The life of Peter Moores Part IV: The battle of the Mediocre

[sussexpob]

Sequels very rarely stand up to the quality of the original, so it is no surprise that the current reincarnation of “England a la Moores” is of dubious merit. Had the life of Moores’ as English coach been adequately portrayed in film, the few people that turned up for “Moores Part Deux: The Rebirth” after such a poor start, would almost certainly have not been parting with their hard earned cash to see “Moores III: Death in Australia”.

Like a bad film franchise, England are completely predictable, lack fresh ideas and creativity, and are constantly rebranding the same old storyline as something new. The most recent part of the Moores saga, “Part IV: The Battle of the Mediocre”, we hope is the last, having surely exhausted even the most loyal of followers. When hamstrung with the same director, the same characters, and the confines of a bad plot generally, you don’t make a good film. On the flipside, a bad director or a bad script can be given as much acting talent as it wants to bring it to life, but it will always fail to be encapsulating, down to the reliability of its key elements.

Moores seems to think that he needs more time, that Rome “cannot be built in a day”, which admittedly has some truth in it. The debacle Moores has had to walk into required patience to make work, and it was never going to be a short term fix that kick-started instantaneous and measurable success. Yet there are two points that are key to this argument, and which invalidate it completely.

The first is the relative state of Windies and English cricket. Moores has inferred that competitive teams don’t just appear, but it cannot be escaped from that England played a West Indies team that have also been reduced to a lot of soul searching after their own internal problems. Reduced to tests against unglamorous oppositions, board disputes, player strikes and the threat of bankruptcy all hang over Windies cricket like a bad smell. Added to the fact that this team has been effected by IPL reductions, has questionable quality, and very little experience being led by a new captain, if teams don’t just appear, then England should have been licking their lips at the prospect of an easy win.

Much has been said of Graves assessment of the Windies pre-series. If anything, what grates is the lack of diplomacy and common sense in making this views public, but I doubt deep down even the most ardent of Windies supports disagreed with his assessment of the Windies being “Mediocre”. The team have an unstable batting line up that has often been propped up by Chanderpaul, who looked every one of his 40 years in this series, and a bowling attack with one notable concern in Kemar Roach. England should rightfully have targeted a 3-0 victory, at the very least a series victory, and the results of not obtaining this should rightfully lead to serious enquiries as to why.

The second point is that the mere passing of time does not mean that people learn from their mistakes, and England certainly have uncovered once again a series of utterly useless decisions that have contributed to their underperformance. If Moores can oversee such blatant disregard for common sense now, then why should he be given more time to prove otherwise? If someone which such little seeming ability to understand conditions and to generate performance from a side is struggling now, why will this change?

The main crimes in all of this was the role of Trott, who no doubt copped the blame himself for it and was left to walk the plank on his own. Whether or not Trott was still test class is debatable, what is a fact however is he is not a test match opener, and never was. Players who have been out of the team for whatever reason should be reintegrated into it with a certain level of sensitivity. Asking a player “are you still good enough” while giving them an additional, alien responsibility was to put pressure onto a man who no doubt was already under the radar, and that was both a stupid tactical and personal decision. What makes it even worse is the team contained a deserving opener who was ignored.

Another problem England face is defining the roles of several key people in the team. While Anderson is untouchable, it seems that Chris Jordan, Ali, Stokes and to a lesser extent Broad all have longer term question marks floating against them in the bowling attack. With the Windies forming a partnership that was taking them to a match win, the skipper didn’t turn to Stokes until the very end, who picked up a wicket in the two overs he bowled. If the skipper has that much confidence in a strike bowler (and Stokes hardly got the ball all test) then one has to ask, why is Stokes in the team?

This is evidence of more lack of clarity in selection. Stokes started the series batting at 6, made a score of value, and was dropped down to 8 where he bowled less and less as the series went on. If he wasn’t there as a strike bowling key part of the attack, and wasn’t considered to be there on justifiable batting quality, then why was he in the team in place of Rashid, who didn’t play despite the reliance on two part-timers by England? If anything, Rashid has to come into the team as the spin option, and a choice be made between Ali’s and Stokes as to how they continue. Ali is a batsman and may contribute on slow wickets that turn with the ball, but will not find returns consistently as a front line spinner. Stokes needs to find more control with the ball, as he simply gives away too many runs to illicit his captains confidence to throw him the ball for long spells. I think Jordan will also find himself back in county cricket, because his lack of penetration with the old ball is a concern, and although he can bat a bit, it’s not to a level that should cloud any misgivings with the ball.

The final piece of the problem is Ian Bell, who since 2012 has averaged a very poor 36 per innings. While I think Bell’s historical record and experience is still valuable to the team, he needs to do more this summer if he wants to tour with England again, because this performance is unacceptable.

Finally, what to make of Captain Cook? For a start, regardless of the hype from a positive media feeding the cult of personality around him, Cook’s on field management leaves a lot to be desired. Chris Jordan took a stunning catch standing up to spin in the last test, and has made other remarkable catches in the past, but he was farmed out to the boundary when other slip fielders where shelling catches. His bowling changes are often “going through the motions”, and his field placings are cautious. At no point in the third innings chase did you feel he was able to create lasting pressure, either by putting fielders into positions to create doubt in the batsman, or to save runs. You don’t defend targets under 200 with no slips or close catchers, and a couple of edges generated flew into vacant positions behind square.

Cook is one of the main symptoms of the problem, as he is no doubt deep down knowledgeable about his misgivings as a Captain, and has consistently become a self-serving public commentator who’s selfish mouth seems more content in deflecting blame from his own back, then doing what is right for the team. If his world cup comments were unforgivable then to blame Graves for losing the test was further evidence of his weak, feeble constitution. He is a captain that everyone, rightfully, wants to see the back of, and who is being further tainted with negativity. With all this aside, his record in series is also becoming remarkably average at best, dreadful at worst considering the facilities and players at his disposal.

Cook should not complain about Graves’ “team talk” nonsense. As stated above, it was regrettable that Graves said that of the Windies in the open, but to infer it fired the Windies up was to admit that England were mentally out fought, which I don’t believe they were. The Windies put pressure on England arguably twice in this series, at the start of both innings in Barbados, and England reacted very badly and crumbled. Had England themselves been fired up and confident, they would have finished off the first test, and would have rode out the first time in the series that the Windies put some pressure on in Barbados. That they couldn’t do this is damning of the team management, and has nothing to do with Graves.

It’s a worry that England have crumbled to Sri Lanka and Windies in recent tests when the intensity has been low level. If Eranga and Holder bowling a few tight spells can get this team running for the hills, what is Mitchell Johnson going to evoke? Certainly more than a few nightmares!

This is probably the teams biggest failure, and that wanton stench will not be washed off until changes in the leadership are made. The narrative of the Moores-Cook era is engrained in the psyche of this team, a team that blames others instead of being accountable, a team where individuals fight for themselves instead of their team, and a team that crumbles under the slightest pressure. Test cricket is a tough world, and anyone who thinks it is easy must be either of Tendulkar/Bradman quality, or will simply not survive. Accountability has to be installed, and consistent failure shown that it has no place.

England will be forever stuck in the endless trap of self-doubt until a new leadership is appointed, that we know. Time can change many things, but it cant change bad decision making or conjure up fresh ideas unless the ability is there to produce it. It is becoming abundantly clear that the skills are not there, so why waste anymore series with a misguided policy?

The changes also need to be the right ones, something that the ECB are struggling with. Boycott made a very valid point that “The more the ECB changes, the more it stays the same” at the end of the Barbados test, and nothing is more true. A more to appoint Strauss as Director would be striving for something that has passed, and would validate the current failing system which he has openly supported.

I hope that Graves’ promise of an inquest occurs now, and relevant changes to the management taken out of his hands. The selectors, the coach and the captain have to go, its as simple as that.

[Arthur Crabtree]

England's last three series were against the 6-8th ranked teams. They represented an opportunity for England to get into credit before the greater challenges of 2015. But, instead, England have dropped below Pakistan to fourth. Which matters because England kept saying they were third to convince they were doing ok.

Quite a few players have done pretty well as individuals. Yet, the image of the team as a whole is one which throws away advantages and is dominated, even by weaker opposition. They threw away a match winning position against Sri Lanka when Herath and Mathews turned the game, and couldn't close out a win in the other game. They collapsed in the second innings against India at Lord's. They were well ahead before losing against West Indies at Bridgetown after first innings, and they failed to bowl WI out in over five sessions in Antigua.

As you say Sussex, even a struggling team should be doing better in these series, and the changes need to come from the top. While Cook isn't a good captain, he could be coached to be more positive in approach by Moores. But, I suspect Cook's negativity partly springs from Moores. Cook may well be negative by instinct, but his plans are pessimistic too, no matter who he is against. Moores should step down, and a more imaginative coach should find someone more of a kindred spirit among the younger players of the team. Against that, the defensive Strauss is set to take over as manager.

In the short term, Moores and Cook could just stop pretending everything is fine.

Good post again.

[Arthur Crabtree]

A 1-0 defeat to NZ would see these two sides swap in the rankings. It's hard to see NZ winning in early summer conditions in England, and I still think England should take this series. But I have doubts.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Maybe Moores II is more of a remake than a sequel?

[sussexpob]

The dynamic between captain and superior is an interesting one in this situation, because I have a sneaking suspicion that Alistair Cook is out of control at the moment, and that Moores does not have the strength of character to reign him in and put him right. For that reason, I see Cook a lost cause, a rogue bandit being feed by a sense of injustice that he feels, in itself feed by the disingenuous agenda fueled support, is cause by unwarranted criticism.

Why else would Cook firstly challenge his superiors for making the mistake of dropping him for the World Cup? Why else would he feel the need to come out and criticise the new head of the ECB about remarks he made? In no small way does that require some balls to present that, especially when your position is already rather untenable. To me that smacks of a guy who's judgement and opinion of himself his so uncontrollably overblown, he is no longer able to think in rational terms.

Moores is in such a weak position, I doubt he actually has much power to enact any changes over the established clique. One huge example I think is found in Rashid's selection, Moores was never going to pick him, so why was he there? If Moores doesnt have the authority to tell Whitaker that he has no plan for the players he is going to send him, then it is very worrying.

I dont really see Moores as occupying any position of authority in the team. While he can be blamed for that, I do also think that any coach regardless of his character would struggle to be authoritative when his record first time round got him the sack, and with every passing series his team still under performed.

So, we are left with a coach struggling to be taken seriously and therefore impotent to push through any changes, a captain hell bent on a selfish crusade of self isolation, a soon to be added to the mix former captain which will no doubt want to show he means boss soon, and a Chief Executive new to the job who is being openly loud about radical changes if performance doesnt improve.

For all this to work, I think you need to remove the potential for *modded* swinging and pick a new captain that can work positively with his superiors, we need a coach that is not compromised with the baggage of previous failures and who has the strength to be decisive, we need a director who can let the character of the team still breath underneath him, and its the CE who needs to make this happen then let the guys do their job.

[yuppie]

Good post SP.

Can't really argue with any of that.

Its going to be a tough summer for England, and it could be a new low for the ECB. NZ will fancy their chances of a series win, and nothing about this England team should worry the Aussies.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I read today that Vaughan turned the manager's job down because he felt it was too limited in scope. Which has led some to speculate that the job is mainly administrative, which the ECB has denied.

Though if Strauss is in charge, I really hope the job is hands off.

I think Cook, as the captain, should be the leader of the team and Moores a facilitator. But I don't think it is like that. Moores leads the with the data analysis that led to the score targets in ODIs. I'm sure it's his computer programmes that tell him to tell Steely that he has to empty his slips once a certain number of runs have been conceded. Cook though seems to have a bit of a precious personality, whereby he feels he shouldn't be questioned. Hence his comments about Warne, Vaughan and Yorkshire people in general, and his little scuffle with Angelo Mathews last year. But I don't reckon that sensitivity implies that he has much of a role to defend. There feels to be something patronising about this steely character nonsense that Moores comes out with.

[sussexpob]

Its going to be a tough summer for England, and it could be a new low for the ECB. NZ will fancy their chances of a series win, and nothing about this England team should worry the Aussies.

Well NZ should have beaten us convincingly away, but maybe at the time didnt have the confidence (and England had some very lucky moments)... they are a much better team in all areas, and should England want to wake away anything from those matches, they have to really be up for it.

The Ashes at the moment seems like a forgone conclusion, England dont seem capable of keeping their heads against very low intensity bowling,so how they hope to keep out Harris and Johnson is another thing.

I mean, the Sri Lanka team we lost to had one test class bowler (Herath) playing in early season conditions before the pitches turned and usually take spin, and Matthews (average 55), Pradeep (average 57) and Eranga (36) and Kulasekera (average 40) somehow managed to expose our batting and beat us.

At Headingley, the pitch also had some pace and uneven bounce, so it suited England.... and they let Sri Lanka bat on and on, even allowing Mathews to score 100 with the tail by giving him easy runs.

[Arthur Crabtree]

There's a bit in KP's book where Pietersen said something a bit familiar to Giles Clarke, and Emperor Clarke gave him a telling off for not being respectful enough, and Kevin implied that the ECB suits expected to be treated like bosses. Whereas, I would have thought the players would be the stars of the game and the suits at best, equals in them all serving English cricket in different ways, and not really a hierarchy at all, as you'd find in a business. So it could be that Cook's comments won't go down well, however justified.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Strauss has pulled out of a planned commentary on the England/Ireland game.

[Dr Cricket]

this was missed in an articale I posted 2 weeks ago.
But Cook had a chat to Agnew because he wasn't happy Agnew praised KP work for TMS at the world cup.

[yuppie]

this was missed in an articale I posted 2 weeks ago.
But Cook had a chat to Agnew because he wasn't happy Agnew praised KP work for TMS at the world cup.

Wonder what Agnews reply was.

Might it explain Boycotts rather big dig at Cook yesterday?

[Arthur Crabtree]

The ECB terminate KP's central contract, then their captain complains about his alternative line of business.

[yuppie]

Its going to be a tough summer for England, and it could be a new low for the ECB. NZ will fancy their chances of a series win, and nothing about this England team should worry the Aussies.

Well NZ should have beaten us convincingly away, but maybe at the time didnt have the confidence (and England had some very lucky moments)... they are a much better team in all areas, and should England want to wake away anything from those matches, they have to really be up for it.

The Ashes at the moment seems like a forgone conclusion, England dont seem capable of keeping their heads against very low intensity bowling,so how they hope to keep out Harris and Johnson is another thing.

I mean, the Sri Lanka team we lost to had one test class bowler (Herath) playing in early season conditions before the pitches turned and usually take spin, and Matthews (average 55), Pradeep (average 57) and Eranga (36) and Kulasekera (average 40) somehow managed to expose our batting and beat us.

At Headingley, the pitch also had some pace and uneven bounce, so it suited England.... and they let Sri Lanka bat on and on, even allowing Mathews to score 100 with the tail by giving him easy runs.

England will also have to deal with Australia's third seamer, which looks like being the second Mitchell. If so, and if he likes bowling in English conditions he might be the best bowler on either team. England will counter this by trying to strengthen the batting, having no idea that 20 wickets wins you games, not an extra 50 runs. Australia's bowling has so much variety, Englands all looks the same, but at slightly different speeds. Fine when the pitch suits but i cant see England doing what they did in the last series on UK soil. They cant prepare pitches to their strength this time as Australia's pace attack on paper is so much better. And if they try to prepare the same pitches as last time so it favours 2 part time spinners, then I'm pretty sure Lyon will out bowl the English spinners on such pitches. With back up from Clarke and Smith. Basically this time England can't prepare pitches that will favour them.