Our Dear Leader was speaking today at a press conference ahead of tomorrow’s first test against New Zealand. So – did he really issue a ‘him or me’ ultimatum over the return of Kevin Pietersen?
There was no ultimatum. I can deny that. I don’t know where it came from. It was a decision made by Andrew Strauss and Tom Harrison and we [the players] weren’t consulted. It wasn’t and isn’t my decision.
Fair enough. But in that case, why did Dean Wilson in the Mirror report the following, last week?
Alastair Cook was ready to walk away from international cricket if Kevin Pietersen had been offered a way back to the England fold. And Mirror Sport understands that new director of cricket Andrew Strauss has prevented a full-scale revolt at the ECB following his decision to leave the controversial batsman in the international wilderness.
Behind the scenes Cook represented the feelings of several players when he made it plain he was ready to give up his England shirt if Pietersen was brought back.
Cook has constantly referred the decision regarding Pietersen to the top brass above him, but after an apparent softening towards the Surrey batsman in recent weeks, he delivered the ‘us or him’ ultimatum, and left Strauss and Harrison with a clear choice to make.
Our blogging friend The Leg Glance asked Wilson to clarify:
@BlueEarthMngmnt absolutely, and I did so to Cook
— Dean Wilson (@CricketMirror) May 20, 2015
The point being – neither Chris nor I are impugning Wilson’s integrity. Clearly he remains very confident about the reliability of his source. What happened? Did someone at the ECB feed Wilson the story, fraudulently, so Cook would get the blame for the Pietersen fiasco? And thereby take the heat off the board itself?
What’s more, if Cook and the players weren’t consulted, what exactly led Andrew Strauss to reinforce the Pietersen ban? The only conclusion – if we take Cook at face value – is that a problem only exists between Pietersen and the board itself. There is no overt, stated, or implied difficulty between Pietersen and the players. Which begs the question – why can’t he be in the team?
Theoretically, Cook might want Pietersen back in the team. If Strauss didn’t consult Cook, how’s he to know the captain isn’t desperate to overturn the suspension and reinstate a proven match-winner?
Cook did say.
I do agree with the decision [to exclude Pietersen].
But Strauss wouldn’t have known that before, would he, not having spoken to him? And having made that assertion, isn’t Cook duty-bound to explain why he agrees with the decision?
Asked if would be prepared to play with Pietersen, had he been selected, Cook replied:
[It’s] not a relevant question.
This is a peculiar attitude, really, to the biggest controversy to engulf English cricket since the D’Oliveira Affair.
He continued:
We’ve got to start looking forward now…this has gone on for fifteen months now and we’ve got to start looking forward as a side.
Bingo! Two ‘looking forwards’ in the same paragraph. If you’re playing ECB Bullshit Scrabble, that counts as a triple-word score.
The story has been put to bed by the ECB.
Which must rank as a particularly optimistic piece of wishful-thinking. In the BBC radio interview, Cook made this point using slightly different words – “we’ve really got to put it to bed now”. Alas for Cook, and the ECB, supporters will care about, and talk about, whatever they want. No one’s going to be told what to say, what to do, or what to think, by the England captain or any Lord’s magnate. Cook feels entitled to issue edicts about the cricketing agenda, which bespeaks his cossetted detachment from the real world.
Cook was then asked about Peter Moores.
We all feel for Peter. He was certainly a player’s coach and the guys loved working with him. He helped all of us, really. As a player I loved my time with Mooresy.
A minor quibble, I know, but my soul yearns for the day when Alastair Cook can get through a five minute interview without calling someone by their nickname.
As players, we’ve just got to focus on the cricket and look forward to what’s going to be a fantastic summer of cricket. We’ve got to get on with the game now and not worry about the external stuff.
But, but. The selection of Pietersen, or not, is a cricketing issue. It’s about who plays in the team. Focusing on the cricket, for the captain, is very much about choosing the best XI. Crucial personnel dilemmas are not “external stuff” but intrinsic to the captain’s role.
And make that three ‘looking forwards’.
Meanwhile, do take a peep at our post from earlier today about ticket prices for the New Zealand series.
The biggest controversy since the D’Oliveira affair? Don’t think so – you seem to have forgotten the Packer affair…
Nice impression of Johnny English going on in the photo at the top there.
Here’s to a 0-7 summer.
I thought he was in a queue for the loo.
Lynton Crosby: Advisor, England Cricket.
If Cook genuinely, honestly can tolerate KP being back in the dressing room (Strauss permitting), it would surely make life easier for him:
1. The focus would be taken off him and his performance, for a while
2. It would improve his chances of being the captain who won the Ashes 2015, since KP is clearly back in form
“A minor quibble, I know, but my soul yearns for the day when Alastair Cook can get through a five minute interview without calling someone by their nickname.”
Yearn on, Maxie. You can add “Farby” to your (and my) pet hates now!
If we were in any doubt as to the close connection between Cooky and Straussy then the BBC interview will have put that doubt to bed. If any of the managing staff decided to call me by my surname and added a ‘y’ I would know that the rest of the employees would have little or no trust or respect for that manager. Straussy has stated that Cooky will skipper the side for the next 7 test matches, regardless of form, and that Pietersen,(notice no ‘y’) won’t play in those 7 matches.
And here’s the real reason KP. Can’t be selected…. You can’t add a ‘y’ to his surname…..it’s just too silly for words…..
But does it also mean that Straussy has given Cooky a 7 test ultimatum?
On Radio 5 the other day he was called both Farby and Farbs within the space of a couple of minutes. The schisms in English cricket just won’t abate. This one could lead to civil war.
And the band played: “Believe it if yer like!” I don’t believe one word of Cook or Strauss. Remind me someone, who said that all the players had been consulted? Well clearly that was a lie. Strauss is just exacting his own revenge on Pietersen as is the ECB. Graves made terrible gaffs and the ECB looks like a right bunch of lying weasels. No time for any of these stuffed shirts. Once again, Strauss has gone through the floor in terms of the respect I used to hold for him. Mr Graves and integrity? He has no integrity. Integrity has to be earned and he lost that on day one.
Can I add to your first Cook quote please (in bold)
There was no ultimatum. I can deny that. I don’t know where it came from. TO BE HONEST WITH YOU ITS AN ISSUE THAT HASNT GONE AWAY FOR THE OAST 15 MONTHS, ER, THERE’S NOTHING I, EEEEERRRR, WE AS PLAYERS CAN DO ABOUT IT…. It was a decision made by Andrew Strauss and Tom Harrison and we [the players] weren’t consulted. It wasn’t and isn’t my decision.
I’m always wary (only wary mind) when people say TBH with you but when it’s so quickly followed by a correction of “I” replacing with “we” my ears pricked.
I think he was lying.
And btw I absolutely loved this:
“The story has been put to bed by the ECB.” Which must rank as a particularly optimistic piece of wishful-thinking.
So, so true
Yes, now I get it. Strauss (according to the leak) was forced into the decision to avoid a mutiny (which would of course have in no way been an attack on his authority or any form of insubordination that would require sacking of the ring leaders); and Cook had nothing to do with it because he’s just a player and it’s all up to the management.
Therefore we must conclude that neither Strauss nor Cook should be blamed for KP’s sacking. (Unless you agree with the sacking, in which case they will fight each other for the credit.) Whatever the case, there is no need to find out who told the lie/leak to the media, because it’s not erlevant anymore, and there’s a game to play, and well, anyway who cares about all this nitpicking. No one really minds being lied to….surely…. do they?
Cook denied giving an ultimatum, but didn’t define what an ultimatum might be. So he didn’t deny threatening to quit in some non-ultimatum-like fashion. But he did answer that he agreed with the decision. THAT was relevant. Would he have walked out had KP been selected? Well answering that would have revealed whether it was he or Strauss who was lying.
(……Oh, did I just assume it was Strauss who leaked / lied that, merely because it was in his own interests? How silly of me.)
The only sensible option here is to stop going insane trying to work out which uncorroborated media reports are true or not, and stick to what the people involved actually say. Which means what Strauss actually said, and what Cook actually said, and what Graves actually said, and what KP actually said… and what Bell said, what Broad said, what a heap of people from the last Ashes said, etc.
It still isn’t a pretty look for the ECB, but “leaks” can be anything and need to be taken with a massive pinch of salt.
A bunch of collective EGO’s of Clarke, Cook n Strauss have put theirs over the national interest and they want to worm their way out of it, despite not succeeding in the last 15 months.They still keep repeating the same ‘Let it Go and Move On’.They are obscenely clouting their power to show that despite the opinion of so many former and current players, unbiased journos, majority of the public who pay them with their hard earned dough, consistently over a period of time that none of it matters other than their own ego.
Remember Cook’s comments about Yorkshire? I wonder if this has anything to do with it:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/878757.html
From the BBC report of today’s Strauss lunchtime interview:
Andrew Strauss on TMS: “It is a funny situation. When I decided to take this on, the Kevin Pietersen issue was one that needed cleaning up. I thought it was important we had some clarity on it and the players weren’t involved in the decision. It was an ECB one. You have to go with what you think is best. I am a believer in the idea that the environment of a team helps them to perform…
What somehow escaped the report was his rather breathtaking remark to Agnew: “Let’s not make this about personalities..”
Can anyone explain how the Pietersen affair isn’t about personalities ?
And of course quick as yer like Agnew replied: “But this has always been about personalities hasn’t it?”
No, of course not. If there is one thing we can all be certain about, that is the usual suspects will go along with anything and everything that comes out of ECB’s corporate and collective mouth!!!
Cook is not a leader in any way shape or form. How he is still captain when everyone around him seems to have been sacked is mind boggling especially when he lead England to a 5-0 Ashes defeat prior to either Downton or Moores being appointed.