Must England sack Peter Moores to regain the Ashes?
The relationship between the England head coach and Kevin Pietersen, the captain, appears to have breached its breaking point, with reports suggesting that Moores is about to lose his job. It is widely thought that Hugh Morris, the England managing director, has been forced into making a decision because Pietersen does not regard Moores as the man to lead the national team.
As Richard Hobson writes, confirmation of the rift came when Pietersen refused to comment after he was asked if he could continue to work with the head coach. Pietersen still calls Duncan Fletcher, Moores' predecessor, for advice and is reportedly upset with the lack of strategic support he has received of late, in particular when India chased 387 to win in Madras last month.
Writing in a Sunday newspaper, Pietersen said the issue must be settled before the squad leaves for the West Indies on January 21. As Simon Barnes says, Moores' sacking would represent an unprecedented shift of power from management to a senior player, but with one Tour about to begin and a more important one against Australia in the summer, it looks inevitable.
Is it the right decision if England are to win the Ashes?
As usual England cricket is imploding notwithstanding all the new fancy and highly paid executive positions within the ECB.
It really is nothing more than a soap opera - remember the farcical over-reaction to winning the Ashes and the subsequent 5 nil reversal.
Posted by: Justin | 7 Jan 2009 07:20:13
Patrick, Angus Fraser has hinted at the involvement of Vaughan in stoking up this drama. You able to comment? If true, I hope he never plays for England again as it would appear to be motivated by the fact he wasn't recalled for the West Indies tour. Personally I would have had him in the touring party but if he has resorted to such sneaky low down behaviour he should face the consequences.
Posted by: kap | 6 Jan 2009 18:36:06
Peter Moores has proved himself as a successful coach with Sussex while KP is learning to captain a team. PM is on a hiding to nothing if he stays so should be moved to the Academy. KP should be given two more series to prove he can motivate all of his team and if not should stand down and let Strauss take over.
Posted by: Bill Edmunds | 6 Jan 2009 18:35:13
@KAP Agree totally with this. The key to Pietersen is whether he is motivated more by prestige or money. If the former, he would presumably continue to play for England after the proposed double sacking (and take some satisfaction in having disposed of Moores). If the latter, he has to be regarded as a short-lived member of the England establishment anyway. What is clear (though not much) is that Moores has failed to bring the team forward, either in terms of skills or strategic analysis. And Pietersen has behaved outrageously.
Posted by: growltiger | 6 Jan 2009 14:44:31
It's not player power, it's commonsense to get rid of Moores. He has done more harm than good, in particular alienating Vaughan. He had one area of expertise in wicketkeeping and look at the mess he made of that, replacing one who couldn't keep with one who couldn't keep or bat. When results are poor and talented players such as Bell and Panesar appear to be going backwards, surely the coach must be answerable. Maybe it is not the ideal scenario for Pietersen to wield the axe but someone has to or we'll be back to the underachieving days of the 90s with little consistency in playing personel or form (arguably we're already there)
Posted by: Johnmc | 6 Jan 2009 14:43:31
As good as Pietersen is, have a look at his relationships over the past couple of years... leaves SA, leaving bad blood... calls Smith a 'muppet', more strife... and now this.
There is a common thread here and as much as I admire him as a player, Pietersen seems to have a bit of a record of confrontations.
That cannot be good for a team; I believe a captain must be a leader, mentor and a manager - and a diplomat - and if it comes down to a 'him or me' scenario, that will be bad for the team.
My solution: if one goes, both go; so what if it is a Pyrrhic victory - if it comes to that. The captain must set the example in handling disputes out of the public eye, and the powers-that-be cannot be seen to buckling. If it comes to that, it would be completely wrong.
Posted by: Rod Baker | 6 Jan 2009 14:40:10
KAP - your comments have their merit. But I do think handing it to Strauss is fraught with greater risk. His own form could dip again and KP, I suspect, is the kind who would sulk. England cannot afford this.
Having handed the baton to KP, they have to make it work with him at the helm. Yes Moores is dispensable, but not KP. I guess pragmatism will have to dictate this one. Put up with it for a season or two - either KP gets it or hopefully Strauss continues to solidify his position and will be better positioned to take the chalice back.
Posted by: MP | 6 Jan 2009 07:29:44
On listening to an interview with Shane Warne, Ian Healey and Tony Greig about this subject they seemed to be all in favor that the Coach should coach and also do all he can to help the captain and the team. Moore's has made himself a casualty by not forseeing the consequences and allowing it to go so far. Whoever remembers coaches anyway. It's a behind the scenes job and should remain that way. Is'nt that his job description?? What is the point in going out to the West Indies if the captain does not even feel that he does not possess all he needs to win a Overseas series. Ditch Moore and place Shane Warne to coach England. What a combo!!!
Posted by: Macus Druce | 6 Jan 2009 07:29:16
My solution would be to sack Moores and Pietersen. Moores due to his results/performance and Pietersen for the way in which he has sought to get the coach sacked. Hand the captaincy to Strauss and interview for the Moores role. Hopefully Pietersen will learn a little humility from the affair. He and the other senior players who appear to have conspired against Moores need to learn that the England team will not be picked and managed around their egos and whims.
Posted by: Kap | 5 Jan 2009 23:22:45
Yes. Or no. NWG can't decide. Matthew Hoggard?
Posted by: Nightwatchgirl | 5 Jan 2009 23:22:33
In the short-term at least (for the WI tour) England may be better off without a head coach. The senior players can assume that role. That is precisely what India did for a series or two, in the aftermath of Greg Chappell's stint. No hasty decisions were taken by the BCCI regarding the next coach. Now Kirsten had jelled very well with the Indian team. England could adopt a similar strategy, and hopefully pick a winning coach before the first Ashes test at Cardiff.
Rajan
Posted by: S.Mahadevan | 5 Jan 2009 23:19:51
Moores will be the initial casualty followed by English cricket. Player power, never.The game will always be bigger than a big head!
Posted by: Dave Totnes | 5 Jan 2009 23:18:31
Two over hasty appointments have led to this. Moores was appointed before the ink was dry on Duncan Fletcher's resignation letter, with little or no thought given to other, arguably more suitable candidates and at a time when Schofield had yet to report. Pietersen's appointment was also rushed and, after a very brief "honeymoon period", his shortcomings as a captain are also now being exposed. No doubt Moores will receive a hefty payoff, as is his due - but think what else could have been done with that money.
Posted by: Chris Larlham | 5 Jan 2009 15:41:28
Now that the relationship has broken down, dragging its corpse won't serve any purpose. I mean do you fancy England meeting a stung Australia with a captain and a coach who don't see eye-to-eye? Spare a thought about the dressing room atmosphere! It's a lose-lose situation and ECB need to ensure the damage is minimum. I'm afraid, Moores is the casualty.
Posted by: Som | 5 Jan 2009 14:41:20