The ECB, the Coach and Kevin Pietersen

Update: Make what you will of this, but Geoffrey Boycott points a finger at the ECB in this matter. Ironically, Kevin Pietersen was compared in this context to Geoffrey Boycott by the Times columnist Simon Barnes.

The saddest words that a cricketer or a captain can say in public are to the effect that he is confident that his teammates support him. That is what Andrew Strauss didn't say in his press conference after being named England captain. As such Strauss's thoughts were well articulated and his words well chosen.

The press has had a field day about this issue. I suspect sometimes that they like nothing better than a whiff of division in the ranks - any ranks. In a completely unrelated context, here's another story about an alleged parting of ways - the actual story does not support the headline at all. It seems to be the first requirement for a story - a parting of ways, a disagreement, dissent, a tiff, call it what you like. I must confess that i tend to be extremely skeptical of press reporting about Cricket especially when they claim that a crisis exists somewhere. There is something intensely self-serving about the press (which is interested in circulation) telling us that there is a crisis (which is supposed to make us extremely interested, thereby increasing their circulation).

With an organization like the ECB involved, the job of the press is even easier! Just think about what happened with this Kevin Pietersen - Peter Moores issue. As i understand it (from reading the press sadly, those are my only sources), Pietersen was upset about the non-selection of Michael Vaughan for the tour of the West Indies, while Peter Moores wanted Vaughan to be excluded. Moores got his way with the selectors, and Pietersen, who was already less than satisfied working with Moores, decided he wanted to discuss it with a higher authority - in this case Giles Clarke, a businessman who studied Persian and Arabic, then worked for a bank (its funny how everybody who went to a fancy university can work for a bank irrespective of what they studied there), then became a successful liquor retailer, and as a natural progression, given his capacity as a cricket enthusiast, is now the Chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board (not unsurprisingly, abbreviated to the ECB, and not EWCB).

It is not clear whether any communication actually occured between Pietersen and Clarke, but the ECB in its wisdom, instead of letting Giles Clarke (the liquor guy) given Pietersen an audience, did some snooping around of its own, and found that in fact, Pietersen did not have the full support of his team - some of his teammates felt Peter Moores was a good coach, some others felt he wasn't. It turned out that the whole team didn't support Pietersen as captain. It was then that the ECB (led by the liquor baron) decided to cut Pietersen down to size, by revealing publicly, that their research had shown that Pietersen lacked the support of his team! I believe the appropriate phrase is that the ECB threw Pietersen under the bus. By revealing this, the ECB left itself with no option but to dismiss both Pietersen and Moores.

Given all this, i suspect that the ECB was looking for a chance to get rid of both Pietersen and Moores, and that this episode gave them the perfect pretext for doing so. They have duly replaced the South African bred Pietersen, with the South African born but English bred Andrew Strauss. This works for all concerned it seems.

But does it? Whose side was Strauss on? Pietersen's or Moores'? And how many English players support Strauss as captain - since this was the question which doomed Pietersen? What might cause the rift to heal? When it is said that players don't support Pietersen, or that they don't support Moores, what does it actually mean? Does it mean that they don't like Pietersen or Moore's style of functioning? Or does it means that they don't like these two individuals as people?

How much does this have to do with the fact that England have not had good results in 2008 - they lost at home to South Africa and then lost to India in India in both Tests and ODI's. The narrative about this sequence of events has been that the tactless Kevin Pietersen tried to throw his weight around after just six months as England captain, and has had his wings clipped. But i fail to see how any of what Pietersen did (based on what has been reported in the Press) was tactless. What was he supposed to do once he felt that the coach was not doing very well at his job?

The point about rifts in the team is dubious, as it is most times when such rifts are reported without there being actual direct quotes from players. It is unlikely that they would exist if England was winning. The readers are expected to believe that the same set of players (who disagree with each other, because they have different views of Pietersen and also of Moores) are likely to get along once Pietersen and Moores are out of the picture. This is obviously dubious.

The real story here is that the ECB has been caught napping. They didn't know what was going on in their side, and once they saw Pietersen taking some sort of intiative, they felt they had no option but to clip his wings, merely to protect their own authority. This construction of Pietersen as a loud, prima donna is very convenient for the ECB right now. If Kevin Pietersen's asking "What did i do wong?" or "What else was i supposed to do?", then those would be very good questions, to which the ECB will have no good answers.

I don't believe this will have too much effect on how England perform in the Ashes. This will depend largely on the form of Andrew Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen. England don't have any other players (with the possible exception of Steve Harmison) who are good enough to be consistent match-winners against any top international side. Bell, Cook, Strauss, Anderson etc. are good players, but they aren't the explosive world beaters in a Sehwag or Pietersen mould who can bend the course of a Test Match at will. England's large squad of coaches were all present in full force through out this year. Peter Moores (Head Coach), Andrew Flower (Batting), Ottis Gibson (Bowling), Richard Halsall (Fielding), Mark Garaway (Asst. Coach, Analyst), Craig Ranson (Physio), Mark Saxby (Massage Therapist) and Mark Wotherspoon (Doctor) all came to India, along with a media manager, a security manager and an operations manager. Mushtaq Ahmed was supposed to join this group as a spin bowling coach for the Test Matches, but i don't know if he came in the end. So England had a support staff of 11 (12 if you include Mushtaq) for a squad of 15.

The simplistic description of this episode, which hinges on casting Kevin Pietersen as an out of control captain serves the ECB, for it covers up for their own lack of assertiveness. If KP hadn't asked to speak to Giles Clarke, the ECB would never have found out that KP was not a completely popular captain. By throwing their captain under the bus like they did, they haven't helped anyone, least of all English Cricket. Given that they are the ECB, this ought to worry fans of English cricket.