Gatting in line for England role
It's always unfair to make assumptions about someone without having any first hand experience of them, but the good thing about blogging is that it is perfectly acceptable to give an opinion based on a sample of one! I was scared to see that Mike Gatting is likely to get a senior England role. This is based on the following:
- anyone who starts emotionally finger wagging with an umpire when captaining their country clearly doesn't have sufficient ability to make rational decisions under pressure
- he averaged just over 35 in Tests and less than 30 in ODIs...so he's not a great England player demanding respect - it took him 54 test innings to make a hundred (I realise not everything can be read into an "official" average which is why we keep "real" averages at Cricket Burble, but it gives an indication). That has nothing to do with whether he is right for this job, but even if you agree that great ex-cricketers will be good at cricket administration (which I don't), he isn't a great ex-cricketer.
- he seems to get a bee in his bonnet about particular players, rather than leaving doors open (that came from reading Nasser Hussain's autobiography - I admit just one opinion!)
So I'm a little concerned about his future role with England. Nothing to go on but the above, but there we go. As an aside, why do a number of the more emotional characters in cricket go on to fulfil administrative roles where the exact opposite is required - clear thinking under pressure and diplomacy/man management (eg. Gatting, Broad, Gaveskar, Miandad, Dean Jones)?
2 comments:
I couldn't agree more that Gatting as an inidivual is a terrible choice for the role. However, I must stand up for him on the emotional side.
I was in the bar at the Adelaide Oval (just before England threw the game away) last winter and spotted Gatting having a few beers with his mates / groupies. The Aussies in front of him clearly hadn't seen him. Suddenly onto the TV came a montage of great battles between England and Australia and they showed some footage of Gatting in his (ahem) prime. The Aussies started shouting what a f*t b*st*rd and a tw*t he was and Gatting just stood there unflustered. Quite soon after the Aussies realised who was behind him and started apologising profusely (well as profusely as any Aussie would in such a situation - sorry Dave!). Gatt was pretty easy-going about the whole thing.
Now, that's not to say bar-room antics are the perfect competence test for senior cricket administrators, but he did keep cool when he could easily have walked out / started having a go himself.
However, I couldn't agree more in terms of personal opinions / grudges being a fault of his (mainly as I don't have a story to tell about it). Not my ideal choice, but at least it is the best role for him out of all of them. He's an England player, so that should strengthen the England vs Counties arguments at the top of the game.
I am more worried about the Schofield report (as weak as it was) being taken literally and not in the wider context. We will just end up with incompetent administrators in newly renamed positions without actually getting anywhere. No doubt Peter Moores will have a long period of success, will be able to get his own way increasingly often until a disastrous tour to Australia where we will be found wanting and there will be an enquiry - probably the Barwick report.
If Gat fired every time an Aussie called him a fat bastard he would undoubtedly have a heart attack
Post a Comment