Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Newell doesn't seem to win much, despite big signings. Bayliss is the dark horse I guess. He'll get some fan support because he is the least likely to have been contaminated by Flower's influence. Though of course, Flower remains in a position of influence.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I'm not in favour of Moores though. He could hardly win a game last time, including losing at home. And he couldn't convince the dressing room as to his methods (not just KP, he was the spokesperson). And his reputation is of a Flower type micromanager. While there is something in idea of getting the small things right, we need someone with the wisdom to use that approach judicially alongside other methods. And we need someone who can allow the captain the space to take responsibility for the team.

I don't consider myself biased in terms of Moores because I have no particular fondness for him despite the Sussex 2003 Glory Season (ahhh, the memories). I lost respect for him after that to be frank because he happily jettisoned Sussex when the ECB came a knocking, and the job he did first time up.

Yet when you look at the legacy of his era, he makes a stronger case then possibly anyone in the decade either side of him for one simple reason - the selections he made in his short reign were as strong as anyone could have hoped for, and at the moment I would take a good hiding for another year under him if at the end a better coach was to inherit a team that was anywhere near as good as the one Moores assembled.

Another huge point that people forget about Moores is that he took over from a team that had been ravaged by injury..... the bowling attack particularly was utterly ravaged, and he lost key men like Vaughan, Trescothick, Flintoff, Harmy, Hoggard, Si Jones.. and er, Ashely Giles

I don't think any coach had it easy after a period where expectation had emerged, and bitterness harvested by the PAkistan capitulation and 5-0 Whitewash.

Do we know that Moores was responsible for selection? Don't forget Moores was Head Coach, and Miller was Chairman of Selectors. If those roles ever changed, it happened under Flower. And anyway, Anderson coming back was inevitable once he was bowling again. The remarkable picks were Sidebottom and at the end, Swann. A lot of selection was a mess (Pattinson).

I don't mind the story of Moores planting the seeds that were reaped by Flower, as mitigation for a generally disastrous regime. But for a lot of people the context has become the story, and the results and the internecine dressing room become incidental. England played very badly in that time. They often seemed to be kept off absolute rock bottom by Sidebottom and Panesar, neither of whom were instrumental in the good two years that were to follow.

My big problem with the whole Moores Sussex thing is this....... Moores and Adams as coach and captain gained a lot of kudos for the 3 titles in 4 years that Sussex won. By inference they became a great coach, and a great captain who instilled in their team a great team, and work, ethic.

very little was made of the fact that they had at their disposal a brilliant Pakistani spinner, who appealed after every ball he bowled, took 100 wickets a season for at least 2 consecutive years, and it might have been more, and who was no longer available to them when they moved on to pastures new.

Moores failed and was sacked after a pretty disastrous spell as England head coach, moved to Lancs, won the title with a couple of ageing warhorses on a dodgy old piece of nonsense at Aigburth that produced 2 day county championship matches for much of the season, then got them relegated when they returned to a proper cricket ground that was fit for county championship matches. Adams moved to Surrey and despite a bottomless pit of money, and an endless supply of quality overseas professionals, got the sack in a failed attempt to halt the slide back to the second division.

The only way they would ever had succeeded after leaving Sussex was if they had been allowed to take their matchwinner with them

I'm surprised that Mushy didn't get offended by constantly being referred to as 'great team ethic' instead of his given name

the road of Peter Moores only leads to ruin. Be warned!

captaincolly wrote:Carberry has given an interview to The Guardian slating Giles(& praising KP)

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/m ... rsen-ashes

"I had a brief chat with Ashley during the fifth ODI in Adelaide," Carberry said. "His response was that he didn't really know. If you don't know mate, I sure as hell won't know."...
Carberry expressed doubt that much will change within the England camp – even after the ECB confirms its new head coach in late April. "It's been an ongoing thing for years. I don't think it's something that's going to change immediately. They have a way of doing things.

"I've been in the game a long time and you know some guys get given a shorter rope than others. I'm probably going to be a bit controversial here but throughout my England career, even as a schoolboy, I've always had that shorter rope – for some reason. I don't think much has changed now that I've stepped into the Test and one-day arena. I'm not going to hide my emotions. I was bitterly disappointed.

"At the age I am, I need straight answers. To be told I'm on the radar or being talked about? All these lip-service cliches don't interest me any more."

I agree with Carberry....

It is curious that Carberry played all the Ashes Tests and was England's second-highest run-scorer, when Flower was coach, and yet he couldn't get a single limited overs game, when Giles was coach. I find it deeply disappointing that Giles couldn't even look Carberry in the eye and give him a straight answer.

Carberry is clearly better off at Hampshire than England...he will get treated better there.

What about the implication that Giles wasn't picking the ODI side?