Trouble in the English camp : Pietersen Vs Moores!?

[Richard]

Ya, modz mergz plz, thnkz.

 

[Redbacks]

Sounds a bit like the Richmond football club in Australia, with so many people desperate for success, there are people pulling in all different directions and all not prepared to back down on 'their way is the right way' approach to the situation. Hardly a recipie for success.

I personally would accept his resignation as Captain and start a new era. Speak to Moores: do you have a problem working with KP, he will say no, if he does have a problem then he is no longer fit to be the coach. The press can then scrutinise every performance as a) England win - tough line wipped the players into line b) England lose - the dressing room is split.

The Warne v Buck saga had little or no bearing in the press in Australia IMO because we were winning, yet as most footballing coaches will say "the great players coach themselves, it's the rest we have to look after."

 

[Jamee999]

Threads merged, imo.

 

[Flem274*]

Thorp is a Pattinson, TBF. And he's even older than Pattinson as well.

Davies, though, it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone thinks Plunkett is a patch on him. I've said it a good few times - England selectors (though it's not JUST England selectors) sometimes simply don't have a clue how to judge the calibre of a player. Far too much weight is attached to "X could be better than Y if X makes these vast improvements that I think he has it in him to make despite the fact virtually no-one in cricket history has ever made them". When what's needed is to look at the player, look at his figures, and come-up with "Y's way, way better than X right now, which means he probably always will be, and also means that until that changes, X is in the picture and Y is way out of it".

You'd not think it was that difficult. Perhaps a selector thinks his job isn't supposed to be as easy as it actually is, and looks for ways to pretend he's actually got a more difficult task than he has. That and the big-ego "ah but I can see the talent even if it's not reflected in domestic figures" stuff Martin Crowe mentioned.
Cricket selectors are an incompetant bunch, I've said it for quite a few years now.

When was that? Thought it was Hadlee who thought along those lines anyway tbh.

And this whole saga is pathetic. I'd take a Moores over a Bracewell any day of the week.

 

[zaremba]

Thorp is a Pattinson, TBF. And he's even older than Pattinson as well.

Davies, though, it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone thinks Plunkett is a patch on him. I've said it a good few times - England selectors (though it's not JUST England selectors) sometimes simply don't have a clue how to judge the calibre of a player. Far too much weight is attached to "X could be better than Y if X makes these vast improvements that I think he has it in him to make despite the fact virtually no-one in cricket history has ever made them". When what's needed is to look at the player, look at his figures, and come-up with "Y's way, way better than X right now, which means he probably always will be, and also means that until that changes, X is in the picture and Y is way out of it".

You'd not think it was that difficult. Perhaps a selector thinks his job isn't supposed to be as easy as it actually is, and looks for ways to pretend he's actually got a more difficult task than he has. That and the big-ego "ah but I can see the talent even if it's not reflected in domestic figures" stuff Martin Crowe mentioned.

Cricket selectors are an incompetant bunch, I've said it for quite a few years now.

But sometimes this approach is vindicated. When he was called up to the England Test team Marcus Trescothick's FC average was worse than Paul Nixon's - ie not a lot more than 30 - despite having the advantage of batting at Taunton. Would you have selected him to play for England? Was his selection correct? Were the selectors correct to rely on his good performance in his first few ODIs (which I know you also don't believe to be an accurate measure of performance)?

Sorry if I seem to be on a "disagree with Richard" tip tonight - it happens from time to time.

 

[Uppercut]

But sometimes this approach is vindicated. When he was called up to the England Test team Marcus Trescothick's FC average was worse than Paul Nixon's - ie not a lot more than 30 - despite having the advantage of batting at Taunton. Would you have selected him to play for England? Was his selection correct? Were the selectors correct to rely on his good performance in his first few ODIs (which I know you also don't believe to be an accurate measure of performance)?

Sorry if I seem to be on a "disagree with Richard" tip tonight - it happens from time to time.

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.

 

[zaremba]

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.

Speaking of textbook cover drives, Vaughan and Gower are 2 more good examples (although I admit I don't know what DIG's first class record was like when he was first selected for England).

Trescothick is an odd case, actually. I really can't see why his FC average is (still) only 37. He seems like the sort of player who'd be able to churn them out in county cricket, but over the course of his career just hasn't done so.

 

[Uppercut]

Speaking of textbook cover drives, Vaughan and Gower are 2 more good examples.

Trescothick is an odd case, actually. I really can't see why his FC average is (still) only 37. He seems like the sort of player who'd be able to churn them out in county cricket, but over the course of his career just hasn't done so.

Vaughan and Gower, interestingly, are two players who often look better than they are. Trescothick's a strange one indeed. Dicko will no doubt jump in at some point and proclaim that it's all because he got lucky at international level.

 

[Pothas]

Trescothick has been pretty good for Somerset following his departure from the England side so I am sure he will finnish with an average of over 40. Can see him going on for quite a few more years, unfulfilled test players often do and although the reason for Treso's shortened test career are quite different I think he will carry on making runs for Somerset for a good few years.

 

[Richard]

When was that? Thought it was Hadlee who thought along those lines anyway tbh.

He might do, I dunno - but he has been CoS for NZ, so he'd be able to act on it if so. Anyway, Crowe's airing of his thoughts on the matter is here, about halfway down.

And this whole saga is pathetic. I'd take a Moores over a Bracewell any day of the week.

Not neccessarily important. There are certainly better international coaches than Bracewell around, and it seems like there might well be with Moores as well.

 

[Richard]

But sometimes this approach is vindicated. When he was called up to the England Test team Marcus Trescothick's FC average was worse than Paul Nixon's - ie not a lot more than 30 - despite having the advantage of batting at Taunton. Would you have selected him to play for England? Was his selection correct? Were the selectors correct to rely on his good performance in his first few ODIs (which I know you also don't believe to be an accurate measure of performance)?

No, Trescothick shouldn't have been picked for Tests for England in my book. And aside from the fact that I don't believe he'd have been a successful Test batsman had he not had abnormally large numbers of let-offs, even if he had been genuinely successful his selection would still have been poor in my book. Not all errors have to backfire, sometimes you can benefit from an error.

The fact that sometimes an erroneous approach is vindicated does not justify that approach one bit. Using the "I can see the talent" method works perhaps 1 in 20-odd occasions, maybe a fair bit more, and fails all the rest of the time. Letting the game judge a player for itself then using the game's judgement to pick your Test players will be far more successful, though obviously still nowhere near 100%.

You can't possibly hope to select every Test player who'll be successful upon selection, nor can you hope to completely avoid unsuccessful selections. So I'm fine with using the same method and looking to maximise your chances.

 

[Richard]

Vaughan and Gower, interestingly, are two players who often look better than they are. Trescothick's a strange one indeed. Dicko will no doubt jump in at some point and proclaim that it's all because he got lucky at international level.

Not quite all, but his first-chance average is enormously lower than his scorebook one. I can't conceive the difference will be so large for very many (if indeed any) other players.

 

[Goughy]

But sometimes this approach is vindicated.

It does work occasionally and the few times it doesnt does not vindicate the hundreds of times it doesnt.

Occassionally a flyer can be taken on a 'special' talent or a hunch but these should be rare occurances. Vaughan would fall into this category. A special talent that was losing his way.

If many selections are failed hunches then Id have issues with the guys making the decisions.

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

 

[Penguinissimo]

I honestly do not understand all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that is going on in relation to Pietersen's attempt to oust Moores.

The main points being made against Pietersen seem to be that it's not a very nice thing to do and he's not doing it in a very nice way. Well, boo hoo. Those are very English complaints, made by the sort of people who think losing gallantly is as good as winning ruthlessly.

Unfortunately for these commentators and fans, KP ain't English and he ain't happy with losing. The crown of "best team in the world" is vacant, KP thinks England have a shot at it, and he is taking the steps necessary to ensure the best chance of success.

Moores may be a good fitness and fielding coach, and have a good understanding of motivational techniques. But he has clearly done nothing to win the respect of the players, quite the opposite. Fletcher worked with two captains, and had superb (if very different) rapports with each - Moores has alienated almost all England's senior players. Pietersen, Vaughan and Collingwood, the three men to have a little 'c' against their names in the last year, have all made their displeasure known in more or less subtle ways.

It has been made very clear that nobody considers him capable of out-thinking a team, or of developing gameplans for particular batsmen. KP looked like the novice captain he is on the last day in Chennai, and he clearly hated it. If the undercurrent about having Vaughan in the squad is true, it should be obvious that KP wanted him not necessarily to bat at 3, but to teach him about captaincy in a way that Moores has been unable to. And the England team under Moores' tutelage - remember, he was appointed to take England forward after the twin debacles of the last Ashes and World Cup - has not won a live Test against anyone other than WI and NZ.

He's had plenty of chances, home and away in all sorts of conditions with all sorts of teams. He hasn't done the job, so he has to go. The ECB should be able to see this, but they have a conflict of interest because the reason they selected Moores (without even looking at outside applications) was because he has come through the ECB system. Also, getting rid of Moores will clearly be expensive. So Pietersen has decided to force their hand, acting for the good of the England team rather than the ECB or the wider game - which is what he should do as captain. And if his methods are a bit crude, I don't care. In fact, since this is probably the only way of dislodging Moores, I applaud his gumption.

Under Vaughan, the motto of the England team might have been "be yourself". Under Pietersen, it is clearly going to be "be a winner". And I think that's a good thing.

 

[Uppercut]

I honestly do not understand all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that is going on in relation to Pietersen's attempt to oust Moores.

The main points being made against Pietersen seem to be that it's not a very nice thing to do and he's not doing it in a very nice way. Well, boo hoo. Those are very English complaints, made by the sort of people who think losing gallantly is as good as winning ruthlessly.

Unfortunately for these commentators and fans, KP ain't English and he ain't happy with losing. The crown of "best team in the world" is vacant, KP thinks England have a shot at it, and he is taking the steps necessary to ensure the best chance of success.

Moores may be a good fitness and fielding coach, and have a good understanding of motivational techniques. But he has clearly done nothing to win the respect of the players, quite the opposite. Fletcher worked with two captains, and had superb (if very different) rapports with each - Moores has alienated almost all England's senior players. Pietersen, Vaughan and Collingwood, the three men to have a little 'c' against their names in the last year, have all made their displeasure known in more or less subtle ways.

It has been made very clear that nobody considers him capable of out-thinking a team, or of developing gameplans for particular batsmen. KP looked like the novice captain he is on the last day in Chennai, and he clearly hated it. If the undercurrent about having Vaughan in the squad is true, it should be obvious that KP wanted him not necessarily to bat at 3, but to teach him about captaincy in a way that Moores has been unable to. And the England team under Moores' tutelage - remember, he was appointed to take England forward after the twin debacles of the last Ashes and World Cup - has not won a live Test against anyone other than WI and NZ.

He's had plenty of chances, home and away in all sorts of conditions with all sorts of teams. He hasn't done the job, so he has to go. The ECB should be able to see this, but they have a conflict of interest because the reason they selected Moores (without even looking at outside applications) was because he has come through the ECB system. Also, getting rid of Moores will clearly be expensive. So Pietersen has decided to force their hand, acting for the good of the England team rather than the ECB or the wider game - which is what he should do as captain. And if his methods are a bit crude, I don't care. In fact, since this is probably the only way of dislodging Moores, I applaud his gumption.

Under Vaughan, the motto of the England team might have been "be yourself". Under Pietersen, it is clearly going to be "be a winner". And I think that's a good thing.

Pretty convincing post actually. You might just have sold me.

 

[Matt79]

CBF reading this whole thread, all I can say with that with the Ashes coming up, this is excellent guys - please continue to fight amongst yourself!

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, fair one, we have to give you lot a chance after all

 

[zaremba]

I honestly do not understand all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that is going on in relation to Pietersen's attempt to oust Moores.

The main points being made against Pietersen seem to be that it's not a very nice thing to do and he's not doing it in a very nice way. Well, boo hoo. Those are very English complaints, made by the sort of people who think losing gallantly is as good as winning ruthlessly.

Unfortunately for these commentators and fans, KP ain't English and he ain't happy with losing. The crown of "best team in the world" is vacant, KP thinks England have a shot at it, and he is taking the steps necessary to ensure the best chance of success.

Moores may be a good fitness and fielding coach, and have a good understanding of motivational techniques. But he has clearly done nothing to win the respect of the players, quite the opposite. Fletcher worked with two captains, and had superb (if very different) rapports with each - Moores has alienated almost all England's senior players. Pietersen, Vaughan and Collingwood, the three men to have a little 'c' against their names in the last year, have all made their displeasure known in more or less subtle ways.

It has been made very clear that nobody considers him capable of out-thinking a team, or of developing gameplans for particular batsmen. KP looked like the novice captain he is on the last day in Chennai, and he clearly hated it. If the undercurrent about having Vaughan in the squad is true, it should be obvious that KP wanted him not necessarily to bat at 3, but to teach him about captaincy in a way that Moores has been unable to. And the England team under Moores' tutelage - remember, he was appointed to take England forward after the twin debacles of the last Ashes and World Cup - has not won a live Test against anyone other than WI and NZ.

He's had plenty of chances, home and away in all sorts of conditions with all sorts of teams. He hasn't done the job, so he has to go. The ECB should be able to see this, but they have a conflict of interest because the reason they selected Moores (without even looking at outside applications) was because he has come through the ECB system. Also, getting rid of Moores will clearly be expensive. So Pietersen has decided to force their hand, acting for the good of the England team rather than the ECB or the wider game - which is what he should do as captain. And if his methods are a bit crude, I don't care. In fact, since this is probably the only way of dislodging Moores, I applaud his gumption.

Under Vaughan, the motto of the England team might have been "be yourself". Under Pietersen, it is clearly going to be "be a winner". And I think that's a good thing.

If the idea of wanting to select Vaughan is to have him in the squad to teach the current captain about how to captain, we should be looking not to the coach but to the captain. This is a pitiful, pie-in-the sky basis for wanting to select a senior player for an international tour and reflects incredibly badly on Pietersen.

In terms of who's on whose side in this (God how depressing even to be starting to write a sentence with those words!) Collingwood seems to be on Pietersen's side and Flintoff on Moores' side. I really don't think that MPV's views should carry any weight in this particular context for the fairly obvious reason that he's not in the team any more.

I take your point about wanting to win at all costs but I have to say that for a captain to mutiny in the way Pietersen has doesn't augur well for the future, even if he gets his way with relatively little damage on this occasion. It's just deeply unprofessional.

Having said all of which, I truly hope that this works out. Pietersen is a player I hold in huge regard and is a vital part of any hopes that England now have.

 

[Uppercut]

If the idea of wanting to select Vaughan is to have him in the squad to teach the current captain about how to captain, we should be looking not to the coach but to the captain. This is a pitiful, pie-in-the sky basis for wanting to select a senior player for an international tour and reflects incredibly badly on Pietersen.

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.

 

[susudear]

Boo Hoo

Under Vaughan, the motto of the England team might have been "be yourself". Under Pietersen, it is clearly going to be "be a winner". And I think that's a good thing.

5-0. 1-0,