‘The King of Spain’ is taking over as England’s ODI and T20 coach
From the moment he gave up playing professional cricket, Ashley Giles has wanted to be England’s head coach. He did everything he needed to do. He cuddled up to the right people at the ECB and was almost immediately made a national selector. Now he’s been made England’s permanent ODI and T20 coach. So it’s pats on the back all round then? Well, forgive me if I don’t join the celebrations.
Giles’ promotion is a victory for career planning and knowing intimately the boxes one must tick to gain favour with English cricket’s authorities. Let’s run through those for a second ….
Coming through the system? Check. An aversion to boat rocking? Check. Being less charismatic and flamboyant than your employers? Check.
The news that Andy Flower has decided to give up on England’s limited overs teams has come as a shock – but on reflection we shouldn’t be too surprised. He has been making noises about ‘taking a breather’ for some time now.
Of course, it would be best if he simply gave up stewardship of the T20 team – the version of the game we least care about – but because of the ECB’s pigheaded and totally nonsensical insistence of linking ODIs and T20 together (ask Kevin Pietersen for further details), Flower has had to chuck them both in. At least he’s going to hang around for the test matches … for now.
All this is great news for Giles of course; the man who led Warwickshire to the county championship last year. He’s seen his holy grail and grabbed it. Unless he totally screws up our ODI team by recalling Tim Ambrose and opening the bowling with Chris Woakes, his ascent to full time coach of the test team should only be a matter of time.
The ECB have long identified Giles as the chosen one – we know this because he was inexplicably made a selector a few years ago. What’s more, he was allowed to stay in charge of Warwickshire – an outrageous decision which created a huge conflict of interest when The Bears went sniffing around division two clubs looking for the best young talent to snap up.
The ECB, however, didn’t care. They were determined to fast track Giles. They simply liked the cut of his jib, and the fact that he’s about as controversial as vanilla icecream.
As a fan, however, I expect something more from my England coaches. I prefer – no, I expect – the head coach of the England team to be inspirational and insightful. I expect him to make intelligent comments to the media. I expect to hear things I haven’t already thought of myself when I see him on television working as commentator or summariser.
Most importantly, however, I need to feel reassured that he’ll inspire top class players like Alastair Cook and Kevin Pietersen. In order to do that, he needs to be either charismatic, or have credibility coming out of his ears. At the very least he should have been a top class player, who has scored gritty centuries on dusty turners, or taken five wicket hauls at the Gabba.
That was the problem with Peter Moores. He seemed like a nice bloke, but he was a very average player and about as inspirational as a wet flannel. He might have been organised. He might have talked a good game. He might have won county championships – indeed, he won one last year as Lancashire coach (before getting them relegated this year) – however, none of this mattered at the top level.
Therefore, forgive me for being about as enthusiastic at Giles’ arrival as I am at the prospect of visiting the dentist: I knew this day would eventually come, but it’s painful (as painful, in fact, as Giles’ brief stint as a pundit on Sky).
People say that Giles is ‘well regarded’. But by who exactly? Was he a tactical genius when he played? No. Was he ever in the running to be England captain? No. Did he ever give thoughtful and revealing post-match interviews? Again, the answer is no.
Giles has always been ‘a team man’ – a follower, not a leader. When he stopped playing he became a committee man; that’s the type of person the ECB love. Therefore, when I hear how highly Giles is rated as a coach, I prefer to trust my own eyes and ears.
When I hear Mike Atherton speak my ears prick up. He’s clever. His views are worth listening to. He says things I haven’t considered myself. He makes me see things differently. I have never, ever, remotely, felt that way about Ashley Giles.
So welcome Ashley. I hope you do a good job and prove me wrong. However, if you’re not Peter Moores mark two, then I’ll run onto the Lords’ outfield during the Ashes with a big placard that reads ‘give Flower his job back’. It’s just my opinion – and perhaps I’m being unfair – but I am not optimistic this appointment will work out.
James Morgan
Hmmmm it doesn’t bode well in the long run does it? He may be “well regarded” somewhere (and that of course be simply in the mirror) but he’s pretty well detested among the followers of county cricket whose side might just have a player that Warwickshire fancied. Damn nigh done for importuning on a couple of occasions! What isn’t clear (at least not yet, is whether this new appointment is in addition to his role at Warwickshire. If it is, there will be several county coaches who, when it is their turn to play Warwickshire, and there is no ODI on at that time, will be sending their star players off on an unexpected little holiday!
Can you imagine Giles giving Pietersen advice about batting? Why would he listen to the least talented teammate from the 2005 ashes team? And how is he going to improve Monty and Swann – two bowlers who are far more imaginative than Giles ever was.
“I’ll tell you what fellas. Why don’t you bowl two feet outside the righthanders leg stump to slow down the runs”. Brilliant. Not.
I wonder if Giles was even interviewed? If ge was, I wonder how many others were interviewed? Giles was probably just annointed. You’re one of us, so you get the job Ashley. No wonder Strauss retired ;-) what can he possibly learn from a man he used to captain?
I’ve no idea what Giles will be like as a coach but, talking in general, a lot of the best coaches have been extremely ordinary players, whilst the best players have often been terrible.
There isn’t necessarily any connection between Giles’s limits as a player and is merits as a coach.
In the defence of Giles, he has done well with a limited Warwickshire team, has a rounded CV and is experienced. Everyone who has played with or for him hold him in high regard. He has not spent a lot of time working in the media so maybe the wider cricketing world has not had the chance to understand his philosophies and ideas.
I saw him inteviewed onTV yesterday when the annoucement was made. I did not see a sharp mind. I did not see a passionate or inspirational figure. I saw someone who looked slightly shell shocked, struggling to find the right words. As I said in my post – this is not the sort of person I would particularly respect as a leader, and I am not optimistic things will work out.
Yes good players do not always make the best coaches and vice versa – probably because superb players can be introverted and a bit selfish (they also struggle to connect with guys that aren’t as talented as they are). However, this is extraneous to my argument. Giles’ record as a player does not concern me really. All good coaches, whether they were great players or not, have a perceptive mind. They are innovators, excellent communicators and possess the ability to inspire.
I see none of these qualities in Giles. I see a hard worker who doesn’t rock the boat. He’s hardly Alex Ferguson, is he! You could say that Andy Flower is a bit bland – however, Flower has credibility coming out of his ears. People listen to him because of his knowledge of the game and the fact he’s been there, done that – and was bloody good at it. To be a top level coach you need some of the qualities I’ve mentioned. From what I see, Giles has none. Being a thoroughly decent chap, who doesn’t say boo to a goose, and has above average administration skills, doesn’t cut it in my opinion.
Furthermore, I believe success at county level means very little. Peter Moores and Keith Fletcher won multiple championships. Duncan Fletcher won just one. Flower won none. Who were the better England coaches?
You could just as easily be describing Duncan Fletcher. He was a terrible communicator in public – even his autobiography completely failed to describe his ideas. A thousand word article by Strauss gave me a much better idea of his coaching than anything Fletcher ever said.
However well he hid it, he was clearly an extremely effective coach.
Again, I have no idea how good Giles will be, but I think you’re judging him on extremely flimsy grounds.
No. I’m judging him on the fact that he has never struck me as either inspirational or insightful. That is not flimsy in the slightest. There are commentators like Atherton and Shane Warne, who make you think ‘oh yeah, that’s a good point’. There are others, like Nick Knight, who make me go ‘Duh!’ Giles has always fallen in the latter category with me. I would be just as worried if Knight was made Eng coach.
Fletcher is a totally different kettle of fish. We has a very good player and a very experienced coach when he was given the eng job. His cred was not in doubt. Giles has been a coach for what, 4 years, and he was given the job without interviewing other candidates. He has been identified and fast tracked by an organisation that loves ‘their guys’. Last time they used a head hunter to scour the earth for a coach, then appointed a guy who was right under their noses the entire time. Graham Ford was an unknown quantity to them, and had the odd opinion, so he would never do.
“From the moment he gave up playing professional cricket, Ashley Giles has wanted to be England’s head coach” – how dare he be ambitious. It would have been so much better to give the role to someone who didn’t want it, wouldn’t it?
“He cuddled up to the right people at the ECB and was almost immediately made a national selector”. – did he really? or did the ECB look at a well respected bloke just out of the England dressing room, now a County coach and think – those two attributes would help us assess prospects for selection?
“Being less charismatic and flamboyant than your employers? Check” – didn’t seem to be a problem for Duncan Flethcer or Andy Flower. How many coaches are “flamboyant and charismatic, anyway? – the best ones seem to be those with no ego, just dedication, understanding of the game and the ability to quietly influence players and improve them, collectively and individually. These are talents Giles has demonstrated, taking double relegated Warwicks to promotion and trophies.
“When he stopped playing he became a committee man” – where’s the evidence of that? – if you mean he’s been a selector, then that’s a good thing. If you mean he’s old school tie and G&Ts then it’s simply rubbish.
“People say that Giles is ‘well regarded’. But by who exactly?” – only the players he’s coached and worked with, former team mates, feloow selectors and coaches – pah! who’d listen to them. Much better to go by personal prejudice, eh?
“perhaps I’m being unfair” I suspect you know you were. There are legitimate ground to comment – for example relatively little coaching experience – around 5 years in total.
But then again, the counter to that is if he turns out to do badly at the one day stuff, there’s little been lost – Andy Flower will have had his time off and “life” as coach extended, England will have seen an eliminated Gilo from the “next test coach” list
It’s fair to question, perhaps his 20-20 skills – the Bears have never excelled there, and he’s not been able to improve that record. In the 40 over stuff, the Bears have been excellent under him. Ditto 4 days stuff.
He may turn out to be a good or bad international coach, but by having him do only the one days stuff, England get to find out, while resting Flower a bit.
It’s just a harsh article based on little substantial sound argument.
The basis of the article is that Giles is neither innovative, nor dynamic, nor inspirational. Yes, it’s a subjective judgement based on the things that I’ve heard him hear and say, but blogs are all about opinion.
The fact that I’ve never heard Giles say anything particularly insightful in his playing and coaching career (in TV appearances and interviews), and that he doesn’t seem to be a confident communicator, gives me good grounds to doubt his ability to coach England. These are both substantive and sound reasons. They’re subjective, but so are anyone’s.
As for reports about Giles being well regarded (ex players etc) how many negative opinions about coaches appear in the media? In any sport? Especially in cricket. All you will hear on the record is ‘on the record guff’. Not even Pietersen publically called Peter Moores a terrible coach.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion – of course, and I respect people who think Giles is a good choice if that’s what they feel. However, is this based on things you’ve heard him say yourself? Is it based on hearing him speak and thinking ‘blimey, I’d love to work with this guy, I find him inspirational and extremely perceptive’. If that’s the case fine. Personally, I haven’t.
However, I just want to ask our readers whether they think he’s a good coach because of what they’ve seen or heard themselves, or just perceived wisdom? In the case of Giles I think it’s the emperor’s new clothes. Big time. Why was he never remotely in the running for England captain? The qualities you need for that job are strong leadership and tactical acumen. The same qualities are needed to be England coach. Is Giles suddenly a different man now he’s retired?!
Your opinion that he is not innovative or dynamic etc. is fine and you’re more than entitled to say what you think. I can see why you think it, and would perhaps counter that other than Bob Woolmer, most cricket coaches come across similarly – they tend not to give much away publicly. I’d also add that Gilo is successful (to date).
I agree in terms of your comment that he, in his limited time being interviewed, or commenting hasn’t revealed any great insight. It doesn’t mean he has none – but very few, if any, players who stay in the game coaching will say anything controversial – that tends to be left to those who seek careers in the media.
You asked “People say that Giles is ‘well regarded’. But by who exactly?” and I answered with a long list. You’ve now changed your point to ay “well they would say that wouldn’t they?” which is a bit of a cop out, perhaps.
But really my point was not to say you are wrong, or you shouldn’t hold your views, but that the article just comes across as a bit anti, based not on anything specific (like limited experience” but more on he had two roles, which you didn’t like, and that “he gets on with people, and doesn’t upset them, and he wanted the job, and the ECB are keen on him – I don’t accept those as sound reasons.
I think he’s a good coach based on results, based on the way he got the Bears who were in disarray after a more strient character (Mark Greatbach) made a complete mess of things. I think he’s a good coach based on the testimony of players who worked with him. I think he’s a good choice because, as Michael Vaughan said, he gets on well with KP – no doubt in part due to what you criticise his for – effectively an equanimity and easy attitude. He gets on with people, and gets the best out of them. He encourages players to try things, but keeps it simple and if things don’t work, re-focuses them back on the basics – making the game simple – never a bad thing.
I also like that by doing only the ODI role, the ECB, Andy Flower and us lot can see how he gets on. It seems a good appointment structurally in in the choice of a successful, young, thoroughly likeable and able man. He doesn’t speak psycho-babble, he speaks plainly and clearly. He’s more Roy Hodgson than Jose Mourinho, for sure, and if you prefer an extrovert, outsider who will rock the boat and cause ructions with the ECB, then fine – I’m sure someone like Shane Warne would be an inspirational coach, there’s room for all kinds of different characters, and I can see why a Warney type would get the pulse racing in a way Gilo never will, for many fans.
I can’t think of many better people to go with for this role than Ashley Giles, right now.
Well said, good points – goes for your previous post, as well.
To be honest, my lack of faith in Giles also stems, in part, from a suspicion of the ECB and how they operate. Vaughan is the only person I respect who has praised the appointment – and its no surprise as they’re extremely close friends. All the other positive testimonials I’ve read have come from Warwickshire people. Nasser Hussain has very damning with faint praise, effectively saying Giles was appointed because he was already in the wings. We will have to see how this plays out. I’m hopeful Giles will do well, as we all want Eng to do well, but I just sense he’s another political appointment. He has always close to the ECB, which was why he was made a selector out of the blue ahead of several other deserving candidates.
“To be honest, my lack of faith in Giles also stems, in part, from a suspicion of the ECB and how they operate.” – Fair comment, they got lucky with Andy Flower, as he was already in a post, and stepped up and showed how good he is. They may or may not be lucky with Ashley Giles.
Fletcher and Flower were good appointments, Moores a bad one. WIth the way they’ve split the role now, they can’t really lose. If Giles “fails” then the big job is still with Flower, and if he succeeds, then everyone wins.
He’s a shrewd man, Nass,, but how much does Nasser know about Giles coaching abilities? little, I’d say. So maybe his comments reflect a similar view to yours – that the ECB tends to go for people it gets on with – but again that’s not Giles’ fault, or anything to do with him, other than he’s easy to get on with.
Warwickshire people have obviously much closer knowledge of Gilo’s methods, ways and approach and they’re all very much in favour.
We all wish him luck, and that’s as it should be. Cheers
I’m all for this, promote from within and I bet Flower had a large input into the appointment.
The king of Spain may not be a rock’n roll appointment but his record is brilliant at Warwick and this should always count.
And as several people point out, it’s a perfect audition to see whether he is up to the test job.
If we are going to spilt the jobs (not ideal but perfectly understandable (I wonder how smug KP feels)) this is the right path to go down.
Or can you suggest someone else?
@ Cricket Insider
You have completely missed the point. The discussion was about whether Giles’s inability to communicate effectively in the media was a valid portent of what he would be like as a coach.
The comparison I used was Fletcher. He was a terrible communicator, only ever managed to alienate the press and the public, and even given the freedom of writing books completely failed to convey his ideas about coaching. Strauss explained Fletcher’s ideas better in a 1000 word article better than Fletcher managed in a whole book. The fact that Fletcher was also a very good coach actually reinforces rather than contradicts the point that Giles’s public performances are probably entirely irrelevant.
It is no mean feat leading Warwickshire to the county championship – its’ more than could be said of Andy Flower who was promoted from assistant coach to head coach.
The fact is ability as a player has proven to be a remarkably poor indicator of whether someone will be a world class coach/manager. You only need to look at football where there are great mangers (Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho) who had modest playing careers and those who were greats (Hoddle, Keegan, Robson) who should be the greatest managers the world has ever known if there were a correlation between playing ability and coaching/managing.
That isn’t to say I don’t agree with some of your argument – the ECB is something of a closed shop but it worked in the case of Flower so perhaps, given the success of that appointment, it would be worth giving the ECB management some slack to see if they really are able to see beyond what we do and see the qualities Giles has.