Pietersen wants emergency talks...

Nah, don't see that, even if England took a clean sweep.

Dello wrote:

The daily rags have finally wised up to the fact that the FB is the epicentre of all cricketing intelligence (when Merlin is offline) and have picked our collective brains. Without asking, I might add.

"Our collective brains" .... !
Shirley you don't include yours in the "collective" ? .... PMSL

Who
a. kicked off the 'Vawn Out' campaign ... (ridiculed by yourself) 3 months before he "resigned" ?
b. touted for Shah (okay, a Middlesex alleigance) long before you voiced an opinion ?
c. keeps you in line when you go off on your rabid mouth-foaming Arsenal rants ...

... amongst several other un-PC issues ?

Even the forum policeman needs cuffing at times ... and much as you hate to admit it ... you really do like having me on here playing your devil's advocate ...
Cheers

Bob,

Agree, Moores may not be the right choice, and seems his days are numbered ... but the publicly exploding boil will have dire consequences IMO should the ECB go down the Piles/Vaughan route (which is what the Torygraph is suggesting this morning).

Neither have the required experience (which the ECB demand) - Piles 1 year Vaughan 0. They would both bring a sense of dread to the dressing room (ex captain close buddies with a selector) and both senior dominant figures within the immediate past England set-up ... with captain KP in their pocket .... so, who do the rank and file air any grieviences to ?

Moreso, Piles would set a powerful and dangerous prescedent of being a County Director/ ECB Selector/ Coach/ Cricket Supremo (albeit temporary) all rolled into one - which Chairmen on the County circuit would begin to suspect and challenge ... far too much power for just one person, especially one who has NOT, in essence, produced anything of great note when he was an England player.

IMO the best bet right now would be for the ECB to pay up and secure the services of a coach with a half decent track record ... Moody comes to mind.

Rod Marsh would have been ideal, but he probably wouldn't want the hassle now.

Some Worcs. fans have yet to forgive Moody for the morass of pooh he left us in when he took the Sri Lanka job, but it has to be said that he did a halfway decent job while he was there.

Basil wrote:Rod Marsh would have been ideal, but he probably wouldn't want the hassle now.

Some Worcs. fans have yet to forgive Moody for the morass of pooh he left us in when he took the Sri Lanka job, but it has to be said that he did a halfway decent job while he was there.

Fair do's re. Moody. And yes, Marsh wouldn't want all the crap!
There's no denying, the position is a poisoned chalice ... and moreso now, if KP gets his way and has Moores booted out.
Player power and all that!

Moores may be crap (the evidence is certainly accumulating) but can we possibly have a situation where the captain effectively fires the coach?

Bang on the money Baz.

This could so easily have all been dun 'n' dusted behind closed doors -
- fat pay-off cheque for Moores,
- no mud slinging autobiographies for minimum 5 years,
- new coach appointed,
- seamless changeover.
- everyone happy.

But these shenanigins do stop and make you wonder just what KP's ulterior motive was in making this a matter for public ridicule ...
after all, if he was so "pissed off" about Mumbai's defeat and the lack of directive, another 50 or 60 runs from his bat might just have helped the England cause in the game!

I think if Moores does go, then a shot has to be fired across KP's bows. The best way of doing that, I think, would be to formally appoint Strauss as VC. I know that this would mean that room would have to be found for him in the ODI side, but could he do worse than Bell?

Why does the coach have to be so important? It's not so long ago that all teams had a manager to pay the bills and a handful of specialist batting/bowling/keeping/fielding coaches to call upon as and when necessary, with the captain coming up with the on-field plans and calling the shots. cf. the inter-regnum in India recently when they appeared to do perfectly well for a short period with no coach at all.

Stupid new fangled ideas.

Rachel wrote:Why does the coach have to be so important? It's not so long ago that all teams had a manager to pay the bills and a handful of specialist batting/bowling/keeping/fielding coaches to call upon as and when necessary, with the captain coming up with the on-field plans and calling the shots. cf. the inter-regnum in India recently when they appeared to do perfectly well for a short period with no coach at all.

Stupid new fangled ideas.

But they had Dravid as captain at the time IIRC - with all his wealth of experience, plus Tendulkar and Dravid as his Lieutenants.

Bas,

Why is it that in this team of Ashes-winning champs, KP feels that the only person that can offer him any advice is Vaughan? Sure Flintoff lost the Ashes 5-zip, but does that mean his tactical advice counts for nothing? Lest we forget, the 'Australian conditions specialist' (TM Cricket South Africa) Duncan Fletcher apparently masterminded that campaign. And what about Strauss? And if neither of these chaps is helping KP, isn't that a problem too? Or is they are trying to help KP and he doesn't trust them/is refusing all help from anyone except his beloved best buddy Michael Vaughan, isn't that yet another problem?

ps. Kumble, not Dravid, as the third of your Indians.

Felch (for all his sins latterly - Ashes 06-07 when his emotional selections/choice of captain got the better of him) was undoubtedly a good coach.
There's no denying he masterminded the Ashes '05 victory with his astute observations, use of subs., and general sharp cricketing nous - courtesy of feeds from others via Sony Vaio - which he condensed and fed to MPV on field to execute.

For me, the classic examples were posting an "in yer face" straight silly mid off to Hayden ... a squarer deep mid-wicket for Pontings hook and, of course, the gamesmanship tactics of using subs frequently, and, when it worked (Pratt/Ponting at TB), rubbing salt into the wounds so much so he knew it would irritate the opposition.

TBH, haven't seen any of those kind of 'tactical' adaptions since Moores took over .... more the emphasis on grinding physical training and the "let's put up a big score and then try and bowl 'em out" routine, which more often than not, didn't work ...

Clearly Pietersen needs guidance - and he isn't getting it from Moores.

Though, to answer Rachels question re Vaughan - really don't know how much more Vaughan can offer, as he did, after all, only put Felch's proposals/tactics into practice - and, since '05, teams, tactics and applications have altered, whilst he (Vaughan) hasn't really been part of it.

Rachel wrote:ps. Kumble, not Dravid, as the third of your Indians.

Yep, absolutely right!

Merlin,

But just because Fletcher was a frustrated international captain, doesn't mean that every coach has to be, or that that is always the right thing for a team. What's wrong with the captain, er, captaining the side? Can anyone actually remember how to do that any more?

Merls,

Right, so we have a skipper who's trying to throw his weight around. A coach in name only, and senior players who do are not supporting KP as they should, or they are people who KP instinctively distrusts. Everything's lovely and fluffy then?

The only certainty IMO is that we need a new coach, but it's the timing that's the question. Does Morris try to cobble some sort of truce between KP and Moores to get us through the Ashes, or does Moores go now?

If Moores goes now, who takes the side to the Windies? My choice would be Phil Neale in an old fashioned tour manager role (he's been part of the set-up for ages) with the specialist coaches picking up the slack.


If Moody is the preferred long-term choice for Moores' replacement, would WA release him from his contract? If so, that would be two lots of compensation to pay out then. Clarke had better send a begging letter to Stanford in his best joined-up.

In short, it's all a bugger's muddle.

Rachel,

Can't disagree with your point about captaining!
Sadly, not all the incumbents can be as insightful as Mike Brearley was recognised to be.

Fletch certainly was a frustrated captain, but IMHO he had the capability of transferring/reshaping/adopting and applying everything he sussed on his Vaio onto MPV - and there's no denying, those two made a formidable combination i putting theory to practice!

Would MPV have succeded in '05 under a Moores type character ?
I honestly doubt it.

Merlin,

But he was completely unable to transfer any of it whatsoever on to Andrew Flintoff? Despite the the widespread belief that Fletcher specifically wanted Flintoff over Strauss? I find the whole mythos built up around Fletcher deeply suspicious. England won the Ashes in 2005 by the narrowest of margins and then handed them back 5-0 at the next opportunity. Hardly a messianic achievement.

Basil wrote:Merls,

Right, so we have a skipper who's trying to throw his weight around. A coach in name only, and senior players who do are not supporting KP as they should, or they are people who KP instinctively distrusts. Everything's lovely and fluffy then?

The only certainty IMO is that we need a new coach, but it's the timing that's the question. Does Morris try to cobble some sort of truce between KP and Moores to get us through the Ashes, or does Moores go now?
That's the rub Baz! The timing and the public airing of the problem.

If Moores goes now, who takes the side to the Windies? My choice would be Phil Neale in an old fashioned tour manager role (he's been part of the set-up for ages) with the specialist coaches picking up the slack.
[color=red]Aye, have no quarrel with that choice.[color=red]


If Moody is the preferred long-term choice for Moores' replacement, would WA release him from his contract? If so, that would be two lots of compensation to pay out then. Clarke had better send a begging letter to Stanford in his best joined-up.

In short, it's all a bugger's muddle.

A bugger's muddle indeed!
What rankles is the timing and the public 'toys out of pram' - it's him or me - scenario.

And that is entirely KP's fault. Childish tantrum totally unbefitting of the nation's senior player.

Rachel wrote:Merlin,

But he was completely unable to transfer any of it whatsoever on to Andrew Flintoff? Despite the the widespread belief that Fletcher specifically wanted Flintoff over Strauss? I find the whole mythos built up around Fletcher deeply suspicious. England won the Ashes in 2005 by the narrowest of margins and then handed them back 5-0 at the next opportunity. Hardly a messianic achievement.

No denying that Rachel.
It's a mystery how the Fletch/Flintoff combination failed - and failed miserably.
Perhaps the magic had worn off ... Harmie, on whom a lot of hope was pinned, collapsed in a pathetic heap, Giles was wrongly picked ahead of Monty, the pet syndrome of staying loyal to the '05 victors was overwhelming despite not all of them performing to test level, the off-field influence of MPV during the tour ... who knows ... 06/07 was a nightmare and just went from bad to 'orrible - at which point I believe Fletch totally lost it!
Like I said, Fletch had let emotion take over his reasoning - a dangerous move which clouded his otherwise proven sound judgement.

For all his latter faults, Fletch did (prior to 06/07) have a decent record as England coach.

Rachel wrote:And that is entirely KP's fault. Childish tantrum totally unbefitting of the nation's senior player.

Agree.

We don't know what overtures KP has been making behind the scenes regarding his dissatisfaction with the coach in the meantime, but we do know that he was uneasy with it right from the off.

He may well have been making private protestations for some time but to no effect.

Everyone on here can see that Mooronic is out of his depth, KP can see it, Vaughan could see it, most of the media can see it - it seems that the only boggers who can't are the suits at the ECB.

It is being widely reported that KP is really not that obsessed by the captaincy, and would be quite happy to go back to just being a player if necessary, so could well be that this is a last desperate move to try to get the ECB to see sense before actually standing down.

All seems fair enough to me, if as appears likely, all other avenues have already been explored, but the ECB steadfastly refuse to remove their lame duck head coach.

And in regard to Vaughan and Giles I reiterate AGAIN, that I do not see them as being a solution at all in the long or even medium term, both would undoubtedly be an unmitigated disaster at this stage with their close ties to the dressing room.

However, if it is the choice between one of them taking the tour to the Caribbean, or Mooronic keeping his job then I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with whatever takes to bust the current failing status quo.

Basil wrote:Moores may be crap (the evidence is certainly accumulating) but can we possibly have a situation where the captain effectively fires the coach?

If that captain was promised that the coach would take a step back and let the captain organise the team then he's probably got every right to say its either him or me that goes.

Whether that should be done in public is another matter entirely.

Rachel wrote:Merlin,

But he was completely unable to transfer any of it whatsoever on to Andrew Flintoff? Despite the the widespread belief that Fletcher specifically wanted Flintoff over Strauss? I find the whole mythos built up around Fletcher deeply suspicious. England won the Ashes in 2005 by the narrowest of margins and then handed them back 5-0 at the next opportunity. Hardly a messianic achievement.

I'd give Feltch a lot of credit. Remember the long run of victories before Ashes 05. Feltch's mistake was to try to carry on with several key players injured, rather than quit while he was ahead.