Trouble in the English camp : Pietersen Vs Moores!?

[Goughy]

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by that.

That I dont think they picked KP because they thought he was the best captain or the best person to deliver Test results.

 

[Uppercut]

But because they suddenly realised after signing the Stanford agreement how bad it would look if their T20 captain earned millions more than their test captain.

 

[wpdavid]

That I dont think they picked KP because they thought he was the best captain or the best person to deliver Test results.

Why do you think they picked him? And who should have been picked at that time?

My take on it at the time was there weren't viable alternatives who were cast-iron certainties for the test side. Obv Strauss's subsequent twin tons in India change that for the immediate future, and possibly Collingwood's return to form, but none of that was apparent before the Oval test.

 

[pup11]

That I dont think they picked KP because they thought he was the best captain or the best person to deliver Test results.

Yup, that's really the truth, they have picked KP due to a clear lack of options, and clearly they are now paying a price for this.

 

[GIMH]

Stanford aside, split captaincy was never likely to be a long-term desire (which is why it was short-sighted of them to appoint Collingwood as ODI skipper in the first place, IMO) and as such, the only real options for Test captaincy were Pietersen, Flintoff, Bell & Anderson. Bell is obviously a non-started, as is Anderson, and Flintoff has been there, done that, doesn't like it and woul;dn't be given the job if he did. There was no other choice other than to continue with a split captaincy option.

I'm not entirely sure I'd class that as a non-cricketing reason myself, Pietersen was basically the only player guaranteed a spot in all teams.

 

[Richard]

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?

Difference there was Boycott was entirely right in his reservations over Denness.

 

[wpdavid]

Stanford aside, split captaincy was never likely to be a long-term desire (which is why it was short-sighted of them to appoint Collingwood as ODI skipper in the first place, IMO) and as such, the only real options for Test captaincy were Pietersen, Flintoff, Bell & Anderson. Bell is obviously a non-started, as is Anderson, and Flintoff has been there, done that, doesn't like it and woul;dn't be given the job if he did. There was no other choice other than to continue with a split captaincy option.

I'm not entirely sure I'd class that as a non-cricketing reason myself, Pietersen was basically the only player guaranteed a spot in all teams.

That would be my take on it, plus the fact that after the 3rd SA test last summer, who else was virtually guaranteed a place in the side for the forseeable future? Strauss had struggled against SA after his 100's against NZ, Cook's too young. Bell & Collingwood were seen to be candidates for being dropped. Ambrose was new & struggling. Broad's way too young and Anderson's never struck anyone as captaincy material. And what you said about Fred.

 

[wpdavid]

Difference there was Boycott was entirely right in his reservations over Denness.

Maybe, maybe not. We'd have been stuffed in 1974/75 whoever was in charge. And he wasn't obviously less worth a place in our middle order than others who played around then: it really wasn't a golden age for english batmen. I think history has tended to be rather harsh on Denness, tbh.

 

[Goughy]

I'm not entirely sure I'd class that as a non-cricketing reason myself, Pietersen was basically the only player guaranteed a spot in all teams.

That really isnt a good enough reason.

If the only person that is guaranteed a spot is a terrible captain then it makes no sense to make them captain. There is no logic to that.

The non cricketing reasons (as partially alluded to) are to make the T20, OD and Test captain the same guy as the differences in money would be percieved as dangerous, to pacify an outspoken KP and to bring him into the fold rather than risk having him look elsewhere for glory, prestige and money and avoid the scenario of a less outspoken captain having to deal with KP.

Very little of it, IMO, had to do with KPs cricketing brain or his ability to skipper England to victories but much to do with keeping him happy and onside whilst millions were being thrown around.

 

[GIMH]

That really isnt a good enough reason.

If the only person that is guaranteed a spot is a terrible captain then it makes no sense to make them captain. There is no logic to that.

The non cricketing reasons (as partially alluded to) are to make the T20, OD and Test captain the same guy as the differences in money would be percieved as dangerous, to pacify an outspoken KP and to bring him into the fold rather than risk having him look elsewhere for glory, prestige and money and avoid the scenario of a less outspoken captain having to deal with KP.

Very little of it, IMO, had to do with KPs cricketing brain or his ability to skipper England to victories but much to do with keeping him happy and onside whilst millions were being thrown around.

But making someone who could be dropped any minute captain wouldn't be too clever, would it?

 

[wpdavid]

That really isnt a good enough reason.

If the only person that is guaranteed a spot is a terrible captain then it makes no sense to make them captain. There is no logic to that.

The non cricketing reasons (as partially alluded to) are to make the T20, OD and Test captain the same guy as the differences in money would be percieved as dangerous, to pacify an outspoken KP and to bring him into the fold rather than risk having him look elsewhere for glory, prestige and money and avoid the scenario of a less outspoken captain having to deal with KP.

Very little of it, IMO, had to do with KPs cricketing brain or his ability to skipper England to victories but much to do with keeping him happy and onside whilst millions were being thrown around.

OK. I still think there's needs to be a viable alternative, which there wasn't at the time. But I do agree that being the best option didn't necessarily make him a good one.

All that being said, we've looked better in his 3 tests than we had done for quite a while.

 

[Richard]

Maybe, maybe not. We'd have been stuffed in 1974/75 whoever was in charge. And he wasn't obviously less worth a place in our middle order than others who played around then: it really wasn't a golden age for english batmen. I think history has tended to be rather harsh on Denness, tbh.

Meh, I just find it an embarrassment to have a Test captain exposed as being patently not up to Test standard as a batsman (or bowler in the rare event a bowler is picked to captain). I'm not massively certain on the middle-order alternatives around the early-'70s, but I am certain that Denness was not up to good-quality Test cricket. Maybe we'd have been stuffed in '74/75 even with a different captain, but I think it'd have been a bit less embarrassing than it ended-up being.

 

[wpdavid]

Meh, I just find it an embarrassment to have a Test captain exposed as being patently not up to Test standard as a batsman (or bowler in the rare event a bowler is picked to captain). I'm not massively certain on the middle-order alternatives around the early-'70s, but I am certain that Denness was not up to good-quality Test cricket. Maybe we'd have been stuffed in '74/75 even with a different captain, but I think it'd have been a bit less embarrassing than it ended-up being.

Like WI 12 months later?

Nah, Lille &Thomson were a force of nature unlike anything that test cricket had seen for eons, and we were gonners from the first time we faced up to them.

Obv Denness wan't a great test batsman, but he still averaged 39 despite managing virtually zero runs against Aus. And he was par for the course as far as our middle order batters were concerned - check out Roope, Hayes, Fletcher & others from that era.

Anyway, I understand that Boycs vs Denness may be seen differently in your part of the world.

 

[Richard]

Like WI 12 months later?

Greig made that worse for himself though. He was one of the few, of course, who showed any form of ability to resist against Lillee and Thomson. Unfortunately his ill-advised comments prior to the WI '76 series made him look a tad foolish.

Nah, Lille &Thomson were a force of nature unlike anything that test cricket had seen for eons, and we were gonners from the first time we faced up to them.

Obv Denness wan't a great test batsman, but he still averaged 39 despite managing virtually zero runs against Aus. And he was par for the course as far as our middle order batters were concerned - check out Roope, Hayes, Fletcher & others from that era.

Yeah, he managed - unlike some of those other names - to bash the weaker attacks going around, same as Keith Fletcher had been doing for almost a decade before him. I just wonder how England might've fared had they gone into that 2-year period of battering with a line-up of Edrich, Boycott, Amiss, Woolmer, Steele, Greig, Knott. My bet's they'd have been beaten, but not so badly.

Anyway, I understand that Boycs vs Denness may be seen differently in your part of the world.

I've always tried to distance myself from the Yorkshire element - and I haven't lived there for a good while either, remember. I just think Boycs had a case that Denness wasn't good enough to play for England so shouldn't have been captaining. I don't really know if there was the remotest of prospects that Greig would've been given the job earlier than he was (had only been in the team for about 2 years IIRR), but with hindsight I guess he'd have been the best choice.

 

[wpdavid]

(re 'like WI 12 months later') Greig made that worse for himself though. He was one of the few, of course, who showed any form of ability to resist against Lillee and Thomson. Unfortunately his ill-advised comments prior to the WI '76 series made him look a tad foolish.

I meant WI's 5-1 drubbing in Aus during 1975/76. Sorry if that wasn't clear. My only point being that Aus when L & T were in full flight would have thrashed almost anyone.

Yeah, he managed - unlike some of those other names - to bash the weaker attacks going around, same as Keith Fletcher had been doing for almost a decade before him. I just wonder how England might've fared had they gone into that 2-year period of battering with a line-up of Edrich, Boycott, Amiss, Woolmer, Steele, Greig, Knott. My bet's they'd have been beaten, but not so badly.

It's generally reckoned that Steele should have played before he did. Apparently he was in decent form as far back as the 1972 Ashes, when England brought back MJK Smith when he was approaching 50. Picking Luckhurst in 1974/5 was always going to be a duff call. OTOH I don't recall when Woolmer moved up the order for Kent. In the early 1970's he was batting at 7 or 8, and his subsequent appearance as an opener and then a number 3 for the test side was entirely unforseeable. My guess is that before the 1974/75 tour he hadn't done much batting near the top of Kent's order. Boycott would, of course, have made a huge difference had he deigned to be available.

Going back to Denness, the selection of the extremely old Smith in 1972 and Close in 1976 are other indications how how empty the middle-order cupboard was in the early/mid 1970's.

Amiss, btw, is another who is, imo, unfairly regarded because of the 1974/5 tour.

 

[honestbharani]

but what exactly is the best option for England NOW, leaving aside all the shud 've beens and cud 've beens....

 

[Uppercut]

Appoint a new coach i guess.

In other more positive news, the legend that is Mushtaq Ahmed has been given clearance to coach England's spinners.

 

[wpdavid]

Appoint a new coach i guess.

In other more positive news, the legend that is Mushtaq Ahmed has been given clearance to coach England's spinners.

Good news for Adil Rashid. How much can a leggie teach finger spinners like Monty and Swann though?

As for appointing a new coach, you could argue that KP has made that harder.

 

[zaremba]

Good news for Adil Rashid. How much can a leggie teach finger spinners like Monty and Swann though?

Agree on both counts. Mushy was a strange choice, I thought, but it makes much more sense now that Rashid is in the squad. On the other hand I suppoose it's possible that Rashid has his coach (Jenner) and having Mushy giving potentially conflicting advice may be counter-productive. I'm not really sure.

I imagine Mushy will be a great figure to have around the dressing room, although dressing room dynamics are admittedly hard to predict with KP currently acting like Dr Strangelove.

 

[Uppercut]

Good news for Adil Rashid. How much can a leggie teach finger spinners like Monty and Swann though?

I've often wondered about that myself. The general consensus seems to be that spin bowling coaches are general and can be used to help either form of spin. Obviously there's a lot they can do, but there's a lot of differences too. I suppose it's at the stage with Monty and Swann where neither will require wholesale changes of action, and Mushtaq will help improve their ability to out-think a batsman, something he was very good at. Monty in particular seriously needs this side of his game improved.