Graeme Swann Retires from International Cricket

First topic message reminder :

An already struggling England received another jolt today as Graeme Swann, one of the most successful spinners in the history of English cricket made a retirement announcement mid series.
Swann has announced that he won't play the remaining 2 games of the series and the retirement has come into immediate effect. Swann said that he had already known that retirement was not too far away as the body was struggling to meet the demands of a 5 day game. But he wanted to contribute to a 4th successive Ashes win, and now that the series is gone, there is no point playing on.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013-14/content/current/story/702897.html

alfie wrote:The Martyn one was a bit different though as it was a home series. Would there be so much fuss about Swann if he were not on tour ?

Though the fact that Australia were winning in his case is actually not really so different ; in this case the series has been decided so Swann cannot really be accused of deserting under fire , any more than Martyn.

Sorry, I can't agree with that at all, alfie.

As I said above to Craig - there is a huge difference deciding to quit when your team is 3-0 up heading for a 5-0 win.... and quitting when your team is 3-0 down and possibly heading for another 5-0 whitewash. Martyn's retirement was also overshadowed by even bigger announcements later on in Sydney during that series. That's the best time to hang up one's boots - on a winning note.

Born Slippy wrote:The problem as I see it is that we could really do with trying to get Finn into the team. If we do look to do that (in place of Bresnan) then we can't also play Panesar. We have to go for a spinner who can bat a bit. Is Adel Rashid now that bad a bowler he isn't worth considering?

Not impossible though : assuming Finn gets back to his best at bowling , a last four of Broad Finn Anderson and Panesar - which is what we had in New Zealand anyway - is playable , at least in the short term. As long as the top seven are doing their job with the bat. As we see here in Australia , a "strong" tail - at least on paper , with Swann at ten - is not much practical use when the batsmen aren't doing their jobs.

In general I would prefer to pick the most suitable bowlers ; though I agree you do have to consider the balance of the team as well. We don't want that 1999 lineup that ended up with Tufnell Mullally and Giddins again !

Hoggy - have to admit I didn't realise Tredwell had such a hard time of it in the County Championship last year. Still feel an old hand is the way to go in the short term and in the absence of others, together with my concerns over Panesar, I would stick with Tredwell.

It's certainly a lot easier to make a case for who shouldn't be included than who should. That's not a pop at you. Just a reflection of the current state of affairs.

Have I missed out any obvious young guns? I rather hope I have! Who would be your choice for the summer?

Linebreaker wrote:

alfie wrote:The Martyn one was a bit different though as it was a home series. Would there be so much fuss about Swann if he were not on tour ?

Though the fact that Australia were winning in his case is actually not really so different ; in this case the series has been decided so Swann cannot really be accused of deserting under fire , any more than Martyn.

Sorry, I can't agree with that at all, alfie.

As I said above to Craig - there is a huge difference deciding to quit when your team is 3-0 up heading for a 5-0 win.... and quitting when your team is 3-0 down and possibly heading for another 5-0 whitewash. Martyn's retirement was also overshadowed by even bigger announcements later on in Sydney during that series. That's the best time to hang up one's boots - on a winning note.

Sure there is a difference in that one is quitting in triumph while the other is a bit of a downer...but I reckon that is more an issue for the player himself. I am sure Swann would have preferred to go out a winner ; but that option wasn't available to him   

The essential similarity is that in each case it didn't matter all that much to the team , as the series was over. Retiring before the Perth Test would have been a different matter. One can argue that avoiding a five-nil defeat is still important to England ( I am sure it is !) but if Swann is sure he is no longer fit for purpose...

guildfordbat wrote:Hoggy - have to admit I didn't realise Tredwell had such a hard time of it in the County Championship last year. Still feel an old hand is the way to go in the short term and in the absence of others, together with my concerns over Panesar, I would stick with Tredwell.

It's certainly a lot easier to make a case for who shouldn't be included than who should. That's not a pop at you. Just a reflection of the current state of affairs.

Have I missed out any obvious young guns? I rather hope I have! Who would be your choice for the summer?

Yep there are certainly no real stand-out candidates. That's why IMO it would be better to try and identify a player who is likely to develop further rather than one who would, possibly, just be a stop gap. Of course that could well backfire, but I think that now is a time for England to take a few risks.

Evening all.

Xmas break for me (and also coincidentally a birthday meaning I move into a (wiser?) different quarter of century), so presence on these boards may be a bit more sporadic over the next fortnight or so. However lots of interesting debate here which merits comment.

I have to say the news took me completely and utterly by surprise.

I believe we don't know anything like the full extent of the story. I would like to think that Swann had discussed this with his team-mates and the coaching staff, or at the very least informed them of the decision a fair amount of time before we all found out.

Without knowing the full story I feel reticent to comment. However on the face of things the timing is at best unfortunate and at worst completely inconsiderate or even disrespectful. I'm trying to work out what I would think as a coach (and player) if something similar were to happen: I think on the one hand I'd appreciate the honesty, but on the other I'd be desperately disappointed that someone would "give up".

But I do find it very hard to comment without knowing more, so with apologies for sitting on the fence, I can't give any kind of definitive judgement in these circumstances.

As for Swann's career, that he is the best English spinner since Underwood and amongst the top 5 all-time English spinners is clear; that he may be better than Underwood and closer to that top 3 is up for debate, and no doubt when the dust has settled that debate will be very interesting and worth having. In any case he's always been a joy to watch bowl.

Regarding where England go next.

The first thing is to manage expectations and not demand that the next guy performs as well as Swann did. Somebody who can do the job that Lyon has done for Aus recently would do just fine.

In the short term it will have to be Panesar or Tredwell I reckon. I would tend to side with guildford and plump for Tredwell in most conditions. He strikes me as a more clever bowler than Panesar with a few more variations in flight and spin which will produce more wickets on flat pitches. I think a while back (when England were in New Zealand) guildford commented along the lines that Panesar was undoubtedly the best foil for Swann, but that didn't necessarily make him the best replacement - that struck me as particularly perceptive, and I don't see that much has changed since. I expect Panesar to get first bite though.

With respect to the youngsters coming through, from what I have seen Briggs is too one-dimensional (in his bowling); Kerrigan clearly lacked bottle, but could conceivably recover. Rayner should be forgotten about - he is an honest county performer, but not even the best spinner at Middlesex (often picked because he can bat); nowhere near test class.

Dockrell and Ansari are similar characters in that they are thinking bowlers who rely on subtle variations of flight - neither will root up trees, but both could do a job; it remains to be seen whether test cricket is a step up too far, but I would say of the finger spinning options those two stand up as the better cricketers. They are a long way from being ready yet, but in a couple of years or so who knows? Ansari is of course a decent batsman as well.

Borthwick really excited me a couple of years back but has gone backwards with his bowling (whilst his batting has really come on). If he is serious about becoming an international leg-spinner (and it is very very hard, as the likes of Steve Smith and Imran Tahir can attest to) then really he needs to change county. It looks like he is transforming into a batting all-rounder (a bit like Smith) which is not necessarily a bad thing, but England will want a specialist spinner as well.

No calls for Samit Patel as a stop gap? Although I'm not really a fan, if he is as good as some would have it, England could certainly do worse than picking a 5 man attack with him as the spinner...

Mike Selig wrote:

In the short term it will have to be Panesar or Tredwell I reckon. I would tend to side with guildford and plump for Tredwell in most conditions. He strikes me as a more clever bowler than Panesar with a few more variations in flight and spin which will produce more wickets on flat pitches. I think a while back (when England were in New Zealand) guildford commented along the lines that Panesar was undoubtedly the best foil for Swann, but that didn't necessarily make him the best replacement - that struck me as particularly perceptive, and I don't see that much has changed since. I expect Panesar to get first bite though.

Gosh! Thanks, Mike. I'm quite chuffed about my earlier comment. I do recall it now. Just wish I had remembered it before you. Problems of being in my third quarter of a century. Anyway, a few more years and you'll be more than half my age!  Hope it was a good one.

alfie wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:

alfie wrote:The Martyn one was a bit different though as it was a home series. Would there be so much fuss about Swann if he were not on tour ?

Though the fact that Australia were winning in his case is actually not really so different ; in this case the series has been decided so Swann cannot really be accused of deserting under fire , any more than Martyn.

Sorry, I can't agree with that at all, alfie.

As I said above to Craig - there is a huge difference deciding to quit when your team is 3-0 up heading for a 5-0 win.... and quitting when your team is 3-0 down and possibly heading for another 5-0 whitewash. Martyn's retirement was also overshadowed by even bigger announcements later on in Sydney during that series. That's the best time to hang up one's boots - on a winning note.

Sure there is a difference in that one is quitting in triumph while the other is a bit of a downer...but I reckon that is more an issue for the player himself.  I am sure Swann would have preferred to go out a winner ; but that option wasn't available to him   

The essential similarity is that in each case it didn't matter all that much to the team , as the series was over. Retiring before the Perth Test would have been a different matter. One can argue that avoiding a five-nil defeat is still important to England ( I am sure it is !) but if Swann is sure he is no longer fit for purpose...

I think the Damien Martyn situation was more akin to Graeme Trotts' situation than Graeme Swanns..... He disappeared off the face of the earth with virtually no contact with the rest of the players. It may have not been diagnosed as "stress related" but I think that would have been a fair description.

My own view is that Swann has let down his teammates rather badly. He either should have stayed and tried to be one of the senior players leading the young players in trying to regain some pride whether that be on or off the field. Rumors are rife of some major splits in the English camp and this has only fuelled those fires.



(Oh and btw hello again...some of the "more mature" contributors will remember me as Slaters Love Child or just SLC... Ive been around but just occasionally reading with interest the always intelligent discourse on these pages...)

It sounds as if Swann had just about had it with some of the Tourists, BBC quoting him as saying some players, assumed to include former teammates, are "up their own backsides".
Upcoming version two of his autobiography should be interesting.

James Tread well and Scott Borthwick have been called into the Ashes squad following Swann's retirement. If they are going to give either the chance in the remaining tests it would make more sense if it were Scott Borthwick.

kwinigolfer wrote:It sounds as if Swann had just about had it with some of the Tourists, BBC quoting him as saying some players, assumed to include former teammates, are "up their own backsides".
Upcoming version two of his autobiography should be interesting.

Nope not true. Swann has clarified it is nobody in current or past England squads. He re-iterated this and followed on from his original press conference where he said he has enjoyed every minute with the England squads during his career.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:It sounds as if Swann had just about had it with some of the Tourists, BBC quoting him as saying some players, assumed to include former teammates, are "up their own backsides".
Upcoming version two of his autobiography should be interesting.

Nope not true. Swann has clarified it is nobody in current or past England squads. He re-iterated this and followed on from his original press conference where he said he has enjoyed every minute with the England squads during his career.

Come on though do you really think the denial of a spur if the moment off the cuff comment is likely to be nearer the truth? Any more so than when he true o backtrack on what he said in his biography.

Would it be any great surprise if there had been done differences of opinion in team meetings and division in the squad? Involving a player known to be disliked by swann?

Well people should wait until the book comes out before inventing things for themselves. If not then we are adding liar to somehow letting England down to Swann's growing list of heinous crimes.

Swann is leaving a massive hole in our declining team. I'm assuming Paneser will play at Melbourne, and have his name penciled in, if he does ok in the remaining games?

Good luck to Swanny, one of England's finest spinners, and characters.

They called Tredwell and Borthwick....what's the point, this tour management does not have the courage to play the young and exciting.
So they called that young left arm seamer and have Rankin also in the squad.....but they play tried, tested trundler Bresnan.

Monty will play so why waste sponsors money in getting 2 and not one repalcements.

Although if Eng define the role of spinner as a "restrictor", Tredwell is better from he ook of him I had in champions trophy.
And everyone can bat and field better than Monty

KP_fan wrote:They called Tredwell and Borthwick....what's the point, this tour management does not have the courage to play the young and exciting.
So they called that young left arm seamer and have Rankin also in the squad.....but they play tried, tested trundler Bresnan.

Monty will play so why waste sponsors money in getting 2 and not one repalcements.

Although if Eng define the role of spinner as a "restrictor", Tredwell is better from he ook of him I had in champions trophy.
And everyone can bat and field better than Monty

You're right, they keep on picking the old and tested, like Stokes, for instance.

Lets not forget Joe Root.

Swann shouldn't have quit mid way through the series.

But it was coming. He never recovered from his injury and clearly wasn't enjoying it any more.

Its probally better to try some one else out anyway as its time to rebuild. This is not the end of the world, just kick starting the new beginning

Well they picked Stokes , so that argument falls to the ground immediately , KP f   

Why bring these two out ? Maybe with an eye to Sydney ...I am fairly sure Monty will play in Melbourne...and perhaps partly to get Borthwick into the squad straight away , now that the succession planning for Swann has been , as it were , brought forward...

Not that it matters what they do to KP f : if they did pick Borthwick immediately it would doubtless be portrayed as unfair to Monty . Or Kerrigan. Or Finn   

Incidentally : while lots of people are busy criticizing and speculating over the Swann business , it might be worth reading what Ashley Mallett - who knows a bit more about spin bowling , and Swann , than most of us - has to say.
His piece can be found on cricinfo for anyone interested.

When England started the charge up the rankings in all forms of cricket- We had a clear vision and it was about having no passengers. Everyone was fit. Everyone could field and everyone was up for it.

I think fielding is under rated. Monty is just not up to it. Pick the young spinner

mystiroakey wrote:When England started the charge up the rankings in all forms of cricket- We had a clear vision and it was about having no passengers. Everyone was fit. Everyone could field and everyone was up for it.

I think fielding is under rated. Monty is just not up to it. Pick the young spinner

Pick the best spinner. You don't play Heskey instead of Messi cause he can tackle better.

Stella wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:When England started the charge up the rankings in all forms of cricket- We had a clear vision and it was about having no passengers. Everyone was fit. Everyone could field and everyone was up for it.

I think fielding is under rated. Monty is just not up to it. Pick the young spinner

Pick the best spinner. You don't play Heskey instead of Messi cause he can tackle better.

Monty is only that much better in the sub.

We need to get a new lad bled in

You are both right.

Monty is the best spinner available , and will probably be the immediate replacement.

But his fielding is a serious liability , especially on big grounds (and he is no spring chicken anyway ) so a younger of more all round ability needs to be developed, soon as possible.

Hence the Borthwick call up , I imagine.

Monty most likely for the tests with borthwick if they decide on two spinners again for one.

Tredwell and borthwick for the limited overs games.

If borthwick is showing good signs he might get the nod in the summer, lets wait and see.

Woke up today wondering who else might have retired   
Seems everyone other than Cook, Bell and Broad has been the subject either of rumours that they are about to retire or calls for them to be dropped/'rested'. So I thought "Sod it! Why not just keep Cook, Bell and Broad and bring in a load of youngsters for the last two tests".
Something like:

Cook
Robson
Root
Bell
Ballance
Stokes
Bairstow
Borthwick
Broad
Rankin
Mills

Just let them have a run out. We're probably going to lose 5-0 anyway. So let the senior players 'rest' and have a good look at the possible future. 
You know it makes sense   

Wouldn't call Rankin a "youngster" , Hoggy   

Apart from that , it all makes about as much sense as you intended it to   

I was only half joking alfie

alfie,
Enjoyed reading that Ashley Mallett piece, thanks.

Also a timely reminder that Mallett himself was a decent bowler; perhaps more so in retrospect than it might have seemed at the time. Was shocked to see he'd toured England four times.

But is Swann as the "best English off spinner since Laker" a fair assessment? High praise if we really think that's accurate, but certainly the whole package, including batting and fielding might take some beating.

kwinigolfer wrote:alfie,
Enjoyed reading that Ashley Mallett piece, thanks.

Also a timely reminder that Mallett himself was a decent bowler; perhaps more so in retrospect than it might have seemed at the time. Was shocked to see he'd toured England four times.

But is Swann as the "best English off spinner since Laker" a fair assessment? High praise if we really think that's accurate, but certainly the whole package, including batting and fielding might take some beating.

Can't think of another English off-spinner since Laker who would challenge Swann for that title Kwini. David Allen? Ray Illingworth? Fred Titmus? Pat Pocock? John Embury?
Indeed, the only English spinner of any type really since Laker who would rank ahead of Swann (and then only slightly) would be Underwood IMO and, as an all-round package you'd probably plump for Swann over him.

Some good names there Hoggy, surprised there's no-one really in the frame post-Emburey (during the dark ages pre-internet for me!).

I was always a big David Allen fan, but clearly he had nothing like the record of Swann. Underrated bowler though, and a decent batsman, average 25 for England.

As for Emburey, wasn't he famous for his prodigious "length"?

Probably standout spinners post-Emburey would have been Ashley Giles, Robert Croft and Phil Tufnell. I was going to say Phil Edmonds but I believe he falls into the Emburey era.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Probably standout spinners post-Emburey would have been Ashley Giles, Robert Croft and Phil Tufnell. I was going to say Phil Edmonds but I believe he falls into the Emburey era.

Craig - I'm delighted that you regard Ashley Giles as a stand out spinner. Briefly repeating details of an occasion I've bored others with before - with my team 9 wickets down, I once batted out his final over of the day for us to scrape a draw. Mind you, I was almost 30 at the time whilst the future King of Spain was about 15!   

Well England haven't been blessed with many 100+ test wicket taking spinners in recent times and I know Giles is one of those I mentioned but not so sure about Croft or Tuffers.

Tuffers surely had the talent . . . . .

Yes Tuffers is in the 100+ test wicket-takers club. He has just over 120 to his name. Not Croft though who is just around the 50 mark.

Not sure why some are accusing Swann of deserting a sinking ship.

The battle has been fought, the battle has been lost. Melbourne and Sydney are dead rubbers.

If he retired after Brisbane or Adelaide then fair enough, but he didn't.

I do understand his point. He'd only be playing for sentimentality sake. Someone else gets the chance to go do something big now. Where England go in other key positions makes it all very interesting for me from now.

Kind of prefer when Cricket and Crisis are in the same stories, doesnt feel English otherwise!

Duty,
We'd (every sports team) be in a right pickle if players took a hike every time the match/series was beyond them.

England had already lost Trott - I'm sure there have been conversations before Swann's departure but what now if other players decide they fancy Christmas in Bali (or Billericay for that matter)?

"Thank you Alastair, I bowled carp and my batting was worse, we've been thrashed so now I'm going to do a runner." Who's next, Pietersen? Prior??

These guys are called "professionals" for a reason.

Swann is no spring chicken and has had bouts of surgery on a long running injury. He even said he contemplated quitting after last summer's Ashes. He probably wishes he had now. He says he feels he cannot perform to the old high standard come the fourth and fifth day of a test match so can somebody please tell me why he should have hung around like a bad smell? He has done his bit for king and country and I cannot see how it can be claimed (after his career) that he has let anybody down.

So England have called up Borthwick and Tredwell. Tredwell's FC record is rather average isn't it? Borthwick's is worse? How would the posters who'd have seen Borthwick bowling rate his legspin? I remember England picking Ian Blackwell for a series in India as a series spin option and that proved to be a pretty poor choice. They picked Samit Patel as a 2nd spinner where in he looked more like a 3rd spinner, not quite test class, but not really parttime either. When Swann or Monty are around its just about manageable to go in with an option if every aspect of the team is in fine working order. But I doubt whether it would be a sensible approach on a regular basis. How's Borthwick in terms of offering control? Is he good enough as a containing bowler?
Think I'd stick with Monty in tests and Tredwell in limited overs for the near future, and that's not just the reminder of this series. By the way, Tredwell took some serious tapping at the hands of the Australians in the ODI series last summer didn't he?

Scott Borthwick, as most leg spinners are, is more of a wicket-taker than a containing bowler at the moment. He'd have to feature as part of a 5-man attack if he were to play as he couldn't be relied on to hold up an end in a 4-man attack. When I've seen him bowl he has always bowled poorly, but his FC record is fairly reasonable with an average of 31, S/R of 50 but an economy of 3.7. England clearly like him, he has a good temperament, but it would be a huge gamble to throw him into the Test arena especially with the penchant that Australia have had with attacking the English spinners (Kerrigan, Tredwell in the ODI's and now Swann). If Borthwick wants to make it as a spinner in international cricket he will have to move from Durham as he just won't bowl enough overs with Onions and Rushworth skittling sides for 180.

Monty will play for now. You know what you will get with Monty, he'll probably keep it very tight and if the pitch is turning he'll cause some problems. He won't tear up any trees, but he is very useful as a place holder whilst we looks for the next in line or wait for a Kerrigan or Borthwick to develop.

Still a bit disappointed with Swann. Think he should have stayed on to the end of the series. It's not like anyone is banging down the door to replace him or anyone is demanding he be replaced. I wish him well, and he's been a great servant to England, but the way his career has drawn to a close has put a bit of a downer on him for me. I'm sure that will fade with time mind.

msp83 wrote:So England have called up Borthwick and Tredwell. Tredwell's FC record is rather average isn't it? Borthwick's is worse? How would the posters who'd have seen Borthwick bowling rate his legspin? I remember England picking Ian Blackwell for a series in India as a series spin option and that proved to be a pretty poor choice. They picked Samit Patel as a 2nd spinner where in he looked more like a 3rd spinner, not quite test class, but not really parttime either. When Swann or Monty are around its just about manageable to go in with an option if every aspect of the team is in fine working order. But I doubt whether it would be a sensible approach on a regular basis. How's Borthwick in terms of offering control? Is he good enough as a containing bowler?
Think I'd stick with Monty in tests and Tredwell in limited overs for the near future, and that's not just the reminder of this series. By the way, Tredwell took some serious tapping at the hands of the Australians in the ODI series last summer didn't he?

Msp - I covered Borthwick briefly (I've only seen him 'live' once) in my post to you last (UK) night on page 2 of this thread when I particularly concentrated on Tredwell and suggested he hold the fort.

I've always liked Tredwell see. He's a thinking bowler and has plenty of variety. I would like to see him given a go at some point but they'll obviously go for Monty but I just can't overlook his fielding which still and never will be up to scratch.

I liked Borthwick as a bowler a couple of years back. A bit like a young Steve Smith. Seems to have gone backwards unfortunately, and doesn't bowl all that much at Durham.
A "classical" leg-spinner if you like (not a Kumble style bowler). Gives it a decent rip.
There is a reason though why there haven't been all that many successful "classical" leg-spinners in history, let alone now. It is very very difficult; even more so when you're not bowling week-in week-out and your county are encouraging you to work more on your batting.

Whoever England pick you can be sure Australia will go after.

I will be a little surprised if England pick Borthwick for Melbourne. Though a fair few things on this tour have surprised me already , so who knows ?

One thing in favour of Borthwick or other potential new spinners is that Swann's exit has coincided with the appearance of the first apparently realistic prospect , in Stokes , of a genuine allrounder - allowing a new bowler to find his feet under the slightly lessened pressure of being part of a five man attack. (I do share the reservations of some posters - guildford and Mike , I think ? - about Stokes as a long term number six : one century doesn't prove it all , and we will have to see how he develops. )

Without being disrespectfull to Sri Lanka or India  , however , neither are likely to present quite as much pressure with the ball in English conditions as Australia are currently exerting . So I would expect Stokes to occupy that position for the home summer to come , at least , affording some opportunity for experimentation with the spin department.
At least in that area , Swann's retirement timing may yet prove beneficial to his team.

One could almost say stokes has been given an opportunity (and woakes in the last test of the summer) to give the flexibility of a five bowler attack specifically for when swanns replacement is selected. Or maybe I am giving the selectors too much credit here for forward planning.

Stella wrote:

KP_fan wrote:They called Tredwell and Borthwick....what's the point, this tour management does not have the courage to play the young and exciting.
So they called that young left arm seamer and have Rankin also in the squad.....but they play tried, tested trundler Bresnan.

Monty will play so why waste sponsors money in getting 2 and not one repalcements.

Although if Eng define the role of spinner as a "restrictor", Tredwell is better from he ook of him I had in champions trophy.
And everyone can bat and field better than Monty

You're right, they keep on picking the old and tested, like Stokes, for instance.

ohhh so you are suggesting there is an even an iota of doubt about Monty playing

Hiya

I normally post on the rugby boards but popped over to see if there was anything more on Swann on the boards here.

To me there must be something more here. Even if his elbow is not up to playing the next test to abandon the tour would hint at something else amiss. I have always thought Swan a bit of an arse - in a team full of them. Has he spat the dummy? Can he no longer stand the sight of some of his teammates? Has he been told to retire now or be sacked?

Just seems to me there is more to this than what we see on the surface but I have heard no hint.

TJ you are barking up the wrong tree. Delve through his co-players comments who are all complimentary about his positive influence in the dressing room and out on the field and say how much he will be missed. Hardly words about someone who is supposedly stabbing co-players in the back is it? He has had bouts of surgery for a long-standing injury and is 34 - why not just congratulate him on his career and wish him well in the future?

The parts you say you don't like about him - what are they? Only things you can say about him is he has got over-exuberant/boisterous during past Ashes celebrations and has spoken without engaging his brain first. Apart from that no big issues that I, or any cricket pundits/experts can see.