Pietersen v Moores: Who's in charge?

Can you imagine what would have happened if a Manchester United player had acted as Kevin Pietersen has in the past week, namely bypassing Sir Alex Ferguson and complaining about him to a senior club official and then making his dissatisfaction apparent to the media? Ferguson's reaction and the consequences for the player concerned do not bear thinking about, but it is safe to say the individual's feet would hardly have touched the floor on his way out of Old Trafford.

It is only cricket, with its unique and some might say antiquated ways, which can get itself in such a mess over a character clash between two of its major figures. The ongoing and needless row between Peter Moores, the England coach, and Pietersen, the captain – which will not be resolved until Thursday, when the latter returns from holiday – is unlikely to produce any winners. It is a shambles and, no matter who stays or goes, the nature of cricket will ensure there will be repercussions.

In football and rugby it is simple, everybody knows who's boss. It is the manager or coach who is in charge and what he says goes. If there is a dispute that cannot be resolved amicably, it is usually the player who moves on. Domestic football managers are fortunate in that they can sell and replace players who cause them problems. As the top dog they cannot allow themselves to be undermined.

Related articles

• James Lawton: Pietersen's petulant posturing leaves any idea of Team England in tatters
• Search the news archive for more stories

Who captains a football team is largely irrelevant. On the field the captain might set a wonderful example to the rest of the team, but it is the manager who dictates the style the side plays, and if he does not like what he is watching he can make the necessary alterations, removing the captain if he wants.

In cricket, however, it has always been different. The captain has to be a pivotal figure. It is he who takes the side into battle, setting fields, making bowling changes and dictating what tactics are used, and that is why the current rift between Moores and Pietersen is more likely to result in the England coach losing his job than the captain. An international coach cannot sell a player, and the captain is usually one of the best in the team. The likelihood is that a deposed captain will be disgruntled, making him a potential problem further down the line. It would be a brave decision to sack Pietersen as captain and drop him from the side. If the team began to lose, the selectors would be under enormous pressure to recall him, no matter what effect he would have on team spirit.

Cricket would benefit from having a similar structure to football or rugby but it is not that simple. The nature of the game does not allow it, and that is why it is not in place. The influence an all-controlling manager could have on a cricket team is limited because he cannot make substitutions and change the structure of the team. The 11 players named at the toss have to see the game through.

The primary role of a cricket coach is to develop the players under his guidance and provide them with all the preparation and information they require for the contest ahead. Historically they have always had a say in team selection and accepted that, when the team leaves the dressing room and crosses the white line, responsiblity for what happens lies with the captain. In the modern era, which has seen greater expectation heaped on players and greater attention to detail demanded of everyone, the profile of the head coach has raised. It is his job to manage an ever-growing backroom staff.

In no other sport, however, does the captain play such a crucial role – and for many that is part of the beauty of the game. A captain can be out in the field, in one-day cricket, for up to four hours and it is he who has to think on his feet. He is closest to the action, monitoring how an opposition batsman is playing and how his own players are faring. It is the captain who dictates the tempo of the game and the tactics that are employed. He would look foolish and incompetent if he went running off the field every 10 minutes searching for advice from his coach. By doing this he would lose the respect of his own players and the opposition.

In the dressing room, when the team is batting, he possesses the strongest voice too. The captain would speak to the coach about issues such as declarations and whether to enforce the follow-on but, ultimately, it is he who is expected to clap his hands on the balcony and signal for the team's innings to end, or inform the opposing captain that he would like them to bat again. And, understandably, if he performs these tasks, the captain wants a significant – if not final – say in what should take place.

England employed the one-man-in-total-control system in the mid-1990s when they made Ray Illingworth supreme. The appointment did not work for various reasons, the main one being that Illingworth was probably too old for the job at the time. Illingworth and the then captain Michael Atherton had a uneasy relationship, with each being as stubborn as the other.

On a couple of occasions Illingworth ignored Atherton's views on selection and picked the team he thought should play. The problem was that it was then Atherton's decision when to use them in the game. In a Test against New Zealand at Lord's in 1995 Atherton hardly bowled Paul Taylor and Craig White, players imposed on him by Illingworth, because he did not rate them that highly.

There was another occasion involving Atherton, who on this occasion was deputising for the resting Alec Stewart in an England warm-up game against an Australia XI in Tasmania. Injuries to two of the four Aussie bowlers made the game a farce but Atherton, against the wishes of the then coach David Lloyd chose to declare, setting the opposition a target of 376 in 78 overs on an exceptionally flat track. The Aussies pulverised England's bowling attack, of which I was a member, reaching their target for the loss of one wicket in 55 overs and two balls. Lloyd, who wanted a gentle stress-free workout for his bowlers, laughs about the situation now but he was livid at the time.

Cricket's biggest problem concerns who ultimately takes responsibility for the results and performance of the team. This is further complicated by the fact there are four people who could be viewed as being in charge: the captain, the coach, the chairman of selectors and the managing director of the England team.

Hugh Morris, the managing director, oversees the remaining three, each of who used to sit on a selection committee. That is no longer the case: the captain was removed from the committee when Nasser Hussain resigned in 2004 and Michael Vaughan took over. The captain's opinions are presented at the meeting and he has major input in reducing the squad down to 11 on the day of the match.

The captain was removed to prevent his relationship with his players being affected by his involvement in selection. In Australia they have taken it a step further, removing the coach from selection too. They felt that a player would not come to the coach with problems if he felt that it might have a detrimental effect on his selection for the next game. Cricket has been played for well over 200 years and it is yet to get to the bottom of this dilemma, and, wading through the pros and cons of what the England and Wales Cricket Board should do this week with Moores and Pietersen, it is no closer to finding a solution.

Skipper or coach? Ex-captains have their say

RAY ILLINGWORTH

(61 Tests for England, 31 as captain. Also a former chairman of selectors)

"The captain should have the main say; he has to be the main person. If he doesn't have the main say then he doesn't have the backing of the players when he gets on to the field, and it's very important that he has the backing of the other 10 players. The coach and the captain have to be on the same wavelength. Peter Moores is more of a stats man with a clipboard and pen, and Kevin Pietersen is more of a flair man with his own instincts – so it's a clash of personalities. [The ECB] have to make a decision, because if they are not getting on then it won't work. Someone needs to make a decision as to which one goes – and so I suppose really, if they are backing the captain, then the coach will get the sack." Talking to Sky Sports News

DAVID GOWER

(117 Tests for England, 32 as captain)

"I would not stake a huge sum of money [on Moores leading England to the West Indies]. It's a bit of a mess but I've got a feeling Kevin Pietersen will get his way. When Pietersen was appointed captain he asked Moores to stay in the background and organise nets while he got on with the job of organising the team. If there is a character clash in terms of personalities, Pietersen is the bigger one and it's not the sort of situation where compromise is going to work. You can't have factions and you can't have divisions. Hugh Morris [the managing director of the England team] has an interesting task on his hands to mediate if he can, if he can't he doesn't have much time to work out who is going to coach England in the Ashes. Kevin is a fantastic player and has got the chance to be a good captain – he's still learning that trade and is far from being a great captain yet – and I think they are going to have to back their captain." 5 Live

NASSER HUSSAIN

(96 Tests for England, 45 as captain)

"If you are asking me who is more important, Kevin Pietersen or Peter Moores, then there is only one winner and that's Kevin Pietersen; that's what he knows and that's why he's probably flexing his muscles. Somehow Hugh Morris has to calm this situation down otherwise it looks like Moores might have to go. I feel sorry for the bloke because he deserves time and if he doesn't do well then the England and Wales Cricket Board will make the decision." Sky Sports News

BOB WILLIS

(90 Tests for England, 18 as captain)

"It's the age-old problem of who runs a cricket team. We know who runs a soccer team – it's the manager – but in cricket, historically it's been the captain. Clearly things haven't worked out for England and since that 4-0 one-day victory over South Africa, everything has gone wrong for England. Pietersen will say: 'I flagged up this problem before I took the job, I was given assurances A, B and C would happen' and presumably A, B and C have not happened. So he wants Moores in the background. Pietersen wants to sink or swim with himself in charge, calling the shots, saying when the players are going to practice, when they're going to rest, what they're going to do at practice, how they're going to prepare and that's what he wants. If he's not going to get that, I fear he would threaten to resign." Sky Sports News

ALEC STEWART

(133 Tests for England, 15 as captain)

"It is vital that a healthy working relationship between these two is in place even if socially they don't mix – and a united front is paramount so that there is no chance of a split within the camp. Pietersen is a strong individual who likes to lead from the front and I have no problem with this. Moores must strike a happy medium as to who runs things where and when." Sunday Mirror

GRAHAM GOOCH

(118 Tests for England, 34 as captain)

"Kevin Pietersen has had problems in teams before. He left Nottinghamshire under a little bit of a cloud after a falling out in the dressing room. Unfortunately I think he has been influenced a little bit by Shane Warne at Hampshire. Warne was a great motivator as a player but, as one of the all time icons of the game and after leading the Rajisthan Royals to the Indian Premier League title last year, he doesn't really believe in coaching. He had his own run-ins with John Buchanan, the former Australia coach, and similarly maybe Pietersen doesn't like the style of Peter Moores' coaching." 5 Live

Compiled by Matt Fearon