A week ago today, I began a post by saying:
Ten days have now passed since the confidentiality agreement expired and still the ECB haven’t told us why they sacked Kevin Pietersen.
What are they waiting for?
Make that seventeen days. More than a fortnight has elapsed – and nearly twelve days since the book – and not a single word from Lord’s.
John Etheridge, cricket correspondent of The Sun, had this to say on Dmitri Old’s blog this morning (where you can also read a fascinating discussion on Guardian censorship of reader comments).
This is the situation with regard to the ECB response. Or lack of response. Clarke has been heavily involved with the new ICC TV deal and has not spoken about Pietersen. Downton has decided to say nothing for the time being. He might in due course. Flower has been in touch privately with some journalists, denying Pietersen’s claims, but again not wishing to go public at this stage.
Their view is that they have no wish to get into a slanging match with Pietersen, to fan the flames or, indeed, give the book even more publicity.
Most of the other players feel strongly about Pietersen’s allegations. They have been talking to each other and one plan was for a player to tweet something – and the other players would retweet as a sign of endorsement. But that was abandoned. Not all players are on twitter. Some are on holiday. Perhaps not all would have been prepared to retweet. It would generally have been messy.
So Cook decided to speak himself. He approached the BBC and invited them to interview him. This was entirely off his own bat and nothing to do with the ECB.
Other people involved with the Ashes tour have spoken – Anderson, Swann, Gooch. They all say that Pietersen is wrong about bullying and other allegations. Collingwood and Hoggard are other former team-mates who have echoed the same sentiments – there was no bullying culture.
So that’s where we’re at. I wouldn’t disagree with you at all that Downton, as the England team managing director, should have said something. He may well do in future.
On the bullying front, as SimonK observed on the same thread:
We have at least indirectly supportive tweets from Tremlett and Carberry, and we also have the word of George Dobell that two players specifically are supportive of what Pietersen has said (and that one of them may shortly go public).
So far, the claims of bullying by Anderson and Swann have been denied by, er , Anderson and Swann, as well as Gooch (more of whom later) – a then-member of management unlikely to break ranks. Ricky Ponting and Graeme Smith, neither of whom possess an obvious agenda, testified to English intra-team bullying. And last weekend, Steve Harmison said:
I didn’t like the way the players behaved at times and they did cross a line.
The senior players should have dealt with this. They would have in my day. When that went on, and it did at times, myself or Andrew Flintoff would have a word in the ear of someone who was letting off steam.
“Go easy on him. Can’t you see his head is down.”
The culture of bullying, if you want to call it that, had to be nipped in the bud. It wasn’t. That was a big mistake. It was allowed to go on and on.
While important, the bullying is also a red-herring. For eight months the ECB have owed us an explanation for sacking the best player. They – in effect – promised us one. And still not a peep. Seventeen days.
Here are two contrasting views from Twitter.
@jennyah46 @juliefa2 If short statement not issued at expiry of CA best to keep dignified silence now. Obvious to all why he had to go…..
— Pam Nash (@Pam_nAshes) October 16, 2014
It’s been over a week and still no response forthcoming from the ECB. We’ll just have to assume KP’s version of events is 100% accurate.
— Dave Tickner (@tickerscricket) October 15, 2014
Pietersen’s book, and the leaked dossier, pose questions the ECB must answer in many others areas wholly unrelated to bullying. They include the diagnosis of Jonathan Trott’s malady, the culture of leaking against employees, poor management of inuries, double standards, the discrepancies between the KP Genius and Textgate investigations, and the conduct of Andy Flower (who remains ECB staff).
These are questions for Paul Downton and Giles Clarke, not the players. If, as John Etheridge says, the top brass have kept schtum because “they have no wish to get into a slanging match with Pietersen, to fan the flames or, indeed, give the book even more publicity” – that’s simply not good enough. Their duty is to inform ticket-buying supporters, and their ego clash with Pietersen is irrelevant.
Earlier this week, Graham “Krugerrand” Gooch (formerly of Essex) gave an interview to the Telegraph’s Derek Pringle (formerly of Essex). He thinks someone should speak up.
I believe Alastair and others should get on the front foot a bit more. When you and your system are challenged you need to fight back, this sentiment is always expressed in team meetings, never take a backward step have the courage of your convictions. Stand up and stand tall for your country. The players may have been told to maintain silence but if I was still part of that dressing-room I would want to have my say irrespective of any media strategy from the suits.
I mean when the captain and coach stand up in the dressing-room to give a speech, one of the strong messages is that we fight the fight together. But if you are not prepared to stand up to defend the culture in this sort of situation I don’t see what credibility the other stuff has. For me it is one and the same thing.
It’s a shame that Gooch believes the ECB and their players should speak to defend themselves, and the team culture, rather than to give supporters answers. Most of the present team barely, if at all, played with Pietersen. The coach has changed. Shouldn’t the under-fire ‘team culture’ be examined and evaluated, not just blindly stuck up for? It’s not a football team, or a religion.
Now then – do you have your Flower Bingo cards ready? Here’s what Gooch had to say on the former Team Director.
I call Andy England’s anchor. As head coach he created a calm and committed atmosphere in the England dressing-room. He had great determination to prepare for every format of the game. He always looked to promote attacking ideas to win matches.
He brought a new belief to players following a period of turmoil – at least that’s what I noticed during my involvement as batting coach. He had strength of character and integrity, and as a student of the game was always looking to embrace new training methods and ideologies. He created a top-class atmosphere as mentor and motivator.
Atmosphere (2), anchor, integrity, character. Yup, I think we racked up the full set there.
And then the former England batting coach dipped his toe into some very murky waters:
When Kevin had been dropped for messaging South Africa’s players about Andrew Strauss in 2012, it was Andy who wanted to be conciliatory and build bridges. If the allegation over the message’s content was accurate it was unforgivable and lot of people were saying there was no way back for KP after that episode. But Andy told me he was keen to repair the damage.
An awful lot of people have been credited with restoring Pietersen to the side post-texts: Prior, Cook, Flower, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Roy of the Rovers, and my mum, to name just six.
I wish the ECB would just tell us what actually took place. Swann told Jonathan Agnew, to his face, that Flower did not want to bring Pietersen back. Perhaps the real reason was the prospect of a £1 million legal payout for unfair dismissal.
Meanwhile, Gooch had interesting things to say about Jonathan Trott:
I wasn’t involved in one-day games at end of the English season when I was led to believe there was some kind of issue with Jonathan. It was evident, though, when we got to Australia that Jonathan had some issues.
He was a brilliant player for England with an exceptional record and the management were giving him maximum support to try to get him into the right shape for the first Test. We were going to stand by Trott due to his record and he wanted to play.
So what exactly happened? One can infer, here, that Flower and his assistants had been well aware, for several months before the Brisbane test, that Trott was experiencing problems. How were they addressed? Did he play – despite illness – “due to his record”?
I’m not suggesting we blame Gooch for any malpractice on this front: he was coach, not team director, and not a doctor. Neither did he supervise the bowlers, but as he must have been aware of the general injury situation, his remarks on Graeme “£20” Swann’s post-Perth retirement beg some questions.
I don’t agree with what Graeme Swann did, I thought it was criminal to leave the tour at that stage. It made us a laughing stock. I cannot understand why he couldn’t stick it out until the end of the trip. It left a bad taste.
How had Flower’s team assessed the fitness of Swann’s elbow, either at that point or before the tour? Is Gooch suggesting Swann was still fit to play?
Judging by Swann’s response, on Wednesday evening, the physios had fallen asleep at the wheel:
I think [Gooch] is a bit misinformed thinking I just left because of form. It wasn’t because of form. It was because I just couldn’t turn a cricket ball, which, as a spin bowler, means you are useless to your team. It wasn’t a form thing, it was succumbing to the inevitable. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have gone on the tour at all. That is my regret. I wish after the Oval I had read the signs more rather than just think, ‘I will be fine. Jim [Anderson] will get 30 wickets. I will only have to hold one end up. I will be fine and we will win the Ashes’. That is my only regret.
The more we learn about England’s preparations for the 2013/14 Ashes tour, the more shambolic a picture emerges. A half-fit team, whose injuries (and mental health problems) were ignored or papered over in the hope somehow things would be alright on the night. Since then, the coach has been promoted and the only principal casualty was the top-scorer. No proper inquiry took place.
This is why we want the ECB to speak. No good can come of dismissing all these questions by brushing them off in the manner Swann himself does:
Someone is trying to sell a book at the moment. Honestly, in two weeks’ time, once the inevitable round of interviews has been done, no one will give a monkey’s.
Etheridge makes me laugh.
‘Flower will only talk off the record, but here is what he has to say…. ‘
Why do we even entertain this guy? He prints lies. He breaks confidences via comments on a blog.
‘Flower will only talk off the record, but here is what he has to say…. ‘
Isn’t that a form of leaking?
That was my point.
Hello, Dennis, it’s you again.
Dennis once received a direct message from Kevin Pietersen on Twitter and it’s made him all giddy.
He is so obsessed with trolling me that he copies photos taken at a friend’s wedding from my Facebook page for his personal use.
And, Dennis, you really shouldn’t be so jealous of cricket journalists.
We all know you applied for a job at cricinfo and, once they had stopped laughing, they turned you down.
Never mind. Your chance might come one day.
As journalist for a publication that has a history for uncovering sharp practice do you think that your coverage is balanced on this major issue for English Cricket?
If I wanted to read a Sun journo bitching at someone, I’d buy the Sun. I don’t and I won’t.
I do have a sneaky sort of admiration for you Mr Etheridge as you don’t mind coming on here and having your say and of course on Dmitri Old’s blog. More than a great many journos who just rant and rave at those who ask them questions and then block them on Twitter and the like. So I do really admire you for being honest and engaging with those who are “outside cricket!” I am sincere by the way. I never say what I do not mean and feel good and bad.
I think people are jaundiced by journos saying they have been reliably informed – I won’t mention the ECB leak to you though; whoops I’ve done it again! But I am sure you get my drift. Why should the cricket “outsiders” accept that as “fact!” It isn’t “fact” until its veracity is confirmed.
‘Generally speaking, a fact is something that has actually happened or that is empirically true and can be supported by evidence.
An opinion is a belief; it is normally subjective, meaning that it can vary based on a person’s perspective, emotions, or individual understanding of something. For example, biological differences between males and females are a fact, while a preference for one gender over the other is opinion.’
See where I am heading. I do not think we have heard any verifiable FACTS. What we have had is innuendo and opinion.
According to the Oxford Dictionary:
‘Even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts…”
It may well be that Mr Selvey, Mr Marks, Mr Pringle, Mr Newman and your good self, do indeed have “inside” information from a player(s), but that is not necessarily a FACT in its accepted usage. That is of course if one agrees with definition the Oxford Dictionary offers!!! Just covering all my bases here.
Therein, for moi, lies the dilemma! When conflicting information comes forward from the ECB and supporting journalists, I have to ask myself: “What is true?” Why should I believe what the ECB says themselves or the journalists that supports it, when the information is so conflicting and of course till this week, conflicting? See my problem? What makes the ECB and its support network any more convincing than any other player or journalist who is not convinced?
When I went to university as a 40 year old codger I was taught to look at all the “evidence” and verifiable evidence. I would be hung drawn and quartered if I offered up an essay with nothing but “opinion!” Even though told I was an idiot at school, it turns out I was pretty good. Consider one of the 3 best writers – I am of course more lazy these days – and got 3 firsts. Why? Because there wasn’t a stone I didn’t pick up and examine and look under! Opinion would never be acceptable. I shouldn’t think my favourite all time journalists, Woodward and Bernstein would have been so successful had they just given their “opinion”. No they dug, dug, and dug till they found the truth. They never, ever accepted anything a face value. When they did on one occasion they nearly unravelled.
I am not expecting sports journalists to be Bernstein & Woodward but I do not expect nor do I accept opinion-led pieces as “journalism”. It is lazy at best and “criminal” at worst. I would have been ashamed at university had I not put together my very best work at all times. I was known for it!!! Six weeks reading a grafting on one damn hard essay on Greek philosophy.
If instead of blowing gaskets every five minutes and throwing their proverbial toys out of the pram, the ECB supporting journos were to listen and try and engage we might all get on. When I asked Mr Selvey a very simple and straightforward question about the ECB he went ballistic. Mr Newman didn’t even answer but blocked me. They both saw questions about the veracity of the ECB as tantamount to being “hateful” and “spiteful” KP supporters. I mean to say if I had come out with such stuff at university I would have failed and miserably. The lecturers I learned under were merciless. Make a point, explain the point, develop the point, examine the point and conclude the point. I lived by that for four years. So how about a bit of real fact from your mates and leave the opinions at home.
Brilliant. Now let us see Mr. Etheridge respond.
You little beauty.
Go fucking get ’em Annie.
Cheers guys! I was in the mood. Bit long. Sorry about that. Thanks Zero and Ian – our Ozzie tiger. Have a good weekend.
That’s the kind of snide, personal and nasty attitude I expect from a tabloid journalist. Well done John. Go and buy yourself a cigar.
Leave George Dobell to do the real journalism, eh?
So John’s comment is “snide, personal and nasty”, while your “make some contributions John, or run off and hide with the rest of your pathetic breed” is OK?? I’ll put it plainly, NL – you’re a hypocrite.
I enjoy this blog, and Dmitri’s too – but the level of abuse BTL sometimes just makes me shake my head. You’re all up in arms with the ECB and the likes of Selvey for not engaging – and then when someone does, they have to put up with that?? There are some great points made on this blog, and they’re changing some of my thinking – I just wish I didn’t have to plough through all the puerile name-calling mixed with self-righteousness to get to them.
To be fair, I rather suspect that JE had been on the sauce when he typed that. Friday afternoon etc.
You can only accuse me of hypocrisy if I have anywhere claimed that I am never snide, nasty or personal, if that is indeed how you see my post.
The Sun as a “newspaper” disgusts me. Its rationale, its pathetic pandering to peoples’ worst prejudices, its amazing ability to praise one day and condemn the next depending on the way the wind is blowing – not to mention specific cases, such as Hillsborough, where it really did shape a false and unpleasant narrative which is still difficult to shift in some peoples’ minds, even though the facts have been known for a long time.
So I make no apology for being snide about somebody who works for such an organisation. Who seems to see no conflict of interest in his wages coming from exactly the same place as the ECB’s income from broadcasting rights. Who indulges in the very same innuendo and “you don’t know what I know” which most people on these boards condemn on a daily basis.
My father is a journalist, and he has 500 times the integrity of someone who works for a newspaper like the Sun. But when you say that’s what you do, people treat you like you’re an MP…..
John and his ilk give journalism a bad name. His newspaper gives humanity a bad name. He is yet to make any properly meaningful contribution to this debate, as far as I can see, even though he is the establishment journalist with the contacts and the readership which we can only dream of. When he gets off his backside and writes an article which goes anywhere near asking questions of the ECB which we all feel deserve to be answered, perhaps I’ll cut him some slack.
And he can be as snide and nasty to me as he likes – being insulted by a tabloid journalist must mean one is doing something right.
You can moderate me for going off topic if you like. Just felt a need to vent :)
As a matter of interest, Northern, which publication did your dad work for?
He’s a freelance who does most of his work for local newspapers in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, though he’s also had photographs (generally politicians/royals) picked up by the nationals a few times. Back when the BBC was a bit less tight (I was a lot younger) he also did a fair bit of work on Radio Norfolk. So not really in your league, John.
He’s been doing it since 1980 and won’t stop even though he’s in his 80’s now because he just loves meeting people and loves writing. Oh – and he needs the money :)
So he’s a photographer.
Well, if you likes photographs and if you like cricket, which you plainly do, have a look at this.
It’s by Phil Brown, an Aussie snapper, and I think it’s beautiful.
He’s a writer and photographer. The reason he’s lasted so long is because he can take pictures and write stories for newspapers and magazines, which back in the old days saved them sending two people to do a job that he could do all by himself. He calls himself a “writer who takes pictures” when the word “journalist” seems like it won’t go down too well :)
He did actually ghost write a biography of an athelete nobody on here probably remembers – Brian Hewson – back in the 1960’s as well. I wonder if he’d have been up for doing KP’s book if he’d been asked?
Get him on here Northern. he sounds so interesting. Good on him for keeping going and doing what he loves. What a fantastic story. I bet you have a story to tell as well Northern. Come on spill.
Just trying to understand your motives John. You have twice that I know of printed proven lies in the last 12 months about KP. Why would a journalist do that? And when proven untrue you haven’t publicly retracted. Then all that nonsense about ‘investigating’ the incorrect leak.
I make no apologies for having a crack at sharing my views on cricket in my ‘uncouth’ way. Fence sitting is not my style, nor yours. Satire and cricket are typically not well matched like say the football codes are. I’m also not very good at what I’m attempting to do, but I’m enjoying what I do and I have an audience, albeit smaller than yours.
Over 5k people read the piece I wrote about your 50 misdemeanour claim, and nearly 2k read the apology clock piece.
That’s not anywhere near the numbers you can get John so please don’t see me as a threat.
You claim I stole a pic of yours is also untrue. I put your name in google images and up it came.
I’ll do a John here and say that I won’t comment on my relationship with KP but to say you are a long way off the mark. Clever allegation though :)
In the case of my website, I’ve only been at it not even a year. I cracked 100k reads in my 9th month. That’s not too shabby? The podcast has had 20k downloads in 11 months. My YouTube videos (all two of them) have only had 500 hits. I need more practice there.
Approaching cricinfo was the best thing I have done as the feedback was invaluable. It also gave me the motivation to keep going.
I’m am not a professional writer nor do I claim to have any investigative journalist skills. But you do.
My website and podcast are now leading Australian cricket blogs. I too have made multiple mistakes over the journey, but I havent passed off anything as a lie that I know of.
Your 50 misdemeanours claim was good satire. Your claim regarding the returned gift was deliberately malicious. Should one not be held to account when mistruths are published?
Perhaps you would like to join me on the Can’t Bowl Can’t Throw podcast.
Just me and you.
We can clear the air, discuss the changing world of cricket reporting and commentary, and see if we can’t extend an olive branch out to each other.
That you engage on blogs is brave. I admire that.
I bid you no ill will John. I just ask the obvious questions using bad satire and a slightly aggressive turn of phrase on twitter. I ask the questions of everyone, not just you.
My only drive is to understand your how and why John. That, and grow my site :)
So, shall we Skype?
Regards
Dennis
And…as my old cub Akela might have said at this point….pax!
Could I gently suggest we all break off for a cold shower and soothing rubdown with a 1953 copy of Wisden?
Loath as we are to stifle or curb free discussion, I can’t help but feel that this particular ding-dong has become a little *too* fruity – and we’ve rather lost sight of the original points.
is that OK? Many thanks…
Same discussion Maxie, just a different way of tackling it.
However, your site, your rules.
John knows how to find me. My address, email and phone number are all publicly available on my site. I don’t hide.
He could pop around for a Pimms?
The offer to chat remains open John.
“You claim I stole a pic of yours is also untrue. I put your name in google images and up it came. ” Okay, but as a goodwill gesture, now that he has complained about it, perhaps you might think about taking it down? If we want John to respond to our questions, we shouldn’t be going out of our way to antagonize him. However, you may do as you please, of course.
In fairness, Dennis did take it down.
Rather ironically, it was a picture of myself and George Dobell hugging each other.
Dennis…
I’ll politely decline your offer of a podcast, if that’s okay.
But I’m in Australia this winter for three months. If you’re at one of the matches – or even if you’re not – please come to say ‘hello’ or get in touch.
I’d be more than happy to have a chat.
By the way, the ‘misdemeanours’ list did exist. It has been mentioned extensively in the UK papers. So it is not a lie.
Re-KP’s 100th Test cap, I’ll answer that either here or on Dmitri’s blog in the next day or two.
Drop me an email. I’ll buy you lunch in Melbourne
“By the way, the ‘misdemeanours’ list did exist. It has been mentioned extensively in the UK papers. So it is not a lie.”
I hope that was intended as a tongue-in-cheek remark…
“It has been mentioned extensively in the UK papers. So it is not a lie.”
[cracks open a beer, makes himself comfy]
And let the fun begin!
“By the way, the ‘misdemeanours’ list did exist. It has been mentioned extensively in the UK papers. So it is not a lie.”
Good heavens Mr. Etheridge. Is this your defence?
Hey Dennis! Not a professional writer aye? Well if you say so. I should say leave the “professional” bit on the back burner as you have written a blinder to my mind. I do hope this doesn’t sound patronising – I’m not like that at all – but I say what I see and how I see it. There is nothing in your post that could cause offence as you are asking questions. I too am asking when the name of the ECB wallah who leaked to Mr Etheridge is going to be “outed!” After all if the ECB can leak like the size of the dish at Jogrell Bank and has been for months. Oh and dare I say “leaking” whilst their self-imposed “gagging” order was still running. So why don’t we get stuff coming back the other way? That’s what I’d like to know.
Anyway cheers Dennis. Great post.
Wow. Could you be any more of an arse?
You know, it’s that “obvious to all” in the tweet that gets me.
Enlighten me with the facts, oh all-knowing one……
Because we have staring out the window, having a row and looking at his watch on our side of the “facts”. Oh, and drinking with young Stuart Broad.
Ignore Nash. She has no evidence for her views other than innuendo and hints from journalists who fell out with the key protagonist (Pietersen gave up on the media and everyone knows they had an uncomfortable relationship). Simply going along with the ECB line is intellectually lazy and puts an awful lot of trust in a group of people responsible for the stitch up at the ICC. We all know that KP was not blameless in the whole issue. He comes across as intransigent and argumentative in the book (in my opinion), but to not even analyse events, ignore the dodgy dossier, ignore the TV coverage over the years that clearly showed bowlers screaming at fielders, to ignore the testimony of Ponting and Smith, and even the words of Andrew Strauss himself (who said there were other players responsible for rifts in the dressing room, to ignore the good things said about KP by Root, Stokes, Carberry, Bairstow, Tremlett, Flintoff, Vaughan and others after the Ashes, takes a special kind of nativity.
In controversies like this one, the truth usually lies in between. If that’s the case here, the ECB still have many questions to answer. That’s my view anyway.
Response to James’s “and others”:
James Tredwell’s contribution is often forgotten (poor old Tredders!) –
http://www.kentsportsnews.com/tredwell-not-noticed-a-great-deal-of-issues-with-kp-07-02-2014/
Great spot.
I gathered every other piece of testimony I could find here:
https://www.thefulltoss.com/england-cricket-blog/paul-downton-speaks-kp-fights-back/
Looking back, perhaps the most interesting quote (especially in view of rhe date) came from here:
http://www1.skysports.com/news/12040/9127790/
Maxie, you have excelled yourself this week. Truly outstanding journalism, something completely missing from the old media. That’s all I have time for at the moment, but I just wanted to thank you.
Thanks, Clive, that’s very kind of you – but it’s a team effort, and everyone who comments here and HDWLIA contributes to the mix.
At the risk of a mutual love-in, thanks for all your Pietersen book-combing and excellent posts.
The “Strategy” remains obvious to me. The ECB have sent their foot soldiers out to spread half truths, untruths, obfuscation and further drip fed titbits. Once they’ve got the first lies out there, then an awful lot of energy is then dispensed by anyone with half a brain trying to disprove them all, and a subsequent loss of focus on the real issue! (they hope) and then by default, maintain the moral high ground by maintaining a dignified and “honourable” silence. Stay focussed boys and girls on the one question the ECB must answer at some point…”What, exactly, are the reasons for KP’s sacking?”….How hard can it be???
I can’t decide whether it is creditable that John Etheridge is treated with such tiptoe-around respect on here and at Dmitri’s blog. He doesn’t exactly illuminate any issues for us, and the “we’re grateful that you engage with us” attitude is just the kind of cap-doffing that Mike Selvey used to enjoy, and look what he’s like now that his acolytes no longer genuflect to his omniscient opinions.
Etheridge writes for the Sun – frankly, a rag which probably can’t even elicit the respect of those who pay for and read it, let alone the rest of the sentient world. If his faux-sympathetic “I’ve asked for comments and got no response” information is so helpful, it would be even more helpful if he’d actually write an article on the lines of “Flower refuses to engage with issues raised by KP’s book – what has he got to hide?” which is the stock in trade of his kind of newspaper.
Make some useful contributions John, or run off and hide with the rest of your pathetic breed. And get a job on a respectable paper not run by…er….oh yes, the same company that owns the rights to broadcast cricket, isn’t it? How utterly small-world your life must be…..
I’m still waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for John E to tell us what evidence is in that photo of KP..
I have asked Mr. Etheridge (who has never been in my good book) three times about that photo over at Dmitri’s but he does not reply. A couple of days ago, I told him off on a Mike Selvey related issue and called him a Question Dodger.
So you are undecided NL? Hate to see what you are like when you have a point of view! :-)
I don’t think being polite does any harm. I actually thought he said a bit more than we knew in his comment. That’s not a lot, not enough, but more than we knew….
Blessed is the peacemaker.
Well, y’know, I might be wrong is all I’m saying. Just because I personally can’t bear the stain which newspapers like The Sun place on the journalistic class as a whole doesn’t mean I’m right to dismiss the people who work for it out of hand.
When I say I could be wrong….well…I think I was once…a long time ago……apparently……
:)
it’s the constant drip-feeding of unattributable gossip and innuendo, plus demonstrable untruths (such as KP is a divisive influence) stated as axioms that do not need to be proven, that erks me. Etheridge seems to make a half-step to being open and honest but then he invariably backs off. I am not sure he has anything to bring to this debate anyway apart from his credentials as one of those “journalists” who have not asked ANY of the tough questions about the last Ashes tour.
But as it turned out you were wrong about being wrong.
:-)
Well, both Eth and Newman have done “10 Questions KP MUST Answer But Probably Won’t” articles.
I reckon I can think of ten questions Flower should probably answer and is refusing to..
At the risk of sounding pompous, James and I try to treat with respect everyone who takes the time and trouble to comment here. I hope we live up to that aim. From our point or view we should be civil and appreciative to him, you, and everyone else, irrespective of background.
Can’t be arsed to write it all again so posting on here what I posted on Dmitri’s blog in reply to Mr Etheridge. Hope it is not defamatory or anything else.
‘Very interesting post from Mr Etheridge about bullying not happening in the England set up. When one closely looks at what Cook actually said in his piece he was saying that things did get out of hand, as did Strauss. Such things had to be dealt with and were dealt with? Well that is what both of them said. I could look it up and give chapter and verse but at the present I am not that well and so cannot be arsed to. It’s all there in print in the DT. What about the almost lost piece by Mr Harmison and that he thought KP was right about something being very wrong in the England dressing room? He noted a programme in which Stuart Broad told the commentator that when a call from Flower was on the phone, he was “sh,,,,,g” himself. Broad said he had to go through what he had or had not done before he answered the call. Harmison said that this was the T20 captain saying this about his fear of Flower and if this is what Broad feels like, then what must the younger players feel like. Not as though Broad is your proverbial “shrinking violet?” I asked similar questions in the Guardian but my posts were modded.
I should suggest that in the past few years the idea that Mr Selvey is a “journalist” is oxymoron. Innuendo doth not journalism make! And the question about who could do this job: Well I should say have a real good look at Mr Dobell for a start. Then of course we have our very own: Dmitri Old – whose writing is insightful, and on some occasions has so much wit, and I think his writing is brilliant with a very knowledgable edge. Then of course Tregaskis could certainly write a piece that would stir up the complacency of the current Guardian incumbents. There are many commenters on here who could write a cricketing column without raising a sweat of panic. If not them, then of course have a look at The Full Toss, Maxie and James would do a magnificent job as well. So plenty to choose from I would suggest.
While I’m on a roll – not a bread one – have you yet put a name to the ECB “Deep Throat” who told you that porkie pie about KP returning his stuff to the ECB? I mean that was massive leak that backfired dramatically. Not asking to upset you because I do happen to think that you are a pretty good egg John. I’m sure you can follow my drift though. If the ECB is willing to tell you a porkie and you are an “insider” then how many do you think they would tell all of us: the “outsiders” who just want answers? Just saying…and asking of course.’
AND THIS:
Well I wasn’t wishing the Guardian or Telegraph on Mr Dobell. He is too good and far too lovely for that scene. It’s just the idea that the type of stuff that is paraded as Journalism is not easy. Real journalism – investigative journalism isn’t easy at all. Probably the best bit of journalism I have ever read by any journalist in the world, or this case two journalists, were American. I mean the amazing writing of Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. They of course never did accept anything at face value and just kept digging and digging for the truth. It cost them both and could have got them killed due to very, very powerful people involved. That certainly was not easy, but it was journalism of the very highest calibre. Not asking our sporting journalists to enter the ECB offices looking for clues. Nah, wait a minute, why not? LOL. Seriously though, how can innuendo be passed off as journalism? It isn’t journalism. It’s lazy writing at best, and downright offensive writing of the very worst kind. IMO of course. Not humble because I’m not arsed to be humble at the moment. For me Dmitri and TFT have both given me (and I am sure a lot of others will say the same) a safe haven into which we have all been very welcomed and allowed to let out our frustration. They have also given us some brilliant writing which asks the questions that need answering, TRUTHFULLY! Their ability to write in such a way that brings about some laughter along with the frustration has been revolutionary. Nothing nasty either – no matter if I feel like going to the ECB offices and ranting at them – they are all writers with such integrity. That is the real difference of course, I see integrity written in their pieces, Mr Etheridge, but I see very little from the usual suspects and yes that does include Mr Selvey!!!
SORRY IT IS SO LONG. But just saying…and still asking!!!
Innuendo doth not journalism make!
On the contrary, as Pope wrote nearly three hundred years ago of a founder of the Spectator magazine…
Alike reserved to blame or to commend,
A timorous foe and a suspicious friend,
Fearing e’en fools, by flatterers besieged,
And so obliging that he ne’er obliged;
Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,
Just hit the fault, and hesitate dislike,
Who when two wits on rival themes contest,
Approves of both, but likes the worst the best:
Like Cato, give his little senate laws
And sits attentive to his own applause;
While wits and templars every sentence praise
And wonder with a foolish face of praise:
Who would not laugh if such a man there be?
Who would not weep if Addison were he?
Cheers Maxie! Another brilliant piece IMHO. I’m feeling humbled by it!!!
Thanks, Annie.
Maxie your last paragraph gets to the nub of the issue. All along we have been accused of being one trick ponies. “It’s all about KP” but it isn’t.
Increasingly as more and more dribbles out, we see the last Ashes was a complete Shambles. Swann now admits he should not have gone on the tour so soon after an operation. He is just one of a number of bowlers Flower took with him who were not fit for purpose. Tremlett was no way near what he was 4 years before. Funny how the England coach and selectors did not spot this. Never mind poor old Finn who couldn’t bowl a ball even in the nets..
And that is before you come onto the issue of Trots health, or any sort of plan to deal with Johnson. What the frig was Flower doing? Apart from 87 page diet sheets. Well, we now know. He was compiling or getting someone else to compile a 24 hour surveillance on KPs every move. Why? Who knows. But it seems he had become obsessed by him , and had a determination to get him out of the team at all costs.
The result of all this chaos has seen no inquiry into the tour. The leading batsman sacked, and the coach promoted to some sort of supreme role of all English cricket. And a weak and very poor captain held up as Spartacus. Priceless.
In fairness, Flower brought in Tymal Mills for the nets to replicate the threat of Johnson, but I take your point.
But as you say, what does seem peculiar – with the team 4-0 down and problems coming out of his ears – that Flower put so much effort into observing Pietersen minutiae.
So Trott had issues, Swann had a bad elbow and could not bowl, Finn was wrecked and nearly ruined, Panesar ignored and treated as lower than the dust beneath the chariot wheels, Prior injured….just WHAT precisely do the coach, selectors, doctors etc do for their money?
I would also like an answer to that question.
They compile dossiers, and shop at Waitrose. ;-)
Dossiers or doosiers?
Sorry, I’ll get my coat…
Okay Okay! Who’s a clever boy then! very good! :)
Well I laughed out loud. Ha ha ha!
Wonderful turns of phrases there Elaine. Says it all. As to the question you posed, being a polite lady of mature years, I think my answer would be Foxtrot Alfa!!!
Pietersen is very adamant in his book that it was neither Cook nor Flower who was keen on his “reintegration”, but Giles Clarke. He claims Clarke’s motive was that he was very keen for England to win in India, and that a loss there would be “a price to pay politically.
He also mentions that he could have sued when he was refused a central contract before the India tour. He does get one in the end (he insists it was for a year although the media reported it as a four-month contract). He says that the reintegration “interviews” were Flower’s idea, and is clear that Flower hoped that if he made them humiliating enough, Pietersen would walk out of them.
*Some of my posts in The Guardian suggested that KP flew back from Dubai for the reintegration meetings. This should have said Durban!
That makes a lot of sense Clive. It is a quite clear now, and has been backed up by the likes of Swann that Flower did not want KP brought back into the side. The so called reintegration was about making it as humiliating as possible. It is also now clear with the dossier that a strategy was put in place to drive KP out of the team. This included making life with England really unpleasant. ( turning down personal requests over family. Playing hardball with contracts. Allowing a fake twitter account to ridicule him within the dressing-room. Leaking to the media Etc,etc) non of this worked because KP would not walk away.
So in the end they waited until a huge defeat for the team could be blamed on him alone. I hesitate to suggest that Flower set up the whole Ashes disaster just to get rid of him. But when you look at the shambles that tour was, and the total lack of plan you do have to pose the question. Was Flower secretly pleased they finally had the excuse they always wanted to get rid of him for good?
I’m sorry Maxie, but only printing the parts of Steve Harmison’s articlethat fit in with your theories is in danger of putting you in the same league as those in the cricket media that you detest.
Harmison also said in his piece:
“Is that bullying? I’m not so sure.”
Of KP, he said…
“This is something that has to be said about KP. If he didn’t rate or like you, then he wasn’t interested.
I’m not saying he was a bully, and we will come to that subject in a moment, but I saw for myself the way he could behave towards guys that ‘weren’t up to it.”
He didn’t give James Taylor or Michael Carberry much of chance. KP wasn’t afraid to criticise.”
You’ve taken snippets of an article that fit with your analysis and ignored the larger part of what is a balanced article that spends a lot of time praising Andy Flower – which obviously doesn’t fit in with the way that TFT wants him to be portrayed.
There’s plenty of ammunition against the ECB without making stuff up.
Please keep TFT a balanced and honest forum for all England cricket fans.
Quite extraordinary. Maxie was quoting Harmison comments to support what he says. Quite a conventional thing to do. This is a blog not a thesis. People often quote Churchill but don’t include a chunk from all his published works “for balance”. Really don’t understand the “making stuff up” comment. Looks like you’re just spoiling for a fight.
Correct!
Hi Hamish – that’s why I hyperlinked the original article, so anyone interested could read the quotes in the original context and make up their own minds.
My point was not that bullying is a proven case – far from it – but there’s enough corroboration to justify a proper ECB response.
If I selectively quoted, then maybe so have you, because I could have also used these lines:
“Andy has let down KP. And the ECB have let down the whole of English cricket.
“KP and I played on the same team for many years. I always got on with him and I’d like to think he liked me. He is a great lad
“There is some truth in the accusation, made in the book, that Andy ran it like a dictatorship”.
Bears repeating what Harmison (oh he of the slower ball to Clarke, for wjich we are truly grateful, Amen) said: ““Andy has let down KP. And the ECB have let down the whole of English cricket.”
“KP and I played on the same team for many years. I always got on with him and I’d like to think he liked me. He is a great lad”
“There is some truth in the accusation, made in the book, that Andy ran it like a dictatorship”.
Indeed! Benny has made a very valid point here. It is not a thesis. What Maxie and James and Dmitri – bless ’em all – do in their pieces is to dig out the things that the ECB conveniently air bush out and/or ignore. Incidentally, the piece by Harmison may well have gone under the wire given it was recorded in a local paper. I tweeted Nick Hoult and he told me he had forgotten about it and he was there.
IMO – not feeling humble again – what TFT and DO do is to look at everything and then try and give the other side of the coin. What they don’t do is turn opinion and hearsay into fact.
When Harmison says “I saw for myself the way he could behave towards guys that ‘weren’t up to it'”, there is no reason to doubt his word. However, the examples he gives — “Taylor or Carberry” — aren’t very strong, are they? Given that Harmison could know about these only at second hand, at best.
a totally disengeious comment, does Hamish work for the Sun?
When Harmison was playing, KP was very young, brash, arrogant and trying to prove himself. Harmison was a great lad, quiet and gorgeous (sorry, strike that!). But Harmison does say that KP was, (I think), the greatest player he’d ever played with? Harmison did also accept that whether it was, in truth, “bullying”, there was substance to it. Harmison then gives the evidence of the “shrinking violet” Stuart Broad’s fear of getting a phone call from Flower!!!
I don’t think Maxie or James are ever “unbalanced” in their pieces. They tell it like it is.
[…] discussed this topic so extensively of late that I won’t delve into it again, save to ask this: what is dignified or correct […]
[…] Make that seventeen days of silence, and […]