Video:
Pietersen resigns | Video:
Pietersen's press conference
Strauss asked to pick up the pieces | England's
flawed genius | Atherton: Strauss must heal
England's rifts | CMJ: England's
captain-coach relationship vital | Pietersen:
gamble that failed when going got tough | Atherton:
Ashes now depends on Pietersen's reaction | County
executives back Moores to return | Pietersen
is oblivious as cricket world collapses around him
The bulldozers and tractors were out in force yesterday at the Brit Oval when
Andrew Strauss was announced as England’s new captain. The outfield was
undergoing what looked like a complete facelift to incorporate a new
drainage system and floodlights. On the day England lost a captain and a
head coach — both effectively sacked only five months after agreeing that
they could work together for the benefit of English cricket — it was
tempting to see in the Oval’s condition and the unavailability of Lord’s
(the banqueting manager was on holiday, apparently) a metaphor for English
cricket: forever tearing itself apart and unable to function.
What the downfall of Kevin Pietersen and Peter Moores has shown is just how
big a job Strauss has on his hands. It is not just that the team are
underperforming — there have been victories only against lower-ranked
opposition in the 18 months that Moores has been in charge — but that they
are hopelessly divided. Without these divisions, it would have been
impossible for a seemingly innocuous story eight days ago to balloon into a
monster, devouring the captain and the head coach in the process.
Hugh Morris, the managing director of England cricket, said as much in the key
sentence of his short statement yesterday: he said that the ECB had accepted
Pietersen’s resignation, which was delivered as late as 4.45pm, because
otherwise it would become “impossible to restore dressing-room unity”. In
fact, the board had decided on Tuesday evening of the need for a fresh start
and had decided then to relieve him and Moores of their duties. Pietersen
jumped before he was pushed.
Strauss has two immediate tasks on the tour to the West Indies that starts on
January 21, outside of improving results, and both are interwoven: to
reintegrate Pietersen into the team after what has been a massive blow to
his ego and to heal the dressing-room divisions. Before making his
recommendations to the board, Morris canvassed opinion among the players and
while he found universal admiration for Pietersen’s greatness as a player,
such sentiments did not extend to his personality or leadership.
It is no secret that Andrew Flintoff does not like Pietersen. Flintoff,
although no longer harbouring leadership ambitions, carries a good number of
players along with him, while Strauss has been known to query if not
Pietersen’s actions, then certainly his motives. So when Pietersen flexed
his muscles by effectively demanding Moores’s removal, there was little
support. Strauss now has the unenviable task of trying to harness his two
biggest names and two biggest match-winners for the benefit of the team. If
he does not do that, his tenure, like Pietersen’s, will be a short one.
This will not be easy, now that Pietersen has been made aware that he did not
carry the dressing-room as he thought he did. And now that everyone else
knows this, too, this is a very public humiliation for him. He will feel
diminished next time he walks into the dressing-room and he will also feel
personally let down by the likes of Flintoff and Stephen Harmison, players
he made a great show of showering praise on when he accepted the job. When
an ego as big as Pietersen’s is punctured in such a spectacular way, who
knows what the consequences?
Yesterday, Strauss was given two pieces of good news in his quest to bring
some ballast to this listing ship. First, Pietersen reaffirmed in the
strongest possible terms, according to ECB sources, his desire to represent
England in all forms of the game. Pietersen needs the kudos that
international cricket brings and he is smart enough to know that without it,
his value would quickly shrink.
Second, Strauss has a much better chance of getting Pietersen onside now that
Moores has been relieved of his duties. There is no doubt that the loss of
three captains and modest results have not helped Moores to hold on to his
job, but there is no doubt also that the biggest reason for his removal is
the fear of Pietersen inhabiting the same dressing-room as someone whom he
would perceive as being responsible for his sacking. After a divorce,
distance is a good thing.
The departure, then, of Moores and Pietersen from positions of responsibility
could strengthen England in the medium term. Rather get the problems out of
the way now, with six Tests against West Indies, before Australia arrive,
than defer them down the line and have them blow up on the eve of English
cricket’s most eagerly awaited rivalry. And in Strauss, England have given
an opportunity to a man who always looked, to some of us, the likeliest
candidate to succeed Michael Vaughan.
Moores’s removal is harsh in the sense that he is a decent, hard-working and
loyal man, who has behaved throughout this past week with great dignity. Nor
should it be forgotten that he inherited something of a disaster: a team
that had been whitewashed in Australia, in which discipline had broken down
and in which factions were rife. But he failed to arrest the decline, and
the divisions, as showcased in the past week, have got worse. Pietersen by
his very nature exacerbated them; it is to be hoped that Strauss, the
moderator, will heal them.
In a sense, Moores fell victim to the cult of the coach. High profile, with
salaries to match, coaches are now expected to be alchemists, turning dust
into gold at the tap of a keyboard. It is depressing that a bunch of England
cricketers were looking to find fault with someone else for their own poor
performances. Any captain who blames a coach for not defending a target on a
wearing pitch is pretty feeble.
For the moment, England do not have a head coach, although the ECB has
indicated a desire to find one before the winter is out. The best first move
that Strauss could make is to not ask for one. After all, with a batting
coach, bowling coach, fielding coach and computer analyst, how many coaches
does a team need?
The official word: how the departures of captain and head coach were
confirmed
Kevin Pietersen:
“Contrary to media speculation today, I wish to make it very clear that I did
not resign as captain of the England cricket team this morning. However, in
light of recent communications with the ECB, and the unfortunate media
stories and speculation that have subsequently appeared, I now consider that
it would be extremely difficult for me to continue in my current position
with the England team. Accordingly, I have as of this afternoon decided to
stand down as captain with immediate effect. I still fully intend to be a
part of England’s Test and one-day international squads to tour the West
Indies and to do all I can to recapture the Ashes during the summer.
“I wish to add that I have principles in my professional and personal life as
to how things are done and during my time as England captain I have always
been helpful and direct in my communications with the ECB. At no time,
contrary to press speculation, have I released any unauthorised information
to the media regarding my relationships with the players, coaches and the
ECB. I am extremely sad and disappointed to have to relinquish the captaincy
at such an early stage, especially in a crucial year for English cricket, in
such circumstances.”
Hugh Morris, managing director of England cricket
“The England and Wales Cricket Board have late this afternoon accepted, with
regret, the resignation of Kevin Pietersen as England captain. Kevin
recognised that in the present situation it was impossible to restore the
dressing-room unity which is vital if England are to win the forthcoming
tour to the Caribbean, the ICC global events or regain the Ashes in the
npower Ashes Test series. I have an extremely high respect and regard for
Kevin Pietersen but this has become an impossible situation given the
irretrievable breakdown of the relationship between captain and coach.
“With regard to Peter Moores, the board determined that he should relinquish
his role as England team director. I have the greatest respect for the
dignity which Peter Moores has shown in recent days when he has found
himself under extreme pressure. The ECB wish him well in his future roles. I
would also like to thank him for his contribution as England team director
and his work as National Academy director. The board will announce the
coaching set-up for the Caribbean tour as soon as possible and will embark
on an immediate search for a coach who can provide England with the best
chance of success in the coming years.”
Can our (NZ's "Black-Caps") have the services of Kevin? There's a real need for his sort of rugged commitment, down-under. Even the Aussies could now do with him!
Ron Durham, Auckland, New Zealand
The previous post is not necessarily true. If Strauss had captained the last Ashes series, he might well have lost 5-0 and been fired.
Rod Stark, Bloomington, IN, USA
Strauss should have been made captain before the last Ashes series - no one will ever know what caused the selector's brainstorm in choosing Flintoff. Had they done so, then Strauss would captain over a prolonged period, and England would have had the continuity and leadership it has been lacking.
George Eccles, Nice, France