Paul Downton speaks – part three

So our lord and master has deigned to speak. As you’ll surely have seen by now, Paul Downton, managing director of the ECB’s national sides, yesterday gave a series of media interviews. This was only his third formal public appearance since his appointment in January, and his first since the expiry of the Pietersen confidentiality agreement.

And what a load of old cobblers he came out with.

To summarise, Downton accepted that Alastair Cook has long been in dismal form, but says can’t be dropped because it’s possible he might score some runs eventually. He refused to discuss Pietersen in any meaningful way and then told us to move on.

It was exactly the kind of illogical, self-serving, deceitful, and condescending, claptrap we were all expecting.

Let’s take a detailed look at what Downton said. My main sources are the reports of his pooled interview with the written press. We don’t know exactly which questions were asked.

He [Cook] is having a terrible time at the moment. Nobody knows that more than him, nobody is more frustrated than him. Yes, he’s in miserable form but form can change. The form he has shown is not the sort that anyone wants from their leader, but I would suggest that he is due. Yes, Alastair needs to score runs, but he will one day – he will score some runs one day. I don’t know whether Alastair is in terminal decline, but he is 29 and he has had a year where everybody has questioned his being everyday.

He is a remarkably strong guy and his track record says that he will score runs. Everybody goes through a bad period. But I’ve got to think that his form’s got to turn. Who can tell me that they can guarantee that Alastair Cook isn’t going to score 70 in the first match and get a hundred in the World Cup? I couldn’t do that because he’s done it before. 

This is desperate, desperate stuff. It’s almost unbelievable that an ECB official in Downton’s position could advance this kind of argument in public, and keep a straight face.

He entirely concedes that Cook’s form is unacceptably poor, but won’t countenance his exclusion – because he might score some runs eventually. Because no one can guarantee Cook won’t make a score at some undefined point in the future, it would be inappropriate to drop him.

By this tortuously convoluted logic, they may as well pick me. No one could guarantee I wouldn’t make runs.

And any first-class standard cricketer would occasionally manage a decent international innings if they play in every single match.

Even by the standards of the ECB, this is dishonest nonsense of the highest order. Bold as brass, Downton is betting England’s World Cup chances on the prospect that a woefully inadequate player will by some miracle come good when it matters. It could happen. But is this really the best available strategy?

In today’s ODI, Cook was lucky to avoid an LBW, and was then dropped, before eventually being dismissed for 32.

In the Telegraph, Scyld Berry reported that:

Downton…will attend the World Cup selection meeting on Friday, without a vote. He said, though, that if Cook’s captaincy was not reconfirmed by the four selectors, “I will be very surprised”.

So will we, seeing as Downton is imposing himself on the meeting to ensure Cook’s protection. Just who is making the decisions here? Why have selectors at all, if the self-aggrandising, empire-building Downton can, as implied, veto and control their decisions?

Why is he even attending the meetings in the first place? Selection is categorically outside Downton’s remit. His predecessor, Hugh Morris, left the selectors alone to do their jobs.

Downton continued:

Why do we think [Cook is] the best person for the job in Australia? In reality, in September the selectors got together and spent nearly a week kicking the tyres and working out were we best to stick with Alastair, given that we were to going to be playing a World Cup in Australia and in New Zealand, with two new balls, where his track record is good, where he has been captain for 3½ years.

If the selectors took an entire week to decide on retaining Cook, they can hardly have been confident in their views. The sheer time they expended denotes not thoroughness, which Downton wants us to believe, but disagreement and anxiety.

Perhaps it took a week because Angus Fraser and Mick Newell wanted rid of Cook, and then Downton and James Whitaker protractedly talked them round.

Even if the selectors agreed at the time to Keep Cook And Carry On, why is this decision binding in perpetuity? Given Cook’s continued struggles in Sri Lanka, wouldn’t it be more sensible to show flexibility, and make a change, rather than soldier on, pig-headedly?

What of Downton’s stated rationale? The argument that Cook should remain as captain simply because he’s been doing it for four years is almost too ridiculous to merit a response. Guided by that principle, no employee of long service would ever leave their post, regardless of performance. It’s hardly as if Cook’s reign has yielded much success. Since the Champions Trophy, he’s presided over one disaster after another.

Then we have Cook’s track record in Australia. As Dennis Freedman points out, Cook’s career ODI average is 36.45. In Australia it’s 28.00. He made 766 runs in the 2010/11 Ashes, but that was four years ago. How did he fare last time, in 2013/14? Cook’s test scores were 13, 65, 3, 1, 72, 0, 27, 51, 7 and 7. In the ODIs, he made 4, 22, 35, 44, and 39. Three fifties in fifteen innings, with no century.

Remind me which England player actually made the most runs in that test series?

As for the new ball, Cook’s not been effective against it for nearly two years.

During the ECB’s week of reflection in September:

[National selector] James Whitaker went to see Alastair at his home just to talk through from his point of view how he was mentally.

To see how he was, or to talk him out of quitting? Why did Whitaker make such a fuss over him? Can you imagine ECB bosses going to such efforts for any other captain? Compare Cook’s treatment to the time Hugh Morris peremptorily sacked Kevin Pietersen by phone in January 2009.

Downton continued:

The only time he really had a full-strength side, they got to the final of the Champions Trophy and in fact they should have won it.

So, blame all the other players for Cook’s struggles. Yes, Cook’s side should have won that tournament. But they failed to.

The fact is he’s a remarkably strong guy…we felt strongly that all his experience, all his toughness, would come out.

When, exactly, will that happen? At which point will this toughness emerge and make a genuine difference? And is Cook really as steely as suggested? We know he’s been on the brink of resigning twice this year, only to be talked out of it by a combination of his wife and Downton. When commentators criticise him, he runs to Mummy to make them stop.

Bear in mind as well that he’s gone through a traumatic summer in terms of the pressure on him.

Is this an achievement? Is Downton appealing for our sympathies? By its very nature Cook’s role will attract pressure if results and form are poor. Any trauma he suffered was at his own hands – no one else was responsible for his batting or captaincy. Cook ‘went through’ it only in the sense that he avoided the sack.

In doing so that dressing room is very much his dressing room in a way it could never have been before.

What on earth does this statement mean? Has he re-arranged the towels and tea-making facilities? What are the mystical properties of a Cook dressing room? What magic does he weave amid the kit-bags and linseed oil?

The amount [sic] of young people we’ve introduced into that side, where he and Peter [Moores, the head coach] and others have created an environment where they’ve thrived, has been terrific.

Here we go again with the ‘environment’ meme – giving Cook the credit for other people’s performances. What has Cook specifically done which has directly led to new players improving their performances, and which no one else could do? Just as relevantly, several such players – Sam Robson, Harry Gurney, Alex Hales – have so far notably failed to settle in and thrive, while Ben Stokes has gone backwards.

So he’s the natural leader of that group of players.

On-field cluelessness. Total lack of either charisma or authority. Shambling public appearances. Dire personal form. Oh yes, everything about Alastair Cook simply screams ‘natural leader’.

In terms of the two series we’ve had so far [against Sri Lanka, home and away], firstly the whole of English cricket was being traumatised by what had gone on in Australia and the subsequent fall-out of Andy Flower going and of Kevin’s decision [sic] et cetera. We were trying to find our feet.

Well, whose fault was any of that? Is Downton trying to cite his own culling of Pietersen as the reason for England’s subsequent malaise?

Again on this trip we’ve lost another series, but actually I think the positives far outweigh the negatives.

Peter Moores does as well. So that makes two of you. The rest of us think it’s been a disaster.

Actually I think we are now very close to knowing what our best side is. The top seven looks extremely solid.

Is this the same solid top seven in which several positions change from one match to the next?

At this point the conversation turned to the Pietersen affair, starting with the allegations made in his autobiography about the culture of bullying within the England camp. Downton said:

The reality was that there is no formal complaint of bullying at all on anybody’s record during that whole period. It’s not something that has come up anywhere else, and I think we all know it was a surprise in terms of the way in which Kevin portrayed that environment. None of the other players recognise it.

It would be interesting to know how the assembled journalists responded with further questions. Has Downton taken any proper steps to investigate the allegations? The fact that no formal complaint exists, or that it “hasn’t come up”, hardly proves there wasn’t a problem – players may have previously been too scared to speak out.

Has Downton discreetly spoken, without prejudice, to all the players who might have been affected? Did he consult Jonathan Trott, Nick Compton, and Chris Tremlett?

Next up for discussion was the sacking of Kevin Pietersen. What were Downton’s reasons?

I cannot see any reason to be going over old ground because it’s actually not relevant any more. All one has to do is read Kevin’s book to see how disaffected he was at the time. I can repeat what we said at the time, which was that people felt that Kevin had become disengaged from the side, and that we needed more from our leaders.

Ten months to think about what to say, and this is the best he could come up with? Once again, Downton is not being honest. He refuses to explain Pietersen not because it’s ‘old ground’, or irrelevant, but through cowardice. He doesn’t have a proper reason to give – at least, not one which wouldn’t reveal his skulduggery and deception.

Pietersen’s sacking is still hugely relevant, for three reasons. 1 – he could still be playing in the team. 2 – the decision continues to affect and shape the current side. And 3 – we deserve an explanation. For eight months we were told it was only the confidentiality agreement which prevented the ECB from full disclosure. They expressed their “frustration” at being “unable to respond”. Alastair Cook himself promised to tell all. So why hasn’t that happened?

Disengagement and disaffection are not satisfactory answers. What do they mean? What did Pietersen specifically do, in these regards, which made him unselectable?

And is Downton attempting to argue they axed Pietersen on the evidence of his book – a book written eight months after the event, and only written because of the dismissal? A book which revealed that although Pietersen hated working with Andy Flower, his passion for run-making in England colours remained undiminished.

Downton then said:

I don’t think you’ll ever be able to explain to some people’s satisfaction what happened.

You could at least try.

It’s history. We can’t change it any more.

It’s not. It’s the present. You could still pick him.

Am I content that we made the right decision? Absolutely.

Was Downton asked to explain this remark in more depth? What is the evidence, based on the current state of the England sides, that removing Pietersen has made things better?

Moving on, how does he reflect on his own conduct?

I’m sure we could have handled it better. I’m sure I made mistakes at the time, but it’s what it is, and I don’t want to exclude anybody from English cricket, I want everybody to feel enfranchised. I think as an organisation we don’t communicate as well as we should and it’s something we’ll invest in going forward.

At least Downton acknowledges his shortcomings, albeit in a mealy-mouthed way. But if he’s serious about enfranchising supporters he should start by telling the truth instead of arrogantly sweeping the unresolved past under the carpet. We want honesty and openness, not ‘investment’ in communication.

According to Richard Hobson in The Times:

Downton denied that any decision to remove Cook in the light of Pietersen’s departure would represent a loss of face. “Not for me. My only driving force here is what’s best for English cricket”.

Pull the other one.

And finally, the piece de resistance:

Now, we’re starting to emerge from a pretty traumatic time and it’s time for people to get excited again.

When he puts it like that, how can we refuse?

I’ll leave you with this pithy summary from Mweb, a commenter on BBC Online’s coverage of today’s ODI.

[Downton] reminds me of the hapless Black Knight character played by John Cleese in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who despite losing all his limbs, continues to defend his increasingly indefensible position rather than give way. His stubbornness and the failure of the England selectors to act decisively in removing Cook from the team is quite breathtaking.

Over to you. And for another perspective, there’s plenty to read over at Dmitri’s.