BEN STOKES : ECB HAS IT ALL WRONG.

If Ben Stokes was a simple office worker, labourer, or just about anything except a celebrity sports' star, he would have been suspended from his job pending the final outcome of the due process of the law; he might even have been sacked from his job altogether.

Having been caught on CCTV having a brawl outside a drinking establishment, Stokes was arrested and a police investigation commenced. Quite correctly, the ECB then suspended him from appearing for England's cricket teams. However, and with extreme perversity, now that Stokes has been charged with affray and is set to appear in court, the same ECB has decided that it's perfectly alright for him to resume his England duties.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Stokes disputes the charge and proposes to claim innocence in court, but that's what many accused do; whether he pleads guilty or not guilty is irrelevant, though the ECB seems to think that it's actually a demonstration of his innocence and, therefore, his suspension has been lifted.

In the real world in which most of us live, rather than the celebrity bubble inhabited by the likes of Stokes, his suspension would continue until the court case has been resolved. Even then, it is likely that there would follow an internal enquiry by the employer to determine their position in the matter. Only then would the suspension be lifted or other penalties imposed.

Not so for Stokes. England's knock-about team, the T20 mob, will now have the benefit of Stokes undoubted ability even while he awaits trial on a serious charge which could see him sent to prison if found guilty. Later in the year, Stokes may well return to the Test Match arena, still with the case hanging over him and a potential gaol sentence pending.

It is often said that suspension is a neutral act and is for the protection of all concerned. In this case. it keeps Stokes out of the spotlight, protects the English cricket team and cricketing authorities from criticism and potential ridicule and recognizes that others who were injured in the incident may be severely prejudiced by the apparent not guilty verdict delivered by the ECB. For Stokes to be allowed to return to his normal daily activities in a celebrity environment in which history tells us drinking and partying is a regular activity, is, quite simply, wrong.

It's reported that Stokes will contest the charge which means that the case is likely to go to the Crown Court where it will be trial by jury. How can allowing Stokes to return to his high-profile life not prejudice such a case ? What juror will not have seen some report or other, formed some opinion or other, before the trial ?

This is wrong, wrong, WRONG. Guilty or not, fine cricketer or not, Ben Stokes should remain suspended until proceedings end. The ECB has done itself, the England team, the reputation of English cricket, the alleged victims of Stokes' actions, and, most of all, Ben Stokes himself, no favours at all by their entirely self-interested decision.

ALASTAIR COOK : TIME TO GO !

Once again, the England cricket team have succumbed to an embarrassing defeat, absolutely unable to compete with India with bat, ball or in the field. Despite scoring a seemingly impressive 477 in their first innings in the final test match in Chennai, they still contrived to lose by an innings - quite an achievement.

The British media tells us, repeatedly, that we have lots of great cricketers. Rightly, they say that Alastair Cook and Joe Root are 2 fine batsmen and Jimmy Anderson is one of the world's best bowlers; in other players such as Jonny Bairstow, Ben Stokes, Moeen Ali and Stuart Broad there are very good international players. Sadly, as a whole, they fall well short of top class.

The media also carries regular stories about Cook's captaincy, generally telling us what a great captain he is. This bit is utter rubbish. Given the array of talent at his disposal, Cook's record as captain really should be rather better than it is; as things are, it's nothing like as good as the records of numerous former captains, including Andrew Strauss, Michael Vaughan, Mike Brearley, and Peter May, all of whom won close to 50%, or more, of the matches for which they were in charge.

Admittedly Cook's record is not as dire as some. He's won 22 out of 59 games, 37%, while the much vaunted David Gower won only 5 out of 32 and Mike Atherton only 13 out of 54. Others such as Ted Dexter and Graham Gooch also managed poorer records, while Nasser Hussain's was virtually identical to Cook's.

Measured by matches lost, Cook also compares poorly with the best.  23 lost out of 59 games played looks pretty sick alongside Mike Brearley's 4 out 31, Ray Illingworth's 5 out of 31 and even Ted Dexter's 7 out of 30. Several others, May, Hussain, Gooch and Dexter among them, also come out better than Cook. Indeed, the worst records are those of David Gower, who lost a staggering 18 out of 32 matches, followed by Cook and Atherton, who lost 21 out of 54.

Looking at the win / lose ratio for these captains shows Mike Brearley way out ahead of the rest, with Cook, Gooch, Atherton and Gower bringing up the rear. Brearley was a captain who batted, while the best of the rest learnt their trade by coming through the ranks in their respective county sides. The poorest, by some distance, are Atherton and Gower, both now acclaimed for their punditry, though one would have to question why. These became captain as a result of being perceived to be the best batsman in their team, although their leadership credentials had little to commend them, as is the case with Cook.

How this adds up to Cook being a great captain escapes me. Fine batsman, yes, great captain, not a chance. In fact, his demeanour on the field is hopeless. He meanders around, looking worried and confused; he shows no dynamism and no active leadership. Apparently the team is fully behind him, but I see that as part of the problem; Cook is very much 'one of the boys' and that's no good if you're also the boss.

The only real question that needs to be answered is "Who will replace Alastair Cook ?" The problem is that none of the England squad has any real experience of captaincy; none has been trained as a captain in the County Championship, indeed most have rarely played much cricket outside of the international arena. None really has the look of a true Captain. Joe Root seems to be the designated choice as successor to Cook, but on what basis ? What are his credentials ?

Unless those in charge sort their thinking out, more humiliating defeats look sure to be on the cards.

RECORDS OF ENGLAND CAPTAINS WITH 30 OR MORE MATCHES IN CHARGE; ORDERED BY WIN / LOSE RATIO.


Brearley     - P 31  W 18  L  4   D  9
Illingworth - P 32  W 12  L  5   D 14
Vaughan     - P 51  W 26  L 11  D 14
Strauss        - P 50  W 24  L 11  D 15
May            - P 41  W 20  L 10  D 11
Dexter        - P 30  W   9   L  7   D 14
Hussain      - P 37  W 14   L 11  D 12
Cook          - P 59  W 22   L 23  D 14
Gooch        - P 34  W 10   L 12  D 12
Atherton     - P 54  W 13  L 21  D 20
Gower        - P 32  W   5  L 18   D  9

ALASTAIR COOK MUST GO.

Is there the slightest chance that the unbelievably arrogant Alastair Cook will resign the England captaincy following his side's latest destruction at the hands of their Indian opponents ? Sadly, I doubt it very much.

The current England team is a bit of a mess, but the biggest problem is its leadership. Cook, on form, is a fine batsman at least in Test cricket. In the one day format he is less than adequate and shouldn't be there anyway; as captain, he is a pointless hindrance. His whole approach to cricket is weak and ineffectual; he is utterly risk averse and has none of the drive needed to motivate a side. He is, quite simply, no captain.

Not only should Cook not be captaining the one-day team, he shouldn't even be in it. By all means, retain him in the Test side, but, please, please, please, not as captain. He simply doesn't have the aptitude or skills needed for the job. HE MUST GO !

ALL BLACKS AND WALLABIES SHOW HOW IT'S DONE !

Oh Dear, oh dear !

Not only our football but now our Rugby too is broken. Following hard on the heels of the England football team's depressing performance in their World Cup the Rugby team touring New Zealand received a sound thrashing at the hands of the almighty All Blacks.

The first of three tests produced a close match with the home side winning only in the last minute or 2 and the visitors being genuinely unlucky to lose. The second match saw a less assured performance from the English and a rather flattering defeat by only one point. The third match, yesterday, saw virtual annihilation. England were blown away in the first half and never recovered; they looked jaded and out of their depth as the All Blacks ran in 4 first-half tries to lead 29-6 at the break, the match all-but over by then. England did put up a better showing in the second half but the suspicion must be that the home side knew they'd done the job and could back off. Even then, the best England could achieve was a 7-7 outcome for the half and a 36-13 thrashing overall. Success in next year's

World Cup seems a long way off.

Not that England were alone in finding the southern hemisphere too hot too handle. The French, too, suffered a beating, 39-13, at the hands of the Wallabies although the Welsh did rather better against South Africa, only losing by 1 point and to a last minute penalty try at that. Nonetheless, with little more than a year to go, the northern nations look to be the underdogs as the 'Big 3' from the south gird up their loins for the fight.

PIETERSEN - GONE AT LAST.

Kevin Pietersen's international career is over, at last.

That he has been an exciting batsman who could win matches on his own is undeniable; he was clearly one of the best batsmen England has had over the last 50 years and has become well known even outside of his sport. Thereby is the problem.

Just like the superstars of some other sports - George Best and Paul Gascoigne immediately spring to mind - Pietersen has been destroyed by his own ego and personality, by the very celebrity status which he earned from his sporting prowess. In his own mind, he became more important than the game he played, or his team, or his country. It is clear, and has been for some years, that Pietersen has been a disruptive influence in the dressing room; in the end, even his team mates had had enough of their maverick colleague and he had to go.

Some commentators are bemoaning his departure and wondering where England will find his replacement. The simple answer is that no one is irreplaceable and even a slightly less talented player will be a more than adequate replacement if he shows a better attitude towards his team and its needs. Pietersen is far from being the greatest player in England's cricketing history, though he was a good one. Unlike the true greats of the past, he was able to play on manicured pitches and rarely had to intermesh his international career with county or other commitments; he probably never played on a rain affected wicket and the first hint of rain or bad light saw him and his team mates racing for the pavilion. How he would have fared in the days of uncovered and rough-hewn pitches is something we will never know but he'd have been hard pressed to challenge the genius of Hobbs or Sutcliffe, Hutton or Compton, or a plethora of others.

Pietersen's exit is a boon to English cricket. It is just a pity it did not happen earlier. 

ENGLISH CRICKET DIES IN AUSTRALIA.

The spectacular decline of the England cricket team has been quite a story.

 

A few months ago, loud-mouthed pundits, such as Ian Botham, were predicting that England would win the 2 Ashes series 10-0. Admittedly, they did win 3-0 in the summer but, even, then, there was evidence that things would not be quite the same in the return series. Now we know.

 

England have been comprehensively thumped in the first 3 tests of the series and there have been few bright spots. The batting has, with only 2 or 3 isolated exceptions, been abysmal, while the bowling has simply proved to be not up to the job. Even the fielding has been, at best, lacklustre. What has gone wrong ?

 

Firstly, captain Cook is no captain. His leadership appears to consist mostly of pulling anguished faces or covering his head with his hands; there is little in the way of contact with his players, little obvious and real encouragement or advice. Pietersen remains a law unto himself, occasionally a brilliant match winner but as much use as a chocolate teapot when the heat's on. Michael Carberry has shown some ability and Ian Bell has been more reliable than others, but Matt Prior, the vice -captain, has been as much use as his boss, scoring few runs while missing catches and stumpings. When it comes to the bowling, the much vaunted attack of Anderson, Broad and Swann has had little bite. The absence of a genuinely fast bowler has been a huge disadvantage and one wonders what's happened to Steven Finn.

 

This England team appears old, tired and disjointed. It lacks leadership and passion. It may well be that its players lack real match practice, as they rarely have any chance to play regularly. A constant round of a few Test Matches interlaced with assorted limited overs slogs is no way to develop top class players; the frequent suggestion that they need a rest after a few games is laughable.

 

Jonathan Trott's mental problems may be an indicator of even deeper problems in the overall set-up but whatever the truth, something is wrong and something needs to be done about it. This is yet another example of money and vested interests taking precedence over all else, and the end result is the demise of our national summer game.