England foot shooting continues

The tensions engulfing camp England have finally boiled over, and both captain and coach have walked out the door.

Whether or not he'd left of his own accord Pietersen would not have been allowed to stay on as captain. Cricketers must be subservient and not comment when they're uber-shitted off, it's just how it is. Just by saying "him or me" it was never going to be him.

Personally I'm disappointed. I was looking forward to Ponting and Pietersen squaring off.

And I bet Vaughan's wishing he'd pushed himself a bit harder these last few months.

It also seems to me like the tide is turning, and where last week observers were on KP's side, they now feel Moore's has been treated poorly; KP has betrayed his trust and this has all been most uncalled for.

Wow. Hissy fits. Cricket really does provide everything.

Ian Bell, anyone?

Don't pretend to be surprised, that's called denial

When I first saw a picture of a teary Michael Vaughan my first thought was that he'd realised how stupid his hair looked and was making an apology to the world. Then I realised what a foolish notion that was - as if he'd think his hair looked stupid.

So I see he's resigned. How shocking. Are you shocked? You shouldn't be. Denial is not just a river in Egypt (hilarious, I know). And now that I've been able to stop laughing at the resignation and apparent surprise, I can write about how Kevin Pietersen should be England's next captain.

If they want the Ashes back, he's their only hope.

So, they will pick Andrew Strauss.

When England won the Ashes in 2005, the good Poms went crazy for cricket. It was great to see.

But the soccer mob was not happy about it. They threatened the ECB, told them if they ever won an Ashes series again they would take their firstborn grandchild (because all the ECB are old) and spin the kid into gold for Australia's one day uniforms. And then hobble the entire cricket team.

The ECB did not want this to happen. They could handle losing the Ashes, but if there was no cricket team to play (because they had no feet), they couldn't even contest the Ashes, and then they would have no jobs. Bugger the grandkids.

If they'd really thought it through they'd have realised that the police would have caught on if every single player was mysteriously hobbled. But they didn't think about it.

So they installed Andrew Flintoff as captain. He didn't let them down. They lost five-nil.

But the public (especially the public who had spent not-so-small fortunes on getting to Australia to watch the series) were not happy, and Flintoff had to go. So they thought they'd get one up on the mob, and attempted to hobble him themselves. It didn't work, but it kept him sidelined for a while.

And then Vaughan returned from injury. England's favourite son, who would lead them to victory once more. Unfortunately, the selectors knew he was a liability if they were to keep their jobs and their teams' feet. So what did they do? They told Vaughan about the threat. And what did he do? He cried and ran away.

Plus he was rubbish. A mediocre-at-best player whose leadership skills made up for his lack of playing ability, who made promises he couldn't keep, saw poor performances as being acceptable and couldn't justify his arrogance with results.

So if you've ever wondered about dodgy selections, suspicious injuries or early retirements, now you know why.

In order to fail again, Strauss is their man. Not their only man, one of ten in fact.

I want KP to be the next captain because he's hot, and I for one would like to see that angsty power struggle of captains that would exist between he and Ricky Ponting/Graeme Smith/Daniel Vettori. Can you imagine Stuart Broad in such a fashion? I thought not.

Also, because he's the only one who really seems to have a winning attitude (and if you hadn't noticed, this lack of winning attitude is what annoys me about England the most, and in a supreme fashion). But, and for the same reason, I don't want him to be captain.

Hands off those Ashes. Flounder away.

This one's for you, Vaughany.

Leadership in cricket

The ECB have cancelled Zimbabwe's tour of England and Zimbabwe's participation in next year's Twenty20 Championship in England. So pretty much they're banned from England.

THANK YOU.

Finally, some leadership from someone.

Why did it have to be England?

Oh that's right, because they're the ones with a tour next scheduled.

Wait a minute, aren't India supposed to be in Zimbabwe at the moment? My blog says so!

I lose track.

I've said it before and will reiterate here, sport and politics cannot and should not be separate. The Olympic Games is another can of worms, but for that debate I direct you here.

Anyway, England won't be fined by the ICC because it's actually the British Government banning Zimbabwe from touring.

One day, when Zimbabwe will be back in the cricket circles, when their troubles are less one Robert Mugabe, it'll be great to have them back.

Hot cross Poms

If the Pommy lads aren't allowed to play in the IPL, they'll be cross and defiant.

Said Sean Morris, the CEO of the Professional Cricketers' Association, in a roundabout sort of way. "Restricting employees anywhere will cause friction in a relationship - over a period of time that will break it down."

I think he has a very valid point here. If it came to it, can England afford to be sacking its top players if they're defying orders, ala New Zealand and the ICL? I think not.

He also said that a solution must be found or money will talk, and on that point, I had an interesting conversation with a ten-dollar note about where to find cyanide solution the other day, actually. Once again, Miss Field leads the way.

Lalit Modi, the IPL chairman, apparently knows that top England players want to play in the IPL ("I know a lot of them are interested...") and he is willing to move the season a bit to accommodate. What a star.

On the contrary though, the ECB's chairman Giles Clarke said the England lads are all happy little vegemites, that he is not under pressure from any of them to be allowed to play in the IPL ("I don't think the rewards being talked about are ones England players would be interested in.") because they're all satisfied with dedicating their lives to a lost cause. That way at least they can die as martyrs.

Now. Someone's telling fibs here, and I have a theory that it's Mr Clarke. When all the cricketing countries are joining in but yet his players, without exception, are happy not to, something isn't quite right.

I wonder who will stand by their apparent convictions and who will be bought. We all have a price...