There was an earnest informality about it. The Writing Room in the Lord’s pavilion, with the writers assembled around the large table there, a cabinet table almost, with, seated in the middle of one side, Andrew Strauss, new into the job of director of cricket, and Tom Harrison, the England and Wales Cricket Board’s chief executive.
It was appropriate too because there was a noticeably spin-doctored political element to the presentation: Harrison, suited but with an open neck in a business-like ‘Call Me Dave’ sort of way; and Strauss, no jacket, open neck, although cuff-links glinting rather than sleeves rolled up as politicians like to be photographed when “getting on with the job”. It was all brisk and business-like.
Strauss is articulate, well-briefed but knows his own mind and it is easy to see how he commanded such respect in the dressing room. There was no attempt at humour and the talking, when it came to the most pressing subject of Kevin Pietersen, was as straight as could be allowed by the constraints imposed by the lawyers of both sides who have been feeding voraciously ever since Paul Downton told Pietersen at the start of last year that he would not be selected for the World T20 and limited overs tour of the Caribbean. The player then immediately moved to terminate his own contract in order to enter the forthcoming IPL auction. Which is to say that it is apparently not within the legal remit of the ECB to state that Pietersen can never again be selected to play for England. So instead they must continue to reiterate that he is not part of the plans for the foreseeable future.
It is, of course, no surprise that Strauss should come to this conclusion right from the start. He spoke about the lack of trust between the ECB and Pietersen that made the decision inevitable, and if this has the whiff of an attempt to spin the real situation, then there is no one, with the possible exception of Andy Flower, better qualified to talk with authority on what that lack of trust involved. So it was disappointing that Strauss, with an answer straight from the politicians’ handbook, chose instead to insist that bringing out the dirty laundry, as he called it, would serve no purpose, when “it is what it is” and that “a line was being drawn”. It certainly did not sit happily with Harrison’s earlier assertion that it was time for the ECB to be open and honest. Lawyers again no doubt.
Strauss had been to see Pietersen as a priority to convey his thoughts in person, a meeting arranged before the batsman had embarked on his epic innings against Leicestershire and, while he was only offering the sort of news Pietersen was already familiar with, it would not have been cordial. “He was not happy,” said Strauss, “but then I would not have expected him to be.” How much Pietersen actually believed in his apparent interpretation of Colin Graves’ clumsy blunt-northerner response to a Garry Richardson ambush only he really knows. A base-price IPL contract, paltry by Pietersen’s standards, and in an unattractive city as well, gave him the opportunity to challenge what had appeared to be a gauntlet thrown down by Graves, and in those terms it is hard to fault him, no matter who the runs have come against.
But then the issue has never really been about Pietersen’s quality as the finest England batsman of his generation. His record stands comparison with the very best to have represented the country. Instead, as Strauss will have done to himself anyway, it is necessary to cast the mind back, for there are some very short memories of things which cannot simply be erased by 355 unbeaten runs in a county match. There was the start of it when Pietersen announced to Flower that he intended to give up ODI cricket and was told that this did not sit with the contract he had only recently signed. There was the manner in which he ran Strauss and Flower ragged during the South Africa series (something milked to the full by the South Africans, and who can blame them). There was his behaviour during the Ashes series in Australia, described to me by more than one person close to it as “toxic”. And finally there was his book, a sad embittered vitriolic epitaph on a great international career.
It is easy to wonder how Strauss should come to his decision now from a dispassionate viewpoint, but these are things that any person in his position would have taken into account when making an objective assessment. Whether or not one agrees with the appointment of Strauss, his integrity ought not to be questioned.
Whatever the undercurrents (and no doubt they will keep swirling for a while yet), Strauss is employed to bring a new strategic imperative to the England team “going forward” in the vogue parlance.
He sees a definite need for one-day cricket to be treated as a different entity to Test cricket, a standpoint long overdue not just within the game but from a public perception. There is an irony in him giving backing to Eoin Morgan specifically as one-day captain, for it was the desire to unify the roles that gave Pietersen the captaincy as the only credible person guaranteed to play all three formats.
Strauss does not believe that having a separate coach would be helpful but expressed a desire to tap into the vast amount of cricketing knowledge to be gained from those within the game still and those no longer playing, and to this end, intends to set up an advisory group when it comes to white ball cricket. Pietersen, understandably and not unexpectedly, declined the request to join this. However, it is quite feasible that Strauss could appoint a specialist one-day assistant who could spend time seconded to one of the Big Bash franchises (for which there is a willingness in Australia) and also within the IPL. It is worth pointing out that Paul Farbrace, who is to run the team during the forthcoming series against New Zealand while the appointment of a new head coach is decided, won the World T20 and the Asia Cup with Sri Lanka during his brief period in charge there before taking up his assistant coach’s job with England a year ago.
The backing of Alastair Cook as Test captain seemed less unequivocal and there was significance in his immediate advancement of Joe Root as vice-captain in place of Ian Bell. Cook, he felt, should stay on, to offer some stability in what has been a time of upheaval, and spoke of his strength of character during the past two years. It would take a monumental cricketing disaster for him not to lead England into the Ashes. There was no backing beyond that though, and those who might want to perceive a closeness between Strauss and Cook – one of England’s most successful opening partnerships – do not know Strauss.
If and when the time comes, he will not be messing about.
