Many thanks for all your excellent and insightful comments on yesterday’s fourth ODI, which England lost by nine wickets with nearly twenty overs to spare.
It says a lot about the times we live in that an ODI defeat has generated seventy six comments on a niche blog. Normally these fag-end-of-season one day series go off the radar. Not this time. Feelings still run too high. A mushroom cloud from the nuclear events of February 4th still darkens our skies and poisons the atmosphere.
The ECB distorted England’s fixture schedule – chiefly, arranging back-to-back Ashes, with disastrous consequences – with the sole purpose of giving the World Cup priority. Unless England reach the final, as a minimum, it will all have been for nothing. So, with five months to go, how are things looking?
England have now lost five ODIs in a row, nine of the last twelve, and five series out of six. They’ll play only twelve more matches (plus a possible thirteenth) before the World Cup, and still have no clue about their best team. Most observers, though, have a fairly good idea who that best team doesn’t include.
As Cricinfo pointed out, England’s one series victory in recent times, in the West Indies, “came when Cook was not in the team”. He hasn’t made 80 in an ODI in 38 innings and 26 months.
In the words of George Dobell:
“It has become almost impossible to defend Alastair Cook’s position in the side. The management’s continued insistence that they believe he is the man to lead the ODI side forward in the face of all logic and evidence is beginning to resemble those who deny climate change”.
But what did the man himself have to say? Here are some highlights from his post-match interviews. Brace yourself for some classic Cookisms – the usual meaning-free mix of evasion, euphemistic under-statement, management speak, and unintended humour.
“This is a heavy blip at the moment but I am still hungry to do it. Things can change very quickly”.
“We haven’t played very well. As a captain and a coach it’s frustrating. We have to stay true to ourselves. You have to back yourself and be brave. We have to stay true to our beliefs and work hard.
“We just need to look at ourselves, try to upskill and improve. The potential is there, but we are just not delivering.
“It’s frustrating. It’s a hard place to be right now. We have to back our beliefs. Put our hands up. Turn it around. We have to work incredibly hard.”
So, the usual Cook stuff – work hard, work hard, but otherwise carry on doing exactly the same thing as before. ‘Upskill’ was a new low, but if you have any idea what he was talking about, answers on a postcard. Meanwhile, this comment said a lot about his tactical mindset and lack of ambition:
“I believe at the top of the order that, if I bat for 40-odd overs, I will score enough runs at a good rate. That’s what I have done when I’ve been batting well.”
Then came another, very typical, rejoinder to his critics:
“It’s hard when there’s always question marks about my place in the team. That’s quite a hard place to work from but I know I can score runs”.
Can you imagine Michael Clarke saying that? Time and again Cook reveals his naivety – his insulation from the real world. There wouldn’t be question marks about his place if he were scoring heavily. He’s the captain, and the opening bat, so what does he expect? The role brings scrutiny, and if he can’t withstand that scrutiny, he’s in the wrong job.
Cook appears not to understand this. He expects unconditional love. When things turn sour he becomes tetchy and self-pitying. In his world-view, media and supporters are there to cheer him on, and criticism is an affront to the natural world order.
So – will Cook survive? Even Jonathan Agnew is now calling for him to lose the ODI job.
Although his test captaincy is secure for the medium-term, Paul Downton and the ECB have invested so much equity in Cook – built their entire edifice around him – that they cannot afford to budge an inch. Whatever way you paint it, if Cook left the ODI side he would be diminished and weakened. It would also be an admission of failure and mistakes. With Pietersen’s book looming, that’s the last thing Downton can afford.
In the main, English test captains lose stature when they concede the ODI helm to a senior lieutenant. Splitting the captaincy spawns a Young Pretender, a rival and heir with experience of high office.
Much of the defence of Cook rests on TINA. There Is No Alternative. Splitting the captaincy would create an alternative. As England play no tests till the spring, a new ODI skipper would be in sole charge of England internationals for the next six months. If the side made a reasonable fist of the World Cup, the captain will accrue credibility and authority. What would then happen if the test side, with Cook back in at the controls, struggled in the West Indies?
For this reason alone, Cook will stay put. In the ECB’s eyes, the fundamental principle of Team England is that everything starts with Alastair Cook. He is non-negotiable – the ‘sticky’ thread at the top of an internet forum. Everything, and everyone, must revolve around him.
God knows why.
Cook only became the ODI captain so he could gain experience of leadership in preparation for replacing Andrew Strauss as test leader. Cook was given the role despite no claim to being the country’s best opener in 50-over cricket, nor any clear aptitude for captaincy. The selectors decided neither of those factors mattered. Their decision was to subjugate the needs of the ODI team to something more important – their pet project of fulfilling Cook’s personal destiny.
On the subject of criticising Cook, there was a lot of discussion here yesterday about the New Statesman article by Ed ‘three caps’ Smith’. Apologies if you’ve already seen it, but I thought it was worth flagging up in the body of a post.
His basic argument is that if you support Cook, you represent true supporters and the grain of public opinion. If you oppose him – no matter how judiciously or heavy-heartedly you’ve reached that decision – you are part of a yobbish, baying mob.
I’ve just sent Ed this Tweet:
@edsmithwriter Hi – been much discussion on our blog about yr NS mobs article. Let me know if you'd like to respond. http://t.co/3DlJsvd5Gm
— The Full Toss (@thefulltoss) September 3, 2014
I’ll let you know if he responds. Which reminds me – I’ll have an update from the ECB press office tomorrow.
Absolute sycophantic drivel Mr Smith. The “mob” would appear to be the partying spectators rather than the thinking supporter who can see no reason to spend vast sums of money going to watch a team that has an underperforming , arrogant , self centered , opinionated , weak and whiney , unimaginative , selfish , fool as Captain.
He will never be remembered as one of England’s greats but as an embarrassment to English Cricket.
Steady on Ron! He’s not that bad.
Bit OTT ? Maybe but is there an adjective in my rant that really does’nt apply?
All together may be a bit strong.
It certainly doesn’t occur to him that England supporters who feel disaffected, and can’t support Cook’s captaincy, wouldn’t have turned up in the first place.
Let’s just recap a little. Firstly, there was a poor Ashes victory here where signs of malcontent were in evidence. Then there was the painful slaughter in Australia. Then we found that this was all Pietersen’s fault and ‘arrangements, private and confidential’ were made to remove him from office. Not so Flower who oversaw this lot, He was promoted to Head of Everything that moved with an office and chair of his own, and a laptop! Cook was annointed saviour of the team, consistently, arrogantly by the ECB and a supine UK press. To add to their ‘wisdom’ everybody else was labelled ‘outside cricket’. The smugness continued through the failure in all forms of cricket against Sri Lanka. Only a poor Indian test team enabled England and Cook, in particular, salvage a small amount of dignity but it was not inspiring. Then India in one day style smash the whole bloody edifice down. The ECB remain intact and Cook and Moores remain in position. Who’s being ‘personal’ now? The ECB, Cook nor Moores have any integrity. This is not about the game of cricket, this is about their totally egotistical and ‘status aware’ positions in the English game. These guys have brought English cricket to the brink AND NOT ONE OF THEM HAS THE GUTS TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY AND RESIGN FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME – THEY ARE ALL TOO PERSONALLY DEPENDANT ON THE GIFTS THE GAME BRINGS THEM. THE PAYING AND WATCHING PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO SACK THE LOT AND A FEW HANGINGS WOULDN’T GO AMISS – GET RID OF THEM NOW.
So – you think it odd that the outcome of a disastrous series was that the top scorer was sacked, while the captain and coach who presided over it were either ringfenced or promoted?
It is untrue to say, as Ed Smith does in his New Statesmen article, that no credible alternatives to Cook as captain of the test side have been suggested. Respected and knowledgeable commentators have suggested that Ian bell should be allowed to step in or that Joe Root should be given a run at the job. It is generally acknowledged that the latter is generally considered to need more experience of front line test cricket before he is ready to take the helm.
Others have suggested that a specialist test skipper should be brought in to hold the fort until after the Ashes test series in Australia, where Joe Root would be readied to take over at a less pressured time in the test calendar.
One man who has been suggested, behind the scenes, is Rob Key the captain of Kent. This suggestion has been made on the premise that the top teams in modern day world cricket are all made up of a mix of in form regulars plus specialists brought in for the occasion.
We need specialist keepers who can bat, specialist fast bowlers, specialist spinners, specialist top order batsmen, specialist one day players, but not since the captaincy of Mike Brierley have we had a specialist captain, leading the team because of his captaincy skills, cricket brain and man management skills rather than purely on the basis of batting or bowling performances. Rob Key is a specialist captain who as it happens, unlike Mike Brierley, is a genuine top quality opening batsman. This strategy has merit and should be seriously considered.
Why do you think Key never held down his place in the side in the early-mid 2000s? I quite liked the cut of his jib, although perhaps he didn’t really score enough runs to really close the deal
I can’t see the ECB going for a specialist captain, but you make the case well.
I always felt a bit sorry for Chris Cowdrey, who came into the side as a specialist captain in 1988. He couldn’t have spurned the opportunity. But he must have felt a bit of a twit.
Speaking of Cowdrey as captain – imagine if cricket blogs and BTL had been around then, and what we’d have made of it. Cowdrey was godson of Peter May, the chair of selectors.
Always admired Rob Key. Top score in tests 221. Much of his test experience was batting against McGrath, Warne, Lee, Pollock, Ntini and Steyn. Those were the days when 3 or 4 matches without a 50 were a death sentence. Now, a couple of years without a test ton are perfectly acceptable, if you are one of the cosy club. Imho Key should have been England’s limited overs captain for many years. He clearly has a wealth of expertise and talent for it. I feel his batting has faded now but that doesn’t seem to be an issue with Cook, so I’d certainly support Key as ODI captain.
I think Rob Key’s time has come and gone. He’s a good guy but not the player he once was.
Good point about the bowlers he had to face though. When Cook was presented with the likes of McGrath, Warne etc he failed badly (as he tends to do 99% of the time he faces top quality seam bowling able to expose his inadequate technique). When Key faced less than brilliant bowling he scored that double ton against the Windies. Had he played 100+ tests against this kind of bowling, I imagine he might have scored 8000 test runs at an average somewhere in the mid-40s. However, it’s unlikely he would’ve played 100 tests because if he’d gone through a lean spell (say 28 inns without a test ton & 30 inns without a ODI ton) he would’ve been dropped like any normal player.
‘Upskill” – a new low in Cook drivel (raise tone for last word). “Armmm…..”
Didn’t he also say in interview something along the lines of “we’re going to work the nuts off it” after the last match? I did a double-take but I may have misheard as I was quite pissed by that point (Red wine the only solace watching England right now).
“If anyone thinks their place is safe, they are wrong”
Really?
“I went from 1-0 down to 3-1. It changes very quickly in sport. My credibility is not for me to comment on.”
Er.. you just did.
What he meant was; “If anyone thinks their place is safe, they are wrong. Apart from mine, obviously, because I’m bomb proof”.
Why does he think that working even harder to effect a failed strategy will make any difference?
There’s hard work and then there’s “working the nuts off it”. Sounds like a phrase borrowed from the barrow boys of Smithfield market, salt of the earth, gentle multi phobic folk so they are.
Can’t wait for the next post-spanking interview for some new pearls:
“What went wrong today do you think Alistair?”
“We was proper pony, upstraight. Them Indians is a bunch of slags, they need to offpiss the toe rags…”
I’m personally sick of hearing about Ed Smith “writer” and his endless mentions of books he’s written. And now this patronising article takes things to a new level. Bore.
Downton, G Clarke, J Whitaker, and Flower all to go. (And never to return).
Thorough investigations into:
1. The events around KP’s sacking in 2009, including all ECB leaks.
2. KP’s IPL negotiations, including all ECB leaks.
3. Textgate, including why ECB allowed a parody Twitter account of one of their leading Test batsmen, by a friend of a Test player, during a home Test series.
4. All the failings around the 2013/14 Ashes carnage, starting with Coach (Flower) and Captain (Cook).
5. The events around KP’s sacking in 2014, including all ECB leaks.
6. Why Kirsten turned down the role of England Coach.
That would be nice for starters.
In fairness about the parody twitter account, it’s not that some of KPs team mates were following it but that they were supposedly, feeding tidbits of info to it pointedly, that was the problem.
It was the hypocrisy of textgate which was all private and the contents of the BBMs remained in private whereas the twitter account was public domain.
Even following it isn’t necessarily a problem, it’s a parody account, just don’t contribute to it.
Agree on the other points.
Agreed. The feeding tidbits of info to the parody account should have been a disciplinary offence. In fact, Broad should not have allowed his mate to create that account and thereby undermine our senior batsman. It’s unbelievable that this was allowed to happen to KP.
Here’s the ECB statement from the time.
http://www.ecb.co.uk/ecb/about-ecb/media-releases/media-release,319218,EN.html?Pf=com.otherobjects.cms.model.structure.Folder-L-11
In one sense, Broad seems to deny it. But what he actually denies is creating the account or supplying information. It’s carefully worded. Taking the piss does not count as information.
Imagine if one of KP’s mates had setup a parody Twitter account of either Strauss or Cook to mock either of them. We’d never have heard the end of it.
I don’t think there’s a single word there I’d disagree with, with the possible exception of Whitaker.
To my mind Pietersen’s sacking as captain in 2009 is even more worthy of full investigation than his sacking as a player. Forget text-gate or IPL. All the problems associated with Pietersen were a direct cause of the treacherous means and deeply unfair rationale by which he lost the captaincy, and the resentment and distrust the ECB felt towards him, from that point onwards.
Pietersen himself has already told most of his side of the story. But the ECB have never said a single word. At the time, Hugh Morris refused to answer any questions.
Who leaked Pietersen’s e-mail? Why were suggestions made in a private e-mail, which Morris had commissioned, seen as a sacking offence? Before dismissing him, did Morris make any attempt to heal the breech between Pietersen and Moores?
“Arranging back-to-back Ashes, with disastrous consequences”.
I agree the consequences of back-to-back Ashes were disastrous but not perhaps in the sense implied. The ECB’s treatment of other Test playing nations was the disaster and there is a feeling that back-to-back Ashes represented the thin end of a very large wedge of endless series against Australia and India while other nations (variously dismissed as “non-entities” and “minnows”) are pushed to the margins. Essentially, the schedule has become a reflection not of merit but of money and politics. The treatment of the world’s No.1 ranked nation South Africa – playing just three tests in England between 2008 and 2017, only one more than Bangladesh – is particularly outrageous.
Back-to-back Ashes were not disastrous in the sense of being responsible for the 5-0 defeat. It appears to be believed by some that the team that wins the first series is at some sort of massive disadvantage for the second series. How so? The side on top after the first series could more plausibly be argued to have any psychological advantage. There have been back-to-back Ashes before – in 74/75 Australia won 5-1 at home which didn’t stop Australia winning the following series in England 1-0. I don’t think Ian Chappell would have had much time for ‘England will be thiristing for revenge’ arguments prior to the series in England!
I’d suggest home advantage and Australia refreshing their squad better than England were the main factors. Of course it might have helped if we’d had some sort of proper inquiry into why we lost like we did in 2006/07 but this might have disrupted the “unending success of team England under the wise guidance of the ECB” narrative that the ECB love and which seems to be more important to them than what is going on in reality.
Let me start with a small defence of Cook regards one day cricket. (Don’t worry folks I haven’t gone nuts.) Mike Atherton made a very relevant point yesterday about how England pick one day captains and play one day cricket. He pointed out that we keep picking Test match captains who also happen to be top order test match players. Atherton himself, Nasser, Vaughn, Strauss, Cook. This is Stone Age thinking. The one day game has moved on. We still have a tactic that says score 3 an over for 35 overs and keep wickets in hand. Then with 15 overs left hit out. Remember the computer is stuck on 230. Cook is just the latest in a long line of backwards thinking.
Of course what makes the Cook captaincy different is all the other issues that Maxie mentions. No other England captain has been so protected and eulogised like Cook. One day I hope we will get an honest answer to why. It can’t all be about KP because he has been sacked and will never come back. So what are the media and cricket establishment so frightened of? Is Cook a God? Do they think if they don’t bow before him they will be struck down?
In a couple of years time I hope the cricket media will look back in total shame as to how they have behaved. They have lied, connived and created giant straw men to protect. Talking about straw men, Ed Smiths crayon scribbling is the latest low. First he claims that almost the whole cricket establishment were against Cook. This is not true. The vast majority were staunchly in the Cook camp. How do we know this? Because those of us who were not in the Cook camp were forced onto sites like this because we were shouted down in the mainstream media. “Outside cricket morons” Smith is like a fisherman who inflates the size of his fish to make the story more dramatic. So he pretends there was an army of Cook haters who he and his patriotic yeoman media mates pushed back. It’s all nonsense
And to ad insult to injury Smith uses the dreaded M word. “Mob.” We are a baying bob, apparently. I guess that makes Ed Smith Marie Antoinette. Let them eat cake he spits at the mob? If Mr Smith wants to see a real mob he should have been at 20/20 finals day. Where 75% of the crowed booed KP. A great player for England over a decade booed and ridiculed by a genuine mob. Morons who have got all their views from people like rabble rouser Ed Smith.
Agreed – if anything having a different ODI captain will help TINA for the test side.
Also I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone in the ‘ECB controlled media’ who thinks Cook should be in the ODI side even before this series.
Yes, the point about T20 finals day is incredibly valid, and the behaviour of the boozed up crowd that day is the most fitting rebuttal to Ed Smith’s argument about a baying mob confronting Cook.
That England’s leading run scorer in international cricket was booed to the crease should be a cause of massive shame for the media who’ve created a caricature out of a, no doubt, complex character, for the public to hate in KP.
I’d like to ask people there why they were booing him, what exactly has he done to earn their opprobrium? Bizarre.
Thanks for this, Mike and Mark – and sorry not to respond before both to this and other excellent comments on this thread. I do try to reply to as many as possible but the day job prevents me from necessarily managing everything.
As you say, the booing completely skewers Smith’s argument. What he’s essentially saying is a crowd’s reaction represents real supporters and honest truth if they agree with something he personally thinks. If it doesn’t, they’re a mob.
You have to be careful with translating spectators’ behaviour as noble truth, because sometimes people at grounds aren’t very nice. Ponting was booed all the way through the 2009 Ashes series.
And you should take what happens at grounds with a slight pinch of salt. For some people a whole day’s test cricket, in the ground, can get boring, so they look for things to do to wake themselves up – including exaggerated, sometimes ironic, displays of emotion. They’ve also been on the beer since 10.30am.
The booing of Pietersen is horrendous, and I’d agree with you that the cause is the media’s distorted caricature of him.
The worst possible case you could make against Pietersen, based on facts, is that he behaved very awkwardly to several members of management, was very difficult with Strauss, wanted to skip some limited overs cricket to play IPL, and mouthed off in some private text messages. Does that really make him such a dreadful villain that he should be booed? On the field, he gave his all to England in every innings, and scored 23 test centuries and 8,000 test runs. Even if one doesn’t particularly like him, at least be grateful for the runs.
A lot of emotion on this thread. In my view all events can simply be summarised thus: the ECB is an insular club consisting of like-minded people who share very similar values. It’s upper/middle class, somewhat elitist and very, very Waitrose. These people have vaguely elitist views, regard themselves as somewhat superior (whether they are aware of this or whether it’s subconscious), and genuinely think they know better than the fans – and sometimes they do, but sometimes they don’t.
This ECB club, like some people in The City, are a little isolated from ordinary people and what constitutes the real world for the majority. The have a different worldview (for want of a better word). They trust their own; they see benefit in the familiar; they want an England team that, to a large extent, represents the values they share. Unfortunately these values are not shared by a large number of cricket fans who come from more diverse stock.
The love affair with Cook (who is their type of bloke), the promotion of Whitaker, the love of promoting from within, the reliance on guys like Moores / Flower and previously Giles (all guys they know and can rely on), are all reflective of the cosy little (somewhat elitist), aloof club the ECB have become. Radicals and those who cause headaches are not trusted and are removed.
Nothing will change until the ECB changes, more reformers work their way in, and the demographic of the organisation is altered – none of which is going to happen any time soon I’m afraid.
As for Ed Smith’s article, it’s one of his poorest. I quite like reading Ed as he’s an eloquent bloke and I enjoy his radio commentary. However, this particular article was simply elaborate decoration of a flawed premise. Although his central argument was erroneous, I have no doubt he believes in it because he shares the ECB’s worldview. He’s cut from the same cloth. I wouldn’t have expected anything else to be honest.
The main mistake he made was to characterise most of Cook’s critics as a mob. He’s right in a way. There are numerous idiots who shout abuse on social media. But the rest (who are the majority) are intelligent people who care deeply about the game. So when they’re called a mob, they rightly get upset. It was a very ill advised article in my humble opinion. There are plenty of very rational reasons to dislike the ECB, question their wisdom, and challenge Cook’s centrality to English cricket. To not only dismiss these views but also the very people who make them (some of whom are just as intelligent and well educated as Smith) was foolish.
Excellent comments, James. Yet again I’m reminded of Henry Kissinger’s remark that elites don’t need to conspire because they all think alike.
It often seems to me that – despite all the credit they take for grassroots cricket projects (much of which are funded by other bodies anyway) – the current ECB would be perfectly happy if cricket became similar to polo: exclusive, expensive, excellent for sponsorship by upmarket brands. Totally unavailable to the mob.
Henry Kissinger?! I always thought it was Gore Vidal who said that.
May well have been, clive, I have it at about 4th hand.
In fact, a Googly search has revealed it attributed to both G Vidal and Peter C Newman, so I’ll put Henry back in his box and give Gore the credit.
You’re spot on here, I think. The corollary to this of course is the similarity to the ECB which we find reflected in the diverse set of ex-cricketers and public school educated wannabes who make up the so-called “journalists” who report and comment on the establishment which they are already part of.
Without wishing to get all political, it is rather like the newspaper reporting of politics – so much written and fretted about which actually affects just those in a certain class or above with the occasional glance at the “mob” beneath which they hope will be enough to stop any kind of real change.
I mean Agnew, Pringle, Lawrence Booth, Ed Smith – are they the kind of journalists who are going to rock an ECB piloted boat? Is anyone allowed into the ECB club who didn’t go to Oxbridge?
James you are right of course. Class and culture plays a huge part in who the ECB is. It is a jolly club for the ‘right sorts.’ Just like so much of elite sport in the UK it does not put the national interest of the game first. Rugby has its old farts. And the FA is a national joke that has not been fit for purpose for decades. They built the giant white elephant that is the the new Wembley which they will be paying off for years. They could have taken England matches around the country, but that would not have played well with the blazer brigade who live in the South East of England.
Lords finally got round to letting in woman a few years ago. But only because they wanted to scrounge a lot of lottery money of the govt. So Rachael Heyhoe Flint gets in, and in return Lords get a nice lottery cheque. I bet they are the same people who nod sagely at Torygraph editorials about how bad it is that poor people live on benefits. Great sways of the upper middle class are positively feather bedded in govt hand outs. Just look at the city and the bankers. Or huge hand outs to the large land owners in this country. I could go on and on, but this is not a political site so I won’t.
I recently read a fantastic book about Harold Larwood. The contrasting ways he and Douglas Jardine were treated is symptomatic of the way the English elite behave. That was all 70 odd years ago. Yet in many ways noting has changed.
“of cricket fans who come from more diverse stock.”
I come from very diverse stock and I tell you summat – i love it!!!
Dropping Cook would at least make selecting a decent 11 easier – and given how coach-programmed England’s tactics seem to be, do we even need a captain on the field ?
The lack of a corporate figurehead might even encourage one or two players to express themselves. The only one who seemed to play without fear yesterday was Moeen… and that was after the game was effectively lost.
Playing both Cook and Root is a luxury we can’t afford, and I know which one is more likely to be effective.
“Call me a traditionalist” For me, those words encapsulate, exacly, the very thing that’s wrong with the game. Tradition is everything that “change” is not, and by it’s very nature despises change. It preserves the status quo, and creates an establishment to vehemently support that preservation! Apparently we’re no good at the flamboyant stuff, so naturally becoming to “Johnny Foreigner”, because we are English, and, as in life, we play with a straight bat (as espoused in the very best English private schools)….what complete and utter bollocks!!
The “pinnacle” of the game is an Ashes series??….Traditional bollocks!!!! As I have opined before, to the rest of the World, it’s just a “derby” match that they really don’t give a toss about. English Cricket has to come to terms with the fact that anything with the “World” prefix is the pinnacle.
I completely love test cricket and the Ashes in particular, but I also love the skill, flair, and yes, strategies, in the shorter formats and find then very exciting and entertaining (the whole purpose of a sporting contest?) It puts bums on seats, and enthralls entire continents! It wont go away, it will only get stronger and better, and I want my team…England…to be at the very pinnacle of that….whatever it takes!!
Please to see all the follow-up on the Ed Smith article I posted the link to yesterday. I also think he is a good writer and commentator but I fear on this occasion he is well wide of the mark and his use of the word ‘Mob’ was ill judged in my view. I hope he responds to your invitation Maxie, it would be good to understand where he was coming from. The New Statesman is in many ways an anti-establishment publication, so this made Ed Smith’s article stand out for me even more given that, in cricketing terms, the article is completely pro-establishment.
When I first saw the excerpt here, I genuinely thought it a parody (and I have no animus against Ed Smith.
Meanwhile, a Vaughn article I can agree with, for once:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/11072608/If-Alastair-Cook-does-not-resign-captaincy-of-England-one-day-side-then-he-must-be-sacked-it-cant-go-on-like-this.html
Even down to the suggestion of Rashid in the squad.
That is a good article by Vaughan.
I’m interested that his judgment on Morgan is that he’s lost form through frustration, because that was how it seemed to me – Morgan was full of innovations to begin with and then somehow he stopped, or was stopped.
“The rest of the world see one-day cricket through Twenty20 eyes, whereas England see it through Test match eyes.” M. Vaughan
^^
That’s it in a nutshell
There’s an article in a similar vein by Atherton in today’s Times (also holding his hand up as someone who shouldn’t have led the one day side…).
He also points out that only exceptional individuals excel in both forms of the game – and that spinners are wrongly underrated by England.
And here’s yet another argument for wanting different players for the different formats:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/775593.html
Thanks, Nigel, Damn the Times paywall, though, as we can’t post a link to this piece.
Cook is probably nervous about surrendering the ODI captaincy as it might be the downhill slide for his captaincy full-stop.
As for his actual playing, when you have a messy opener, that sets the tone of the team and makes everyone else wary too because it always makes the bowlers and pitch look more difficult to handle than they are.
Could someone in this article change the address I put up be accident? Thanks
Done.
Thanks
Many thanks for all your comments, and I’ll try and respond to as many as possible later.
No word from Ed yet, which is a shame, especially as a few people reTweeted it. It would be interesting to hear his counter-arguments.
My first thought on reading Ed Smith’s snotty article is ‘Who the hell does he think he is?’
The power exerted by the Alastair Cook Personality Cult is astonishing. Someone ought to write a book about it, it’s certainly become one of the most pervasive phenomena of our times. My theory is that Middle England imagines that it represents all kind of virtues and then projects these virtues onto Cook so that he becomes the living symbol of ME itself. Whether he has any of these virtues is a moot point.
“It’s hard when there’s always question marks about my place in the team. That’s quite a hard place to work from but I know I can score runs”.
How far is this from “it’s tough being me in this dressing room”
Response is a bit different tho, innit?
In view of the comments about “the south east” and “Middle England” – with which I agree – I wonder what would (will ? ) happen if the Scots vote for independence on the 18th Sept.. Alec Salmond wants to encourage immigration….I wonder if KP would fancy playing cricket for Scotland….
No response from Ed on Twitter. In fairness there’s no reason why he should leap into action because I sent him a Tweet. He can write whatever he likes and isn’t accountable to us. But still, it would be good to get his response. I’ve just found an e-mail address for him, and have dropped him a line.
He probably thinks you’re Wat Tyler Maxie.
this is what it’s like outside cricket….they don’t talk to you, they don’t care about your opinion …. but they are happy to take your money at the gate or at the book shop …. ed smith is a middle class dork
Crises what crises. England have nothing to worry about spin down under says Broad.from Cricinfo.
But it will surely be tempting for sides to play at least two frontline spinners against England almost regardless of conditions. That is not a prospect that Broad is concerned about.
“To be honest, I think that will play into our hands in Australia and New Zealand because it doesn’t really turn,” Broad said. “You’d imagine the players of the quality playing for England will be able to rotate the score off the spinners because it just skids ”
“You look at James Tredwell who has a really good record in England, he struggled in Australia and I wouldn’t expect regulation finger spinners to cause any team big problems down there. In 1992 Mushtaq Ahmed had a really good tournament but he was a legspinner. As an England side we didn’t play the spin well at Trent Bridge, but come the MCG or Wellington I can’t see that being top of our worry list.”
Well if Broad is right the top teams are going to be scoring 300-330 scores. Can’t see England managing that with our tactics.
Ed Smith, a cr*p journalist and even cr*pper cricketer. As a Middx fan, I saw what the Ed Smith brand of captaincy brought to our dressing room, massive divisions and poor cricket.
Please do not even enter thinking interviewing that joker, it might provide him with the credence he doesn’t deserve. Any time I see an article with his name on it, I just skip, he’s cricket’s posher version of Joey Barton.
I love upskilling, its doubleplusgood.
Don’t agree with Ed on that article one little bit, but have to say that I read his articles on cricinfo with great enjoyment. He’s definitely one of the most insightful and thought-provoking journalist out there today. So lay off him a little. Take the ball not the man.
[…] England subside to a 3-1 ODI series defeat (but win the T20). The ECB’s loyalty to an increasingly useless Alastair Cook is now too preposterous for […]