I just heard the most astonishing two interviews...

Alistair Sook:  Could not inspire a dog to eat its dinner.

If he asked me to bowl a certain line and length, I would try, but I would be unlikely to succeed.  Something in the human brain just decides not to follow people like him.  His craptaincy will always act to reduce his team's performance. 

I don't want Australia demolishing and England team in that state.  We want the Poms to do their best, and find that we are just too good, superior in every way in other words.

I fully expected to look at Cricinfo today and see sensational headlines declaring the fool sacked, resigned or assassinated, but no, he is free to go on reducing the sum total of the world's knowledge of cricket Captaincy with his every thought, word and action.

Why turn on Cook now?  It is clearly Pietersen that is causing him to look lost out there in his team meetings every ball.

Why sack him now when nothing has changed?

When there was 5 players in the huddle talking about the orders Cook received from the coach from the constant onslaught of England players on and off the field all day, every day, Pietersen was sacked because he didn't include himself in helping the mothers club from 200 metres away.
Now that Pietersen isn't there, everybody is turning on Cook?

If it wasn't his fault before, it isn't now.

You guys are pathetic.  Blame blame blame.  Cook will go, because he is useless, as has been said by me for years, and be replaced with somebody else that requires the aid of the coaches on the sideline to make a decision, which will be discussed by the clique of players England continues to have, ummm I mean the leadership group of half a team causing hours of play lost every game, and then when they continue to dwell in the mediocre world of playing non winning cricket, another scapegoat will need to be found.


What a humorous nation.

I think you will find most people who watch a lot of cricket have doubted Cook was any sort of a leader apart from the short honeymoon period in the away series against India where he confused the world by leading his team to a great series victory. 

That will not have confused those on planet BJT though, way too shrewd.

I think you will find if you go back through all the threads, your view isn't at all shared.

People would have to be seriously struggling to have thought Cook would ever be a good leader, the guy is as dull as all get out.

I have regular contact with about 6 full time experienced cricket followers and I cannot recall any one of those ever thinking he would be any good. 

I think you have a neat habit of grouping everyone who disagrees with you together and attributing them all with the most foolish position you can think of.

Either that is true, or nearly everyone else is constantly wrong and BJT is constantly correct.  Not sure which I would prefer to be true if I were you. 

6 full time cricket followers?  Is it not blasphemy for the barmy army to speak out against the England captain?

We follow cricket from a slightly different angle to the Barmy Army Mr T, or should I call you BJ?  And members of the group come from all over the planet.

For example I was a proud Auatralian until you showed up.

Because I have the ability to read and add and showed you up?

No, because you employ the most transparently juvenile debating tools. 

I would only be pleased if you pointed out errors in my posts with coherent and credible arguments.

Like pointing out all the stats you use against KP are bullsiht?  How you make up numbers and call them facts?

That has been done to death.  You aren't really worth putting that much time into.  Surprised you are still trying it on tbh.

You deny England had a better win-loss record across the three formats without Pietersen than they did with him?

I think anyone can look that up and see what they think.

I don't believe in simpleton stats.  I don't compare games against New Zealand as directly comparable to games against South Africa.

I much rather real stats.

But either way, your stat shows England have a win/loss ratio of 1.22, yet with KP 1.35 in test matches.  1.03 to .92 in ODI, and .91 to 1.05 in T20Is.


Not sure why you feel that is directly relevant though, and not sure you have even looked to confirm what you have said, because clearly it is "wrong".....

I've seen your sophisticated reading of the with Pietersen/without Pietersen results and it was laughable.

Jun 25, 2014 -- 5:22PM, junior007 wrote:

No, because you employ the most transparently juvenile debating tools.  I would only be pleased if you pointed out errors in my posts with coherent and credible arguments.

unior007 • June 25, 2014 6:56 PM BST
I've seen your sophisticated reading of the with Pietersen/without Pietersen results and it was laughable.

Are you on the national debate team by any chance?  Such beautiful points you bring up.

http://www.givemesport.com/480212-alastair-cook-will-prove-he-is-a-great-captain

Shirley a piss take

The disclaimer at the bottom is by far the most telling part of that article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/28052868

As long as he still has the captaincy come the ashes I'll be content

Let's be honest, doesn't matter who is captain, they are under the orders of the coaching staff anyway.  That is why they are on and off the field and having mother's club meetings with half the team 2-3 times every over....

well re appointing Moores was a massive failure.Cook jizzed when he was told.New England is even more tired and boring then old England.At least they tried to pretend they were another nation with their orange uniforms last school meet.I fear for old blighty during the com games.

I'm sure I recognise the tenor of our young Bond.

England will remain a long term lay until they sort things out. Don't knock it when there is steady money to be made.