Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose: day three at Old Trafford

moeen-action_3001846b

Let’s start with some of the many positives. Pretty much every member of the England side contributed in some way, often substantially, to an utterly emphatic victory. Anderson and Broad were excellent. Moeen continues to take wickets. Bell and Root batted well, while Buttler (what a player he might become) was very impressive.

England have managed to haul themselves back from a dire position to one of commanding strength, and will win the series 3-1 at the Oval.

But there’s a negative. We are now stuck with Alastair Cook as captain until the end of next summer’s Ashes. On him rest the nation’s hopes of regaining the urn.

Is that such a bad thing? Doesn’t Cook deserve huge credit for the transformation he has wrought? Why should I be so churlish when the side  has seemingly done so well? Why can’t I, as Prince of Porcupine suggested after the Ageas Bowl victory, “enjoy the team’s success”?

There are several reasons. For a start, Cook is the on-field representation of an ECB management who have lost the public’s trust and continue to treat the team’s supporters with high-handed contempt.

For all the talk of a new era, Cook’s survival locks England in the past. It sustains and vindicates the now discredited philosophy of Flowerism, reincarnated in the guise of his acolyte Peter Moores. And it binds Team England within Paul Downton’s mindset: the best approach for the future is simply to carry on repeating the mistakes of the past, while fooling themselves that a blend of management speak, aping rugby teams, and doing whatever Andy Flower says, represents progress.

In short, Cook’s survival papers over the cracks – cracks which might quickly widen into yawning chasms when the Australians arrive next year.

At this point you might say – but if the team are winning, what more can they do? And doesn’t Cook himself deserve huge credit for the recent upturn in performance?

Cook has captained sensibly in the last two tests, but the circumstances have told us little about his underlying abilities. The merit of a captain, and a system, reveal themselves when put under pressure – and pressure was there none, neither at Southampton nor Old Trafford.

England won the first of those games because they scored heavily in the first innings, after which Anderson bowled very well. In the second, the opening bowling spell reduced India to 8-4, making victory virtually inevitable.

Cook may deserve some of the credit for his bowlers’ improved lines and lengths, but getting the basics right hardly amounts to an act of genius. And captaincy is a much easier business when the opposition play poorly, when you can apply scoreboard pressure, and when your bowlers are rampant.  His faults are revealed when the going gets tough. This is when he has no Plan B; when he exerts no authority and loses control in the field; when he persists with ineffective, negative or clueless tactics; when he is unable to communicate a plan to his bowlers; when he stands around gormlessly while tail-enders run amok.

Next summer, when Australia apply severe pressure, they will expose the weaknesses not only of Cook himself but the system he symbolises and enshrines. In other words, the Team England ethic of spreadsheets and databases, of insularity and stubbornness, of flogging your best players into the ground, and of picking your mates when they’re unfit but discarding anyone who shows individuality.

If you think I’m being too harsh – at a time of joyous England victory – ask yourself this: how would Michael Clarke feel if Alastair Cook was replaced?

Then there is the argument of an ‘agenda’. Yes, people of my view do have an agenda. In February Alastair Cook sold one of England’s most accomplished cricketers down the river. Either he was too weak to manage Pietersen, or too weak to object to his sacking. Either way, he put management (and maybe himself) before his players. He was party – actively or supinely – to a vindictive act of treachery, and with that decision he lost not only his ‘nice guy’ defence but his innocence. Move on? There can be no moving on until the people responsible (which includes Cook) either try to heal the wounds or are held to account.

So to accuse Cook’s critics of an ‘agenda’ is rather like saying the Metropolitan Police had an ‘agenda’ when they tracked down poor old Dr Crippen instead of letting him sail off to Canada.

As for the state of the series, the manner in which India have unravelled is unedifying to behold. It almost makes you wonder how England managed to lose a test to them in the first place.

I see a very slight parallel with the winter Ashes, during which England suffered so many setbacks, bad luck, self-inflicted mistakes, and poor batting form, that soon they completely disintegrated. India have given up more quickly and more shabbily than England did, but there are a few factors in common: losing a key player (Ishant Sharma), dropping vital catches, and ill-fortune (Bell’s LBW reprieve at the Ageas Bowl).

Rather like the way England began to subside to Nathan Lyon, who’s frankly no great shakes, India are also collapsing to an unheralded off-spinner in the form of the talented but inexperienced Moeen Ali.

Meanwhile, I’m grateful to Dmitri Old’s blog and his contributors (especially CliveJW, I think) for flagging up a story which underlines just how fastidious the ECB can be when they really care about something.

As George Dobell reported on Cricinfo:

“Cricket Australia has removed a video from its website after the ECB alleged it breached copyright.

“ESPNcricinfo understands that the ECB contacted CA to express its concerns after cricket.com.au ran a video entitled “Future dire for Prior”, which featured a montage of mistakes by the former England wicketkeeper, Matt Prior, set to music.

“Not only did the ECB feel the tone of the montage was inappropriate for a national cricket board, but it pointed out that the footage was the property of News International, which owns the broadcaster Sky, and the ECB.

“While CA contested that the montage was part of a legitimate news agenda – and therefore appropriate for use – it agreed to remove it.

“CA also defended the tone of the piece. While the ECB felt the images, which showed a series of fumbles by Prior without any attempt to explain his injury issues, was mocking and not appropriate for a national board, CA insists that it reflected a debate taking place in the UK media”.

It’s heartening to see the ECB stick up for the people who really matter – News International, who being such vulnerable wee lambs obviously need all the succour they can get.

Three other observations leap out. Clearly the ECB are now no longer content merely to control the English cricket media (funny how Shane Warne suddenly went quiet about Cook), and now expect censorship rights over anyone, anywhere, who has the temerity to discuss the England team in less than respectful tones.

And it’s interesting how quickly they’ve acted to avoid hurting the feelings of Matt Prior, who in any event is not even in the team. If Cricket Australia had assembled a similar package about Michael Carberry, Monty Panesar, or, yes, Kevin Pietersen, would they have done the same?

And most importantly, if Prior’s fumbles should have been explained and excused by his “injury issues”, this means the selectors knew about his injuries, and knew they were affecting his form. So why did they keep picking him?

55 comments

  • I’m bloody annoyed with India because they’ve made England look good and have kept Cook in place for ever – is there no respite from this tedium??

    and what’s this ?

    “he footage was the property of News International, which owns the broadcaster Sky, and the ECB.” surely the ECB ‘owns’ Sky?

  • If you can brook no criticism from any quarter, at any time, then you have something to hide!

  • Agree there’s a risk that easy wins against poor opposition could be seen as papering over the cracks to an extent, but we won’t know that until the Aussies show up. Perhaps Cook is an improving captain? We’ll just have to wait and see.

    I can’t agree with the argument that Cook lost the moral highground over Pietersen. Yes I think the ECB behaved shockingly, and used him as a scapegoat, but I imagine Cook supported the decision for understandable reasons: (a) having agreed to continue as skipper, he didn’t want a critic in the dressing room (this makes Cook weak and unsure of himself, but it’s hardly an immoral stance), and (b) he was in a weak position and in no position to argue with his employers’ wishes. He was lucky to keep his job and had no leverage even if he wanted to keep Pietersen in the side.

    Re: the Prior video, this was a story that emerged a couple of weeks ago. What the Aussies did was in appalling taste, below the belt, and was rightly condemned by most sensible people, but I think you’re probably reading too much into the ECB statement. Yes they fall back on that sickening corporate speak far too much, but they probably felt it better to make some kind of legal objection than to simply say ‘you idiotic crude bunch of yobs’. Either way the result was the same: the Aussies took down the video. And to be honest, I’m glad someone representing English cricket had the balls to make an official objection.

    • Agree with James on this one, that’s not to say I don’t agree with everything you say Maxie, I respect your views and I enjoy reading all blogs here.

      I just don’t see ‘Cooks survival locking England in the past’ if anything this summer they have taken a huge step forward to the future, 7 young players and 4 senior players certainly has a fresh feel to things.

      I can’t comment on whether the ECB is corrupt, I haven’t heard enough to have an entrenched position either way (something I try not to do) most sports are headed by flawed rich white men and I’d suggest F1 and FIFA would be well served to rid theirs for instance… Could you explain exactly what your issue with Downtown is? Are the ECB not investing in grass roots cricket, ticket prices too high, wrong selection?

      …anyway saying England won only because India were poor, Anderson bowled well and they scored runs in the innings is of course absolutely true and not really a stick to beat Cook with. There were many other factors and performances it would be remiss not to mention. I’m sure Clarke & Lehman would be miffed if we suggested the Aussies only won the ashes because Mitchell turned up, kind of true, but doesn’t tell the whole story, credit where credits due.

      On another note, great to hear about Bell coaching Moeen over the summer, seems to have made some encouraging strides forward.

  • James
    how would you feel if someone objected to your rather obsequious post and had it taken down?
    the ecb appear to have too much power over everything and as an adult I don’t expect them to make choices on my behalf – the aussies should have stood their ground

    • I think the Aussies took it down because they belatedly realised it was a bad joke and they didn’t want to cause a bigger incident. The ECB aren’t my favourite people by any means, but I think asking a fellow cricket board to take down an insulting video about one of their players is entirely reasonable and not an example of trying to control ‘the message’. I agree the ECB are too media conscious, and that is one of the reason they’ve lost touch with the fans, but I don’t think this particular incident qualifies as a good example. It’s a rational and reasonable stance. Whether they would’ve asked them to remove the video if it was a montage of KP dismissals is another matter ;-) but I think they should have objected no matter who the player involved was.

      • The ECB are showing all the signs of megalomania. They will not allow anything to be broadcast that contravenes the message. Hell, even Shane Warne has had to repent and seek forgiveness in order to commentate on Sky. This action by the ECB stinks – whether the video was ‘a bad joke’ or ‘appalling taste’ presumably your comments are neither here nor there – this is just another act of vindictive nastiness by the ECB. It is not an isolated event rather is a continuation of the ‘dominance/hegemony’ of the message

        • I’m convinced Warne was nobbled. What else led to his phone call to Cook? There was a peculiar photo of Warne with Downton on the outfield before the start of play in one of the last two or three tests. Anyone remember seeing that – can’t find it now on Google.

  • Winning brings confidence. I hope Fine comes in at the expense of Woakes, I agree with Sir Geoffrey that he doesn’t look test quality, and I’d marginally put Jordan ahead of him.

    I wonder too if Robson will be put out of his misery.

  • It’s not so much Cook himself I find strange,but the way Cook is portrayed and protected by both the ECB and the cricket media. It is not Cook the Captain, but Cook the cult. And it is a cult, a very weird cult indeed. I have been watching English cricket for over 40 years and I have never seen an England captain so protected and who’s errors are so covered up.

    Apparently we can thank Cook (according to the media) for turning Moeen into a great bowler. He and Bell “had a word with him ” and now we have a spin genius on our hands all thanks to Cook. Of course this ignores the reality that Cook handled Moeen very poorly in the early part of the Summer. 1 and 2 over spells where Moeen could get no confidence. We are now told to believe that Cook. “had a word with him” and now we have the new Swann on our hands. All down to the genius that is Cook. And Cooks word is very special. He had a word with Balance after his night club singing , and now Karaoke Gary is in the Cooky club. Does Cook have a hereditary line back to Jesus?

    The media is also self congratulating themselves, and the selectors,and Cook for the debut of Josh Butler (a star is born) Yet they convienietly air brush out of history the fact that according to Cook, after Butlers one day 100 at lords “he was not ready for test match cricket.” In addition if it had been left to Cook , Matt Prior would still be playing. “It’s up to him if he wants to stand down.”

    And then we have a governing body that intervenes in the editorial independence of the host broadcaster ( who pays the ECB a small fortune for the TV rights.) to stop a commentator criticising Cook. This is very wierd. And all this before you get into certain ECB journalists obsession with Cook the ladies man, who has all the home county debutantes swooning. Never mind Cook is happily married. This is very creepy, cult stuff.

    As I say it’s not so much Cook the man, but Cook the cult that has been constructred by the ECB and their tame media that is so odd. Remember its obligatory to mention in every article that Cook “is a really decent chap, a really good bloke.” I’m afraid I get a bit suspicious when a line is constantly been pushed,especially when the evidence is contrary.

    • “Alastair Cook’s England”. That’s the brand. Like Jamie Oliver’s frying pans.

      At the heart of so much of supporters’ current unhappiness is the feeling that their national team has become a private business. ECB press releases are now infomercials for a cricket-flavoured product and our function is to be its consumers.

      But even so, the cult around Cook is quite, quite odd. Not least because the participants aren’t teenage girls, but middle-aged men.

      • It’s not just a lack of objectivity around his captaincy. His batting is also discussed in strangely revered tones. I wrote about this a few weeks ago in an article entitled ‘The Cult of Alastair Cook’ http://bit.ly/1sMFPGL. His record is no better than Trott, Bell and Pietersen’s, yet he’s treated like a special case, and always has been. These other players are / were given nowhere near as much slack.

      • ” the cult around Cook is quite, quite odd. Not least because the participants aren’t teenage girls, but middle-aged men.”

        BINGO!!

        That is what is so creepy. How many more odd articles about his lack of sweating? Or his shoe size? Freud could write a library about this stuff.

    • Excellent stuff, Mark – you hit the nail on the head: a personality cult has grown up around him. I can’t really understand why – it doesn’t chime with the views of the general public. People who care less about this kind of stuff than the BTL community tend to be ambivalent about Cook, not adoring.

      • Maxie/Mark,
        So let me get this straight. All and sundry criticised Cook (rightly) during the Sri Lanka series for not handling Moeen well. And now that we’re faced with some evidence (19 wickets in 4 tests) that Cook and Moeen may actually be getting on the same page, we’re going to dismiss that too as part of a nefarious ECB plot? You’d rather ignore the good news (that Cook may be learning to do the very thing we wanted him to do) and concentrate on a pretty meaningless quote? And what of the quote? Is it so inconceivable that working with 2 of England’s best batsmen would have helped a little? Seems pretty logical to me. That doesn’t have to mean that Cook has been the “saviour” of Moeen, or any other such nonsense.
        I’m still deeply sceptical about Cook as a captain – but I’m not so far gone that I can’t give him some credit where it appears to be due.

        • Hi Kev – in fairness I said Cook captained sensibly in the last two tests, but I don’t understand why he’s being given so much praise just for getting the basics right. He’s played in more than 100 tests and captained in 27. That makes him one of the more experienced England skippers of all time. You can’t imagine Michael Clarke earning plaudits for remembering to bowl his spinner.

          My point is that Cook is hopeless under pressure – and I suspect we will see that in evidence when the Australians arrive.

          • Who’s giving him ‘so much praise’? I haven’t heard or read that anywhere. I thought the general consensus was the last two tests have been a good team performance against a limited Indian side and that England are starting to win because the senior players (inc. Cook) have come to the party.

            What I find interesting about cricket is there are always two sides to see a win, or even a dismissal. For instance the tale of Virat Kohli… one could see he’s in ‘poor nick’ ‘given his wicket away’ etc. or you could say England’s bowling plans to him have been well thought and effective, in truth it’s probably a bit of both.

            • Cook scored 17 in the last test – something the media have completely ignored – maybe because Cook is back on top of his game – there’s no proof he is though – wish the Australians were coming tomorrow!!!!

            • The media who are uncritically repeating Moores’ assertion that Cook is “a special captain” who gets “steelier” by the day are who this is being aimed at.

          • Maxie,
            But it’s a circular argument. “Cook is a crap captain – therefore any praise he gets for improving is undeserved because he should have been able to do it right in the first place”. The man can’t win. It’s the lack of perspective from both sides in this whole debate that bugs me – and not just about Cook. English cricket at the moment seems to resemble US politics, where all the arguments seem to have to be dialled up to 11 to the detriment of all concerned.
            Cook probably won’t be a great captain. At best he could be a Ricky Ponting, who could lead by example and volume of runs. And you know what? In this era where test captains seem to have to learn on the job, that would be a pretty good outcome. Worked OK for Graeme Smith too, just quietly. There are also small signs that Cook’s captaincy is improving. Let’s take those for what they are and hope it continues. No more and no less.
            You cite Clarke as an example, and he’s certainly a fine captain, but that didn’t help him when the Aussies got stuffed 4-0 in India, and it didn’t stop him making a ridiculous declaration at the Oval that nearly gave England the game on a plate. I loved George Dobell’s point the other day – that creating a culture where players feel relaxed and supported enough to play their best is so much more important than where you put your mid wicket. And there’s no reason why Cook can’t foster that kind of environment. I’d add to that by saying that Cook scoring big runs at the top of the order would also be much more important.
            I’m more optimistic than you about the Ashes. I think the Aussies can be beaten, in our conditions, particularly if Harris is an injury doubt. But of all the things that will make a difference between the two sides, I honestly think that on-field captaincy will be the least of it.

            • Yes, if we’re going to look ahead to the Ashes what’s much more concerning than Cooks conservative captaincy is our batsmen’s weakness against the short ball.

          • Absolutely Maxie, he gets praised, no eulogised,for just doing the basics. All the while his mistakes are airbrushed out of history. He has been captain for over 2 years for gawds sake.

            He is is a terrible man manager, his treatment of Mooen at the start of the summer was poor. He bowled him as a back up bowler for short periods, and even when he got a wicket Cook quickly removed him from the attack and brought back his ‘proper bowlers.’ (What does that do for his confidence?). He famously told the world that Butler “was not ready for Test match cricket” on the very same day Butler had scored a magnificent 100 at Lords. (Even if you thought that, surely as captain you use diplomacy and keep it to yourself) Interestingly Peter Moores backed away from that 1 week later. Or you hold a players meeting in Australia to air players views without managers being there, then mysteriously players comments find their way straight back to said managers immediately. (But hey is a great bloke a really nice guy) funny how his fans have to keep telling us that.

            Or how about his handling of Kerrigan! Discarded after 1 Match. Not even given a bowl in the second innings? What is odd is this zero tolerance of others errors and mistakes is not applied to Cook himself. His poor form and crap captaincy was just allowed to go on and on constantly ignored by his army of cult worship groupies in the media. Those who pointed out his flaws were told they were idiots and morons. The extraordinary lengths ECB will go to protect him. Even bringing pressure to Sky to tone down criticism of Cook. If they do that to Sky who pay a fortune for TV rights what are they doing to BBC radio or newspaper journos desperate for access?

            Cook is what he is. He can’t help who is. He is a poor man manager and a crap captain. Nothing unusual about that. There are plenty like him in middle management all over the UK. What is weird is the cult of Cook, and how it is promoted and protected like Royalty. That is the interesting issue, Why? My theory, for what it is worth is that the hatred of KP is so great in English cricket that the man who slayed him will forever be given sainthood. And for that deed we are all now stuck with Cook until after next years Ashes.

            • “The hatred of KP is so great in English cricket that the man who slayed him will forever be given sainthood”

              Just one example – but far from the only one – of the dialled up to 11 rhetoric that I was referring to. This kind of tosh is impossible to engage with.

              • Fine, you don’t agree with my theory. So please give me a reason why the cult of Cook is so powerful in current English cricket? Why is he allowed to fail again and again and anyone who dares to question this is either silenced, or called morons by ECB supporting journalists?

                I give examples of his poor man management. Why are these glossed over? Why is failure in others not tolerated but Captain Cook is immune? Bell has had a lean period at the early part of the summer and straight away The Mail (whose cricket writer Newman is a Cook cultist) starts banging the drum for Bell to perform or be dropped. How many 100s was Bell making last year? 3 against Australia. When did Cook last score a 100? It’s got so bad he got a standing ovation for reaching 50 at Southampton.

                It stinks, yet no one can explain why he is treated like a deity. I have never seen an England captain so protected and worshiped. It is very odd and very creepy. But no one can explain it.

              • Mark,
                There are a few reasons – but none of them fit the black and white narrative that’s currently dominating English cricket, so you probably won’t agree with me. But here goes.
                Firstly, like it or not, the available captaincy alternatives come with at least as many downsides as Cook. Root? Captained one game in which the opposition chased down 400 and plenty. Bell? No evidence that he either wants the job or could do it better. Morgan? Probably wouldn’t get into the team on merit. Which is not to say that they might not be worth a try – but none of them present a convincingly better case than Cook. The available options – including Cook – are all messy, with shades of grey, which is precisely what most of the debate is not.
                Of course there’s an element of self-interest in Downton and Moores’ thinking. I’m not blind to that – but in pure cricketing terms the case to keep Cook exists and is, in my view, stronger than the alternatives available right now.
                As for Cook’s runs the man himself said his position would be untenable if he didn’t score some runs and we lost the series. Two failures and a bad loss at the Oval and it still might be. Yes, Cook has had a long period of grace – but so did Nasser Hussain in 2000/01 when his form was worse. Oh, and Nasser didn’t even have the old-school-tie card to play, so there goes that theory too.
                As for this all-encompassing hatred of KP, the facts are that the man played 104 tests, 136 ODI’s and 37 T20’s over 9 years. So your cabal of haters have been horribly inefficient in achieving their so-called intent.
                Personally I think the decision to finish KP was marginal at best, but I could totally see why it was made. And I can promise you that far from being a KP-hater, he has been absolutely my favourite England batsman to watch since 2005.
                My point in all this is just to say that the current debate, on this site and others, is almost cartoonishly black and white. Whereas the reality is much more complicated and exists more in a shade of grey. There is a case to keep Cook. There is a case to sack him. There was a case to sack KP. There is a case to keep him. None of the cases are overwhelming which is why they’re such tough decisions to make. I just don’t think that demonising one side or the other, or ignoring the complexities involved, is helpful.

              • “My point in all this is just to say that the current debate, on this site and others, is almost cartoonishly black and white. ”

                Absolutely spot on. Almost to the point where there’s no point reading anything that goes over old ground.

              • Kevin, fair play that is a balanced response, even if I don’t agree with all of it.

                Let me start by saying I’m not a KP /Piers Morgan lover. In fact I’m quite neutral on KP. He is finished as an England player and will never play again. So I don’t long for Cook to go so that KP might come back. He is 35 years old and has no form.Ain’t going to happen. But there is something about KP that seems to drive the pro ECB/Cook cabal round the bend. Just look at Pringles latest article. Even after a good win for England he still has to rub the KP issue in the face of Cooks critics. For all their talk, it is still all about Kevin for the pro ECB brigade. That is why I make the claim that Cook will be given sainthood for slaying him. And if sainthood is to extreme, at least immunity from criticism.

                Since Strauss retired Cook has seen off Compton 2 hundreds in 8 matches. (Weird muttering about not fitting in) Joe Root, (down the order/dropped/brought back/ down the order) Carvery(dropped/ muttering about not fitting in) as opening batsman. Robson is the latest opener in the firing line.

                After the lords debacle the man in the firing line was Bell. (Again weird muttering about bonding/not scoring runs) Poor old Bell, he only scored 3 hundreds in last years Ashes, and batting wise single handed won the ashes. But England were on the ropes and a scapegoat was needed.

                As for the argument that there is no one else but Cook, I understand it, but reject it. There is always some one else. Are we saying that if Cook broke a leg tomorrow ECB would say “England will take to the field with no captain, because there is no one else.” ECB don’t WANT anyone else. But that is different from saying there is no one else.

                England captains come and go. Some good, some poor, occasionally some great. But I have never seen such protection for any other captain. Brearley was given stick for his own form even if his captaincy was praised. Nasser’s form was an issue,but generally his captaincy was praised as tough, no nonsense. Cook however,for the last 2 years has not delivered with either bat or captaincy. Yet only in the margins are the critics allowed to be heard. Reduced to blog sites like this because the media is so on message with ECB/COOK/MOORES/FLOWER/PLC.

              • The 1st year of Cook’s captaincy showed 3 series won, 1 drawn, none lost and he was averaging in the high 40s with 5 centuries in 14 tests.

                You’re in danger of misrepresenting the facts as badly as those you are so critical of.

              • In the last year, the Ashes was a disaster where only one England player performed well, Sri Lanka was a series that should have been won and Cook’s form with bat and as captain was woeful. There have been signs that his form with bat and on the field has improved in the last two tests – it remains to be seen whether this is a blip or a genuine upsurge in form.

                Don’t re-write history to try and prove your point.

              • All fair and interesting points, but whose fault is it that the debate has become so polarised? Do the ECB concede Cook’s flaws? No, they trumpet him to the hilt, including rather desperate nonsense about him being “brilliant” in the dressing room while Moeen Ali was making his century at Headingley. For the ECB, there is only black and white – Cook’s credentials are vastly exaggerated, and at the same time, so are Pietersen’s alleged sins. Apart from grudgingly conceding he played some good innings, since February 4th the ECB have offered not a single word of concession towards Pietersen, only a stream of bile, lies, and snide doses of poison leaked to journalists.

            • What’s also peculiar about the Cult of Cook is that from an external perspective it’s hard to see what’s so compellingly attractive about him. He’s not exactly very charismatic, dynamic, or exudes personal magnetism. In fact, comes across as being quite dull and workmanlike. Not that he should be judged as a captain by this yardstick, but at press conferences and in interviews he comes up with the most banal cliches, but usually mangled into something which only just makes sense.

              Nice guy? You don’t see exceptionally strong evidence of that by outward appearances. Quite often (but not always) he appears more than slightly sanctimonious and self-pitying (eg the Warne outburst.

              Part of my problem with Cook is how and why he was identified so early as the next captain, despite the fact he showed no obvious disposition for the job at any stage.

              • Bang on Maxie! This is the great mystery. Why is he so revered? And why is he fawned over like a Greek God? If the media said openly, look there is no one else (not that I buy this argument) so we will cut him some slack I could see the logic. But it goes way further than that. There is a stench of the Emperors new cloths about the way he is treated. And I feel like the kid who said “you are naked, you haven’t anything on.”

                Apart from the fall out from the KP civil war it seems to be connected to an image the ECB wants to project. And image, and sponsorship money is very important to the ECB. At the end of David Beckhams career there was a conspiracy theory that he had to be in the England squad because the sponsors demanded it. Tosh I’m sure, but in these cynical corporate times you do wonder.

  • Well the proof of the steely pudding will only be tested against teams able to put Cook under pressure.

    At the moment you have two teams captained by arguably the two worst captains in test cricket.

    I await the forthcoming Ashes with interest.

    • ‘At the moment you have two teams captained by arguably the two worst captains in test cricket.’

      Yes, it’s actually quite funny that the supporters of both sides are saying such similar things about their respective captains, especially when they lose of course.

      However, Dhoni is an outstanding captain in ODIs, Cook not so much.

      • “However, Dhoni is an outstanding captain in ODIs, Cook not so much.”

        Which is something we’ll probably get to see for ourselves later in the summer, now that England are winning again and Cook’s position is shored up.

        What annoys me most is that when England win, Cook’s contribution to that is lauded to the skies; yet when they lose, many people in the ECB/media are quick to absolve him of responsibility. Surely you can’t have it both ways?

          • Both sides sometimes try to have it both ways. Whilst it’s true that Cook supporters praise him when the team wins but absolve him from blame when we lose, his detractors criticise him heavily when England lose but say it’s because of others when we win. No wonder the camps are so polarised! :-)

            • The “wins” have, for over a year, been when batters other than Cook have made runs to enable scoreboard pressure. During the Ashes series in England, it is noticeable that on both occasions when Australia batted first and put serious runs on the board, England were paralysed and started to play for a draw or bad weather. Do you think that Cookie could handle a situation when the opposition were chasing 180 on a wearing 5th day pitch? He has had 27 matches as captain – a whole year’s worth of experience in the old days of the county championship (plus all those test matches he played as ball-polisher). I wouldn’t trust him with the boiling of an egg nor the toasting of a pea and carrot toastie. His obit…”from ball-polisher to tongue-in-chief.”

              • “Do you think that Cookie could handle a situation when the opposition were chasing 180 on a wearing 5th day pitch?”

                No.

                “He has had 27 matches as captain – a whole year’s worth of experience in the old days of the county championship”.

                Only ten men have ever captained England in more matches than Cook. He was out-captained Mike Gatting, Len Hutton, and Colin Cowdrey.

    • Vaughan is still learning the perils of over-committing as a media commentator, that’s all – no conspiracy I think.

      There’s a respectable defence to changing your mind anyway. ‘When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?’ (J.M. Keynes, on changing his views about the Great Depression). The information, in this case, being two convincing England victories.

      For those familiar with event cycles and mass psychology (stock markets, sporting results etc.) it was in fact plain to see, in retrospect, that England and Cook were ‘oversold’ after Lords. Everyone had given up and even neutrals were beginning to climb on the bandwagon of ‘Cook must go’. That was the moment when the Warren Buffetts amongst us ought to have been buying up England’s stock price (as it were).

  • Thanks to all of you for taking the time to comment and contribute to the debate. Blogs such as this are nothing without your involvement, and it’s great to see a mix of new and old faces on this thread. Sorry we’ve not had time to respond to every comment.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting