Flower vs KP - Are the Battle Lines being drawn?

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jan/07/andy-flower-england-team-director-kevin-pietersen

Interesting article on the Guardian suggesting that Andy Flower’s decision to either stay on as England director of cricket may rest on whether Kevin Pietersen remains part of the England set up. According to the article Flower has become increasingly exasperated with both Pietersen’s cavalier attitude to batting and the effect his ego has on the dressing room, with the root of the issues dating back to the infamous texts he sent to the South African players.

I really do not know what to make of this, think in any sport or team no player can be bigger than the team and the same should apply to KP. I can also have some sympathy with his views on KP’s batting, I have often thought that I struggle to think of a player of comparable talent who gets out in quite so many stupid ways. It also seems somewhat clear that KP has an ego to match his prodigious talent.

However whilst all this may be true as someone posted on another thread is the job of management not to manage egos and different personalities and get the best of them. Would have to think at the top levels of sport egos and over inflated opinions of one’s own worth are not exactly unusual traits to encounter. Also from a purely cricketing perspective whilst Pietersen may have many faults he is a box office player, perhaps the only English batsman we have capable of gluing you to your seat as a viewer or turning a game round single handedly in the space of a session. Surely there has to be a place for such a player in the team?

Where do we stand on this? Is Flower as the overall gaffer right to make such a stance and demand, can KP be forgiven for arguably seeing off two head coaches? Is he getting to an age where his contributions to the team do not justify the baggage that is seemingly part and parcel. Would be an ignominious end to a fine career but could Pietersen’s days as an England player be coming to an end?

Just read that before you posted it Jeff. Pietersen has won every battle in his England career. Moores Strauss etc and I suspect he'll come out of this one in good shape. I really don't know who I'd side with. Pretty disappointed with them both

I read when Kirsten was managing the Indian team he had to tread a balance on how to deal with so many "big" personalities in the Indian team.

The question here is twofold, does Flower know how to manage "big" personalities and conversely, is it worth having a disruptive "big" personality in a team?

If you consider the capitulatin of England as a team in Australia, it would suggest to me, the team culture is more important to fix than accommodating KP.

Can't believe this man ones protested against Robert Mugabe!. Flower's recent attitude makes the Zimbabwean president look like an angel!.
If Flower has connected his continuation to the axing of KP, the ECB should use it as an opportunity and dump the coach who hasn't been able to fix some serious issues with the side for the last 2 years besides messing up a couple of very bright tallents. Flower, during his playing days, was used to him being the only bright star in his side, don't think he can tolerate many around him!. Will the ECB show the spine to say thanks but no thanks?

msp83 wrote:Can't believe this man ones protested against Robert Mugabe!. Flower's recent attitude makes the Zimbabwean president look like an angel!.
If Flower has connected his continuation to the axing of KP, the ECB should use it as an opportunity and dump the coach who hasn't been able to fix some serious issues with the side for the last 2 years besides messing up a couple of very bright tallents. Flower, during his playing days, was used to him being the only bright star in his side, don't think he can tolerate many around him!. Will the ECB show the spine to say thanks but no thanks?

msp
While I have often defended KP in the past, it is true that rumours about him being a disruptive influence have surfaced from virtually every team he's been involved with.
Having said that, surely it's the manager and captain's job to try and integrate players into the team and, of course, their are also rumours that certain players don't get a look in with England because their faces don't fit.
However, from the outside it's difficult to judge what's going on in the England dressing room. If KP is causing major disharmony, should he be allowed to stay?

It doesn't matter what line of work you're in, there comes a time when disruptive influences become more trouble than they're worth, regardless of occasional brilliance.

I worked in the computer industry for many years (decades) and if I was stirring the sh1t, keeping my own hours, and posting texts to IBM that could be construed as undermining my own company, I'd've been shown the door and booted through it faster than you can say Kevin Pietersen.

Flower is irrelevant in this case as KP's behaviour clearly transcends any one indiviual.

Not much evidence that I've read that he's close to Cook either. If KP's not an asset, he's a liability. Good riddance.

I've always said (well I haven't, out of fear for being harangued) I doubted KP's ultimate desire to play for England. Deep down I think he'd have preferred to have his ship flying for the baggy green (the Africans ones) flag. He's always treated playing for England like a footballer treats a club, like they were/are lucky to have him. What kind of a guy devoted to playing for his country sets up an interview on his own YouTube channel, essentially doing a round of damage control, and clarifying that the thing that's about to happen isn't really his fault? What kind of a player accepts a $2m commentary deal while trying to "Reintegrate" himself back in the fold?

With all that said - in cricket coaches are expendable luxuries, and if a South African coach oversaw a 5-0 defeat and started making demands regarding my best player... I know who I'd pack home (the coach)

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

msp83 wrote:Can't believe this man ones protested against Robert Mugabe!. Flower's recent attitude makes the Zimbabwean president look like an angel!.
If Flower has connected his continuation to the axing of KP, the ECB should use it as an opportunity and dump the coach who hasn't been able to fix some serious issues with the side for the last 2 years besides messing up a couple of very bright tallents. Flower, during his playing days, was used to him being the only bright star in his side, don't think he can tolerate many around him!. Will the ECB show the spine to say thanks but no thanks?

msp
While I have often defended KP in the past, it is true that rumours about him being a disruptive influence have surfaced from virtually every team he's been involved with.
Having said that, surely it's the manager and captain's job to try and integrate players into the team and, of course, their are also rumours that certain players don't get a look in with England because their faces don't fit.
However, from the outside it's difficult to judge what's going on in the England dressing room. If KP is causing major disharmony, should he be allowed to stay?

So how exactly has KP been a disruptive influence in that dressing room? It is well acknowledged that the man puts everything into his practice and preparation, he is not known for allnighter drinking sessions alone or with teammates, hasn't been involved in smoking interesting substances, didn't take to the sea on a nice little pedalo or sunbathed in 50 degrees........
What he has done is to score 8000 test runs, scored 23 test hundreds, won and saved matches for England and play the game with lot of flair and skill. Has had his fair share of battles with injuries as well.
Of course he does have a huge ego, wants to play the IPL not only for the money it brings but also for the ego boost he gets by performing before an adoring cricket mad public in a foreign land, He's not a yes man for the coach, is refreshingly non-robotic in his public interactions.
He has made mistakes of course, but then who hasn't? If you are an utter failure in managing your best player and are unable to adapt your damn robotic methods to the task, then how on earth are you earning your bloody salary as a highflying coach of an international side? Reminded of Greg Chappell and Sourav Ganguly. Ganguly, good player and terrific skipper that he was, at least wasn't the best batsman in that Indian lineup. What England need is a new coach who can understand that cricketers are human, and each human is unique in some sense and they can't be reduced to robots with a similar behavioral pattern.
Pietersen has been England's best batsman since he emerged, and even in the current shambles of a series, he has been the won who top scored for his side in the series.
Do you think England lost the Ashes 5-0 because of Kevin Pietersen? Do you think dropping Pietersen will start a sudden flow of runs from Alastair Cook's bat? Will it make Joe Root score tons and double tons from 1 to 6 in the batting order on any given day depending on the position he is asked to bat by the enlightened coach? Will destroying KP's international career make the England lower order learn to hold a bat? Will Bairstow learn to catch a cold at least? Will they even find an offspinning replacement for the man, forget his batsmanship!.
And at the end of it all, when the nonsense comes to nothing, who will Flower then find as the next sacrificial lamb? Who will he pass the blame on to? Alastair Cook? The England selectors? Giles Clarke? Robert Mugabe? Climate change? BCCI? Anyone and anything but himself!!. Ridiculous, absolutely and utterly ridiculous!!.

msp83 wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

msp83 wrote:Can't believe this man ones protested against Robert Mugabe!. Flower's recent attitude makes the Zimbabwean president look like an angel!.
If Flower has connected his continuation to the axing of KP, the ECB should use it as an opportunity and dump the coach who hasn't been able to fix some serious issues with the side for the last 2 years besides messing up a couple of very bright tallents. Flower, during his playing days, was used to him being the only bright star in his side, don't think he can tolerate many around him!. Will the ECB show the spine to say thanks but no thanks?

msp
While I have often defended KP in the past, it is true that rumours about him being a disruptive influence have surfaced from virtually every team he's been involved with.
Having said that, surely it's the manager and captain's job to try and integrate players into the team and, of course, their are also rumours that certain players don't get a look in with England because their faces don't fit.
However, from the outside it's difficult to judge what's going on in the England dressing room. If KP is causing major disharmony, should he be allowed to stay?

So how exactly has KP been a disruptive influence in that dressing room?

I don't know, and all your points about Flower may well be absolutely spot on. But because I don't know, I'm not as willing as you are to lay all the blame at Flower's feet.

Andy Flower, the only high-quality player who played in a mediocre side should know that you need as many quality players to put the side on the path of sustained success. What did he achieve as the captain of Zimbabwe with a set of no-hopers and not more than decent blokes?

There are also rumours that the England management will try to get KP to retire and thus avoid a close public and media scrutiny. I hope KP, the fighter he is, won't go down without a fight really.......

If the battle has to be waged, then it has to be Flower who should go. A good article here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/10556757/Ashes-2013-14-If-Andy-Flower-cannot-work-with-Kevin-Pietersen-then-the-England-coach-has-to-go.html

Why was my post deleted??? There was nothing Inflammatory about it!!!

kingraf wrote:Why was my post deleted??? There was nothing Inflammatory about it!!!

Kingraf, I can find one post from you placed between one from kwini's and mine and its still there. Did you post something else?

msp83 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Why was my post deleted??? There was nothing Inflammatory about it!!!

Kingraf, I can find one post from you placed between one from kwini's and mine and its still there. Did you post something else?

My mistake MSP - I somehow missed it!! Replying to messages at 1 am (S.A. time) wasnt a good idea. Thanks in advance for not calling me a total idiot

Flower has now come out with a rather vague media release where he denies having issued any ultimatum to the ECB.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013-14/content/current/story/707677.html

I'm not sure Pietersen can be blamed for batsmen batting with fear ... which is what seemed to have happened on this particular series. Also I'm not sure he can be blamed for having players being played that have been out of form for sometime.

Does this apparent spat mean that Flowers is continuing with his plan A but being less accommodating and more dictatorial?

Overall I would say no individual is bigger than the team but is Pietersen really so disruptive and is it not possible to have a management system that can handle mavericks.

kingraf wrote:I've always said (well I haven't, out of fear for being harangued) I doubted KP's ultimate desire to play for England. Deep down I think he'd have preferred to have his ship flying for the baggy green (the Africans ones) flag. He's always treated playing for England like a footballer treats a club, like they were/are lucky to have him. What kind of a guy devoted to playing for his country sets up an interview on his own YouTube channel, essentially doing a round of damage control, and clarifying that the thing that's about to happen isn't really his fault? What kind of a player accepts a $2m commentary deal while trying to "Reintegrate" himself back in the fold?

With all that said - in cricket coaches are expendable luxuries, and if a South African coach oversaw a 5-0 defeat and started making demands regarding my best player... I know who I'd pack home (the coach)

I'd agree with Kingraf's final line completely here.

Although it was noticed how KP got his tweets out there about playing on before this story broke. Bloke is very media savvy

The naive 'love in' some on these boards have for KP is laughable. It doesn't matter how good you are, how the team knits together is the most important aspect

KP obviously loves playing this loner role, he can then put on his sad face and state how commited he is

We'll see how commited he is, when the 'big bash' starts

I hope flower and Cook stick to their guns and get rid of this ego

Ha Ha.......Flower is spinning the attention away from the debacle.
turning this into a Flower vs. KP issue

--if he wins.....he would set implicit expectations that all malefic content in the team was because of KP

--if he loses......he will quit before he is fired...claim martyrdom

what about the real issue....the greatest annihilation of an English team ??

What a complete balls up. Hopefully Flower hasn't issued an ultimatum. If he has, then he has to go. Not really getting this 'KP has to go' malarky. These are grown men, who should be able to work together. All teams have friction, just get on with it.

Team KP. Flower out.

from BBC....Flower denies...media is having a field day

Coach Andy Flower has denied he issued an ultimatum that would see either him or Kevin Pietersen quit England.
Several newspapers have reported that Flower was prepared to quit England if the batsman stayed with the team after a humiliating Ashes overseas tour.
Flower said: "The reports that I have issued an ultimatum of some description to the ECB are totally inaccurate."

This does smack of media exaggeration and looking to create a story.
Theres certainly some truth behind the split, but issues like KPs fitness (will he actually be able to play through the summer?) are being wilfully ignored

Warne as usual makes some very astute comment and message for Cook.

" The wins and losses go against the name of the captain...and if you listen too much to the mumbo-jumbo of Flower.......you will be out of your job"


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/10556074/Ashes-2013-14-Alastair-Cook-needs-to-call-on-Michael-Vaughan-for-guidance-to-help-rebuild-England.html

By Shane Warne3:02PM GMT 07 Jan 2014Comments14 Comments
Alastair Cook has an opportunity right now to put together an off-field team he believes in and the England and Wales Cricket Board should let him decide who he wants in or out.
Then Cook should sit with the selectors and suggest the players he wants to be part of the team.
I hope his off-field team contains Michael Vaughan in some capacity too as England look to pull themselves together after an embarrassing Ashes series in Australia
In recent years England have shut the door on former players and followed their own instincts.
Fine, but nobody knows everything about this complex game.

The best England team I played against was Vaughan’s in 2005.
The brand of cricket they played was exciting and aggressive.
They had excellent strategies for Australian batsmen who were at the peak of their powers and were brilliantly led.
He probably does not want an official role but could act as a mentor to Cook, who is lucky there are so many ex-England captains on hand to offer advice.
Nasser Hussain, Mike Atherton, David Gower and Mike Brearley can all help to expand his knowledge.
But he should not restrict himself to just English voices. Mark Taylor was a brilliant captain and Cook has another few weeks in Australia for the one-day series, giving him the chance to speak to Tubby.
One of the first people Stephen Fleming consulted when he became captain of New Zealand was Ian Chappell and he had a close relationship with Taylor as well.
Fleming went on to become an excellent captain and Chappell’s advice was invaluable.
I don’t think it would occur to Cook to ring someone like Chappell because he is from a different era, but his knowledge about cricket is deep and he knew how to lead a team.
Taylor and Chappell are Australian but they would be willing to help Cook if he called and asked to take them out for lunch to pick their brains.
Cricket is a family. I do not know anyone who would turn him down if he came asking for help, but he has to take the initiative and make the first move.
When you are on the inside sometimes you do not see obvious changes that can be made.
You live and breathe the same thing every day, which is why it is nice to have a diverse group of people to consult, even if just for confirmation that you are doing the right thing.
This is Cook’s moment to be bold.
He has already said publicly he wants to continue working with Andy Flower, but he has to make sure he plays a full part in the regeneration of the team and not allow the coach to dictate.
The wins and losses go against Cook’s name.
If England do not improve then Cook will be out of a job within six months, so if he is going to carry the can, he has to make sure he has the final say on the major decisions the team face.
Take charge, Alastair, and build a cricket team of people you want by your side.
I find it incredible that Kevin Pietersen could be a scapegoat.
He did not have a great series, but he was not alone in that.
Like Vaughan I believe elevating him to the vice-captaincy would get the best out of him for a couple of years.
His relationship with Flower is not good but the coach should go before Pietersen.

msp83 wrote:
So how exactly has KP been a disruptive influence in that dressing room? It is well acknowledged that the man puts everything into his practice and preparation,

Hang on a minute wasnt it Flower taking the flack for making them work too hard yesterday and that he should let them chill out more?

Look I I cant imagine and England side without KP and frankly they do need to widen the leadership group (especially if Prior is gone) but if you have guys who continuously sit outside the team and upset people ( lets ask Swann what happened to make him leave? His biography will be fun, what was said at some of the team debreifs will be juicy) and damage the atmosphere thats a problem.

Its all very well saying cricket is about the best players but we have seen a classic example over the last few years with England about how psychology plays a massive role too. A team going from hero to zero in that space of time with largely the same players...theres more to it than just selections.

The most successful sporting team on earth currently, new zealand rugby team, has a "no dickheads" policy. KP never wouldve got in. Of course thats a lot easier to instigate when you have a huge pool of talent to pick from. England to some extent have looked for personalities over the last few years, and the Aussies widely praised for ditching the wonder kids in favour of "good blokes". England would not be the first side to have problems with disruptive superstars, but then theres plenty of examples of both approaches working...e.g New Zeland cricket team reintegrating their best alcoholic after a change in coach.

In the short to medium term England need KP. No question. They also need him not to be a silly billy. I can see where Vaughn is coming from, make it his fault. Make him (partly) responsible for the team and mood. If he cant cope without having a say in how things are done give him it, just tell him not to be a silly billy about it.

The other possibility is a clear sweep of all the negative characters, including the miserable ones like Trott and Swann. Get in the happy clappy brigade and build a whole new team. A long painful process in which the coach will probably lose his job anyway after a rank summer.

Theres not really a right answer is there.

KP_fan wrote:Warne as usual makes some very astute comment and message for Cook.

" The wins and losses go against the name of the captain...and if you listen too much to the mumbo-jumbo of Flower.......you will be out of your job"


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/10556074/Ashes-2013-14-Alastair-Cook-needs-to-call-on-Michael-Vaughan-for-guidance-to-help-rebuild-England.html

By Shane Warne3:02PM GMT 07 Jan 2014Comments14 Comments
Alastair Cook has an opportunity right now to put together an off-field team he believes in and the England and Wales Cricket Board should let him decide who he wants in or out.
Then Cook should sit with the selectors and suggest the players he wants to be part of the team.
I hope his off-field team contains Michael Vaughan in some capacity too as England look to pull themselves together after an embarrassing Ashes series in Australia
In recent years England have shut the door on former players and followed their own instincts.
Fine, but nobody knows everything about this complex game.

The best England team I played against was Vaughan’s in 2005.
The brand of cricket they played was exciting and aggressive.
They had excellent strategies for Australian batsmen who were at the peak of their powers and were brilliantly led.
He probably does not want an official role but could act as a mentor to Cook, who is lucky there are so many ex-England captains on hand to offer advice.
Nasser Hussain, Mike Atherton, David Gower and Mike Brearley can all help to expand his knowledge.
But he should not restrict himself to just English voices. Mark Taylor was a brilliant captain and Cook has another few weeks in Australia for the one-day series, giving him the chance to speak to Tubby.
One of the first people Stephen Fleming consulted when he became captain of New Zealand was Ian Chappell and he had a close relationship with Taylor as well.
Fleming went on to become an excellent captain and Chappell’s advice was invaluable.
I don’t think it would occur to Cook to ring someone like Chappell because he is from a different era, but his knowledge about cricket is deep and he knew how to lead a team.
Taylor and Chappell are Australian but they would be willing to help Cook if he called and asked to take them out for lunch to pick their brains.
Cricket is a family. I do not know anyone who would turn him down if he came asking for help, but he has to take the initiative and make the first move.
When you are on the inside sometimes you do not see obvious changes that can be made.
You live and breathe the same thing every day, which is why it is nice to have a diverse group of people to consult, even if just for confirmation that you are doing the right thing.
This is Cook’s moment to be bold.
He has already said publicly he wants to continue working with Andy Flower, but he has to make sure he plays a full part in the regeneration of the team and not allow the coach to dictate.
The wins and losses go against Cook’s name.
If England do not improve then Cook will be out of a job within six months, so if he is going to carry the can, he has to make sure he has the final say on the major decisions the team face.
Take charge, Alastair, and build a cricket team of people you want by your side.
I find it incredible that Kevin Pietersen could be a scapegoat.
He did not have a great series, but he was not alone in that.
Like Vaughan I believe elevating him to the vice-captaincy would get the best out of him for a couple of years.
His relationship with Flower is not good but the coach should go before Pietersen.

You know theres a reason they never made Warne captain.

PSW wrote:You know theres a reason they never made Warne captain.

whihc doesn't mean that that was the right thing to do.

Warne has been one of the few analysts ahead of the curve....predicting & foreseeing rather than reacting.
and also successfully managed to get under the skin of Cook...thereby adding an intangible lot to the success of Aus and debacle of Eng.

Ignore Warne at your risk is the unwritten disclaimer that his articles carry

Warne has the same issue that is levelled at Flower : He only gets one type of cricket and cricketer and is not at all open or able to work properly with others.

Most of what he writes and comes out with is pure pantomime to sell papers and earn himself money in the style of Piers Morgan, the guy is an unashamed mercenary. Hes lost a lot of respect from his fellow ex professionals for the way hes conducted himself and milked his celebrity status.

But thats just "the way he plays". And doesnt mean he isnt right a lot of the time.

I think the main fear for me is not so much Flower going, which I think he should based on the 5-0 hammering rather than any rift with players, but that the ECB are likely to play safe and promote Ashley Giles as coach.

psw wrote:Warne has the same issue that is levelled at Flower : He only gets one type of cricket and cricketer and is not at all open or able to work properly with others.

that's not true......young and the old all and sundry at Rajasthan Royals of diverse perosanlities and backgrounds and culture  still praise his leadership and especially mentoring skills...he gets along with all.
His  approach though is positive, aggressive, head-on, forthright...and off course he is very different from Flower.

psw wrote:Most of what he writes and comes out with is pure pantomime to sell papers and earn himself money in the style of Piers Morgan, the guy is an unashamed mercenary. Hes lost a lot of respect from his fellow ex professionals for the way hes conducted himself and milked his celebrity status.

he does have a gift to market and sell.......but you can sell one time or two times on pure hype and plain stirring......to keep selling you must have solid content.....and warne has repeat buyers because he delivers......what he says is sharp, provocative but true more often than not.....and ahead of the curve i.e his predictions have a high success rate.

and guess who is paying to buy warne's wares.......UK news papers and Sky TV  

psw wrote:But thats just "the way he plays". And doesnt mean he isnt right a lot of the time.

that is correct.....that's the way he plays.....he has the gift to package his insinuations and attacks in the same bundle as his astute predictive analysis.
so often times an average reader / listener is not able to identify the fine line where his facts stop and fiction starts......it's a gift he uses to unsettle who he considers are his opponents.

Oh goodness.

Well first things first, msp I find your comment "makes Mugabe look like an angel" simply abhorent. Unfortunately it is not the first time you have made such comparisons (there was a Hitler one not so long ago). Whatever the rights and wrongs of the perceived situation, Flower hasn't killed anyone. I have the utmost respect for you as a poster, but if you insist on making such inappropriate and IMO offensive comparisons, I don't know what to do.

With that out the way, the next thing to point out is the obvious: apart from one article by one person (namely Mike Selvey) in the guardian (quickly picked up by other newspapers and media outlets, but as far as I can tell they all quote the guardian article as the original source) we have simply no evidence for what people seem already to be accepting as given. What we do have is a firm denial from Flower that no such ultimatum has been given (it is unusual for Flower to make such firm and unequivocal statements in public). Reading through the original article in the guardian, there is no direct quote, nor even any sentence suggesting that Selvey has this information directly second hand ("according to an unnamed source" is a favourite of journalists, and something you would expect to read in this case).

Indeed the whole article appears to be nothing but pure conjecture: "it is believed", "he is believed", "it is thought" (x 2), "Flower is thought", "Flower [...] will probably". There is simply nothing of substance there.

In fact the only time Selvey advances anything definitely is when he says "[Flower] has to take ultimate responsibility for the overwhelming defeat" which possibly shows his agenda clearly, or if you are less cynical merely reflects the author's opinion.

So simply put, for the moment there is nothing to comment on that I can see. For what it's worth a couple of guys I know in the ECB haven't heard anything about any ultimatums either (not that they necessarily would). You are all commenting on a completely hypothetical scenario (which isn't to say it is false, but at the moment there is more evidence to suggest it is false than to say it is true).

For what it's worth, on the hypothetical scenario that Selvey is correct, I tend to agree that Flower is in no position to make those kind of demands, but can reasonably ask that anyone wishing to be considered for selection for the first test against Sri Lanka play a minimum of x (somewhere between 4 and 6) of the first county matches (except if injured of course).

As to the now fairly old argument about KP's influence on dressing-rooms... I can only go by what I know (but I have some fairly reliable 2nd hand accounts). KP is very hard working (he trains harder than all the other players apparently), but also selfish (I don't say this in a bad way; IMO all great batsman have a a degree of selfishness about them), arrogant and simply not always very nice (in other words, what you see is pretty much what you get).

That kind of ego can be tricky to manage, particularly in a losing dressing-room. I've had my own egos to manage and have occasionally failed, and sometimes succeeded - I believe Michael Vaughan (who should know) has it more or less spot on (for once) when he says the best course of action is to simply play on their ego in a positive way, and make them feel like the most important person in the world. For that reason I would play KP at 3, say "come on then, you're our main man, our best player, go out there and control the game for us". On the other hand, such an approach can be counter-productive; the player's ego may simply increase to the point where his attitude to the rest of the team becomes "I'm fantastic, you're all rubbish"; it can cause resentment from the other team players (especially if the side's losing and the ego isn't necessarily performing that well), etc.

It's not as easy as some would have you believe, but then if it was easy anybody could do it.

Also, interesting though the article from Warne was, it is completely off topic.

In an ideal world guess we would all love to see a situation where KP could be integrated into the team as he is certainly the only true game changer we have with the bat, and is also pure box office when he is on form. However one does have to ask how many rumours or stories of how difficult he is we have to hear before we accept there is some level of substance to them and it may be time to consider moving him out.

You also have to wonder what affect the continuing and seemingly endless willingness to indulge KP has on the other players, do have to wonder if someone like Iain Bell or Broad looks on and wonders if they would have got away with sending texts to his opponents. A dressing room that operates on a one rule for one, one rule for the other system simply cannot be a healthy and harmonious place.

Guess the fear is that if we go too far the other way we do not want a dressing room that cannot accommodate difficult characters or awkward personalities because for reasons I don’t fully comprehend these types of personalities are frequently coupled to prodigious talents.

KP's performance in the crucial Perth Test and crucially his reaction in the press afterwards was basically gross professional misconduct category, for a player of his experience

There was no thought to the importance of the situation, leading by example etc. Instead, it will have had a debilitating affect on the youngsters who look up to the senior player

If there was, he would have had a contrite, humble etc attitude - rather than 'this is how I play - like it or lump it' attitude

If you ran a team, you would be constantly undermined by his approach

banbrotam wrote:
If you ran a team, you would be constantly undermined by his approach

Correction...if (as a coach) you don't know how to run a team having super-stars with super  egoes.....then you( as a coach) will constantly feel undermined.

Greg Chappell had issues with the super stars having super egos in India......Gary Kirsten polished the same band into gold and took them to the top of the world.

so what should a system do from the following two choices....

EITHER
have a coach with personality limitations......and given him mediocre players who fit within the comfort zone of the coach's limited personality.

OR

Find a coach who can manage the super-talented super performing star players and continue to get the best out of them.

KP_fan wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
If you ran a team, you would be constantly undermined by his approach

Correction...if (as a coach) you don't know how to run a team having super-stars with super  egoes.....then you( as a coach) will constantly feel undermined.

Greg Chappell had issues with the super stars havingsuper egos in India......Gary Kirsten polished the same band into gold and took them to the top of the world.

so what should a system do from the following tow choices....

EITHER
have a coach with personality limitations......and given him mediocre players who fit within the comfort zone of the coach's limited personality.

OR

Find a coach who can manage the super-talented super performing star players and continue to get the best out of them.

I have to agree with KP_Fan here, as a coach you have to take on all sorts of personalities, styles, egos etc. With KP you know what you're gonna get, he's gonna play his way, with his ego and you work around it. You gotta take the good with the bat with KP, and he has his extremes in both senses. I agree with Mike's post in the majority, and with Vaughan's comments, make KP the man, give him responsibility, let him take on the best bowlers. I often find with KP he'll get out to the bowlers weaker bowlers because he becomes almost too cocky against them.

Either way KP has to play, if he still wants to. He's our best batsman

what Mike said. Read the Guardian article: there's nothing in it, simply "it is thought", "it is believed", and "it is understood". No source, no quotes, nothing. Then the other papers have picked up on it (they all quote the Guardian article as their source) and somehow it has become fact.

Flower rightfully issues a statement denying it all, so nothing to see here? not that those with a clear agenda will see it this way I'm sure.

As with Mike, comparing Flower to Mugabe is unacceptable, and these sorts of comparisons detract from some valid points msp usually makes, which is a shame.

Having said that, IF (and at the moment it's a huge IF), Flower has issued this type of demand, then I think he needs to go. You can't have players thinking they're bigger than the team, but equally neither can you have a head coach who thinks it.

Olly wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
If you ran a team, you would be constantly undermined by his approach

Correction...if (as a coach) you don't know how to run a team having super-stars with super  egoes.....then you( as a coach) will constantly feel undermined.

Greg Chappell had issues with the super stars havingsuper egos in India......Gary Kirsten polished the same band into gold and took them to the top of the world.

so what should a system do from the following tow choices....

EITHER
have a coach with personality limitations......and given him mediocre players who fit within the comfort zone of the coach's limited personality.

OR

Find a coach who can manage the super-talented super performing star players and continue to get the best out of them.

I have to agree with KP_Fan here, as a coach you have to take on all sorts of personalities, styles, egos etc. With KP you know what you're gonna get, he's gonna play his way, with his ego and you work around it. You gotta take the good with the bat with KP, and he has his extremes in both senses. I agree with Mike's post in the majority, and with Vaughan's comments, make KP the man, give him responsibility, let him take on the best bowlers. I often find with KP he'll get out to the bowlers weaker bowlers because he becomes almost too cocky against them.

Either way KP has to play, if he still wants to. He's our best batsman

Why do we assume (if there's any truth in the reports at all), that it's simply a matter of Flower not being able to handle KP's ego?
What if there is more to it?

Olly wrote:With KP you know what you're gonna get, he's gonna play his way, with his ego and you work around it. You gotta take the good with the bat with KP, and he has his extremes in both senses.

I agree, with the caveat that sometimes such a player may get so out of control (as IMO KP did during textgate) that his position in the team becomes untenable, no matter how good he is.

We simply don't know what KP is meant to have done wrong here (or indeed if he has done anything wrong, or indeed if anybody apart from Selvey thinks he is perceived to have done wrong).

With regard to the veracity of the article, on Sky Sports News every morning they have a journalist reviewing the papers and both this story and Flower’s subsequent denial came up. The journalist said that whilst the article may not quote a source he was confident there would have been one, because it would he hugely unusual for such a story to be picked up almost across the board if there was no shred of credibility or source behind the story.

Always the chance this is a journalist sticking up for his own but he did seem convinced there would have been something behind this.

yes there are indeed sources that have shared these stories.......of Flower's ultimatum to ECB. That's what journalism is also about...finding stories based on factual happening but not yet published as formal press-releases.

once revealed it is normal damage control to deny....as Flower is trying.


the first one to allude to this Either Flower OR KP was Vaughan on a video review with Simon Hughes posted to telegraph.....he obviously has sources in ECB / dressing room passing on the develpments to him.

Fists of Fury wrote:Team KP. Flower out.

I agree - Flower appears to be desperately trying to hang on to control now by any means necessary.

The Mugabe reference was in the context of Flower protesting the 'Death of Democracy' in his country in a foreign land during a high-profile global tournament and it was particular to the attitude, the philosophy and the irony of the situation....... Perhaps I could have focused more on the bit on Democracy as such, but that was the intent, And in that context and to that extent I fully stand by what I said. Flower, in his given position of authority, is behaving in an extremely authoritarian way I feel.

Mike Selig wrote:That kind of ego can be tricky to manage, particularly in a losing dressing-room. I've had my own egos to manage and have occasionally failed, and sometimes succeeded - I believe Michael Vaughan (who should know) has it more or less spot on (for once) when he says the best course of action is to simply play on their ego in a positive way, and make them feel like the most important person in the world. For that reason I would play KP at 3, say "come on then, you're our main man, our best player, go out there and control the game for us". On the other hand, such an approach can be counter-productive; the player's ego may simply increase to the point where his attitude to the rest of the team becomes "I'm fantastic, you're all rubbish"; it can cause resentment from the other team players (especially if the side's losing and the ego isn't necessarily performing that well), etc.

It's not as easy as some would have you believe, but then if it was easy anybody could do it.

Great points

If I can add, the issue is also that you can only make KP 'the man' when you have a number of senior players in the team who, vitally are also rounded individuals, excellent at reading into what's going on, i.e. any of Trott, Swann, Vaughan, Hoggard, Collingwood, Strauss etc

Problem is right now we don't have that. Other than Anderson and Broad, all of the others are quite one-dimensional / or insular souls, not capable of reading between the lines, i.e. they would wonder why a player who made such bad decisions and appeared not to be bothered was getting so much attention

Due to the sudden departures of Trott and Swann, we're suddenly a talented, but young team. Is KP that good a player (these days) that he warrants this special attention?.

He also averages 33 in the last year and just under 40 in the last 18 months. Yet you'd think he averaged 100, given some of the comments on this thread

msp, you said and I quote "Flower's recent attitude makes the Zimbabwean president look like an angel!"; regardless of how anti-democratic you believe Flower to be acting, that statement is inappropriate, offensive and ridiculous.

msp83 wrote: Flower, in his given position of authority, is behaving in an extremely authoritarian way I feel.

Until he publically executes Pietersen and buries his body in a mass grave I would tend to agree that the comparison is ill considered.

Mike Selig wrote:Oh goodness.

Well first things first, msp I find your comment "makes Mugabe look like an angel" simply abhorent. Unfortunately it is not the first time you have made such comparisons (there was a Hitler one not so long ago). Whatever the rights and wrongs of the perceived situation, Flower hasn't killed anyone. I have the utmost respect for you as a poster, but if you insist on making such inappropriate and IMO offensive comparisons, I don't know what to do.

With that out the way, the next thing to point out is the obvious: apart from one article by one person (namely Mike Selvey) in the guardian (quickly picked up by other newspapers and media outlets, but as far as I can tell they all quote the guardian article as the original source) we have simply no evidence for what people seem already to be accepting as given. What we do have is a firm denial from Flower that no such ultimatum has been given (it is unusual for Flower to make such firm and unequivocal statements in public). Reading through the original article in the guardian, there is no direct quote, nor even any sentence suggesting that Selvey has this information directly second hand ("according to an unnamed source" is a favourite of journalists, and something you would expect to read in this case).

Indeed the whole article appears to be nothing but pure conjecture: "it is believed", "he is believed", "it is thought" (x 2), "Flower is thought", "Flower [...] will probably". There is simply nothing of substance there.

In fact the only time Selvey advances anything definitely is when he says "[Flower] has to take ultimate responsibility for the overwhelming defeat" which possibly shows his agenda clearly, or if you are less cynical merely reflects the author's opinion.

So simply put, for the moment there is nothing to comment on that I can see. For what it's worth a couple of guys I know in the ECB haven't heard anything about any ultimatums either (not that they necessarily would). You are all commenting on a completely hypothetical scenario (which isn't to say it is false, but at the moment there is more evidence to suggest it is false than to say it is true).

For what it's worth, on the hypothetical scenario that Selvey is correct, I tend to agree that Flower is in no position to make those kind of demands, but can reasonably ask that anyone wishing to be considered for selection for the first test against Sri Lanka play a minimum of x (somewhere between 4 and 6) of the first county matches (except if injured of course).

As to the now fairly old argument about KP's influence on dressing-rooms... I can only go by what I know (but I have some fairly reliable 2nd hand accounts). KP is very hard working (he trains harder than all the other players apparently), but also selfish (I don't say this in a bad way; IMO all great batsman have a a degree of selfishness about them), arrogant and simply not always very nice (in other words, what you see is pretty much what you get).

That kind of ego can be tricky to manage, particularly in a losing dressing-room. I've had my own egos to manage and have occasionally failed, and sometimes succeeded - I believe Michael Vaughan (who should know) has it more or less spot on (for once) when he says the best course of action is to simply play on their ego in a positive way, and make them feel like the most important person in the world. For that reason I would play KP at 3, say "come on then, you're our main man, our best player, go out there and control the game for us". On the other hand, such an approach can be counter-productive; the player's ego may simply increase to the point where his attitude to the rest of the team becomes "I'm fantastic, you're all rubbish"; it can cause resentment from the other team players (especially if the side's losing and the ego isn't necessarily performing that well), etc.

It's not as easy as some would have you believe, but then if it was easy anybody could do it.

Also, interesting though the article from Warne was, it is completely off topic.

I cannot disagree with of any of that. Spot on Mike.   

Rowley wrote:

msp83 wrote: Flower, in his given position of authority, is behaving in an extremely authoritarian way I feel.

Until he publically executes Pietersen and buries his body in a mass grave I would tend to agree that the comparison is ill considered.

Not only is the statement (included in your post) insulting to Flower, it's insulting to the rest of the team. Apparently, in the world of posters like 'msp83' a player can average 33 in the last year plus look like the couldn't give a flying fig, act like they couldn't give a flying fig, talk like they couldn't give a flying fig and still be seen as the most important person on the earth

Meanwhile Alex Fergusson is a bad coach for getting rid of Roy Keane.

Rowley wrote:With regard to the veracity of the article, on Sky Sports News every morning they have a journalist reviewing the papers and both this story and Flower’s subsequent denial came up. The journalist said that whilst the article may not quote a source he was confident there would have been one, because it would he hugely unusual for such a story to be picked up almost across the board if there was no shred of credibility or source behind the story.

Always the chance this is a journalist sticking up for his own but he did seem convinced there would have been something behind this.

I would have expected that the article would at least say "according to sources" though.

It could be true. It also could be true to a certain extent, although not as starkly as Selvey has put it (i.e. there is something in the story, but it is not as drastic as is being made out; we do know how the media love to sensationalise...). It could be that Selvey has misunderstood the situation. Or it could be that he has deliberately misrepresented the situation.

Neither of those cases would a priori exclude other journalists from picking up on the story. We have had examples in the past of one (usually respected) journalist picking up a "story" and in fact getting it wrong, and the rest of the press picking up the false story collectively (most recently, although not as dramatically, would be Carberry being dropped for Ballance, when in fact it was Root).