Life without Kevin

I hate the phrase ‘moving forward’. It’s a bit like ‘blue sky thinking’ or ‘low hanging fruit’ (other phrases that should never be used outside the office). Its literal meaning is “what we’re going to do next”, but its actual meaning is “I am a tedious suit who prefers management speak to the vernacular”.

James Whitaker used the phrase about twenty five times in his cringe worthy interview about KP the other day. Was anyone surprised?

Anyway, now is the time to move on from the Pietersen fiasco and look to the future. My final thoughts on the subject are therefore this:

KP has been described as ‘selfish’, ‘egotistical’, ‘arrogant’, ‘hubristic’, ‘disruptive’ and ‘destructive’ over the last few days – mostly by journalists who write as if they know him intimately.

In reality, the only person whose opinion we should be listening to – the one person actually inside the England dressing room to make his views public– is Graeme Swann, who praised Pietersen’s attitude in Australia. As he’s no longer an employee of the ECB, Swann can speak freely.

The other facts we know are:

(a) Pietersen works hit butt off in practice and his work ethic cannot be faulted

(b) He always has time for the younger players who see him as something of a mentor

(c) He broke no curfews, stole no pedalos, punched nobody in the face (indeed, he faced no disciplinary action whatsoever), and finally

(d) The ECB were so worried they’d get sued for constructive dismissal that they paid KP off handsomely and insisted on a gagging order. What exactly didn’t they want us to know?

Basically, it seems that Pietersen’s only flaw – something which was also apparent at Natal, Notts and Hants – is that he’s opinionated and vocal.

So what! Maybe he’d like to write for this blog?

The bottom line is that Pietersen is not evil, nor is he that much of a rebel really; he’s hardly Andrew Symonds or Jesse Ryder. Did he miss team meetings or refuse to do his homework? I think not.

In my opinion, KP can only be considered remotely subversive if he’s living in an environment where dissent isn’t tolerated, and those in authority are scared by criticism. In other words, his superiors are weak and insecure.

As Michael Vaughan said the other day, Pietersen was a brilliant teammate, and the model professional, but needed the occasional “shut it Kev” to keep him in line; therefore, as England’s best batsman, surely the positive outweighed the negative.

Writing on cricinfo today Ian Chappell, who knows a thing or two about strong personalities, wrote:

A player should be chosen on merit and then it’s up to the captain to sort out any personality clashes and ensure there’s a degree of harmony in the team. That doesn’t mean everyone has to be in agreement with the captain; a bunch of yes men won’t help a team win.

Players who question the way things are done actually help the captain. Firstly, the skipper can learn from the way others think, and secondly, the argumentative players off the field are usually the last ones to concede defeat on it. While cricket is a team game, it’s played by individuals. A captain can’t expect a player to be an individual expressing his talent on the field and then demand that off it he be subservient. Occasionally a captain has to live with the consequences of individuality, whether it be on the field or off it.

Unfortunately, one has to assume that Alastair Cook, Giles and Whitaker either disagree with this philosophy, or they’re unable to manage the team within this sensible framework.

Either way they don’t look good. As Chappell mentioned at the start of his article: any English player who wasn’t exasperated by some of Cook’s captaincy in Australia deserves to be demoted.

Although being mouthy and disliking authority are not particularly attractive qualities (I should know!), they do not, in my mind, make one unmanageable or worthy of sacking.

We must also remind ourselves that Pietersen has been successfully managed by a good number of respected cricketing figures, such as Shane Warne and Michael Vaughan – strong figures who had the respect of their respective dressing rooms. One imagines the circumstances are a little different in Cook’s case.

A captain and coach of a professional sports team should have skin thick enough to cope with strong characters. However, it looks like England would rather run a tight ship, than an effective one.

So where do we go from here? “Moving forward” if you like …

The problem for many England supporters, myself included, is that I want the four stooges – Dowton, Whitaker, Cook and Giles – to get their comeuppance somehow.

This means I feel a bit like Chelsea fans did last season: you instinctively want your team to win, but fear that the price of success is another year of Rafa Benitez.

Basically, I’m conflicted. I want England to win the World T20, but I don’t want Ashley Giles to be England test coach. Why? Because I think, to quote Geoff Boycott, he’s just a nice nonentity.

Is short-term pain a good thing if it means we appoint a better coach, one who actually has some credentials and personality, who increases our chances of enjoying success in the long-term?

It may well be that Giles proves to be an ok coach – not great, just ok. If we win a couple of games at the World T20 and get knocked out in the semi-finals for example, it might give Downton and Co the excuse they need to appoint their committeeman as test coach. They’ll grasp at any sign of improvement, no matter how mild.

If this does indeed transpire, we’ll be stuck with Giles for a long, long time. There’s nothing worse than a coach that’s not good enough to win anything, but not bad enough to get sacked either. The future will be mediocre, and incredibly dull, for the foreseeable future.

Think of things this way: can you seriously, if you’re being completely honest, envisage England returning to past glories with a dream team of Cook and Giles – the captain who has to be mollycoddled and the coach who says all the right things but utters nothing of genuine insight?

We’d probably be better off with Maxie and I in charge. Now there’s a frightening thought.

James Morgan

*** UPDATE *** The ECB have just released a statement ostensibly to explain the reasons for KP’s sacking. Curiously, the statement is mostly an attack on Piers Morgan, but the most pertinent part is as follows:

The England team needs to rebuild after the whitewash in Australia. To do that we must invest in our captain Alastair Cook and we must support him in creating a culture in which we can be confident he will have the full support of all players, with everyone pulling in the same direction and able to trust each other. It is for those reasons that we have decided to move on without Kevin Pietersen.

I believe this supports my article above. The ECB are basically saying ‘we need to support our captain, and anyone who criticises him has no place in the team’s future’. I find this remarkable. Disagreement, debate and discussion are an integral part of any sporting organisation. Dictatorships rarely work. Remember Ray Illingworth?! One person (even Giles Clarke) cannot possibly know it all.

The ECB are essentially backing a captain who was criticised by all and sundry during the Ashes. Yet if anyone dares to question this flawed captain, they have no right to play for England.

Let’s summarise the situation in one sentence: Downton, Giles and Whitaker have backed a captain who can’t captain for toffee, whilst sacking an entertaining batsmen whose credentials are unquestionable. I fear they have backed the wrong horse.