New England coach to be named - Peter Moores (no we haven't invented time travel)

So according to the Guardian, Peter Moores will be appointed England coach for the 2nd time. Only thing good about this is that it's not Ashley Giles. And maybe also that it'll kill stone dead any KP returning speculation.
But was there anybody else?

The current Sri Lanka coach to be his assistant apparently

Moores is a very good county coach, and as previously said he laid some of the foundations for the Flower era.

Imagine Jos Buttler's test chances take a boost with this appointment

wouldn't mind that. Reading from various autobiographies, it seems Moores may just have been there at the wrong time for England when he was first appointed. With an England team in desperate need of rebuilding and some fairly radical changes you'd think, he may just be the right man for the job now. Certainly a better appointment than Giles IMO, who really hasn't done anything to justify being given the job.

Olly mentions he laid foundations for the Flower era, he also gave a few players who went on to become established Test players their chance: Broad, Bresnan and Prior I think at least, so he has a decent eye for quality.

I think this could be an interesting/exciting time for English cricket.

Good news, Mark Robinson i thought would of got it tbh, has worked wonders at Hove since his appointment in 2005. But im a big fan of Moores and i think it is a good appointment. 

Thank god its not Ashley Giles.

Of course it should be noted that he's possibly been appointed as the most anti peterson candidate

Any more news on the backroom team?

Although I don't share the anti-Giles sentiment which seems to have become rather popular on here , I have no problem with Moores getting another chance at the job. As has been said above , he can take credit for introducing some new - or successfully recycled - talent to the team last time around , and was arguably removed prematurely for reasons not unconnected with a recently departed and somewhat "difficult" high profile player ... given the need for a spot of rebuilding at present he may be a sound choice.
In any case , I wish him good luck , and hope he gets support from fans/media and cricketing personnel alike.

Regressive Move

Good move i think depending on who his backroom team is

Giles didn't deserve to be there, and the ECB has got one thing right at last!. Moores? In his first stint, he showed an ability to spot talent and rewarded good domestic performances. The likes of Ryan Sidebottom or Graeme Swann wouldn't have made a comeback to international cricket had it not been for Moores. He gave chances to Matt Prior and Stuart Broad, and Chris Tremlett as well.
But he had his issues. There were senior players who were not happy at his man management style. Of Pietersen was at the forefront of voicing the disagreement but that is a different story altogether. Hopefully Moores has learned his lessons and come back a better coach. Hopefully he'll be able to move on from the clique culture and robotic mindset that afflicted the side in recent months. Hopefully he will let the players take responsibility, and hopefully he won't run away from being accountable.

KP weighs in

"@KP24: Everyone deserves a 2nd chance!

Best of an uninspiring bunch tbh

I do love KP on Twitter... he certainly is box office

kingraf wrote:I do love KP on Twitter... he certainly is box office

he did manage to get under the skin of Downton

So the process of nicking Paul Farbrace from Sri Lanka, 3 months into the job, is almost complete. The official poachers of world cricket continue to expand their domain to the support staff now. Poor Sri Lanka are left in the lerch, it is not clear whether they will get any compensation from the ECB or Farbrace although the coach did a runner only 3 months into his contract. His contract says that he should give a 6 month notice, but there is a probation clause that might give the ECB and Farbrace an easy exit route.
Imagine it was the BCCI doing this in place of the ECB? These boards would have seen a lot more life than what we see today!.
But the thugs are caught up in another mess, one that is entirely their own making, so they just extended the contracts of the coaching staff without even looking at the level of performances.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/srilanka/content/current/story/738723.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/738343.html

The bloke didn't have to quit Sri Lanka...

Here is a fine article from cricinfo's Andrew Fernando on the ECB's poaching of Paul Farbrace.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/738859.html

Except it isn't poaching. Person approached for job, person accepts job, hardly worth getting angry about. Happens in all walks of life all the time.

VTR wrote:Except it isn't poaching. Person approached for job, person accepts job, hardly worth getting angry about. Happens in all walks of life all the time.

that's correct ethics is a personal standard and not a legal one.
This situation falls in the domain of what is ethical and what's not

While I feel it would be appropriate to pay a fee for his services, Farbrace made his choice.

Hope the ditcher will always be confined to England and no other board would ever consier him for an international assignment ever after.
Farbrace didn't apply for the job, the ECB approached. And of course that is in the natural order of things as the ECB wanted him and they had the money to tempt him. And because it is the ECB who has done it, it is quite natural and not worth the fuss!.

It's actually quite normal. The ECB identified a target, approached him and he decided to take the role.

Being normal is not the same as being ethical I suppose. A lot of the things the BCCI does that make a lot of us worked up is normal from someone who has power.......
Hope the SLC drags Farbrace to the court over this and at least get a decent compensation from the ECB for this steal.

Well you see MSP, in the real world the best candidates tend to be employed.

When we talk that corporate language, then it is pretty much fine. Hope those who propagate it here, would show some consistency when such powerplay is involved where the ECB is not involved.

Man has job

Man gets offered better more lucrative job

Man takes said job

I'm really not sure I see the fuss here

Olly wrote:Man has job

Man gets offered better more lucrative job

Man takes said job

I'm really not sure I see the fuss here

This.

He didn't have to quit his job though did he MSP? That was entirely his choice. I'm sure if he has breached his contract then there will be repecurssions

Tat confirms all doors closed for KP comeback   

Olly wrote:Man has job

Man gets offered better more lucrative job

Man takes said job

I'm really not sure I see the fuss here

Olly - I think that's a reasonable and understandable take but only to a point.

If the man in your example was going to work for a direct competitor (as is the case with Farbrace moving from Sri Lanka to England), he would normally have to spend a good few months on gardening leave before being allowed to put his feet under his new desk. I'm surprised that the Sri Lankan Board either don't have this entitlement or, at least, haven't insisted on enforcing it. Perhaps they don't have the money to pay Farbrace for doing nothing.

I do think msp makes a fair comment that there would be a lot more concern if Moores were to get off to a winning start against Sri Lanka and then, having been lured by shedloads of dosh from the Indian Board, immediately jump ship to mastermind India's series against us. Sauce for the goose should after all be sauce for the gander and all that.

Probably most of all, it concerns me that we (the ECB) have to go sniffing around another nation's current coaching staff to fill a support role (admittedly an important one) rather than having sufficient home grown developing coaches from which to pick a suitable candidate.

As for Farbrace himself, he's accepted a significant opportunity that probably would have only come his way once and further secured his financial future in the process. All very understandable that he would accept ... but yet ... I can't help but feel he's shown disloyalty to Sri Lanka when they showed faith in him when no one else in this country would or could afford to. Along the lines of Christopher Martin-Jenkins' comments about Tony Greig's defection to Packer Cricket, ''I could understand why he made the decision but it's not the decision I would have made.''

guildfordbat wrote:

Olly wrote:Man has job

Man gets offered better more lucrative job

Man takes said job

I'm really not sure I see the fuss here

Olly - I think that's a reasonable and understandable take but only to a point.

If the man in your example was going to work for a direct competitor (as is the case with Farbrace moving from Sri Lanka to England), he would normally have to spend a good few months on gardening leave before being allowed to put his feet under his new desk. I'm surprised that the Sri Lankan Board either don't have this entitlement or, at least, haven't insisted on enforcing it. Perhaps they don't have the money to pay Farbrace for doing nothing.

I do think msp makes a fair comment that there would be a lot more concern if Moores were to get off to a winning start against Sri Lanka and then, having been lured by shedloads of dosh from the Indian Board, immediately jump ship to mastermind India's series against us. Sauce for the goose should after all be sauce for the gander and all that.

Probably most of all, it concerns me that we (the ECB) have to go sniffing around another nation's current coaching staff to fill a support role (admittedly an important one) rather than having sufficient home grown developing coaches from which to pick a suitable candidate.

As for Farbrace himself, he's accepted a significant opportunity that probably would have only come his way once and further secured his financial future in the process. All very understandable that he would accept ... but yet ... I can't help but feel he's shown disloyalty to Sri Lanka when they showed faith in him when no one else in this country would or could afford to. Along the lines of Christopher Martin-Jenkins' comments about Tony Greig's defection to Packer Cricket, ''I could understand why he made the decision but it's not the decision I would have made.''

Guildford I don't think the SLC has the financial might to keep Farbrace to the gardening job before he were to take up the far more paid offering.
If this is not disloyal from Farbrace, then what is? He made his credentials in Sri Lanka having won the World T-20 with them, goes home for a short holiday before his side was to embark on the most important overseas assignment for them this year. Gets an approach from the ECB, neither the ECB nor Farbrace thinks it remotely necessary to at least inform the Sri Lankan board about the developments, the Lankan board officials get to know things from the media, the coach comes back and resgin and jump ship to the other side 2 weeks before the side had to fly in for the tour of that very same side, giving them no time whatsoever to put in substantive alternative arrangements.
You can have all the corporate justifications in the world. As Guildford's post suggests, even that justification has its limits. And we can't even go anywhere near the ethical or spirit of cricket domains.

The justification here swings between....

"that's legally not wrong"....... as in breaking the lankan coach from a fellow ICC member and bringing him onboard the Eng side... just before that member country is touring Eng.......... or Broad not walking when caught off a thick outside edge at 3rd slip   

TO

that's ethically wrong as in when the same team....appeals for the recall of Ian Bell when ran out by Dhoni.......

some will call it "double standards"
other might call it " having the cake and eating it too..."

I will call it simply.....clever equivocation

I'm going to try and be as objective as possible on this one.

1) The ECB haven't acted wrongly from a legal viewpoint. They're perfectly entitled to approach Farbrace, and offer him the job. I'll get to the ethics part a little later.

2) While we don't know the specifics of the contract Farbrace has with the SLC, I am a bit surprised that there would be no clause in it preventing him from going to a direct competitor (speaking in business terms) like that, but maybe the SLC can't enforce it for financial reasons, or maybe they indeed didn't have a clause, simply not thinking that another team would come sniffing around (a little naive if that's the case, doesn't hurt to take precautions).

3) The timing of it. It's been mentioned that Farbrace having coached SL will now be working directly against them. I think this is more unfortunate than malicious, since by all accounts getting Farbrace as an assistant was something Moores was insistent upon: seems like it's Moores choice, and the fact that it's coinciding with an England-SL series is an unfortunate coincidence. Maybe I'm being naive here, but if England really need inside knowledge to beat SL at home in May then we have a serious problem.

4) The ethics of the ECB. Well these are certainly questionable. But understandable IMO. They (or Moores) see Farbrace as the man for the job, and thus are doing what's possible to secure his services. Yes, in an ideal world it wouldn't happen, the ECB would play nice, but cricket stopped being an ideal world a very very long time ago, if it ever was. Cricket is competitive professional sport, and you can understand the ECB wanting to do their best.

5) Farbrace's choice. Tougher one this. Would be interesting to get Mike's opinion, since to my knowledge he's the only member on here who's coached a national team to a high level (admittedly it's not his profession, but we're talking ethics here). While again in an ideal world, Farbrace would show loyalty to the country who gave him his chance, let's not forget that it's his job: he's doing this to earn a living. If he can earn a better one (as he undoubtedly can) elsewhere, then once again I'm loathe to criticise the man. However, like guildford I can't help feeling it would have been nice to see him show more loyalty.

I'm struggling to come to a conclusion really. The real problem is that once Moores said he wanted Farbrace this was inescapable, and in a way it somewhat reflects the way cricket is going (being run more and more as a business - certainly in the business world this wouldn't have surprised anyone), which makes me a little sad. On the other hand, I think we have to accept this to an extent, it's a price to pay for cricketers (and coaches) being able to earn a decent living (for instance), and is to an extent inevitable.

Cricket these days is a business as much as a sport. And in business , everything that is legal is OK. If an employer - or employee - doesn't have some contract in place to safeguard them against an abrupt change of mind by the other party , then that's their lookout...

Having said that , I would have preferred not to see a man enticed away from one team at such short notice to serve a competitor . But I can't condemn a man for making a decision which will presumably benefit himself and his family...after all , coaches are hardly immune from sudden dismissal when the employing country/club decides it has had enough , are they?

Not getting too steamed up about it , frankly.

It's the Surrey AGM tonight. If only to stir things up, I'll try to ask why Graeme Ford had to serve a notice period of several months with the Sri Lankan Cricket Board before being permitted to join us whilst the ECB were able to obtain Paul Farbrace's services over a Bank Holiday weekend.

From what I understand from the articles being circulated on the web, Farbrace's contract did indeed have a clause requiring a notice period of 6 months. But there is another clause that talks about a 6 month probation period. There is a possibility that a legal case could be made that because he still was in the probation period, the notice period clause wouldn't apply. It is doubtful whether that argument would be sustained in the court, but if the SLC had gone to court, that would have meant a lot of money being spend on the court battles, and if they spend all that money to retain a disloyal and non-committed coach, it just isn't worth the hassle.
Overall a shrewd buy from the ECB, and and opportunistic business decision from Paul Farbrace.
And of course the ECB has thanked the SLC for their understanding!.

By the way, are David Saker and Graeme Gooch still part of the England coaching setup? Has Gooch ever seen his charges putting together a 400+ innings?
Having played his part in the royal messing of Steven Finn, and the overall lacklusterness of the attack in recent times, and also in the wake of the general changes, shouldn't Saker also go?
Perhaps the ECB should gun for Justin Langer for Gooch, and Alan Donald for Saker!. Or perhaps bring Gibbson back, who's place Saker had taken.

I think Gooch oversaw some good batting performances in the past, but would agree time for him and Saker to go you would think/hope!

guildfordbat wrote:It's the Surrey AGM tonight. If only to stir things up, I'll try to ask why Graeme Ford had to serve a notice period of several months with the Sri Lankan Cricket Board before being permitted to join us whilst the ECB were able to obtain Paul Farbrace's services over a Bank Holiday weekend.

Ford was described as 'a man of integrity who wished to leave Sri Lanka on good terms' and so his notice period was served in full.

As for Farbrace, some might think that money was thrown at the Sri Lankan Board by the ECB to get his immediate release.

As KP-fan has suggested, what is poor ethics to some is good business to others.