Trouble in the English camp : Pietersen Vs Moores!?

[Penguinissimo]

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 are some significant differences. First, the FA are as much of a joke in the footballing world as the ICC are in the cricketing world, so what they do doesn't provide a justification for anything else. Second, they did interview a number of candidates before appointing Capello. Third, When they got McClaren, it is well known that they actually chose Scolari who embarrassingly dumped the FA after two days of tabloid attention.

Fourth, and this is the key one, Capello was not a product of an FA system of training up young coaches for the top job in the future. I'm saying that the ECB backed themselves into a position where appointing anyone other than Moores would have been an admission of the failure of their carefully crafted system.

But you're right, three wrongs don't make a right, I was just getting frustrated at how vague the charge of "unprofessional conduct" is - I still don't get how KP trying to make the England team the best possible is unprofessional.

 

[zaremba]

I was just getting frustrated at how vague the charge of "unprofessional conduct" is - I still don't get how KP trying to make the England team the best possible is unprofessional.

It's largely a question of how he goes about it. Having the captain stick the knife so publicly into the coach just gives the impression that the team, the captain and the management are a complete rabble - particularly if the reason for the captain's actions is that he doesn't feel he is capable of doing the job without his old mate MPV there to hold his hand. I don't feel this is a good thing for the team in the longer term. We can all think of teams that have been destabilised and damaged by a lack of discipline.

I also - and this is of course very much secondary to wanting successful results - want the England captain to have a bit of class. At the moment that looks a bit like wishful thinking...

 

[BoyBrumby]

While i agree with your point, Trescothick's a reasonably isolated example. I think they probably would make a lot of better selections if they went for the players who regularly churned out the best FC figures instead of plumping for the guy with the textbook cover drive. Not that that's how selections should be made- you obviously have to actually watch someone play- but even so, if they went for the player with the best figures every time, they'd probably have a higher success rate than they currently do.

Of late amongst our batsmen he's actually not. Along with Tres, Vaughan, Strauss, Collingwood & Prior all average more in tests than in first class cricket overall.

&, of course, Messers Hick & Ramprakash were both amongst those who regularly churned out the best FC figures.

Selectorial judgement must play a part or all the chairman of selectors would need to do is a quick search of the stats on cricinfo.

Englands problem is that there are few (if any) young cricketers with a bit of cricket behind them that average 45+ in FC cricket.

Samit Patel is probably about the only one. With his serviceable SLA to boot it makes his continuing absence from the test squad a bit baffling.

Actually maybe Trott might be up there too.

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.

If Vaughan's going to be the proxy captain anyway, surely it must call the wisodm of appointing KP as skipper in the first place into question? As far as I can see the only way he's more qualified than Strauss for the job is that he's an ODI regular and the Middlesex man isn't.

---

Meanwhile Mike Selvey writes an interesting piece in today's Guardian.

He suggests Pietersen is now uniquely powerful as captain and that the next coach will bear Pietersen's "by appointment" stamp.

In KP's defence tho he also says of Moores,

"It was evident in New Zealand almost a year ago, when Moores' determination to work his charges into the ground caused one player to talk angrily about how what he described as an "in your face" approach was having a detrimental effect on the morale of the team and, by extension, their performance. So in a way Pietersen is merely being seen as the high-profile mouthpiece of a more general disgruntled group of which, until Vaughan's resignation last August, he was only a part."

So one might just view Pietersen as acting as the squad's shop steward.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Will be quite glad to see the back of Moores. I dunno whether he is or not, but he seems like an old boy network appointment, he himself seems keen to continue that with his own preferential treatment. He just has 90s England era vibe to him.

 

[zaremba]

Horton is another one with a good FC average - just under 46.

As for the "in yer face" comment that's been reported, all I can say is that this in my view doesn't add up to much of a prosecution case against Moores.

 

[Uppercut]

Of late amongst our batsmen he's actually not. Along with Tres, Vaughan, Strauss, Collingwood & Prior all average more in tests than in first class cricket overall.

&, of course, Messers Hick & Ramprakash were both amongst those who regularly churned out the best FC figures.

Selectorial judgement must play a part or all the chairman of selectors would need to do is a quick search of the stats on cricinfo.

I did mention that i agreed with that final sentence, but judging by their current level of success they may well have a higher level of success going largely statistically than they do currently. Vaughan, Strauss, Collingwood and Prior are hardly unqualified batting successes at test level anyway, the records of the first three are almost precisely the average for a non-Bangladesh specialist test batsman in this era and in the case of Prior he was indeed churning out the best FC figures when brought back into the side.

Hick and Ramprakash are unique cases in that they appear to have had mental issues with test batting. You won't find too many players who star in FC cricket year after year and fail at test level. It's hard to criticise the selectors for picking Hick and Ramprakash, a little ridiculous even. The selections of Sajid Mahmood, Stuart Broad, Liam Plunkett and Darren Pattinson, less so. And when they went with the tried-and-trusted consistent FC guy in Sidebottom, it was the best decision they've made in years.

Will argue more later, i smell food.

 

[Richard]

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.

You'd imagine we'd have heard about it if it had TBH.

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.

One might argue that it's three steps backward to achieve one forward via the route KP appears to be taking.

 

[Penguinissimo]

One might argue that it's three steps backward to achieve one forward via the route KP appears to be taking.

One might, but I wouldn't.

 

[zaremba]

I don't think we should see Moores as being isolated and universally disliked in the England squad. The truth seems very different:

The former England seamer Angus Fraser, Middlesex's new director of cricket, said: "There are many in the England set-up who like Moores and favour the coaching staff he has put in place. Pietersen, who sidestepped Moores and complained to Giles Clarke, the ECB chairman, has treated the coach shabbily."

It's hard to avoid the inference that Pietersen is acting as a divisive and disruptive force. And he has significant form for this too.

Last time he fell out with a coach was at Notts. He left, and Notts promptly won the County Championship the very next season.

 

[wpdavid]

As for the "in yer face" comment that's been reported, all I can say is that this in my view doesn't add up to much of a prosecution case against Moores.

Yup - it depends on what "in yer face" actually meant. It's tempting, from here to conclude that one or two over-sensitive egos didn't appreciate being told to get their arses into gear and start producing the goods.

Whatever else comes out of all this, surely the worst scenario would be Vaughan being added to the squad flying out to the Caribbean. That and Harmison's status being reinstated to "must be picked if fit", when all the evidence is that he responds best to not being an automatic selection. If KP can't handle his mates not being given preferential treatment, then I'd really rather someone else captained the side. Probably Strauss, who was damned unlucky to lose the job in 2006.

 

[zaremba]

Will be quite glad to see the back of Moores. I dunno whether he is or not, but he seems like an old boy network appointment, he himself seems keen to continue that with his own preferential treatment. He just has 90s England era vibe to him.

Not sure about this. However what you can be sure of is that if and when KP gets his way and a new coach comes in, a brand new and very real Old Boy network will be immediately created. He's already named his preferred successor for Moores as Graham Ford, his old coach from KwaZulu Natal. And even if it's not Ford, whoever replaces Moores will be KP-approved and KP will then have his very own little closed shop where his mates get selected and the coach has his seal of approval.

Not healthy.

 

[Richard]

One might, but I wouldn't.

Haha yeah - by "one might", I mean, of course, "I would".

 

[Richard]

Yup - it depends on what "in yer face" actually meant. It's tempting, from here to conclude that one or two over-sensitive egos didn't appreciate being told to get their arses into gear and start producing the goods.

Whatever else comes out of all this, surely the worst scenario would be Vaughan being added to the squad flying out to the Caribbean. That and Harmison's status being reinstated to "must be picked if fit", when all the evidence is that he responds best to not being an automatic selection. If KP can't handle his mates not being given preferential treatment, then I'd really rather someone else captained the side. Probably Strauss, who was damned unlucky to lose the job in 2006.

I don't think Strauss was particularly unlucky to lose the job TBH and never have as he was only doing it as a stand-in, but nonetheless, I'd definately say he's probably a better bet as Test captain than Pietersen in several ways.

The trouble is, as has been pointed-out a good few times now, that the Stanford situation means the Test and Twenty20 (and thus almost inevitably ODI) captains must be the same person. Strauss merits a place in neither ODI nor (not that I'm much bothered) Twenty20 teams, so obviously could only be Test captain. Pre-Stanford, I'd be quite happy with that, but it's just not possible with the rewards the Stanford series brings in.

 

[Penguinissimo]

Just read this analysis by Lawrence Booth in the Guardian, which I think is the best I've seen on the situation (and as such I'm going to post it whole for you lot to dissect):

If and when Kevin Pietersen succeeds in driving Peter Moores from office, he may find that the relief of ousting a man he did not rate is replaced by a more profound problem: how to unite a dressing room containing characters who do not necessarily regard their leader as the chosen one. With an Ashes series looming against the most vulnerable Australian side since the mid-1980s, it is a galling thought. And, in its ****-eyed botchedness, it is typically English.

Chats with informed sources over the past couple of days have confirmed that Pietersen will have a tricky job on his hands even if Hugh Morris, England's managing director, accedes to his wish and sacks Moores before the plane is boarded for the Caribbean on January 21. And that's even assuming the England and Wales Cricket Board can appoint someone to the captain's liking (Graham Ford, both Pietersen's and the bookies' favourite, is apparently regarded as an outsider by the ECB). The situation is a mess.

When Pietersen was made captain for the Oval Test, this column applauded the move, but it did so with a caveat: "If Pietersen can prevent the good-natured but occasionally enervating nature of the Flintoff-Harmison axis from taking hold in his dressing room, he will have won half the battle." That battle is still being fought - Flintoff's dislike of his captain is hardly a state secret, while Harmison has pointedly observed that this is "about the England cricket team - not Peter Moores or Kevin Pietersen". It could yet prove damaging to both England's chances in the summer, and, if the celebrations in 2005 are anything to go by, the game's standing in this country.

There needs to be give and take on both sides here, not a relentless and destructive clashing of large egos. Pietersen has entered dangerous territory by taking his gripes about Moores to the ECB, not because it sets a precedent (it does only in theory: in practice no two situations are the same), but because it places more pressure on him as leader. "You've got what you wanted," will go the cry. "Now you'd better beat Australia." Cricket captains have always been more accountable than their peers in other sports, but a captain who has just ousted the coach enters new realms of responsibility altogether.

For Flintoff, the next few months will be his chance to prove that he can handle the reality of no longer being English cricket's top dog. Well-placed whispers have suggested this has been a struggle so far. As for Moores, it has been said he has a bigger ego than people realise. If true, this would have compounded the philosophical differences he had with Pietersen.

This in itself is not a reason to lose a job - poor results alone should be the overriding factor, and Moores' have been mediocre. But for the sake of English cricket, a new coach must be smart enough to allow Pietersen to do things his way, strong enough to unite the players and with a CV sufficiently impressive to earn their respect. The queue shortens with each condition.

Oh, the politics! Instead of raising glasses to a new year replete with Ashes-regaining opportunity, too many are busy sharpening knives. It may well be in England's best hope to get rid of the underachieving Moores now, while there are still six Tests against West Indies (four away, two at home) to prepare for Australia. Yet the manner of the blood-letting has been revealingly nasty. The leaking of the news about Pietersen's approach to Giles Clarke (the wrong man, in fact) was a calculated piece of meddling by the individual concerned. And the implications of that leak are now being played out in Borgian brutality.

The ECB bosses would have loved to have dealt with this contretemps behind closed doors. As it is, Pietersen - always assuming, of course, that he survives the coup - will now have even more on his plate this summer than Australia's bowlers. Not for the first time, English cricket has chosen an interesting moment to air its internal grievances.

 

[honestbharani]

Regarding the first point, in American Football traditional wisdom is that the best college coaches cannot easily transition to the NFL. Despite both college and pro coaches getting paid the same (ie multi-million dollars a year) the mentality and man management strategies are completely different and what works at college doesnt translate to the NFL.

There could be the same case in cricket. It is probably very different to manage County pros whos professional success and moderate income depends on your patronage when compared to dealing with high profile, wealthy, successful and egotistical international players at the top of their game.

In County (as with College American Football) the coach is pretty much King. At the higher level player power is far stronger.

One imagines that Moores may not have adjusted well and approached the England players with a strict mentality that they rebelled against.

Regarding the 2nd point. I agree, I think KP is out of line with such a public spat.

I don't think what KP has done here is right and I agree with your view on this.


However, I do think that unlike in other major team sports, the captain plays a HUGE role in cricket and if you have chosen KP to be your man to lead in the next few years, you have to back him to the hilt. If he fails, you will know for sure that he didn't have it. It is much better to go down this way than to NOT give him what he wants and it ends up affecting his game. If you are taking a risk (which is what the appointment of KP as captain was) then take it fully.. The risk MAY fail, but the half measured risks will DEFINITELY fail.

 

[zaremba]

Thanks for posting the article, Penguinissimo - an interesting read and I find it hard to disagree with much of what Lawrence Booth says in it.

 

[wpdavid]

The more I think about it, the less happy I am with the possibility of Pietersen having his coach sacked. You can be sure that if he tried this in Aus, he'd be invited to **** right off and do the job he's actually paid to do, and quite rightly too. Especially if it's largely about Vaughan's non-selection, which at best could be described as marginal.

Reminds me a bit of Boycott's mid70's sulk when he disagreed with the appointment of Denness as England captain. Then, of course, we lost our best batsman for three years, but there you go. If KP were to stand down as captain, would it really matter?

 

[pup11]

I don't think what KP has done here is right and I agree with your view on this.


However, I do think that unlike in other major team sports, the captain plays a HUGE role in cricket and if you have chosen KP to be your man to lead in the next few years, you have to back him to the hilt. If he fails, you will know for sure that he didn't have it. It is much better to go down this way than to NOT give him what he wants and it ends up affecting his game. If you are taking a risk (which is what the appointment of KP as captain was) then take it fully.. The risk MAY fail, but the half measured risks will DEFINITELY fail.

Nope i don't agree with the ideology that just because he is the man who is expected to lead the side, he can virtually go on doing anything, i think KP has let his ego get the better of himself by blowing up this situation to such gigantic proportions.

Ok, so Pietersen wanted Vaughan and Moores didn't (which in a way is fair enough, because Vaughan has hardly done anything to deserve a call-up), now i think its for Pietersen to realise that in a team set-up their are going to be difference of opinions but you can't go on like a cry-baby and blast your team' coach all over the media, just because you two have differnce in opinions, or just because you don't like the way he works.

If he had problems with Moores and his style of coaching or his views, then he could have spoken to ECB or Moores himself, but to come out and clearly signal that "either you choose me or you choose Moores", isn't really a great way getting things done in the way you want.

I think this incident more or less would send out a poor message to many young English players, or their next prospective coach, they might now think that, we better agree with whatever Pietersen says, otherwise we could be in trouble, now that really doesn't create a healthy team atmosphere.

 

[Goughy]

However, I do think that unlike in other major team sports, the captain plays a HUGE role in cricket and if you have chosen KP to be your man to lead in the next few years, you have to back him to the hilt.

That is my problem though. I dont think they appointed KP for cricketing reasons.

 

[wpdavid]

That is my problem though. I dont think they appointed KP for cricketing reasons.

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by that.