Dawson In, Match Winners Out – England’s World T20 Squad

Imagine if South Africa decided to omit Dale Steyn and AB de Villiers from their World T20 squad. You’d call them stupid, right? Well that’s exactly what the rest of the world is calling England today. Stupid. Petty. Moronic. Whether you agree with that summation of not, that’s what many people across the world are thinking.

There’s no point talking about Kevin Pietersen in detail. We’ve done this a million times before. My former co-editor Maxie was one of his biggest fans. I’ve been both a fan and a critic at various points. However, I still think it’s a shame that English cricket can’t let bygones be bygones, forget the politics, and simply pick its strongest team.

I’m an admirer of Andrew Strauss. He was a fantastic servant of English cricket and I think he’s done a good job since replacing the inept Paul Downton. However, I believe the decision to omit Pietersen, who is clearly one of the most destructive and in-form T20 players in the world at the moment, demeans him.

Andrew my friend, if you trust someone enough to be an advisor, then surely you should trust him enough to play? This whole saga makes English cricket look absurd. Obviously Pietersen’s exclusion was to be expected – there’s nothing like the predictability of stupidity – but it shouldn’t go unmentioned.

It’s a shame for both the team, who will be missing one of its few world class talents, and spectators around the world. Pietersen is friends with both Eoin Morgan and Jos Buttler, and none of the players he had issues with have been selected in the squad, so there was no reason to omit him other than the pride and intransigence of a few faceless administrators. Once again the fans miss out.

What’s more, even Strauss himself has admitted that Pietersen is very good at mentoring young players. Here’s some quotes from Strauss himself, a year after their infamous textgate falling out:

“He can be really good with young players actually … I suppose Kevin is a complicated character … but he can be fantastic, really good and engaged in the dressing room and really go out of his way to help other people at times.

“You want to see him do that, because he’s at the stage of his career now where he’s got a lot to offer those young players coming through – and they all look up to him as well.”

When you hear words like this, from one of Pietersen’s greatest critics, it’s clear he would’ve been a good man to provide leadership and experience to England’s young squad in India. So why isn’t he going? It’s just daft and petty.

I know many people bought the anti-Pietersen bile that was leaked by the ECB to justify their inadequate response to the dismal 2013/14 Ashes campaign, but I was always sceptical – just like I’m sceptical about Pietersen’s side of the story too. Neither is a reliable witness. There’s too much a stake for both parties. What’s more, the ECB hasn’t proven itself to be particularly trustworthy in recent times – especially if one looks at the horrendous stitch up at the ICC.

Instead I chose to believe the public testimony from independent observers – the players who were on that infamous Ashes tour. Guys like Carberry, Tremlett, Panesar, Stokes, Bairstow and even Root all went on the record to defend Pietersen’s conduct or bemoan the fact they’d no longer be able to play with him. You can follow the links if you don’t believe me.

Then there was the testimony of respected former teammates like Michael Vaughan, Andrew Flintoff, and Simon Jones. I spoke to the latter about the issue personally last year. It could be that I’ve got this one completely wrong, but as an academic I’m compelled to believe recorded testimony over rumour, innuendo and biased testimony. The case for the prosecution, enshrined by the ECB’s dodgy dossier, was too flimsy to take seriously.

I won’t shed a tear for Pietersen, who has had a great career, made millions from the game and has clearly contributed to his own international demise, but I hate it when English cricket appears like a laughing stock. Only England could leave out players of Pietersen’s talent and experience (particularly in India, where so few of our cricketers have played) yet include someone like Liam Dawson, who’s had an up and down career and possesses very average domestic statistics (he averages just 15 with the bat in domestic T20s). I wish Dawson well, but Kevin Pietersen he aint. As you’ll hear in the audio clip above, Trevor Bayliss has never even seen him play.

Having said all that, England should still be entertaining to watch in the upcoming tournament. I’m slightly worried that we might come unstuck on slow, spinning wickets, but there should be pyrotechnics aplenty. Buttler, Stokes and Roy will enjoy the big stage. They could be household names in a couple of month’s time. I also have a sneaking feeling that Sam Billings might turn a few heads.

However, the bowling does worry me slightly. There’s a vacuum of experience and few world class operators in England’s squad. As the world’s top test bowler I would’ve taken Broad. Wickets are important in T20s. I’m also a bit surprised that Steve Parry hasn’t made the squad. He rarely lets anyone down. Chris Woakes is also a bit unlucky to miss out. I guess they prefer David Willey because he’s a left-armer.

Although I can’t see England lifting the trophy – we just don’t have enough experience of playing in India in front of those huge crowds – I’m hopeful we can put on a show. It’s just a shame that politics, as predicted, means we won’t have our best possible chance of reaching the final stages.

James Morgan

49 comments

  • Dawson is in the squad ahead of Woakes or Parry rather than KP.

    KP should be playing no doubt but Dawson shouldn’t be the focus of why he is not.

    • Dawson is a batsman too, although he bowls off spin. He initially made his name as a batsman who bowled some part-time spin for Hants.

      I wasn’t trying to make out that it was a KP vs Dawson decision (either/or etc), but the contrast between a relative unknown (who even the coach hasn’t seen play) and a player known the world over is an obvious one – especially as they played for the same county.

      When looking at the obvious name left out, it’s natural to look at the new name included. After all, Dawson is the only uncapped player in the squad. I hope he does well. He’s an improving cricketer.

  • Shame Luke Wright missed out, I like him as an all-round t20 player.

    The slight paradox in all this is the players currently in the ‘England bubble’ don’t, by enlarge get to play in these t20 competitions as they’re busy playing for England. The big bash and the like do have a smattering of world class players but for all the glitz and champagne after parties it is not international cricket.

  • “He wasn’t even discussed in the selection meeting,” said Bayliss.

    One of the greatest T20 batsmen ever. Or say that again but leave out “T20”.

    Wasn’t. Even. Discussed.

    But Liam Dawson – who Bayliss only saw in the nets – was obviously discussed at some length.

    I agree… the ECB make themselves look stupid on purpose.

    • But “he’s a good fielder, apparently”.

      On the Pietersen issue, Strauss has the judgment of a petulant child.

      • Dawson’s a brilliant second slip – how useful is that in T20? He’s never particularly stood out as an outfielder.

        Tin hat time, but his selection seems based on his performances with the Lions and you know who’s in charge of the Lions…..

        Not that he has any say on selection, of course.

  • To be fair, most of that squad makes sense. I’d say key players are Adil Rashid (who got a lot of experience in the BBL) and Jos Buttler. I tend to agree that I’d like Broad in the team (ahead of Topley), but I think the England plan (and it makes a change for there to be one) is to keep him fresh for tests (this does have some merit). As for KP, I understand the argument, but instead of who?

      • Weakens the fielding though. If CJ takes three catches that few could take, that’s three wickets, exactly if he had clean-bowled the blighters.

    • KP instead of who? Any of the batsmen except Buttler I’d say. He’s still our most experienced T20 batsman and one of the few with experience in India. If selection was purely on merit he’d clearly be in the squad.

  • Luckily not my call but if you looked at selecting KP then you would be deciding between which one of Hales, Root, Roy, Vince to leave at home.

    • No disrespect to Hales, Roy and Vince, but I think England’s opponents would much rather be facing these guys (with their inexperience, and lack of a track record in international tournaments etc) than Pietersen.

  • Why blame it on faceless administrators? They’ve had nothing to do with keeping KP out. That blame belongs to Strauss and Flower who are playing politics with a vengeance. Strauss made no bones about “the lack of trust” being the main issue etc about dropping Pietersen when the other so-called reasons (looking out of the window/ whistling) provided by England coach Flower didn’t stand up. Strauss broadcast his contempt on Sky – he’s a c***t etc. showing he had never forgiven KP for texting that he was a n***s to his SA mates. A proud man and a petty one. Shouldn’t have taken on the role of Director of Cricket if he couldn’t put England before his own feelings of betrayal. But an even more hardened critic is the former England coach Flower who is now the coach of the Lions team, who holds the reins and recommendations of up and coming players, namely Billings, Vince, and Dawson, who all play for the Lions. Flower’s built a new power base. Bayliss has no chance against him or Strauss.

    It is madness not to select KP but Strauss and Flower are that vindictive. KP’s recent form and his knowhow of India plus his brilliant record as a t20 player should ensure his selection. England have failed abysmally at t20 cricket ever since KP was dropped from the side. We do have some young guns but not enough experience of India. Good luck to them but they might be on a hiding to nothing – again. I hope they do well even with the handicap of leaving out our best player in the format.

    As for all those players who have spoken up for KP you have to include Bell and Trott on that list. Bell went even so far as to say he understood why KP would feel aggrieved after being encouraged by chairman Graves and dumped by Strauss. Bell has always said the England team would be stronger for KP’s inclusion. Brave words in the circumstances.

    • Hi Jackie. When Strauss became MD, and he talked about the ‘trust issues’, he suggested these were between the board and KP, not KP and the players. I wouldn’t really include Flower as ‘the board’.

      I read quite a bit during that period about how ECB staff (in admin roles etc) had grown tired of the trouble KP had caused them over the years – the embarrassment, the PR disasters, the IPL, the book. I think this is where the problem lies. There are too many people in the corridors of power, most of whom we’ve probably never heard of, who hold grudges. It’s not as simple as a Strauss / Flower thing.

      • That rather suggests that the problem was with their own incompetence, but then again that is not really an alien concept we are talking about.

  • Pietersen is an irrelevant discussion since it was made clear long ago that there was no way back (rightly or wrongly). What I cannot understand are the selections of Dawson and Jordan ahead of Broad and Woakes. Woakes was the best all rounder in the Pakistan T20 series and has had no chance since whilst Jordan has been carted all around SA in the ODIs. Broads record speaks for itself. I understand the selection of Dawson for Indian conditions (although Woakes did fine in similar in the middle east) but that assumes he is good enough. He was dropped and loaned by Hampshire last year and the story was that he had lost any ability to turn the ball. Broad should be in on any measure and Woakes is a better bat and bowler than either Jordan or Dawson. This smells (yet again) of selectors playing favourites.

    • Broad, I suspect, was not picked because the selectors are understandably anxious to ensure his longevity as leader of the test attack. I’m undecided as to whether that’s the correct decision, but it’s perfectly defensible.

      Otherwise, I agree with you. Given how long we’ve had to prepare for this tournament, the Dawson selection is just strange.
      It’s not as though he’s forced his way into the team through sheer weight of runs or unplayable spells of bowling.
      While I hope he does well, it’s just a gamble at fairly long odds.

      And I don’t understand the whole ‘we’ve got to go with youth’ thing. The World Cup should the destination, the end of the journey… not the beginning of one – unless we’re planning to lose

    • Not that long ago. Graves entertained the idea of his returning last summer only for the ECB to appoint a “Director, Cricket” (Strauss) who then opined tha KP couldn’t return (at that point in time) due to trust issues…yet as James points out offered him a consulting role.

      Lest we forget, Alec Stewart and Michael Vaughan were also in the role for the job. They’d have had KP back and so couldn’t be appointed. So, sorry, it’s not an “irrelevant discussion”. In fact, it’s very on point and hence the article.

      • It is only irrelevant in the context of this selection. I did not intend to imply it is not an interesting issue. And my definition of irrelevant in this case is that it had been made clear in advance that KP would not be selected. Whether that policy is right is a valid debate – but not in this context.

  • I’m posting before reading any of the comments (apologies)

    Anyone who’s engaged with me on twatter in recent weeks will know my position on KP ( If Morgan wants him he fights for him)
    Its about time the ECB remembered how important the England captain is.

    Otherwise the squad looks young, dynamic & bloody exciting. Yes I’d have Broad for Jordan and Parry for Dawson, but our chances here rely on scoring runs. We have some bloody good players in that line up, and whilst India are strong favourites everybody else can beat each other.

    I’ve seen plenty of old bile retread today. I won’t engage with it, its pointless.
    Good luck to those who do

    • Yes I agree it’s pointless Neil. All nuance is lost in the process. The pro and anti camp appear monolithic and nobody is going to change their mind at this stage.

      While I agree with you that a captain should (in theory) fight for the team he wants, every new employee at the ECB (indeed every coaching candidate too) has been told what the situation is regarding Pietersen. It has become a condition of employment. They know what to expect. The debate ends there. I’m afraid there’s no room to fight for something that’s already been dictated down.

      I find this situation absurd. A captain and coach should be able to pick the team they want, without prejudice – as they’re the ones who will be working with the players selected. It seems bizarre than a bunch of administrators should interfere in this process.

      I could understand it if they didn’t want a drugs cheat, or someone involved with match fixing etc, to represent their country, but Pietersen is just a flamboyant marmite character. He’s never got drunk in public, groped a barmaid, gone on a rebel tour, or been to prison.

      The truth is he’s been excluded because the establishment simply don’t like him. Why? Because he’s embarrassed them too many times. They cannot possibly think that he’d really be a bad influence in the dressing room, when he gets on well with the captain, senior players, and the MD admits he’s good with young players.

      He’s worked well with a number of new teams around the world over a period of 6-8 weeks. The World T20 would be no different. Yes he had his problems with Moores/Flower and Strauss/Cook (which is basically the same, single regime) but he worked fine with Fletcher, Vaughan, Giles and Flintoff. The ECB have effectively just decided that he isn’t the right sort of character to represent England anymore. Yet he’s good enough for everyone else that employs him with open arms – including Surrey.

      It’s very peculiar that an organisation jointly responsible for stitching up world cricket at the ICC should have (ostensibly) higher moral standards than anyone else – or at least a more robust ‘fit and proper persons’ test. The mind boggles.

      • We actually don’t know any of that as fact James.
        The problem is we know nothing. You’ve just wrote about 100 words there about something you’ve assumed.
        I’m also assuming (probably naively) that if Morgan wanted him he’d fight for him.
        We’ve all spent 2 years talking about stuff we don’t know about.
        One thing we do know. The ECB & KP negotiated a release from his contract, perhaps we should of all just left it at that?

        • That’s a little disingenuous – or at least gives a significant benefit of the doubt to England’s administrators.

          We do know that “He’s worked well with a number of new teams around the world over a period of 6-8 weeks…”, that “He’s never got drunk in public, groped a barmaid, gone on a rebel tour, or been to prison….”, and it’s an entirely reasonable assumption that “he’s been excluded because the establishment simply don’t like him…” in the absence of any other substantive explanation.

          That “we don’t know… etc.” is entirely down to the administrators anyway.

          It’s instructive that England’s best captain of recent years – Vaughan – would have picked him.

          A more measured assessment here:
          http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-world-twenty20-2016/content/story/971239.html

          • I do apologise, I was referring to the times KP was with England.

            As I say, I believe its down to the captain. And I would be very interested to know if Vaughan (the best captain of my lifetime) would have fought for him, and if told no, would he have resigned?

            • No apology necessary; my misinterpretation.

              Anyway, I suppose the unbroken tradition of selecting for other than cricketing reasons goes all the way back to the cricket’s origins as an organised sport, so all this is well within the spirit of the game…
              :-)

        • Applying that logic we should only ever talk about what we know. Not much to talk about then…you can scrub religion, hopes for your children, whether you’ll get that promotion, whether you’ve got a chance with that guy/lady you’ve developed feelings for, all scientific theory. In fact all the things we talk about as we rarely talk about we know – because there’s not much point. I’d rather live in a world of debate thanks v much.

        • Hi Neil. I agree with Stuart Broad any many others (including yourself if memory serves me correctly?) that if they’d wanted to get rid of KP they should’ve just dropped him like anyone else. It’s the sacking, and then the drip, drip attempts to justify the decision via innuendo, that’s created this horrible mess and polarised lots of well meaning, intelligent England supports who for all their differences just want what’s best for English cricket.

          Indeed, even today’s decision just leaves more bad feeling. For all his faults Pietersen is clearly in form, and has the experience in India the side lacks, but his name wasn’t even discussed at a selection meeting because of a blanket decision made 2 years ago by people who aren’t even involved with the team now. It’s bizarre. And it’s also unprecedented.

          The power of the administrators is remarkable. I don’t think Morgan is in a position to ‘fight for KP’ because he knows it’s a non starter. And why would Morgan (similar to Cook 2 years ago) risk a job he loves by causing conflict over a single player? I don’t think its realistic to expect anyone to fight their employers over one player when the board has made its feelings well known for a long period of time.

          Just my 2p. As we’ve both said before, there will never be a satisfactory explanation on this one. All we can do is move on and support the team – which I think most people have done. English cricket is bigger than Pietersen. Unfortunately however, the board believes it IS English cricket. They’re mistaken. The game belongs to the public. The ECB are merely custodians.

          • Sorry James I don’t agree.

            Morgan is supposed to be a friend to KP, if that’s the case, and let’s say he agrees with you, that KP’s experience is needed, then you fight for your man.

            I that scenario I say , sorry Mr Stauss, I stick with my mates, you don’t want him, you don’t want me. I’m off to captain Ireland and play in all the T20 leagues going.
            Have a drink on me.

            • And then Strauss would say ‘OK Eoin, on your bike son. You knew the conditions when you were made captain & you can’t go changing them now’. The fact is it’s impossible to pick KP. What I find interesting is why?

  • As you say “Imagine if…”

    Unimaginable isn’t it, yet the ECB has managed it. I’ll not forget nor forgive.

  • Probably not the thread to point out that without KP England have won their last six T20 games in a row and have only lost once since the last WT20? It’s not the batting that’s an issue – for a start I don’t think we’ll see many of these slow, low turning wickets you’re afraid of, we’ll see pitches geared towards batsmen (do you really think the BCCI wants to see players like Kohli struggling on turgid pitches during a global centrepice? No, they’ll want belters to bring the crowds in) – but rather the seam bowling: there was more of a case for recalling Broad IMO, but then again he hasn’t played during England’s winning run either. Finn’s fitness is key – if he comes back in the form he was before his injury England are as good a shot as any.

    • I think it’s definitely the place to bring up that stat mate. It’s very relevant to the debate. England have indeed started to do well without Pietersen. There’s a lot to like about the England teams at the moment, and as I said in my article there’s enough talent in the squad to put up a good show.

      However, the point I’m making is that I’d like us to give ourselves the best possible chance to win a global tournament by picking the best possible players available. Politics has prevented that. We may still win the tournament, and I hope we will, but it won’t have been with the strongest team. I think that’s a shame.

      If there had been a debate about personnel, and the selectors had decided that Billings, Dawson, Hales etc were better players then fair enough. There would be no arguments from me. What I object to is that a very talented and experienced player, who has dominated recent domestic T20 tournaments worldwide, was not discussed at all. Discussion was prohibited – by suits! All very weird.

      • What relevance does Billings have to the KP debate? He is the back up keeper and not an alternative to KP.

  • What a disappointing and obvious blog, really expect better. Everything has been said many many many many times before. Does it change or challenge opinion? Assumptive throughout and beneath someone who had a history of providing a fantastic source of independent cricket opinion. Sad to say I have had enough. Am deleting my bookmark and will instead limit myself to reading news and supporting the England team regardless of petty barbs.

    • Disappointing for you maybe, but excellent from me (a fanatical and passionate England cricket support since ’75, but no more).
      And hardly a ‘petty barb’ either. In a Telegraph poll a couple of weeks ago, out of circa 8900 who voted, 8090 odd wanted KP back for this T20 competition. There is a massive schism and it will never go away. Add to that the likes of Vaughan and Stewart who would have him back, Boycott who says it’s just plain wrong that he’s excluded, all the people who got on with him from Trott, Bell, younger players and so on. The petty vindictiveness comes from Strauss, Flower, Clarke and the (their) submissive, compliant and sycophantic media.

      • There is, of course, a school of thought which says to go with the opposite of anything Boycott says. After all this is the pundit who has labelled various bowlers as ‘medium pace’ and, when confronted with the evidence of the speed gun showing 90mph+ his reaction has been (and I paraphrase); “Oo’s tha’ goin’ t’believe lad? T’ laws of physics or t’ world’s greatest bat? Anyhow, I’ve got t’ meet of t’ Flat Earth Society to chair.”

    • I’m sorry you feel that way. It’s just an opinion. I’ve not written about Pietersen for about a year. Normally we discuss other things. I rarely agree with everything my favourite bloggers / journalists write. I just look forward to the next article.

      I thought I provided more than enough citations from independent sources to support my argument. Did you click on the links? Did you read today’s other article? I hope you come back and join the numerous other debates we’ll be having in the coming days.

      By the way, you might be interested to know that the last time I wrote about this subject the respected Australian journalist Gideon Haigh linked to it from his column. I recall he said it was a balanced and interesting perspective. I don’t think the argument is as vacuous as you make out.

      • In my opinion, an excellent article James.

        Comments like the one above have one purpose – to make you think twice next time you think about mentioning Pietersen. It’s all about trying to make you and others self-censor.

        It’s your blog, write what you like!

  • When I think of Stuart Broad and T20 I automatically think of the Netherlands and of Yuvraj Singh! I don’t understand why we haven’t picked him though.

    I don’t know much at all about Dawson – let’s hope it is a gamble that pays off.

    As far as the KP saga is concerned, this is nothing like South Africa deciding to omit Dale Steyn and AB de Villiers from their World T20 squad, as they still play for their country.

    Eoin Morgan does not come across as a yes man. If he really wanted KP in his squad I would imagine he would have kicked up a fuss. What Morgan has done in a fairly short period of time is build his own team around him and I can completely understand why he wouldn’t want to change this and make it all about what KP can or cannot do.

  • The ECB missed a trick in omitting Kevin Pietersen: if they really wanted to be vindictive, they should’ve included him in the squad but not picked him for the team, thereby maximizing the false hope before the crushing disappointment.

    For maximum humiliation, make him carry the drinks.

    • And then tell him to give up his IPL contract to play for Surrey …. “if you score runs in country cricket Kev, you never know etc”. Oh hang on, they’ve already done that one.

  • “My former co-editor Maxie was one of his biggest fans”.

    I wouldn’t put it quite like that. I was a great admirer of Pietersen as a cricketer, but until recent times I was probably a greater admirer overall of Strauss. I didn’t worship Pietersen, by any means – as a person, I neither loved nor disliked him.

    My attitude to the Pietersen affair has nothing to do with fandom.

    “I read quite a bit during that period about how ECB staff (in admin roles etc) had grown tired of the trouble KP had caused them over the years – the embarrassment, the PR disasters, the IPL, the book. I think this is where the problem lies. There are too many people in the corridors of power, most of whom we’ve probably never heard of, who hold grudges”.

    Do you have any examples of this? Saker and Ashley Giles both praised Pietersen, publicly, just before the sacking. Few of the key ECB mandarins from that era remain in post – except for Giles Clarke, and crucially, Andy Flower.

    Moreover, the role of management is to manage – putting up with difficult people is what they’re paid for. You pick the players on the basis of what they contribute on the field – not on the basis of how easy or difficult they are to look after.

    Imagine if a rock band dropped their lead singer because their accountant thought he was a pain in the arse.

    The exclusion of Pietsersen from the WT20 is further proof, if it were needed, that the ECB would rather lose matches than admit the possibility of error.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting