Outside the turtle tank

It used to be said that the Church of England was the Conservative party at prayer. There is a case for saying that the ECB is the Conservative party at play. While David Cameron feigns one-nation paternalism with his ‘all in this together’ mantra, in my view the food banks and bedroom tax tell you that the disaffected and disadvantaged are rather more outside than in. There is a vast disconnect between the rhetoric and what we see around us. So it is with the ECB.

Margaret Thatcher’s radical manifesto, also born from a winter of discontent, could be a blueprint for the way English cricket is currently being administered – price above value, loyalty above merit, power above service and ‘one of us’ above none of the rest.

Giles Clarke, a gunboat diplomat to the core, has pursued ambition and self-interest above progressive administration. He has helped engineer narrow corporate allegiances over wide public inclusion and an ICC land grab equivalent to the 19th-century scramble for Africa. Even the measured, reflective Mike Brearley called that mugging Thatcherite.

Perhaps the difference between the 1980s and now is not policy but publicity. Divisive as she was, everyone knew what Thatcher stood for and could rely on her to say what she thought. The modern Cameron-ECB model is a mash up between the unacceptable face of conservatism and Alastair Campbell’s anal control of news management. Except Campbell was competent at it. There is a desperate disconnect in the country and in cricket between what is happening and what is said to be happening.

At least there is a mechanism for unseating Cameron’s administration, even though it benefits from a largely supportive and one-eyed press. There is no such mechanism for calling the ECB to account, and its press is dominated by former players who benefit from access, privilege and opportunity offered by the ECB itself or its commercial partners. Disinterest was a charge against Pietersen that could not be made of sections of the print and broadcast media.

The current England environment is shrouded by smoke and mirrors. Nothing is what it seems. Kevin Pietersen, in his autobiography, said Andy Flower was a ‘mood hoover’ sucking all joy from the group. Elizabeth Ammon wrote a blog piece on Wednesday drawing attention to how miserable the current England ODI team looks. She wrote of the team:

There was a heartbreaking look of disillusionment and sadness on the faces of young, exciting cricketers when they should be full of energy, hope and desire.

Nothing has changed in twelve months. In January, I saw the England test team take to the field for the fifth test in Sydney with shoulders slung lower than a Dachshund’s bollocks, and for all the current managed bonhomie and organised Twitter banter this does not look like a happy squad.

Ravi Bopara published on social media a photo of his room furniture comically stacked atop his bed to show just how buzzing team spirit was. I don’t suppose he was still laughing when left out of the team the next day. Yet another disconnect between what we are shown and what is actually taking place.

The ECB has suffered a calamitous twelve months, with its brand, integrity and competence badly dented.  Everything flows from its decision to end the international career of Kevin Pietersen, which triggered the biggest crisis for English cricket in the modern era.

I am still uncertain whether the ECB’s vindictiveness and incompetence was most defined by the sacking itself or its management of the decision. Each time the ECB has attempted to explain its actions, it’s been tripped up by contradictions obvious to everyone but Downton and Clarke. With the best will in the world, from outside the turtle tank, one has to conclude that either the ECB lies compulsively or it’s delusional. Unlike Bopara’s bedroom furniture, nothing the ECB does or says stacks up.

Back in February, the ECB told us Pietersen was a divisive influence in the dressing room. Yet, at the last time of counting, at least nine or ten members of the winter squad have come out at one time or another to deny he was divisive. In fact, they have gone out of their way to praise him for his qualities as a mentor. Is it the one or the ten who are wrong?

Back in April, Downton told us Cook was not strong enough as a leader to accommodate Pietersen. Today Cook is a natural leader. Not both these statements can be true.

Back in May, Downton told TMS that Pietersen was sacked for cricketing reasons, but the recently leaked due-diligence document was straight out of the Not the Nine O’Clock News school of misdemeanours. Looking out of the window, speaking with a funny accent, stepping on the cracks in the pavement, that sort of thing.

Only yesterday, in the Independent, Michael Carberry contradicted the ECB’s claim of a dressing-room altercation with Pietersen.

This so-called ‘altercation’ that myself and Kevin Pietersen are supposed to have had, well, I guess I’m still waiting for that memo from the ECB to make me aware of this altercation because it’s news to me.

I’ve known Kevin a long time, since he came over from South Africa, and I don’t think in the years we’ve played with or against each other, we’ve ever had a cross word. He’s arguably one of the greatest batsman I’ve ever seen and England has ever produced. He was generous with his time and his advice on the tour.

The ECB’s slow-wit lies and so-what truths represent low skulduggery and high farce.  Please let it not continue into the panto season.

Paul Downton, in his round of interviews broadcast on Tuesday, admitted that the ECB needs to engage better with the public, but then undermined it all by telling an incredulous public that he could not see how the Pietersen affair could have been handled any better. Really Paul? Even the ECB’s most diehard supporters in the press agree that the public-relations side of the matter was a total train wreck.

Neither has Downton noticed any hostility to the ECB up and down the country! This is akin to Custer failing to notice any hostility at Little Bighorn or Lord Cardigan failing to notice the Russian cannon. Downton is not accomplished at persuasive mendacity, which is a plaudit of sorts for a man in need of one, and every lie or planted deception only serves to further diminish him and his organisation.

The ECB was right in February when it rationalised its so-called new direction on the need to rebuild its ethics and philosophy. What it failed to grasp was that the administrators are the ones in want of ethical underpinning, The fish is rotting from its head. It’s the tank that needs cleaning.

Let no one pretend that Downton’s compulsive support for Alastair Cook is not rooted in the decision to sack Kevin Pietersen. There were no tyres kicked in January, no drives down the motorway to ask Pietersen how he felt about things. Moving on will not cut the thread that joins the sacking to the backing, though it may remove its currency.

While the Pietersen debate has lost traction over the past couple of months, the ECB continues to be stained by its bungled attempts to bury both Pietersen and the story. It is burdened with a reputation for dissembling, deceit and disregarding the bleeding obvious. It is though this filter that we tend to judge everything the ECB says and does. It has lost our trust to such an extent that even its most innocuous actions are viewed with suspicion.

Downton’s pathological obsession with Cook’s retention has reached a point where medication needs to be introduced. While he agrees that Cook does not deserve his place in the team at the moment, Downton intends, against all reason, to stick with the captain because he is due runs. This is like me putting the mortgage on a lottery line because after years of disappointment, I am due a win. It is such a ridiculous act of faith that Richard Dawkins will need to add an excoriating new chapter to The God Delusion. Or Downton is treating us all as idiots in a pig-headed refusal to admit he got it wrong.

This is what Cook had to say in January after the disastrous winter tour to Australia:

I feel I’m the right man for the job to do it. If I’m not, and people higher up want a change because they think that’s the best way, then I’ll have to take it on the chin because results suggest it.

This is what he said a few days ago after the 5-2 thrashing by Sri Lanka:

No one has got any divine right to play for England … if the decision went that way I can’t do much about it. I haven’t scored the runs I would like to have scored and we haven’t won the number of games I would like to have won. So if it happens I could have no complaints but as a leader you take tough days on the chin.

Again, it is self-evident from the results and Cook’s own on-the-chin assessment of the situations that nothing has changed in twelve months. The retention of Cook has become senseless and obsessive, harming the careers of Cook himself and the talented players he is either keeping out of the team or forcing to play out of position.

Cook may not indulge in social media, but the rest of the team does, and the constant questioning of the skipper’s suitability in the short-form format must impact on team morale.  Bell and Bopara do not need social media to ask, why me skip and not you?

Common sense seemed to spark briefly to life before fading, when Peter Moores refused, after the 6th ODI, to give unequivocal support to Cook, commenting that everything, including Cook’s position, would be reviewed this Friday. The subsequent backtracking, or clarification as its called in instant-rebuttal units, reeked of ideological intervention from the commissaire politique.

Today, Paul Downton will sit in on the selectors’ meeting as they consider the fifteen-man world-cup squad. Apparently, he has every confidence the selectors will make the right decision, and he would be very surprised if Cook was not world-cup captain. He does not have a vote, he says, but he does have responsibility for the selectors’ performance. Ouch! His words and his presence will create an atmosphere of Pinteresque menace and Henry Ford certainty. You can pick any captain you like as long as it’s Cook.

Downton has not been asked nor offered any explanation why he sits in on selector meeting like some modern-day Führungsoffizier. Angus Fraser and Mick Newell are highly regarded cricket professionals. Fraser knows a thing or two about trying to fix cricket disasters – he was on the Schofield committee. Their appointment as selectors was controversial, not because of their suitability or otherwise, but, in a very ECB act of loose ethics, because their continued positions with their clubs created a significant conflict of interest. The Caesar’s Wife principle that elevates every democratic system of jurisprudence in the world holds no favour with the ECB.

This puts an even greater responsibility on Fraser and Newell to draw on all their experience, stature and integrity and refuse to be leaned on by Downton. They must execute their responsibilities today in the best interests of the England team and its chances in the world cup. If tomorrow it is announced that Cook will lead the team, they should consider their positions and their reputations.

Most commentators believe that in any event Cook will step down as ODI captain after the world cup. If he goes to Australia and England lose ignominiously, there will be nowhere to hide for Downton, Moores, Cook or the selectors. The clamour for heads to roll will be deafening and unrelenting, and Giles Clarke may not be there to stiffen the resolve of the guilty men.

If you want to know what a happy team looks like, a team playing with skill, freedom and joie de vivre, look at Eoin Morgan’s T20 side that beat India in the summer. This current England team needs its mojo back and if only the ECB stopped playing politics, adopted a little humility and made proper cricketing decisions, maybe it would reconnect with frustrated England fans and re-energise support for a nicer, better team.

@Tregaskis1