England hire a Maxonian

Is it a good idea for a team that can’t bat to hire the coach of a team that can’t bat? It’s probably okay. The England coach is basically just a management figure, after all and Peter Moores seems pretty good at that side of things. He brought in many of the systems on which Andy Flower’s success was built. Indeed, he brought in Andy Flower.

He also ushered in a lot of the players who have been stalwarts of the side in recent years. James Anderson was just some lad who spent lunch breaks bowling at a single stump before Moores became coach. Stuart Broad came to prominence, Matt Prior got a game and Graeme Swann appeared. In fact, if you look at Test selections since Moores left, only Jonathan Trott and Joe Root have really managed to bed in.

We plan on lauding him when England win and berating him when they lose, even if we have no clear idea exactly what his job entails. At least he’s Maxonian though, eh? That’s got to be a positive, right?

Share this article...Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0

Tired of checking the site for updates? Sign up for our near-daily email

9 Appeals

  1. AAnd I’ve just read it was Moores that brought trott into the one day squad. I recall the falling out he had with Pietersen but I cannot remember whether we were any good under him. Seems the good work is getting farbrace in aswell, if they have that is and it isn’t just a rumour.

    • King Cricket

      April 19, 2014 at 10:52 am

      Yes, that’s true. There were poor picks as well – and of course the coach wasn’t wholly responsible for selection – but you do get the impression that he is someone with an eye for a player, which is no bad thing with so many spots to fill.

    • Any good? He coached England to a first home series defeat against India since 1986.

  2. Before I googled that word, I thought you were misspelling Mexican.

  3. i gather KP has been tweeting that “everyone deserves a second chance”.

    let’s assume he wasn’t talking about peter moores here. if he meant himself, does he not mean a fifth chance?!

  4. The confusion many people have about the KP debate is thinking that it was about KP. It wasn’t. It was about whether or not the English cricket set-up is capable of handling different sorts of people, including those like KP who are less clubable and more punchable. Everything that has happened since (and including) Pietersen’s exclusion has suggested strongly that they are not capable of this, and Peter Moores appointment, as someone who has form in this regard, continues the theme.

    I don’t care if Pietersen never plays again. I do care that the next generation of insanely talented players who might have personality defects is not excluded from the test team because the system, and it’s senior figures, can’t handle them. Moores needs to prove that he can; I am not convinced.

    • Players in this modern media-twitter age are also set to ridiculous moral standards. That texting to SA players aside (which was in bad taste), I doubt the generation of David Boon and Botham would really regard KP as a “rebel” – most would probably consider his actions par for the course. In an era when all cricket boards are in the business of breeding good boys who regurgitate and spit out tired old cliches, anyone who so much as steps outside the trodden path is regarded as a misfit.

    • England have been buggered in this regard (at least) since Gooch won out over Gower.

    • So it’s all going to be roses in the English garden now that KP is gone for good. The team will have to find another dickhead to scapegoat though, there always have to be at least one.

Comments are closed.

© 2017 King Cricket

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑