The Life of Peter (Data) Moores

[pompeymeowth]

I'm still wondering how Strauss is in the position he is. As mentioned one more Tory, old school tie, what ever it's called still rules the roost.

At least John Major is a real cricket fan unlike the current, " That Colin Wood seems like an erstwhile chap" fake we have to endure for another 5 years.

[sussexpob]

Go out for a day and all the action kicks off.

Moores had to go. Not buying this "he didnt have x.y and Z" powers to change things, if not, then what purpose did he serve? England need a man with strength of personality, and that he clearly didnt have. All he did was excel at vague excesses, and his record is poor.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Moores getting a lot of sympathy for his sacking. The ECB haven't handled it well. But it had to happen. His record across all formats is actually worse than first time around. England have struggled tactically, and most of the punts just haven't worked, and have appeared confused. I suppose there is a broader question to be asked about how he and Downton got their jobs in the first place. A tweet from Pietersen suggests he is a nice man, treated badly by the ECB, but not a good choice as coach. Which seems to cover the general mood.

[m@tt]

Moores getting a lot of sympathy for his sacking. The ECB haven't handled it well. But it had to happen. His record across all formats is actually worse than first time around. England have struggled tactically, and most of the punts just haven't worked, and have appeared confused. I suppose there is a broader question to be asked about how he and Downton got their jobs in the first place. A tweet from Pietersen suggests he is a nice man, treated badly by the ECB, but not a good choice as coach. Which seems to cover the general mood.

A nice man, though I've seen some suggest that this may have been a hindrance.

A good coach too, but over-promoted. International cricket was a step too far for him - now twice proven - for a number of reasons. Will continue to do well at county level or with the ECB development set-up.

I'm glad the ECB have made a decision on it. Yet again they've screwed up the announcement of it. Strauss' appointment leaves me in two minds. The whole thing is a continuation of an on-going saga which actually makes me feel a bit weary.

[Dr Cricket]

Did anyone read Vaughan article which suggest if England didn't win the 2nd test, he would have most likely not pulled out of the race and could have gotten Strauss job.

He rejected it because Moores was safe, England didn't give 100% guarantee KP could return and Vaughan didn't want the KP saga throughout the summer if England are losing and Kp scoring runs.

The main sticking point was moores, Vaughan didn't mind working with him, but felt the media attention would be too much so withdrew.

He even said ECB were not certain in any of their decision which is quite obvious considering their sacked moores a week later.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'd read some people posting about it. Seems unlikely, or worrying, that the decision to keep Moores was overturned after one result.

There's speculation that the news of Moores' sacking was leaked by Strauss, telling his Sky ex colleagues. Not a good start.

[Aidan11]

Booze-up and brewery are words that spring to mind.

[Making_Splinters]

Every time England take one step forward they seem to take two backwards. It was disgraceful that news of Moores' sacking was all over the press before the man himself even knew, made worse by the effort he took to get over to Ireland when his fate was already sealed. You'd have thought by now that the ECB would have learnt not to drip feed news to the media!

Prepared to give Strauss the benefit of the doubt, but the suggestions of him making "tough decisions" over Moores are laughable. Graves had pretty much stated his goose was cooked if England didn't win in the Windies. The tough decision will be Strauss sacking Cook at the end of the summer, I don't think he has it in him.

[Aidan11]

Every time I imagine Cook speaking I think of Hugh Laurie's character in Blackadder Goes Forth.

[sussexpob]

A nice man, though I've seen some suggest that this may have been a hindrance.

And yet, I doubt many people at Sussex would say that, or many people in the England team in 2008. Moores was a known control freak back then, not afraid to dress down a few players or subject them to some discipline.

Its clear that he had little faith in himself second time round to do anything. That lack of responsibility and "data" comments are not the Moores I knew a few years back...... if Sussex lost a game under him, you knew he wouldnt be very graceful, but he won respect through that and got the best out of players.

Moores 2013-15 seems to have lost all his passion.

Prepared to give Strauss the benefit of the doubt, but the suggestions of him making "tough decisions" over Moores are laughable. Graves had pretty much stated his goose was cooked if England didn't win in the Windies. The tough decision will be Strauss sacking Cook at the end of the summer, I don't think he has it in him.

Indeed. A very easy decision. The true "tough" decision would have been to keep with him, but that couldnt have happened. Strauss sacked a man that was doomed, if Strauss even played a part.

Seems unlikely, or worrying, that the decision to keep Moores was overturned after one result.

Disagree. England need to win in the caribbean at all costs or Moores had to go. Once they didnt win, he went.... nothing surprising about that.

[sussexpob]

Also agree that if Strauss wants to make a tough decision, then it is Cook he needs to show who is boss. I very much doubt that will happen though.

Cook's "rap sheet" is possibly longer than Moores, so there is little justification for this "revolution" to stop at one person

It did make me laugh that we are being sold the fact that "nothing goes on in Cricket without Andrew knowing, he knows everything......."

I can only assume that he hadnt watched a county game for at least a year, considering he was in the commentary box all that time.

[Durhamfootman]

I always assume that top flight sportsmen are, by default, pretty ruthless bastards, so I'd imagine that Strauss does have it in him

[westoelad]

Also agree that if Strauss wants to make a tough decision, then it is Cook he needs to show who is boss. I very much doubt that will happen though.

Cook's "rap sheet" is possibly longer than Moores, so there is little justification for this "revolution" to stop at one person

It did make me laugh that we are being sold the fact that "nothing goes on in Cricket without Andrew knowing, he knows everything......."

I can only assume that he hadnt watched a county game for at least a year, considering he was in the commentary box all that time.

He doesn't have to have watched a County match for over a year. What he needs is to have trusted contacts who can advise him on the best available players. He has that in ex-colleagues like Colly and Tresco.

[sussexpob]

Also agree that if Strauss wants to make a tough decision, then it is Cook he needs to show who is boss. I very much doubt that will happen though.

Cook's "rap sheet" is possibly longer than Moores, so there is little justification for this "revolution" to stop at one person

It did make me laugh that we are being sold the fact that "nothing goes on in Cricket without Andrew knowing, he knows everything......."

I can only assume that he hadnt watched a county game for at least a year, considering he was in the commentary box all that time.

He doesn't have to have watched a County match for over a year. What he needs is to have trusted contacts who can advise him on the best available players. He has that in ex-colleagues like Colly and Tresco.

Reports in several papers seems to indicate his main role is simply picking the players and coaches to make this work. If that is true, then asking his mates who to pick hardly shows he is qualified, as is the fact that he cant have watched any county cricket because he was at international matches.

Another worrying thing about Strauss is.... how many new guys came into the team under his captaincy? Its been stated before, Flower and Strauss forged a team from players others picked, while weren't able to contribute anyone else. Not really a strong case for hi selecting qualities, is it?

[sussexpob]

One thing we can say though....

The ECB picked one guy who got sacked after an argument with Strauss, and another who called KP a "c.**t" on tv and retired arguably because of an issue with him.....

Might be co-incidence, but are the ECB simply making sure KP gets nowhere near the team by hiring everyone who will make sure he never gets selected?

KP wont play again, but hiring Strauss, who will probably say in two days time "KP is not coming back" will simply motivate further responses about the situation in the press.