Supporters of great Clubs like Tottenham Hotspur are stakeholders with rights. The Club directors need to acknowledge this better.

Sports have a wide variety of stakeholders at the international, national and the Club level. A statement of the obvious, perhaps, but how many at the top of sporting bodies really care about those of us at the bottom of the food chain? That's us, by the way, the poor bloody spectators.

Take FIFA (actually please DO take FIFA and incinerate it). How much do you imagine Sepp Blatter and his bunch of crooks think about you and me? Maybe collectively as ticket purchasers or consumers of their sponsors' products. But as individuals who have a stake in their sport? Nah!

Or take two Clubs of which I am a member - both in North London but separated by a bit more than the difference between Westminster and Haringey. The Marylebone Cricket Club (M.C.C.) and Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (the mighty "Spurs").
Spurs have home crowds of around 36,000 and MCC about 8,000 less on a big day. If you have a season ticket at Spurs or are a member at Lord's there will be around 20-21 thousand of you who are unequivocally "stakeholders" in the Clubs. And yet, when it comes to the crunch, what role or rights do we have. For years now I have been an activist trying to get some sense in the strategic management of MCC, of which I am a member. See this for example. At Spurs I have been less active and yet the same deficiencies of process are there. Above all there is a lack of respect shown by those in charge for supporters and members like me.

The Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust (THST) is, as they describe it,  “a formal, democratic, non-profit organisation run by fans for fans.” It’s purpose  is “…to help fans to join together and strengthen their influence over the way their club is run, and to improve the links between their club and the community it serves.” It is well-structured and well-managed but it is clear that it feels that the Club, with whom it meets quite regularly, regards it with suspicion. This has led to an unwillingness on the part of Chairman Daniel Levy and his Board to be open with the Trust – holding their cards very close to their chests at all times.

The key current issue (away from the playing side) is to do with the new Stadium. The construction of a new Ground virtually on the same site as the present one is an ambitious project and one that has dominated much of the day-to-day life of the Tottenham directors for years. On the face of it they have done a good job, not least the clever acquisition of land and property around the current ground. When this was going on it is not unreasonable to argue that secrecy and confidentiality was essential. But now that this phase is over why does the secrecy go on?

Let’s look at the key variables of the new stadium;

Planning permission: This is pretty much assured. THFC is already the single largest employer in the London Borough of Haringey and plays an active part in the community. The new Stadium will adds jobs and is massively net positive financially to the Borough. The Mayor of London Boris Johnson has also been supportive. There is no reason why the Club should not be open with the THST  and the fans on planning matters.

Financing and Ownership: The £400m required to build the new stadium is serious money and, as we know, capital projects in sport have a tendency to have heavy cost overruns. Remember Wembley! Along with this there is a need to be open about the sources of funds. When there were hints that the State of Qatar might be involved I'm sure that I was not the only Spurs fan horrified by the idea. Qatar and football is a toxic mix and the last thing that  Spurs need is these particular Sheikhs involved in N17. This is a matter that the Club must discuss with the THST. They haven't, and supporters are in the dark about what is going on. Who owns our club matters to us and we have a right to be involved.

Where do we play during construction? During the 2017/2018 season home matches will have to be played away from N17 as the construction of the new stadium progresses. There is quite a wide range of options including Upton Park, the Olympic Stadium, Twickenham, Wembley – even a ground share deal with Arsenal at Emirates (I quite like this idea but tend not to mention it when with fellow Spurs fans. Or Arsenal ones for that matter!). There is also the possibility of using the MK Dons ground in Milton Keynes which is 55 miles from London!  None of these options is ideal or in some cases even possible it seems. The point is that on this matter the club should be having open discussions with fans, ideally via the THST. Tottenham fans are loyal and no doubt if we have to we will trek to Milton Keynes. But is this really the best option? Let’s discuss the alternatives. Maybe some of us might have a bright idea or two?

Tottenham Hotspur is a great club and the concerns of fans like me is not intended to be disruptive or petty. But we are stakeholders and we do pay with our ticket purchases and our membership a lot for the privilege of supporting the Spurs. We deserve more than secrecy and shadow-boxing, more than partial and skewed information, more than being patted on the head and told all will be well.

When charges of corruption in sport are made what should a commercial sponsor do? A personal story.

Fifteen years ago I was responsible for Shell's sponsorship of the Sharjah cricket tournament. It was, in the context of big global sponsorships, small beer. But in the Middle East and especially because of TV  coverage in South Asia, it was a valuable commercial activity where the returns well exceeded the modest cost.

As a cricket nut I personally enjoyed the close involvement I had with the sport and, particularly, the relationship the sponsorship gave me with cricketers and the media. From Sachin Tendulkar and Richie Benaud downwards! But this close contact, especially with cricket writers and commentators, meant that I soon learned that all at Sharjah was not what it seemed to be. In 2001, when I was still in the Middle East and responsible for the sponsorship, Jonathan Agnew the BBC Cricket Correspondent said this:

"Sharjah has been pinpointed as being the centre of this activity [match fixing] and, again, this is entirely plausible. I. would swear under oath that two of the dozen or so matches I have witnessed on that desert ground over the years were fixed: both of them by Pakistan."

What Agnew was saying was the same as others close to events had been telling me "in confidence" for a while. So what should I do? Shell's support of the tournament was in itself perfectly respectable and above board. The allegations of questionable practices at Sharjah were just that - allegations. I did nothing. Later the Condon enquiry into corruption in cricket whilst not giving Sharjah a clean bill of health in 2002 did report that:

"They have implemented whatever we recommended. I am happy with the measures taken here (Sharjah) to prevent silly access to potential corrupters," 

My own view is that there was something of a cover up going on for reasons that are unclear. Certainly the focus on "corrupters" - referring to Sub-Continent illegal bookmakers - was only part of the problem. To fix a match or events within a match you need more than crooked bookies - you need crooked players and/or officials as well ! From 2003 for seven years no more One Day Internationls were played at Sharjah which may be a coincidence, or it may not ! 

For a commercial sponsor, as those of FIFA are now finding, mud can stick if what you sponsor is of questionable integrity. But it is not as easy as it might seem. Sharjah was not a significant problem for Shell or the other sponsors - but it could have been. Should I have pulled the plug as soon I was aware of the allegations? On reflection I probably should have...

New boy Wood fails to trouble Kiwis

It is not uncommon for bowlers new to international cricket to trouble batsmen in their early matches. Debutant Henry took four wickets in England's first innings and only just missed getting on the famous Lord's honours boards at his first attempt. But Mark Wood blazed no such trail yesterday. The "high spot" was the dismissal of Guptill off what after an umpires' review turned out to be a no ball. Otherwise it was a competent but wicketless debut for the Durham seamer who conceded nearly five runs an over and rarely looked threatening.

The Kiwis top four is as good as it gets and there will be more difficulties for Wood and the rest of the England attack today one suspects. The trials of Wood, and the disappointing debut by Lyth on the first day, show up two of England's real problems before The Ashes. We don't have an opening pair at the moment - a concern made more acute by Cook's poor recent form (that one innings in Barbados aside). The Trott experiment was a daft failure and Lyth (if it is to be him) has just three Test innings at most before he faces Mitchell Johnson. As far as England's attack is concerned the Aussies won't be shaking in fear with only Anderson truly world class at present. Broad's bowling hasn't fallen away as much as his batting, but he caused the Kiwis few problems yesterday. Ali is work in progress. Stokes is lively but inconsistent and Wood adds nothing over and above Jordan who he replaced.

Today England may turn the match around and even get a first innings lead - but it's unlikely. More likely is that New Zealand get sufficient runs to put England under real pressure in their second innings - and sadly we know from all too recent evidence what that can lead to !

Too many layers at the ECB - the job Andrew Strauss is going to is unnecessary

In my Shell days one of the sometimes fashionable policy imperatives was "de-layering". Essentially the idea was that if you removed layers in the hierarchy it improved efficiency and the quality of decision-making. It generally worked as more empowered people were more motivated and their job satisfaction was higher. It forced delegation and removed some of the exercising of "Position Power" by which empires were built. The fewer the layers the faster the communications and the quicker the decisions. 

Which brings me to England cricket. Here is a simplified representation of the recent vertical hierarchy of the ECB:

1. Chairman (Giles Clarke)

2. Chief Executive (David Collier)

3. Managing Director (Paul Downton)

4. Team Director (aka Head Coach) (Peter Moores)

5. Team Captain Alastair Cook 

The personnel have changed/are changing  and we understand that Andrew Strauss is being brought into the job at 3 vacated by the sacked Downton. Tom Harrison is now in the job at 2 and Colin Graves in the top job at 1. It remains to be seen whether there will be changes at 4. and 5. as well.

Personalities play a part of course. Clarke was authoritarian and very much in charge. He took all the key decisions (including, almost certainly, that to sack Kevin Pietersen). So what do they all do - and do we need such a heavily layered structure at all? My contention has always been that the job at 3

. is superfluous. If you have a good Chief Executive and a good Head Coach why do you need a layer in-between them? Surely Strauss, a player and with no significant coaching experience, can add little to what Moores  (or whoever) does? Similarly he has no real commercial experience and has never run a business so what use in these areas is he likely to be to a skilled CEO such as Collier or now Harrison? Downton, who did have that experience, floundered so it is hard to see how Strauss can succeed. Too many chiefs is a bad policy leading to confsed accountability and decision-making. Itseems  that the ECB is perpetrating its mistake. 

England cricket needs to put on a Happy Face

Well how was it for you my fellow sufferers here in Barbados - all ten thousand of you? You battled to get flights and a hotel and tickets. And paid a lot for all three. You dressed up loyally in the gear to go to the Kensington Oval. You shouted yourself hoarse, cooling your tonsils from time to time with a can of Banks. And for what? To see one of the most spineless and incompetent England cricket debacles of all time. And when it was all so quickly over, when young Blackwood hit the runs that gave the West Indies a deserved victory at the end of the third day, what next? Maybe, like me, you expected a few words of acknowledgment and an apology form England Captain Alastair Cook. You know something like "A big thank you to all the fans for their great support, I'm sorry we let you down". Wouldn't have been too much to ask would it? Didn't happen of course. 

At the beginning of this three match Series England was third in the ICC Team rankings and the West Indies eighth. No contest surely? But the Windies fought hard to draw in Antigua, played well in Grenada before Anderson blew them away - and recovered from a 68 run first innings deficit  in Barbados to win. Now let's be clear. The Windies No. 8 ranking is about right. With defections to the IPL they are short of top class players and those that they have like Chanderpaul and Roach are out of form or injured. They are a second rank side. Keen, trying hard but way, way short of the top teams. So where does that leave England?

On the showing in this series, and especially in Barbados, England has two genuinely world class cricketers in Root and Anderson. One promising newcomer in Ballance. And three former greats who are still struggling to recover consistent form - Cook, Bell and Broad. Buttler shows promise - especially when he is freed up to play his natural game. The rest? None has emerged in this series as worth his place at this level. Cook's captaincy and general leadership is sub-standard. There was a time yesterday afternoon when the team looked listless and their body language was awful. And at that time an energetic motivated side could well still have won the match.

So what now? I cannot see this England team having a cat in hell's chance of regaining The Ashes or, indeed, of beating New Zealand. When a couple of years ago Australia was in similiar straights they took drastic action, sacked their data obsessed coach, and brought in the motivating Darren Lehmann. That is the minimum England must do. Moores must go. Cook's depressing period as Captain must surely also end. Lets set a realistic target like Lehmann did. Play well. Play with guts. Make your supporters proud of you. Hit hard when its right to, defend stoutly when necessary (The West Indies Blackwood did just that). If you lost the Ashes series (say) 3-1 that will be a result. Build with a Coach, Captain and players who remember cricket is the greatest game in the world and its fun. To play and to watch. Let's put on a happy face!

Grey skies are gonna clear up,

Put on a happy face;

Brush off the clouds and cheer up,

Put on a happy face.

Two second-rate teams battling to see which of them can be condemned as third-rate.

245 Runs, 77.5 Overs, 18 Wickets

It wasn't even a full day. Yes in a macabre sort of way it was exciting, but it was a far removed from proper Test cricket as it's possible to imagine. At the end of the day two second-rate teams were battling to see which of them can be condemned as third rate. I've no idea. England, woefully 39-5 after 21 overs should lose from here. But don't put it beyond the West Indies to contrive to lose either. If we look back over the two days there have been three performances of proper Test quality from the 22 players. Cook batted well in England's first innings. Blackwood the same in that of the Windies. And Jimmy Anderson bowled wonderfully well in taking 6-42. Terrific skill. That's it. Some of the rest of the batting   and bowling was briefly alright. But much of it was at best inconsistent and most of it was dross. Trott should not have been there. Bell lost any sympathy that his feeble "pair" might have generated when he let his ego refer an lbw that was plumb. Samuels did the same. The slow left armer Permaul bowled 20 overs of filth and conceded 86 runs. Ali and Root between them bowled an excruciating 19 overs of village green spin for 90 runs. 

In England's first knock three players played innings of some merit - eight did not. In the Windies first knock Blackwood was the sole player to score more than 25. For the West Indies to take five England wickets this afternoon was not because there was an Anderson-type great spell of bowling. The wickets were shared between four bowlers. It was because England batted like frightened chickens and the Windies thought "Hey, we've got these dummies on the run" - and they had!

Apparently 10,000 of us came to Barbados for this match from England. We are having a wonderful time in this friendliest of nations and enjoying the sunshine. And, as I said, the cricket has been exciting. Maybe tomorrow the two teams will remember that they are playing a Test Match. But frankly the signs are not good. The Windies soon face Australia here in the Caribbean. They'll be taken apart. As will England by both Antipodean visitors this summer. Unless a miracle happens. Dont hold your breath.

A joyful evening celebrating the success of Barbados Cricket Club "Wanderers" young stars

In an excellent article in The Times today Mike Atherton describes the continued importance of clubs in Barbados cricket with special reference to Wanderers who had an event last night to celebrate their locally produced stars. When researching my biography of West Indies Test player John Shepherd I came across stories about the racially based divide in club cricket in the island which was present in Shepherd's youth in the 1950s  - and beyond. I wrote this:

"The Barbados Cricket Association was under the management of the white "planter-merchant" wealthy elite... and included clubs such as Wanderers...which had been founded on racial grounds and remained selective on the grounds of colour until such discrimination was prohibited by law after 1957" .

 In fact the date of independence (1966) was probably more important that the legislative change as it was only then that Barbadians began to feel free of the centuries old domination of the white master. The celebrations at Wanderers last night were of course mixed with both the traditions of the Club's long history being well represented. The great Tony Cozier, himself a white Bajan of course, presided over part of the proceedings and was quite tearful when celebrating not just the achievement but the potential of young Jason 

Holder scored his maiden Test century a couple of weeks ago in Antigua but had a nasty fall when bowling at Greneda and seemed a doubt for tomorrow's Test match. I asked him if he'll play - I think he will. He is a modest, impressive young man. Massively tall andhighly articulate   I think a future West Indies captain.  Another Test-playing young graduate of Wanderers was also present - Chris Jordan. And that is quite a story!

I spoke to many people who helped Jordan was he was a promising young cricketer and later when he had a full season with Wanderers. At 15 Jordan was offered a place at Dulwich College where under Bill Athey's coaching he progressed swiftly. He is now, of course, in the England team. Chris despite some British roots on his grandmother's side is a Bajan. And he was clearly proud to be back at Wanderers and to receive an award alongside Jason Holder. I spoke to many at the Club about Jordan's decision to qualify and play for England rather than the West Indies. Nobody was critical, and pride was the dominant position they took. The people of Barbados love their country, and support the Windies. But when one of them plays not for the country of his birth and parentage it doesnt seem to bother them one bit!

Wanderers today is the best of cricket. Enthusiastic, volunteer led and of course completely undiscriminatory. That said I was told that the younger white Bajans joining the Club prefer to play football rather than cricket. If this is typical across the island and across the West Indies it may explain why hardly any white West Indians have made it to representative level for a long time.

A scenario for Engalnd's cricket recovery can be written. But it needs a change of cast.

So Kevin Pietersen is turning his back on the riches of the Indian Premier League in order to play County cricket in a bid to regain his England place. One of the more crass responses to Pietersen's autobiography was that by the brothers Swann who suggested that KP's book and its controversial content was a bid by him to make money. That he did make money from the book is not in question. But the idea that that was the only motivation in "writing" it is not true. That motivation was to, as he saw it, put the record straight. That there have been no threats of legal action by the ECB or any individual since the book's publication suggests that the lawyers did a good job in ensuring that the stories in the book were evidentially backed.

KP will earn comparative peanuts with Surrey. The IPL is where the big money is and Pietersen has declined it. He can afford to, of course, but in pursuing his improbable ambition to put on an England shirt again he is driven by motives other than those pecuniary. He wants to stuff it to those that discarded and traduced him. Of these at the ECB Giles Clarke is on his way and David Collier has gone. Their replacements seem to take a different view over England's wayward star.

But KP is far from home and dry. Standing in his way are Peter Moores (again) and Alastair Cook. The former must surely be on his bike. England has declined from hopeless losers to laughing stock under his second coming and he cannot survive. Cook is different. A few years ago Cook was flirting with greatness as a batsman - then he had the captaincy thrust upon him and it all went belly up. Failure as ODI Captain led to his replacement, not that that made any difference to the ODI team's hopelessness. But he is still a young man and someone with his proven batting talent cannot be lightly discarded. 

A scenario under which Alastair Cook, no longer Captain but rejuvenated batsman, joins Kevin Pietersen in a new style England team is attractive. Their experience along with Bell and the impressive Root and other younger players like Buttler, Ali and perhaps Ballance could work - so long as the bowlers recover form. But who would coach and captain such a side? That's where the scenario falters!

Triumphant England will progress to Cricket World Cup Quarter-Finals

As I pointed out in my last Sports Blog despite losing to Si Lanka England will probably still make the Quarter-Finals by finishing fourth in Pool "A" by beating Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Assuming, that is, that the other Pool matches go as expected as well. The one uncertain match in the Pool (barring a major upset) is Sri Lanka versus Australia. The outcome of that match doesn't matter much but let's assume that Australia with home advantage in Sydney wins it. In that case the final Pool points will be as follows:

New Zealand 12

Australia 9

Sri Lanka 8

England 6

Bangladesh 5

Afghanistan 2

Scotland 0

Whether you feel England has done enough to make the Quarter-Finals is up to you! But they'll probably be there.

Australia v New Zealand, like most of the 42 "Pool" stage matches in the Cricket World Cup, is non-competitive.

"Tomorrow we'll be two long weeks into the Cricket World Cup and excitement is at fever pitch as the two best sides in the tournament prepare to play one another in Auckland." NOT!

Australia and New Zealand will face one another at Eden Park. And as always with clashes of the two rivals from across the Tasman Sea local pride will make the result matter. Sort of. But in the context of the Tournament the outcome is irrelevant. As have been the results of most of the matches so far. Both of tomorrow's teams are guaranteed a place in the Quarter Finals - and that has been the case from the start of the World Cup. The world's top teams have only had to make sure that they do not slip up against one of the "minnows" to ensure that they get into the knockout stage when the proper competition starts. (That's on 18th March, by the way when the first Quarter Final takes place. The 43rd game in the tournament !). 

There has been one "slip up" so far - Ireland's fine win against the West Indies. Could the Irish upset the odds and qualify from Pool "B" ? It's certainly possible that they could be facing Pakistan in the final pool stages match with the winner taking all. But that is the only possible shock outcome and my money would still be on the likelihood that the pre-destined outcome of the eight quarter-finalists being Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and England (from Pool "A") and India, West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan (from Pool "B"). 

England could well lose to Sri Lanka on Saturday (their third defeat out of four) and still qualify for the Q/F by beating Afghanistan and Bangladesh to add to their win over Scotland. That's the fix of the tournament. It makes virtually every match of the 42 Pool matches non-competitive. This hasn't been a World Cup at all it's been a Festival of Cricket. And very nice too you might say. But should the media and the sponsors really be calling the tunes? India HAD to be in the final stages to keep the money men happy and if you are going to fix that you might as well fix it for the other big boys as well. The two hosts. England (the second biggest commercial money-spinner after India) and so on. 

We the public are being fooled by being told that matches like Australia v New Zealand matter. And no doubt both sides will be doing their best to win. But will there be a real cutting edge and will the spectators in Auckland and around the world be on the edges of their seats biting their nails with anxiety about the outcome? Nah! 

Our politicians as Brands - there's no "Apple" there !

Back in 1960 JFK was seen as the first to market himself as a "Brand". Not sure he was really, but he was certainly "made" by some slick brand marketing. Here in the UK we don't have a President (boo, we should !) but we have had some powerful personal brands (Wilson, Thatcher, Blair in modern times). So what about now? Here's a personal list of some of the best, and worst of today's lot.

1. Boris Johnson. Easily our strongest personal political brand. Wide appeal. Meets the criterion of the "Love Brand" - you forgive him his mistakes. "Boris" is "Coke" - instantly recognisable. Not the "Real Thing" - but then nor is Coca Cola. 

2. Nigel Farage. Brands need strong visual symbols. Farage has that. The pint and the fag. The grin. He is the quintessential "Marmite" brand and like that product if you like him, you like him and if not you hate him. His appeal is strong, but limited. Like "Boris" he is forgiven his mistakes. But once you've made up your mind one way or another you are unlikely to change. 

3. Ken Clarke. A bete noir of the Tory Right but Ken has the ability to appeal across the political spectrum which is unusual today (Thatcher and Blair had it). Ken is 74 and has missed any chance of Number 10 and knows it. But he keeps on trucking. He has a hinterland (Jazz, beer, cricket...) which makes him interesting where others are not. Fading a bit but still admired. Marks and Spencer.

4. Gordon Brown. Strong identity, Scottish, proud, achiever but deeply flawed. Gordon is the "Royal Bank of Scotland". Still around, but you wonder why. Once very powerful but now at best tolerated - at worst a symbol of failure. Unfair, of course. But that's it with brands. Once they're shot they're shot.

5. Tony Blair. Someone who once was. A brand once the runaway leader that has now fallen spectacularly from grace and is struggling to re-establish itself. Hubris led to pride before the fall and it won't be easy to recover, indeed it may be impossible. Blair is Tesco. The shelves are still stocked, but nobody wants to go there. 

6. Theresa May. May has a strong visual identity and is underpinned by self-confidence but is rather gaffe prone. Unlike Boris (some see him as a rival) she is not forgiven her mistakes, rare though they may be. Most of the time she delivers but when she has a bumpy landing or cancels a flight she is not forgiven. Theresa May is British Airways. 

7. David Cameron. "Call me Dave" has what all brands need - a solid technical product. The bits and pieces of politics, like public speaking, he does well. But it is hard to like him because beneath the solid surface you have no idea what he really stands for. Not because he doesn't tell you, but because you don't believe him. He is superficially the archetypical political professional but it's a veneer. Underneath that veneer you don't trust him. Cameron is BP - and riding for a fall like they did. 

8. Ed Milliband. Ed is nice, capable but hugely maligned. His most commonly used descriptor "Red Ed" is a negative jibe and his most familiar visual symbol, Wallace of "Wallace and Gromitt", was also given to him by his enemies. His own brand identity is taking a long time to emerge and his sponsors are struggling to do it. He is the opposite of Cameron - you do mostly know what he stands for (decent performance and a lack of Flashiness) - for but there is no overwhelmingly strong brand identity to sustain him. He is worthy, and decent but finds it hard to defend himself when under attack. Ed is a Skoda on "Top Gear".  

More to come ? Let me know...! Do we have an "Apple" manqué ? 

How not to apologise - again !

I don't know what Darren Sammy said on the field of play in the match against Ireland today, but it was sufficiently bad for him to apologise on Twitter. See above. But this apology is a classic of its type. Sadly. 

It is in the passive voice. The swear word "came through the stump mike". Note that he doesn't say he swore and apologise for that. You might think that that is implied and self-evident. But why use a passive voice construct when you can say "I'm sorry I swore" ?

The reference to the stump mike is unnecessary anyway. The suggestion here is that it was the fact that the swearing was audible on the broadcast that is important, not the swearing itself. He is apologising for being caught, and for the fact that "young kids [were] listening and watching" not for the act of swearing itself. So what should he have tweeted, given the 140 character limit of the medium? How about:

"I would like to apologise to listeners/viewers for my swearing during today's cricket. It was a bad thing to have done and I'm very sorry."

The next month of the Cricket World Cup is a fraudulent farce.

The Cricket World Cup starts on Saturday. Except  that it doesn't. It really starts on 18th March when the Quarter Finals begin. So what are we going to do for the next four weeks as we whittle 14 starters down to eight? Create sponsor and media revenues, that's what. Of course matches like Australia v England and India v Pakistan will sort of matter, as they always do. But in the context of the World Cup the result doesn't mean a thing. All four sides will get through to the Quarter-Finals as will New Zealand and Sri Lanka in "Pool A" .In "Pool B" the four qualifiers will be India, Pakistan, South Africa and the West Indies. And going home will be Zimbabwe, Ireland, Scotland, Bangladesh and the UAE. We'll spend a month proving what we knew from the start. There are eight teams that count, and a handful of minnows who don't. 

It's (just) possible there will be an upset.But unlikely. The odds are heavily stacked against any team outside the top 8 getting through. England could lose to Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka but still be in the quarter-finals from utterly predictable wins over Bangladesh and Scotland. It's a farce. The money men can't risk India and to a lesser extent Pakistan, Australia and England not being in the knockout stage. So the ICC fixes it so they will be. Fraudulent? You might think so. Come back on 18th Match when the meaningful cricket begins.

.

Happy times, and happy memories at White Hart Lane for the visit of Manchester United

Encouraging  performance by Spurs today on the back of three wins against modest sides this was a proper test. Manchester United were unlucky not to be at least one up at the interval. Lloris showed his value again - one fingertip save from Young, a curling shot heading for the top corner, was outstanding. 

Alan Sugar pessimistically tweeted that he expected United to score early in the second half. They didn't and although they came close once or twice it was Spurs who looked the more likely. It was end-to-end stuff at times - reminiscent of those great clashes in the 1960s when we saw Greaves, Smith, Blanchflower, Charlton, Law and the sublime George Best strut their stuff! In those days the Lane was a quagmire after rain but players of their quality seemed to dance their way through it. The shirts today were the traditional White for Tottenham and Red for United, exactly the same as fifty years ago. I do wish we could return to the rule that a side only changes its shirt if there is a clear colour clash! Teams should not have "Away" shirts but "Change" shirts which they only wear if away and if there is a colour clash with the home team's kit.

The crowd was noisily and mostly politely behind the Team. The large Man Utd support (many of whom had, of course, only a short journey to get to N17!) were vocal and enthusiastic as well. It was a truly delightful early afternoon and a fair result. I've cheered for Manchester United once or twice in my life - notably at the European Cup Final at Wembley in 1968, but not today of course. Spurs have now gone five PL games without losing to the Red Devils and that is a decent run. Long may it continue. And long may these two great clubs continue to deliver attacking and exciting football as they did today. 

Cook will keep his job, to save the face of the suits and becausethere's no-one else

Alastair Cook will be confirmed as England Captain for the upcoming Cricket World Cup today for two reasons - neither of them convincing. Firstly Cook is the basket in which the ECB placed all their eggs when they sacked Kevin Pietersen. A modicum of sanity among the suits would have seen that there was never a "Cook or Pietersen" moment - it was not "either/or" - and careful handling could have made it "both". But they contrived to create one when they said that KP had to go in order for all to get behind Cook - as if Cook could only lead if Pietersen wasn't there. Not true. Second Cook will hang on because there is no obvious successor. Morgan is smart and articulate and a terrific batsman, but horrendously out of form and cannot really be sure of holding his place in the ODI side let alone leading it. Joe Root simply isn't ready yet and it would be daft to cloud the head of this outstanding player by burdening him with the captaincy.

The days when if Peter May was injured Colin Cowdrey or Ted Dexter or Tom Graveney could slip into the captaincy of England are long gone. The drift into insignificance of the County system and the fact that the players in England's international squads play little part in it means that to be County captain has little import  - Vaughan, Strauss and Cook  hardly ever captained any team other than England. 

It is said that Australia choose eleven players and then from among them they choose the Captain. I'm not sure that was ever entirely true, but the principle is a sound one. So choose an England ODI side - does Alastair Cook get in it? Nah! So what's he doing as Captain then (see Para one above). 

Limited Overs internationals, whether of the 50 Over or the 20 Over variety, are good fun - or should be. Players should enjoy playing in them as much as spectators enjoy watching them. They should be joyful occasions and not too solemn - especially the World Cup. Cooky is a decent chap but a bit of an introvert and hardly inspirational. The World Cup won't be won by cerebral thinking and in Peter Moores and Cook England is led by two people who seem to me to think too much. Darren Lehmann and Michael Clarke have restored Australia's fortunes not by analysis but by leadership. Do we have the people to do the same? It's hard to spot them. 

Can good come from the Hughes tragedy? Oh yes, and the Kiwis areshowing the way

When I was at Dulwich College in the 1950s a boy around my age was killed playing rugby. Later, when I was at school in Cambridge in the early 1960s, a fourteen-year-old was killed crossing the Trumpington Road. Apart from the effect they had on me these two happenings were, of course, unconnected. Both were freak events devastating to those involved. And both were utterly avoidable. The rugby death came when the player hit his head against a post. In those days it was not required, nor customary, to clad the base of rugby posts with soft protective material. If it had been this boy, not then in his teens, would not have died. The boy at The Leys might also not have died if there had been a pedestrian crossing at that part of the road. There now is, and has been for decades.

Life and sport can kill. But over the past fifty years or so societies have reduced random dangers through legislation. "Health and Safety" laws are easy targets for those who see them as being an infringement of our freedoms. How often have you heard the phrase "Health and Safety gone mad"? The fact that countless lives have seen saved is often forgotten.

Health and Safety in sport has improved beyond recognition. At my time at school not only were rugby posts unpadded but cricket helmets were unknown. And at the professional sport level it was no better, not least in Motorsport. I have always enjoyed Formula one but for too long it was a lethal sport with protection for drivers and spectators alike unknown. Gradually circuits and cars have improved and today F1 tends not to kill people. But it is still dangerous - as we have seen this year with the crippling and near fatal injury to Marussia driver Jules Bianchi. Some sports are inherently dangerous and in modern times safety has rightly been a priority. Over the years serious injury or fatalities were rare in cricket, not least because batsmen learned to avoid the short balls that came up around their heads. But helmets came in to reduce the risk if the batsman's technique failed him or if the bowling was exceptionally threatening. 

The death of Phillip Hughes was a freak event. The blow hit him not on the head but on the neck. The helmet did not fail - it did not come into play. The bowling was not especially intimidating and the ball which felled him was a standard bouncer. It was one of those random events in life which are as unpredictable as they are unavoidable. A one in many millions chance event that occurs sometimes - but is as inexplicable as it is awful. And random. This does not mean, however, that cricket should not take a long hard look at itself.

Aggressive bowling is as old as the game itself and from time to time it gets out of hand. In the "Bodyline" series of 1932/3 England's bowlers targeted the batsman physically - the Laws of cricket had later to be changed to outlaw the "leg theory" that was Bodyline. Forty or so years later the West Indies bowlers, especially Malcolm Marshall and Michael Holding, had a viciousness in their attack that was uniquely intimidating. Even the met competent batsmen had to duck for their lives as the Caribbean crowds chanted, “Kill them! Kill them”! 

More recently truly intimidating bowling has become more of a rarity but verbal intimidation has almost become the norm. I believe intimidation has gone too far. Verbal abuse combined with over-aggressive fast bowling targeted at the batsman himself. Mitchell Johnson boasted about aiming at Jonathan Trott's helmet grill which when combined with sledging was designed to take Trott out The Ashes. It worked.

"It was ever thus" say the apologists for aggression and violence, citing Bodyline. True. With one crucial difference . Today every ball is covered from twenty angles and the verbal abuse is often reported as well. Children see this and assume cricket is a game where these things are the norm. But cricket is not a Martial Art and violence does not have to be part of it at all. "The Spirit of Cricket" is arrant nonsense and a grotesque failure as well. It is time to take verbal and physical abuse out of the game for good. The game will be all the better for it. 

The best legacy to perpetuate the memory of Phillip Hughes would be not some knee jerk prohibition on bouncers or any attempt to change the Laws of the game to make it safer. I repeat - Hughes was killed by a freakish accident not by over aggressive bowling. But there is aggression around in cricket and it demeans the game. I like Jimmy Anderson, he's a lovely guy. But in recent times he has behaved very badly, at times, on the field of play. He's far from alone in that, of course.

Bill Shankly famously said "Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." When cricket has been shown quite literally to be "a matter of life and death' it's worth thinking of Shankly's words. Yes cricket for those of us who love it is important. And for many it is their life. And there you have the solution. Jimmy Anderson and Mitchell Johnson are both decent guys. But the transformation of them from the nice Mr Jekyll into the nasty Mr Hyde is demeaning and vulgar. It's an act, and a pretty vile one frankly.

After Jimmy Anderson's Jadeja spat last summer England Captain Alastair Cook said this:

"In my eyes, he has never gone over the top on the field," he said. "He's an aggressive bowler who uses a bit of verbal to get him going and to make batting as uncomfortable as possible.

Not to put too fine a point on it this is a disingenuous lie. Cook knew that Anderson's "bit of verbal" was aggressive foul-mouthed abuse. Over the top? Of course, by any standards of civilised behaviour. Anderson and Johnson and the other practitioners of verbal abuse need to clean up their act. Play hard, you need to do that in any sport. But play fair. The task is no more to intimidate the batsmen unfairly and to rely only on your cricketing talents to win you games. The New Zealanders showed the way in the recent post-Hughes Test match (see above). Good for them. I'm not suggesting the outlawing of the short-pitched ball - the bouncer. But I am suggesting an end to the tactic of deliberately threatening the batsman and I certainly want an end to the verbal abuse. Unfair behaviour did not kill Phillip Hughes. But it probably did send Jonathan Trott home early and force fear into the minds of the England team in Australia. Sport should be bigger than that and Cricket needs to regain some moral integrity. Because for the last few years it just hasn't been "cricket" has it ?

The attacks on Jonathan Agnew, which have driven him from Twitter, arecontemptible

The above are just two of the abusive Tweets from Piers Morgan which, understandably, contributed to Jonathan Agnew leaving Twitter yesterday. Those who know Aggers will not recognise the description of him as an "ECB stooge" or a "horrible man" - he is neither.

I have been listening to ball-to-ball commentaries on cricket on radio most of my life - 1953 was, I think, the first series I heard. I would place Agnew comfortably in the top four commentators - with Arlott, Johnston and Martin-Jenkins. Like them he has a lovely broadcasting voice, a deep love and knowledge of the game and great integrity. He is himself. That "himself" is someone with a hinterland - his "specialist subject" might be cricket. But when he interviews people as diverse as, say, Lily Allen or Ed Miliband he does his research and finds a way to build a connection between their world and the world of cricket. And Jonathan's ego is rarely on show either (if it exists). It's never about him.

As a fan of "Test Match Specisl" I usually listen to its commentaries when I am at the ground. There are one or two current commentators I can take or leave (no names, no pack drill) but I always listen to Aggers. He has the skill of going "off piste" in classic TMS style without it sounding contrived - not something, Henry Blofeld aside, the rest of the current team can manage. These wanderings, in the duller moments of the action or when it's raining, often suggest the Aggers hinterland without revealing it too much! In truth I think that he is quite a private person who, his international travels over more than two decades not excepted, is happiest with his wife and dogs in a pub in the Vale of Belvoir his home. Aggers various memoirs reveal almost nothing of the man within!

I once had a mild spat with Jonathan over his, and TMS's, choice of the champagne moment at one Test Match. He was hurt not because I criticised him personally (I didn't) but because I thought that the choice - of MS Dhoni at Trent Bridge in 2010 - reeked of political correctness and was a "Spirit of Cricket" driven aberration! We agreed to differ on this - a reasonably aimiable dispute and the sort that only cricket tragics would indulge in ! On this occasion Aggers was perhaps in "Establishment" mode but  to suggest, as Morgan and some others do, that he is an "ECB stooge" is ignorant and wrong. He has been a strong critic of the ECB frequently and his deep love of the game, as well as his duty as BBC Cricket Correspondent, means that if he believes they are wrong (they so often are, of course) he will say so. What he doesn't do is personal abuse - which doesn't mean that he doesn't sometimes receive it, and not just from Piers Morgan.

Aggers is often a target on Twitter - that comes, sadly, with the job. He is well known in the world of cricket and this leads to ignorant abuse - most often from the sub continent. You can block these abusers but there are always another hundred or so waiting their chance. Even more depressing is the occasional abuse from hacks who should know better. Like Brian Moore and others Aggers has been traduced in public by the likes of Charlie Sale in the Daily Mail. These personalised and offensive pieces should have no place in journalism, but tell a tabloid editor that and he'll laugh in your face!

Jonathan Agnew is more likely to know the "truth" about Kevin Pietersen (etc.) than most cricket commentators. This does not mean that he, therefore, has to take sides on this or any other contentious issue. I suspect that despite his insider status Aggers would struggle to find out what the "truth" is anyway. He is not Piers Morgan's opposite, anti KP where Morgan is pro. That sort of polarised position taking is foreign to his nature. He undoubtedly despairs when he sees the likes of Morgan try and kill the thing he loves, cricket, but his natural instinct is more to flee than fight vitriol with vitriol. Which is not to say that he won't defend his corner - you don't survive endless encounters with Geoffrey Boycott without developing a thickish skin!

This has been a terrible year or more for English cricket. Throughout it, in my view, Jonathan Agnew has retained his balance despite despair not being far away in his voice. He is not a conscienceless bruiser like Piers Morgan and he doesn't use the ubiquity of his media access to peddle bias as some have charged. This is not the first time Aggers' resilience has been put to the test. It's all quite unnecessary and unkind to a decent man, and a consummate professional. 

Start well in an ODI, but then build!

The idea of building a solid platform on which to build a team innings in a One Day International has a credible logic to it - though it does only seem to be England that obsessively believes this - certainly when batting first. As England keeps losing these matches it does suggest that the tactic is flawed!

At Trent Bridge yesterday England reached 82 before, in the eighteenth over, they lost their first wicket. At that moment the run rate was 4.55 per over. The run rate then subsided and only a brief late assault by James Tredwell restored it to where it had been by the close of the innings.  Chasing a modest total of 228 India reached an identical score to England in their eighteenth over - but then they were chasing and the case for pacing the innings was clear. India knew that only the loss of wickets could lead to an improbable defeat - and they weren't going to let that happen!

Coincidentally at Cardiff India, batting first, was also 82 in the eighteenth over - though for the loss of two rather than one wicket. At Cardiff India had that platform and unlike England at Trent Bridge they used it. 4.50 became just of over 6.00 by the end of the 50 overs. That said it was only in the last fifteen overs that India really charged along moving from 156-4 (4.45) after 35 to 304 after 50.

The point of this is that a platform is only handy if you use it, it is not an end in itself. And also that if your plan, batting first, is to score 300 runs it doesn't really matter how you do it. And up to a point wickets don't matter either. If you are all out for 300 off the final ball that is just as good as being 300-2. So you might as well (a) pace your innings over the 50 overs and (b) not matter too much if you regularly lose wickets. One of the great truisms of cricket is that it "doesn't matter how the runs come, so long as they come". Which brings me to opening batsmen.

In a Test match an opening batsman can bat for ever - and you hope he does. If one of them scores 150 in a day and a half and the players at the other end chip in decent scores rather more quickly you're likely to be knocking on 400 by lunch on the second day - which is fine especially if you haven't lost too many wickets.  One Day games are different. Alastair Cook had a strike rate of 67 when he was out - OK, but no cigar. Even the exuberant Alex Hales took 55 balls over his 42.  Over the innings as a whole not one England player, Tredwell aside, had a strike rate of over 80. Bar Dhawan  all of India's batsmen achieved this. And that is the point. Pacing the innings means pacing it over the full allocation of overs.

In the recent ODI between Australia and South Africa in Harare in which South Africa chased down 328 to win the scores after eighteen overs were Australia, batting first, 92-0 and South Africa chasing 106-2. The Proteas had lost a couple of wickets but they had 14 more runs – not crucial but a signal that they were on for the chase and the loss of wickets could be accommodated.

At Trent Bridge England had a platform at 82-1 and a confident Captain would have said right let’s up the pace a bit and have brought in Jos Buttler or Eoin Morgan at that point. But no - the predetermined batting order couldn't be changed and Ian Bell (ODI strike rate 76.02) came in and predictably batted stodgily for 38 balls scoring 28 without a boundary. Sport is often about symbolism – and about showing your confidence. Would Buttler or Morgan have succeeded up the order – who knows? But it would have showed we meant business and given India something to think about.

The best ODI teams capitalise on good starts and recover form poor ones. They play eleven-man cricket and never assume that the job is done – or lost. Remember that great achievement by India at Lord’s in 2002 when they chased down 326 having been 146-5 at the fall of Tendulkar’s wicket in the 24th over?

The argument here is not not to try and get a decent start – which England had yesterday – but if you do get it to use it! If you are 82-1 after eighteen the opposition will be a bit on the back foot and that is the time not to “consolidate” but to capitalise. That requires confidence and the ability to be flexible – especially in respect of your batting order. Cook was at the crease when Hales was out yesterday. Against Raina (27 ODI wickets in 193 matches) and the novice Rayudu he had the chance to assert himself, but he did the opposite and then got out. 

Franchises are coming to T20 cricket

The “Birmingham Bears” won England’s domestic T20 competition yesterday. However if you read some in the Media you wouldn't know. True cricket writers like Scyld Berry in the Telegraph reported the match but he referred throughout in his report to the team as “Warwickshire”. In a way both he and those who used the “Birmingham Bears” descriptor are right. “Birmingham Bears” is a brand owned by Warwickshire County Cricket Club. So ultimately it was the county wot won it. But Warwickshire had chosen to create a “City brand” for their T20 team and it is rather arrogant of those in the media to ignore this – pretty contemptuously in some cases.

What is going on? Are we seeing a bit of raging against the dying of the light going on? I think that we are. That light is, of course, the County system beloved of the cricket establishment – at least insofar as T20 is concerned.

 The Counties

Counties are an historic element in Englishness but for years they have been declining in significance – in part a reflection of the growth of the mega cities like London (of course), Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds and the rest. The old counties (48 of them) are referred to as “ceremonial counties” and some have little or no administrative responsibilities. I live in a “county”, Middlesex, which is little more than a postal region – oh, and of course, a Cricket Club!
In cricket there are eighteen “First Class” counties and a further twenty “Minor Counties” – so 38 historic county clubs covering most of the country. Cricket is the only sport which has professional and semi-professional sport based on counties. Other major team sports such as Rugby (both codes) and of course Football have town or city teams. This is in part a reflection of growing urbanisation and partly a fact of commercial realties. The big teams tend to be in the big cities, build stadia in them and relate especially to the population conurbation of that city. With football, of course, most of the big cities have more than one big team – there is the demand and the financing to sustain this.
Warwickshire County Cricket Club have jumped the gun a bit in creating a city brand for their T20 team but I think they have been prescient. That is because I think that it is inevitable that franchises will come to domestic T20. There is a variety of models which could be considered for this – my preferred one would be something like this:

The Invitation to tender

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) invites tenders for a new T20 competition to involve eight teams and to be played during an allocated time period in the summer and with a Final at Lord’s. The tender would cover an initial period of three years. The eight teams would be divided into two groups of four and within each group each team would play the other on a home and away basis. That’s a total of 12 Group stage matches in each group (24 in all) to be followed by  by Semi-Finals – winners of First Group play Runners Up of second Group and so on. That would be 27 matches, each of them significant. The competition could be fitted into a maximum of three weeks during which there would be no other cricket. Interest and attendances would be high throughout.

Who could tender?

In theory any commercial entity could tender. They would have to submit a financial bid, confirm which stadium they would hold the home matches at and the broad details of their operation. The open tender would not be confined to existing County cricket clubs although many would no doubt wish to bid. Warwickshire, for example, could propose the team (the “Birmingham Bears”), the venue (“Edgbaston”) etc. Another bid might be from Manchester United Football Club which would propose a  team a venue (“Old Trafford cricket ground”) and would have formed a commercial partnership with Lancashire County Cricket Club to make this possible. The power of that brand (the “Manchester Red Devils” perhaps?) would be considerable! Similarly in London Chelsea FC might bid jointly with Surrey bringing their brand (the “Chelsea Blues” ?) and financial clout together with Surrey’s ownership of The Oval. Another more out of left field possibility would be West Ham making a bid to use the Olympic Stadium as a venue as well as the home of the team (The “London Lions” perhaps). The venues would not have to be existing cricket grounds, providing the pitch dimensions (etc.) met the necessary standards.
One would expect that England and Wales’s major cities would all have teams, though as we have seen not necessarily based at existing County cricket grounds. The long list locations would probably be London (2), Birmingham, Bradford/Leeds, Cardiff, Manchester/Liverpool, Newcastle/Durham, Nottingham, Bristol and Southampton. The eight chosen would be mainly those that could offer the ECB the highest income.

Players

If a County bid one would expect its T20 player squad to be comprised mainly of its contracted  players. Where the bidder was not a County then the squad would comprise players signed on a short term contract for the duration of the tournament – or IPL style bidding could be used. Overseas players  could be included up to (say) four in any squad and three in any match team. The attraction to overseas stars would be considerable as the matches would be held in the English summer, and for a limited duration, with few if any clashes with other cricketing commitments. The tournament could expect to include the world’s best T20 players adding to its inherent appeal. An appeal that would extend, of course, beyond British spectators and viewers to overseas media, sponsors etc.

What about the Counties?

The counties would benefit in three ways. Firstly as the owner of a franchise team – if they chose to bid. Secondly as the owner of a venue for which they would charge the franchisee. Thirdly as the recipient of income streams from the ECB – if that is what the ECB chooses to do with the income generated from the tournament. It is crucial to emphasise that this event is not a County tournament and is not part of the Counties’ programme. It is quite separate, with different teams and uniquely different brands. As I said at the beginning Warwickshire could be the innovators of this change – and I rather suspect that deep down they know this!

Why did nobody tell Jimmy Anderson that you can be competitive without indulging in extreme, foul-mouthed verbal abuse?

There is a good article on Cricinfo today on Jimmy Anderson by Sidharth Monga. In it Mr Monga quotes Burnley Cricket Club Chairman Michael Brown:

"Brown thinks it is also a bit of a northern thing to be so competitive on the field and normal off it."

In my view it is not "competitive" verbally to abuse your opponents, it is cheating. Nor is it "Northern". Mr Brown seems to like regional stereotypes but the idea that Anderson's unacceptable on-field behaviour is a function of his Burnley roots is pretty offensive. But that's by the by. What we should be condemning in the strongest of terms is the obsessive and demeaning sledging that Anderson delivers. Let's be clear. This is not a bit of banter on the pitch. This is not a bit of humorous "chirping". This is foul-mouthed, threatening abuse. 

That James Anderson decided to incorporate verbal abuse into his game is regrettable. That nobody stopped him doing this much more so. Presumably coaches - Fletcher, Moores, Flower knew what was going on. Presumably Captains - Vaughan, Strauss, Cook could hear it from close to. Presumably Umpires could as well. And yet none of them had the courage and the decency to stop it. 

The "Spirit of Cricket" is, in the view of this long-standing cricket fan, a load of hokum. But the fact is that it is written into the Laws of the game. Anderson has clearly transgressed against this spirit by a country mile. He is a folk hero, a rich man and a role model. He is a wonderfully talented, hard-working, determined, aggressive cricketer. England's best. But he has a fault in his character that makes him cheat on the pitch. Monga says:

"There is unconfirmed talk that one of the ECB's behaviour tests might have revealed that Anderson the bowler is at his best when he is grumpy and fired up. Alastair Cook has more or less said as much, without alluding to the test."

Verbal abuse is not an automatic consequence of being "grumpy and fired up". You can be competitive without breaking the rules. I want England to win, and I want James Anderson to continue to be successful. But not at any price. I want Jimmy to be remembered and honoured for the right things. Not for being a foul-mouthed cheat.

Not what County cricket is for, Michael !

On Test Match Special yesterday Michael Vaughan was discussing the tribulations of the Indian batsman Virat Kohli. He said that one of the reasons that Kohli, prolific on Indian wickets, had struggled badly in this series was that he was unfamiliar with English conditions and English wickets. This is surely true, but Vaughan's solution ought to have caused some furrowed brows at the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB). Vaughan suggested that Kohli should come and play a season in County Cricket. He was not, I think, joking - it was a perfectly serious suggestion. There then followed a discussion with fellow commentator Ed Smith on the subject with the latter saying how much a young Rahul Dravid felt that his game had benefited from his one year with Kent in 2000!

Now County Cricket has a long tradition of welcoming overseas players into its ranks. Indeed my biography subject the Bajan John Shepherd was one of the earlier examples with Kent and Gloucestershire in the 1970s and 1980s. Stars like Shep, Viv Richards, Richard Hadlee, Garry Sobers, Asif Iqbal and many others enriched our game. There was mutual benefit. But In those days there was loyalty as well. It was customary for an overseas player to commit himself to a County for many seasons. Mike Procter was so much part of Gloucestershire that they renamed the county "Proctershire"! 

What Rahul Dravid did, and what Vaughan is suggesting Kohli should do, is quite different from these examples from long ago. He is suggesting that Kohli should have a season (no more) at a "Northern County" to teach himself about the English game. There would be some mutual benefit, no doubt, if he learned quickly and scored well for (say) Yorkshire. But Vaughan was not arguing the case from Yorkshire's perspective but from the Indian batsman's. Is that what the County system is for? To help struggling foreign batsmen improve their game?

Every match that a Virat Kohli appeared for Yorkshire he would be taking a place from an England qualified player. Would Joe Root or Gary Ballance or other young English players have progressed if they had had a place in the Yorkshire batting order blocked by a Kohli? 

Finally it's worth pointing out how the employment of Virat Kohli by a County would be financed. None of the Counties has a viable business model without the substantial subsidy it  receives from the ECB. Cricket fans pay for these subsidies via the highest International match ticket prices in the world and via our Sky subscriptions - mandatory, and expensive - if we want to see live cricket on television. So in effect we England fans would be paying for Virat Kohli to improve his game so that he can perform better against us next time India tour! As Fred Trueman would have put it "World's gone mad"! 

Time for Cook to stand down from England's One Day captaincy

Part of the rationale for the sacking of Pietersen was the imperative to build the England team around Cook. This lacked logic on the back of an Ashes tour during which his poor batting, uninspired captaincy and woeful general leadership were major factors in the debacle. Since then I have seen little to change my mind that Cook is far from an automatic choice as a batsman and, at best, no more than the least worst of the Test captaincy options. I do, however, think that he should continue in this role until one of the younger players, probably Root, is ready to take over. Maybe on the South African tour 2015/16? 

As far as the One Day side is concerned change can and should happen now. Cook's One Day batting record is decent, but the likes of Hales, Lyth and Roy deserve their chances in the run up to the World Cup. And Eoin Morgan is the type of Captain who could just break England's long run of dismal failure in the 50 Over tournaments. Cook should stand down from the One Day captaincy in his favour. 

Moeen Ali–an extraordinary prospect for England

The genuine allrounder in cricket is worth his weight in gold. He offers at least a player and a half to the team but only takes up one place in the XI ! They are mostly “Bowling allrounders” – that is they are worth their place in the side for their bowling alone but they are also invaluable batsmen as well – usually at or around Number 6. In modern times we think of Ian Botham, Andrew Flintoff, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Shaun Pollock, Mike Procter. Batting allrounders are much rarer, Jaques Kallis certainly and Garry Sobers, Ravi Shastri, Tony Greig. But what about the player who would make the side as a batsman, even if he couldn't bowl, and as a bowler even if he couldn't bat. Of the above I would say only Imran, Kallis and Sobers make that cut. Which brings me to Moeen Ali!

Moeen was I think picked for his first test as a batsman who could also perform decently as an off-spinner. In six matches he has scored 272 runs at 34.00 and taken 22 wickets at 28.04. His batting has been, perhaps, a slight disappointment. Just one score over 50 in nine innings – but that innings was a quite outstanding 108* off 281 balls in a rear-guard action at Headingley. That was a marvellous innings and though he may have failed, comparatively, in his other Test knocks to date that one innings at Leeds shows that he is potentially a Test class batsman. Work in progress for sure and vulnerable to the bouncer. But I am sure that he will work at that and my guess is that as a Test cricketer he should average at least 40, maybe quite a bit higher. Which brings me to his bowling.

Initially it seemed that Moeen was far short of Test standard as a bowler. Too expensive, bowling a bit too slowly and a bit short too often and with no real control. Well in the last two tests he has disproved that completely. I watched from an excellent position at Old Trafford and thought he bowled very well indeed. His 4/39 in 13 overs did not flatter him at all.And in the previous match at the Rose Bowl he took 2/62 and 6/67. These are quality performances of which Graeme Swann would have been proud. And his Captain clearly has confidence in him as well.

It’s early days of course but if he works as hard on his batting as he apparently has on his bowling then he will not only be worth his place as an allrounder. He could join that very small group who could get in a Test side either for batting or for bowling. And that really would be something wouldn't it?

Anderson's behaviour is wrong, but the England coach's endorsement of it is the real scandal.

As a long time supporter of England, and commentator on cricket I deplore Jimmy Anderson's approach to the game - his bowling, batting, fielding and commitment aside of course! But there is no place for verbal abuse in sport, and indeed cricket is the only sport which continues to tolerate it. The so-called "Spirit of Cricket" is pious nonsense ignored by 99% of professional players.

Whatever Anderson may have done at Trent Bridge is not now the main issue. That is such statements as "Jimmy plays it hard on the pitch, I think that is what international sport is” from Peter Moores in response to the ICC decision The England coach clearly equates "playing hard" with sledging it seems. The Laws of the game preclude unsporting behaviour. And England's coach endorses someone who ignores these Laws. That's the real scandal here. 

Wko killed England Cricket?

Who killed England Cricket?

I, said the Aussie Quick,

with my fearsome pace,

I killed England Cricket.

Who saw him die?

I, said the Barmy,

with my little eye,

I saw him die.

Who gave up his Ashes?

I, said the Cook,

with my doleful look

I gave up The Ashes.

Who'll make the shroud?

I, said the Media,

with my caustic words,

I'll make the shroud.

Who'll dig his grave?

I, said the Public,

when I stay away,

I'll dig his grave.

Who'll be the parson?

I, said Sir Geoffrey,

with my rhubarb stick,

I'll be the parson.

Who'll be the Clarke?

I, said the Giles,

if it's not my fault,

I'll be the Clarke.

Who'll carry the can?

You will dear KP,

It was all your fault 

So you'll carry the can.

Who'll be chief mourner?

We will, said us all,

Mourning for our past

We'll be chief mourner.

Who'll carry the coffin?

I will, said the bag man,

through the lonely night,

I'll carry the coffin.

Who'll bear the pall?

We, said the Fans,

A forgotten tribe,

We'll bear the pall.

Who'll sing a psalm?

I, said the Tenor,

as did his feet..,

He'll sing a psalm.

Who'll toll the Bell?

I said little Ian,

I'll cut out the  pull,

I'll toll the Bell.

All the birds of the air

fell a-sighing and a-sobbing,

when they heard the bell toll

for poor England Cricket.

It's not Kevin Pietersen who changed....a look back to 2005

Back in April 2005, just before that glorious cricketing summer when Kevin Pietersen made his Test debut and helped England regain The Ashes, "The Cricketer" magazine ran a profile of KP by Emma John. I have returned to it nine years on and, in the light of Pietersen's career and a few months after his precipitate sacking by the apparatchiks of the ECB, it makes interesting reading. 

In early 2005 KP made his debut as an England cricketer in One Day Internationals in a tour of South Africa. He played six innings scoring 454 runs with three centuries and one fifty. Richard Hobson described his performances as revealing that he “thrives on a challenge” – in this early case the boos and stares from the players and supporters of South Africa who felt, understandably, that Pietersen had abandoned them. This was a view by many in or close to the world of cricket. Peter Oborne, biographer of Basil D’Oliveira and a journalist who always speaks his mind, summed up a commonly held view: “Pietersen ought to be a proud member of the post-Apartheid South African team and helping the country of his birth. Instead he’s barged into an England team where he doesn’t belong” he wrote at that time in the London “Evening Standard”.

Emma John met with Pietersen and found, unsurprisingly, that he was no shy retiring violet! “I’m a good-looking lad,” he told her, “I can pull anything off, Eh?” He was referring to his highlighted hair but he could have been talking about his personality – perhaps he was! In the interview it is clear that KP and his agent Adam Wheatley were very consciously building the Pietersen brand. It’s about the hairstyle, the clothes and the media exposure. He was not the first cricketer to do this, but to do it from the start and before he had even played a Test match was certainly new! 

At the ODI in Johannesburg Pietersen had shepherded England to a Duckworth/Lewis victory. He said this about it “I think that innings [of 22 not out] was one of the biggest I’ll probably play in International cricket. It just helped me settle down…35,000 people are booing you, every single person wants you out, every single person hates you.” This was a revealing insight into KP’s character. He found the opposition motivating not the reverse. He was, even then in those early days, determined to beat the system. And if there are some casualties along the way he’s not going to be too bothered. Tanya Aldred, writing in The Guardian, had said that Pietersen “…has a record of pissing people off. Jason Gallian, his captain at Nottinghamshire, threw his kit bag out of the window. His team-mates did not shed many tears when he left to go to Hampshire for the forthcoming season.” 

Emma John asked KP to explain his method, which was unusual for an English player developed as it had been in South African conditions. He said “In one-day cricket you have to be able to hit a ball into three different areas at once…I open up the off-side, I go down the ground, I open up the leg-side and I try to make sure I get a run a ball… My style doesn’t change” He said, however, that in Test cricket “…I won’t have to hit the ball through the leg-side all the time. There’ll be more scoring options all over”. Amazing confidence from someone who was yet to play a Test match!

This confidence Emma John describes thus “Listening to him, you cannot avoid the force of his self-confidence, as a fly cannot avoid a windscreen…He reminds me of a teenager, keen to appear grown-up and savvy but unable to hide his excitement” She asks KP whether he has any doubts “He looks almost surprised to hear the word… “I think cricket is a big-time confidence game and I don’t think I’ve got any doubts at the minute…” he says” 

Emma John wrote that Kevin Pietersen’s “…self assurance, along with the accent, is probably one of the most un-British things about him”. This is a view which in the light of recent events and especially in the context of England’s current struggles is very revealing. Over KP’s England career we became used to his extraordinary bravado. Sometimes it let him down of course. But so often it led to his playing an extraordinary innings which helped lead England to victory.” In 2005 Simon Briggs wrote this “[Pietersen] is a very independent character, as anyone who ups sticks and moves to the other side of the world is always likely to be”. England’s selectors must have known what they were doing when they picked him, warts and all, for his first Test match at Lord’s in that Ashes summer. He scored 57 and 64* and followed that with 71 in the first innings at Edgbaston… the rest is history. 

Kevin Pietersen’s “…cricket is a big-time confidence game” was a precociously accurate remark. England’s recent sad decline is not because they don’t have talented cricketers any more - it is because the experienced cricketers have lost their confidence. Look at how the batsmen new to Test cricket, Sam Robson, Gary Balance, Joe Root and Moeen Ali have all scored centuries recently whilst the established stars, Alastair Cook, Ian Bell, Matt Prior (etc.) have struggled. And some. And look how Cook’s pedestrian and cautious captaincy has all too often failed. Maybe like Kevin Pietersen back in 2005 the tyros don’t know how difficult Test cricket is! The air of gloom around the England camp during The 2013/14 Ashes and subsequently is palpable. I suspect that on tour KP tried to relieve the gloom in his own cocky way – and as a result fell foul of the Flower/Cook axis. They chose to see his behaviour as arrogance or disinterest. But the evidence from back in the spring of 2005 is that Pietersen, the Voortrekker made Pom, was never going to be the introspective English public-schoolboy that the England and Wales Cricket Board now sees as proper leadership material. And good captains, especially Michael Vaughan in 2005, knew that KP was a bit wayward and could be a trial sometimes. In the same way that Mike Brearley got the best out of Ian Botham back in 1981 so Vaughan got the best out of Kevin Pietersen in 2005. By 2013 KP was a highly experienced as well as a talented cricketer. If there was some falling off in his performance surely that could be seen as temporary. And if he was sometimes a pain in the arse on that Ashes tour – well it wouldn’t have been the first time! 

How odd and revealing it was that when the most significant thing that was missing from England’s performances on tour and in the run up to the 2014 season was confidence that the ECB chose to dispense with the services of England’s most confident player! All the signs of Pietersen’s character were there back in 2005 and you have to say he didn’t really change much over time. What changed was the willingness on the part of the cricket authorities to cope with this unusual talent. Shame on them.