Is Peter Moores the right man for the England Job

[sussexpob]

While Andy Flower, Duncan Fletcher and Peter Moores may take scant consolation in the fact that even the best that the best of generals are occasionally stabbed in the back by those closest to them, there has been a worrying consistency in the nature of mutiny that has cemented the fate of our last three coaches. And whileour last two coaches may well have mutter the eternal words “et tu Kevin” on their departure, the truth is that this exclusive group of characters were victims of their own uncompromising outlook.

Over the last few decades there are few sports teams that have excelled in failure better than England. Despite a large upturn in fortunes since 1999 generally, in the face of bad returns English cricket has crumbled to its very core on more than one occasion. Like water damaged limestone structures, they have the blissful appearance of perfection and solidarity until, on everything crashing down, the rotten core than held everything up becomes apparent.

Much has been said of Flower in recent months; most of it reactive, some of it overtly emotional. But for those who took notice there was always a worry that Flower’s micro managed squad structure was having little positive effect on building on the legacy that was left to him. Others may disagree, probably rightly, that Flowers achievements for a couple of years in the middle of his tenure set his own legacy, and that his results and the marked improvement of certain players heading into their prime are markers of his control as coach. While I am inclined to agree with both, one thing that Flower did not do in 5 years was to identify even a small amount of refreshed talent that could add depth, or replace those casualties of injury or lack of form that periodical hamper sports teams that are require to produce high standards day in, day out.

Its for this reason that Flower was only ever going to be a temporary fix. His methods have, overtime, been blasted apart, leaving us at arguably one of the lowest potential lows that English cricket has ever suffered. Fletcher too, who’s achievements for a long period will leave a positive lasting legacy, had to face the professional equivalent of being taken outside and having two cartridges blasted through his skull; his team in complete disarray, his captain too far from shore on a pedalo to hear the gunfire, too pissed to give a damn either way. Like Flower and Fletcher either side of him, Moores too was taken away with his hands bound to face the firing squad. All three left to face the music as a result of not being able to contain the spread of dressing room rebellion into the public domain.

There is much to draw in comparison between these three men. All are men who’s strength of character was undeniable, who’s methods were distinct and authoritative, and who expected their teams to follow their guidance with unquestioned loyalty. The latter was the most important as, in the face of the disloyalty, neither was capable of rapprochement, the cause of the spiralling effect that has led to the complete destruction that ended their reigns.

For all their failings, Peter Moores is the odd one out. Unlike the others who, given the clouding of time, will be able to lap up the praise for the improvements they made to the team, even the length of Moores’ tenure in the history books will indicate its own criminality as to the success of his time as coach, the manner of which it ended forming the conclusion as to his unsuitability. Yet to analyse his coaching performance taken aside the contemporary ruling environment of discontent, it’s hard for one to honestly conclude that Moores got a fair chance at the job first time round.

When Moores took the England job he inherited a team that was rampant with problems. The attack that had shredded Australia in 2005 had all but gone, lost to injury or fast approaching retirement. His stock of batsman had also been reduced, with Bell questionably floating out of the Test team, Trescothick being unavailable, Strauss so hopefully out of form that he was working with Middlesex to improve his technique, no adequate test match keeper, and a captain who’s knee couldn’t survive 5 minutes of standing. In essence, the same type of ragtag bunch of no hopers that you usually find at the start of a Hollywood sports film when the new coach first turns up for training.

Yet out of this dirth Moores solidified and created a team that, although initially unsuccessful, would form the foundation of everything that Flower achieved. It is very indicative that Flower’s team that beat India 4-0 and became the number one team in the world at that point, did not contain a single player he had given a first international cap to….. the mix was made of from Moores’s first caps, and the younger guys of the Fletcher regime. He had given a first test cap to two players in that team…. Bresnan (statistically the weakest bowler) and Morgan (statistically the weakest batsman). Even Jonathan Trott had been sought out by Moores previously.

Flower also has Moores to thank for providing the blueprint of his micromanagement style. With Flower a young coach under 40 at the time of his ascension to the England coaching role it is not a coincidence that, being so young and inexperienced (he only quit playing after the 2006 season) as a coach, he adopted Moores’ methods. Much of what Flower is credited in bringing to the England setup in ways of nutrition, fitness, lifestyle and culture has Moores written all over it. At Sussex he put fitness and professionalism first, adopted a forceful approach to the media, and made sure his captain was in synch with everything his team represented. In Flower, Moores clearly saw a protégé for his style of management, and having worked under him adopted this as his own.

Performance is also an often touted consideration for the departure of Moores. Yet when we look at it, his loss to South Africa of 2-1 was no worse than Flower managed, and can be looked even more favourably on when considering the fact that in the drawn test England made South Africa follow on at Lords while Flower’s team had conceded 650-2, and in the clincher at Edgbaston the umpire’s unwillingness to give Smith out and the England fielder’s unwillingness to catch him out threw away what should have been an England victory. Moores beat NZ away and home, Flower had to rely on a last wicket partnership to save what had been a one sided series to NZ. Moores beat the Windies 3-0, Flower lost to them. And while Moores lost to SL away, and a place where Steve Waugh’s all conquering side also met defeat at their highest pomp, Flower could only be saved by a wonder innings by KP, and that was against a Sri Lanka team no longer blessed with the Asian flat track master Vaas, or the best spinner of all time. Moores was also the highest 4th innings score to win a test away from beating India away, a team blessed with a batting line up at their best, and not a team without Laxman and Dravid, or Gambhir, Sehwag and Tendulkar still being picked when their careers were all but over. Moores also didn’t get a shot at an Australia team at their lowest ebb for 15 years, a luxury that makes Flower’s achievements seem all the more better.

To ignore Moores’ shortcomings though would be to only tell half the story. It is strange that, for a man so hard and certain in his judgement at Sussex, the persona he leaves England fans with is of a weak man who lacked clarity of judgement, and harvested indiscipline. The much maligned selection of Pattinson rang alarm bells in 2008 vs SA, not because the pick itself was poor, but because Moores would come out to the press afterwards and insist that “Vaughan knows this pitch seamed and wanted him”. For a man who had formed such a personable bond with Chris Adams at Sussex, it seemed that this cheap, self-saving shot at the England captain was out of character, and highlighted the distance between the dressing room and himself. Vaughan for his part had stood by the team ethic, and had already told the press that the decision was made in the collective.

The truth is that here we see the difference in these three men. Fletcher would have never stood by and made a pick that was so poor, Flower neither. And while Moores was known as a man at Sussex who would answer to know one, here was an example of a coach who did not have the influence or confidence in conviction to override what he, and indeed possibly everyone in England thought, was a bad pick. His betrayal of Vaughan at this point was also pivotal in wrestling the influence inside of his dressing room. Even though Vaughan would be forced through a teary press conference to retire soon, his spirit and the lack of respect shown had already killed Moores. The replacement Captain was already on the war path, their relationship doomed to fail.

Fletcher had actually made the same mistake himself previously when, as England had capitulated at Adelaide to Shane Warne, he inferred that Flintoff had made the decision on playing Giles over Panesar, thereby passing the buck. From that point on Fletcher lost Flintoff as a positive character in the dressing room and results crashed, and much the same way as Flower lost his team as rumours of dressing room splits and pace bowlers fake bowling to cardboard cut outs came out. Authoritative coaches need a yes man captain to buy into their philosophy and uphold their will, but while Fletcher found his Vaughan and Flower his Cook/Strauss, Moores did not pay the price of loyalty to buy Vaughan and his team from the start. Without that loyalty Moores could not ride even the smallest waves of discontent in the dressing room.

If Moores did get the job then a captain as suitability mature and submissive as Alistair Cook may provide the perfect foil for Moores, and that relationship may allow Moores to adopt a style of delivery that is more suiting to his natural style, and one that has in the past nurtured success and respect from the dressing room. It does always feel like Moores had unfinished business, if only because the amount of time he was given was so short. With a strong captain relationship, his very similar and non-alien methods, and his eye for a player, Moores could provide an actually pretty good alternative to Flower in the long run, even more considering the potential candidates that are being discussed are hardly boundlessly superior.

Yet is it the right decision to make? Didn’t Moores crumble under the pressure last time? Wasn’t he incapable of even the most basic elements of trust and dressing room spirit, and will be entering a cauldron of discontent and disloyalty? After Flower’s over bearing style, and in light of Darren Lehmann’s more personable and downplayed success, do we want a Flower replica or a complete separation from his legacy in the team environment?

The answers to these questions should dictate England’s new selection of coach. If England are desperate for a Flower Mark II, then they should look no further than Peter Moores….. if they want a clean break then Moores should be the last name on the list.

[Making_Splinters]

Moores is a coach who needs a good side, take a look at his complete inability to turn around one of the worst Lancashire seasons in many a year for example.

His selections for us have been very poor over the years.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I certainly don't think the ECB want anything other than what they had. Why else would they give Flower a job coaching the coaches? If Flower was Moores markII and Moores will be Flower markII, these two together have given us two good years in seven. When a particular set of players peaked together.

Maybe it is just really down to the players?

Very good post. I'm surprised to hear Fletcher fingered Freddie for the Giles decision. In his autobiography, he made it seem like his choice, though he didn't say it was the wrong one... But he did say he canvassed a lot of people before he made it, most of whom said Giles should play.

Fletcher lost his side to injury, quite quickly about a year before the 2006 Ashes. I'm not sure his time ended like Flower's. Flower had a long time of slower decline to fix two problem positions, and didn't do it. Bigger problems snowballed at the end, brought about by a couple of years of entropy, inflexibility and inaction. Fletch lost Tres, Freddie, Vaughan, Simon Jones and Giles in quick succession. Some of these returned, but were never fit. Harmison lost his way, and G.Jones was never good enough, but that happens. Maybe you can criticise Fletcher for holding on to Geraint for too long. Losing all those players was a terrible hand to be dealt. But his team remained loyal to him. You never hear his players blaming him.

Reports that Kisrsten didn't want the job because he didn't want decisions like the KP one to be made for him make me feel things are not going to change. We'd better hope that it is just the players, and they are out there, because for the ECB, the status quo is the only game in town.

[Athertonian]

Moores is a coach who needs a good side, take a look at his complete inability to turn around one of the worst Lancashire seasons in many a year for example.

His selections for us have been very poor over the years.

On the other hand Moores took Lancashire to their first outright County Championship for 77 years.... And after 7 decades you can hardly say that was due simply to having a good side.

[Making_Splinters]

Moores is a coach who needs a good side, take a look at his complete inability to turn around one of the worst Lancashire seasons in many a year for example.

His selections for us have been very poor over the years.

On the other hand Moores took Lancashire to their first outright County Championship for 77 years.... And after 7 decades you can hardly say that was due simply to having a good side.

Scrapped by the skin of our teeth and in large part due to a simmer and pitches that suited out bowling. If you look back at 2011, it's a bit of a miricle we won.

[Athertonian]

Moores is a coach who needs a good side, take a look at his complete inability to turn around one of the worst Lancashire seasons in many a year for example.

His selections for us have been very poor over the years.

On the other hand Moores took Lancashire to their first outright County Championship for 77 years.... And after 7 decades you can hardly say that was due simply to having a good side.

Scrapped by the skin of our teeth and in large part due to a simmer and pitches that suited out bowling. If you look back at 2011, it's a bit of a miricle we won.

I'll take that!

[Durhamfootman]

Moores is a coach who needs a good side, take a look at his complete inability to turn around one of the worst Lancashire seasons in many a year for example.

His selections for us have been very poor over the years.

On the other hand Moores took Lancashire to their first outright County Championship for 77 years.... And after 7 decades you can hardly say that was due simply to having a good side.

Scrapped by the skin of our teeth and in large part due to a simmer and pitches that suited out bowling. If you look back at 2011, it's a bit of a miricle we won.

won in a year when Old Trafford was unavailable due to refurbishment.

I remember frantic posts, by a completely baffled M_S, on the some of the team selections that Lancashire fans had to endure. M_S will know better than I do.

[m@tt]

Moores made mistakes as England coach, as pointed out in this well thought out article. The popular opinion is that his methods and attitude towards the players was a bit too 'County', as in he didn't adapt to the fact he was working with mature international players who, by virtue of being in the squad, knew how to work hard and were fit and talented too. The post match fitness session against NZ being one example - one that embarrassed both him and the team.

I'm sure that he is not oblivious to his failings. I hope that, if given the chance, he can show that he has moved on and improved and adapted.

He is probably my preferred choice right now. But the choices are underwhelming.

[Athertonian]

Moores made mistakes as England coach, as pointed out in this well thought out article. The popular opinion is that his methods and attitude towards the players was a bit too 'County', as in he didn't adapt to the fact he was working with mature international players who, by virtue of being in the squad, knew how to work hard and were fit and talented too. The post match fitness session against NZ being one example - one that embarrassed both him and the team.

I'm sure that he is not oblivious to his failings. I hope that, if given the chance, he can show that he has moved on and improved and adapted.

He is probably my preferred choice right now. But the choices are underwhelming.

The flip side of that view is that some of the players felt that Moores was not fit to lick their boots because he had no international experience and these prima donnas sneered at his domestic-level training drills. And Pietersen's attempted coup would also have got rid of Flower but that didn't happen.

Since Moores was sacked it's been acknowledged that he achieved more than was believed at the time. Flower had learned a lot from him and put some of it into practice. Anderson and Broad flourished after Moores deemed time was up for Harmison and Hoggard (although Harmison briefly came back). He brought in Prior. A few months back we were saying that was a brlliant selection - let's hope Prior can sort himself out this year. Chris Adams has always been a big Moores fan and he talked him up yesterday in an interview with Atherton in The Times. He quotes a description of Moores by Alex Loudon - "I don't know what it is, but Pete can walk into a dressing room, sprinkle a little magic dust and everything will be all right". And boy, could England do with some magic dust this summer.

I'm not convinced that Moores is the right choice either. But there are no stand-out candidates.

[Making_Splinters]

He quotes a description of Moores by Alex Loudon - "I don't know what it is, but Pete can walk into a dressing room, sprinkle a little magic dust and everything will be all right". And boy, could England do with some magic dust this summer.

Well, Loudon has clearly been eating too much strong cheese before bed because he's been having some very strange dreams that do not reflect reality. The Moores' "Pixie dust" did nothing to stop Lancashire plummeting out of the first division following abject performance after abject performace. It did nothing to make his selections make any sense.

Maybe some are benefitting from only having memories of better times for English cricket under Moores rather than having to deal with his nonsense day to day on the county scene.

[sussexpob]

Well, Loudon has clearly been eating too much strong cheese before bed because he's been having some very strange dreams that do not reflect reality. The Moores' "Pixie dust" did nothing to stop Lancashire plummeting out of the first division following abject performance after abject performace. It did nothing to make his selections make any sense.

Lancashire fans are a bloody ungrateful bunch!! Core blimey splints, he won you the league and that is all you can say? Peter Moores has made mistakes, but I cant use those mistakes to take his achievement away from him!!

The pixie dust comment is true of Sussex. We lost 7 of our first team to other counties in 1998, finished bottom, and he managed to solidify a lot of pretty average cricketers around a strong nucleus of players and created something that lasted nearly a decade until we got relegated. He had a habit of spotting a really good player and was able to get some very solid guys that had been overlooked at other places into the side.

The biggest thing was, given time, he revamped the nature of the whole county without ever making the team isolated from the fans. He was harsh and uncompromising to the players, but he also won huge respect, and there was a feeling around the county at that time that we believed in him, and that believe filtered through all elements of the county.... its hard to explain really, the atmosphere at Hove was something pretty special, even before we won anything.

Of course there is some sour notes from it. The England reign, and the way he built something and left straight away when he found something better with the ECB!!! Put he has a proven county record of winning at more than one county, and a lasting legacy at Sussex for years after he left!!

That is the main winner for me!! Lasting legacy!! He didn't leave us rotten to the core, he left us strong enough to compete at the very top, and with players coming through the ranks with promise.

In fact, what happened after really makes his legacy at Sussex strong. The youth guys under other people haven't developed as hoped, and have proved just how difficult even in county cricket it is to maintain quality when you are a team like us, but under him he pretty much did everything well.

[Alviro Patterson]

On balance Peter Moores would be a good pick in the current circumstances.

One thing of note in his short spell at England is the selection policy, picking players from a wide range of counties and giving county stalwarts Owais Shah, Phil Mustard, Jeremy Snape and Darren Maddy a chance. This is at a time when kolpak players were still high in numbers, fast forward to now and there are a lot of talented players about in County Cricket, ripe for picking. Moores would have a greater success rate in brining the right type of player, more so when he's continued coaching since leaving England.

[Durhamfootman]

The more I think about it, the most convinced I am becoming that Gilo has stuffed himself for the job, and that Moores will end up getting the job. Apart from anything else he is the only person who would never entertain trying to reverse the KP decision, or blame the ECB for the decision at some later date if results go badly.

So I'd better hope that he isn't really the complete tw@t that I think he is

[Making_Splinters]

Well, Loudon has clearly been eating too much strong cheese before bed because he's been having some very strange dreams that do not reflect reality. The Moores' "Pixie dust" did nothing to stop Lancashire plummeting out of the first division following abject performance after abject performace. It did nothing to make his selections make any sense.

Lancashire fans are a bloody ungrateful bunch!! Core blimey splints, he won you the league and that is all you can say? Peter Moores has made mistakes, but I cant use those mistakes to take his achievement away from him!!

The pixie dust comment is true of Sussex. We lost 7 of our first team to other counties in 1998, finished bottom, and he managed to solidify a lot of pretty average cricketers around a strong nucleus of players and created something that lasted nearly a decade until we got relegated. He had a habit of spotting a really good player and was able to get some very solid guys that had been overlooked at other places into the side.

The biggest thing was, given time, he revamped the nature of the whole county without ever making the team isolated from the fans. He was harsh and uncompromising to the players, but he also won huge respect, and there was a feeling around the county at that time that we believed in him, and that believe filtered through all elements of the county.... its hard to explain really, the atmosphere at Hove was something pretty special, even before we won anything.

Of course there is some sour notes from it. The England reign, and the way he built something and left straight away when he found something better with the ECB!!! Put he has a proven county record of winning at more than one county, and a lasting legacy at Sussex for years after he left!!

That is the main winner for me!! Lasting legacy!! He didn't leave us rotten to the core, he left us strong enough to compete at the very top, and with players coming through the ranks with promise.

In fact, what happened after really makes his legacy at Sussex strong. The youth guys under other people haven't developed as hoped, and have proved just how difficult even in county cricket it is to maintain quality when you are a team like us, but under him he pretty much did everything well.

Spoken like someone who merely follows results rather than knowing much about the details of the County game. While some people seems to be attempting to lay our 2011 Championship win at the feet of Moores – displaying rather blatant bias in the process – it couldn’t be further from the truth.

Our down to the wire victory was born from the efforts of an outstanding bowling performance from four automatic picks on pitches that would often make CLS look like a road. Hogg, Chapple, Keedy and Kerrigan picked themselves and delivered wickets at sub 25 all season long. Moores had nothing to do with our fortuitous lack of playing at OT, nor did he have anything to do with the development and realistically selection of the four horsemen.

The batting was ropey all season, Moores’ selections even in the Championship winning side were dubious at best! He’s consistently failed to make sense when picking openers before the introduction of Reece to the side.

Moores does well when key players perform. He is an abject failure when things stop being a computer simulation win button. Wax and wane all you want about England and Sussex, you won’t find much admiration from those in the member’s bar who have to deal with the man in the present.

[Durhamfootman]

Quite right, M_S