******Cricket Thread******

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paulpowersleftfoot said:
bammy blue said:
Met Michael Vaughan at Bowdon Cricket Club yesterday, despite being a red **** he seemed a nice chap.


See oldie newby got 60 odd and five wickets on his Bowden debut

Saw him batting but didn't see him bowling, Looked decent. He was saying to another of the lads there that he was glad Moores had gone because he never got a look in with him.
 
bammy blue said:
Paulpowersleftfoot said:
bammy blue said:
Met Michael Vaughan at Bowdon Cricket Club yesterday, despite being a red **** he seemed a nice chap.


See oldie newby got 60 odd and five wickets on his Bowden debut

Saw him batting but didn't see him bowling, Looked decent. He was saying to another of the lads there that he was glad Moores had gone because he never got a look in with him.


He never looked anything special at alderley edge whenever I saw him play
Vaughan must live fairly locally,his lad is at alderley juniors with flintoffs son
 
Paulpowersleftfoot said:
bammy blue said:
Paulpowersleftfoot said:
See oldie newby got 60 odd and five wickets on his Bowden debut

Saw him batting but didn't see him bowling, Looked decent. He was saying to another of the lads there that he was glad Moores had gone because he never got a look in with him.


He never looked anything special at alderley edge whenever I saw him play
Vaughan must live fairly locally,his lad is at alderley juniors with flintoffs son

Said he'd just bought a place in Wilmslow, Apparently Chapple's lad is there to.
 
Moores did a fantastic job at Lancs. Even though we got relegated the other year he managed to win the championship with a team that should have been battling relegation. Hes got the best out of the likes of Chapple and Hogg and hes helped Kerrigan improve massively. Lancs will miss him big time and even though i think Chapple was lined up for a coaching role next season he will have to take up the 1st team role a bit earlier than expected.

He will succeed with England ive no doubt about it and they will give him time to get his own team together. He blooded the youth at Lancs and hopefully he go and do the same with England. Another plus point of him taking the England job is that Kerrigan should now get his chance as Moores knows him well and watches him every day.
 
All you Lancashire moaners........you should support Kent, like me and then you can complain.

Though I'd prefer to sun myself at the St. Lawrence ground than stare at the battleship grey skies of Old Trafford.
 
Pretty much sums up the shambles:

http://www.thefulltoss.com/england-cricket-blog/moores-is-a-symptom-cook-is-the-cause/

Moores is a symptom, Cook is the cause
by James Morgan • April 22, 2014

First of all I want to make both a promise and an apology.

Here’s the promise: I will not mention Kevin Pietersen’s name in this piece. I do not think the appointment of Moores has anything to do with sticking two fingers up at KP.

If you believe the appointment of Moores was a final act of revenge, you assume the ECB are prepared to put a grudge before their own ambitions – which presumably includes creating a successful team, enhancing their personal reputations, and getting more people to buy tickets. Basically, I think the ECB are far too interested in making money to let personal prejudices guide key decisions.

In my opinion, the ECB chose Moores because they wanted the person they considered to be the best coach, weighed against how easy this person would be to work with. Bayliss clearly had the most impressive CV, but they had no idea what it would be like to work with an Aussie who doesn’t suffer fools lightly. Things might have got messy – and potentially off-message. When they discounted Giles (because his record was abysmal) Moores was the best candidate left standing.

In my experience people are mostly (but obviously not always) guided by their hearts. They buy into particular ideas because they want to, and then use their heads to post-rationalise the decisions their hearts have made. In Moores’ case, the ECB believed he would be reliable (so they were predisposed to choose him) and they then justified a decision they were always likely to make by reinterpreting Moores’ coaching career through a rose tinted prism.

Look at the way they depicted Moores’ career in Saturday’s press conference: promotions were played up and relegations / failures ignored, as were the views of respected players who have worked with Moores in the past (Swann, Strauss, Vaughan etc). The ECB probably thought the resentment senior players felt towards Moores didn’t matter anymore as these players had moved on.

Of course, what the ECB failed to consider is that today’s young players are the grizzled pros of tomorrow. If genial characters like Strauss didn’t rate Moores, it won’t take long for strong characters like Ben Stokes – surely the next abrasive player the ECB will brief against – to get fed up with his in-your-face, overly enthusiastic, bubbly management style.

The warped prism through which the ECB assessed Moores’ credentials was also apparent in their claim that he laid the foundations for Flower’s success. Many fans and journalists who should know better have inexplicably bought this. Presumably the same people believe Graham Taylor laid the foundations for Terry Venables’ exciting Euro 96 team by easing the transition from Bobby Robson?

Of course it’s true that Moores gave Broad the new ball in New Zealand, but this was because Harmison was struggling with home sickness and wasn’t in any fit state to play. Meanwhile, the ever reliable Hoggard was chucked on the scraphead prematurely and extremely unfairly after one bad performance. Remember all that stuff about England responding to batting failures by dropping bowlers? Moores’ reign was notorious for this.

In essence the old guard were removed one by one because, as we now know, few of them had any time for Moores and thought him a poor substitute for Duncan Fletcher.

The argument that Moores should take the credit for bringing Swann into international cricket is also erroneous. The selectors chose Swann, not Moores. Besides, do you think we should all applaud Graham Taylor’s England career retrospectively simply because he gave Alan Shearer his debut? It’s nonsense. End of. If you look for positives in even the biggest calamities you’ll probably find some. God knows how many times English sports teams have done this.

Next comes my apology: in the course of this article I will inevitably resort to subjective opinions and rely on assumptions that might very well be flawed. However, I assure you that I do not have an agenda. I am not automatically opposed to anything and everything the ECB do. I applaud the attempt to recruit Farbrace, although in an ideal world he would be head coach.

I also believe that Giles Clarke is a shrewd and ruthless negotiator. The way the ECB and the BCCI stitched up the other nations at the ICC recently was contemptible but highly impressive – it will really help the ECB finances and help English cricket to prosper (albeit at the expense of others).

What I try to do on this blog is simply call it as I see it. Neither do I claim to have a monopoly on the truth. If you want to know the truth, I do not know what the truth is. However, I can form judgements based on what I do know. I apologise if they seem speculative. At the end of the day, they are.

I would also like lay my prejudices bare before I continue. This will partially explain where I’m coming from.

The first thing you should know is that I do not particularly rate Alastair Cook. I never have and probably never will. Sorry! I know this puts me in a minority, and it’s tantamount to heresy, but I’m trying to being honest here.

I’m not just talking about Cook’s captaincy by the way. I’ve never particularly liked his batting either – not really. Although he played magnificently in India in his first series as captain, playing spin is not his weakness; playing genuine world class fast bowling is. I don’t think Cook would have lasted long had he emerged in the 1990s. His technique is simply too poor, and as Australia demonstrated, he’s far too easy to set up.

Cook has often feasted on relatively poor bowling. He has played almost exclusively in an era when great fast bowlers are lacking – an era when the benchmark for a world class player is fifty, not forty, and when pitches are much slower and tamer. On the rare occasions when Cook has actually faced quality fast bowling he’s often been exposed. In four series against Australia he has averaged over 25 just once. He also suffers deep, prolonged periods of poor form too often.

Overall, I think that Cook is a decent / good opening batsman, whose ability to concentrate for long periods elevates him above the average, but he does not belong in the top bracket of world players – that elite group that includes the likes of Amla, DeVilliers and Clarke (who average over 50). Statistics tell us that Cook’s test average is identical to David Warner, Jonathan Trott and Simon Katich. Good players, but hardly great ones.

You might disagree with my assertions here, and you are perfectly entitled to do so, but I know that Michael Holding, for one, agrees with me. I also think Mike Atherton and Alec Stewart, who I saw repel the likes of Alan Donald and Courtney Walsh in their prime, would have scored even more runs than Cook if they were playing today.

The bottom line, therefore, is that I believe Cook is somewhat overrated, and because his captaincy is very poor – his tactics are limited and he lacks the charisma to motivate and man-manage his charges – I believe the ECB has made a mistake by backing Cook to the hilt and basing the future of English cricket around him.

I think the obvious point is this: Alastair Cook is only England captain because there is no viable alternative. Consequently, he should only be skipper as a stopgap, until a proper leader can be found. To base all future plans around such a flawed leader lacks any logic – unless, of course, your judgement is clouded by your desire to appoint a captain who is easy to work with.

Essentially, I think that Alastair Cook is the primary problem with English cricket. It’s not his fault, of course. He always tries his best. He didn’t make himself captain. It’s not his fault none of the other senior players have any captaincy credentials. However, English cricket is being forced to adapt to, and shape itself around, someone who, unfortunately, needs an awful lot of help to do his job.

According to Vaughan, and a number of other recently retired players, Cook is very quiet in the dressing room. He leads from the front with the bat, but rousing speeches are not his forte. In essence, Cook is captain because he looks the part, not because he can play the part.

Which brings me back to Peter Moores. Most shrewd judges have supported Moores’ appointment not because they think he’s a wonderful coach, but because they think he’s the right man to blend with Cook. In other words, they recognise that Cook needs someone like Moores: a man who is supportive, empathetic, will forgive Cook’s weaknesses … and perhaps most important of all, will do most of the talking and geeing up.

According to the senior England players who didn’t like him, the problem with Moores was that he never shut the hell up. He was always in players faces. He was, in effect, like a spaniel on speed. He tried to take over; he tried to do too much. This clashed with Vaughan because the former skipper believed it was his job to do the team-talks and rally the troops.

If Moores’ modus operandi is to make himself the centre of attention, it would seem, don’t you think, that he’s the ideal man to partner Cook – a captain who offers very little either verbally or tactically. Basically, Moores is the perfect antidote to Cook’s unique blend of vanilla nothingness.

The appointment of Moores can therefore be seen as both a good thing and a bad thing – which is why, presumably, it has caused so much debate.

If one wants Cook to stay for good – or has begrudgingly accepted that he’s here for good whether we like it or not – then Moores is probably a good choice. This is the attitude the media has taken.

If, like me, you don’t like Cook, you’re tired of him referring to “Mooresy”, “Broady”, “Morgsie” and “Belly” (he speaks like a schoolboy sometimes), then you’ll be outraged at Moores’ appointment. After all, we have appointed a non-elite coach, with a mixed track record, in an attempt to compensate for Cook’s inadequacies. In an ideal world, we would have both a strong captain and one of the best coaches in the world. The lack of the former has prevented the latter.

Let’s face it, unless one accepts my explanation as to why Moores was really appointed, there can be no rationale for hiring (let alone headhunting) a coach who failed so badly first time around. If the Aussies brought back Tim Neilsen or Mickey Arthur, we’d all have a good laugh at them – especially if they did so simply to bolster a failing captain.

So now we get to the meat of the issue. If there are reasons for and against Moores’ appointment, which perspective is right? Before I give you my answer (and you can probably guess what it’s going to be!) I want to assure you that I’m taking my prejudices out of the equation. The following argument is based purely on practical concerns.

English cricket is indisputably in turmoil at the moment. We’ve just lost the Ashes 0-5 and everyone is at each other’s throats. Faith in the competence and integrity of the ECB is possibly at an all time low. Consequently, appointing Moores – a polarising appointment likely to annoy the fans and cause even more argument – seems completely illogical.

English cricket needs stability at the current time. It needs everyone to pull together and get behind the team. With Moores at the helm, people are going to jump on the management’s back at the first sign of trouble. Considering we’ve been warned to expect some defeats before the good times return, Moore’s appointment seems totally counter-productive. The new coach needs time. Moores will get none.

The ECB have therefore made a grave tactical error. This appointment is as risky as it gets – despite the fact they largely appointed Moores because, in their own minds, they wanted a safe pair of hands. Oh the irony.

Paul Dowton says he wants a brave new world, but his whole approach to repairing English cricket has taken a short-term view which inhibits this from actually happening. It’s bizarre that someone so bright can make such a fundamental mistake.

When explaining why the husband of Jessica from Liberty X (I told you I wouldn’t mention his name) was dropped, Downton explained: “”I arrived in Sydney on 31 December, and it was clear that there were two issues: Andy Flower’s future and what we were going to do about Kevin.”

Immediately, therefore, Dowton was preoccupied by short-term fixes. In other words, how he could plug the holes in the ship’s hull. There was no room for broader strategic thinking. He didn’t arrive with a template for success. He simply tried to fiddle with what was already there.

His first concern was to speak to Flower, a coach who had hinted several times that he was going to step down soon anyway, and his second was to drop a batsman who was probably coming to the end of his career and having a bit of a sulk. This focused on the micro, not macro.

Here’s what Downton’s first, and only, thought should have been when he arrived in Sydney: what do cricket teams need to do to win cricket matches?

Given that the answer is runs, wickets and leadership, Downton should then have investigated why England were failing miserably in all three departments and taken steps to resolve this.

Had he done so he would have seen that (a) all of the batsmen were failing collectively, and the top seven (with the exception of Ian Bell) had performed well below their best since the summer of 2011, (b) Jimmy Anderson was knackered and not in top form, while the third seamers (Finn, Bresnan, Tremlett, Rankin) were not up to scratch, and (c) the atmosphere in the dressing room was stale, players were dropping like flies, and fatigue had set in.

This is why we had lost. It had very little to do with the top scorer in the team keeping himself to himself in the final test.

These were the main issues England faced in the Ashes. All talk of team ethics etc was hogwash. Cricket is a game consisting of individual battles on the pitch. Team spirit is nice to have, but it’s not the basis of a side’s success: the great Windies teams of the 1980s, like the Aussies in the 1990s, were a disparate bunch full of egos. New Zealand have always been known for having a good spirit, but how many test matches do they win?

Instead of looking for ways to plaster over existing cracks, Downton should have gone back to basics. His failure to do so has led to the wrong remedial action.

To address the batting, the first thing Dowton should have done is sack Graham Gooch. The averages of England’s batsmen had been declining for two years. His methods were clearly not working.

To address the bowling problems the selectors should have been held accountable: Bresnan and the four giants were not fit enough to play at their best, and David Saker should have been criticised for making Finn’s problems worse.

And then we come to the key issue of them all: leadership.

Mark Nicholas revealed during the Ashes that the Australian team were shocked at how disengaged the whole England team appeared. They did not seem motivated or up for the fight at all. Why was this?

We now know that it was Flower, not anyone else, who had become aloof, dictatorial and therefore ‘disengaged’ from the team. Meanwhile, Cook’s tactical abilities were frequently exposed.

Why were these fundamental issues ignored by Downton? Since the Ashes debacle, rather than scrutinising those responsible for leadership, Flower has essentially been promoted while Cook’s captaincy seems more secure than ever. Had Downton taken a broad view, and focused on how you build a winning cricket team, neither should have remained in influential positions.

The other issue, of course, was fatigue. Downton’s next act should have been to ensure back-to-back Ashes series never happen again, and that the workload of England’s best cricketers was reduced.

Instead of doing these very logical things, England have decided to move forward by going back to the future. They’ve disappeared even further into their comfort zones by appointing a new selector and a new head coach that were already extremely familiar to them, and they’ve done absolutely nothing, not one thing, to remedy the real reasons we lost: the captain, the head coach, the supporting coaches, and the ridiculous schedule.

New era? Don’t make me laugh. The bottom line is that there has been no long-term thinking at the ECB at all, only attempted fire-fighting … with methylated spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.