In the countdown to this year’s Ashes series, England is in a state of flux.
There is a new chairman of the ECB, the coach has been sacked with a full-time replacement yet to be appointed, former captain Andrew Strauss has been appointed the new director of cricket for the England team, and Kevin Pietersen has been told that he will not play for his adopted country this year… or effectively, ever again.
Later today at the annual general meeting at Lord’s, ECB chairman Giles Clarke will stand down after nearly eight years at the helm. Throughout his tenure he has been a divisive figure. While he has left England cricket in a better financial position than when he took over in 2007, his nation’s on-field performance lately has been mediocre, at best.
Clarke hands over the reins to Colin Graves with the latter assuming responsibility for an England set-up that is currently ranked fifth in Test cricket, sixth in ODIs and eighth in T20s.
One man who has felt the wrath of the ECB over the team’s current world standings is Peter Moores.He oversaw a disastrous World Cup campaign earlier this year that saw England eliminated at the group stage.
His fate was then sealed after a 1-1 draw in last month’s Test series in the Caribbean against the currently eighth-ranked and understrength West Indies – a series which incoming chairman Graves said needed to be won.
The axing was a case of déjà vu for Moores as his previous period as coach ended in the same fashion in January 2009 following a very public spat with Pietersen, who was Test skipper at the time.
When Moores was chosen as the replacement for Andy Flower in April last year many in the England cricket fraternity questioned the recycling of a man who had been sacked from the role just five years earlier.
Following the World Cup humiliation the then managing director of the ECB, former 30-Test veteran Paul Downton, stated publicly that Moores was still the right man for the job and would have the responsibility for rebuilding England cricket.
While Downton was a supporter, his replacement Strauss, is not.
In his autobiography released last year, Strauss said that during Moores’ first period as coach he “suffocated the players with too much information and energy”.mIt was clear in reading Strauss’ tone that he was not a great fan of the way Moores went about things.
Not surprisingly one of Strauss’ first actions upon taking up his new role was to remove him as coach.
In the lead-in to the Ashes England has a two-Test home series against New Zealand during which the team will be guided by Moores’ assistant coach, Paul Fabrace.
While he is expected to throw his hat into the ring for the position full-time the smart money is on former Australian fast bowler Jason Gillespie, who last year guided Yorkshire to the First Division County Championship title.
Strauss has confirmed he is very much on the radar and his predecessor as England captain Michael Vaughan has stated publicly that he thinks Gillespie is the right man for the job.
Gillespie last week turned down an offer from the SACA to return full-time as Darren Berry’s replacement as coach of the Redbacks and Strikers, citing the fact that his “work is not done at Yorks”.
Such a decision may have also been predicated on the impending sacking of Moores that was heavily mooted at the time South Australia made its approach.
For a man who was denied coaching opportunities by Cricket Australia and was forced to launch his post-playing career with the Mid-West Rhinos in Zimbabwe, it would be a delicious irony to coach England in the Ashes.
If, as expected, Gillespie gets the nod one thing is certain – he will not be mentoring Pietersen.
On the outer since being dropped in February 2014, Pietersen has never given up hope of playing again for England and has, in fact, been vocal in airing his desires. After a career-best unbeaten 355 for Surrey against Leicestershire earlier this week he sought, and received, an audience with Strauss and the new CEO of the ECB, Tom Harrison.
He was told by Strauss at that meeting that there was no place for him in the England set-up.
Strauss said of the decision that, “Now is the time to be really open about the Kevin Pietersen situation – people have been running away from it for years.
“The truth about Kevin is that he is a phenomenal cricketer. But over months and years, trust has eroded between Kevin Pietersen and the ECB.
“There is a massive trust issue between me and Kevin.”
That said, Strauss then explained how he had offered Pietersen a consultancy and advisory role with the England team. That offer had many scratching their heads.
If he cannot be trusted as a player, how then can he be seen as being the right man to offer advice and guidance?
Given Strauss has declared that it is the time “to be really open about the … situation”, perhaps he should provide more detail as to what the trust issues are as there are numerous England fans who are up in arms as to his ongoing non-selection.
Some have said that Strauss’ decision on Pietersen is as much to do with his own feelings toward him as it is to the team he would have returned to.
Pietersen has been openly critical of the way the past week has played out. In a column for the The Telegraph he said he was deceived by Graves.
Pietersen says that Graves was “crystal clear in saying that I had to get a county, score runs and that there was a clean slate. He says that when he comes in as chairman he wants the best players playing for England.
“He told me on the phone in two separate conversations. He also repeated it to the newspapers.”
For his part, Pietersen gave up a lucrative IPL contract to commit to county cricket by signing with Surrey where he rattled off his triple century this week.
Pietersen wrote further, saying, “I have done everything I can. Was I lied to by the chairman? Only he can answer that”.
Graves, who is hours away from being anointed as the new ECB chairman, has not spoken publicly since Pietersen’s column.
If Pietersen’s account is correct, and given Graves’ comments to the press it appears they are, regardless of what you think of him and whether or not he should have been welcomed back to the fold, he has been shabbily treated in this instance.
All in all, English cricket has some problems.
What bearing they will have on the team’s performance in the Ashes series is pure conjecture. But, one thing is for sure, you would rather be in Australia’s position at present.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
This is probably also one of the issues of appointing such recent players into those sorts of administrative positions. Probably always good to have someone in that position out of the game long enough that nobody they played with is still in the set up and therefore there's less chance of favouritism and the like based on who they were close to and who they didn't get on with personally when they were in the team!
colvin
Guest
No Disco. Of course people get identified for different reasons as not to be being selected again. But they generally are just not selected, something like Quade Cooper/ Matt Giteau with the Wallabies when Deans was coach. But to be publically banned and told publically that he will not be selected again. That is something different altogether. I read yesterday that Straus said that he did not necessarily agree with the decision. He was just passing on the ruling of the ECB. This also ties in with Michael Vaughan's comment that one of the reasons he withdrew from contention from the position of Director English Cricket was he couldn't pick KP.
josh
Roar Rookie
Dean Jones
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
As with most feuds, I don't think you can heap all the blame on one side. The ECB did a hopeless job of managing Pietersen, and the fact that Graves told him, 'Make runs and we'll think about it' only to have that flatly refuted, that's just crap, he has every reason to be mad about that. I also can't help noticing that they appointed two people of power with an anti-Pietersen predisposition, in Moores and Strauss. Seems to be saying something, and rather pettily at that. I don't think the whole thing could even have come about in a properly-lead set-up anyway, not unless Pietersen was a worse maverick and off-field menace than Shane Warne. I'm not saying he's been treated well by any stretch of the imagination. But KP burned his bridges with his media campaign. With his book and all of the interviews surrounding it, he picked the ECB apart and humiliated them so thoroughly 'English cricket' is basically a joke by itself, they're a laughing stock. He can't do that, and expect to be welcomed back in by anyone. It's all gone way beyond a simple "they're not there to get on with each other" scenario: he's gone out in public and slammed players in the current team, and surely there's no way back from that. Certainly in an Aussie team, I can't imagine that. They rely so much on team culture, just look at the difference Lehman made as evidence for that. Still, KP's certainly sold enough newspapers, hasn't he?
John
Guest
Simon Katich?
Worlds Biggest
Guest
So why doesn't Strauss sort out his issues with KP for the good of English Cricket ? I don't think KP feels the same way judging by his comments whilst guest commentating during the big bash. Anyway it's not going to happen. Dizzy would be a very good addition for the Poms.
Chancho
Roar Rookie
... and it continues... It's reported in the Mirror that Cook would have relinquished his captaincy and spot in the test side, and a number of others would have done the same if KP was bought back in. I mean, are they there to all get along, or are they there to play cricket and provide a spectacle? What the F is this?
Disco
Guest
You don't think certain Australian players have had their 'cards marked' by the selectors? Sure, the way this has played out (with Pietersen being dropped then reintegrated, then cast aside; and all along using the media to incessantly air his views) is unique, but players not being especially in wanted in team environments is nothing new.
Disco
Guest
Warne's appalling tantrum in he West Indies was swept under the carpet.
Disco
Guest
Indeed.
colvin
Guest
This KP thing is a complete circus. I was trying to think if anyone else in sport has been treated by their Sporting Authority the way English Cricket treated KP by banning him from future selection. I couldn't think of anyone, but then I thought of Meckiff who was banned for throwing; and then also some cricketers who were banned for throwing matches. I think Warney got banned for 6 months or a year for drug taking. I imagine some jockeys and trainers have been banned for pulling races and there are other sporting people (athletics) banned for performance enhancing drug taking (including Armstrong well after the event). A US football player was effectively banned, (he was put in the slammer) because he was organizing dog fights for gambling purposes. (But when he came out of the slammer he went back to football) But I couldn't think of anyone else. There must be some but it shows what a ham fisted approach English cricket has applied to this whole thing.
Bobbo7
Guest
No, NZ cricket can't pay the players what the IPL can offer and so they have to deal with it as it is - England would not change schedule so they arrive a few days beforehand Not really NZ cricket's fault - if they can't pay the big dollars to thier players what can they do? The players have a right to earn the money in the IPL and if NZ cricket said no then some may just walk. Unfortunetly NZ cricket cannot pay its players in the same league as the Australians, who are all on about 1 million a year minimum of they are playing most games. And NZ cricket cannot afford to upset the India board as that is where all the money comes from. NZ cricket have said the Indian tour once every 4 years or so basically pays for the whole of NZ cricket. I'm no fan of the IPL at all but small boards like NZ just have to deal with it
Jameswm
Guest
Maybe not initially, but I wouldn't expect him to be banished, sent to Coventry. He could serve his time and make it up.
Winston
Guest
I'm with you there Jameswm - crazy stuff. Is NZ underestimating England?
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Well I don't mind a bit of exaggeration and hate rolls off the tongue. Mostly I agree with you on our Warney but his understanding of team deserted him in the West Indies that time. Still I'd give Pietersen a crack, otherwise it's spite. Even Warney agrees with me!
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
Trust goes both ways Strauss...
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi Pope, You're making some big comments there. Did Warney really hate Gilly, or was it a case of them not being each other's cup of tea? That's a strong word, hate. But yeah, I liked Warnie too. He didn't take himself seriously in the same way KP does. And he better understood the team environment, despite his flaws.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Warney was openly disdainful of Buchanan, never forgave S Waugh for dropping him in the West Indies, hated Gilly, may or may not have sledged a new team mate, took a banned substance, took money from a match fixer. Just a larrikin really. And I like him.
Sam Brown
Roar Guru
Hey Editors, can you keep Gillespie on the books as an expert if he gets the job?
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I reckon Dizzy would relish the challenge. Lehmann inherited a basket case and went down 3 nil before everyone came good.