Trouble in the English camp : Pietersen Vs Moores!?

[BoyBrumby]

I think whichever way you look at it, Pietersen has a huge ego problem, and atm this might feel like a bitter pill to swallow for the English team and fans, but they should be happy that Pietersen' reign ended at this, yeah one can say that its sad that the information got leaked and Pietersen was humiliated like this publicly, but lets be honest this is a issue Pietersen has himself created.

If the sole reason for Pietersen wanting Moores to be booted out is difference in opinion, then i am sorry to say Pietersen would never have lasted as captain of the side for too long even if he would have got away with this incident not getting blow up, like it did, because from i understand Pietersen wanted to run the side on his terms and probably wanted his players and his support staff to behave like yes-men, but sadly that's is not how things in team set-up work.

Pietersen has a huge ego, yes, but whether one views this as a problem is up for debate IMHO. Initially I thought it was a case of power going to his head when it was reported that he was publicly agitating for his coach's removal, but as it turns out all he did was send an email to say that he could no longer work with Moores. Is that so terribly wrong? In any job if one's realtionship breaks down with one's superior going over their head is surely fairly standard stuff?

Someone at the ECB has it in for Pietersen, I think. Not only was his email leaked, someone (maybe that same someone) "let it be known" that Flintoff and other senior players backed Moores, which as Steve Harmison confirms on cricinfo was frankly bollocks:

"The idea that we told Morris that we supported Peter Moores ahead of Kevin is nonsense. To my mind, the only people who have stabbed Kevin in the back are those who chose to leak the information that he had promised to quit the captaincy for the tour to the West Indies if Peter remained as coach."

Something very rotten in Denmark.

 

[Bob Bamber]

So the contenders - in all their shapes and forms.

Darren Lehmann

Duncan Fletcher

Graham Ford

Tom Moody

Shane Warne

Ashley Giles / Andy Flower

Its an interesting list. Me personally I wouldn't want Giles or Flower. I don't think Giles has had experience as a coach long enough to be justified in the role. And I think Flower is part of the problem, logic says if your the assistant to the coach (which he was) you're partly to blame for the teams downfall.

As for Warne (I agree I put down Giles because of a lack of coaching experience - and Warne has even less I'll grant you - but I think I'd like Warne all the same). The fact that he turned down Pietersen's offer I don't think makes any difference. Why would you take an offer from a captain of a side with no power to overturn the coach (well thats what he would have thought at the time anyway - as things transpired...). I think it would take a lot of money to lure him back into full time cricket, as he seems to have many different irons of the fire at the moment.

As for Fletcher - no. He had his golden era in 2004 and 2005. At best he'd match that (that itself would be a phenomenal achievement) - and personally I think there are better options on the table.

Graham Ford would have been a great idea had Pietersen still been captain, as I think he would have the respect for him that he may not have for many others. As that isn't the case, I'm not sure - don't think I'd be disappointed if he was put in charge.

Lehmann, interesting. Has a lot of knowledge of the English game. Might be a bit too high risk.

Personally though, I think Tom Moody is perfect for the job. He's had success with Sri Lanka, particularly in ODI cricket which is the form in which we are desperately lacking. I hope that money doesn't rule him out.

Also, what about Dav Whatmore?

 

[pup11]

Pietersen has a huge ego, yes, but whether one views this as a problem is up for debate IMHO. Initially I thought it was a case of power going to his head when it was reported that he was publicly agitating for his coach's removal, but as it turns out all he did was send an email to say that he could no longer work with Moores. Is that so terribly wrong? In any job if one's realtionship breaks down with one's superior going over their head is surely fairly standard stuff?

Someone at the ECB has it in for Pietersen, I think. Not only was his email leaked, someone (maybe that same someone) "let it be known" that Flintoff and other senior players backed Moores, which as Steve Harmison confirms on cricinfo was frankly bollocks:

"The idea that we told Morris that we supported Peter Moores ahead of Kevin is nonsense. To my mind, the only people who have stabbed Kevin in the back are those who chose to leak the information that he had promised to quit the captaincy for the tour to the West Indies if Peter remained as coach."

Something very rotten in Denmark.

Having a big ego can work, but in KP' case it certainly hasn't, your point is KP' e-mail got leaked and therefore it led to this row, but what i am saying is that, is this the way the English captain is expected to behave, is this how gets wishes fulfilled, by blackmailing his board that either "its me or him", of course he didn't want to work with Moores anymore because they probably had different views about most of the things which led to this rift, but what's the point of having a coach in the first place when you want him as your puppet, imo only a yes-man could have probably survived as coach under Pietersen' reign as captain.

 

[Goughy]

I thought this an interesting passage.

Never one for half measures, he wanted Moores’ assistant coach Andy Flower and other support staff removed as well. And when Pietersen gave Hugh Morris, the managing director of the England team, a sack-him-or-I-go ultimatum, he added: “The whole of the team think he is no good. The whole of the team want him to go.” Even a bull in a china shop might have proceeded with more care.

After Morris had checked the veracity of the claims, the England captain was told he did not know his team as well as he thought. Every player was spoken to and, according to a senior ECB source, it transpired that “a lot of them were happy with Moores . . . they thought, ‘Why are we going to war?’ . . . Pietersen found he had lost the dressing room”.

Seems both Moores and especially KP didnt know what was going on around them.

A real soap opera

 

[Bob Bamber]

I might be contraversial in saying this, but am I the only one who thinks that Pietersen saved us from 1-2 more years (atleast) of underachievement under Moores. We've stagnated pretty much none stop since Moores took over - maybe Pietersen - in loosing his own job, has saved English cricket...

 

[pup11]

I might be contraversial in saying this, but am I the only one who thinks that Pietersen saved us from 1-2 more years (atleast) of underachievement under Moores. We've stagnated pretty much none stop since Moores took over - maybe Pietersen - in loosing his own job, has saved English cricket...

Do you really think a coach can change the fortunes of a team dramatically, i never rated Moores much, but in all honesty he hardly had the players to work with.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Do you really think a coach can change the fortunes of a team dramatically, i never rated Moores much, but in all honesty he hardly had the players to work with.

I never rated Moores either, so in a way this is probably a good thing (if we get someone decent to replace him ofc). I think Fletcher showed what a good coach can do. He also showed it was vital that the coach / captain need to work together.

 

[pup11]

I never rated Moores either, so in a way this is probably a good thing (if we get someone decent to replace him ofc). I think Fletcher showed what a good coach can do. He also showed it was vital that the coach / captain need to work together.

Flecther just didn't turn the English side into that 2005 Ashes winning side overnight, it was him and Hussain (the truly unsung hero of English cricket), who laid the foundation for that team a long time ago, slowly but surely the results improved, and by the time Vaughan took over the reigns from Hussain, a good team had been built and from there on in Vaughan and his side pretty much started winning all around the world, pretty much like what South Africans are doing currently, but call it lack of discipline, or bad luck, after the Ashes series the English side fell in tatters, hit by injuries to key players and since then its been a struggle till date.

Now despite me not rating Moores, i don't think any coach could have done much better then what Moores has achieved under his tenure, if a good side needs to built, patience and understanding is required among the team set-up, which has been clearly lacking with the English side, so even if someone else takes over as coach of England, expecting instant results from his is a bit unrealistic.

 

[pskov]

If Tom Moody wants it he should get it, no doubt about it from my point of view. He should have been the man to take over from Fletcher when it was widely known he was very interested in the role but the ECB in my opinion made a mistake by going in house with Moore and not even interviewing any other candidates. By all accounts he is very happy in Perth at the moment and settled with his family so I'm not sure how keen he is on it anymore. However I think you can tempt anyone to move just about anywhere if they would triple their current salary.

 

[pup11]

If Tom Moody wants it he should get it, no doubt about it from my point of view. He should have been the man to take over from Fletcher when it was widely known he was very interested in the role but the ECB in my opinion made a mistake by going in house with Moore and not even interviewing any other candidates. By all accounts he is very happy in Perth at the moment and settled with his family so I'm not sure how keen he is on it anymore. However I think you can tempt anyone to move just about anywhere if they would triple their current salary.

I am not too sure Moody was too interested in taking over as coach of any international side since he has quit from the post of being Sri Lankan coach after the WC, Moody wants to spend time with his family and that is the main reason why he is coaching the Warriors atm, because that is a very convenient job for him.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Having a big ego can work, but in KP' case it certainly hasn't, your point is KP' e-mail got leaked and therefore it led to this row, but what i am saying is that, is this the way the English captain is expected to behave, is this how gets wishes fulfilled, by blackmailing his board that either "its me or him", of course he didn't want to work with Moores anymore because they probably had different views about most of the things which led to this rift, but what's the point of having a coach in the first place when you want him as your puppet, imo only a yes-man could have probably survived as coach under Pietersen' reign as captain.

I think it was far too early into Pietersen's captaincy to say whether his ego had worked or not, personally. Moreover, who knows what goes on behind the dressing room & board room doors? If KP's email ulimatum (hardly blackmail) hadn't been leaked to the gentlemen of the fourth estate and Moores had quietly been removed would anyone have really said it wasn't merited? If there's one point that all ex-team mates of Nasser Hussain agree on it's that he's a man of strong opinions (but for his Sky gig he'd not be a horrible choice as coach, actually. Might be too close in age to some of the players, perhaps, but if Ashley Giles is a contender...) I find it stretching credulity to say Nass would've bitten his tongue and worked with a man he didn't rate because it was how England captains were supposed to behave.

As for the coach needing to be a "yes man" to work with Pietersen, what little I know of his preferred candidate Graham Ford doesn't suggest he's anyone's lap dog.

 

[Richard]

Flecther just didn't turn the English side into that 2005 Ashes winning side overnight, it was him and Hussain (the truly unsung hero of English cricket), who laid the foundation for that team a long time ago, slowly but surely the results improved, and by the time Vaughan took over the reigns from Hussain, a good team had been built and from there on in Vaughan and his side pretty much started winning all around the world

The most annoying thing in the whole Duncan Fletcher thing is that virtually everyone seems to forget that Duncan Fletcher actually did achieve success, if not overnight, then in no time at all. His first tour was to South Africa, who were a phenomenal side at that time, and England's effective 2-0 (obviously the victory in the dead game at Centurion was worthless - even if it hadn't been fixed, it was a one-innings game) defeat could've been worse. Then the side won four series' on the bounce (and it would've been five but for several monumental ****-ups, not all by the team). All of this was 4 years before the 2005 Ashes. And it was in Duncan Fletcher's first year-and-a-half as coach.

After this success, which really was a case of simply turning underachievers into kings (most of the players involved had been playing for the previous 8-10 years), there followed a fallow period, in which Duncan Fletcher, Hussain and Vaughan built the team that in 2004 and 2005 swept all before.

Too many people think of 2005 and 2005 only when Duncan Fletcher is the subject of discussion. The reality is that he'd established his credentials as a coach long before that and had he left the job at the end of the 2003 calendar-year, he'd still have had a superb spell in charge.

 

[Richard]

As for Fletcher - no. He had his golden era in 2004 and 2005.

And in 2000 and 2001.

At best he'd match that (that itself would be a phenomenal achievement) - and personally I think there are better options on the table.

Such as? Tom Moody?

If Moody doesn't want the job, there are indeed no better options than Duncan Fletcher.

Nonetheless, anyone who thinks there's anything more than a remotely remote chance of him getting the coach's gig is living in skype land.

 

[GIMH]

What would be the point in Fletcher coming back as coach? He clearly had done all he could in the role, a return would risk tainting his legacy (which some would say he did with some bizarre selection policies post-05 Ashes).

The guy did really well, but it really was the right time to go, I don't for a minute think it was just the press who thought that. His tenure had run its course.

 

[Bob Bamber]

And in 2000 and 2001.

Such as? Tom Moody?

If Moody doesn't want the job, there are indeed no better options than Duncan Fletcher.

Nonetheless, anyone who thinks there's anything more than a remotely remote chance of him getting the coach's gig is living in skype land.

We'll I'm hoping we can land Tom Moody. It's difficult on how you read between the lines from what he said. His comments:

"You'd look at anything. This day and age, you're not going to turn your back on any opportunity.

"(But) I'm very happy here in Perth, (the) family is settled, I've got a great job, enjoying what I'm doing. I've got no reason to be looking further afield,"

1) It could mean any number of things. I don't think its a flat out denial - because if he wanted it to be - he could have said "I don't want the job".

2) In his defence - he may not.want the job. It's one of those things - that its hard to properly consider an offer until its actually on the table.

3) He'd take it with the right offer on the table. Whatever that right offer is I don't know. But as a general life rule - money talks. If Moody was given a huge offer (which only he probably could warrant), he might take it.

4) He wants the job, and he's putting himself in the frame.

(Helps me if I type it out).

It's hard to call. I think its for certain that he's very happy in Western Australia. But I get the feeling that he knows this will be his oppertunity to write his name in the history books.

Oh I hope we get Tom Moody - I might be able to get exited about T20 cricket and ODI cricket for once.

 

[honestbharani]

I think the ECB have been pretty stupid about this all along... In cricket, unlike other sports, the captain runs the show, esp. in the longer formats of the game, where decisions made on the field matter and the coach cannot help out there.. It has to be a captain's team and the coach has to be a part of it, part of the backroom staff who helps people out and who helps the captain out with tactics and stuff. Ultimately, and esp. when you have a captain with a big personality like KP, the coach HAS to assume the background role.. The likes of which Wright did in the past very well and which guys like Arthur, Nielson, and even Kirsten are doing well now. While I don't think Moores was being a Greg Chappell by any stretch, his training methods certainly seems to suggest a bit of a Ray Jennings-esque approach to coaching an international side and that will never work at this level. It will work wonders at the junior level, certainly and perhaps he is better suited to the academy role.


And once you have appointed a captain and he is amongst your best players, you ALWAYS pick the coaching and support staff that he is comfortable with and then hold him accountable for his results.. This is just such a pathetic mess which could have been avoided..

 

[BoyBrumby]

The England gig is worth something like £400k pa. No disrespect to Western Autralia as a cricket team or a place to live, but if the ECB wants Moody it'll get him.

 

[pup11]

I think it was far too early into Pietersen's captaincy to say whether his ego had worked or not, personally. Moreover, who knows what goes on behind the dressing room & board room doors? If KP's email ulimatum (hardly blackmail) hadn't been leaked to the gentlemen of the fourth estate and Moores had quietly been removed would anyone have really said it wasn't merited? If there's one point that all ex-team mates of Nasser Hussain agree on it's that he's a man of strong opinions (but for his Sky gig he'd not be a horrible choice as coach, actually. Might be too close in age to some of the players, perhaps, but if Ashley Giles is a contender...) I find it stretching credulity to say Nass would've bitten his tongue and worked with a man he didn't rate because it was how England captains were supposed to behave.

As for the coach needing to be a "yes man" to work with Pietersen, what little I know of his preferred candidate Graham Ford doesn't suggest he's anyone's lap dog.

Pietersen threatened to quit in India - Amiss

This report clearly shows that Pietersen was piss-poor as the leader of the side, because Peter Moores would have to have done something really bad to KP for him to so desperately wanting him to be booted, i can understand Pietersen not wanting to work anymore with Moores, but the whole thing could have been taken care of in a much better way, but Pietersen has been childish in the way he has conducted himself throughout this whole episode.

 

[pup11]

The England gig is worth something like £400k pa. No disrespect to Western Autralia as a cricket team or a place to live, but if the ECB wants Moody it'll get him.

I don't think only money can lure Moody, the guy said no to the Indian coaching job, so that obviously shows he is not intersted in taking over the reigns of any international team atm.

 

[pup11]

FORMER Australian captain Steve Waugh says England captain Kevin Pietersen was wrong in his bust-up with coach Peter Moores and that the team will suffer in the Ashes lead-up.

Waugh speaking on www.laureus.com, said the fact both had lost their posts was disappointing for the team.

"I'm sure neither of them would have liked the scenario that's being played out in the media - and it's much better to deal with these things behind closed doors - but in the end both people suffer.

"I mean, Kevin (Pietersen) had to resign from the captaincy and Peter Moores has lost a coaching job, so no one's a winner, and it really puts England one step further back than they'd like to be.

"You don't have to like each other, but you've got to respect each other.

"It's not always going to be the case that your personalities are well suited, but you've got to learn to work together - and sometimes put aside the little things that annoy you - for the benefit of the bigger picture.

"We had some great coaches in my time - Bob Simpson, fantastic all round coach, and Geoff Marsh, who was a guy who really got the spirit of the side together and was big on camaraderie, and then we had John Buchanan who was really one who would take players out of their comfort zone and throw some different ideas out there.

"So they all had their different ways about them and we always had a good relationship.

"I think in this situation, England were playing well, so it wasn't as if it was a disastrous broken situation. It just seemed like a clash of personalities.

"I don't know what's happened behind the scenes, but, as I say, it didn't look like it was a terrible situation.

"It does take a while to work with someone. I mean you're not just going to come on board as a captain and work smoothly and fit in exactly the way he wants.

"There are probably six-to-12 months at least, so there is that certain period of time when there's a bit of adjustment needed.

"You've got to get used to the way people operate, their personalities, and just the way they do things from day to day.

"So I think they really didn't probably give each other enough of an opportunity to do that.

"We had differences of opinion many times as coach and captain, but that's what it's supposed to be.

"If a coach and a captain agree on everything, then something's wrong because you want people with strong ideas and strong personalities to lead.

"That's what leaders are and they're not always going to agree, but it's how you go about it, I guess.

"A bit of give-and-take and a bit of compromise here and there and obviously one of those two weren't willing to do that.

"So, yes, I'm sure I would have done things differently."

I think Steve Waugh has summed the whole situation quite well, as to what should have been done.