Trouble in the English camp : Pietersen Vs Moores!?

[zaremba]

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

Try to achieve a reconciliation between KP and Moores. I've no idea how realistic a possibility this is, but from Harmison's recent comments it doesn't sound hopeless.

If that can't be done, then one or the other must go. KP will stay, Moores will have to go.

 

[TT Boy]

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.

I’m not sure what is so positive. Mushy’s past should immediately mean he shouldn’t be employed by the ECB and secondly he didn’t do too much after taking over from Waqar Younis as Pakistan’s bowling coach. Danish Kaneria, a leg-spinner not a finger-spinner such as Monty badly regressed under his watch.

 

[Uppercut]

I’m not sure what is so positive. Mushy’s past should immediately mean he shouldn’t be employed by the ECB and secondly he didn’t do too much after taking over from Waqar Younis as Pakistan’s bowling coach. Danish Kaneria, a leg-spinner not a finger-spinner such as Monty badly regressed under his watch.

It's positive to me. I like Mushy more than i do England

 

[Richard]

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.

Aha, I see. Well that's fair enough I guess, as a batting unit of Fredericks, Greenidge, Rowe, Kallicharran, Richards, Lloyd, Murray was very, very far from weak - all were established players at the time and the unit was for the most part decimated by Lillee and Thomson. My understanding, though, is that those series' weren't Denness' only failing - that he'd long been considered suspect against bowling of top quality?

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.

Yeah Amiss is a strange case because he certainly didn't lack against the best, fast, seam-bowling, as his double-ton when Holding was running amok (and other innings') showed.

Anyway I take the point about Denness - maybe there were few better options, maybe Bob Woolmer never was one (though I'm sure he must've been batting top-order for Kent for at least a couple of seasons before he played for England?), and maybe he was as good a selection for the team as any, but it still disappoints me that a weak-link who some had foreseen was going to be a weak-link was given the captaincy. Although, as I say, whether there were other options in that department either I'm not absolutely sure.

 

[Richard]

Mushy’s past should immediately mean he shouldn’t be employed by the ECB

I presume you mean the match-fixing selective-dumbness?

 

[Uppercut]

I presume you mean the match-fixing selective-dumbness?

That and playing for the ICL.

 

[Richard]

Is Mushtaq still playing in the ICL or has he retired from bowling altogether?

If he's still contracted to an ICL franchise there's no way on Earth he should be being contracted to the ECB as well, no.

 

[Goughy]

It's positive to me. I like Mushy more than i do England

I like Mushtaq as a cricketer and loved watching him bowl, but I dont think it is a good idea for England to employ a foreign coach that was heavily implicated in the illegal gambling scandal and match fixing.

Just because I like Mushtaq doesnt mean he should be employable in this capacity.

 

[Uppercut]

I like Mushtaq as a cricketer and loved watching him bowl, but I dont think it is a good idea for England to employ a foreign coach that was heavily implicated in the illegal gambling scandal and match fixing.

Just because I like Mushtaq doesnt mean he should be employable in this capacity.

Perhaps. What would your feelings be if Shane Warne were appointed instead?

 

[Goughy]

Perhaps. What would your feelings be if Shane Warne were appointed instead?

I knew that as coming.

The answer would be the same as if Lillee was appointed fast bowling coach. I dont have much issue with Warne or Lillee. I could see myself doing similar (especailly when such things were not as high profile or legislated against).

Its very lazy to lump everything together as bookmakers are mentioned. The Warne/Waugh incident was nothing.

It is very different to being linked closely to illegal bookmakers and implicated in match fixing. Mushtaq was lucky to avoid a long term ban and I dont think this is an appropriate position for him.

The ICC have told the ECB that Mushtaq has to be monitered for corruption during his tenure as coach and the Qayyum report recommends he doesnt hold any position in Pakistan cricket.

Comparing to Warne is really fudging the issue.

 

[Bob Bamber]

It's a complex issue. I think alot of it has to do with the fact that Moores seems to be underlying everything that Pietersen wants. He wanted Steve Harmison into the bowling attack - then he gets dropped. He wanted Vaughan back in the Caribbean - he doesn't get selected.

I don't see the partnership working any longer. I think its the fact that Pietersen doesn't believe that Moores has the experience or authority to overrule his decisions. He may have accepted a more experienced coach (Moody etc...) because they (in his eyes) - know what they're doing.

As for Moores in general - its not exactly been great has it. We don't look convincing against half decent teams like the Windies and New Zealand. Ian Bell and Alastair Cook have gone backwards. Monty Pansear has stagnated so badly. Darren Pattinson - the less said the better.

There were a couple of positives. James Anderson looks much better than he did. You may well say that thats purely because he's been playing games - but it seems unfair to criticise him for the failings but not credit him when things go well. Broad's beginning to look like a real emerging talent. Ryan Sidebottom came out of nowhere - and if they can get him fit I'd certainly be termpted go give him a go in the Ashes.

As for the one day side. Its worth putting into perspective that we never really had alot to loose when he came in. And for a brief period (07 summer against India) - there were signs of hope. It seems harsh to criticise the opening positions - as I don't see there being any major obvious solutions at the moment. But the more we played ODI cricket under Moores the more you got the feeling that he had no idea what he was doing. One part-time spinner in India? Ravi Bopara at 8? Ian Bell at the top? Matt Prior - just in general?

Then theres the continued mistreatment of Owais Shah. Looked our best batsman for the One Dayers in India, then Collingwood got picked ahead of him in the tests. He may have gone onto make a 100 in the match, but it doesn't justify the non-selection of England's best player of spin.

 

[Richard]

Much as I think Shah is probably a better batsman in the longer form of the game than Collingwood, there was precisely no case for Collingwood not to play the opening Test of the India series and Shah to play instead.

Collingwood's previous 3 Test innings to that opener in India had fetched him 135, 61 and 25*. What's more, not even a let-off in sight. He earned the lot of 'em.

I do agree that if it'd been a bad selection the fact that it paid-off (in terms of Collingwood getting the second-innings century) is irrelevant BTW. A selection should be judged on what it had going for it when it was made, not what it had going for it after it was made.

 

[Bob Bamber]

Much as I think Shah is probably a better batsman in the longer form of the game than Collingwood, there was precisely no case for Collingwood not to play the opening Test of the India series and Shah to play instead.

Collingwood's previous 3 Test innings to that opener in India had fetched him 135, 61 and 25*. What's more, not even a let-off in sight. He earned the lot of 'em.

I do agree that if it'd been a bad selection the fact that it paid-off (in terms of Collingwood getting the second-innings century) is irrelevant BTW. A selection should be judged on what it had going for it when it was made, not what it had going for it after it was made.

But on actual form going into the match (as in the ODI - different format I'd agree - but it carries some significance). Collingwood was England's worst batsman by quite a distance (Ian Bell accepted). Shah was probably the best in the One Day series.

For me picking the out of form player instead of the inform player seems an odd decision, particularly as we were in India.

 

[Bob Bamber]

Ooh, ooh, ooh pick me:

Cricinfo - Emergency meeting undermines Pietersen

 

[zaremba]

Ooh, ooh, ooh pick me:

Cricinfo - Emergency meeting undermines Pietersen

Very interesting! Perhaps against this background Penisen may feel more inclined to compromise with Moores than he did a couple of days ago. Interesting little saga, this.

 

[Goughy]

Ooh, ooh, ooh pick me:

Cricinfo - Emergency meeting undermines Pietersen

Interesting article in that it said nothing. A solid piece from the writer to knock something out that fills his quota and is relevant but is nothing but conjecture.

 

[zaremba]

Interesting article in that it said nothing. A solid piece from the writer to knock something out that fills his quota and is relevant but is nothing but conjecture.

Well maybe - but the broad point about a hardening of attitudes may well be accurate and is certainly of interest - it's difficult to know how reliable it is, of course, when at this stage no-one is prepared to give attributable quotes.

This in particular:

Research conducted by the ECB in the last few days suggests that Pietersen does not have the steadfast support of his team-mates or the back-room staff. The majority of the England support staff are understood to be supportive of Moores while most of the players are underwhelmed by Pietersen's dramatic intervention, as Steve Harmison demonstrated with his ambivalent comments on Tuesday.

My God, just reading this stuff just underlines how divisive and destructive Pieterson's clumsy approach has been.

So, KP, you've got a lousy record as captain, you've split the dressing room, you've pissed off your board, you've alienated your backroom staff, you've allowed your relationship with the coach to break down, and you've admitted that you don't have the tactical ability to captain the team. So., remind us, why exactly are you England captain?

 

[DingDong]

my nominations for england coach:

Giles (knows the players)
Ranatunge (Out of a job ATM and has won a world cup)
Ganguly (One of the greatest cricketing brains of all time)
Warne and Terry Jenner (Why can't it be a duo?)
Greg Chappell(Indian and Australian stints were blimps in an otherwise great coaching career)

 

[Richard]

But on actual form going into the match (as in the ODI - different format I'd agree - but it carries some significance). Collingwood was England's worst batsman by quite a distance (Ian Bell accepted). Shah was probably the best in the One Day series.

For me picking the out of form player instead of the inform player seems an odd decision, particularly as we were in India.

I've long believed that the Test and ODI game-forms are sufficiently different to render form in one irrelevant to form in the other.

As one example, take Nick Knight in 2002. All season, he never stopped scoring in the First-Class game. Yet in the one-dayers, after a 125* in the opening game, he could barely get a run - including throughout that summer's NatWest Series ODIs.

I don't think Collingwood was out-of-form in the First-Class game, nor Shah in-form. Because, because of the deeply unfortunate Mumbai attacks, there wasn't any. Hence, the most recent Test cricket was the only yardstick available to go by.

 

[Woodster]

my nominations for england coach:

Giles (knows the players)
Ranatunge (Out of a job ATM and has won a world cup)
Ganguly (One of the greatest cricketing brains of all time)
Warne and Terry Jenner (Why can't it be a duo?)
Greg Chappell(Indian and Australian stints were blimps in an otherwise great coaching career)

I will be most pleased should none of these get the job!