Truth and reconciliation

Three times so far today I’ve started a post, then spiked it, dissatisfied, and started again. Each time I was derailed by the same problem – I wasn’t telling the truth. Enough is enough. The only way is to say what I actually think, because otherwise, on a blog, what’s the point?

There’s no merit in my dishing up an insipid soup of pusillanimous bilge, padded out with fake magnanimity, just for the sake of it. I would be deceiving you.

If you disagree with what I’m about to say, and many of you will, feel free to use the comments board to give me both barrels.

For England supporters, this is a time for unalloyed joy and celebration. England have soundly beaten Australia and won the Ashes. Simple as. Victory over the old enemy is English cricket’s syringe of heroin: an instant feel-good; a balm for all troubles; gratification in and of itself. One of Lou Reed’s Perfect Days.
From the late 1970s to the mid-1980s, England routinely beat Australia. But then began a period of Antipodean dominance so long, so utter, and so unanswerable, that precious few believed the urn would ever return to these shores. Because the Ashes define us, emotionally, the aeon of brutal Australian hegemony corroded our souls and hacked our self-esteem to shreds.
This is why, even though England have now won five of the last seven series, any Ashes victory still creates that moreish, irresistible, sugar-rush of redemption and bliss. Especially so, since the savage humiliation of 2013-14 remains so raw in our memories.
Judging by our questionnaire on Friday night, the majority of you, our readers, are delighted by England’s success. And why not? England won, against the apparent odds. The team played with more freedom and self-expression than for years. Stuart Broad is in the form of his life. Joe Root is now a genuine world-class batting superstar. Ben Stokes and Moeen Ali point to an exciting future.

But now comes the truth. I cannot find it in myself to derive one iota’s pleasure from England regaining the Ashes. And here’s why.

For thirty-one years, man and boy, I gave the England cricket team everything I had. I began following the side during the home series against New Zealand in 1983. And in the three decades which followed, come thick or thin, and it was mainly thin, I was the loyallest England supporter you could imagine. I was emotionally invested, committed, and patriotic.

I identified my own fortunes with those of the England team. Victory brought joy, defeat sorrow. Tense, important, and closely-fought matches reduced me to a nervous wreck. I attended matches in person whenever I could. In the days before the internet, I followed entire sessions of test matches on Ceefax. I travelled to Australia to watch the 2002-03 Ashes.

Why do you think I (jointly) set up this blog? Why have I run it, with James, for six years since 2009? Because I don’t care? We don’t get paid for our writing or administration. We have no connections to the players and management, nor do we have a material interest in the outcome of anything we discuss.

Throughout my years as a supporter, I backed our players without question. I defended the team when they lost. During the dark years of the 1980s and 1990s, no defeat – no matter how supine – turned me against England. Neither results nor the quality of performance were relevant. I gave unconditional love.

Here on The Full Toss, I offered England unambiguous support. Read the archive. I used the first person – we, and us. I greatly admired Andrew Strauss, both as player and captain. I admired Alastair Cook during the 2010-11 Ashes, and the 2012 India tour.

And what I did get in return? What did you get in return? When push came to shove, how were those years of unflinching loyalty repaid?

On 6th February 2014 I wrote the following on these pages:

The ECB has taken a long, slow look at us, and then – quite deliberately – thrown a bucket of cold piss in our face.

I mean it then, and I mean it now. Nothing has changed. The words are as true today as they were eighteen months ago. How can forgive someone when they have no interest in your forgiveness? When they don’t give a stuff what you think or how you feel?

When the ECB responded to reasonable questions and objections over the Pietersen affair by abusing and belittling their own supporters, by telling lies, and by avoiding interviews but leaking innuendo through their friends in the press, they made an important statement. The England side was their own personal property. It belonged to them, and no one else. No England follower, in the ECB’s view, possessed any equity in the team.

When the ECB decided they would pick the England team on the basis of their corporate politics and personal grudges, rather than cricketing merit, they killed stone dead the concept of a national England cricket team. From that point onwards, the eleven players on the field would represent the ECB, not England. And I find it impossible to invest my emotional energy into a corporate entity. I may as well support Vodafone or Credit Suisse.

When the ECB moved heaven and earth to construct the fantasy portrayal of Alastair Cook as a saintly, selfless, national saviour – when their own evidence suggested he willfully helped destroy Kevin Pietersen’s career, for no apparent reason beyond his own benefit – they made another factor clear. Nothing about the England team – what they said, what they did, or how they operated – could ever again be taken at face value. Black was white and white was black. The England XI on the field was a sham.

Because Cook had colluded and connived with his bosses’ skulduggery, he became their place-man, an on-field role of ECB representative which he gladly accepted. And yet the team was built around him, and justified by his supposed virtues. The side became his vehicle and vanity project, further eroding any remaining claim to a representative mandate.

None of this was my fault. None of this was your fault. None of us did any of this. The ECB brought it entirely upon themselves.

How much could I enjoy supporting a side like that? How fervently could I cheer them on? How could I identify myself with England, when England wanted nothing to do with me? What had been the point of thirty years of anguish and heart-break on their behalf? And why should I endure any more, for their sake?

The ECB have had eighteen months to reflect on their misconduct and selfishness. Despite tsunamis of criticism, they have never provided a word of recognition or regret. The substitution of Colin Graves for Giles Clarke has made not one jot of difference. They have no interest in olive branches. They don’t think they’ve done anything wrong. They enjoy being the ‘inside’ and they want you and me to remain firmly outside.

The entire concept of supporting a sports team relies on the principle of joint endeavour. Otherwise you’re spending your spare time cheering on millionaire strangers. The ECB severed public from team and are happy to keep it that way. I can’t get excited about a party I’ve not been invited to. I can’t take pride in the achievements of a project which didn’t want me involved.

James, in yesterday’s piece, is right to say there are far more important problems in English cricket than one player. And I utterly agree. The Sky deal, the Big Three, administrative myopia and self-interest, and the other issues raised in Death of a Gentleman, will all cause English and world cricket far more damage than team selection.

This has never been about one player. It will never will be. It’s about belonging. It’s about ownership. English’s cricket’s moral corruption and destructive conduct – whether at home or abroad, however expressed – are part of the same problem. Because they believe cricket is theirs, and theirs only, they do what the hell they like, and couldn’t care less about the consequences.

I don’t want it to be this way. I want my England back. I want your England back. But we didn’t start this fire. And we cannot put it out alone.

 

100 comments

  • Well said, Maxie. There will those (?many) who don’t understand your position. Those who do, let’s face it, are probably a small group. When I saw the headline above Selvey’s piece in today’s Observer, “Mission to reconnect with public is complete”, it stuck in my craw, even though the sub-editors have taken a slight liberty with the actual words of Lord S.

    I won’t say I got no pleasure out of beating the Aussies. It’s a learned response, that I first felt in 1970/71. I can’t make it mean nothing, but the ECB have diminished my pleasure in the performance of England. I am weak – I reinstated my Sky Sports subscription just before the 1st Test. I love watching cricket and wanted to see what would happen, but (and this never happened in the past) part of me was always hoping that something would go wrong, and that England would have egg on their faces. I don’t think this is my fault. It is the ECB’s fault. My wife, always hitherto a person reasonably interested in cricket, perhaps for my sake, has over the last year refused to allow me to give her updates during matches, and has turned down the volume on England cricket news items (if they’re doing well).

    If my response has not been so extreme, I nevertheless will never forgive the ECB for reducing my enjoyment of watching my country’s cricket team.

    • Ed Smith’s article in the Sunday Times was equally objectionable, arguing the tests results entirely vindicated the treatment of Pietersen.

      • Yes, I read that article too, and found it highly distasteful. Ed Smith is obviously one of those who likes to toe the party line.

  • At last, an article I can wholeheartedly and fervently do nothing but agree with.
    For the first time in my life, soundly beating the Australians at cricket has brought me no pleasure at all. And if I read any more post-match pieces which mention how Alice stopped darling Alastair from resigning all those months ago when his piss-poor batting, captaincy and humanity absolutely demanded nothing else, I think I might be sick.

    Thanks Maxie. I share your feelings, and your regret at how things have come to this point. It really isn’t our fault.

  • Very well articulated and I broadly agree with it all

    If an England team from the 90’s had won an Ashes series it would have meant a lot more to me than the current success…

  • Maxie I admire your passion, and your view, and maybe just maybe you feel the way you do because you care/cared about England even more than I do.

    I just think your interpretation of events when KP was sacked differ subtly in a couple of ways – and therefore your train of thought has taken a different tangent.

    For starters, I don’t think Cook colluded in a sinister manner. He was in a very weak position and lucky to keep his own job. When confronted by Flower and an ECB that wanted a scapegoat, he was in no position to make a stand over Pietersen even if he was inclined to do so. He basically did what he was told.

    I find the Cook image massaging (cult etc) nauseating, and believe he’s a very good but somewhat overrated batsman with an average record against the best teams, but I don’t believe he’s anywhere near as bad as you feel. All the players genuinely seem to like him. Even KP himself says very little bad about him. It wasn’t his choice that the ECB built him up into some kind of cheesy messiah.

    I have nothing but contempt for the ECB, but as you say yourself they don’t own English cricket and they are not English cricket. It must be possible to separate the team from the officials, surely? If you were a young English cricketer with the opportunity to play for England, I assume you’d just go out there, enjoy it, and represent the country and the fans – and to hell with the board.

    I really believe the most constructive thing to do is get behind the young English players, who represent the public and the country, and to hell with the ECB. They don’t see themselves as representing a corporate entity; they believe they’re playing for ‘England’.

    If you presented your argument to Mark Wood he’d look at you funnily and think you were mad. My feelings on the burning issues have evolved recently, and I think the best way forward is to cheer for the team and simultaneously do our best to hold authority to account. After all, don’t we hold authority to account precisely because we want the team to do well (and world cricket to be healthy too)?

    • It was Cook who ran and told Flower what KP had said in a players-only team meeting. Now, why did he do that?

      • (JM again here). I thought that was Prior? Look, I’m not saying Cook was entirely blameless, but I can understand his position. He’s the captain and he obviously felt a little undermined by KP’s protests about that notorious extra training session. As I said in my review of Pietersen’s book, KP was often on the right side of all the major arguments but was too confrontational in the way he dealt with things. Cook is obviously a little over sensitive, and stubborn as a bloody mule, but it’s helpful to show empathy to all parties involved.

    • James your even-handed eloquence keeps me returning to this blog.

      Thank you and keep writing!

    • James,

      I’ve been critical of your stance before (coming from a more KP-hostile starting point than you), but I agree with just about everything you wrote in your 7:47 9/8/15 posting.
      I don’t think that the ECB played the KP affair well. They have failed administratively, endangered the future of “our” game through the restriction of distribution to Sky for so long and failed to act honourably and openly in a sport previously defined by these characteristics.
      Nevertheless, we’re now on the right track in sporting terms and whatever your opinion of Cook as a batsman and as a Captain I would have thought that his pre-lunch declaration on Friday would suggest even to die-hard opponents that things have changed. Meanwhile a return for KP in the context of the new younger team’s performance would look absurd.
      Let’s move on. Enjoy, even glory in the recapture of the Ashes if you can. If you can’t, just give it time. Let’s all hold TPTB to account – push hard for the return of television distribution to free-to-air, preferably BBC coverage; campaign for more cheaper tickets for home internationals and for schemes to boost attendance at County and other fixtures; relentlessly oppose the corruption and stupidity of the ICC’s deliberations; encourage administrative openness from the ECB and straight talking from cricket journalists.
      But enjoy the moment if you can and now put your voice and your shoulder behind the future of English cricket in the form of Root, Stokes, Ali, Finn and Wood and maybe, just maybe, through Cook a bone too if you can. He may not be all that the ECB have tried to portray him as and like all captains surely has his flaws – but I’m glad he’s as stubborn as he himself admits and that he stuck with it. We won!

  • Agreed!

    I did not watch, having ditched Sky Sports after they demonstrated their supine style of journalism. I did keep up with the BBC wicket updates coming through to the wristwatch and noted the tinge of pleasure when a wicket fell if England were batting and the tinge of dread when an Australian wicket fell. It most definitely should have been the other way round, but it seems England have not managed to reconnect with me!

  • BRAVO! Well said Maxie. For me it was FORTY years, man and boy, I gave the England cricket team everything I had. Now no more, ever again, for the reasons you outlined. Cook is, as you say, right there at the centre of it all.

  • All across English sport people hate the administrators, the FA are despised, the RFU ridiculed, the LTA laughed at. Internationally its worse, just look at FIFA and the IOC

    Cricket is the same, since I’ve followed cricket the hierarchy have been lambasted, the old TCCB were constantly criticised, nothing has changed. Us fans always think we can do better, run the sport differently.

    This however should never cross the line, the lads are playing for England, us, the people.
    How people cannot support blokes like Root, Stokes, Butler & Ali is beyond me.

  • I would like to believe there is more to be heard of the pietersen story as time goes by.

    Lest we forget he did fraternise with the enemy in the south Africa series also. The guy is just not conducive to a happy dressing room. Thank god Australia were so bad, that pietersen story can be put completely to bed now

    • “happy dressing room”

      His rebellion against Strauss was because there was NOT a happy dressing room (KPGenius is not really reflecting a healthy environment).

      The Ashes 2013/14 was a car crash waiting to happen, and no amount of diet pages, fitness exercises and dossiers could hide the fact that something was not working in Flower’s world.

      So much of what improved over the last weeks reflects how bad things were (and are currently celebrated by all). Approach to cricket, captain power, training skills, relaxed atmosphere, bowling lengths, no management speak.

      To my knowledge, the major “fall outs” KP had was when he lost respect for the authorities (Coach / Captain – Notts, Moores, KPGenius, Ashes 13/14). He mostly has a point. But puts it across directly and naive. (Prick and point?)

      It will be good to hear more on the “pietersen story”. But this story goes way back and involves far more than KP. Many other players were also impacted (Finn, Compton, Carberry, possibly also Monty). And I suspect not many involved will come out smelling like roses.

      KP is no saint. But he was not the only and not the biggest problem in England cricket, and still was treated appalling.

      PS – Great Posts by both Maxie and James

      • (JM again here). I agree Boer. Good post. KP was scapegoated and treated terribly in my opinion, but he didn’t exactly help himself.

        I can’t let my feelings about one player though (KP), override my affection for all of the others.

  • I think it’s a shame that the series win isn’t bringing you more pleasure. Nearly all English players made useful contributions at some point or other. Viewed from afar, the England team looked like they are now really playing as a team focussed on group success.
    Probably not the best time to compare the Australian way of doing things, but do you remember what happened to the international cricketing career of Andrew Symmonds when he focussed on himself rather than the national team?
    He was promptly flicked (regardless of his talent) and no one looked back.

    • I agree that “no one looked back” after Symmonds was sacked. However,
      I’m not sure that Pietersen and Symmonds is a good comparison. Symmonds main problem (based on the public record) seems to be binge drinking which resulted in him missing training sessions, accusations of public brawling and making a complete tit of himself when interviewed on the radio (eg calling McCullum a “piece of shit”). He was also hardly “promptly flicked” as he was suspended / dropped / sent home 3 times between 8/2008 and 6/2009.

      Would the treatment of Simon Katich be a better example? (I’m a bity vague about the details of that story)

    • Symonds had some clearly documented issues that were not just about whistling in team meetings.

      Agree that Katich is a much better example. He dropped out of the team injured when he was playing well, but then wasn’t given a contract the following year saying they were building for the future, however Katich claimed it was because Clarke (who had recently been made captain) didn’t want him due to the scuffle they had a few years earlier when Clarke wanted to wind up the post match celebrations (and in particular singing of the team song) early so he could go of to party with his then girlfriend.

      • KP wasn’t “whistling in team meetings” as far as I know. You’ve managed to conflate 2 of his alleged ‘crimes’: whistling when he got out and looking out of the window during a team meeting.

  • Great piece Maxie and echoes some of the sentiments expressed by Dmitri Old. I am still lucky that I can support England, enjoy their successes (when they come along) and separate them from the ECB skullduggery but it’s been hard, we’re commodities to them now not fans anymore.

    The carve up of international cricket led by Giles Clarke and aliases, the absoluletly horrendous treatment of one of England’s best batsmen, the old boys club – you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours combined with their total antipathy for anyone who dares question them shows them in their true light – success is good, but money is king.

    A very sad state of affairs when people who have supported England for 20 years + feel unable to enjoy the successes anymore. Well done ECB – I guess you hit your goal and made sure us fans feel that we’re all outside cricket now.

  • A bit like supporting Arsenal FC. Same class of out-of-touch tossers with same attitude (replace Cook as puppet with Wenger!) running the joint!

  • Maxie, there’s a parallel in football with which you’re very familiar. Ten years ago, as you know, Manchester United were taken over by the Glazers. The PLC that preceded them, like the old TCCB, was hardly a bastion of constructive engagement with fans, imposing regular ticket price rises and generally doing their best to make Old Trafford into an atmosphere-free corporate cash cow which other fans widely ridicule it for. But, as was widely predicted at the time, the Glazers have taken it to another level, sending prices rocketing yet further and treating fans with the same contempt you so rightly accuse the ECB of.

    The Glazer takeover, and the dismissive way they greeted fan protests, was a seminal moment that divided United fans much the way Pietersen’s sacking did England cricket fans. Some just continued as normal as if nothing had happened. At the other end of the scale, a significant group of fans broke away completely and formed FC United. In the middle, the Manchester United Supporters’ Trust came up with the Green and Gold campaign, visibly showing fans’ opposition to the Glazers while maintaining unwavering support for the players, who bore no blame for the actions of the owners. Although the campaign is fairly low key at the moment, the Trust continues to work towards a future where the owners have the same priorities as fans.

    I passionately believe England fans who care about the future of this great game can find a similar middle way, visibly opposing the powers that be and fighting for change without withdrawing support for the team, who are not to blame for the many faults of those that employ them. We just need to find it and unite behind it. To paraphrase the Green and Gold campaign: Love England, Hate the ECB.

    • Thank you for your eloquent and thoughtful post, HH. But I’m not sure the comparison is valid. Football club owners are transient – eventually, the Glazers will sell up and clear off. The ECB self-renew – they will always run the team. Also, a national team purports to represent the whole country. Football clubs such as MUFC have a much more hazily defined constituency. Add in your own jokes here about Surrey.

  • For England supporters, this is a time for unalloyed joy and celebration.

    Not unalloyed.
    I still count myself an England supporter, but while a century from Root, for example, is a cause for genuine celebration, one from Cook would engender only a slightly grudging respect.
    Moreover, the series ceased to be a contest of the morning of the fourth test with Australia’s capitulation – and since the alienation engendered by the ECB has taught me to appreciate more the merits of England’s opponents, the fun in following Broad’s remarkable efforts was significantly diminished by the realisation that they were rather devalued by what was clearly pitiful Australian batting.

  • Excellent, heartfelt piece, thank you Maxie.

    I looked at Michael Clarke in tears after the match, because he knew he would have to go. It was painful for him and I sympathised, but at the same time, that’s what happens. Captains whose teams get flogged all round the park have to quit. It goes with the territory. He knows that.

    And it made me think all over again how plain wrong the ECB’s conduct in the aftermath of the 13/14 Ashes had been. I’ve always said that my problem was not that Pietersen was sacked, but that he was the only person who was.

    Cook should have lost the captaincy after that series, and Flower should have been removed from the England setup altogether. That’s what happened after 2006/7, which was a less humiliating display by England. Nobody offered Duncan Fletcher a job at Loughborough. His team screwed up and he went.

    Yes, Cook has now worked out how to captain. I expect if Flintoff had been given another 18 months, he would have got it sorted out too.

    The message sent by the England administration’s response to that series was that if your face fits, if the Chairman likes you, if you’re ‘the right sort of person’ to please the sponsors, you can fail and fail and you’ll always be backed.

    For me now, there are two Englands. The ones I can’t support and the ones I’m delighted to see succeed. It makes watching a rather odd experience.

    • Of course Cook should have gone after the 2013/14 annihilation, but there is a difference compared to the Australians’ situation now and that of England in 2006/07: the availability of an obvious replacement captain. My own view after 2013/14 was that Bell should have got the job, but I can see that that might not have been a widely held opinion. Now nobody will ever know whether he would have been any good, but he certainly couldn’t have been worse than Cook – that is, Cook Mk I. Cook Mk II, on display in this series, is a different captain.

  • I expect nothing but the truth from you Maxie and would not want it any other way and thank you for that. It’s the reason why I follow the blog.

    With the exception of your views on Alistair Cook a lot of what you say does resonate with me but I cannot share your feelings. I see the team and the ECB administration as two entirely different things.

    I understand your passion and that it is still driving you. It’s simply that the direction is now different. I wish that your views could be tempered to a degree because you are missing much that is good.

    I find it fmd difficult to see any meaningful change in the immediate future but hope that one day there will be some kind of reconciliation.

    It’s sad that former England supporters take pleasure in the fall of English wickets and would prefer our developing young team to lose.

    The DOAGfilm raises both awareness and serious issues. The ICC are a hard nut to crack but at least it is a start.

    I remain 100% in support of the England team and wish them well in everything they do.

  • Having followed England for 35 years, I have been shocked at how little pleasure I have derived from an Ashes victory. Utterly disillusioned. Heading to disinterested. I can see no way back. Damn them for that.

  • So Pietersen’s suffered character assassination through a series of leaks yet you just go by pretty much nothing to conclude Cook had some sort of Machiavellian hand in it? This despite him being behind recalling him to the side in the first place?

    Pietersen wasn’t popular, that was about it, and the ECB royally fucked up their handling of the situation.

    I actually think, given the many far more serious wounds the ECB has inflicted on us, that this constant focus on pietersen is borderline insulting. It’s not the first time a maverick sportsman has been cast into the cold and it won’t be the last. Just let it go.

    • Hi Ralph – I hoped I’d been able to argue that none of this is about one selection decision. It’s about the attitude of the decision makers towards the public, as most acutely and drastically expressed by that particular decision. “Royally fucked up” sounds like sloppiness or incompetence. Far from in in this case. The ECB’s handling was utterly deliberate and calculated.

      “You just go by pretty much nothing to conclude Cook had some sort of Machiavellian hand in it?”

      We know from the ECB’s “due diligence” dossier that after the Melbourne test Pietersen told Cook and Prior, in a confidential, private, conversation, that he opposed Andy Flower remaining as coach, and that this information was relayed directly to Flower. This event triggered Pietersen’s downfall.

      “This despite him being behind recalling him to the side in the first place?”

      The recall has been attributed to many different parties, but most of the evidence suggests the ECB had no choice, as he hadn’t breached his contract. Jonathan Agnew reported that it was Flower’s decision. Others have said it was down to Giles Clarke.

      “I actually think, given the many far more serious wounds the ECB has inflicted on us”

      In fairness, we have given those a great deal of attention, too – especially the TV deals, grass-roots funding, and ticket prices – you may have seen our surveys of international ticket prices for the 2015 season.

      • Cook potentially gossiping is so little to go on. It’s pretty much impossible to divine the circumstances through which that was all relayed back. It’s pretty clear something was seriously wrong with the spirit in the England dressing room at that time, and negative elements needed to be rooted out.

        I’d say that the team now are demonstrably more likeable and more together than they previously were – it’s baffling that a character such as Pietersen, who has fallen out with so many teams he’s played for, and has done so little with the bat since getting the boot, simultaneously recruiting Piers Morgan as a sort of bizarre PR attack dog, can be so mourned.

        • Others might find it “baffling” that someone with over 8,000 Test runs, over 13,000 international runs, 23 Test hundreds and some of the greatest innings played by any English batsman (including three very special ones in his last two years with England), as well as a more recent Ashes century than the captain, is so casually dismissed for reasons that have naff all to do with cricket.

          • But it does have to do with cricket – just because it’s not specifically about his on-field performance doesn’t mean personality doesn’t have a huge impact on the collective performance of a team. I thought sacking him full stop was pretty extreme, but they didn’t get rid of him just for the hell of it, and I really don’t see why dropping one of our best players over a year ago should impact on the enjoyment of a good performance now.

            Also I find it bizarre that people can be so negative about Cook hanging on. You talk about setting and example to younger players, and that refusal to give up when, at times, it must have been easier to pack it in, is a great quality for a captain to have. I think he’s built up a lot of respect from the team through toughing it out and that has seen him (even with the whitewash), as statistically right up with some of the most successful England captains of modern times.

            • The joys of the English language: by “dismiss”, I didn’t literally mean his sacking, I meant the way in which people have diminished and airbrushed his contribution to Englich cricket in recent years. It is a very worrying and growing trend. Paul Newman even said, explicitly, “he will be remembered more for what happened in 2014 than for his career”, which is a) garbage and b) something only the media can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. They’re not doing a bad job either.

              I summed this up a while ago as “It doesn’t matter what Snowball did at the Battle of the Cowshed, because he trod on Napoleon’s trotters.” Napoleon can be whoever you like – Strauss, Cook, Flower – but the crucial thing is that he and his army of Squealers are in charge of the narrative.

              • No, they got rid of him as they felt that he had a negative influence on the side. Whether you agree with their decision or not, it’s pretty clear that he was at the heart of a number of divisions and disagreements within the squad, and the management clearly took the view that his talents no longer warranted a level of indulgence that kept him in the side.

                It doesn’t take much to work that out, and the impression that seems to be given of him as some kind of angel incapable of doing wrong seems to have been informed by nothing but wishful thinking.

              • ‘he was at the heart of a number of divisions and disagreements within the squad’

                I’m afraid you could have had made that comment about any one of a number of senior players and members of the tour management in Australia, not all of whom topped the averages for their particular specialisation as he did.
                No one is saying that KP – or several other of the senior pros – is/are angels, but the way his exclusion was handled reflected badly on everyone. By their actions since then Strauss and Graves made sure the current ECB set up was mired in the controversy when – regardless of the rights and wrongs of the history – they had the opportunity to draw a line under it.

              • “They got rid of him as they felt that he had a negative influence on the side”.

                Even the ECB didn’t actually accuse him of this.

                “It’s pretty clear that he was at the heart of a number of divisions and disagreements within the squad”.

                Is it? In which way? What evidence is there which suggests this?

                You also said:

                “Negative elements needed to be rooted out”.

                There is more evidence that Cook was a negative element, than that Pietersen was.

  • Agreed. And it’s a cause for melancholy rather than anger or celebration, for me, anyway. The only positive has been a lowering of my stress levels – I was able to accept that England had won the ashes after Australia’s first innings, which people I know who remain more emotionally invested in the team were appalled by.

    The worst of it is that this England team should be the most likeable in years, if not ever. Root, Ali, Bairstow, Wood, Finn, Rashid, Taylor, Buttler, even (as long as he remains a congenital idiot rather than the playground bully he threatens to become) Stokes – the young core of this team are almost ridiculously agreeable. But they’re not my team any more.

  • The ultimate irony of this Ashes series is that so few English people have had the opportunity to see their team win while thanks to Channel 9 live coverage many Australians got to see their side lose.

    There is a moral their somewhere about what is eventually going to kill cricket in England as a sport.

  • I have mixed feelings about the England cricket team. On the one hand I am disgusted by the way Clarke et al are busy squeezing the money and the life out of the game. I think their handling of Pietersen was unforgiveable and the regular leaks and PR bullshit makes me want to vomit. Cook’s vulgar clinging to his position after the whitewash plus his collar-up, gum-chewing arrogance has turned me off someone I used to admire. I think the England management is surrounded by a coterie of lick-spittle yes-men journalists who refuse to ask the tough questions. I have refused to pay the inflated prices to watch England either on TV or at the grounds (instead I’ve been to see a few county games this year).

    On the other hand, I don’t think it’s entirely correct to say that Pietersen was the only scapegoat of the whitewash. Flower has been removed as coach, which was clearly overdue. As was Moores when it was apparent he was the wrong man. Farbrace and Bayliss seem to be excellent coaches who allow the players much more freedom to express themselves. They also seem to be more flexible in their selections. Finn is back and bowling properly again, there are a number of exciting new players. Clarke and Collier are gone. The odious Prior and Swann are gone and the games this year seemed to be played in a far more sporting, and good-natured way, with less sledging and general nastiness.

    • Giles Clarke is most definitely not gone. I can’t believe that anyone who professes to despise him celebrated when he simply became ECB President rather than Chairman.

      Incidentally, over the years I’ve seen several journalists praise Clarke for “overseeing” a period of success for England, but I am yet to see anyone give Colin Graves the slightest credit for anything that’s happened since May. I wonder why that might be.

      • You’re right to say that Clarke hasn’t gone, but he’s now very much focused on the ICC and international affairs. I think part of the deal with Graves is that Clarke keeps his nose out of domestic business. At least that’s my understanding.

        I don’t think anyone on this thread is arguing that the ECB is anything other than a law unto itself. It has behaved appallingly. The question I suppose is whether one’s hatred of the ECB overrides one’s love of the players. JM.

        • All I can say to the first paragraph is good luck dismantling or even tweaking any of the most unpalatable elements of Clarke’s legacy; for example the bidding system, the utterly warped Test and ODI scheduling, the general avarice. A bit of nice PR appears to have gone a long way with some sceptics this summer. Hasn’t worked on me I’m afraid.

          As for the second, and speaking only for myself: my hatred lay fairly dormant between the Sky sell-off and Stanford. It was focused almost solely on Clarke after Stanford. It really started to grow rapidly, and incorporate the ECB in general, after the full implications of the Ashes scheduling switch became clear in 2012, alongside the phlegmatic, unquestioning attitude of many who wrote about it. This preceded textgate, which only intensified things. I’m afraid that the double tipping point of the ICC carve-up and the sacking of a player I loved was, in this climate, far too much to stomach. I see no way back, frankly. Like many I have a lot of time for some of the players, but then again I cancelled Sky in March 2014 so they’re not part of the fabric of my life in the way Gower, Robin Smith, Thorpe or Pietersen (names chosen carefully to make a point) were.

          I only have to read the way in which Ed Smith gave Paul sodding Downton credit for sticking by Cook yesterday, while describing people like Maxie, Dmitri and many similarly disillusioned long-time fans as a “mob”, to re-confirm that my instincts are correct. Every apologist for what’s become of England and world cricket can go to hell.

          • I understand why you feel the way you do. Please don’t think I’m trying to belittle your position or say it’s wrong. I just feel slightly differently.

            There will always be cheerleaders. We just have to put up with them. I suppose they’re entitled to their views too, no matter how unpalatable. I’m afraid I’ve lost all respect for Ed Smith after his absolutely insane criticisms of Death of a Gentleman on BBC TMS.

            Smith argued that NFL somehow proves that the ICC carve up was a good thing (essentially) even though he obviously knows bugger all about NFL – it shares revenue equally between teams, so the model actually supports what the film is saying not the opposite.

            Incredibly, and I still can’t believe I heard him say this, he basically argued that administrators don’t matter! He said FIFA is corrupt but football is growing, so basically it doesn’t matter what Srinivasan etc get up to. It was an extraordinary argument. I pictured him going for a G&T with Giles Clarke immediately afterwards. Extraordinary that any real cricket fan can argue that it doesn’t matter who runs the game. JM

            • Likewise. I’m not trying to *convince* anyone; just articulating a perspective similar to Maxie’s and trying to show *why* a “mob” might feel the way they do.

              Have you seen him today by the way? Repeats “mob” (for at least the fourth time this year) and adds “pathetic populist trying to whip up support for a cod-Marxist student rally.” He represents absolutely everything that’s wrong with English cricket and its media for me.

              http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/908209.html

              • Oh dear. Poor Ed embarrassing himself again. He portrays himself as an essay writer and some kind of academic, but his arguments are just as polemical as the stuff he ridicules. How can it be a conspiracy that Cook was propped up because of his class? Giles Clarke bloody admitted he was ‘exactly the sort of person, from the right kind of family’ that they wanted the England captain to be! How can people not read these words and be suspicious?

                Once again Smith relishes putting down those he disagrees with. And he does it with all the flair and ignorance of a ‘let them eat cake’ aristocrat – flexing his supposedly superior mental muscles.

                He should realise there are lots of people who are just as clever as him (if not more intelligent) who hold exactly the opposite view. To portray them as a reactionary mob is insulting – and it makes him look half as clever as he thinks he is. JM.

            • As an apparent spokesperson for the ECB nomenklatura, and serial re-writer of history, Ed Smith should think twice about throwing around the ‘cod-Marxist’ insult.

      • Arron,

        You’re right to point out that Clarke is not gone. It seems to me though that he’s been kicked upstairs, away from the England team and into the corrupt world of the ICC. Of course you can argue he can do even more damge there, but at least he’s not as close to our England team anymore…

  • It’s been a while since I’ve responded on this blog, or Dmitri’s, because I think my position has been an amalgam of your views and James’s. Try as I might, I simply cannot make the disconnect between the players and the ECB. I’m very happy for the players that they won. A very good effort, notwithstanding the abject capitulation of the Aussies. Am I overjoyed? No!
    Ambivalance would be the correct word to use. As you rightly said Maxie, the ECB threw a bucket of cold piss on my deep love of English cricket…and I can’t get it back. May they rot in Hell for destroying that in me!!

  • Maxie
    Your piece resonates with me. These two quotes in particular sum up much of the problem :

    “From that point onwards, the eleven players on the field would represent the ECB, not England.”

    “Nothing about the England team – what they said, what they did, or how they operated – could ever again be taken at face value.”

    On a slightly selfish note, I was pleased to read something that reflected the way I was feeling – including the positives about Root, Stokes and Finn in particular – as I was beginning to think, having read Smith, Selvey et al, that I was the only curmudgeon in the house !

  • One point I want to pick up on is the idea that the Pietersen issue has “been laid to rest”.

    This depends what one thinks the Pietersen issue was. In terms of recalling Pietersen as a player, absolutely. In terms of the precedent it set for how the ECB can treat the players and the public, absolutely not. In their minds they’ve not only got away with it but have been vindicated. If they can sack a player of Pietersen’s stature, fail even to produce a charge sheet of what he was supposed to have done and engage in character assassination by nod-and-wink then they can behave like that with anyone.
    If that is then reinforced by certain senior players having an effective power of veto who is in the team (as Dean Wilson’s story alleged Cook – and possibly others – had over the issue of making Pietersen available for selection again) then it is even more unhealthy.

    It doesn’t matter at the moment. The team is winning, management is mostly getting it right on the pitch and the players are mostly young and compliant. However there are ticking time-bombs here that may well re-emerge when the team is under stress. A tour going wrong, management idiocy, players who have ideas what’s going wrong – the next time that particular cocktail confronts the ECB my concern is that they’ll go straight for the 2013/14 manual of ‘How to manage a Difficult Winter’.

    • Only time will tell.
      It’s interesting that Atherton in today’s Times, and Pietersen himself in another generous article in the Telegraph, both credit Cook with changing the nature of his captaincy, and abandoning his previous stubbornness (a word both use).

      I was also somewhat astonished to read this in another Times article:
      “But a culture allowing the admission of mistakes to set the right is a robust culture, and Cook must be credited with nurturing it…”

      Yet another tacit admission that Pietersen was bang on in his criticism of how the team was run.
      Thus far he has been vindicated in just about every complaint outlined in his book.

      Strau

    • These are very good points, SimonH.

      A slightly encouraging thought, however, is that the key players coming through will be better equipped to deal with the ECB than Pietersen was. KP was a perfect storm of seeing himself as a maverick talent, priding himself on being an outspoken Saffer (and perhaps never really understanding the odd British subtextual/underhand way of doing things) and mostly not having a strong base in the county system. The likes of Root, Buttler, Moeen and Stokes will be more familiar with the kind of people they’re dealing with and how such people have to be dealt with, and importantly they’ll have people back in their counties who’ve been mentors, have influence and can advise them if problems crop up.

      The comparison with Flintoff is always interesting. He seems to have become every bit as problematic in the dressing-room as Pietersen, but he knew how to play the true Englishman/lovable Northerner cards and use the media, and at times he was able to bully the management before they could bully him.

    • Excellent points indeed.
      The only other thing I would add is that they didn’t just sack him – which is of course the selectors’ prerogative – they declared him forever unselectable.

      That such a precedent be set, and that the cricketing press basically unite in agreement that it need no longer be questioned, is pretty dispiriting.

    • Good post Simon. However, I do think the ECB will learn from this. And I don’t agree that they completely got away with it either – at least not everyone. Let’s not forget that a primary reason for Downton’s sacking was his complete mishandling of the KP situation.

      Andrew Strauss is a smart man, and he admitted when he took over that the ECB handled the situation terribly. I really don’t think they’ll make the same mistakes again. At least I bloody hope they won’t!

      • Many thanks for the replies.

        Two points I’d like to clarify:
        1) History doesn’t repeat itself exactly so I’m not arguing we’ll see a precise rerun of 13/14 in the future. It’s more the general tendency not to look honestly at the causes of a bad tour (especially any failures by management) and to blame easy scapegoats instead that I fear.
        2) When I said at the end the Pietersen affair doesn’t “matter” I meant in terms of the success of the team. As a violation of basic principles of natural justice, of course it matters.

        I’d disagree with what Admin (James?) said about the KP affair being part of the reason for the downfall of Downton. The stated reason was the failure at the WC and, for once, I believe what the ECB say! If England had got to the WC Final or SF I think Downton would have survived.

      • I wouldn’t be too sure if that James. Knowing the system I never expected them to behave in any other way. ‘Never apologise, never explain’.

  • A read I can empathise with – it feels important not to let Ashes euphoria overcome my ongoing disgust with the ECB’s attempts at corporate governance and the three way ICC stitch up.

    Zepherine wrote:

    “A slightly encouraging thought, however, is that the key players coming through will be better equipped to deal with the ECB than Pietersen was.”

    I would have thought the challenges of dealing with Test cricket are quite enough, and yet there we are, they have to ‘deal with the ECB’ too.

    Please keep pushing on how the game has been run and fans have been treated.

  • To add to your Post Heading:

    “But the process of forgiveness also requires acknowledgement on the part of the perpetrator that they have committed an offence” – Bishop Tutu

  • Has anyone in the MSM looked ahead at the challenges facing England? Yes, they can beat a strangely inept Australian batting line-up when they leave some grass on the pitch but remember just how toothless “Broady” and “Jimmy” and “Woody” and “Stokesy” were at Lords, on a pitch rather closer to international norms. All it takes is for a couple of good results and suddenly England are world-beaters again. Do you remember the pattern? After the success against India last year? After the relative success in the tri-nations earlier this year, when Downton said that England had a real chance of success in the World Cup?

    • While I don’t want to take anything away from Englands win, spectacular as it was. The question remains in two visits to Australia over the last two years Ashes and then World cup) England has struggled in those conditions as much as Australia has struggled in English seaming conditions.

      Its a poor situation for the game if home conditions have such a dominate influence on the outcome of a series. The last thing we need is for every series to go strongly on a home and away basis.

    • I really don’t think there is anywhere near enough appreciation how bad England have been abroad in the last decade or so. Some examples:

      1) England have not beaten a non-Big Three team in an away series since 07/08 (NZ).
      2) Alastair Cook has played in 12 away Test wins – Michael Clarke (so widely derided for his away Test record as captain) has played in 23.
      3) Stuart Broad has played in just 8 away Test wins – Malcolm Marshall who played in a virtually identical number of Tests (both about 80) played in 24.
      4) Ian Bell has played in 50 away Tests and 25 of them were lost.

  • Well said indeed Maxie! I haven’t read the others’ comments and hence may be repetitious; the Ashes win euphoria will enable the ECB to cover up all its inexcusable actions from the past. I would have loved a drubbing and a resultant clean up of the mess. Alas! the rotten establishment is alive and kicking!

    • What a naive writer. Full of hate – the characteristic he apparently abhors. There has been no effort to mend fences and build bridges at all from the MSM (not that I’ve read). Do they want war forever? Why not concede that critics had a point, but they’re glad Cook the captain has improved as they’d hoped, and move on?

      • It was never ever going to be that simple. I suppose I should adopt the prevailing MSM attitude and shout my mouth off about how I feel completely vindicated by this grotesque reaction to the Ashes win.

    • “Now, in the wake of England’s two subsequent crushing victories over the Aussies at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge, it is Pietersen — and his online mob of followers who had screamed for his recall and the sacking of Cook — left looking ‘so, so, so, so silly’.
      By contrast, the man he ridiculed as a real-life Ned Flanders has shown great powers of leadership in taking a young side to victory against a hitherto all-conquering Australian team — something which not a single pundit had predicted.”.

      It’s war (it always was).

      • Which journalist wrote that nonsense ? Was it Selvey ? Well, as Clint Eastwood’s character says in one of the Dirty Harry films…”opinions are like ar**holes, everyone has one…”

    • And this to end on:
      “It is why so many of us England cricket fans venerate Alastair Cook and are delighted to see the back of Kevin Pietersen: bombast, bling, three lions tattoos and all.”.

    • Some idea of the quality of his arguments is illustrated perfectly by the following segment of his column, in which he uses Camila Batmanghelidjh excess weight to suggest she is mentally ill.

      “Until I saw this encounter, I had no idea just how humongous the charity boss had become. There’s nothing morally wrong in that, but extreme obesity can be (in the absence of disease) an indicator of acute psychological problems.

      To say Batmanghelidjh is off her rocker might be putting it crudely, but”

      There’s nothing quite as classy as suggesting someone you disagree with has psychological problems (whilst calling them humungously fat)

      This, of course, from the son of Nigel “Mr Creosote” Lawson.

      Compelling argument.

  • My road to disinterest in the Ashes victory was different-I switched the Sky Ashes channel on for half an hour during the first or second test and watched Ballance or Buttler-I don`t remember which- poking around incompetently at the crease and was appalled at the fayre served up by the Selectors when one of the finest batting techniques I`ve ever seen in a England player -Pietersen`s- was forced to sit on the sidelines because officially he criticised Nick Knight`s credential`s, didn`t contradict a South African player`s assessment of Strauss as a doos whilst committing the ludricous “sin” of fraternising with his mates, and was difficult after the Melbourne Test in 2013/14, although unofficially in my opinion it was his public criticism of the ECB scheduling that did him in.
    The ECB Politburo wouldn’t forgive him for that-I say Politburo because a picture of an ECB Board meeting was in the newspapers recently and I was instantly reminded of Chernenko, Grishin and Andropov sitting round a table.
    Yes ,a number of the England players did well and played out of their skins but looking beyond the short term they`ve done the Country no favours by legitimising the ECB .

  • There are definitely enough players in the England team I like that I feel able to support the team without worrying too much about the ECB. The ethos of the team has changed, we seem to sledge less, so I find the team less morally objectionable, and I like the aggressive intent we bring to our batting. For me, the positives outweigh the negatives at this point.

    That doesn’t mean I’m not still furious over a whole host of other issues though. The way county cricket is run, the way amateur cricket is run, the way global cricket is run, all piss me the hell off.

    The biggest issue is sky though. That will always be the elephant in the room. As long as that deal remains in place, everything else is just fiddling while Rome burns.

    • Remains in place? More worrying are the implications of the city based T20 competition which the ECB are allegedly discussing with them. If that comes off – given the money involved – out Test side will go the way of Australia.

      • Don’t get me started on that!

        County cricket needs an urgent revamp, but in the completely opposite direction to the way being suggested!

  • Agree with every word Maxie. I have tried to support the team I really have, but I have failed. Every time I see Broad,Anderson and Cook I think of their behaviour during and after the KP affair. I despise them for their cowardice. I sometimes wonder whether they ever feel a twinge of conscience? Probably not.

  • Many thanks for all your thoughtful and illuminating comments – we appreciate your taking the time to contribute them.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting