Trouble in the English camp : Pietersen Vs Moores!?

[tooextracool]

Can you suggest to me a better reason why Strauss became so poor in his play at deliveries outside off in those two-and-a-bit years?

I would suggest looking at the pitch map of bowlers to see where they have bowled to him before and during that period. Much like Cook, Smith and 100s of other batsmen batsmen that have started with a prolific year of run scoring have tapered away over the next few years as bowlers have begun to work out how to bowl to them. Strauss was a casuality of such an experience and it took him 2.5 years to work out the best way to play against bowlers bowling to his weaknesses rather than his strengths. Currently his approach is to block everything that is full and play everything that allows him to go square which is an extremely defensive approach and has worked for him when bowlers (such as the NZ and Indian bowlers) have gotten frustrated and started to try something different by bowling shorter or wider.

 

[tooextracool]

I think that over Duncan Fletcher's career he got one hell of a lot out of one hell of a lot of players than an inferior coach (or manager) would not have done. That, to my mind, makes him very good at the job.

Duncan Fletcher was a fine coach and a great man-manager. However, as soon as he was allowed to influence the selection committee and the ECB such that he was the single most powerful member in English Cricket, it became a joke as Graveney, the captain and virtually everyone else became the puppets of someone who was responsible for some of the most ridiculous and utterly disgraceful selections in recent years. I have no problem with Duncan Fletcher as coach and purely as coach only, but unfortunately the ECB must shower the blame for allowing him to get bigger than the team and the board itself.

A lot of players could learn from the ideas and methods of Big Dunc at this point, especially Monty who perhaps progressed most under his tutelage, but that ship has sailed.

 

[tooextracool]

Moores had to go and Pietersen had to go also if the whole team didn't support him as seems the case. But I have no confidence in Strauss as a captain. I think this day will go down as the day we lost the Ashes. If I was Australian I would be jumping for joy at this news.

If KP has always been the kind of pariah as he is described by the media and has never really had the support from all of his players, it really questions the logic of making him captain in the first place.

Personally, Im a bit relieved that both of them are gone for Pietersen seemed to lack the tactical nous required to captain a side. Generally, players with little captaincy experience take a while getting used to the job and Pietersen was not cut out for it. As far as Moores is concerned, the squad has regressed over the last year and a half and when two captains have expressed concerns about his coaching methods, not to mention the fact that he seems to offer very little technical advice to batters or bowlers alike, it seems odd as to what his role in the side really is. If we already have a batting, bowling and fielding coach then the 'head coach' really seems like a superfluous job.

 

[tooextracool]

Hussain/Atherton would do for me, both talk a very good game & IMO would help the team a great deal.

Strauss for captain with possibly Fred as ODI captain.

I really do hope that we dont burden Flintoff with the ODI captaincy at this point. If Collingwood is unwilling to take over the captaincy then there really is only one choice for ODI captaincy and thats Owais Shah.

 

[Richard]

While not disputing the fact that the ODI options are precious few, I'd just like to point-out that Shah was relieved of the Middlesex captaincy in 200(?)5, replaced by Ben Hutton and the management went so far as to describe his captaincy as "tactically naive". Something I can't ever think I've heard a captain described as by those appointing and de-appointing him ever before. So either the Middlesex management are unusually rude and blunt, or Shah's captaincy in whichever-season-it-was was diabolical.

Not promising.

 

[tooextracool]

Me too. Is Strauss really going to do a significantly poorer job at the top of the order than Bell or Cook? Or even Bopara from what we've seen so far?

Umm Strauss averages almost 8 runs less than Bell. If Strauss averaged 40 odd against Australia, 46 odd against India and 66 odd against Pakistan like Bell does, his selection might make some sense. AFAIC if there is one player I can guarantee will never ever be a competent ODI batsman its Strauss. He simply doesnt have the game for it and I hope we dont see him near the side again. Perhaps England missed a trick by not consistently playing Cook at the top of the order given the options available as if he was a regular selection, it would be the best time to groom him into the role of test match captain.

 

[GIMH]

Don't like that Strauss is "intermin captain." Would rather they backed him and gave him the job.

Nonetheless, with Strauss at the helm I think we will take the Ashes.

 

[Richard]

Don't like that Strauss is "intermin captain." Would rather they backed him and gave him the job.

TBH, in a situation like this, I think it'd be irresponsible to rush into making anyone appointed-until-you-resign-or-are-sacked captain. If Strauss does acceptably in West Indies, he'll have the job for the foreseeable future, and he'll know that. I don't have a problem with a situation which has everyone scurrying around having a we're-going-to-worry-about-one-thing-at-a-time-emphasising solution.

 

[GIMH]

I dunno, Strauss has been dicked around by the ECB with the captaincy in the past. Could have showed some faith in him and backed him. Plus it lessens the pressure on the players knowing who the skipper is going to be.

At least he has the whole series; Strauss was a much better skipper V Pakistan when he knew he had the whole series rather than being the stand-in.

 

[howardj]

As someone said on Sky News last night, if you really really want a job or want to retain your job, you don't go around issuing ultimatums. I question whether Pietersen, deep deep down, really wanted to retain the job.

 

[Richard]

I dunno, Strauss has been dicked around by the ECB with the captaincy in the past.

I don't believe that, and I think Strauss himself would be stretching credulity to believe it. He knew full well in 2006 that he was, as he put it, "the stand-in's stand-in". He should never have expected to keep the job in 2006/07, and obviously as 2007 progressed his place in the side became more and more untenable until he eventually lost it.

At least he has the whole series; Strauss was a much better skipper V Pakistan when he knew he had the whole series rather than being the stand-in.

Or were Pakistan merely worse after Strauss got given the captaincy? I don't know; as I said not so long ago, I didn't follow that series with massive attention-to-detail.

 

[Richard]

As someone said on Sky News last night, if you really really want a job or want to retain your job, you don't go around issuing ultimatums. I question whether Pietersen, deep deep down, really wanted to retain the job.

I think, personally, that he simply overestimated how much backing he had from various parties. He's always been a risk-taker, someone who backs himself completely to do whatever he feels is best, and just as that's - inevitably - meant he's gotten himself out many times, it's meant (I think) in this case that he thought he could win this battle, when maybe he couldn't.

Whether he was more interested in being a primadonna than furthering his legacy we'll never know for sure. It's certainly not a possibility I'd be naive enough to rule-out completely. I really do hope not though. It'd be a huge disappointment.

 

[GIMH]

I don't believe that, and I think Strauss himself would be stretching credulity to believe it. He knew full well in 2006 that he was, as he put it, "the stand-in's stand-in". He should never have expected to keep the job in 2006/07, and obviously as 2007 progressed his place in the side became more and more untenable until he eventually lost it.

He should have kept the job though, evetyone knew it would have made more sense for him to do it than Flintoff. As everyone knows, i am the biggest Flintoff fan going, the reasons he skippered us on that tour, though, are as weak as piss. I'm not saying Strauss would have prevented 5-0 (though it's certainly possible) but it was a bollocksw decision.

Or were Pakistan merely worse after Strauss got given the captaincy? I don't know; as I said not so long ago, I didn't follow that series with massive attention-to-detail.

In the first game, he declared too late and just seemed over-cautious. once he had the armband for the series he seemed more aggressive and adventurous. Also played a captain's innings in the 3rd Test that IMO won us the match.

Similarly, when he captained us V West Indies last year, he declared late and was cautious, again because he knew he was handing the reins back to Vaughan for the rest of the series.

 

[Richard]

He should have kept the job though, evetyone knew it would have made more sense for him to do it than Flintoff. As everyone knows, i am the biggest Flintoff fan going, the reasons he skippered us on that tour, though, are as weak as piss. I'm not saying Strauss would have prevented 5-0 (though it's certainly possible) but it was a bollocksw decision.

I don't think it was. It may have been the wrong decision, but I don't think you can say it was a completely braindead one. Flintoff was the incumbant; had Flintoff not missed said Pakistan series, Strauss would never have captained England in a Test match.

In the first game, he declared too late and just seemed over-cautious. once he had the armband for the series he seemed more aggressive and adventurous. Also played a captain's innings in the 3rd Test that IMO won us the match.

Similarly, when he captained us V West Indies last year, he declared late and was cautious, again because he knew he was handing the reins back to Vaughan for the rest of the series.

I see the sort of pattern. However, I'd argue that in both Tests, he was justified in his caution by the events that followed. Not least because both games were the series opener - a series of four Tests. Ensuring against defeat should be done before looking for victory in the first Test of four in my book.

 

[Furball]

TBF, no coach should expect to continue if he can't avoid a 5-0 whitewash.

That, and the frankly shambolic nature of the Australia tour regardless of the result, and the state of the ODI side were clear indicators that Fletcher's time was up.

 

[Richard]

That, and the frankly shambolic nature of the Australia tour regardless of the result, and the state of the ODI side were clear indicators that Fletcher's time was up.

The ODI side was no worse in 2006/07 than it had been for the previous 5-and-a-half years. If Duncan Fletcher was going to cop the blame for that, he should've done so long ago.

Heck, it even managed to win a tournament, somehow or other. More by freak than calibre of play, obviously.

 

[GIMH]

I don't think it was. It may have been the wrong decision, but I don't think you can say it was a completely braindead one. Flintoff was the incumbant; had Flintoff not missed said Pakistan series, Strauss would never have captained England in a Test match.

Would have still took the armband V WI itbt

And I do think it was braindead, though this said with hindsight. I imagine I supported the decision at the time, well I think I had mixed feelings. Flintoff was only a stand-in himself, and it could and indeed should be argued that Strauss should have been the one chosenin India 06 rather than Strauss.

Fact is, we overburdened and unfit Flintoff, who obviously didn't cope with the pressure and pissed the whole tour away. And I know you don't think that Strauss's form was affected by not getting the captaincy - I think it's fair to not attribute the loss of form to that, however, he batted so well as captain V Pakistan that it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have played with greater responsibility v ye crims if he had been in charge.

(Umpires of course did not help, either)

I see the sort of pattern. However, I'd argue that in both Tests, he was justified in his caution by the events that followed. Not least because both games were the series opener - a series of four Tests. Ensuring against defeat should be done before looking for victory in the first Test of four in my book.

I'm not the only one to comment on it - it's a widely held belief that he seemed more comfortable and assertive at Old Trafford compared to at Lord's.

 

[_Ed_]

I'd be interested to read more about what happened here...too bad KP's already done his autobiography.

Why write one before your career's over?

 

[Richard]

Would have still took the armband V WI itbt

And I do think it was braindead, though this said with hindsight. I imagine I supported the decision at the time, well I think I had mixed feelings. Flintoff was only a stand-in himself, and it could and indeed should be argued that Strauss should have been the one chosenin India 06 rather than Strauss.

Fact is, we overburdened and unfit Flintoff, who obviously didn't cope with the pressure and pissed the whole tour away. And I know you don't think that Strauss's form was affected by not getting the captaincy - I think it's fair to not attribute the loss of form to that, however, he batted so well as captain V Pakistan that it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have played with greater responsibility v ye crims if he had been in charge.

(Umpires of course did not help, either)

I don't think Strauss did bat unusually well against Pakistan TBH - he played as poorly as he had for the previous 2 series' and would for the next 4 after it. Pakistan's attack was just useless, as their best 4 bowlers were all out. Nor do I think he played irresponsibly in Australia - just misguidedly. He thought England needed an aggressor, when what they needed was merely runs, however slow, however fast. He misjudged England's need and his own ability. And he didn't just do it in that series, but the 3 before (it worked against Pakistan's woeful attack) and the 3 after as well. Only at home to New Zealand last summer did he get it right again, for the first time since his previous Ashes.

You could possibly argue that Strauss should've been given the job in India; that has some merit. But after Flintoff got it, he hardly did it badly. Nor, contrary to some belief, was he particularly bad against Sri Lanka. In my book, once you'd given it to Flintoff ITFP, he did well enough to keep it and not lose it EXCLUSIVELY because he'd gotten injured. It was only in Australia that questions really begun to be raised, and as I say I don't think his batting was affected at all, nor bowling. Though tactically he was found wanting, no disputing.

I'm not the only one to comment on it - it's a widely held belief that he seemed more comfortable and assertive at Old Trafford compared to at Lord's.

I know it was - and as I say, I didn't watch the series with massive attention so I'm not about to say it's neccessarily untrue. However, there's absolutely no denying Pakistan played diabolically at Old Trafford (and also at Headingley when Younis and Yousuf weren't at the wicket) and there's also in my book no denying that he was right to be cautious in the two declarations he made in First Tests. I certainly hope he'd have done the exact same whatever his captaincy situation, because to have not done would've been a dereliction of duty IMO.

 

[Richard]

I'd be interested to read more about what happened here...too bad KP's already done his autobiography.

Why write one before your career's over?

There'll be an update before this year's out, don't you fret about that. Quite possibly before the UK summer begins.

Andrew Strauss wrote his first autobiography a year into his Test career. Not surprisingly the review basically said it contained very little out-of-the-ordinary.