What Does ‘Lead From the Front’ Actually Mean?

I’m on holiday at the mo, so I’ve had plenty of time to think. Admittedly this has mostly involved pondering the ideal time to switch to wine (after drinking my own body weight in Trappist ales), but like many borderline alcoholics I tend to get a tad philosophical as my blood-alcohol levels approach 100%. Obviously the conclusions I’ve reached aren’t exactly watertight, but if you wanted Socrates or Plato, you wouldn’t be reading a cricket blog, right?!

Anyway, the deep philosophical issue that’s been keeping me awake at night (and boring the hell out of Mrs Morgan) is the precise meaning of the phrase ‘lead from the front’. You might have heard every cricket journalist under the sun use this somewhat vague and vacuous expression over the last few weeks.

For starters, how is it possible to lead from anywhere other than the front? If you’re bringing up the rear, then surely by definition you cannot be ‘leading’. The expression is therefore about as profound as saying that someone follows from the middle or the back (if you get my meaning).

Secondly, what on earth has ‘leading from the front’ got to do with captaincy? According to the Oxford Dictionaries website, leading from the front means ‘to take an active role in urging and directing others to do something’. In cricketing terms, therefore, a captain who does not ‘lead from the front’ would (for example) be someone who advocates discipline and aggression, but then goes out partying all night and makes a fifty ball duck the following morning. If a captain acted like this, he wouldn’t survive as a professional cricketer for very long, let alone survive as captain.

It seems to me, therefore, even if my judgement has been severely impaired by sun, sea and tequila (yep, I’m on the spirits now), that ‘leading from the front’ is the very least you’d expect from a professional cricketer, especially a senior player. It does not require cricketing IQ, words of insight or inspiration, or even man management skills. It’s how you’d describe a passive personality doing the very minimum he’s paid to do. What’s more, if that person fails to score any runs (which happens at least half the time to any batsman) he isn’t contributing a single thing to the leadership of the side.

As a result, I think it’s safe to assume that ‘leading from the front’ has naff all to do with anything. If Moeen Ali or Chris Jordan were suddenly named captain, took a few wickets, but otherwise said nothing to anybody in the entire game, they could accurately be described as ‘leading from the front’ simply because they took ‘an active role’ in achieving the team objective i.e winning the game.

I think what the media actually means when they say ‘leading from the front’ is the somewhat more passive term ‘leading by example’. The thing is, leading by example isn’t actually leading at all: it’s simply going about your business and hoping that others might get inspired by what you’re doing.

Leading by example isn’t grabbing people by the balls, managing them, or even thinking about strategy; it’s the opposite of dynamic; it’s the antithesis of what cricketing captaincy, or leadership in any endeavour, should be. It is, basically, a cop out.

If a line manager at work was described in an appraisal as ‘someone who leads by example’, it would be a classic case of damning a person with faint praise. The board would immediately earmark said employee as having limited leadership potential. He or she would never make CEO. People who make CEO usually have vision, charisma or something that marks them as special compared to their peers.

The exception to this rule – the time when setting a good example is indeed the most important factor – is at schools across the country. When schools appoint a headboy, they need someone reliable – someone who will say the right things, smile in photographs, and never ever get caught smoking a spliff or drinking a can of special brew in public while snogging a local tart. Imagine the embarrassment the school would suffer!

The conclusion I’ve reached, therefore, is that the ECB are looking for a head boy not a captain. They’re also keen to purge the school of potential troublemakers (irrespective of how good they are at conkers). They don’t want a cool kid (they don’t care how popular the head boy is), they don’t even want the toughest or bravest kid. In essence they just want a figurehead. Someone they can rely on to look the part and project the very subjective values they believe English cricket should stand for.

The same seems to be true when it comes to their PE teachers. A guy like Darren Lehmann just isn’t the kind of bloke they’re after. He says far too much on radio shows. His brilliance would be irrelevant.

My point here is not to denigrate Alastair Cook. His determination in the face of abysmal results and abject batting form in recent times has been admirable. He’s also shown promising signs of learning on the job and doing the basics well. What I’m trying to highlight is the emptiness and analytical bankruptcy of many professional journalists covering England thus summer.

If you want to back your boy that’s fine. But if you’re going to do so unreservedly, you’d better come up with better than ‘Alastair leads from the front’ – especially if you’re trying to justify his captaincy of the ODI team (a team many observers believe he shouldn’t be in).

It’s the words they don’t say that gives the game away.

******************

PS: if you have a few minutes to spare, check out the Find Pub Sport podcast, in which we’ve taken part as a guest contributor, with Maxie discussing reaction to the test series and where England go from here.

58 comments

  • How true James. Most of the so called knowledgeable Cricket journalist seem to be more interested in displaying their ability to be verbose rather than actually report events as they are happening. They are also seem more interested in keeping the inside track with the ECB than being in any way objective. In fact the only way of telling who is a mainstream cricket journalist these days, is from reading their names on the bottom of their shoes because their heads are so far up Downton and Clarkes *r*es you can’t recognise them.

    • My guess is that sports editors care more about their hacks getting stories than writing fair analyses of a particular sporting situation. So the pressure on journalists is to maintain contacts and get scoops, rather than be stringent in analysis. Hence they compromise what they write to maintain access.

  • Yep – sounds like a bit too much holiday pondering time.

    I’m looking forward to our captain leading from the middle (order) in the form of Joe Root, and sooner rather than later. Hope they don’t re-promote
    Joe back up to open but leave him where he is currently thriving, a position which enables proper pondering time between innings. Root is already leading by example.

  • It’s a great point James. I really do think you’ve nailed it there. After having 4 decidedly non headboy type captains in the 2000’s it really does feel like they don’t ever want someone who might be a bit maverick ever again.

    The whole lead from the front rubbish pretty inadvertantly also rubbishes the proscribed “there is no alternative” line. These people seemingly take us for idiots at times.

    The quality of some of the cricket coverage in the press really has been atrocious hasn’t it this summer? There have been exceptions like the guys at Cricinfo and the sports generalist writers at the broadsheets like Andy Bull and Barney Ronay…

    Grenville, on Dmitri’s blog, has posted an excellent argument about the implicit, if not racism, post-colonial sneering of some writers coverage of Asian teams. As illustrated by the Mankadding of Buttler and reaction to and the Anderson & Jadeja incident.

  • “Leading from the front” means doing the opposite of what Captain Darling and General Melchett did in Blackadder IV!

    Getting back to Cook, I don’t really care if he leads from the front or has Brearley-like motivational skills (neither of which he does by the way), or indeed if he leads us to a 5-0 thrashing of Australia in next year’s Ashes. The fact is that I have zero admiration or respect for Cook due to (what I believe was) his involvement in KP’s removal from the England team. Let’s start with telling Flower what KP said about flower in a private, ‘no holds barred’, players-only meeting. Then let’s progress to the sham ‘Gang of 4’ meeting to tell KP that he’s no longer wanted.

    What a way to treat England’s greatest entertainer since Botham and a slap in the face for a lot of England cricket fans.

    • Well said. Cook has blood in his hands, which has become rather conveniently overlooked. That’s why all this ‘nice guy’ stuff doesn’t wash.

  • “a head boy not a captain” may well be the best description yet of Alastair Cook’s tenure. I still maintain that he’s essentially a beta wolf, who’s happy to work tremendously hard and achieve outstanding things as a trusted lieutenant but is deeply and instinctively uncomfortable at having to lead the pack. And this being so, it’s actually quite cruel to keep making him do it.

    Despite the ECB’s efforts though, charisma will creep back in (it’s almost as though it came along with talent – who knew?) Jos ‘not quite ready yet’ Buttler and Alex ‘bit of a lad’ Hales… where will they be leading from? Because they will be leading, in terms of entertainment and general maverickness (mavericity?). And very nice it will be to see them. Root is no shrinking violet. Moeen walks his own path and will bring a lot of support along with him, Morgan too is tough and independent. All of these guys seem to be more natural leaders than Cook. Interesting times ahead.

    • It’s not so much charisma they can’t abide, as apostasy. Team England has an almost religious-cultish approach to plans, disciplines and spreadsheets. Moneyball has a lot to answer for. If any player wants to play his own game, rather than what the computer tells them to, he’s in trouble.

  • “Lead from the front” has a military tone to it, surely? It smacks of those days, encapsulated in many a war movie, whereby the leader of the batallion would stand at the top of a hill and charge ‘his men’ to rally, hold their rifles and axes high and charge the enemy, running as quick as they can towards almost certain injury and death. The leader would be left, still at the top of the hill, surveying the ugly scene, thinking ‘didn’t we do well’!!!

    Smacks of empire, smacks of imperialism and the denial of accountability and responsibility. Only leaders from the front can achieve such ‘glory’

  • “and lashings of cream cakes for tea!”…Yes, it’s all very “Bunteresque” and “Famous Five” in narrative and culture!
    In my opinion, the now reborn Glorious Leader will retain a steadfastly conservative approach to his innings in the ODI’S, holding on firmly to the belief of having plenty of wickets in hand by over 35 so that the big hitting hoi polloi can bludgeon and slog the team to a winning conclusion? Doubtless he may hole out to a “brave” shot when it comes time for impetus, whereas the hoi polloi may well “give their wickets away” to a needless slog!
    As an “outside cricket irrelevence” I wear my badge with pride, as the Blogosphere will be the only place where incisive analysis of Cook’s performances will take place, and, if bad, will certainly not be airbrushed out because of his steely attitude during the last Test!
    In ref. to Rav Roberts post re KP’S sacking…once India have gone home attention will be turned to the publication of KP’s book, not only by the Blogosphere, but by the ECB a well. How interesting and edifying will the poisonous drips be from them and their pet “Journos” on the run up to publication day?
    I for one, am pissing my pants with anticipation!!

    • I’m not sure Cook realises it but he has now fullfilled his ECB mission. Which was to survive the summer. If he had gone, either sacked or resigned the whole ECB strategy would have been in ruins with Downton under heavy fire from the KP camp.

      He is In effect now however, a dead man walking. Because he will take England into next years Ashes which will see off KP who will be almost 36 and a forgotten man. Mission Accomplishesd! If he screws up next summer the ECB will have no problem getting shot of him because time will have moved on.

      His appointment for the one dayers is just an extra 2 finger salute to those who said he should have been sacked. He probably thinks he might as well play because time is running out. Unless of course you believe Harmison’s view that he will be captain until he is 35 and then Root will take over. Just another 6 years to go.

      • I fear you’re right. If England get hammered next summer, and Cook goes, little association will be made with Pietersen-gate. Downton pinned everything on weathering the storm. Sadly, he’s got away with it.

        • Absolutely Maxie. Which is why the crowing and triumphalism has been so extreme considering how poor India were.

      • Just put this on the blog – a quote from “Good Enough” by Gideon Haigh. It is relevant in some ways, and isn’t in another. It may be my definition of “creating a good environment”:

        It is hard not to feel a pang of sympathy for Pietersen at times. He is a magnet for criticism because his talent is so abundant, and because from this is imputed a messianic self-belief. In fact, Pietersen always sounds a little insecure to me, too urgently in need of praise. Marcus Trescothick, in his autobiography, described how England in his time encouraged Pietersen ‘to feel there was nothing he could not do’. Trescothick would sit with him as Pietersen waited to bat ‘and talk about the great innings he had played on previous occasions; that he was the only player alive who could play some of the shots he did’.

        I found it interesting.

        Good piece James. I’m sick and tired of the same old press rubbish and despite Newman’s sniping about loudmouths and Swann calling people who question Cook as muppets, you get a more interesting, diverse and fulfilling debate by reading some of the comments here and those I’m fortunate to get on mine. Leading from the front is a nothing hat to add to those other titfers this year such as “freshness”, “good environment” and my personal favourite “difficult winter”.

      • Spot on Mark, re Downton. They could only take that risk of sacking Pietersen if they felt this summer was one that had winnable series. No way if Australia were here (again) or South Africa, or even Pakistan who can make our batting wobble badly, would they have thought they could get away with it. Sri Lanka made them worry – it was untenable then, they knew it, we knew it and hell, even the media knew it – but for some reason, and we think we know what it is, the media put the knives in the holder, got itchy hands after Lord’s and then jumped on the first sign of a recovery in a way that would make a political spin doctor blush.

        Cook’s done his job. He won’t survive the next slump. Except, with no tons in 31 innings or so, he isn’t really out of this one is he?

  • When the cricket media say “Leading from the front ” what they really mean is that the captain is not very good at the tactics,and the Churchillian speeches. But he will go out there and do his discipline (ie batting) very well. Therefore showing the others he is worth his place in the side.

    Of course this has been nonsense in the case of Cook because his form for the last 18 months has been poor. He hasn’t lead from the front, nor has been any good at the tactics. But he does have a very square jaw, and is tall and dark and handsome (as has been pointed out constantly by Pringle) which plays well with the ladies of the Home Counties and the Waitrose customers.

    It’s why his scratchy, lucky knock of 95 was so important to his supporters. It allowed them to rehash the leading from the front argument. Which is all they’ve got.

    • Whatever Cook manages to mess up, his apparatchiks try to move the goal-posts to find something he can be good at. Hence this summer, despite his poor form and inept/anonymous captaincy, because the new players have done well, they try to attribute this to Cook’s genius by claiming that as captain he “creates the right environment”.

  • Post hoc ergo propto hoc is the term for the logical fallacy employed to describe cricket or corporate captaincy. In cricket, at the start of any series with well balanced sides both teams get a fair number of chances; those who squander them end up losing the match and those who take the chances win games. There is also the ‘rub of the green’. Unfortunately the winning team gets a lot of praise, some of it undeserved, and its captain receives encomiums which will include meaningless terms like ‘leading from the front’.

  • Thanks for your comments everyone. Just reading the piece back it does seem very critical of Cook. That really wasn’t my intention actually; it was more of a dig at the cliches used by journos.

    For what it’s worth, I’ve come to see Cook as something of a sad figure. The hopes of a nation have been unfairly thrust upon him (thanks to the media and ECB) and I’m not sure the expectations on him are realistic or fair. He seems like a nice guy (the polite quiet type), who works extremely hard at his job, but he’s not a natural captain. Yet everyone judges him by the highest standards (part and parcel of the position).

    Similarly, when it comes to his batting he was anointed as some kind of messiah as Eng U19 captain a decade ago, despite the fact he has a bit of a dodgy technique and a limited range of strokes. He is a brave, decent test opener (but no more in my opinion) yet he is expected to move mountains in a similar manner to a Tendulkar or Lara, even though a thorough review of his test career reveals he is incredibly inconsistent against top class pace bowling (particularly in the Ashes when he has averaged over 25 just once in five series).

    Despite the fact he has a test average of 46, which is good but pretty unremarkable in the modern era (it ranks him about 20th in the world, on a par with Bell and Trott, and in the second bracket of leading players) everyone expects him to deliver the Ashes on a silver plate next summer, with him personally scoring bucket loads of runs. In my opinion it’s unlikely to happen unless all Australia’s best bowlers are injured and the going is relatively easy.

    When it all goes pear shaped everyone will jump on his back again. His failure to be a messiah (something he never said he was personally) will be used against him. His supporters will feel let down, and his critics will have a field day – not least because he has come to embody the corporate ECB stuffiness that many fans revile. Again this isn’t his fault. He didn’t make Giles Clarke and Downton become enamoured with him.

    Just for the record, unlike Maxie I don’t blame him personally for the KP sacking. Having been asked to continue as captain (and let’s not forget he was in a very weak position following the Ashes whitewash) I can understand why he would want critics within the dressing room removed. What’s more, it was well and truly apparent that the ECB wanted Pietersen gone. Given Cook’s weak position, I don’t think he was in any position to argue (even had be been inclined to do so). It think Cook was a tad weak, but certainly no weasel.

    • You are making him sound like a kind of tragic Bonnie prince Charlie figure.

      “Won’t yet nae come back again.”

      But I think he has been used by the ECB for their own ends. As I say, his mission was to survive the summer. He has done that, insuring KP has had a stake driven through his heart. There will be no resurrection. That secures ECB management in their jobs. If it all goes pear shape next summer , Cook may find his employers are not so sympathetic.

    • I disagree James. Cook purposely went behind KP’s back to rat on what he said about Flower in a private meeting, to Flower.

      Only people of extremely low character do this.

      He deserves no respect whatsoever just for this.

      • I’m not sure that’s exactly how it went down. I suppose we’ll never know. Personally I sense that Cook was a little disturbed by KP’s influence over the younger players. We worked hard with them in the nets, and it’s quite clear from the post Ashes interviews that the likes of Root and Stokes admired him. The problem, of course, came when England started losing, Cook captained poorly, and KP thought he could do a better job (which he probably could by the way). However I’m just guessing here.

        • If that’s true, that is hardly a reason to sack a player and only makes him look the more weasle-like.

          Given that Downton said there was no smoking gun, there are only two possibilities for Cook’s role in Pietersen’s sacking.

          – He felt he couldn’t manage Pietersen. If so that reflects very badly on Cook, and even more so that Cook felt the remedy was to get him of him from the team. Management is about getting the best out of players, not enforcing rules. Given that Pietersen was the leading run scorer in the series, Cook was in fact either managing him well after all, or didn’t need to worry.

          – Downton and Flower wanted to sack Pietersen, and Cook was too weak or cowardly to resist. If so, Cook stabbed a loyal* player in the back to appease his bosses.

          (* – yes, really).

          • The ECB defenders claim we are all about KP. But what it is really about for me is the ECBs inability to manage mavericks, one offs, flawd geniuses. (Call them what you like)

            These type of players don’t come round very often and the ECB does not seem as if (A) they can manage them. And worse (B) they don’t want to manage them.

            The reappointment of Flower seems to me to send a message that these type of players are not wanted. Flower is about control and players obeying orders. Great if you want a team of yes men.

            The ECB seem to be putting in place a regime that will not tolerate difficult individuals. Well history shows us the sometimes great players can be very difficult. KP, Botham, Gower, Warne, Lara, Gasgoigne, Alex Higgins, Ronnie O’sullivan. There has always been a view that management will put up with so much as long as a player is delivering. But once they go off the boil they are not worth the trouble. But the ECB seem to be saying we are not even going to bother in future. Be a shame to miss out on future great players.

            • “The reappointment of Flower”

              Still astounds me. Went right under the radar as well, didn’t it? Not a scrap of analysis in the Guardian or Telegraph. Andrew Strauss, of all people, is the only high-profile figure I’ve seen raise doubts about it.

              Also, cast your minds back to the febrile atmosphere BTL in February. If someone on ‘our’ side had suggested then that, within six months, Flower would be placed in charge of the Lions, the likes of westcorkthinktank and Mike Daniels would have dismissed them as conspiracy theorists or worse.

              Oh the stench emanating from English cricket, I can’t bear it.

              • It’s a great point, Arron. It hasn’t been analysed by the press but it hasn’t occurred to them in a million years that there’s anything remotely inappropriate in restoring Flower to an ill-defined regency role which almost enshrines him as a back-seat driver.

            • Managers’ job is to manage players – who often have large and delicate egos. Their role is to fit their own personality and the team’s environment around the player’s ego to get the best out of him/her. But England, and especially Flower, saw it the other way around – they expected the players to work around *their* egos. Hence Flower’s ‘him or me’ ultimatum in January.

          • No Cook couldn’t manage KP. I agree completely. Vaughan, who was a strong captain in a strong position, was able to do so. Cook, who was an inexperienced captain in a weak position, could not. But why does this make Cook an awful person? I doubt he was the architect of KP’s sacking. He merely went along with it.

            Considering that he had fallen out with KP, and wasn’t in a strong enough position to argue for his retention (he was lucky to keep his own job let alone make demands) had he been inclined to do so, Cook’s acquiesce was entirely understandable. It wasn’t in the best interests of the team (in my opinion) but I can understand Cook’s attitude. What was he supposed to do? Say “look I know you guys want rid of the saffer, and I know I’ve got no leverage because I was lucky to survive the cull myself, but I’m going to make a stand on this issue because a really want my biggest critic within the dressing room to keep his job’?! Not going to happen is it.

        • “I’m just guessing here” – one of the few accurate statements on this board about Cook’s role in Pietersen’s demise.

          While everybody’s speculating wildly, why don’t I have a non-soap opera un-Machiavellian stab at it?

          The ashes are lost – Cook’s 1st series loss as captain. He’s given the chance to continue as captain and opening bat based on his previous success, but the team does need overhauling. With Ballance, Root and Stokes identified as good options for the long term future of the batting, it comes down to a straight choice between Bell and Pietersen to continue as ‘senior pro’ in the middle order.

          Since 2009, Bell’s record is markedly better than Pietersen, he is a couple of years younger and doesn’t have a dodgy knee, so it’s an easy choice for Cook to make. In addition, Bell isn’t playing IPL, so won’t be wanting time off at the beginning of every summer.

          In 2014, I’d pick Bell over Pietersen every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Up till 2010 it would have been the other way around.

          My point is that maybe we shouldn’t be assassinating Cook’s character without a fuller understanding of what actually happened. Has anybody ever considered that Cook just wants to be a cricketer and concentrate on playing cricket? I know it doesn’t fit in with the prevailing view on here that just because Giles Clarke described Cook as ‘the right sort of chap’ doesn’t mean that Cook is somehow in league with him.

          • See where you’re coming from Hamish and agree with much of what you say, but although I think there were some cricketing reasons for dropping KP, I do not believe these were the reasons why he was dropped. Root was dropped for the final test of the summer and was in tatters at the end of the Ashes, so nobody knew he would develop into a middle order banker at that point. Similarly, Ballance had played just once and nobody could’ve predicted his success this summer (let alone batting at 3). Considering that the team had just lost Trott at 3, losing the established number 4 makes no sense. With Swann also retiring, it was a huge gamble to drop yet another established player. I do not think cricketing planning came into it whatsoever. They wanted Pietersen out for political reasons (and to act as something of a scapegoat after his poor shots at Melbourne etc) and the consequences simply weren’t deemed important. They thought they’d steam roller both India and Sri Lanka regardless of whoever played IMHO. If Pietersen was dropped for cricketing reasons they would’ve said so, rather than talking about him bring disengaged, the team spirit and Downton admitting Cook was a weak captain.

          • At the same time, why should we be inclined to give Cook the benefit of the doubt, given what we do know? If only the same courtesy had been extended to Pietersen. Instead, his character was assassinated through ECB leaks and briefing statements and a cacophony of contaminated content from certain cricket correspondents who also had no understanding apart from their uncorroborated primary source.

            It is just as likely that Cook, bereft of runs, bereft of wins, bereft of ideas, bereft of confidence, bereft of support whined of a critical Pietersen to Andy Flower, “Something should be done.” And something was done.

            • I don’t think the balance of evidence we actually know points to this. We know that Flower had it in for KP (going back to Moores’ first stint). We know the ECB had it in for KP too for similar reasons plus his desire to play IPL and pick and choose which formats he played – all of which they were threatened by. Cook on the other hand went out of his way to bring KP back into the fold after textgate, and there were no reports of disharmony between the two prior to Sydney. I’m convinced it was an ECB inspired move to sack Pietersen, and Cook simply sat back and watched because it suited him to do so. I’m not saying he was blameless (more weak in my view) but I think he’s unfair to characterise him as some kind of bastard on the basis of unconfirmed rumour when he otherwise seems like a decent guy (if a tad cheesy) in interviews.

            • Exactly. Pietersen has not – has never – been given one iota of the doubt.

              He has been tried and convicted on the basis not of evidence, but spin propagated by people who staked their reputation on his sacking and therefore had every reason to fib.

              John Etheridge’s made-up returning of gifts story is a classic example.

              Sadly, in the end the ECB’s version of the truth may carry the day, because they have far more people to man the ramparts than Pietersen does.

          • “Has anybody ever considered that Cook just wants to be a cricketer and concentrate on playing cricket?”

            I suspect that deep down he’d be happier just going back to the ranks and quietly getting on with his batting. But outwardly, he wants to be captain – and that means he has to tolerate a significant degree of scrutiny.

            I can’t agree with your analysis of Pietersen’s demise as due to cricketing logic. If it had been, Downton would have said so – it would have been far easier for him to cite cricketing grounds than the cobblers he actually came up with – “agendas” and “disinterested”.

            The problem Downton faced is that Pietersen outscored Bell and Cook in Australia. So the form argument was a non-starter.

            “My point is that maybe we shouldn’t be assassinating Cook’s character without a fuller understanding of what actually happened”.

            But what will come out which will exculpate Cook but is consistent with Downton’s tale? He’s already said there is no smoking gun. So if there wasn’t, why did Cook sell Pietersen down the river? For being “disengaged”.

            I cannot fathom what could emerge which explains why Cook had to get rid of Pietersen which does not contradict what they’ve already said or paints Cook in a very bad light.

        • I have a similar feeling about the younger players. Jos Buttler was also very taken with Pieterson. Was ringing him for advice long after the sacking. That kind of team division, if it was happening, would be needed like a hole in the head.

    • “Everyone judges him by the highest standards”.

      He’s the captain of the England cricket team, for goodness’ sake. It’s probably the most prestigious position in British sport. and with that prestige comes scrutiny and expectation. No one made him take the job.

      Is he *really* such a nice guy? I see no particular evidence of that.

      • As an Australian with perhaps a little more distance and hence perspective (perhaps) there were a few things that led me to question Cooks ‘nice bloke’ image.

        The already mentioned dressing room closed meeting, gloves off say what you think it’s just between us chaps betrayal. And make no mistake, if as a leader you call a meeting under these conditions and then either yourself or through a third party, (I believe Priors name has been mentioned in this context) carry the substance of this meeting to the senior management (Flower in this instance) then it is certainly a betrayal.

        The handling of Panesar on the field where Root was bowled in preference to him. This must have been absolutely mortifying for Panesar. I would have pissed on Cook rather than a hapless bouncer for that humiliation.

        And then we have the Carberry issue that very few people seem to have picked up on. After the Ashes Carberry said that in all the time they were in the middle together (to be fair not very long in Cook’s case) that Cook never said a word to him. I find that astonishing; a junior player certainly in terms of experience on his first major international outing in a hallmark series and his captain and batting partner couldn’t find it in him to offer support or succour in the most trying of conditions.

        A nice bloke, i don’t think so.

    • Very good James. I liked this bit very much. Part way through the blog I was reaching for the gin bottle. Thought that Mrs Morgan could well do with a slurp also. Then I reached the bit about the journo’s and it was all ok. The head boy appraisal was spot on. Perfect.

    • “I don’t blame him personally for the KP sacking. Having been asked to continue as captain (and let’s not forget he was in a very weak position following the Ashes whitewash) I can understand why he would want critics within the dressing room removed”.

      James – I would argue the complete opposite! If he wanted critics out of the team, regardless of how good players they were, just to shore himself up, then he utterly deserves blame – and he is utterly a weasel.

  • Ok. I’m playing devil’s advocate big time now as I thought the KP thing was handled very badly, but if Cook is such a horrible bloke why does the media like him so much? They don’t give automatic unrelenting support to every England captain. I tend to think journos give him a easy ride because they like him personally rather than because the ECB has ordered them to ;-). Secondly, if what Carberry said is true then it shows him to be a poor leader (something we already know) with useless man management rather than a total git. What’s more, KP famously ignored James Taylor when they were batting together on debut, so it’s not a unique thing Cook is being accused of here. There were always rumours that Windies players didn’t particularly like Lara etc, but I’ve heard nothing similar about Cook being aloof, arrogant or full of himself.

    • I think the set up of how these interviews are organised these days might lead to the journo’s automatically being in awe of Cook. You know what I mean, the ‘thank Waitrose for allowing me 10 minutes with this deity’ type thing that goes on. Or perhaps it is because he went to the right kind of school. Or maybe they endorse shooting young animals. Or something.

    • It’s not so much they like Cook, more they really hate KP.

      My enemy’s enemy, is my friend. (And all that).

      KP had to go, and he was not ever to be allowed back. Hence the ECB had to be backed to the hilt no matter how bad it gets. (Remember most of the media wanted KP out after the South African text gate series) Which is what the media have done. Cringing pro ECB coverage all summer. Cook is the ECBs man. So therefore he has had ludicrous coverage and total backing.

      All of this is about seeing off KP. With England’s recovery (albeit against a hopeless team) that job has now been accomplished. Cook stays in job, and more importantly for ECB so does Downton and his cronies like Flower.

      By next year KP will be long forgotten, and then ironically Cook will become much more vulnerable. He won’t be so important to Downtons survival.

    • What is Cook good at? Batting in a bubble. Focusing on his own game. Staying at the crease and scoring tons of runs. And also taking rather good catches.

      The boy wonder and the accumulator – neither is a role that requires interaction or boosting other players. He was described as ‘always quiet’ in the dressing-room. He obviously never learned any of the man-management skills that Vaughan and Strauss were demonstrating.

      None of this indicates captaincy potential. And yet he was picked out, groomed and there he is. It’s a mystery. Is he a Freemason?* Maybe he is a ruthless schemer. Maybe he knows where some bodies are buried.

      Maybe he’s just an averagely bright bloke who’s good at making the right noises. It’s really hard to tell, but the more the media insist that he’s wonderful, the more suspicious one naturally gets.

      *joke

      • What is Cook good at?
        A question I am struggling to answer at he moment. He is good at being the face of the establishment and playing the role of “nice guy from the right background” but not much else. As the representative of the ECB, he gets no sympathy and no leeway from me. Make some runs or get out of the team, Alastair. And spare me the effing backstory about life on the farm. I really, really don’t care – except, it does reinforce my image of you as a large scale sponger.

      • “The more the media insist that he’s wonderful, the more suspicious one naturally gets”.

        That’s always how it seemed to me, and in fact how it seemed years before he became captain. He was touted and hyped for the job despite, as you argue so well, having never remotely shown any natural aptitude for leadership whatsoever. Watching from afar, we all saw an introverted and quiet man who didn’t speak very well in interviews. The ECB saw an officer class public school boy who could be trusted not to let the side down. And hence the myth-building began.

    • It is not difficult to understand why Alistair Cook is cheered and supported by the supporters in the ground while KP is booed. It has little to do with cricketing ability or captaincy.

    • If that’s true about Pietersen and Taylor – well, Pietersen wasn’t the captain then, which (if true) doesn’t excuse it, but makes it slightly less relevant.

      “If Cook is such a horrible bloke why does the media like him so much?”

      That is one of the great mysteries of our times!

      I’d venture the following:

      – Cook is nice to deal with face-to-face with journalists.

      – Giving him a sympathetic ride is in their interests, because it opens up access not only to him but Downton, Flower etc.

      – Many of them are cut from similar cloth – people like Selvey/Pringle. Workmanlike, stoic pros who kept their heads down and achieved what they did through, in their eyes, honest hard work. They naturally admire Cook because he’s their kind of player – they naturally loathe Pietersen because he’s the opposite.

  • When Andrew Strauss retired, the text-gate aftershock was still reverberating, causing the English cricket establishment to shake out of its traditional collective somnambulism and quake with savage seismic rage. At the epicentre was Kevin Pietersen, whose career had yet to be rescued and reconstructed from the rubble.

    I know that Cook had been England vice-captain since he was an under 10, but if one makes a list of Pietersen’s diverse qualities, good and bad, and then uses the antitheses as the genetic markers for an ECB model captain, in other words a person as far removed from Pietersen as possible, something remarkable emerges:

    Pietersen: exciting, natural talent, unorthodox, explosive gamer turner, impulsive, risk taker, egoist, audacious, diamond studded, attacking, needy, strident, social-media geek, foreign.

    Antitheses: prosaic, hard working, conventional, run accumulator, premeditated, risk averse, self-conscious, cautious, steel cored, defensive, self-contained, reserved, social-media refusenik, English.

    Sound like anyone? I doubt anyone in English cricket is more diametrically opposite Pietersen than Alastair Cook. If Cook had not existed, he could have been generated using the Alastair-aligned antonyms to complete the model captain genome. Perhaps Giles Clarke is a really, modern Prometheus with Cook his very own Frankenstein monster rewritten for the age of nuclear transfer and cloning.

    The industrialists and microbiologists at the ECB, mindful that genetic synthesis and electroporation processes need stable, clinical conditions, have made the England dressing room an earthquake-free zone and successfully confined Richter-scale rumblings to tablet tremblers and keyboard quakers erupting well away from the quiet work of the monster makers.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting