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

The ECB just see us all as Internet-crazed loonies who shut just shut up and buy tickets.

westoelad wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

Albondiga wrote:I 've read again many of the posts on the subjects of ECB Director of cricket - chief coach - captains of Tests ODI & 20/20. I've read that Downton was useless - that Fowler was useless -

Results make the tack justified. If England are losing badly, people will wonder why. Off field management has been a catastrophe.

For what it's worth, I'm sympathetic to Morgan who accepted a role he could succeed at.

But everyone else has a lot to answer for. On his first week of the job, Strauss leaked his intended sacking of Moores, to a sports news channel, while Moores was in the middle of an ODI. He showed scant knowledge of man management by telling KP he was not to be trusted, and then offering him a job coaching the team(!), and inheriting a scenario whereby KP was offered a way back into the England team, and then shutting that off again for no new reason. Concerns that Strauss may be too close the the players he is responsible for appear to be realistic.

Everyone who knows Strauss says he's an intelligent, knowledgeable and principlined individual whose cricketing c.v. is exemplary. He has taken on a very challenging position for the sake of English cricket sacrificing a cushy lucrative position with Sky. There have been leaks coming from the ECB long before Strauss became involved so whether he was responsible for the Moores leak has to be questionable. Cook may have limitations as an England captain-I'm not arrogant enough to express an opinion-but his record as a Test batsman is almost indentical to Pietersen,8000+ runs, average 45+. If he doesn't want Pietersen in his team because he sees him disruptive so be it,is that not a captain's prerogative? Why,oh Why, can we not back 2 clearly genuine guys who are trying to do their best for Engish cricket?

I guess because too many people (not just on here) have apparently taken such a dislike to Cook and anyone thought to be associated with him that they interpret everything that happens as part of an Evil Plan of his to destroy St Kevin at any cost to his team...rather overlooking the fact that Cook was instrumental in getting Pietersen his second chance back in 2012. If Cook no longer wants him in the team (not that we have anything but the word of a Mirror columnist that Cook actually issued the ultimatum being discussed...was he in the meeting ?) , surely there must be a reason ? Just possibly KP did behave in a manner that warranted wanting a prolific run maker out of the team ; or is it more logical to suppose that Cook just decided to weaken his team out of spite over...nothing ?

I have just about given up on this matter : everyone is entrenched behind their fortifications , and none of us are likely to change our views - anyway Pietersen is now injured so perhaps we will be able to take a few days off to watch a Test Match next week...

alfie wrote:

westoelad wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

Albondiga wrote:I 've read again many of the posts on the subjects of ECB Director of cricket - chief coach - captains of Tests ODI & 20/20. I've read that Downton was useless - that Fowler was useless -

Results make the tack justified. If England are losing badly, people will wonder why. Off field management has been a catastrophe.

For what it's worth, I'm sympathetic to Morgan who accepted a role he could succeed at.

But everyone else has a lot to answer for. On his first week of the job, Strauss leaked his intended sacking of Moores, to a sports news channel, while Moores was in the middle of an ODI. He showed scant knowledge of man management by telling KP he was not to be trusted, and then offering him a job coaching the team(!), and inheriting a scenario whereby KP was offered a way back into the England team, and then shutting that off again for no new reason. Concerns that Strauss may be too close the the players he is responsible for appear to be realistic.

Everyone who knows Strauss says he's an intelligent, knowledgeable and principlined individual whose cricketing c.v. is exemplary. He has taken on a very challenging position for the sake of English cricket sacrificing a cushy lucrative position with Sky. There have been leaks coming from the ECB long before Strauss became involved so whether he was responsible for the Moores leak has to be questionable. Cook may have limitations as an England captain-I'm not arrogant enough to express an opinion-but his record as a Test batsman is almost indentical to Pietersen,8000+ runs, average 45+. If he doesn't want Pietersen in his team because he sees him disruptive so be it,is that not a captain's prerogative? Why,oh Why, can we not back 2 clearly genuine guys who are trying to do their best for Engish cricket?

I guess because too many people (not just on here) have apparently taken such a dislike to Cook and anyone thought to be associated with him that they interpret everything that happens as part of an Evil Plan of his to destroy St Kevin at any cost to his team...rather overlooking the fact that Cook was instrumental in getting Pietersen his second chance back in 2012. If Cook no longer wants him in the team (not that we have anything but the word of a Mirror columnist that Cook actually issued the ultimatum being discussed...was he in the meeting ?) , surely there must be a reason ? Just possibly KP did behave in a manner that warranted wanting a prolific run maker out of the team ; or is it more logical to suppose that Cook just decided to weaken his team out of spite over...nothing ?

I have just about given up on this matter : everyone is entrenched behind their fortifications , and none of us are likely to change our views - anyway Pietersen is now injured so perhaps we will be able to take a few days off to watch a Test Match next week...

Amen to that Alfie.

All about Adam Lyth making a good account for himself as England opener, this is another historical day for Yorkshire.

Alviro Patterson wrote:All about Adam Lyth making a good account for himself as England opener, this is another historical day for Yorkshire.

Hardly historical,there must be hundreds of Yorkshiremen before him who have won England caps. Thoroughly deserved nevertheless and,like Wood,deserved reward for being supportive non-playing tourists in the W.Indies.

It's amusing really that, for me, there is one person who has been really badly done to in the last week by English cricket and Strauss, and that's Peter Moores. Very little time or sympathy for KP at all but Moores deserved much better than he got.

Moores was judged on performance, and rightly so. The leaking of his sacking was disgraceful but is sadly par for the course from the ECB.

Andrew Strauss - England's Dictator of Cricket.

Looks like the slightly creepy Justin Langer won't be coach.

I think Dizzy will take it.

Many people are expressing the opinion that there is no real job for Strauss or anybody else re Director of Cricket. I think there is because there are two main parts to it - there's the commercial side and all that entails and the cricket side from grass roots upwards.
At the top of the cricket tree should be -- the director -- the coach and the captain. They should be responsible people - be responsible for the England side and they alone should select the side (it seemed that nobody liked my suggestion to get the first class umpires involved in an advisory capacity as they thought they would be corruptible)

Their first action should be to get rid of the 'hangers - on' - The batting coaches, the fielding coaches, the bowling coaches, the dieticians, the anything else advisory capacity, the computers, the analysts etc etc
Cricketers improve by playing, practising and talking about the game so what we need is some good nets, some good cricket wickets and a few drinks.

Many people are expressing the opinion that there is no real job for Strauss or anybody else re Director of Cricket. I think there is because there are two main parts to it - there's the commercial side and all that entails and the cricket side from grass roots upwards

Graves was appointed under the guise that he was a businessman, and the counties were crying out for a business and financial model that would bring in more cash. There are 14 board members at the ICC, I dont think that includes Emperor Clarke, who now sits with the ICC in his role as President, are the two aforementioned. There are three directors appointed to the professional game, who report to Harrison, who reports to Graves.

Now there is Strauss, who reports to Harrison. If he is to manage all the elements of grass roots upwards, then why are there two directors managing the non-professional game already? Ive heard he is to manage the womens game, so what is Rachel Heyhoe-Flint doing? If he is to run the national centre of excellence then what is David Parsons doing? He is director of ECB Performance Management?

So what Administration is Strauss fulfilling?

Put simply, it seems Strauss is being sold for roles that already exist, so who gets the final decision?

Who has the final say?

Well presumably it depends on what powers the Board has delegated and to whom. The Board should have the final say on major strategic issues, but the day to day running should surely be delegated to the appropriate officials.
That's why getting senior appointments and their job descriptions spot on are so important in getting any organisation to work efficiently.

On another note, most good companies and organisations regularly survey their customers about what they want and the improvements they want to see. Don't hold your breath with the ECB!

ECB have now confirmed they have officially approached Gillespie.

Aidan11 wrote:ECB have now confirmed they have officially approached Gillespie.

Presumably from behind.