contradicted the words of the chairman, in the captain’s case by his effectively partially blaming Graves for the outcome, and in Moores’ by saying there was no need for an enquiry.  Repeatedly saying how it had been a “good tour” in defiance of the results simply adds to the impression of being removed from reality.  And yet there should be some sympathy for Moores.  A better and stronger captain would have made a significant difference, but he has helped in his own downfall by being front and centre in terms of what he wants.  England are the only team in the world where the coach has such a significant role in how the team actually plays, it is impossible to imagine Duncan Fletcher being interested in such a structure – which is perhaps exactly why Fletcher wanted captains like Hussain and Vaughan who knew their own minds.

And then there’s the captain himself.  It is curious how so many queue up to damn him with faint praise.  He did indeed do alright as captain this series.  Alright.  For Moores to talk about him learning in the role is preposterous, he’s now one of the longest serving captains England have ever had.  When will he learn to be England captain?  2019?  When he breaks Graeme Smith’s Test record perhaps?  Maybe then he’ll actually be “not bad”.  Highlighting that he’s done alright merely emphasises that he so often has been awful.

The least surprising, but most troubling news came in the shape of various articles indicating Strauss would get the DoC role.  Above all else, such an appointment would be a circling of the wagons and a reinforcement of the status quo.  As Vaughan said last night, sometimes you just have to accept it isn’t working.  Unless you’re the ECB.

England drew with the eighth ranked side in Test cricket, who in the last four years have beaten only New Zealand, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.  Stop the excuses.

West Indies v England, 3rd Test, day 3

thelegglance162 Comments

It seems distinctly possible that day three of this match will see a conclusion. Boards around the world hate this, the loss of revenue if a match finishes early is something of a disaster.  But just like it has been said that for Formula One to be exciting, just add water; so for Test cricket to be exciting, just add a pitch that does a bit.  And isn’t that the point?  Give the bowlers a chance and suddenly every ball matters, because you really aren’t certain what will happen.

18 wickets fell on day two.  I’m sure there will be complaints that it is somehow unfair that the ball dominated, and it’s always struck me as peculiar that when bat dominates you might get comments that it’s boring (and it is) but rarely unfair.

Trott’s cheap dismissal probably marks the closing of the book on his Test career.  I’ve written about his contribution, but perhaps the best response was that of the England fans out there – a standing ovation; not for his innings, brief as it was, but for the player and what he achieved.  Perhaps in days to come he might appreciate that.  I hope so.

So much happened today that there are a myriad of things to mention.  Anderson certainly deserves a shout out – a player who has spent most of his career trying to drag his average below 30 is suddenly on the cusp of taking it into the 28s, it’s now 29.20, and I’m not sure I’d bet against it dipping below 29 in West Indies 2nd innings.

But the bit today that made me sit up and take note was Jermaine Blackwood’s innings.  He got some stick for holing out at the end – that always strikes me as the way everyone else can get a duck, but let’s blame the bloke caught on the boundary for 96.  The West Indies would have been dead and buried without him, it was a brilliant, timely, aggressive, brave knock.  A run a ball 85 to get the team within 70.  It may yet be a match winning hand.

Cook was out in familiar fashion to that we have seen so often.  Let’s just say I’ve no reason yet to move on from the technical criticism I’ve bored you senseless with already.

So England are a shade over a hundred ahead, and half the side is out.  I’d say England are still favourites as the pitch deteriorates, but – and I know this will come as a shock – I’ve been wrong before.

Day three tomorrow.  I can’t wait.  Comments as ever below!

Vian

West Indies v England 3rd Test Day 2

thelegglance101 Comments

240-7 after day one represents a fairly poor day for England having won the toss. Most of the coverage has focused on Alastair Cook scoring his first century for two years, and without him England would be deep in the mire.

This looks a result pitch, and England badly need to get up to 300 at the very least. The West Indies are certainly brittle, and it’s perfectly possible that it’ll prove a competitive total in this game. But it was not a good day, and no amount of Cook love can disguise that.

Comments here as usual.

Vian

The finishing post?

thelegglance18 Comments

With the mode of dismissal today – playing a short ball poorly – the cricketing obituaries for Jonathan Trott’s international career will doubtless be written overnight. Yet he has been put in an extremely difficult situation, being asked to come in an open the batting, something he’s not remotely experienced in. The suspicion that he was a sacrificial lamb to avoid placing the spotlight on Cook should he have had a bad tour remains, particularly if, as has been suggested, Cook and Moores were the two prime movers behind the selection of him in that role. That it hasn’t worked particularly well is at least partly their responsibility, especially given England do have a specialist opener in the squad.

Trott himself would of course have leapt at the opportunity even to take on an unfamiliar role – it was a chance to get back in the side, and there was a seeming vacancy in order to do it. But the odds were always against him being a success in the position, even in his best form. The focus on his technical flaw against the short ball seems to be a little inconsistent with the belief that Cook (for example) would overcome what has plainly been a major technical flaw in his own technique and the patience shown towards him.  You can certainly make the point Cook deserves that patience; perhaps the nature of Trott’s departure from the Ashes tour makes people less inclined to do the same, along with his age.  Trott has played fast short pitched bowling well in the past; is it entirely inconceivable that he could do so again?

Nevertheless, it can’t be denied that there seems to be a problem when looked at in its own right, even if the point about choosing the technical issues to focus on is a valid criticism. And given that age and past history, it is likely enough to mean that we are witnessing the end of his Test career. It is notable that the prevailing response to that seems to be sadness more than anything. And perhaps when it is looked back upon, that is in itself evidence of the regard in which he  is held.

Trott’s performances did tail off significantly in the last couple of years before he left the Ashes tour, but overall a Test career of approaching 4,000 runs with an average in the mid forties represents a player who performed admirably during a period in which England did have a fair measure of success. To put this into context, even with that decline in form, Trott scored more runs at three than any other England player in history (3,109 runs), bar Wally Hammond. When defined by average, for those players who have scored more than a thousand runs, then in the last 30 years only Gower has been more successful – until the arrival of Gary Ballance last year. Ballance of course is at the start of his career, only time will tell if he continues in the same vein, but let’s be clear here – if Ballance performs across his career at number three at the same kind of level as Trott has done, then England will have an excellent player.

Of Trott’s ten centuries, some will live long in the memory. His partnership with Stuart Broad against Pakistan, while subsequently tainted through no fault of his own – was a rollicking performance by the pair of them (perhaps a repeat from Broad is just as unlikely as one from Trott come to that), while the iconic image of Gabba scoreboard showing 1-517 probably represented the personal high point of his career.

In ODI cricket, his presence in the side, while often criticised, did lend England a solidity that has been sorely lacking in the last 18 months – perhaps it is ironic that his absence has been that which highlighted his contribution most of all.

All of which is intended to be a reminder that Trott is hardly alone in seeing declining returns across a career, indeed you could argue it is probably the norm, as few get to end on their own terms. If it is the end for him, let’s remember that for a few short years we thought we had the answer to a problem batting position, a position that had been a problem since David Gower left the scene. And you know something, we did have the answer.

It was called Jonathan Trott.

Notes and Queries

thelegglance46 Comments

Over the last few days, the nation has gone into paroxysms of deep celebration, as England pulled off a mighty victory against an impressive West Indies team.  Few could have ever hoped for them to scale such heights of majesty, and fewer still to predict it.  No wonder the press have gone overboard about it all.

Or perhaps not.

It’s a curious situation.  In advance of the Test series, a certain member of the fifth estate was including three victories in his notorious “11 from 17” prediction for the next year, and many others were not much less gung ho.   That one may have been something of an outlier, but there’s no doubt at all that the response to England’s win seems entirely out of keeping to what had been expected to be a comfortable series win in the first place.

Is that a trifle churlish?  Maybe it is.  Certainly England arrived on the last day without having much right to expect a victory, and James Anderson bowled one of those spells to first create an opening, and then to ram home the advantage.  Equally, the West Indies were trying to do the right thing, by being positive and not getting stuck in a hole as England themselves have done so often, but they didn’t quite get the balance right – and some injudicious shots hastened their demise.

All of which leaves us where exactly?

England go into the final Test a match up, and it’s worth noting that Dinesh Ramdin has asked for a pitch with pace and bounce.  Had they got away with the draw in Grenada, you don’t need to be on the inside track of the West Indies team to recognise that’s the last thing they would have wanted.  Even so, that’s the prerogative of the home side, and it does mean at least that we might have some interesting cricket in Barbados.  The criticism of the pitch in St Georges was much overdone – essentially it was fine when England were doing well on it, and boring and turgid when they couldn’t take wickets.  So often, the domestic press are England’s worst enemy, trying to claim black is white and vice versa, and assuming the readership is either myopic or unintelligent. Hype is not necessary, it was a good win.

I can forgive Peter Moores for going a little over the top in his response to success.  He would have felt under severe pressure himself that final morning, and the relief of victory would have been keenly appreciated.

Of course, Alastair Cook has been praised to the skies, in the way we knew we would be.  Again, the written press really aren’t helping here with the hyperbole.  His final day captaincy was decent enough alright, but continual reminders that it was reasonable enough by the Sky commentary team merely drew attention to it being often otherwise.  The implication was quite clear, in Cook’s case being competent is worthy of having attention drawn  to it.  Since when has being competent been notable unless it’s not often the case?

And then there’s his batting.  He did look a little bit better in this Test compared to the first, where he frankly looked all over the shop.  Runs in themselves will do him the power of good, and will also give him confidence in his method.  But it’s still not the Cook of old; he’s fighting it constantly – his head remains too far over to the offside and he doesn’t look balanced in his shot.   Clearly the loss of Jerome Taylor to the West Indies attack was a huge bonus for him – but that’s the luck of the draw and few could begrudge him that.  So the runs were welcome – let’s be clear on this, to have a chance in the summer we need Cook back to his best – but nor do they merit an assumption that all is now well with him, because it isn’t.  Looked at benignly, it is a work in progress, and I doubt too many bowlers in Sydney and Auckland are panicking about their plans just yet.

Jonathan Trott may come under pressure for his place in the final Test, and this is not remotely fair on him.  He’s not an opener, he is a number three.  The jobs are not the same, not least because the number three has a bit more time to relax after coming in from fielding.  Having brought him back to do that role, to drop him after two Tests would be tantamount to ending his career having handed him a hospital pass and complaining when he dropped it.  Nor would it be particularly fair on Adam Lyth who would presumably take over.  He’d have a single Test and as we know, things can change when it comes to the home summer.  He’d be under pressure to score in this match, and fully aware that his predecessor had been dumped after two games.  Selecting Trott to open may well have been the wrong decision in the first place, but having done so, three Tests is the absolute minimum he should expect – and more reasonably he should get the New Zealand series too.

Of the other players, Joe Root is showing signs of being of genuinely exceptional quality.  Certainly there are bigger challenges for him over the coming summer than he’s faced in Tests the last year, but it’s hard to argue with the numbers on this.  He is rapidly becoming our key player.  And in that, he’s only just ahead of Gary Ballance, who has made a superb start to his Test career.  As an aside, when looking at a technical set up, Ballance is an excellent contrast to Cook at the moment – there’s no expectation of similarity of course, but Ballance is….well beautifully balanced.

Moeen Ali did not bowl well, and of course ran himself out for a duck.  OK, the run out happens, few have avoided the odd brain fade in their careers, and Anderson’s was worse.  His bowling looked reflective of someone who had hardly bowled, which is of course the case.  I note Nasser Hussain’s thoughts about it potentially being a reversion to the mean, and of course that is quite possible.  But a little premature to say so after one poor match post-injury.

Buttler’s keeping was overall excellent.  However, as Graeme Fowler observed, his gloves close at the time of the shot when standing up to the stumps.  That’s not good technique, and is something that Peter Moores himself ought to be able to have corrected.  Maybe he’s on to it.

Stuart Broad was a proper curate’s egg in this match, and indeed in the series so far.  His overall pace is way down, but he’s equally bowled some sharp and hostile spells.  He also seems to attract a lot of negative comment even though his form as a bowler has been very strong for England in Tests.  He’s more or less the only established player to come out of the Ashes shambles with his reputation intact.  He deserves time to get it right.

Ben Stokes showed promise.  That’s where we still are with him.  Likewise Chris Jordan.

And Anderson.  He’s not a great bowler, not by any stretch of the imagination.  But so what?  By definition hardly anyone is.  He’s a very fine, exceptionally skilled bowler who can occasionally be completely unplayable.  It should be enough and shouldn’t be a stick with which to beat him.

And then there’s someone who didn’t play, but became a topic of conversation – Adil Rashid.  Geoff Boycott talked about the situation whereby the selectors choose a squad, but that the team on tour is chosen by captain and coach.  And if captain and coach don’t rate a player, then there’s little point in them being selected.  I don’t wish to put words in Boycott’s mouth, as he chose them very carefully, but it seemed to indicate this was the position with Rashid, and perhaps that’s why Yorkshire requested his release from the tour.  England were right to rebuff them by the way.  The question of his selection and whether he ever had a chance of playing is a valid one, but the selectors having done so he’s on the tour and should stay on the tour.

For the West Indies, there are signs of promise.  Developing and struggling teams are always prone to a collapse, particularly when kept under pressure.  They were and they did.  But Brathwaite looked a proper Test batsman, Samuels batted mostly responsibly – well more responsibly than normal – and they fought hard.  There are some green shoots perhaps.  Let’s hope they sprout.

And so we move to the final Test.  A win and England can say they’ve done alright.  And they will have done alright.  You can only beat what’s in front of you.  A draw is problematic, and a defeat, well a defeat and there will be consequences.  England are a better side than the West Indies, even though they have significant problems of their own.  They should win, they ought to win.

And yet….