Trouble in the English camp : Pietersen Vs Moores!?

[vic_orthdox]

Pietersen knows he can't be a good captain tactically though. He says he's never done it before in his life, not even at club or school level. When he took the job he did so on the understanding that Vaughan would be around to help out with that side of captaincy, but suddenly he's gone and Pietersen has to do it all himself. KP cops a lot for being arrogant, but he's being realistic here- he knows he can't be a top-quality captain without the help of someone with experience.

It's fair enough if you think that reflect badly on Pietersen, but that isn't relevant. What matters is what is to be done about it. Relieving KP of the job would be extremely poor form, he could well end up going the same way as Dravid. Sticking with him even though he's a poor captain isn't the road to success either. Bringing in someone who KP believes he can learn something from might not appeal, but it's the only viable option itbt.

And obviously the coach isn't providing anything that can be relied on tactically.

 

[zaremba]

Pietersen knows he can't be a good captain tactically though. He says he's never done it before in his life, not even at club or school level. When he took the job he did so on the understanding that Vaughan would be around to help out with that side of captaincy, but suddenly he's gone and Pietersen has to do it all himself. KP cops a lot for being arrogant, but he's being realistic here- he knows he can't be a top-quality captain without the help of someone with experience.

I can't believe that when he took the job KP stipulated that Vaughan would remain in the side for this reason. And if he did make that stipulation I can't believe that anyone would have been so stupid as to have agreed to it. If Moores did so, then Moores deserves to be sacked for that piece of idiocy alone.

If KP really needs his hand held he has no fewer than 3 former England captains alongside him in Strauss, Flintoff and Collingwood.

It's fair enough if you think that reflect badly on Pietersen, but that isn't relevant. What matters is what is to be done about it.

Well, the options are very limited now. This is because KP has by his own actions created an incredibly invidious situation for the management by (a) demanding (effectively) that Moores should be sacked, (b) very publicly throwing his toys out of the pram re team selection and (c) drawing attention to the fact that he's not up to the job tactically (this is the man who's supposedly going to be leading us to the Ashes this year!).

On balance, weak though it admittedly is, I think I'd prefer him not to be sacked. He's too important to the England team at the moment and I think he does have potential as a leader.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I can't believe that when he took the job KP stipulated that Vaughan would remain in the side for this reason. And if he did make that stipulation I can't believe that anyone would have been so stupid as to have agreed to it. If Moores did so, then Moores deserves to be sacked for that piece of idiocy alone.

If KP really needs his hand held he has no fewer than 3 former England captains alongside him in Strauss, Flintoff and Collingwood.



Well, the options are very limited now. This is because KP has by his own actions created an incredibly invidious situation for the management by (a) demanding (effectively) that Moores should be sacked, (b) very publicly throwing his toys out of the pram re team selection and (c) drawing attention to the fact that he's not up to the job tactically (this is the man who's supposedly going to be leading us to the Ashes this year!).

On balance, weak though it admittedly is, I think I'd prefer him not to be sacked. He's too important to the England team at the moment and I think he does have potential as a leader.

anticipating/understanding that Vaughan would be around != stipulation

 

[susudear]

Pietersen has only himself to blame

He has now put undue pressure on himself by staking his captaincy on a player who is woefully out of form. Imagine the pressure on him, if Vaughan fails to perform after being recalled.

 

[Uppercut]

I can't believe that when he took the job KP stipulated that Vaughan would remain in the side for this reason. And if he did make that stipulation I can't believe that anyone would have been so stupid as to have agreed to it. If Moores did so, then Moores deserves to be sacked for that piece of idiocy alone.

If KP really needs his hand held he has no fewer than 3 former England captains alongside him in Strauss, Flintoff and Collingwood.

I didn't mean that he was guaranteed Vaughan would be around, just that he would have expected it. Vaughan's retirement was coupled with a "will still be playing on as a batsman" announcement.

As for the latter point, those three combined have less captaincy expertise than Vaughan's index finger.

 

[zaremba]

I didn't mean that he was guaranteed Vaughan would be around, just that he would have expected it.

Apologies - I took that from your comment that "when he took the job he did so on the understanding that Vaughan would be around."

As for the latter point, those three combined have less captaincy expertise than Vaughan's index finger.

I was no fan of Flintoff or Collingwood as captains but they do have experience of the job. Moreover I think that, to coin a phrase, you misunderestimate Strauss.

Anyhow I can't believe we're even having this discussion. Pietersen is the captain of England for God's sake and he should be capable of captaining the side without his chosen buddy to help out.

 

[Uppercut]

I was no fan of Flintoff or Collingwood as captains but they do have experience of the job. Moreover I think that, to coin a phrase, you misunderestimate Strauss.

Anyhow I can't believe we're even having this discussion. Pietersen is the captain of England for God's sake and he should be capable of captaining the side without his chosen buddy to help out.

I guess it was a tad inevitable from the moment they appointed someone with zero captaincy experience. But he really was the only option they could go for as Strauss's place in the side wasn't assured (i do agree he's easily the best captain currently in the side). If they get this cleaned up on time for the Ashes, they're not in a bad state. Certainly made a better fist of touring India than Australia did.

 

[Goughy]

Certainly made a better fist of touring India than Australia did.

A loss is a loss is a loss

 

[zaremba]

Yep as you say I hope it gets sorted out as cleanly as possible.

 

[Uppercut]

A loss is a loss is a loss

For the purposes of merit i completely agree but for the purposes of looking forward to how the Ashes might go i thought that was worth a mention.

 

[zaremba]

A loss is a loss is a loss

I disagree. A drubbing /= a narrow loss. A pitiful losing performance /= a losing performance when you play well. There's a big difference.

 

[Richard]

I honestly do not understand all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that is going on in relation to Pietersen's attempt to oust Moores.

The main points being made against Pietersen seem to be that it's not a very nice thing to do and he's not doing it in a very nice way. Well, boo hoo. Those are very English complaints, made by the sort of people who think losing gallantly is as good as winning ruthlessly.

I take your point about wanting to win at all costs but I have to say that for a captain to mutiny in the way Pietersen has doesn't augur well for the future, even if he gets his way with relatively little damage on this occasion. It's just deeply unprofessional.

Yeah, agree 100% with this (with Mr. z that is). It's not the lack of "nice"ness that bothers me (though I do tend to believe that in order to be treated like Pietersen has apparently treated Moores here you need to have done something damn bad and proper to deserve it) but the fact that the captain attempting to oust the coach in this way is ridiculously unprofessional.

It has been made very clear that nobody considers him capable of out-thinking a team, or of developing gameplans for particular batsmen. KP looked like the novice captain he is on the last day in Chennai, and he clearly hated it. If the undercurrent about having Vaughan in the squad is true, it should be obvious that KP wanted him not necessarily to bat at 3, but to teach him about captaincy in a way that Moores has been unable to.

Pietersen doesn't have to have Vaughan in the team to learn from him. I imagine MPV would be only too happy to spend plenty of time with KP, off the field and away from the camp, if he thinks it'll help him with the England captaincy. I imagine the reason KP wants Vaughan in the side is because he believes, as with Harmison, that he can play well and make the side a better side than other alternatives.

Obviously I don't agree on the Harmison score as I've never rated him but on the Vaughan one I still hold some amount of hope. Can't argue with him not being in the squad at the moment though, unfortunately - his form just doesn't merit it. But I do hope that at the start of next summer it might.

 

[Penguinissimo]

but the fact that the captain attempting to oust the coach in this way is ridiculously unprofessional.

How else could he do it?

 

[zaremba]

How else could he do it?

An almost infinite number of ways, almost all of which would be more professional than this. For instance, speaking discreetly and privately to Moores and/or the ECB rather than to the News of the World

 

[Richard]

Yeah. Ideally, the first we Joe Public would know about the matter was that Moores had left the coach's job due to "differences with the captain" or whatever. Either that or that Pietersen had stepped-down as captain due to "differences with the coach".

The whole saga should be sorted before it's splashed all over the papers. All right, journalists have all sorts of contracts and things getting leaked isn't unusual, but this is different - Pietersen has deliberately spoken to the papers before Hugh Morris has even overseen these crisis talks. This is very, very un-ideal.

 

[Penguinissimo]

Well, we don't know that he hasn't tried to do this the soft way before playing hardball. Maybe he didn't, but just because we don't know about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

My point remains that Moores going - and going now, rather than in May - is the right move. KP seems to be the only one of the establishment who can see that, and I'm happy for him to do whatever it takes to achieve his objective.

Whilst we're on professionalism, what is very "professional" for the ECB to appoint a coach without interviewing any candidates? Has Moores been entirely "professional" in his selection of Sussex players? What use is being "professional" if it contributes to the England team being worse than it could be?

 

[Manee]

Will have to side with the side which states that Pietersen has been tremendously unprofessional in attempting to oust Moores so publicly. It is not as if Moores has lambasted Pietersen in the media and this is a like for like response - it is totally uncalled for and something which I am sure many worried about when putting such a rather unpredictable person as captain.

 

[Goughy]

I disagree. A drubbing /= a narrow loss. A pitiful losing performance /= a losing performance when you play well. There's a big difference.

They are still all failures. Sure one isnt as bad as the other but a drubbing and a narrow loss are still losses. One may be nicer/better etc but the it doesnt change who holds the trophy.

As a wise man once said "We Play To Win The Game"

Taking heart from narrow losses is a losers, and Bangladeshis, preserve IMO.

 

[zaremba]

Whilst we're on professionalism...

I'm not sure how examples of other matters which you consider to have been mis-handled can really assist in judging whether KP has behaved appropriately or not. At very best if your charges are accurate they would give KP a kind of spurious playground justification based on 2 wrongs somehow making a right.

Anyhow I'm sufficiently bored here at work to take up the gauntlet...

what is very "professional" for the ECB to appoint a coach without interviewing any candidates?

Yes this was perfectly professional. It's what the FA did when they appointed Fabio Capello IIRC - having gone through a very formal interview process the time before in which the successful candidate was, er, Steve McClaren. There's more than one way to select a coach and I'm not convinced that how someone performs in interview is necessarily the most accurate guide to how good a coach he will be, particularly in an industry where the leading contenders will be well-known and will have well-publicised records. Moores was extremely well-known to the ECB having worked as Academy Director, and for that reason his appointment also had the benefit of continuity.

Now, you might take a different view about the utility of interviewing, and about the merits of the selection of Moores in the first place, but it's not "unprofessional" for the ECB to have gone down a different route.

Has Moores been entirely "professional" in his selection of Sussex players?

Yes - as have the other members of the selection panel.

I set out my views on this in another thread yesterday when Richard tried to make a case for Moores having a home-town bias, so I shan't repeat everything I said there. However in summary Moores's alleged pro-Sussex bias consists, as far as I can tell, of
(a) ending Yardy's ODI career after one match;
(b) selecting then summarily dropping Prior (despite a Test average of over 40) then recalling him when his replacement couldn't hold down his place; and
(c) of selecting Luke Wright for some T20 and ODI cricket on the basis of some good domestic limited-overs form before, again, dropping him.

Given that Sussex have been the leading force in domestic cricket in the past few years, that's hardly a surprising level of over-representation.

An accusation that can be taken a little more seriously is that there have been errors in selection. Pattinson was one, arguably Wright was another. But your insinuation of bias by Moores (presumably inveigling his fellow-selectors into his pro-Sussex conspiracy as well) doesn't bear any scrutiny.

 

[zaremba]

They are still all failures. Sure one isnt as bad as the other but a drubbing and a narrow loss are still losses. One may be nicer/better etc but the it doesnt change who holds the trophy.

As a wise man once said "We Play To Win The Game"

Taking heart from narrow losses is a losers, and Bangladeshis, preserve IMO.

Or as someone else said, "Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser". I take your points of course but there is still a real consolation in having lost a match or a series closely compared with getting absolutely exterminated. Apart from anything else, it's easier to have hope for the future.