Start As You Mean To Go On

load of rubbish

Well that was crap. We bowled like Muppets and batted like clowns. It was the Kermit and Krusty show.

Where to begin? There are so many things wrong with the England ODI setup. We have the wrong captain (by which I mean the captain arguably shouldn’t be in the side) and the wrong coach too.

Why on earth do the ECB expect a coach who’s never won a single limited overs trophy in his supposedly illustrious domestic career to win a World Cup? It’s a bit like asking a GCSE biology teacher to win the Nobel prize for chemistry.

I just don’t see any kind of coherent plan. Even the selection of a new opening pair, with the deserving Hales finally getting a call up, has no logic. Hear me out ….

Hales has been drafted in to get England off to flyers and compensate for the solid (also known as dull and pedestrian) batting of his captain. Yet if you look behind the stats, Hales’ strike rate is actually less than 100 in power plays, and only accelerates up to 150-odd in the middle overs – particularly when spinners come on.

Hales is therefore actually being asked to do something that isn’t natural to him. He does so well for Notts because Michael Lumb invariably goes like the clappers at the other end.

What England actually need is two positive openers. With Cook and Bell in the top three, there is too much pressure on Hales. What’s more, if he fails, the two slowest openers in ODI cricket last year will be reunited in the middle.

England’s plan of picking three test batsmen in the top four is based on the theory that orthodox players will win the world cup. They use two new white balls (one from each end) in ODIs, so England believe they need ‘proper’ batsmen to withstand the inevitable early onslaught from the bowling sides.

This way of thinking, by its very nature, is conservative. It shows we’re worried about what the opposition might do to us rather than what our batsman can do to the opposition.

What’s more, it’s equally viable (if not more so) to argue that the new white ball is the easiest time to score: it’s when the field is up and the ball is at its hardest. Two hard new balls means attacking shots will whistle to the boundary for twice as long.

But England don’t think like that, do they. They get stuck in a quagmire of over analysis and, err, bollocks (it seemed like swearing here was the most appropriate thing to do).

I don’t want to turn this into another Cook debate but it’s impossible not to mention his personal contribution. It took him 27 deliveries to find the middle of that bat. His strike rate after facing six overs (30 balls) was less than 50.

When you’re chasing 300, you simply cannot afford starts like this. Cook is so obviously out of form, and his method looks anachronistic at the best of times, so why does he have to play every single bloody game?

Why oh why have the ECB written a law in stone that says Cook is the face of English cricket and must play, come what may, irrespective of the format? The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and unless he can metamorphose into someone capable of scoring faster than 78 runs per 100 balls, he’ll be a burden this team can ill afford.

There’s even a ready-made replacement as captain waiting in the shape of Eoin Morgan. The no alternative argument is therefore as empty as Cook’s run column.

If Cook was the only test player in the lineup then perhaps he would merit a place in the side. However, there is probably only room for one or two of Cook, Bell and Root.

I’m not going to put Ballance in the same bracket, as his List A record is extremely impressive with a strike rate of 90. That’s streets ahead of the Cook and Bell.

Ballance is not the stodgy player he appears to be in test matches. He can definitely move through the gears when needed. In fact, he shows the versatility that modern day cricketers need.

Ballance also used to open as a junior cricketer. Maybe he should be Hales’ opening partner? This is definitely something England should try …. but … but … (read this next bit in a whiny voice) “what about the skipper”. Pout.

England’s other big problem is an inability to play spin. I’ll leave this one for another day. I’d never shut up.

It’s also a bit of a worry that we don’t have any variation in the seam bowling department. All our seamers are right armers who are approximately 6ft 2 inns tall and deliver the ball at 85 mph.

If only we had a decent left armer. Yes we’ve got Harry Gurney, but I said ‘decent’ left armer.

Anyway, I’d better sign off before the blood vessels in my head burst.

Blood vessels. Blood Wessels. Reminds me of a cricket joke I used to know. A “pretty awful” one in fact.

Shame England are an even worse joke.

James Morgan

96 comments

  • A. Cult has responded to Swann’s criticism of him as one day captain by saying he thought he was a “so called friend.” This is all starting to sound like the “something should be done ” outburst about Warne.

    It’s all getting very silly, and I blame the MS cricket media for not doing their jobs for the last 12 months. If they had been acting as journalists and not ECB’s PR department maybe we could have some sensible balanced criticism of what is going wrong. The idiotic triumphalism and puff pieces in eulogising Cook since the turn around in the Tests has only convinced him he must stay on as one one day captain. Even many of his loyal supporters think he should not be in the one day team. Swann Is one of them.

    We saw in the one day matches in the winter that England struggle to contain sides. It seems we can’t contain sides even in friendly conditions.

  • 1) 19 off 33 balls from the captain and opening bat was truly pathetic, yet he thinks that he has the right to be “disappointed” by Swann’s criticism? After “leading” England to a 133-run thrashing?

    2) Who are they going to scapegoat, or whose career are they going to ruin, to save the golden boy this time?

    3) Our bowlers really need to form their own self-help group. It has at least one new member: “My name is Chris Jordan, and I am a victim of the England bowling coach.” Maybe Stokes is a candidate as well.

    • “) Bopara ………… and the rest of the the team ………… and the fans ………..not much!!

  • Good point about Hales’ strike rate. It’s pretty much the approach Chris Gayle takes and that guy knows what he’s doing. WI have Dwayne Smith blazing away at the other end (much like Jason Roy does for Surrey) and when it comes off, it puts WI in a very powerful position.

  • Some post-match Comments:

    Giles Clarke – “Absolutely splendid. What a match, all the to-ing and fro-ing. Great catch by the Skipper. What? In Wales – are you sure? Impossible. I was in Bristol. Lost……….. never.”

    Peter Moores –“Statistically we did very well. We scored more runs during the period when the cloud cover was on, over, you know than India, who are not very good when it’s dark outside and threatening to rain and the ball is swingin’. In fairness, and, no, you’re right, we did play better in Bristol but there’s plenty of time and this is a young team and Cookie is still learning, and I’ll speak with him later about what we are having for tea”

    Alastair Cook – “Swannie’s an absolute c..t” …. Breaks away in floods of tears

  • England are the Baldric of international cricket. They have a cunning plan. A plan for this, a plan for that, a plan for every aspect. They have so many plans they can’t fit them all on one laptop. Each member of the back room staff needs his own laptop to fit all his plans on.

    The revelation from Swann that they tried to score 239 because the laptop said you win 72% of matches is intriguing. What other delights does the spread sheet come up with? Do they employ someone to measure the boot laces of every player because the laptop says there is and ideal boot lace length?

    It might be an idea if they like plans so much to think of a plan for how the batsman play spin bowling in the middle overs. Or perhaps this is the plan. To play constantly from the crease. Because the laptop has revealed that if you come down the pitch there is a 68.5% chance you will be stumped.

    What exactly does the bowling coach do? Apart from find ways to indoctrinate our bowlers with so many theories that they have convinced themselves they need to ball short on green seamers. Anderson revealed after Lords they would dump lap top theory and just go back to bowling from instinct. How many bowlers actions have they tries tried to remodel?

    Its good job the World Cup is going to be played in foreign conditions because we have forgotten how to play in our own.

    • Mark they don’t measure the length of boot laces but they do plan to have at least one player, mainly a bowler, have to regularly tie them up during a match especially when near a break time or when there is a need to ‘waste’ time – England have a waste ration of 3:1 particularly when bad light becomes an issue. This figure has been derived by dividing the number of batsman who have scored more than 10 by the number of bowlers who can’t bowl straight to the power of wides in any given spell.

      The bowling coaches ruin perfectly good bowlers because everytime they look at the computer they press the delete button by ‘mistake’

      The integrity of this information is sacrosanct – they are made from the outside looking in.

      I also hear, on good authority, that Alastair Cook is making a short film for Sky called ‘Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore’ to be introduced by Nick ‘SmartArse’ Knight which reviews the main role Alice plays in Cookie’s life – although none of it is ‘personal’

  • James

    You have a convert.

    Agreed with most of what you had to say. Great blog, good insights and also light and amusing. I have a problem with Morgan. He has power and ability but he so often disappoints. Seems to have stood still. His captaincy was also rather strange last time out. Left to me I would find it difficult to select him.

    If we had either Vince or Roy opening with Hales we could play Ballance at three. He has the ability either to stabilise or to take the game forward.

    Cook is a major problem. If things don’t get better fast I suspect that he might resign. This is a woman’s eye view. :) I was watching his face as he walked back to the pavilion.

    • Jenny you better get on the phone to Alice…….

      ‘Living next door to Alice.’ An old Smokie song.

      Sally called when she got the word,
      And she said: “I suppose you’ve heard –
      About Alice”.
      When I rushed to the window,
      And I looked outside,
      And I could hardly believe my eyes –
      As a big limousine rolled up
      Into Alice’s drive…

      Oh, I don’t know why she’s leaving,
      Or where she’s gonna go,
      I guess she’s got her reasons,
      But I just don’t want to know,
      ‘Cos for twenty-four years
      I’ve been living next door to Alice.
      Twenty-four years just waiting for a chance,
      To tell her how I feel, and maybe get a second glance,
      Now I’ve got to get used to not living next door to Alice…

      We grew up together,
      Two kids in the park,
      We carved our initials,
      Deep in the bark,
      Me and Alice.
      Now she walks through the door,
      With her head held high,
      Just for a moment, I caught her eye,
      As a big limousine pulled slowly
      Out of Alice’s drive.

      Repeat chorus,

      And Sally called back and asked how I felt,
      And she said: “I know how to help –
      Get over Alice”.
      She said: “Now Alice is gone,
      But I’m still here,
      You know I’ve been waiting
      For twenty-four years…”
      And a big limousine dissapeared…

      Disclaimer…. I am not in any way shape or form suggesting Alice will leave are intrepid hero. A man of strong jaw, and Bud lightyear good looks.

  • Right, don’t know how to link directly to comment so I’m just going to copy & paste AndyinBrum’s comment from BTL on the Guardian. It’s so spot on about when things go wrong for England, what appears to be wrong, from the outside with them, if that makes sense:

    There is a worrying body of evidence that Cook is incapable of hearing anything that doesn’t conform to his world view. Valid criticism is being dismissed as personal attacks. What’s good for England is not directly linked to what is good for you Cook.
    Any organisation that fails to take on board other opinions or is willing to adapt. Will fail miserably & spectacularly
    But hey, we’re outside cricket

    • That absolutely nails it.

      Cook’s comments last night, reacting to Graeme Swann’s views, smack of a spoiled brat with an egregious sense of entitlement. And it’s hardly surprising, because for almost his entire adult life the ECB have insulated him from the real world, cosseting him in bubble wrap from the vicissitudes and realities of international cricket.

      Anointed as future captain at such a young age (he is the Dalai Lama of English cricket) and protected by his handlers from all criticism, he has no means of comprehending or understanding why his job entails scrutiny and analysis.

      Because the ECB have always shown him unconditional love, he expects it from supporters and commentators too.

      Cook’s remark that “the phone is always open the other way” is very telling: he expects this kind of exchange to take place behind closed doors. These are conversations to be had only between the people who matter, “inside cricket”. People outside cricket have no need to know or to be informed.

      Another comment revealed a lot about his mindset: “it’s not helpful at this time”. So in other words, when England are beginning to focus entirely on ODI cricket, with a view to winning a world cup, it’s not helpful for experienced international cricketers to discuss how the team’s chances could be improved?

      By saying this Cook betrays his naivety and self-regard: he believes the purpose of the media is to do whatever’s in his interest, because he’s the captain and is entitled to automatic support from all parties. He doesn’t consider for a moment that the real role of the press (not that Swann himself does much of this) is to report facts and provide dispassionate analysis, not act as an unthinking, blindly loyal cheerleader.

      • Great passion Maxie. I do think the media has a whole lot to answer for. If they had been doing their jobs for the last 12 months maybe Cook would be a bit more used to criticism.

        We know for a fact that many of the journalists don’t support Cook being in the one day team. Yet when it was announced they all meekly went back to their test match defence of him.

        It can’t be very pleasant for Cook all this. But it is difficult to be sympathetic because you get the feeling he is putting himself above his team. Having turned around the India series he could have stood down for the winter one day jamboree. But for what ever reason ( maybe he believed all the soft focus magazine articles.) he thinks he should stay as captain and open the batting. It does not say much for his cricket judgement if he really believes this.

      • He doesn’t consider for a moment that the real role of the press (not that Swann himself does much of this)…

        Yes, what just does Swanny think he’s doing, committing a random act of journalism like that ??

  • Spot on James. I think Swann was echoing what is blatantly obvious to all of us.

    As I’ve said before I don’t see conspiracy, cults or criminal activity, I see Institutional Conservatism, fear of failure and over analysis, three things which have hamstrung the England football team indecently. Deep down there’s a will to win and however misguided that’s what they’re trying to do.

    I agree with all the comments re:batting, Another scratchy Cook knock and Bell once again anchors a collapse with a strange dismissal but the bowling gives me great concern…

    Sky love the phrase ‘they bat deep’ and the batting line does look ‘long’ on paper, in reality though we fielded only 1 international bowler along with 4 ‘part-all-rounders’ none of whom are capable of winning a match with bat or ball. (At least Ravi scores runs and bowls cheaply).

    Credit to India by the way, out batted out bowled and out-fielded us.

  • If Alastair Cook thinks that those of us ‘outsiders’ were being too personal when analysing his cricket captaincy and poor batting form – he ain’t seen nothing yet!! I have obtained from secure sources what happened when Alatair went home after the recent defeat to India …..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpSfThUv_pc

    make you’re own mind up whether he is truly ‘the right sort of person’ to be cricket captain

  • “Inner steel” seems to have been redefined by the ECB to mean “a stubborn pig headed inability to look facts in the face”
    Clearly Cook suffers from being a bit of a sociopath. As long as you are in his circle of friends, you survive, but woe betide you if you criticize him.
    Nice guy? I’m still searching for the evidence.

  • Having read Cook’s comments whilst having breakfast, my digestion was immediately disturbed insofar as the man of steel, instantly becomes a big girls blouse (apologies to the ladies) with a skin, so thin, it’s almost transluscent!!
    This is the Captain of England ffs!! If this was your mate stood next to you at the bar coming out with stuff like this, you’d slap him on the back of the head and tell him to use the ‘Ladies’ until he grew a pair!!
    The entire England Cricket Establishment, and their chums in the embedded media have bet their houses on this ‘bloke’ (I use the term narratively) because he’s “one of us” a pillar of the Establishment…then something’s got to give, and give it will, spectacularly I hope, sooner rather than later!
    Now, as much as I admired Swann as a cricketer, as a pundit I find him a bit of a dick, trying to find his feet as a commentator…fair enough..but his flip flops over the KP/Cook issue did his integrity no favours in my book..
    Doubtless he bonded with Cook as part of the England set up, but doesn’t come across as a fan of said set up? As they did with Prior, they played him with an injury due to lack of foresight etc because of TINA, and when he finally broke down, (a total surprise to all in the England camp(?) it was “pack your bags and f**k off,oh,and make your own way home” For an England servant of Swann’s stature that must surely have rankled?? So I think it’s a touch of “Et tu Brutus” with him, and his stock has just gone up a notch for me, paticularly for the fact he was dead right, and surely will be proved to be right!

    • Absolutely Dave. It’s one of the reasons I have never bought into this media meme about Cook being. ” a good bloke.” It has almost become a given that every article has to start with this fact. Sometimes “a good bloke” is not enough. Then we have……….. “he is a thoroughly good bloke.” And when that is not sufficient we get……….”it must be said again and again that Cook is a nice man, and a thoroughly good bloke.”

      What is this? An episode of Ripping Yarns? Is Cook the Flashman character ‘school bully.’ Yes school bully, no school bully, three bags full school bully.

      As Dmitri pointed out yesterday John Etheridge is running PR for both of them………”Swann & Cook close friends for years. A chat will surely smooth over any problems. Not easiest time for Cook to comment after 133-run defeat.”

      • Ha! After the run of defeats he’s presided over you’d think he should be bloody well used to it!

      • Running PR for both of them?
        I was the person who asked the questions to Cook which prompted the ‘so-called friend’ reply and other responses.
        Far from running PR, I was the bloke stirring the pot.

        • Blimey. A cricket journalist exchanging views with people “outside of cricket”.
          As you like “stirring the pot” perhaps you could tell us all who at the ECB gave you the KP story about returned gifts for 100 caps?

          • I can’t tell you that, of course, but I might suggest you look at the picture that Kevin tweeted.
            The ‘outside cricket’ press release was obviously crass, badly-worded and mistakenly aimed at one person. It was, however, not issued just by the ECB but jointly by the ECB and the PCA (the players’ union) who, at that time, were representing Kevin’s interests in his dispute with the ECB.

            • John, that’s an interesting twist that I have to admit passed me by. Thanks for the heads up. Any nuggets of information like that are always appreciated. On blogs like this we are always trying to piece things together. Our sources are obviously limited to things the press write, plus hearsay we hear around the grounds.

            • Thanks for replying. Will try to find said picture.
              Don’t you think it odd that the ECB would issue a joint statement with the PCA given the circumstances at the time?

              • I think was an attempt to show a united front. Although the PCA were representing Pietersen (their chief executive was involved in a number of meetings with the ECB), they also represent every other player including, of course, Cook.
                There is no doubt the ECB handled the announcement of Pietersen’s sacking poorly. They really should have explained all the circumstances at the time.

              • When you say the PCA represent every other player including of course Cook, are you implying that Cook was directly involved or even present at any meetings?

              • Cook was at the meeting when Pietersen was told he was being sacked. Whitaker and Downton were also there. This is the ‘captain weasel – he looked at the ground and said nothing’ meeting as described by Piers Morgan.
                The counter version is that Pietersen flounced out after four minutes before Cook had a chance to speak.

              • That’s an interesting snippet. That meeting may forever come down to whose version of events one believes, or whether their stories converge somewhere in the middle.

            • The photo is here:

              http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2093327-kevin-pietersen-disproves-sun-article-in-one-tweet-calls-out-journo-on-twitter

              I’m not quite sure what you’re suggesting by looking at the photo – are you implying it might not be what it seems? Was Pietersen not telling the truth? Your response to him at the time appears to accept the story was false.

              The story attracted a great deal of attention ‘beneath the line’ because it made us wonder which other tales about Pietersen which had circulated in the press might not be absolutely copper-bottomed. I don’t have any particular journalist in mind here, and of course you’re not accountable for anyone but yourself.

              We couldn’t help get the impression that ‘sources’ at the ECB may have, from time to time, spun a yarn which too easily gained traction despite having little or no substance. The dossier of fifty misdemeanours, for example. Really? Anyone actually seen it?

              We also wondered why, when a confidentiality clause was in place, that stories emerged such as Pietersen supposedly traducing Flower at the Melbourne team meeting. It struck many of us as strange that Pietersen was criticised for leaking a claim via Piers Morgan, but the ECB were happy to privately leak as much as they wished to taint Pietersen’s reputation.

              If that wasn’t what they were doing, we could surely be forgiven for getting the wrong impression.

              The Pietersen story is, in overview, one of mythology and counter-mythology. Take text-gate (and they weren’t even texts, as it happened, but BlackBerry messages). I have read pretty much everything in the public domain about what was alleged, and can find no reference to a journalist ever having seen them at first hand.

              As for the press release – this is not aimed at you personally, because it was hardly your fault! But for me the PCA involvement makes no difference. The ECB put their name to every word of it. My understanding was that the PCA were trying to defend Matt Prior from Piers Morgan’s claims. It doesn’t really make sense that if the PCA, were trying to represent Pietersen, they would have inserted the “outside cricket” phrase to criticise his main supporter.

              We don’t actually know for sure they meant Morgan, anyway. They’ve never explained or elaborated, and it’s disappointing that during the, admittedly rare, opportunities to interview Clarke or Downton since, that no one, in print or broadcast media, has called them to account.

              • The photograph clearly suggests he’s only just opened the gifts. I confess I don’t know how Twitter photographs work. But it seems to me that, unless there’s a time-stamp on the photo itself, it does not definitively prove that Pietersen was still in possession of the gifts when he tweeted his response to the story. Could he have been using an old photograph to ‘disprove’ the story?

                I don’t like admitting this, of course, but that photo has never felt like the total vindication his fans have always claimed it to be. And therefore I’m not surprised to see John Etheridge suggest people look more closely at it. Happy if someone can prove that it was a ‘live’ photo, so to speak…

              • I understood that he did send the gifts back, but only because there was a spelling error in the inscription, and he subsequently got a correctly inscribed set.

              • Frankly I don’t really give a dam about photographs and contested time lines. If KP did send it back I for one wouldn’t blame him. In fact I’m surprised he didn’t dump it in the Thames. Someone tipped off John Etneridge about this. (He won’t say who) but I venture it is someone who is keen to trash KP. I think we can all guess which organisation has plenty of those.

                It is just another example of a double standard that is applied to KP but no one else. Leaking against KP seems to be standard operating behaviour for the “insiders.” Whether it was someone leaking KPs comments in the players meeting in Aus back to Flower. Or falling over themselves to leak to journos that KP had sent his gifts back. Or how about Downton having to apologise for breaking confidentiality clauses. It seems to me those who demand a very high standard from KP in his day to day actions are very cavalier in their own actions.

                As for KPs book, I can’t believe the ECB give a flying toss about it. KP is never going to play for England again. That issue is now settled. What is not settled is the many people who now don’t trust a word ECB say. They resent the rehiring of Flower and his methods, the ludicrous ticket prices, the idiotic scheduling of matches. And that is before we come on to the issue of captain Cook. Unless KP can come up with some new revelation which can be proved I expect it will be very low key. One thing you can rely on is the ECB friendly media will trash his book regardless.

              • My response to Kevin came a few minutes after he posted his picture. Naturally, I have made further enquiries. As I say, look at the picture.
                The notion that there has been some vast leaking operation by the ECB is entirely false. I have covered cricket for 30 years and can’t remember anybody from the ECB (or TCCB as it was) ever ‘phoning me with a leak or any sort of inside information. Quite the opposite, they are usually extremely evasive.
                It is true that the ECB from time to time (maybe twice a year) organise dinners with the media and either the coaching or admin staff. Or both. These are social, get-to-know-you occasions with no agenda to brief against Pietersen or anybody else.
                Stories can come from any source – an agent, a player, a county team-mate, a spectator, an umpire, a dressing-room attendant, an ECB employee, anybody, really. Journalists speak to people all the time. On checking, many prove to be false. Some turn out to be true.
                Certainly, most of what you have read about Pietersen is true and there are other incidents involving Kevin that have not appeared in print.
                It will be interesting to see how the ECB handle the publication of his book. Will they try to ignore it and hope goes away after a two-day storm? Or will they counter-attack and finally go public with their reasons for sacking him?

              • “Certainly, most of what you have read about Pietersen is true and there are other incidents involving Kevin that have not appeared in print.”

                Well it’s awfully nice of you to be so discreet. I’m sure we all appreciate you being such a good egg and not printing these stories and, as a measure of good faith, I for one am perfectly happy to take you word for it, as usual.

                Keep up the good work.

              • Thanks for your reply, John. It’s good to have people in your position engaging with a site like this and we appreciate your time and interest.

                I think we’ll have to agree to draw different conclusions from that photo. It looks kosher to me, and it hardly makes sense for Pietersen to tell a blatant lie about a relatively innocuous story. But I’ll discuss this in more detail in response to Arran’s comment.

                I’m also very interested in the ECB’s response to his book, although I suspect it may be he more discreet and circumspect than we’ve been anticipating.

                Whatever the ECB say, I hope they respond in a transparent and open way, eg interviews or a press conference, rather than indirectly, by spreading innuendo. I hope I don’t read too many phrases such as “there is a feeling within the ECB that…”.

                If they front up, it will also be an opportunity for the many unanswered questions to be put to Downton. Whose idea was the confidentiality agreement? When he flew into Melbourne with the scoreline 4-0, why was the series top scorer his biggest concern? If there was no support for Pietersen among the coaching staff then why, three weeks later, was Giles calling him a “million dollar asset”? How many senior players were “quite a few”?

                If Pietersen’s side of the story is incendiary, I don’t see what the ECB can counter it with which doesn’t contradict their existing account. Downton has twice said “there is no smoking gun”. He told Agnew it was for “cricketing reasons”. It’s too late for him to now move the goal-posts.

                In terms of the supposed leaks, it’s interesting (and surprising) to hear that this is not the case, but I imagine you can see why punters like us wonder, and are sceptical, about the provenance of stories.

                If tales such as the misdemeanours dossier, the Melbourne meeting, or even the sacking meeting, do not come directly from the ECB, one can only ponder yet further on their origins and robustness. Are some of them perhaps better described as rumours than incontrovertible facts?

                We noticed several journalists, around the time of the Moores re-appointment, Tweeting about how effective and persuasive Downton was in private conversations with them. What was he saying to the hacks which he couldn’t say publicly? If he couldn’t put something in the public domain, he shouldn’t be saying it at all.

                The overall issue comes back to “outside cricket”. The distinct impression is given that we are kept at arm’s length from the inner workings (and important truths) of the game which is sustained only by the support, ticket-buying, and Sky subscriptions, which we provide. The Pietersen story symbolises this because so much of the mythology around him derives from unattributed nuance and gossip, and we are often told to believe it without being presented with open facts.

                This is not the fault of any one person in particular and I’m not suggesting that you should be held to account, or asked to defend, what is a general culture.

                But in general there is much frustration, on boards such as this, that the cricket press, generically, don’t quite understand the reasons for our discontent. It is not, and has never been, about Pietersen the individual. It is about the process, the motives, the secrecy, the dissembling, the ECB’s condescension and arrogance, and the way all those things leave us feeling disenfranchised, patronised, and betrayed.

                Thanks again for your time and interest.

              • Lots of points there, Maxie.
                I’d agree the ECB’s PR is generally poor and there is disquiet among fans about Pietersen’s sacking, ‘inside cricket’, ticket prices, ‘right family’ comments by Clarke etc. But I doubt if many sports governing bodies are popular. What is the public perception of the FA, for example?
                You and the people on here are clearly hardcore cricket followers who are up-to-speed with the politics and inner wranglings of the game. And it is great that you are so passionate. However, I’d venture to suggest that at least 80 per cent of people who attend Tests and ODIs either don’t know or don’t care about Paul Downton and ‘inside cricket.’ They come for a day out, a couple of pints and to watch some decent cricket. That is why Cook has received such a wave of support and affection from spectators – why wouldn’t people want the England captain to do well?
                Pietersen provokes strong opinions on both sides and most people seem intractable in their views. Whatever I say here will not sway the pro-lobby or anti-lobby.
                What is beyond dispute that Kevin has been a magnificent batsmen who has fallen out with people wherever he has played. There is history of good men becoming exasperated by his behaviour.
                As a tabloid journalist, I miss him – Kevin always provided good copy and, when the mood took, spoke articulately and interestingly. At the moment, he is something of a fringe figure, playing T20 cricket for good money but not scoring many runs and surely missing the thrill of big matches. His job satisfaction must be quite low.
                I responded here yesterday because somebody point me in this direction and mentioned the irony of my being accused of running Swann/Cook PR campaign when, in fact, I was the person who asked the questions that created the ‘so-called friend’ story.
                I’d not read this blog before but I’ll keep an eye on it now. Might even pop in again for a chat. Regards, John

              • “My response to Kevin came a few minutes after he posted his picture. Naturally, I have made further enquiries. As I say, look at the picture.”

                Well, that’s not entirely true, is it? He asked you again, publicly, six weeks later to which you eventually replied:

                “I was given what I thought was categorical information which turned out to be untrue. I apologised at the time, happy to do so again.”

                If you apologized in haste without knowing the full facts why did you apologize again six weeks later? If you conceded then that you were wrong, why are you now changing your tune?

                If your silverware story is true there’s a very obvious way of proving it: it’s sitting in an office at the ECB. So your suggestion is KP called you out as a liar knowing that the ECB could expose him in a second (and that there was every chance you’d seen/photographed the returned silverware) and was relying on the ECB keeping schtum whilst he accused them of briefing against him.

                I’m curious about something, maybe you can offer an explanation – KP accused you of repeating lies, of being a gullible dupe for a smear campaign, of being, if effect, stupid and very poor at your job. Is there anything worse you can accuse a journalist of than lying?

                Now you’re implying you can prove him wrong but, instead of ramming it down his throat and vindicating yourself, you’re being all coy and asking people to do an Angela Lansbury impression and follow the breadcrumbs.

                If true, though, this is quite a revelation and I’m sure the editors of TFT are grateful for the exclusive. Seems as if it deserves a much wider audience, though. If only you had access to some sort of publication in which this story might be more widely disseminated…

              • I notice that Etheridge didn’t even bother to reply to your post, THA..!
                I did find this snippet from JE very interesting: “And it is great that you are so passionate. However, I’d venture to suggest that at least 80 per cent of people who attend Tests and ODIs either don’t know or don’t care about Paul Downton and ‘inside cricket.’ They come for a day out, a couple of pints and to watch some decent cricket. That is why Cook has received such a wave of support and affection from spectators – why wouldn’t people want the England captain to do well?”.

                So, essentially, if you are NOT passionate about cricket and have no idea who Paul Downton is or what he has said, then you support Cook!
                :)

  • I notice I am not getting so much abuse in the Grauniad for calling him ‘Sheep’ these days.

  • Some years back when we had a few injuries NZ experimented with Mark Richardson* opening in ODIs It didn’t work, and we rather quickly went back to the tried & true opening combo of 1 blaster, and 1 guy who can rotate strike & build through an innings.

    *In Rigor’s defence, in his early days in 1st class cricket (after the left-arm spin phase) he was an stylishly aggressive middle order bat, and 50-over opener – when he realised he wasn’t good enough to make international cricket playing that way he dropped all but 3 of his scoring shots, & became a stonewall.

    • Accidentally deleted my main point in the above – which was broadly: why can’t England learn from their mistakes the same way – one definition of insanity is continually repeating the same action, expecting a different result.

      • Where ODIs are concerned, England are by this definition certifiably insane, and have been for a number of years.
        World Cup after World Cup goes by and the rest of the world plays one-day cricket the way it’s played in the 21st century. England keep repeating their own idea of what everybody else should be playing, which is roughly what used to work in about 1995, and lo and behold! surprise! how extraordinary! they don’t win.
        The proverbial blind man on a galloping horse could see that the tactics are completely out of date and misguided, but still they persist.

        • Remember the mid 90s at the World Cup where Sri Lanka completely changed the way 50 over cricket was played? When they went crazy for the first 15 overs and would be prepared to loose 2-3 wickets if the could get to a 100ish after 15.

          I seem to remember the English response was it would never work in English conditions. And in anyway we would have to start putting pinch hitters and blacksmiths at the top of the order. 100 off 15 is quite conservative in these days of 20/20.

        • The England ODI model is even more out of date than that — remember that in the 1992 world cup, which we would have won if the LBW laws had been applied, we used Ian Botham as a pinch hitter, a novel idea at the time. England and New Zealand were the great innovators in that world cup, picking bits-and-pieces players while Pakistan and other teams mainly stuck to their test sides. Then in the next world cup, Sri Lanka took it to a whole new level, whereas we have been going backwards ever since.

          • You beat me to it with the ’92 team. It’s not that England is stuck i the past, it’s much worse. They’ve actually gone significantly backwards in tactics.

            Back in ’92 England recognized the value of getting off to a flyer, opening with a quality power hitter. Skip forward 20 years and we have Sheep and Bell opening. Ugh

      • Oh, Pete, England don’t do ‘learnin’
        The Oxbridge/Establishment set are not minded to analyse and understand these things as they instinctively “know” ….catch this piece in cricinfo, it will explain better than I –

        Swann revealed that at the 2011 World Cup, when England scored 229 and Sri Lanka knocked that off in 29 overs, the coach congratulated his batsmen for carrying out their plan to the letter. This is hilariously and utterly English:
        “Well played Corporal, you refused to alter tactics in the heat of battle. The pride of the British army has been maintained this day.”
        “But we lost, sir.”
        “Never mind that, boy, the most important thing is that we lost like Englishmen. We played the game the right way. The only way.”
        “But if we’d been using guns instead of these long bows, we might have won.”
        “Nonsense. Long bows were good enough for Henry V. Now go fetch my leg, Corporal, I intend to reattach it with this traditional Tudor healing poultice made from cowdung, tea leaves and gin.”

        http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/774517.html

  • The whole of English cricket has a problem with spin bowling. No-one seems to know how to play it or coach others to play it. I’ve been to some high level coaching workshops on batting against spin and its thoroughly depressing.

    There are a variety of camps:

    a) pretend its a seamer, but slower. Just prop forward from the crease, what could possibly go wrong.

    b) sweep everything. if the sweep doesn’t work, try the reverse sweep.

    c) close your eyes, charge forward, and swing. If you do all of this before the bowler has even started his run-up, so much the better.

      • I have no idea why we can’t do what Australia do. Just give the Eng team videos of Michael Clarke. He uses his feet to advance up the pitch 99% of the time. He’s probably the best player of spin in the world. Eng got obsessed with the sweep when fletcher was in charge and nothing has really changed by the sounds of it. Keep it simple: be light on your feet, play in front of your pad, and get to the pitch. Simples

        • But as I said above James, the laptop says if you use your feet to spinners there is a 68.5% chance of being stumped.

        • The thing Clarke does well is that he is adaptable. He doesn’t premeditate. He has a repertoire of effective attacking shots that he can use depending on how the bowler is bowling and where the fielders are.

          He can come down the pitch, sure. But he can also shuffle across and create an angle to punch the ball into a gap in the legside, he can make room to cut between cover and point, heck he can even sweep WHEN its appropriate.

          This is what we need to be teaching our batsman. There is no one single magic shot against spin just like there is no one single magic shot against pace.

          The idea that you might tell an international batsman that the best way to play pace is: “look to cut as much as possible, even when its full, even when its legside, even when there are three gullies and two points” is palpably ridiculous. But somehow we think that kind of simplistic advice would work against a spinner.

  • Of course Cook doesn’t think that he should get any criticism! Why, after the diabolic Ashes tour where we were trashed mercilessly, instead of the media & the ECB questioning Cook why this happened and asking for changes, the most important (and only) thing to deal with (by new supremo Downton) was our highest scorer.. who was sacked.

    Interestingly, apparently he was sacked precisely for questioning Cook why this happened and asking for changes!

    So why on earth should Cook think that anyone should question anything he does??

  • just to be clear Rav, I think that Cook decided that the best way to build up for the final test in Australia was for the squad to do physical training and Pietersen was so “outside cricket” (TM) that he ventured the opinion that some batting practice might be a better way of spending the available time. Obviously, he had to be sacked for this act of mutiny.

  • Good Afternoon

    I have called here today to suggest that you blaggards, you naysayers of the truth, you untimely representatives of only a small proportion of this great nation are on limited time here. I will not stand, the ECB will not stand for such rank disobedience and flagrant abusing of our team, our efforts and our captain.

    I was speaking with our dear Head of State, Her Majesty the Queen – no, not Cookie – only this morning and she too is appalled by the comments, criticism and misbehaviour of you people, you sorts. It is incumbent of me to remind you that I and We will not have this sort of thing. As Mr Warne knows, to his cost, we will not allow this sort of nonsense to invade any arena where the England team play. For your information, although why I say this is beyond me, a waste, Mr Swann is entertaining the police sergeant later to explain his rather insidious outburst about his one true friend. It is, frankly, just not good enough.

    If it continues I will take steps to put you out of business and if that doesn’t work I will personally stuff each of your foul mouths with ECB handkerchiefs – take it or leave it – and be warned – I’m as tough as Cookie and twice as fat.

  • “Obviously, he had to be sacked for this act of mutiny.”

    He whistled as well…

  • The three long overdue test victories, admittedly limply handed over by the Indians, gave Cook a perfect get-out opportunity from the ODI captaincy. He could (and should) have jumped with his head held relatively high and accepted some plaudits for making a brave & sensible decision to stand down – one which would have enabled him to further concentrate on avoiding his habit of the stuck-in-crease regular waft outside off stump – you know, that tendency which he has taken well over a year to begin to eradicate, that tendency which bar one Jadeja mishandle may have lost him his test opening position forever. (Let’s not get into the captaincy).

    Cook is a batsman who must be aware of his own turgid style and severe attacking limitations, someone who must be conscious in his heart that he is thoroughly unsuited to the one-day format, the requirements of which are actually getting further and further away from what he can offer. Has he even seen Roy or Taylor bat recently? I can only conclude that Cook is therefore deluded, stubborn and supremely arrogant behind that innocent baby face.

    The get-out train has departed and his eventual release will now come much later than we all hoped. We need the likes of Swann and his new candour if it is to even happen before the World Cup.

    Stand down man…

    • Excellent analysis. What would be seen as arrogant, selfish and stubborn in others is seen as “inner steel” in him.

      Why is the ODI captain? Because he was given the job to acquire captaincy experience in preparation for the test captaincy. Fat lot of good that did.

      The interests of the ODI team were subjugated to the ECB’s dream of the Cook captaincy.

      He was identified at a very early age as the next captain, for no good reason, and from that point onwards everything had to be orientated around the succession planning.

      The result was the the ODI team were lumbered with an inadequate captain, and an inadequate batsman, all in one.

      But why does he need to remain in the team now?

      • Thanks Maxie.

        Congratulations on the blogs & activity over here. Less sniping between contributors than BTL at the Guardian for example although I guess that could change as you become more popular. Since you and James seem to be passionate yet gracious with it, I’d hope not though.

        The main thing, as Vic Marks (whose wry observations I generally enjoy) got slightly wrong in a piece not long ago, is that forums like this one don’t produce merely “a backdrop so polarised and so fuelled by vitriol” but rather a much needed and well-intentioned critique. He was speaking about reactions to Cook’s woes of course but the people who feedback bother because they are actually passionate (if perhaps a little obsessive;) about English cricket.

        We can all make up our own minds about what has occurred on the grass – in recent times painful, obvious and tainted with no real agenda other than to see England do well if you’re an Englishman. The bottom line is that we want to see the team thrive, win matches, play with some passion & dynamism, and generally promote the sport to others. It’s no wonder there is so much BTL noise on-line given the way things have declined over over the last 18 months.

        By the way, I’ve just looked at the KP photo closely. I think I see what John is getting at:) Does his left arm really fit the rest of his body?

  • Are we to suppose that Graeme Swann is now outside Alastair Cook’s circle of friends? Is Swann now a fringe idiot savant? Will Swann be Warned off?

    Cook’s relationship with Swann has gone north from faire une pipe a qn to pipe down! There is, after all, only so much one can swallow!

  • Had my first serious look at the WC schedule and first impression – who on earth designed it? A month of Pool games to find the eight best teams! Play like p*ss for a month then get a lucky toss, D/L fluke, opposition key player injury etc in the QF and suddenly you’re in the SFs! I long for the format last time the WC was in Aus/NZ – all the major nations played each other once and the top four went into the SFs so they were undoubtedly there on merit. The 90/91 WC was my favourite tournament (except that silly rain rule), not least because we had a decent team (and that cool kit!).

    If I’ve read it right, England are in Pool A with Aus, NZ, SL, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Scotland. If we finish 4th in the group (optimism?!) we’ll face a QF with the winners of Pool B (most probably India or SA) either at the MCG or SCG.

    • Yup, you got that right.

      It was quite funny the other day on Sky, Nick Knight was explaining it. He said we can therefore lose to Aus, we can lose to SL, and we can lose to NZ, and as long as we don’t loose to anyone else we will be through to the Quarter finals.

      And if we get lucky in that match, we are into the semis. No wonder our great leader wants to stay as captain.

  • While I agree that Cook is on stolen time (stolen from the likes of Roy), and should be nowhere near the one day side, I have never understood why Morgan is touted as a potential captain. He does a serviceable job for Middlesex, but as a batsman he does not average over 40 in any format or level of the game… and while averages don’t always tell the whole story (Trescothick a fine example of this), there are players like Taylor who are just as dangerous, but average 50+ in domestic One Day Matches.

    • I agree entirely. I thought I was the only one to have reservations about Moggie’s place in the team. I see him at Middx where he is not a lot more than average. Internationally he disappoints too often. He seems to be another favourite who keeps his place in the team by divine right. Selected on his potential and past glories I think.

  • Good points. You could easily argue that half the Notts team should be representing England – best opening patnership around, best No 3 (just got 144 not out!), best all rounder, best death bowler, best keeper on the planet. However, Notts are still in the Royal London One Day Cup ……… Now, which counties do the selectors represent?

    • Oh Benny that’s very mischievous ;-) Of course, we did flag up the conflict of interest debate before the season started. I’ll see if I can dig out a linky. Even if there is no bias intended, it still looks bad.

  • Many thanks to everyone who’s commented – great to see such a mix of new and familiar names. We appreciate your time and input. Apologies we’ve not had time to reply to everyone.

  • I just want to say what a fantastic blog this is becoming! I’ve only been aware of it six months or so, and have had great fun combing through the archives with nostalgia. But it is brilliant to see how it’s growing, each article seems to attract more and more comments, even from established journalists now! James and Maxie, I don’t always agree with what you write but thanks and congratulations are definitely in order. You must be proud and excited. Maybe a bad time for English cricket is a great time to write an English cricket blog…. ;-)

    • Hi Jonathan – thank you very much for your extremely kind words. I’m not sure we can always live up to such high praise, but I’m very glad you find it worthwhile to read what’s here. When we get things right, TFT is about the comments more than the original posts, and what makes it sing is what everyone else has to say. So once again we thank everyone for taking the time to contribute, because you’re the ones who make it worth reading.

      It’s certainly been busy on our boards over recent weeks, and I think you’re right – when there is turbulence, people have much more to get off their chests. When we won the 2010/11 Ashes, it was much much quieter here!

  • Thanks for all your replies. I wonder how representative of the majority they are? I’d also like to thanks those with the courage to go against the grain. Whilst we somewhat relish our ‘grumpy old men’ tag, it’s really important to us that TFT remains a broad church with all views given a platform. Keep your comments coming everyone. Maxie and I don’t always agree with each other, so it’s good to see debate between other people too.

  • To be fair to Fletcher, he said at the time that he created the “all sweep all the time” strategy as a quick way to get England marginally better at dealing with spin. His view was that coaching at youth level needed to improve so that batsmen had more options – he didn’t feel (rightly or wrongly) that he could fix international players in the England setup.

  • @James Morgan

    I think views differ on Cook but no-one seriously feels England’s ODI team is in a good place.

    (See recent polls, few people give England a chance at the WC.)

  • “My response to Kevin came a few minutes after he posted his picture. Naturally, I have made further enquiries. As I say, look at the picture.”

    Well, that’s not entirely true, is it? He asked you again, publicly, six weeks later to which you eventually replied:

    “I was given what I thought was categorical information which turned out to be untrue. I apologised at the time, happy to do so again.”

    If you apologized in haste without knowing the full facts why did you apologize again six weeks later? If you conceded then that you were wrong, why are you now changing your tune?

    If your silverware story is true there’s a very obvious way of proving it: it’s sitting in an office at the ECB. So your suggestion is KP called you out as a liar knowing that the ECB could expose him in a second (and that there was every chance you’d seen/photographed the returned silverware) and was relying on the ECB keeping schtum whilst he accused them of briefing against him.

    I’m curious about something, maybe you can offer an explanation – KP accused you of repeating lies, of being a gullible dupe for a smear campaign, of being, if effect, stupid and very poor at your job. Is there anything worse you can accuse a journalist of than lying?

    Now you’re implying you can prove him wrong but, instead of ramming it down his throat and vindicating yourself, you’re being all coy and asking people to do an Angela Lansbury impression and follow the breadcrumbs.

    If true, though, this is quite a revelation and I’m sure the editors of TFT are grateful for the exclusive. Seems as if it deserves a much wider audience, though. If only you had access to some sort of publication in which this story might be more widely disseminated…

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting