As we discussed earlier today, Jonathan Agnew is an angry man. It is an emotion that does not suit him. He is angry with me and he is angry with Piers Morgan. But most of all he is angry at a perceived injustice he feels has been dealt to Andy Flower.
Regular The Full Toss readers may recall an article I posted here at the beginning of May. No? Well, that would not surprise me since, by all accounts, it was read by the proverbial one man and his dog.
In round terms ‘Inside The Turtle Tank’ looked at how the ECB measured up as it went about fulfilling its duty of care to its employees, and Kevin Pietersen’s relationship with the ECB was offered up as a case study.
The strand that has most offended Jonathan Agnew is a paragraph which suggested that Flower, as architect of Pietersen’s humiliating “re-integration” after text-gate, had exacted a form of revenge for events going back to 2009. To remind you, as Maxie mentioned earlier, the phrase which particularly irked Agnew came a little earlier in the piece when I suggested, “Flower comes across as a manager long on memory and short on forgiveness…”
So why does any of this matter? It is an old article by a blogger known to no one; an opinion piece based on information in the public domain at that time. It attempts to draw together nuggets of information through educated assumptions in an effort to establish a narrative that halfway made sense.
There are two main reasons why it matters to Jonathan Agnew.
First, Piers Morgan somehow picked up on the article on Sunday morning and Tweeted this:
To those wondering why I back @KP24 so vehemently, read this astonishingly good, well-informed piece by @Tregaskis1 : http://t.co/dlSLNeShc4
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) September 7, 2014
The Tweet gave my article an audience it never enjoyed when first published.
Secondly, Pietersen’s autobiography is being published on 9 October, and I have read recently that Flower’s role will be very much in the cross hairs. If this is true, then I imagine that the ECB will be in full rebuttal mode, and this virtual storm may be an early skirmish in that battle.
I do not know Piers Morgan and I have not read Pietersen’s book, but I would be fairly sure that Morgan has had the full benefit of Pietersen’s interpretation of events, and I am equally certain that Little Brown’s lawyers will have cleared the book for publication.
During a TMS conversation on Friday, Jonathan Agnew slipped in a titbit of new information about Andy Flower that was largely missed. On Saturday, he gave the blogger Dmitri Old a Twitter nudge pointing him in the direction of the revelation, which was – as you have probably now read – that it was Flower, not Cook, who was largely responsible for reintegrating Pietersen back into the team after text-gate.
I joined the conversation and asked Agnew for his source. He wouldn’t tell me, which is fair enough, but when asked why he and others in the press originally credited Alastair Cook for bringing Pietersen back into the fold, he replied that the early view was a best guess, quickly revised to reasonable assumption, based on information available at the time.
In many ways, this opens up a can of worms. Why did the press not check the facts before bigging up Cook? Why has it taken to the eve of Pietersen’s book coming out before this new information is released? Why is it OK for the press to make best guesses or reasonable assumptions, an approach that Agnew has now chosen to use as a stick with which to beat me and the Turtle Tank piece? The press, after all, has a direct route to all the key protagonists, which is something bloggers like me do not have in their armoury.
Did Jonathan Agnew and other journalists ever check the anti-Pietersen briefings coming out of Lord’s with Pietersen? If Agnew’s informant was the ECB or an employee of the ECB, then surely it also represents a further breach of the confidentiality agreement?
I have no reason to disbelieve Agnew’s information, and none of this would have mattered but for the coincidence of Piers Morgan discovering the Turtle Tank piece. Agnew’s central charge is that based on the information he had released, I should have told Morgan that nothing I wrote was true, which is a bit of a sweeping indictment. He then issued this order:
@Tregaskis1 you should rewrite that blog knowing what you do now. You have shafted Flower
— Jonathan Agnew (@Aggerscricket) September 7, 2014
We then exchanged these Tweets:
@Tregaskis1 you know the facts. I gave them to you yesterday. You criticise journalists. Over to you.
— Jonathan Agnew (@Aggerscricket) September 7, 2014
As you can see above, I also suggested he might consider writing a Flower piece here on The Full Toss in order to redress the balance as he saw it. After all, this blog encourages a wide spectrum of views. Agnew declined.
His point is that, far from being an unforgiving character, Flower was very forgiving of Pietersen and responsible for giving him another chance. This, of course, attempts to oversimplify an extremely complex narrative that was playing out at the time.
From my point of view, the humiliating terms of reintegration were far from forgiving and there were also compelling cricketing reasons for keeping Pietersen in the team. After the Ashes whitewash, those reasons were probably less compelling, which partly explains his sacking. But I will let others make up their own minds whether or not Agnew’s point fundamentally undermines the central themes of the piece.
What shocks me a little is not just that Jonathan Agnew has chosen to get involved in a trifle, but that he has done so with such aggression. He has been abusive to me in a way that he would never countenance if something similar had been directed at him.
Furthermore, his slightly hysterical defence of Flower hardly reinforces his position as an impartial journalist and broadcaster. In many ways, his response more strongly supports the view that the press are too close to the ECB, the players and coaches.
I do not always agree with Jonathan Agnew’s opinion on things, but I am happy to defend his right to express it and to disagree with mine. I guess I am just a little surprised and disappointed that he did not go about it a little more calmly and with a little more civility.
@tregaskis1
Aggers amazes me. I have just retweeted this post. What is it with all these journos and the ECB? They seem incapable of viewing anything in a calm manner and get hysterical at the slightest sign of argument. I am looking forward to reading KPs book and Paul Newman et al and their reaction to it. I think we know what they will say
Great article tregaskis. If Aggers dropped this titbit it must have been for a reason that is helpful to ECB. I think that titbit is more about Cook than Flower. It appears to support Flower than Cook. Are the sands about to shift?.
Jonathan Agnew has long been an ECB mouthpiece. His attack on you and your excellent article tells us plenty about him. You have responded well as expected. Well done!
Believe me when I say that the anger that Agnew feels towards you or Morgan is but nothing, a ‘wafer-thin mint’ in the Norman feast following victory in the Battle of Hastings, compared to my anger at Agnew’s behaviour in this entire episode (i.e. dating back years). So much so that, after being a loyal and avid TMS listener since 1974/75, I no longer am one.
They say the truth hurts. Maybe that explains his anger.
There is no other logical explanation.
I fear the truth is that Aggers’ and a lot of the other journalists have backed themselves into so much of a corner over this issue that they are faced with two options. 1) involves them taking a step back, re reviewing their sources, and contemplating the fact they may have been played by people with an agenda or 2) turning on the other side “the outsiders”
Throw in a lot of stubbornness, and a perfectly understandable human response to think your view is right, and Its a lot easier for them to do the second than the first.
We have to all of the time remember that the journalists in the uk are part of the establishment – it’s the only way most of them could possibly earn a crust – as there is not a lot of talent amongst them and they would struggle in any other form of employment (if you class journalism as employment)
Now that really is quite core to this whole thing. Mike Selvey’s piece in the Guardian is bizarre. I think Mr Selvey has finally shown just how paranoid he is. Sometimes I wonder whether I am living in a parallel universe. They have indeed dug a hole for themselves and now it is almost impossible for them to climb out. The interrelationship between the ECB and many sports journos is tantamount to the relationship the government has with its financial cronies. I feel very sad at the moment even more than I have before and that has been bad. I used to respect these people and enjoy commentaries etc. but how can one have respect for these people when they lie? They know a damn sight more than they are telling us. Reminds me of the Selvey attack on many of us when he started ranting on Twitter. He walked into a cul-de-sac of his own making and then became exceedingly angry. It was very unpalatable indeed.
Really good article Tregaskis! As always. I am astounded by Mr Agnew’s attack. It certainly won’t end well.
Annie,
Not pumping my own blog, because that’s not my style, but look at what John Etheridge said re the ECB/journo relationship… It is in the public domain so if John has a problem with reproducing it here, he’d better let me know.
Make of it what you will.
Oh Thanks Dmitri. I will certainly do that. Been a bit out of touch recently – lot of illness – but back with a bang. I find this stuff really awful. Will it ever end? Just popping off to have a look now. Cheers.
So John Etheridge says there is no relationship between ECB and journos? So that’s why they all said, like a load of repeating parrots, that KP “caused trouble in every dressing room he has ever been?” How did they all know to say exactly the same words? How was it that John himself was caught up in the fiasco that came out from the ECB. He published it on Twitter that KP had returned all his gifts to the ECB? Wasn’t true of course, but what does that say about the relationship between John, et al, and the ECB? What does it say about what is and what is not true about anything in cricket?
If it was true to say that Cook was the one wanted to integrate KP back into the team before the Ashes, then it can equally be untrue now to say that it was Flower. Why the misinformation? I know what I think but it would be unpalatable for the ears of Agnew. Wasn’t it to make Cook look as though he was a forgiving soul and did all he could to give KP another chance? The ECB and journos certainly ran with the story for all it was worth. Actually if it was Flower then it makes more sense of Cook’s attitude towards KP. From my “ignorant” view, as an outsider, it gives a whole different reason why Cook and Prior called a “secret” and “private” meeting without Flower only to go off and tell Flower what KP said about him.
To my mind, Agnew has actually made a huge error in dropping this little nugget. He has by has own hand helped me to see that the ECB is most definitely a bunch of lying miscreants. If Flower was the prime mover, rather than Cook, then this puts Cook in a far worse light than before, surely. It also puts the ECB on the back foot because they allowed the “lie” to continue in order to beef up their support of Cook. As I said before, it just will not end well.
What a great blog Dmitri. Can I sign up somewhere to be kept in touch. Love the way you write, so real and honest with so much integrity. Fantastic stuff. Cheers Dmitri. Yet another good place to go to for good cricketing commentary without the same old same old from DP, MS, and the rest.
Aggers is upset because he gave us a nugget of info which he probably hoped we’d flag up in an article. By pure coincidence, an old article written months ago (that contradicted the new info he’d given us) suddenly got retweeted by Piers Morgan. Aggers didn’t initially realise it was an old article and thought Tregaskis had deliberately ignored him and gone out of his way to present a different (and false) portrayal of Flower.
Once it became clear it was an old article, Aggers asked Tregaskis to change his article and tell Morgan it was all lies. He refused to do, for the reasons he’s outlined above.
Aggers was also upset with us for not adding his new info to the piece – like a correction of sorts. My personal inclination is that we shouldn’t do this because it would set a bad precedent and create far too much work. We’d end up correcting a million and one articles we’ve published over the years. I can’t see the telegraph, guardian etc retrospectively correcting what were essentially opinion pieces several months after they were originally written! Where would it all end?
The article was based on the best available evidence at the time. It belongs to that time and should be viewed within that context. Of course, if / when we write something new on the topic, we will include Aggers’ new info and take it into account. To change old articles now however, on the back of information KP’s book may actually dispute, would be premature in my eyes. Lots of new info will come into the public domain over the next few days / weeks and I think we should wait until the dust settles.
If have sympathy for Aggers, as it was generous of him to provide us with any info, and he probably didn’t expect this response. However, until all the facts are out in the open, I think it’s natural that people will hesitate before changing their views.
The problem is James that Aggers new titbit of information about it being Flower not Cook who had allowed KP back into the team goes completely against the line the ECB and their media mates have been spinning.
When all those pieces about “what a jolly good bloke Alastair is for letting KP back in” were being pushed, why did Aggers not say Er no that is not what happened?
Can’t help thinking the ECB has got wind that KPs book is going to be damning about Flower. So now they are going into mass defence mode. And as Cook is now safe for the time being in the test team they can contradict the ” Alastair is a jolly, jolly good generous bloke” guff they were selling before.
Hi Mark. Yes it does seem odd! I think Aggers probably only just recently discovered it was Flower who brought back KP into the fold
Now that is a very good point Mark. Where does that leave the ECB publicity machine and of course the Downton/Clark press conference pieces. It seems that Aggers himself may have backed himself into a very dangerous corner. Not wise to make the ECB look like — now how can make this sound polite — dipsticks? It won’t end well.
Agnew’s report that Flower instigated the re-integration of Pietersen is irrelevant to Tregaskis’s article, which does not discuss the authorship of that process.
This is a very important point.
Its significance also depends on how seriously you take the text messages in the first place. Seeing as the texts have never been published, no journalist saw them at first hand, and that the ECB accepted that Pietersen neither denigrated Strauss nor disclosed tactical information, a decision by anyone to allow Pietersen back into the team does not count, I suggest, as an act of magnanimous heroism.
Don’t get me wrong James as I do like Aggers a lot. However by giving you that nugget he has put the ECB on the back foot and of course put Cook in a worst light than ever before. See my reply to Dmitri. The ECB knew that is was Flower but kept silent? We have to ask why that is surely? Beef up Cook would be my answer, as an outsider, of course! It was the ECB who allowed this to run and now, surely, it is they who will have to live with the lie they sold to the journos and cricket fans etc. Therefore, it is to the ECB that Aggers ought to take his angry comments, I feel, rather than TFT or indeed Tregaskis. The only reason this has become an issue for Aggers is because P. Morgan got hold of it. I rather suspect that put Aggers in a very difficult position. Really he should have kept his mouth shut and his pen dry and it would have died a death. Instead it is right out there in the open. I cannot think that the ECB would be pleased about it getting an airing. Makes the ECB look a bunch of liars, which i have suspected for a long time now. Makes Cook look like a very nasty piece of work indeed. Is that what these journos all really wanted? I wouldn’t have thought so. As my dad used to say: if you want to be a good liar you need to have a damn good memory. Because lack of good memory will inevitably lead to your lies being uncovered. ECB didn’t know my dad so I suspect that is why they have tripped themselves up!!! Still that is the trouble when certain cats are allowed to get out certain bags.
Good response, reasonably argued.
There’s a frankly hilarious article on the Guardian today from Mike Selvey, which is a fine example of the dismissive attitude of some of the press corps.
I particularly like this bit:
In the process Cook, a genuinely good man and one of the greatest of all England Test batsmen, was subjected to a disproportionate amount of abuse, some of it carefully orchestrated and relentless, of a kind that, in my experience anyway, has never before been directed at any England cricketer. It went beyond the boundaries of civilised (and perfectly legitimate) debate and it is inconceivable that such a drip-feed of malice would not penetrate into his consciousness: in this regard, the value of the reception and support that he received from the crowds during the India series should not be underestimated.
Malice, drip feed, relentless,beyond the boundaries of civilised….hmmm like calling someone a c@nt on air perhaps…??Is Mike Selvey trolling his own readers?
Things might get a bit funky in the next few weeks…
I made a similar comment on the Selvey piece but it has disappeared into the ether. I have to ask: how would someone who couldn’t even handle a former teammate’s perfectly justified cricket-based criticism react if another former teammate called him an “absolute c*nt” on air and THEN saw this view condoned by the gentlemen of the press.
“One of England’s greatest Test batsmen has come in for disproportionate abuse.” Either he is trolling, or he remains completely unaware of the irony contained in sentences like these.
Every time I think we might be overstating the case for the Cook “cult”, along comes a piece like this.
I have just spat out a furious response to Selvey’s piece, which will no doubt be modded, though I reined myself in as much as I was able. Alas, I wrote it more out of anger than sorrow, otherwise icy disdain or sarcastic mockery would have been a more appropriate response. I am bitterly disillusioned with someone I used to greatly admire.
I was nodding throughout your post. Don’t know why it would be modded, it reads like “legitimate debate” to me.
The usual suspects have now turned up to accuse you personally of “abuse”, as well as cowardice before the mighty Lord when he ventures BTL.
Hope you save some anger for them.
My response to westcorkthinktank, along similar lines, has also mysteriously vanished into the ether.
He’s best left un-replied to, to be honest. Not worth the effort.
I know, you are right, sometimes though I just can’t resist the bait. It’s more my fault in truth.
Yes, I rarely respond directly to WestCorkVillageIdiot. He’s much more eager to get my attention than I am disposed to give it. As for the remarks of DucdeBlancmange, or whatever his name is, I trust to the fairmindedness of other BTL contributors.
Dcduwhatever had a go at me as well!
I am convinced Dude B is Derek Pringle. He used the same phrases that Pringle uses. I asked him but didn’t get any reply to that question.
Clive I read your comments and have left a few of my own so angry am I over it all.
Well having read your pieces Clive have to say that none of them came across as “angry” at all. They did come across with a great deal of sense and the first one was an absolute corker. I think I might have said that in the comments. Trouble is that a lot of the commenters made far more sense than the article by Mr Selvey. I do believe he is away with the fairies and of course somewhat paranoid.
It was an excellent reply.
Selvey must have been watching cricket in a parallel universe this summer.
As one commentator said: Irony is most certainly dead!
When it comes to the Strauss comment, which of course was not abusive in the eyes of the press, it seems that this was more than okay. It seems to be that the Strauss comment was not “on air” because he thought it was “off air!” That meant that there was no case to be answered. The fact that Strauss used such an offensive word does not matter. Strauss thought he was “off air”. So that’s alright then according to the usual suspects. Some commentators said that as this was said in “private” it is not worthy of condemnation!!! You couldn’t make this rubbish up. My former respect for Strauss completely gone – as I told him on Twitter! And “I hope your revenge is sweet!”
All these changes of the original “facts” gives more credence to my former feeling that a conspiracy between many of the sports commentators/journos and the ECB has indeed been going on! Conversely it may well mean that the drip, drip venom that all the usual suspects have been engendering is untrue?
I think Agnew has made an own goal letting this nugget come to the surface. I wonder whether he realises himself yet how pathetic he has made the ECB look? You couldn’t make this stuff up. If you did no-one would believe you.
If this is a disproportionate abuse Cook has had, what does he call the vitriol KP has had directed against him all these years.Poor Alistair!!!
Pissed my pants when reading that piece, in anticipation of the feedback entertainment mainly. Comedy gold from Selvey.
“The value of the reception and support that he received from the crowds during the India series should not be underestimated”.
The size of the crowds should not be exaggerated. Almost no one turned up for the Ageas Bowl.
What a thin-skinned, pompous individual the Voice of Waitrose continues to show himself to be. And as you suggest, demanding that you write a mea culpa piece on Flower for a four-month-old, relatively little-read piece when Voice and his colleagues have been assassinating Pietersen’s character to their large audiences for month after month is more than a little ironic. And doubly so when it was Voice and his colleagues who were responsible for your factual error in the first place. I happen to think it makes not a great deal of difference whether Flower or Cook was behind Pietersen’s “reintegration” in 2012. More to the point is that after Melbourne 2013, the whole team apparently rebelled against Flower’s dictatorial manner and rigid, laptop-driven plans, but after word got back to the coach, they blamed it all on Pietersen and he was hung out to dry.
Rather than picking fights with bloggers (particularly with one way above his intellectual league), Voice ought to concentrate on looking up Alastair Cook’s Ashes record (average of under 30 in four out of five series) before the next time he tells us why it’s so important that Cook should remain as test captain.
There is no factual error in our piece.
A laudably calm and eminently reasonable response to appalling, childish behaviour from a man who may not (as he often reminds us) be employed directly by the BBC but certainly benefits from its platform and who, in talking like this, has destroyed any notion of his being an objective commentator on events regarding Flower and the ECB.
Aggers has embarrassed himself in this episode. Like a petulant child.
Anyone who has had experience and been blocked by Aggers at one time or another by simply disagreeing with something he has said, will not be at all surprised at the way he has reacted. He has painted himself into a corner. Oh dear !! It surprises me that Flower would have wanted KP back.Sure he didn’t but realised that without KP in India the team would be a disaster.He could always wait a little longer for his revenge.
No indeed Julie. I asked a question and got blocked. Mike Selvey sounded like a spoilt child and went on to his mates sight claiming those that didn’t agree with him were upsetting him. How old are these guys anyway? Sometimes methinks you are talking to a load of teenage prima donnas rather than grown men old enough to be able to engage in a civilised manner. DP in disguise said that none of us would say the same things if we were in the same room. Well I asked Mr Selvey to come and meet some of us in pub of his choice and we can all have a chat over a pint. Emasi was pleased to add name to list. We are still waiting to hear whether Mr Selvey has the err um, err um the proverbials to come and meet the deadly “conspirators!” Not likely is it?
While I’m on, Clive, Emasi, Kersechris and others wrote some stunning pieces.
Wish I could come,Annie but Oz is a long way away. Interesting snippet with Agger’s.He blocked me last year,naughty girl, I disagreed with him about something to do with KP.Earlier this year he tweeted me and asked me if I would like to tweet again.Needless to say I took great joy in refusing saying I was still following KP.Still wonder why he did that.I liked Mike.Even met him in NZ last year.Am very disappointed with him.
Oh Julie! Oz? Fab. I have family there and would have moved there had I been younger. Love the place. Been 3 times and once with my wonderful husband. Took him there to meet my family and a brilliant trip. I think he would have stayed on the ferries going round Sydney Harbour forever if he could! Aggers blocked me from his own because I asked a question he didn’t like. Hasn’t asked me back but like you I wouldn’t want to. Not sure what has happened to Mike Selvey. He always seemed a very good journalist but now he just seems away with the fairies. He certainly is very brittle and keeps us in two very distinctive camps. If he thinks you are against Cook in any way, then you are, de facto, KP “luvvies”. No
inbetweenies. He cannot seem to understand that because many of think Cook is not captain material does not equate with “Cook haters!” I even tried to explain on twitter but he became extremely aggressive and angry.
“Social Media was a good way to pass on information. But the trolls, idiots and know-nothings make it unpleasant. So I’m out of here. Sorry.”
Paul Newman: “great shame but I don’t blame you!”
I asked PN why it was alright for MS to call me a troll, idiot and a no-nothing for asking a question? After which PN blocked me. Never even attempted to answer the question.
What I just cannot fathom is why these journos act this way! I don’t get it at all.
Hope sun is shining in Oz. Spring on its way there I suspect and our autumn winter beckoning. Cheers Annie
Annie, lovely to hear from you.Often admire your comments. I too don’t understand why journo’s are so fragile over this KP ECB, Cook thing. Have my own ideas but they’re not very nice.i think things are going to get quite nasty till KP’s book is released and for some time after.Think ECB,Cook and AF have a lot of guilt and it is going to come out [ I hope] They cannot hide behind the press forever and will have to face the music. Doesn’t matter how often they try to put KP down, he is honest and they have been proven to not be so they will not look good.Met KP for the first time in Queenstown NZ last year .He is a lovely young man. He was so nice to me. and I cannot understand how the press has vilified him over the years. Cannot believe some of the things I read.Sun is shining today and am so looking forward to summer.tee hee. Was in England 2 mths ago but it wasn’t really summer.i do love England and come over to visit friends and watch KP play. Sadly that may not be so again but I haven’t given up yet. Julie x
An important element in all discussion of relations between cricket’s media and public is the definition of what counts as facts, and how they are disseminated.
Imagine a history lesson which went like this:
“Stalin was a very bad man”,
“Really? In what way?”
“People have told me so.”
“Who?”
“I can’t possibly say.”
“What did they tell you?”
“I can’t tell you that either.”
“So why should I take this assertion seriously?”
“Because I know more than you do.”
Maxie, you are but simply one of those outside cricket. All of this, including having any form of opinion, should be left to those on the inside.
Ain’t that it in a nutshell Maxie. That is just what it is like reading this crap from the same old suspects. I for one, am sick to death of this stuff.
There’s zero chance of Aggers writing that Flower article while Flower is still heavily involved in English cricket. Lest we forget, the man who oversaw the Ashes humiliation is still around…
Take a look at Agnew’s Twitter feed tonight. He’s still bullying Tregaskis. He won’t let it go. What’s going on?
What is going on? It is simple Maxie. Jonathan Agnew is a pompous ass with delusions of grandeur. He imagines that Tregaskis will say that Andy Flower is big on forgiving on Agnew’s say-so.
Has anyone asked Agnew how this magnanimous act on the part of Flower squares with the dossier of misdemeanours that was mentioned twice on the same podcast? The existence of this dossier was not challenged by the host. Was it maintained without the knowledge of the team director?
The dossier was always one of the oddest tales. If it existed, how did it start? After how many misdemeanours did it occur to someone to start writing them down?
Oh, well. Just look on it as free advertising. Voice normally charges a small fortune for that kind of publicity — he certainly looks on Waitrose as his main employer, as he keeps reminding us that he is not employed by the BBC. Could we have an indication of how the visitor numbers have increased for this blog since Voice made his unprovoked attack? Just to rub it in his face.
I didn’t mean to sound like I was complaining – if you publish a blog you invite scrutiny and criticism.
Approx 44,000 hits between Sunday afternoon and late Tuesday.
If Agger’s really believes that ,he is the worst judge of people on this earth.Flower would be the most unforgiving grudge carrying man I have ever had anything to do with. Shame KP ever came up against him.History could have been so different.
Jonathan Agnew has been letting himself down very badly since the KP sacking and this is a real low. As well as being utterly charmless and revealing of his character, his attitude is very revealing of his opinions:
Firstly, he seems to think this little nugget about Flower being behind KP’s reintegration is a matter of great import, up there with Watergate, and that TFT should be extremely grateful for having it bestowed upon them – the fact it was also freely available to anyone who listened to TMS is obviously beside the point. We must be beholden. We know it was an important revelation – Agnew tweeted Dmitri Old to point out he had somehow missed the life-changing bomshell and to listen again.
Is it even true, though? Or is it just the latest bit of spin from the ECB in preparation for KP’s book which is rumoured to be highly critical of Flower’s management? Agnew refuses to say who told him, the origin of the story is not available to be examined, Agnew just insists his word should be taken for it with no further questioning, and the possibility he’s simply fallen for another bit of ECB ‘truth’ is not an option. Just extraordinarily convenient it’s popped up two years after the event just when it might be useful to mitigate KP’s criticism of Flower.
Even if it is true, so what? Agnew seems to think this simply settles everything. That there can be no other motive for Flower wanting KP in the side. Not pure pragmatism, for instance. KP’s last match for England – the infamous second Test against SA in 2012 – featured one of the all-time great innings. Perhaps the most telling moment was Dale Steyn looking at his captain after KP had whipped him across the line for another crunching boundary and smiling, then shrugging, as if to say “I’ve got nothing”. Who wouldn’t want that batsman in the team at almost any cost? Could anyone else have played that innings? Without him England wouldn’t have won in India – one of the great moments of Flower’s managerial career.
How about the possibility Flower realized that fault lay on both sides and ending someone’s career over a few texts in the heat of the moment was ridiculously over the top?
Apparently not. For Agnew this can only prove that Flower is a forgiving man and, somehow, invalidates any criticism of England’s management of its players over a full decade and Flower’s management of KP throughout his tenure as England coach. Interesting.
Apparently Tregaskis has Flower’s character wrong and he is doing him a disservice. For this we have Agnew’s word for it and that should be enough. Asking for any kind of evidence of this is insulting. Tregaskis is not allowed an opinion of Flower, and must re-write or withdraw a piece he wrote many months ago. Why? Because Jonathan Agnew has now bestowed knowledge on him, and all records must be changed in accordance.
I have a few questions, Mr Agnew:
-I thought you made a good point regarding the way people conduct themselves on social media and the way, in turn, you respond. How does this accord with your frankly bullying and insulting behaviour over the last few days? Shouting ‘garbage’ and ‘hatchet job’ at complete strangers is hardly courteous. In fact, it seems to be exactly what you criticized others for.
-Will you be approaching all other news organizations and insisting they re-write all back issues in accordance with your new info (for which they must take your word)? Will you be bombarding Michael Atherton with tweets calling his articles ‘garbage’ and ‘hatchet job’ because they feature unflattering portrayals of people you know? Will you be going back over the BBC archive to change all your articles to make sure they fit all information gained since they were published? Or would that just be insane?
-When did it become your job to chase down people on the internet and bully them regarding their opinion of Andy Flower and how does this fit in with your role at the BBC? Have you heard of freedom of expression? Why do you believe you have the right to dictate policy and content to a blog because you deigned to give them a snippet of unsupported information which was freely available anyway? Is this part of the TMS remit? Protect the reputations of ECB employees whatever it takes? Do you not think it risks making you look craven to the ECB and somewhat lacking in impartiality (when you’re not too busy making their sponsor’s promotional videos)? I’ve been looking on John Etheridge’s twitter feed for your tweets yelling ‘garbage’ and ‘hatchet job’ for his blatantly untrue story about KP’s silverware…somehow they’ve disappeared. I’ve looked on Paul Newman’s feed for your charming comments regarding his blatantly spoonfed story about Ian Bell’s leadership challenge and there’s not a ‘hatchet job’ to be seen. Curious.
– Finally, if someone you knew only via a few messages on Twitter got in touch and insisted you had KP all wrong and you had to rewrite your work in accordance with his opinion, and kept yelling ‘Fact!!’ at you and refused to tell you how he knew, would you then just drop everything and say, well fair enough, I’ve completely changed my opinion?
No, of course not. So why do you expect Maxie and Tregaskis to do exactly that? Do your flies up – your patrician superiority and sense of entitlement has slipped out.
Amazed that someone who purports to be journalist can be so thin skinned and has reacted in the manner that he has. I really think that Mr Agnew has done himself a serious disservice and his credibility will take a long time to recover, if it ever does.
I do like the picture with the article, long time since I wore a uniform but hope that my re-enlistment is permitted !!!!!
It’s…keyboard warriors (as you probably guessed).
It was KBWs I was referring to when I talked of reenlisting. Far too long in the tooth for any other form.
While searching for something else, I just found this report from 2012:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/kevinpietersen/9568883/ECB-facing-1m-legal-threat-over-Kevin-Pietersen-contract.html
which – if true – might suggest that whoever got in touch with KP might have been doing so on legal advice rather than out of the kindness of their hearts.
This is very interesting indeed. I wonder how long elapsed between the ECB reading that and Flower extending the olive branch to KP?
Great spot, Zeph, and thanks.
Aggers has now zero credibility with me and I will keep my listening to TMS to those days when he is not on it. I just cannot believe what a ridiculous request he has made to you.
I’ve been thinking about this and wonder aloud if this isn’t one of Agnew’s end-of-term japes to keep the interest and also wind people up. In a friendly, nasty sort of way ( He’d call it ‘humour’).
As we know Agnew gained the enormous sum of 3 Tests and 3 ODI’s for England over 30 years ago. He is well versed, therefore, in the modern issues confronting cricketers in 2014. Additionally, as happens all too regularly, he was given a ‘shoe-in’ to commentary with the BBC. How cosy it must be for cricketers, and other sports people, to just walk straight into the media with no formal training and pontificate to their hearts content. No signing on with the riff raff for Jonathan. Who cares about all those junior journalists who’ve undertaken years of training and plodding the streets aspiring for a post with the BBC. Straight in at the top! He’s entitled!
Agnew has had a the usual middle class career which entitles him to comment on anything he wants. The home international cricket season has finished. What better than to ‘throw something in the mix’ – it doesn’t matter about consequences because Jonathan never has to deal with consequences. When being called to question Jonathan can just switch of his phone or block people’s twitter accounts. Jonathan is not accountable for anything – especially to the public – who he derides. He’s just having a bit of fun, in a spoilt brat sort of way, at other people’s expense. He really is unpleasant.
That’s not quite true – JA started out on BBC local radio in Leicester and pretty much learned the trade from the bottom up. He had much more experience of broadcasting than the average ex pro.
I wish the BBC would get rid of him. TMS feels to me like it is all about him and what he wants to talk about. It is not impartial anymore when he is on and this hounding of people who disagree is pathetic and I cannot believe that any credible broadcaster would do such a thing.
Agnew, Selvey et al. Have lost all credibility in my eyes and I suspect I’m not the only one.
Has Agnew any evidence that he would like to share that supports his allegation that Flower is the hero of text gate?
If not I would suggest that Tregaskis is by far the more credible interlocutor here and certainly the better writer.
It wouldn’t be hard to be a better writer than Agnew as he doesn’t actually write his own articles. They are always ‘as told to’ someone who can string together a written sentence.
I’ve repeatedly asked Agnew to provide further information about his report on Flower’s role. Who told him, and what did they say? Without knowing who has disseminated this story, you can’t assess its significance. Why did they want it to be known?
In light of how much has been made of it, it was hardly unreasonable to ask for evidence.
Must confess that Agnew used to be one of my all time favourite commentators on TMS but some of the things he has said of late and this current episode just shows that he is no longer able to be objective. Just because Agnew got a couple of people to tell him that it was AF doesn’t make it so. All these months we were encouraged to believe the line that nice captain Cook made it all possible by requesting KP’s reintegration. The ever nice Captain Cook who was so magnanimous and KP “spat in his face,” so we must all applaud Cook for giving KP a second chance? Now, all of a sudden, we discover that the original porkie coming forth from the ECB and selected acolytes, that was an out and out ECB lie? Unbelievable. And so now Aggers expects us all to swallow yet another story from the ECB? Where’s the evidence? If the ECB is saying such stuff then I demand some concrete evidence of the this different piece of TRUTH. Sorry Aggers, it’s not you I doubt but I do doubt your sources, especially if the sources come from inside/or close to the ECB. One swallow doth not a summer make and one other story doth not a truth make. Not for me. Having read the piece by Tregaskis I fail to see what the fuss is all about anyway. I’ve seen more offensive language from Mike Selvey towards myself and others on Twitter. I’m still waiting for Mike to apologise to me and his mate. I think these ECB acolytes and the ECB itself are really panicking with KPs book almost on the bookshelves. I hope, for KPs sake, that he doesn’t use venomous words and anger in his book. I just hope it is honest and truthful and magnanimous. Nothing like heaping coals on the heads of those who have been utterly appalling for months.
The one thing that has been missed. If the article about Flower is true, then once again the ECB defended Cook as being the re-integrator when in fact he was obviously the dissenter who Flower had to turn round. This allied to months of denying his hapless captaincy shows he is the real power in English cricket despite the fact he divides the English cricket players like a warm knife through butter. There must be some naked photo’s involved for this ongoing defence of the most ineffective England Captain of the last god knows how many years.
They can’t have it both ways – was it Cook or Flower? Or Prior, as suggested before? If not Cook, that removes a central plank of the argument that he deserved sympathy for the supposed way Pietersen destabilised him in Australia. And also if not Cook, who put it about that it was?
Anyone else expecting Aggers and / or Piers to flash the ‘its only bantz’ get out of jail card?
I just wanted to say you have a great blog, don’t let one hater detract from the fantastic work you do.
Many thanks – it’s team-work though, as everyone who comments and contributes plays a part.
We certainly won’t let anyone tell us what to write.
Not even the lovable Aggers?!?
[…] Inside The Turtle Tank – a link to which Morgan had randomly Tweeted the previous day. Agnew wanted us to withdraw the assertion that Andy Flower was “long on memory and short on forgiveness”. At that point, no one […]