Cricket: General Chat

[Zatman]

Definite Strauss for me, he is more a snake in the grass who has had a go at him whenever he can usually when off the microphone and now he is just being petty in 1st day of his new job

[PaulC]

In all fairness looking at it objectively KP did make it almost impossible for himself to get back in the england side after what he said in his book. One innings against the weakest attack in county cricket shouldn't be the decisive factor either. This would not have been brought up but for the 300. Colin Graves made a huge mistake giving KP false hope. Not the only mistake he's made either as what he said about the west indies may have ultimately cost Moores his job. 

[dAVe80]

Saw this on twitter, and must admit it raised a smile:

 

"So a posh word removed won't let a snidey word removed play cos snidey word removed was a word removed. I'm glad I don't follow cricket. The words removed."

[blandy]

In all fairness looking at it objectively KP did make it almost impossible for himself to get back in the england side after what he said in his book. One innings against the weakest attack in county cricket shouldn't be the decisive factor either. This would not have been brought up but for the 300. Colin Graves made a huge mistake giving KP false hope. Not the only mistake he's made either as what he said about the west indies may have ultimately cost Moores his job. 

 

KP did, I agree. Also agree about Leicestershire getting hit to all parts.

the problem seems to be that Graves isn't on the same page as the rest of the Cricketers - the cricketers seem to think "KP no way", and the Stauss texts he (KP) did should have been the end of him.

 

Graves and the indies - no. We should have beaten them. Moore was not an international standard coach. Downton was so far out of touch and Cook's not a natural Captain. It's that that cost us in the WIndies, not someone saying they were mediocre (they are, by test match standards, and half their best players were in the IPL).

[PaulC]

Yep but theres no doubt it raised the level of the windies performance. We should have beaten them anyway I agree. 

[blandy]

Yep but theres no doubt it raised the level of the windies performance. We should have beaten them anyway I agree. 

I dunno, Paul - would some old duffer from another country really make the WIndies lift their performance by saying England should beat them? IF that is the case then their motivation and all that has to be questioned, which tends to make Graves' comments accurate.

I think they showed some good play, and they've some decent players, young 'us too, and their coach, Simmons, plus Curtley Ambrose seem a good choice and good fit, for them.

[PaulC]

I think there is a question mark about motivation and union within the west indies team, there has been for years. I think that "old duffer" just gave them that edge. There is some talent there even without the ipl players.

[John]

I think Strauss has took a huge risk on his own future by turning Graves comments about the prospects of KP coming back on their head so soon into his new job and with very tough tests to come this summer that may well put that decision into question again and again.    

 

I am also sure that he loved the opportunity to get one over KP in such circumstances so soon. The ECB would have been aware that the decision to appoint Strauss would be likely to end KP's test playing days for England but still made it. The decision made by Strauss with such relish and so quickly is all about his own long standing problem with KP and his inability to get over it.    

[dAVe80]

What's all this I'm hearing about Strauss being told he keeps his job, even if he loses the next two Ashes series? The more I hear about the Strauss reign, the more alarmed I am! I don’t think I can take another two series of seeing Mitchell Johnson’s smug face, after he’s tore our batting line up a new arsehole!

[Eames]

KP shouldn't be anywhere near the England team after the book and the texts with the Saffers. 

 

The only reason this is getting attention is because a munch of media tarts (Morgan (soon to be convicted phone hacker and perjurer) chiefly among them) keep bleating on about it.

 

The problem with England is not the batting line-up per se. We need a quality opener to support Cook but what we sorely lack is some genuinely frightening pace bowlers. Anderson is a wizard but he's also the only world class bowler in the team. We need a couple of psychos who can chuck 95mph bombs at people when, inevitably for 9 months of the year, we are not playing on swing friendly English wickets. 

[snowychap]

What's all this I'm hearing about Strauss being told he keeps his job, even if he loses the next two Ashes series?

Has it come from any source other than Pietersen's (farewell to English cricket) column in the Torygraph?

It may have - I just haven't seen it.

I guess we've seen the pros and cons of Pietersen's involvement with cricket teams in the last couple of days - fine innings (even allowing for being dropped 5 times) but a shoddy column.

I get that he's pissed off and feels let down but even if I accept every word of Pietersen's side of the story as he (someone else) writes it (on his behalf), I don't think it's great behaviour from him to start listing the batting order and request/demand to be told if x or y trusts him. What did he expect Strauss to do - give him more ammunition for his next column/book?

[blandy]

I think Strauss has took a huge risk on his own future by turning Graves comments about the prospects of KP coming back on their head so soon into his new job and with very tough tests to come this summer that may well put that decision into question again and again.    

 

I am also sure that he loved the opportunity to get one over KP in such circumstances so soon. The ECB would have been aware that the decision to appoint Strauss would be likely to end KP's test playing days for England but still made it. The decision made by Strauss with such relish and so quickly is all about his own long standing problem with KP and his inability to get over it.    

I dunno John. The whole KP thing had basically been forgotten, it was accepted he was done.

 

Then Graves gets the gig as next chairman and said some things about KP, without (IMO) understanding how strongly most of the England players and Captain wanted absolutely nothing do do with KP - the tweets, the book etc. only strengthened that feeling.

 

So the KP thing got revived because of the relatively uninformed views of Graves.

 

KP is nearly 35 and won't play much longer. So when Strauss came in, does he trash the England team to let KP back in - losing the Captain and a few more players who just won't be in the same dressing room as KP?

Strauss knows what Pietersen is like.

 

They've handled it appallingly, and yet again made KP look like the innocent injured party because of their incompetence. Strauss has made the best of a bad situation, really.

[wazzap24]

You can frame the narrative of this whole mess in a lot of ways and fit it to suit a particular view.

I agree with the those saying he should never have returned after the 'Textgate' incident. But then Strauss took him back after his 'period of reintegration' and it benefited both parties to do so.

Equally, when we talk about behaviour in the dressing room, the whole 'KP Genius' Twitter thing showed, it wasn't just KP contributing to a smelly situation.

Having brought him back, the whole Ashes 'dossier' was a joke and for me just exposed the fact that Flower had started to lose it and Cooke was not a strong enough leader when things started to go pear shaped. It was the beginning of the end of an era for that side and KP copped it as the fall guy.

From there the book was a terrible idea, but I kind of have some sympathy ( a very small amount I would add) on that. Being the sort of character he is, having felt he had been wronged, he was never going to keep his head down/mouth shut.

A lot has been said about him being a difficult character etc and that is clearly true, but I think it also comes down to some of the other leading characters in that dressing room over the past few years.

I think the problems with KP start when he perceives that those above him either know less than he does, or are going about things ' the wrong way' in his eyes.

This is when you need strong characters, who will listen to what he has to say and then put him straight if needs be.

The current dressing room doesn't have any real strong characters like say a Botham (talk about a difficult character, where would he fit in to the current culture!), Vaughn, Gough or Flintoff as examples - lads who would probably give him a say, but threaten to knock his block off of it went too far!

I don't necessarily agree with Blandy on the 'cricketers say no' argument. I think there are some who think like that, but others maybe (in the Eng team and wider game) don't.

In the current dressing room, I think only Cooke and Broad would be an issue and to be honest, those two should be concentrating on their own form. I think Anderson would be ok with it, I suspect he knows we could use all he help we can get this summer. I don't think he is a universally disliked figure put it that way.

Edited May 13, 2015 by wazzap24

[snowychap]

...Botham (talk about a difficult character, where would he fit in to the current culture!)...

A difficult character he may have been (and still be) but nothing like Pietersen.

He largely didn't go around rubbing up his teammates the wrong way (fallouts with Roebuck and Boycott excluded) - he tended to get on the wrong side of the cricketing (and other) 'authorities'.

Okay, the Somerset fall out was pretty big but that was largely him leaving because of how Viv and Joel were treated and that was at the heart of his problem with Roebuck.

And as for Boycott, I'm not sure that many people who played with him didn't fall out with him though obviously not enough people ran him out on purpose (for the team cause in Botham's case, IIRC).

 

[Risso]

I just think it's all very shoddy, and just makes the whole England set up look comically inept.  When we inevitably get a tonking from the Aussies this summer, this will be another stick to beat the team with.

[blandy]

Very good post wazzap.

 

Re cook and broad being the main ones - yes, sure, that's probably right. Thing is though, for ECB, do you lose Cook to let KP back in? If the Captain (whether he should stay Captain is another issue) doesn't want player X in their side, then the selectors have a problem (whoever the player is).

When the player is as corrosive as KP, and with a long list of fallings out, and when the Captain has as good a test record as Cook as a batsman and is much younger player, you're going to back Cook.

 

It definitely seems like KP was sinned against as well as being a sinner, but basically he's a tube. His batting hasn't been great for a fair old while (Leicester apart) and also, the Ashes in Aus. - I don't think you can overstate the ways he got out, batting selfishly/egotistically and the impact that had.

I was at the Adelaide test, and when England were in a degree of trouble the Aussies just played on his arrogance and he fell straight for it. Being there in person to see and feel what was happening is totally different to watching TV highlights of whatever. Cook got out straight away, Carberry batted well, then went, Root played a loose shot and was caught on the boundary (daft, but at least he was young and inexperienced) and KP was an arse the way he got out. It matters. He didn't get his head down and concentrate, He does that too much, and when he's not winning you games, you tend to get really riled with the selfishness.

 

In the end they should have dropped him and said no more about him, instead of all the stuff that's come out from both sides.

[Risso]

 

 

In the end they should have dropped him and said no more about him, instead of all the stuff that's come out from both sides.

 

I tend to agree, however, having opened the door slightly, why not stick to that?  One triple century against fill-yer-boots bowling shouldn't be enough, so all Strauss had to say was either a) nothing, or we'll monitor the situation as the summer goes on.  Then if England unexpectedly do well, there's no reason to bring him back in.  If KP didn't do that well in county cricket, again, no reason to bring him in.  If one or two of the batsmen have absolute nightmares though, then you've got a choice to make.  At the end of the day though, he's the sort of player that fans pay to see, and for how unreliable he was in the last ashes, he's done brilliantly well in others, including some innings of real grit and maturity.

[Zatman]

 

 

 

In the end they should have dropped him and said no more about him, instead of all the stuff that's come out from both sides.

 

I tend to agree, however, having opened the door slightly, why not stick to that?  One triple century against fill-yer-boots bowling shouldn't be enough, so all Strauss had to say was either a) nothing, or we'll monitor the situation as the summer goes on.  Then if England unexpectedly do well, there's no reason to bring him back in.  If KP didn't do that well in county cricket, again, no reason to bring him in.  If one or two of the batsmen have absolute nightmares though, then you've got a choice to make.  At the end of the day though, he's the sort of player that fans pay to see, and for how unreliable he was in the last ashes, he's done brilliantly well in others, including some innings of real grit and maturity.

 

 

but that would make way too much sense for the ECB to handle

[PaulC]

The ecb have handled everything terribly, from sacking the of Moores to giving KP this carrot and then taking it away. At the end of the day though the team is more important than any individual and if  the players and coaching staff find him too disruptive then its better not to pick him. Lets not forget he was part of the 5-0 loss in Australia. So to talk about him as our saviour is a little ott. Part of me wants him to be picked but we can't get carried away by one innings against a crap attack when he had done very little in any other innings in what is the lower tier of County cricket. Whenever Bell plays for Warwickshire he rarely fails. 

Edited May 13, 2015 by PaulC

[dAVe80]

 

What's all this I'm hearing about Strauss being told he keeps his job, even if he loses the next two Ashes series?

Has it come from any source other than Pietersen's (farewell to English cricket) column in the Torygraph?

It may have - I just haven't seen it.

I guess we've seen the pros and cons of Pietersen's involvement with cricket teams in the last couple of days - fine innings (even allowing for being dropped 5 times) but a shoddy column.

I get that he's pissed off and feels let down but even if I accept every word of Pietersen's side of the story as he (someone else) writes it (on his behalf), I don't think it's great behaviour from him to start listing the batting order and request/demand to be told if x or y trusts him. What did he expect Strauss to do - give him more ammunition for his next column/book?

 

 

It was just something I caught the end of, on the radio this morning. I've not really had chance to look into it, hence why I was aking if anyone knew if it was true?