There may be troubles ahead: England selection issues.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Strauss' treatment of KP was actually pretty shoddy. Being 'tough' is no excuse for being dishonest.

[sussexpob]

Strauss' treatment of KP was actually pretty shoddy. Being 'tough' is no excuse for being dishonest.

The wheels had already started to come off post 2011 summer. England were battered in Asia save for KP's huge innings in Sri Lanka, and then they were heavily outplayed by South Africa. Strauss legged it at the point from then on, leaving a fractured team that would end up being annihilated in Australia.

Strauss and Flower will dine out on Australia and India wins away respectively (both in Flower's case) and a couple of home Ashes wins from now until eternity, but Australia had just lost the best team ever and were in the state of rebuild, and still won an Ashes series at home 5-0... and India had just lost their best three batsman off all time and were in a similar state of utter rebuild. Had Strauss/Flower's teams played either of those series in 2008 rather than 2011-2013, they probably would have gotten heavily beaten.

In fact, the best team in the world at this time (South Africa) thumped us in South Africa but were left 1 wicket from big victories twice due to weather, and at home inflicted one of the biggest embarressments in our cricket history at the Oval when it looked like they could bat past 2000 runs if the test was timeless. England beat other teams in rebuild phases, but when they lost it lead to utter catastrophes in our set up. That for me is not leadership.

And the shadow both left over the team after leaving continues to haunt us. Neither recycled anything. Neither created or left a system that worked or was moved on a day past their own expiry.....

Yet these are now in charge of our future?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Flower and Strauss haven't made much of an attempt to accept any responsibility for the break up of their team, of which KP's grievances were only one aspect, though were allowed to usefully dominate the story. But I was more referring to Strauss closing off KP after Strauss took on his present role. Kp had been given assurances that a place could become available based on country performance, but Strauss reneged on that. Strauss didn't say KP couldn't be picked at first, but made the point that no places were available, two Tests before one of the middle order was dropped, and then used the unexpected Ashes win to definitively rule that England had 'moved on'. This kind of stuff might just be a day's work at Tory HQ, but for a national sporting team it was pitiless stuff.

[sussexpob]

I was really following my own post, so I didnt mean to quote yours as it wasnt 100% relevant to the point I was making..... I just wanted to rant at Flower, sorry for the confusion.

[hopeforthebest]

Flower and Strauss haven't made much of an attempt to accept any responsibility for the break up of their team, of which KP's grievances were only one aspect, though were allowed to usefully dominate the story. But I was more referring to Strauss closing off KP after Strauss took on his present role. Kp had been given assurances that a place could become available based on country performance, but Strauss reneged on that. Strauss didn't say KP couldn't be picked at first, but made the point that no places were available, two Tests before one of the middle order was dropped, and then used the unexpected Ashes win to definitively rule that England had 'moved on'. This kind of stuff might just be a day's work at Tory HQ, but for a national sporting team it was pitiless stuff.

What assurances were given to KP and by whom/ My recollection is it came from Graves in one of his Waffling moments, which the press then worked into an offer to KP.

[Dr Cricket]

reading the article it is really Newman opinion about flower joining the ranks, can't see strauss doing it in an official role but flower might get an unofficial say just like now.

[sussexpob]

What assurances were given to KP and by whom/ My recollection is it came from Graves in one of his Waffling moments, which the press then worked into an offer to KP.

KP states that Graves told him in a phone call after taking his the job to cancel his IPL deal and score county runs, and he would be considered. Graves himself stated as much to the BBC, while not commenting direct on the phone call, he said basically exactly the same thing.

KP then scored the 300 for Surrey not long after and they went running to the hills to change their story, saying no amount of runs could replace "trust issues" and that he was not going to be picked. By memory, he score the 300 and was summoned by Strauss straight away and told to forget it, he wasnt being considered at all.

So yes..... having someone make a detrimental financial decision on a false assumption was pretty morally bankrupt. Where Graves was "waffling" is neither here nor there.... in Graves case, he is incapable of any discussion that doesnt come across as waffle.

[Slipstream]

I am glad the three of them will be going but I worry who will take their place. How about Thorpe selects the batsmen and Gibson the bowlers?

[hopeforthebest]

What assurances were given to KP and by whom/ My recollection is it came from Graves in one of his Waffling moments, which the press then worked into an offer to KP.

KP states that Graves told him in a phone call after taking his the job to cancel his IPL deal and score county runs, and he would be considered. Graves himself stated as much to the BBC, while not commenting direct on the phone call, he said basically exactly the same thing.

KP then scored the 300 for Surrey not long after and they went running to the hills to change their story, saying no amount of runs could replace "trust issues" and that he was not going to be picked. By memory, he score the 300 and was summoned by Strauss straight away and told to forget it, he wasnt being considered at all.

So yes..... having someone make a detrimental financial decision on a false assumption was pretty morally bankrupt. Where Graves was "waffling" is neither here nor there.... in Graves case, he is incapable of any discussion that doesnt come across as waffle.

Graves had no authority to make such promises to a single individual if such a promise was really made as it was a cricketing matter outside of his provinence. Of course the moral of the story is you can't trust a shopkeeper from Yorkshire.

[sussexpob]

Graves had no authority to make such promises to a single individual if such a promise was really made as it was a cricketing matter outside of his provinence. Of course the moral of the story is you can't trust a shopkeeper from Yorkshire.

Well, this is quite frankly nonsensical hope.

Lets take another example. Tomorrow Conte at Chelsea decides that Eden Hazard is surplus to his requirements and calls up and arranges to sell him to PSG for a quid. He is summoned into the office by Roman Abramovich and tells his Chairman that "you have no authority over my decision, because I look after the football team specifically and am in charge of the players".... he would be out the door quicker than you could say "jumping jack flash". And he player would stay where he was until the powers above Conte approved his decision.

Strauss reports to Harrison. Harrison reports to Graves. Graves is responsible for high level strategy of all strands of the ECB, and as such holds all the authority and interest in all parts of the business operations. Its not hard to see why this would be relevant. If it was felt that Kevin Pietersen's inclusion in the national team increased TV revenues, shirt sale revenues, sponsership revenues, ticket sales etc, then it is Graves that then has to produce strategic corrections to other financial budgets that he manages and then account for why he cant give grassroots cricket more funding, or the counties more funding. After all, opinion polls made by papers had public support for his inclusion at 80%. KP was the big draw for English fans and foreign players alike, one only has to look at the comparision of IPL contracts to other English people (who couldnt get one).

I believe ticket sales are down on the KP days, and this year county funding was trimmed back, so this isnt flight of fantasy stuff.

[sussexpob]

The ironic thing as well is Strauss is specifcally responsible for strategic management, development models and player pathways..... not selection.

If anyone was stepping away from their specific job role then it was Strauss himself. He has role to consider how the selection panel is built up for the good of the national team, but not who the squad selects.

[sussexpob]

The ironic thing as well is Strauss is specifcally responsible for strategic management, development models and player pathways..... not selection.

If anyone was stepping away from their specific job role then it was Strauss himself. He has role to consider how the selection panel is built up for the good of the national team, but not who the squad selects.

[hopeforthebest]

Graves had no authority to make such promises to a single individual if such a promise was really made as it was a cricketing matter outside of his provinence. Of course the moral of the story is you can't trust a shopkeeper from Yorkshire.

Well, this is quite frankly nonsensical hope.

Lets take another example. Tomorrow Conte at Chelsea decides that Eden Hazard is surplus to his requirements and calls up and arranges to sell him to PSG for a quid. He is summoned into the office by Roman Abramovich and tells his Chairman that "you have no authority over my decision, because I look after the football team specifically and am in charge of the players".... he would be out the door quicker than you could say "jumping jack flash". And he player would stay where he was until the powers above Conte approved his decision.

Strauss reports to Harrison. Harrison reports to Graves. Graves is responsible for high level strategy of all strands of the ECB, and as such holds all the authority and interest in all parts of the business operations. Its not hard to see why this would be relevant. If it was felt that Kevin Pietersen's inclusion in the national team increased TV revenues, shirt sale revenues, sponsership revenues, ticket sales etc, then it is Graves that then has to produce strategic corrections to other financial budgets that he manages and then account for why he cant give grassroots cricket more funding, or the counties more funding. After all, opinion polls made by papers had public support for his inclusion at 80%. KP was the big draw for English fans and foreign players alike, one only has to look at the comparision of IPL contracts to other English people (who couldnt get one).

I believe ticket sales are down on the KP days, and this year county funding was trimmed back, so this isnt flight of fantasy stuff.

I don't believe graves has any executive role and certainly any authority regarding England cricket affairs.

From the ECB website:
Responsibility for the day-to-day running of the ECB rests with the executive management team who report directly to the chief executive, Tom Harrison, with each enjoying a high degree of functional delegated authority.

The chief executive, in turn, reports to the chairman of the ECB Board. This was expanded in size from 12 to 14 members in May 2010; for the first time including two women directors. Full details of the ECB Board's composition can be found here

An executive committee chaired by the chief executive is responsible for delivering the ECB’s strategic plans and three other committees (cricket, commercial and finance) are actively responsible for working with the leadership team on policy, planning and strategic issues - plus also an arm’s-length Discipline Standing Committee.

The board is comprised of a chairman, deputy chairman and chairman of cricket elected by all 41 members of ECB, two independent directors, three directors from the first-class game, two directors from the recreational game, two ECB executives, a women’s game representative and an MCC representative.

Clearly the Board of which Groves is chairman is not involved in any executive capacity and even the CEO is not directly concerned with the England team or its structure.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The decision to omit KP from selection was made at board level. Graves retracted it at board level. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here (and you seem to be saying, apart from the assurances made to KP, what assurances were made to KP), Hope. It was still to be within the right of the selectors to not pick KP, but the offer made more than once to KP was that the selectors would be permitted to consider him. Groves haplessly made a bad situation worse by going about this in a hamfisted way. But Strauss did ruthlessly overturn a change in policy.

Some may agree with what he did. But from where I get my public opinion on the internet, including here, the minority who felt KP hadn't had a bad deal to that point baulked at the way Strauss treated Pietersen then. Then he offered KP a coaching job! D***! Cook might have been marketed as Captain Steel, but it's Strauss that has Stalinesquely shut down dissent and banished dissidents...

[Arthur Crabtree]

Of course, there shouldn't have been a decision to sack KP in the first place. It should have been left to the selectors.