Let's not pretend sackings are resignations
In yesterday's Guardian there was an article that tickled me entitled "Should Strauss just resign right now?" which tackled the issue of forced resignations because the author doesn't even contemplate the end of Strauss' tenure coming in any other way than resignation.
Let's be clear. Pietersen did eventually resign with this statement. But he's now saying that he was forced into resignation - in fact he's saying that he was sacked for doing exactly what the ECB asked him to do - put forward his proposed structure moving forward. He sent an email to the ECB before he went on holiday outlining how he thought England should be taken forward and suggesting that the current set up was not the right one to bring success. It sounds like he went as far as suggesting that he wasn't willing to go to the West Indies unless the issues that he felt were holding back the England cricket team were sorted out. The act of a passionate and driven man desperate to achieve success. Not the action of a man throwing in the towel.
So why the need to force Pietersen into resignation rather than sacking him? While some football clubs try to force resignation rather than sack their manager as resignation saves them millions of pounds in compensation, the ECB don't need to worry about that - this is someone who will continue to play for the side. So the only conclusion that we can come to is that the ECB are nervous about taking full responsibility for their actions. After all, they have come to the conclusion that Peter Moores is not the best man to manage the England cricket team so that should have left the path open for Pietersen to continue. Unless they had also come to the conclusion that he wasn't the man to captain the England cricket team.
Two things - in my opinion - show that last summer's merry-go-round was instigated entirely by the ECB who were desperate to make the popular decision and so too quick to listen to the media who's point of view was clouded by the need to sell papers (suggesting - correctly - that Vaughan was head and shoulders above the next best captaincy candidate despite his slump in form when England were losing a home series would always be a reader loser). First, Vaughan's resignation where he fought back tears - hardly the actions of a man who's just had enough and was relieved to be jacking it in.
And second - and this really is the one where the ECB insulted the intelligence of England cricket supporters - they expected us to believe that without any pressure from them, Paul Collingwood came to the decision that he wanted to resign the ODI captaincy on exactly the same day that Michael Vaughan resigned the Test captaincy, but that it had nothing to do with the fact there would be a new Test skipper and the ECB wanted to unify the roles into one. Paul Collingwood's words when he resigned suggest no discussion about unifying the roles - afterall that would be unseemly if the ECB were seen to push such a loyal servant of England cricket out. His statements talked of his desire to enjoy his cricket and talked of his struggle with the extra workload, despite his personal batting results improving when captain.
The ECB have made some terrible decisions in forcing out 3 captains in the last 6 months. But the fact that they have dressed them up as resignations is what really sticks in the throat. It is their attempt to absolve themselves of responsibility for decisions that their role is to get right. And anyone who wants responsibility without accountability doesn't deserve to continue in their role.
So we're left hoping that the Strauss/Flower combo can bring success in the West Indies and the quality of the opposition suggests that shouldn't be too testing. But if they are successful it will be in spite of, rather than because of, the ECB. And of course if it isn't, we can expect another round of sackings dressed up as resignations.
5 comments:
Don't know about the rest, but Vaughan seemed pretty exhausted by it all when he resigned, so I don't think he was pushed. In the immediate aftermath Atherton felt that a lot of the things Vaughan said were very reminiscent of how he felt at the end of his tenure.
I also don't buy it that KP made a few polite suggestions and then returned from holiday to find a mess he had no knowledge of. They wouldn't have forced him out if that was the case, he must have said something stronger.
KP has publicly stated that he did say that he wouldn't tour West Indies with Moores as coach. But my take is that he was given the steer that there would be a change of coach - given that he had discussed alternate coach's with the ECB - and in trying to express how passionately he believed in that approach he said he would resign if Moores was coach for the WI tour.
A classic case of something being done via email when it should have been done face-to-face, and the words been interpreted differently to how they were intended.
Should have also added, yes - Vaughan is debatable. I just don't believe for one second he would have resigned if his employers had been giving him 100% support behind the scenes. We were a whisker away from winning the 3rd Test against South Africa (Smith out and not given, lest we forget!) and Vaughan is level-headed enough to know that a little bit of bad luck is not a resignation issue, so I believe he was nudged in the right direction by the ECB (for example, denying him the team he wanted for the 2nd Test would have suggested to him that his opinion wasn't worth much).
Of course, I don't know - it's just an opinion based on everything I've read, which of course is biased in some way or another!
Sorry Ed, I'm with Andy on this one! This was not 'the act of a passionate and driven man desperate to achieve success', nor an expression of passion. This was an arrogant and self-indulgent attempt to flex the muscles of 'brand KP' when something was not to his liking, in a (false) complacency that the ECB would kowtow to his demands rather than risk his displeasure. The fact that he didn't even bother to return from his safari over the issue looked particularly bad. I think it would have been a dangerous precedent for the ECB to have accepted his demands and that they responded appropriately. One ECB board member was quoted: "People who want to keep their jobs don't issue ultimatums."
I also don't believe Vaughan was pushed. There were never any doubts over his captaincy, and I find it very hard to believe that any pressure was coming from anywhere inside the England camp regarding his runs situation. He was completely drained - we all marvel at the end results of his leadership, but we can't imagine the mental strain that must put on the man. He wouldn't have come out and said as much if the truth had been that he had been pushed.
In Collingwood's case I don't believe that he was pushed, but he was doubtless sensible enough to the that the writing would surely be on the wall for his leadership if a key one-day player took over the test team. Resigning as he did allowed him to leave the job with his dignity!
In KP's case, it was definitely a resignation rather than a sacking. He said he would resign if Moores were not sacked; the ECB merely took him at his word.
Ah, the beauty of Burble. We can disagree! Who's to say what the correct version of events is, but either paints the ECB in an awful light. Either they selected the wrong man and didn't see the issues with Moores coming despite the meeting between captain to be and coach the day before KP was made captain, and/or they've subsequently treated KP (not to mention Moores) badly. For me it's both but it's certainly not neither!
What I also find interesting is the the ECB have said they had to sack Pietersen (sorry - accept his resignation - slip of the fingers!) because the fact he didn't want Moores as coach became public knowledge. The implication is that they were perfectly happy with him not wanting Moores as coach while it was private - they must have been because they discussed the names of alternative coaches with him while the team were in India.
Post a Comment