England

326 Not Out – Part 2

LordCanisLupus52 Comments

COOKY

Read Part 1 below – a bit of a diary of the day up to the TMS tweet. Now I’ll really get stuck into this nonsense.

Let’s take ourselves back to the end of the day’s play. The reaction to the 326 that I saw was mostly of the “wow” kind. A few churls who wouldn’t have cared if it was Marshall and Holding in their pomp at each end had a pop, but they looked rather stupid. One moron of the month, who Clive rightly called a troll said “one innings in four years” which not only questioned his recognition of how relatively rare 300s are, but also his numeric ability given KP’s knocks since 2011 – you know, the golden trio even his worst critics can’t help bu admire. I’m used to this utter nonsense now. It’s tedious, it’s dull, a bit like this blog to non-believers.

So to the TMS Tweet.

Seems pretty unequivocal. Of course it’s a leak, or whatever you want to call it, because a leak isn’t a leak if it isn’t a leak or something. Some people got rather uppity about all that over the weekend (no, not you LB), as if we were doubting their journalistic abilities. But this looked like a leak to me, this one… if it looks like a leak, smell lies a leak, it probably is one. So the reaction was one of fury.

I absolutely one hundred percent stick behind this one. I’m deadly serious. I’m not over-reacting. This blog is built on these foundations. Call it as you see it on DAY ONE. I called for Downton’s dismissal the day after he said something utterly stupid and now I call this.

I am seriously not impressed by Tom Harrison. Oh, I know, he wouldn’t give a toss if he read it, and why should he? He’s a highly paid executive and I’m just a mere bilious inadequate with a small platform and loyal support. But this was another one we were told was made of the right stuff. A former county pro, who went into media rights management and is now in charge of something or other at the ECB.

This is him.

HarrisonSo far, he’s sacked Downton, which was a fair move but bloody hell, he took his time over it as he presided over a costs and structure review – and boy does Harrison like a structure. Then he presided over the absolute clusterf*ck that was the dismissal of Moores. In the interim he employed head-hunters to come up with Andrew Strauss for a new post called Director, (and that comma says so much) England Cricket (or whatever – I cannot be bothered with this muppetry) and now, that is coming home to roost. They had it all planned. Andrew Strauss would be unveiled, they’d say a teary farewell to Peter Moores, and then new Management Structure England would move forward to the New Zealand series and the Ashes.

But, as we know, the information on Moores leaked. How it leaked we do not know, because, well we’ve done that already above. So a decent bloke (I think I’ve been consistent in that) was humiliated in public by this organisation. You’d think they’d feel a little chastened, a little wounded, maybe a touch humble. But I’m not sensing humility from Harrison. I’m sensing someone who is a little too cock-sure and seems to think he’s wielding a big stick. Just a hunch, and we’ll see how it plays out. Not been too wrong on them so far.

So, with plans completely blown out of the water, a contingent strategy took place, and the announcements were made on Saturday. Vian’s post below captures my thoughts brilliantly. My thanks for such a really good post on the matter. After this nonsense we were advised there would be a press conference today (Monday) or tomorrow (Tuesday). No-one was quite sure. There seemed to be utter confusion, while at the same time trying to exude some sort of decisive authority. This smacked of Captain Mainwaring shouting “I’m In Charge” as his bunch of old timers rambled off here and there.

Now, they knew the press conference, on Tuesday, was always going to throw up the KP question. At this stage (Sunday) it was an easy case to answer. Let him make some runs, he’s not in our plans at the moment, and it’s difficult to see him in our plans going forward. But he has to make runs. Even this has not, it appeared, satisfied our captain. I’ve been told a ton of times how nice a guy Cook is, but he doesn’t seem to act like it it. Either he’s being horribly misinterpreted here, or there’s something I’m missing, but every time someone seems to broach a rapprochement with KP, there’s a column saying Cook’s angry at someone for it, being Aggers (reportedly) over his TMS stint at the World Cup, or Graves for that message during the World Cup that got KP to sign for Surrey and play county cricket. It seems that Team England is run for the benefit of Team Cook. We’ve been down this road on this blog before. It really appears to me a him or me situation, a back me or sack me. In Downton, Cook had an implacable supporter. In Flower, behind the scenes wielding whatever power, he had someone in his camp if it means keeping KP at bay. And in Strauss, he has a man who KP fell out with, who didn’t want him to return to the team after Textgate, and who called him a c*** live on TV. I think, as they say in the legal world, these lot have “previous”.

I’ve been saying all along they’ve been leading him up the garden path. This is not an organisation steeped in an ability to admit mistakes. It refuses to believe it can ever be wrong on any matter, or admit it’s core policies are misguided or prone to scrutiny. This is a body that went into a major deal with a subsequently committed felon, and you’d gather from our governing bodies attitude to its culpability in the terms of “ooops, shucks, well, ok, never mind.” Collier, the architect supposedly of this kept his job for a mere six years after that. Clarke has had to be prised out of office with the promise of a lovely old international jolly. Hugh Morris presided over the Moore/Pietersen nonsense with all the authority of Captain Peacock in Are You Being Served, while throughout this period we had leaks/good journalism all over the shop. That an organisation is supposed to be anal about leaks lets so much information out, such as KP’s report, the dodgy dossier and the sacking of Moores II, is preposterous. They are a sick joke, with the emphasis on sick. It’s bloody ironic that the new chairman is called Graves. This is a place where common sense goes to die. Where good chaps preside over the serfs, and don’t you dare question authority.

Above all, this is an organisation that employed Paul Downton in a position of responsibility. You remember him. All aplomb and good impressions. He may have been a lovely guy, aren’t they all, but he was out of his depth from day one. He hid. When he spoke, we knew why he hid. But we are told that things will be different now. While Downton was removed from the game for a couple of decades, the new Director, England Cricket, will be more in touch. More in tune with the modern game.

The list of those who would be in for the job underwhelmed. While Michael Vaughan was an inspirational captain, he’s a twit online. Alec Stewart had experience of being a Team Director, but that didn’t count a jot, and really, were we enthused by his candidacy. Then there was Andrew Strauss. The last week has seen people falling over each other to tell us how tough he is, how single minded, how focused he was. How he’d do the best for English cricket. He is the ideal man to take us forward, a great captain, a great leader of men. The evidence? He got rid of Moores (or did he. I’ve heard from some that he was gone well before the announcement of Strauss….and I’m talking a couple of weeks). But if Strauss sacking Moores adds to the narrative, well, what’s the harm in that? Of course, we’d heard from Michael Vaughan that Moores wasn’t going to be sacked, and that he’d been told that the ECB were not going to take KP back. Then Strauss is their man, and Moores goes. It’s laughable. So Strauss has a big decision under his belt, so it seems.

And it is abundantly clear, if I’m guessing, that the plan was to talk to KP before the presser to sort that out. They know that the question is going to come up, and I said how I thought they might answer it in part 1. But it’s easy to speak to KP with a forthright view if he’s not made runs. Now he has. 326 un-ignorable runs. 326 stabs into the heart of the ECB with their high-fallutin’ principles and beliefs. 326 jabs at their pompous approach, their holier than thou, high and mighty, we are in charge balloon of infallibility. 326 reasons why they are wrong to adopt a policy of selection that excludes someone because someone inferior doesn’t get on with him. 326 reasons why this country is a bag of shite when it comes to creating and maintaining great English sporting teams. It’s too much about getting along, and not enough about getting runs.

So when faced with the utter shit-storm the initial twitter post from TMS unleashed, with people going absolutely puce with rage (me included), there was a very quick back-track via Nick Hoult in the Telegraph. Lawrence Booth has reported much the same thing. But this is them trying to be clever and the ECB-watching public out there are not going to be fooled one iota. Their policy, if not explicit, but as close as you can get to it, will be KP over their dead bodies. Even now these control freak, superiority complex muppets will be concocting something that is designed to fool the public tomorrow. You won’t. Without the simple mantra that the team will be selected on merit, as it should be, anything else is claptrap. We won’t get fooled for building for 2019, because we built for this World Cup and blew it up in a tantrum last year. Setting long-distant dates, talking about long-term strategies is management bullshit. You going to give all the punters who paid all that cash for the Ashes some money back as you ain’t giving it your all? Like hell. It’s talking down to us. Some, in their bilious hatred for KP will accept this bag of nonsense. More shame them.

So, on the off chance that Strauss will surprise us, which I doubt, I’ll hold all my fire. But here’s the Dmitri Declaration. If I hear anything other than the England cricket team will be selected on merit, and no player is excluded, and if he is playing well and is deemed to be the best available at that time, regardless of age, then that player will be selected. But as this is a team that selected Tredwell over Rashid, Trott over Lyth and is busy flogging Anderson and Broad to a standstill, it’s all a smokescreen.

To the final insult, the last in a long line. The Graves comment that KP’s not available for selection as he’s not playing county cricket and not scoring runs. There have been denials that a deal has ever been struck, that this was a mere innocent comment and nothing had changed. KP is many things, not all good, but he’s not stupid. He returned because he felt there was a genuine chance of a rapprochement. He felt Graves would take none of the previous regimes nonsense and set them straight. To that end he negotiated an exit to his IPL contract, and gave up a decent, not huge, sum of money, and does not take a salary from Surrey. If there were “no chance” of a recall, then they should have said so, there and then. They didn’t. They hoped he would fail, would not score sufficient runs. That he would wither and die, and sod off to the CPL later in the summer. KP’s not that gullible that he wouldn’t keep that in his back pocket.

Now he makes 326, now we see them close ranks. Now we see them all but shut it off in perpetuity. That’s reprehensible, and let’s see them get their way out of this. A good number of cricket lovers are enraged at this apparant duplicity. That this isn’t just getting shot of a trouble-maker but exacting a bitter, cruel revenge. I am a KP fan. This man gave me some of the greatest thrills of my cricketing life. I would have loved to have been there today. I’m desperately hoping he’ll be there at Beckenham in a fortnight’s time, but that looks unlikely. I’m not saying he’s an angel, but he’s among the best we have. But we don’t play the game that way.

From the outside this is an organisation not representing its core supporters. This is an organisation that leaks. This is an organisation that thinks it is too clever by half. This is an organisation that is rotten to the core, steeped in some misty-eyed half-baked concoction of superiority complex elitism and management philosophy claptrap, that only they can judge and only they can decide. This is an organisation that couldn’t organise a piss up in brewery, a sacking on the Apprentice, or honest broking in a room full of spivs. It is diseased, it is malevolent and it has to go. Yes. We need a new organisation running the game, free of all this rubbish, these agenda, this structure. There’s another structure for you, Tom.

Sure, I’m outside cricket. I’ve never felt more outside than I do now. Judging by the reactions of many today, so do they. It’s an incredibly sad day when our own organisation rushes to dampen down the enthusiasm felt by many when a player who gave great service to England, who played many amazing innings, who had us glued to our screens, buying our tickets, makes a thrilling riposte and does what he thought he need to do, only to be told within a matter of hours, it seems, to foxtrot oscar. Someone put cricket on the back pages today, and instead of welcoming it, our beloved guardian authority hated it. They’ve got it all right, ain’t they….

Let’s be pleasantly surprised tomorrow, eh? Anyone betting on it?

kp FO

326 Not Out – Part 1

LordCanisLupus7 Comments

Not Wanted

For some context, and a piece that sums up my views on KP, try this.

Where on earth do you start on a day like this? Let’s set the scene a little. As some of you know, I’m on holiday (vacation out here) in a place called Cape May, New Jersey. It isn’t the Jersey of Springsteen, with the New York overspill or the refineries and factories. It isn’t the Jersey Shore of TV infamy, nor is it Atlantic City, where I’ve been today, but a quiet, sleepy seaside town, with one side on the Atlantic Ocean and the other on the Delaware Bay. I’m 200 yards from the sea. It’s lovely.

So you’ll understand that I wasn’t up with the lark this morning, and rather enjoying a lie-in. I awoke, at around 2pm I think, UK time to be greeted with a number of comments on the blog remarking that KP had made a century. “What a lovely start to the day” I thought, and then chuckled to myself that those haters would be tripping over themselves to diminish it. Also, taking the game situation into context, Surrey really needed those runs, and needed more. What did I do though? I tweeted

Lawrence Booth got back to me (he didn’t know how the day would end up)

I responded…

I calmed down a little, and had a little walk, and came back to see the Pietersen machine rolling along, allied to a tail that didn’t give it away. 150 was up…. and I was busy working out what he needed to make to get the average over 100 if he got out (188). When he passed that, the next target was 200, and so that was passed. By now the joy was let forth. I never believed he would get back to smashing any attack around for these sort of scores. A century or two would be ignored, because, well, anyone gets them. But a double is not easily ignored – as Sky Sports pundits and hosts kept saying “if KP churns out a double hundred or two, then what…” As I left the house with a spring in my step and a little joy in my heart, I got on my international sim phone and followed the score up the Garden State Parkway. 220, 240, 255 (past his best score), 270, 290 and then….300.

Now, I don’t care what standard you play, but 300 is nothing to be trifled with. It is not to be ignored. If this were a player who had shown no aptitude for test cricket, had tried and failed, or was a promising youngster, maybe there’s an excuse. That isn’t what we are talking about here. We are talking about a test cricketer of proven ability, who not that long ago was making very decent centuries (anyone forget his Old Trafford hundred less than two years ago?) and had answered his critics by coming back to first class county cricket, a format that he doesn’t particularly cherish, and he’s smashed it everywhere. 326 not out. Ignore that.

I was so happy, I should have popped into the Golden Nugget and put money on 24.

So, I’m wandering around the shops and left the international phone in the car. Treated myself to a couple of things, and then went back to the car. As we’re crossing Little Egg Harbour, I saw the TMS Tweet.

And I went ballistic. Absolutely fucking ballistic.

You may have seen my twitter outpourings, but if not, just go on there and look for @DmitriOld . The ECB had chosen this moment to announce that they were not picking KP for England again. Ever. This would not happen. Not in a blue moon. No chance. Cut off without a prayer. Brought hope forward by intimating he had a chance, and when he stuffed it back at them, they said “no, sorry”.

Make no mistake, for all the weasel words we’ve heard since, where there has been some suppsoed back-tracking, we’ll get a restatement of Andrew Strauss’s position tomorrow (the one we read about weeks ago, and why we so opposed his appointment now) which will be all about building teams for 2019 blah blah blah and that KP will be 39 by then. If you fall for that old pony, you’ll fall for anything. They are blocking his way, no matter what. There will always be a reason not to pick him. If he followed this 300+ up with another monster score in his next outing, it won’t matter to these idiots, for idiots are what they are that they would rule out a monster talent returning to monster form. It IS one innings, and it IS just part of the road back. But this lot want to block it for what? Personal reasons? If he’s the best batsman, in form, in the country, you play him. It really isn’t that complicated. Let me effing well repeat that. IT REALLY ISN’T THAT COMPLICATED.

This is the ECB in a nutshell. Cricket is meant to be exciting, it is meant to be fun to watch, it is meant to thrill as well as enthrall, to appreciate graft and genius in all its forms. It’s not a bloody game won by management consultants, self-help books on army drills and team-building nonsense. It’s won by talent, it’s won by attitude, it’s won by seizing the moment, not ticking some Belbin Analysis or a team leader assignment on a marines assault course. This team we have now can be as together as it likes, but it collapsed like wet cardboard at Headingley last summer after an abject display by its captain. It hooked its way to a loss after another abject bowling display at Lord’s v India, and despite a turnaround which has been praised as if we’d turned into the Invincibles, we went to the West Indies and collapsed in a heap in Barbados. They are so together, they collapse in a heap in synch. I’m not saying KP makes you immune to that, but it also doesn’t mean that these batsmen are set in stone, no matter how much they say they are. If I could have a pound for all the times someone says to me “who would you drop?” then it would have paid for my shopping today. That’s not the way to look at it. It is “who are the best batsmen in the country?” If the answer is KP, then Ian Bell, Gary Ballance or Joe Root will just have to get over it.

Which is all I want. Pick our best team. Pick our best players.

Watching some of the jealous muppets on Twitter is sickening. Honestly, they act like the Katie Hopkins of the sporting world. Muppet Pringle, a man who got the sack for not reading the runes it appears, had this absolute gem, which in its brevity sums up why English team sports are absolutely Donald Ducked.

Principles over PR? What is he on about? Principles…. oh yes, they’ve worked so far. We backed a captain who took two years to make a ton, and has little or no tactical acumen over and above chuck it to Anderson and Broad and hope it works. We’ve had principles that Cook is sacrosanct in the test arena, and for a while in the ODI arena, and will work to the detriment of English cricket and hamper preparation for major events by backing him until it’s too late. Yeah, principles. Teams with principles are usually rigid, inflexible, and bound to them. Principles means authority rules, so shut the hell up.

Meanwhile, making 326 not out in a county game, I suppose, is PR. Jesus wept. Oh, and there’s a dig about tweeters too. Genius.

But it seems that our ECB would rather follow this “play the game chaps” approach, rather than countenance that they might have made an error. In part 2, which I’ll write later, I’ll go on to all that. And the unprecedented reaction I saw on Twitter after that TMS tweet. This is a fire that just will not go out. The ECB, instead of dampening it down, seem to want to put petrol on it.

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.

Assembly

LordCanisLupus172 Comments

The aftermath of the tour continues and eyes turn towards the futures of the top table. Those eyes are cast more in the direction of the coach, Peter Moores, and when you read some of the stuff coming out, it’s no surprise.

Moores has to carry a number of burdens, partly of his own making, and partly a little unfair. I have not been inside a dressing room at professional level, but even at club level, you know when people don’t think you are credible, don’t listen to what you do, don’t care about your future. It’s not fair that Moores never played international cricket, and that will always count against him when it comes to motivating and coaching great international players. However, he has been on the county treadmill and knows it inside out, and will be a great county coach again when this ends. He commands respect of the county pros, but maybe lacks a little at the top level with the senior pros. Maybe. It’s guess work, but I’ve seen enough football managers lose that respect, and I can recognise some of the problems. At this stage, with a young core of players, Moores can bring them along, as long as he retains the support of the key senior pros. These being Cook, Bell, Broad and Anderson, and to a lesser degree, the next in line, Joe Root. All have played every game under Moores, and there is no hint of this changing any time soon.

The second cross he has to bear is that he lacks credibility among much of the watching public. James Morgan on TFT makes the analogy perfectly – would the England national team go back to Steve McClaren, or would the rugby team go back to Andy Robinson. Both were assistants under more successful coaches who never bridged the credibility gap with the public, probably unfairly. Moores, like it or not, comes across as a nice guy out of his depth at this level. I’m not, like some, going to assign some malevolent motive to his tenure on his behalf. He’s been thrown a hell of a challenge after the Ashes 2013-14, made even harder by the idiotic jettisoning of Kevin Pietersen (not for his absence from the team, but because of the messages it sent) and he has developed some of the younger players (although not greatly, not really). The sense remains though, as the World Cup campaign showed, that Moores is not up to key elements of the job. He will present a case, but the evidence is not backing it up. Combine an abject disaster in the World Cup with a home loss to Sri Lanka in all formats, and coughing up a 1-0 lead in the Caribbean, and there is not a lot to say “keep me on” other than some sort of hope for a change of fortune. My football team did that this season, and by the time we sacked our manager it was too late to save them, despite the best efforts of a new manager who did really well.

Which brings us to the third problem, and this one was partly of his own making, but more of that champion of champions Paul Downton. Peter Moores applied for a job and got it and accepted terms no manager/coach should ever do. That is, be told who he could not have in his team under any circumstances. You anti-KP fans keep making it about him if you want, but the message this sends to any player is profound. Be independently minded, have a strong opinion about your game, and how you want your career to pan out, and that could happen to you. It wasn’t a good start. Then, to have your appointment accompanied by the “greatest coach of his generation” comment by Downton was just amazing. Moores would have been completely at liberty to tell the MD to shut his hole, because that was going to stick. If he could not put before the public a set of results to live up to that billing, he was going to be ridiculed. So it has proved.

The final problem for Moores is his inability to speak, or appear to speak, in anything other than management tones. He sounds like a first year MBA student more than a cricket coach. Sport is about maximising the analytical tools to hand (I’m reading a fascinating book on baseball analysis at the moment) but it is also about unquantifiable exploits. You don’t find Jimmy Anderson’s fifth day morning session in any text book. You have that seize the day approach, the raising of the game to higher planes which can’t be factored in. If they were, sport would be bloody dull and we’d all not bother to watch it. But it’s too much process this, learning lessons that.

I’ll tell you another thing that doesn’t help, and it’s a warm welcome to a Paul Newman quote on here after at least a couple of weeks absence, is nonsense like this:

To watch England here has been to see a highly promising group who respect their coach and want to succeed for him and I believe Moores should be given that crack at the Ashes denied him in 2009 by another Kevin Pietersen-inspired controversy.

Just read that and weep. No player is going to come out in the open and say Moores shouldn’t be coach. KP did that and got fired as captain. KP said that about Flower and was booted out for it. There’s not a lot of longevity in showing you aren’t playing for the coach. I’d say we need to win more games to show how well we are playing for Moores, instead of going overboard over one win in Grenada. But Newman doesn’t let it go with his bete noire, who he is now getting all tin foil hat over. KP has the square root of eff all to do with Moores staying on as coach. Pietersen has not scored the runs required of him by Graves et al for starters. Second, KP is not responsible for Moores performance in the job thus far, so is a total utter irrelevance about whether Moores should stay in the job. Third, we’ve been down this long service award drivel before (he deserves a crack at the Ashes – if he deserved it in 2009, he’d have made an unanswerable case instead of losing home series in 2007 and 2008) and that worked in the World Cup. Also, Newman’s changed his tune. He was really down on Moores after the World Cup. Maybe Cook’s told him to lay off or something.

I feel a bit for Moores, to be honest. I actually think he’s a really decent man giving it his all, but he doesn’t really stand a chance. It may be, like before, he’s laying down the foundations for someone else, but also there’s the suspicion that this is as far as he can go. While it is hard to ignore the fact he took the job on compromised terms, he has not been the hate figure some portray him to be. He’s more a figure of sympathy, and in international sport, that is often much, much worse. If this best case you can make to keep him on is he deserves his go at the Ashes because he got sacked before, then you are not making a convincing case.

I thought I’d concentrate more on Moores in this piece, but do a brief bit on Cook and Strauss before longer thought pieces.

Cook has been the subject of a vicious attack by Boycott in the Telegraph. I wonder how Cook will approach Jonathan Agnew about that. Cook doesn’t take kindly to being spoken about like that and the consequences could be interesting. Boycott is a loudmouth, paid to express loud opinions, and you take them as they come. But I’ve never seen him this aggravated by a captain / player ever. This was going for the throat. I would say that it’s not as easy to dismiss Boycott’s views that align with a lot of us outside cricket, than it is for them to slate me, but they try (he’s a wife beater, he quit on England, blah blah – he also faced top quicks at 90 mph without a helmet on). A lot of us believe Cook isn’t the nice guy that his image is portrayed as, but I want to get away from that part. I want to look at the evidence – it’s all I try to do, and try to interpret. He’s protected, for now, and could jettison Moores to keep his career in check. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

As for Strauss…. appointing him the new Director of Cricket would be Downtonian in its brilliance. He talks the language of all charlatans – promising to build for a non-specific future, while using this to move on from something else that he doesn’t like (in this case a player who might return to form and demand selection). He also has the cult of Cook in his playbook, and would be an establishment, company candidate when root and branch change to a more exciting, attractive style of play is going to be needed. This current England team still has dedicated fans and lovers of the game actively wanting them, or key members of them, to fail to get the changes needed in structure, attitude and approach. Bringing back Mr Bowling Dry, with his foster son as captain and his foster dad wheeling away behind the scenes, is spitting in the face of those who actively want to love this side again. Strauss is typical ECB. Unexciting, not credible and the wrong man. More of this later.

2015 Test Century Watch #19 – Alastair Cook

LordCanisLupus12 Comments

o-ALASTAIR-COOK-facebook

Alastair Cook – 105 v West Indies at Bridgetown, Barbados

And so it came to pass on the first day of the fifth month of the year two thousand and three fives since the birth of our lord, that Saint Alastair of Cook made his 26th test century. And there was great rejoicing among the corps de press, and amongst former disciples and pharisees, who announced from the highest heights that the lord and saviour was “back to his best” and doth bellowed from their pulpits that the Saint had “rammed the critics’ words back down your throats” and “be quiet muppets”.

Alastair Cook’s 26th test hundred came nearly two years after his previous one. In that time he immortalised the number 95, and went the number of innings not making a century from the opener slot that was inhabited by people like Mike Brearley. I could make this a whole piece on the nonsense between hundreds, but let’s try to keep this true to form.

Only one of Cook’s tons has been less than 105 – his unbeaten first century on debut v India at Nagpur where he made 104 not out. This was his second century at Kensington Oval, where he made 139 not out in the first innings back in 2009, and it remains his only venue in the Caribbean where he has made a test hundred. This is his fourth century against West Indies, and as we’ll see later, he’s not exactly gone on from the three figure score in those innings. This is his first test century in the first innings of a test match (first overall, not England’s first innings) since his 115 in 2012 v South Africa.

Have you seen a 105 Dmitri? Well, funny you should ask, but I saw a large part of a 105 made by Alastair Cook, when he made that score v Pakistan at Lord’s in 2006. I have seen two others at The Oval – the first by Chris Gayle in 2004, in an innings that drove Michael Holding mad I seem to recall, and the other by Justin Langer in 2005, when the Aussies started getting us all worried with that opening partnership. There have been 92 scores of 105 in test cricket. Alastair Cook and Jacques Kallis are the only two players to have been dismissed three times on that score. Ricky Ponting and Kumar Sangakkara have also made the score three times, but both have a not out to their name.

In our vintage slot, we go back to the first 105 made in tests, and that took place a mere 130 years ago (any jokes about it seeming like that between Cook’s last two hundreds is your gag, not mine). His name was Arthur Shrewsbury Sr, and he made his unbeaten 105 at the MCG. The home team had been dismissed for 163, and it reached that due to the Demon Spofforth making 50 from number 11. In England’s reply of 386, made over a very sedate 221 overs, Shrewsbury came in at 97 for 3 and batted for over 5 hours in making his score. Must have got a wiggle on with that over rate. England went on to seal an innings victory, bowling out Australia for 125 in a mere 102 overs. Paul Collingwood….beat that. The match report is worth reading.

The first 105 in the West Indies was by Les Ames in 1930 at Port of Spain. Doug McGlew’s 105 against Australia in 1958 held the record for the slowest ever test hundred until Mudassar Nazar beat him twenty or so years later. Just the nine hours and five minutes in getting to three figures. Fifty of these 105s have been scored since 1992, although it has been over a year since the last one – Virat Kohli made 105 against New Zealand at Wellington last year (after McCullum’s triple). Sherwin Campbell made the last 105 at Bridgetown, in the famous 1999 test against Australia (think Brian Lara).

This was England’s 17th test century in Bridgetown. Alastair Cook nestles in at #15. The record score for an England player is, surprisingly, 154 by Mark Ramprakash in 1998. Only one other player has passed 150 there for England, and it’s that man Andrew Sandham again, who made 152 in 1930. Alastair Cook joins Alec Stewart (two in one match) and Graham Thorpe as the only England players to make two centuries in Barbados.

Going back to Sandham, that 152 was made in the first innings of the first test. After a lean run in tests 2 and 3, Sandham made 325 and 50 in a timeless 4th test and never played for England again.

Imagine that, Alastair.

Alastair Cook’s 100 came up in 259 balls and contained 10 x 4.

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.

Mediocre

LordCanisLupus64 Comments

There ends another series. If we’d just got Jason Holder early on in Antigua, and we’d scored 50 more runs in Bridgetown, it would have been a whitewash. Then it would have been six on the bounce and bring on the Aussies. Sorry. Been chanelling my inner Selfey there. It’s probably all Jos Buttler’s fault.

Instead of a whitewash we’ve got into a decent position here in Bridgetown, had our feet on the home team’s throat, and in another calamity, let them off the hook. To do it in Melbourne could have been understandable on a bad tour; to do it at Headingley could have been considered an understandable, if lamentable, brain fart. This reeked of complacency. This reeked of thinking we had the job done once we’d edged up to around 280 and had the home team a few down early. Blackwood got the West Indies into range and our lamentable, undroppable batting line-up (other than the revolving door non-Cook opener slot) handed another test over to the valiant opposition. Ballance, Root, Bell and Moeen – Headingley, Lord’s and Kensington Oval. Save your Moeen at Headingley stories….this middle order is untouchable we are told.

As a not a real fan candidate (according to Guardian commenters I’m supposed to be nice to – add “the usual malcontents” to the list of glorious things I’m not to be cheesed off about), I can say that I lost contact with this game at around tea. The feed for Sky Sports, which I bloody well pay for, went down. It never came back. I tried TMS, got 10 minutes of Swann’s summarising, and my internet link shut down to prevent further damage. Instead I watched a team live up to its billing in the NBA Play-offs (Golden State Warriors) on the TV and followed updates on cricinfo and Twitter as another team didn’t live up to its star-studded rep. To me this isn’t surprising – we’ve seen the over-hype machine cranked to bursting point after Grenada and it’s not as if we weren’t warning them. We’re not Jeremiahs…we’ve bloody seen this before. Lots of times. Now those who were quick to spray their bile over us after that miracle at St. George’s, will need to take it back. This was utterly abject. But they won’t when it’s easier to shoot the misery messenger telling you as it is.

It may be funny, in a strange sort of way, that Cook’s century was made at last. Because all the while he wasn’t scoring those big runs (and 105 isn’t massive, although very good in the context of the match) there was almost this paranoid need for him to retain all facets of the test job as if this would inspire him to make those scores. You know, all that leading from the front twaddle. There has been an air of defiance from our wonderful captain this tour, with his prickly demeanour reputed to have included a heated discussion with Agnew over his commentary stints with the mortal enemy. Who know’s if this is true? But what I heard from the bits of this series I caught was a concerted effort from some of the Sky crew to really “get behind” our captain, to the extent that there were copious mentions of our dear leader’s “body language” and “I’m in charge” stance. It’s nonsense. That you feel the need to point this out, or to comment on how much better it supposedly is indicates there’s a problem. I’m trying to work out a captain post-Gower who had these comments made about him.

I said after Grenada that:

1. When you win a test, act like you’ve been there before; and

2. When you win the test on a back of an inspirational solo effort, don’t bank on that as a long-term solution.

Instead, even I got sucked in, with my prediction that the WIndies would fall 40 or 50 short in their chase. This was in direct contrast to my suspicion. The suspicion was that the 123 we made in the second innings wasn’t the product of a minefield as seemed to be intimated on the wires last night. It was the product of total, utter incompetence, and watching this morning I didn’t see much devil in the wicket. No, we were perfecting a craft. Losing from winning positions is becoming a lovely little Cooky habit. Bring on Australia, I say. So I dismissed West Indies, wrongly, and they showed what getting your head down and not fretting about the “one with your name on it” as Botham muttered on could achieve. Well played chaps.

I’ve missed the aftermath. I understand Nasser got a bit pointed with Moores. Oh well, it’s always better to a sinner repent and all that. There’s far more good than bad with Mr Hussain. I’ve missed Bob off the long run, although I’m sure it will be the same old same old. It loses its resonance when you’ve been throwing hyperbole all over the place after Grenada. Then there’s the press – ready to stick it to all the doubters on Friday when Cook made his ton, and now ready to stick a belated knife in to whoever is this month’s sacrificial non-Cook lamb. Some have been just totally dismissive of the opposition, but now lay the blame at a comment by a loudmouthed Yorkie who gave the home team a supposed push with his “mediocre” comment.

The West Indies played with passion, with patience, with skill and with no little application when the going got tough. Darren Bravo’s innings summed it up. He has been accused of being flashy and irresponsible. Now he played with a calm head and rode what luck he had to make the crucial contribution. Jermaine Blackwood, a dasher of huge irresponsibility it is claimed, stuck to his task and was there at the end. He’s had a really promising series and I hope he goes on to bigger and better things. The bowling was honest, was clever and too good in the end. We kept being reminded that Jason Holder was “fourth seamer” material and yet he took wickets, whereas our seamers (Stokes and Jordan) appeared to have no clue for much of the time. I am still not seeing what the world sees in Chris Jordan’s bowling that I didn’t when at Surrey. Sure, he bowled a decent spell that took an early wicket, but he’s not consistent enough.

So where does this leave us? I’m fed up with saying what I say about Cook. The batting is now put to bed, and we have no chance of seeing him leave the team on form now. The captaincy position is more interesting, but there’s nothing I haven’t seen before. We’re told he is developing all the time, but I’m fed up with hearing this drivel, month in, month out. The century in Barbados proved nothing. It was a good innings, but not a match-winning one. It was his first in two years, yet this isn’t something to be lauded, but something to be concerned about. It answered no questions, other than one in the media’s mind. We weren’t wrong to criticise his preferential treatment just because me made a ton. You carry on, because the evidence is stacked in our favour. Boycott has had enough, that’s for sure.

I don’t know about Moores. I am not as down on him as others, but the position is becoming more and more untenable. The story book had been set. After the World Cup embarrassment, it was clear that the media message the ECB wanted to portray was that the tests were what mattered now, and we’d just won three on the bounce in that format. Cook was refreshed, there were young pros developing and this is the future. Now we look like a shambles within a week of a “famous victory”. The reports I’m hearing is that we are trying to say the Windies weren’t really “mediocre”. Well, let’s see how the Australians deal with this team. Moores has to be on thin ice, and we’ll see very soon how the new management react.

Jonathan Trott has been sent to the cricketing gallows, so he’ll pay the price. Ian Bell started the series on fire, and finished it fully soaked. Gary Ballance looks good, but I’m still worried about his technique, and Joe Root did not follow up his great effort at Barbados. The bowling is a long-term issue, and you can moan about Moeen until the cows come home, but 123 all out sums it up. Is that Moores fault? Really?

Meanwhile one of the main architects of this struggle remains in Loughborough like the malevolent priest, the power behind the monarchy. We have rumours of his evangelical student Strauss becoming the Director of Cricket, which fills me with all the joy of a root canal procedure, and there remains the thoroughly uninspiring body language king as captain. Good grief. How can you put up with Stuart Broad’s batting as captain of your team. I don’t care if he got hit, we all have who have played the game, and the next time you bat you are nervous. He’s not pulling his weight. If the issue is that serious, he has to go. Just has to. How can you ask people to play through tough times when one of your senior pros is showing such fragility?

I am now listening to TMS and Boycott’s comments. This should be fun.

Vian will have more tomorrow, hopefully, and thanks for all the comments today. We’ll be back tomorrow with more comments and analysis of what has just happened, and some of the reaction.

Buffering

LordCanisLupus5 Comments
Coming To You Live From The Jersey Shore
Coming To You Live From The Jersey Shore

Watching test cricket in the US is not as impossible as it used to be. I have access to the test match feed, but my internet connection isn’t brilliant and there are also other things to do. It’s a peaceful holiday, a really cool and calm time with a sick mother in law and a wife fussing over her and also getting her home air back in her lungs. Meanwhile it’s sunset and selfies more for me (and I don’t mean the journalist).

I’ll let Vian take over many of the more technical duties relating to this test. I’ve been struck by a couple of things while I’ve been watching. First, listening to one of our Sky Sports finest discussing a pitch pre-game is about as accurate a predictor of the game’s progress as legendary NFL draft seer Mel Kiper Jr has been when confronted with the first round of this year’s horse-trade. We had predictions of a great pitch to bat on and with it breaking up on day 5. Unless there’s a monsoon on the next two days, the public will be on the beach / drinking rum, or if they know what they are doing, going to admire the view at Bathsheba.

There is, of course, the Alastair Cook century to deal with. I have never looked forward to a century watch less. I am probably glad to be by the Delaware Bay than have to read much of the bilge that no doubt accompanied this century. But, let’s get one thing into context. Without it, in this test, we’d be in big, big trouble. It would be churlish in the extreme to be denigrating of this century given the context of the match. These are two really ordinary teams, and the difference is in a couple of extraordinary performances, and not much else. 39 for 5 is really killing this game off, isn’t it? We have just over 100 runs to play with. 150 might be enough, but it might not. Our tail has not exactly been our strong point when it comes to the team’s performance. Bloody hell, we need it now.

Make no mistake, this has not been a rampage, and this does not augur well for the upcoming battles. Much has been made about the Jonathan Trott experiment failing, and I know, I must get round to reading George Dobell’s take on matters. Others have been rather too keen to jump on the bandwagon, and while I note all that has been said on here about his form towards the last couple of years of his first go around, we were hoping for the best. I don’t know if we are seeing a trend here as well – one the press won’t ever go to town on – but that since Strauss, this is another opener who has tried and failed with Cook. They just don’t last long with him. According to some, mentioning this in the same breath is “warped thinking” and that we thought Trott had been put there to fail to make Cook look good. Hey, if there’s an insult from a press-man going, I’ll catch it and run with it. It’s nowhere near as warped a thinking as Cook getting 35 or so test innings to register a century and then to be greeted with a “he’s back” and “you are the ones with problems” nonsense I have seen over the past couple of days. Wind your bloody necks in.

But in between the constant buffering on my feed, I’ve seen two poor batting sides. I’ve seen England lurching between spells where they look like absolute top dollar to others where they’ve been utter, utter dross. The proof of this particular pudding is how we do in the late summer this year with Australia about. That’s what they want us to focus on. I don’t see the up and at them needed to compete. Jimmy Anderson has it in bursts, and again, from what I saw today he was excellent (seriously, spare the bloody “genius” cockwaffle I saw on Twitter from some who should really know better – act like you’ve been there before) but there’s enormous question marks over the rest of the bowling. It might be we get out of here winning 2-0, but portraying it as a brilliant success isn’t going to cut it. There are flaws, massive flaws, and they can’t be covered up that easily.

I have the house to myself tomorrow to watch the denouement. The rest are going out to collect sea glass. I hope our message in a bottle is one of success, and of lower order scoring prowess. Instead, we could be watching a cliff-hanger, with the fragile veneer of English cricket potentially shattered on the mediocre rocks of West Indian cricket. And with that, it’s off to watch the NBA play-offs.

From Town Bank, NJ, it’s Dmitri Old, wishing you well.

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