Why has all the talk over the last few days been about Alastair Cook’s presence in the T20 squad? Why is it that the snippets of interviews I’ve heard on the radio and seen on TV have been of Stuart Broad having to deny that Cook’s presence is undermining his captaincy?
It would appear to me to be total and utter press led bollocks – as usual, let me add.
The press are yet again digging for something that probably isn’t there and putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 58, not even 5 – as is the usual level of incompetence.
It’s pretty much the same in football, in particular with England managers and the same with the England Rugby team, our loyal gutter press are reading and waiting with a large knife to stick in the back at the first opportunity.
Continually trying to stir things up throughout the Test series with regard to Ajmal’s action clearly didn’t work (ok, Andy Flower gave them a bit of a story), but undeterred our press keep going, in the hope of finally unearthing some muck that they can spread, or in this latest case, trying to create a story that probably isn’t even there.
Why is it that the question of Cook and Broad undermining Strauss’ captaincy in the Test team wasn’t raised at the start of the series? What’s the difference in what is being asked at the moment?
This latest story is utter crap and should be treated with the contempt it deserves. The three men (Strauss, Cook and Broad) clearly have the utmost respect for each other as men, cricketers and captains, and seem happy to me to let each other get on with their respective jobs.
It is testimony to the team spirit England have built up over the past 18-24 months how effortlessly the three captains can switch.
Finally, by all means if there is something that needs exposing, by all means the press are well within their rights to do so and I would expect nothing less. But all this digging and scratching around for something that clearly isn’t there and trying to create a conflict (as with the Ajmal issue) is totally out of order in my view.
I totally agree. The press seems to wanna make a big deal out of something that is trivial for the parties involved. For the most part, I feel that being elected the captain is just symbolic. However, in cricket they might have more impact on the game, but as you say, for England, this isn’t much of a problem. Cook, Broad and Strauss seem to be fine with sharing the responsibility and are probably mostly in agreement with what strategies to utilize.
I actually think England’s football team did a smart choice choosing Parker as captain (and I’m a Liverpool fan) seeing as he seldom has any off-pitch troubles and is a hardworking player. This will put less burden upon a (potential) captaincy for Gerrard who would be scrutinized by the press easily for every wrong move he’d make.
Not that Parker isn’t a worthy of being a captain, but it makes sense with the crazy press we have these days. They make a whole lot of noise about something that is considered to be an honor.