Stanford 20/20 for 20 / News

Stanford 20/20 for 20

England have learned 'very expensive lesson' - Moores

Cricinfo staff

November 3, 2008

Comments: 42 | Text size: A | A


Peter Moores: "Is it for England? Is it for money? You've got to be very clear as a team and as an individual, and I think we weren't as clear as we could have been." © Getty Images
Enlarge
 
As England lick their wounds and cut back on their Christmas spending after being humiliated in Saturday's Stanford 20/20 for 20, coach Peter Moores said that his players had "learned a very expensive lesson".

"The players were trying to get in their heads what the game was all about," he said after the match. "I think that until the game had actually been played, the guys didn't get into their heads exactly what the tournament has been about. I don't know if we were absolutely as clear as we could have been".

The players, Moores said, were in doubt over the purpose of the match. "Is it for England? Is it for money? In international top-flight sport you can't afford to have any grey areas. You've got to be very clear as a team and as an individual, and I think we weren't as clear as we could have been.

"Was it okay to say the match was about money or not about money? Every time you play for England it is about playing for England, but those questions were in people's minds during the week. They had to square it off in their heads. All credit to the lads for that, what they wanted to do was keep their integrity. They didn't want to be portrayed as not playing for their country but for the cash."

He was also concerned about how the result might affect England's assignments during winter. "We were playing against a very hungry, disciplined side. And we got nailed. That's what hurts, we got nailed in an international match. What we didn't want to compromise at all was our preparation for the winter. It's been a bit of both, because we're going to India for a massive series and we've been concentrating on getting right for that as well."

However, Moores was optimistic about the chances next time around at the Stanford Super Series. " I think we will be stronger and wiser for it. Yeah, honestly I think we will. I think we will know what this is about."

But he acknowledged there would be a rethink about whether it would be an England team that took the field for the next Stanford outing or, as mooted, and ECB XI. "It's going to be reviewed," he said. "If a change helps people get their heads around why we're here, fine."

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by BC_LARA on (November 4, 2008, 16:07 GMT)

u play for ur country and earn extra bucks...how hard is it to comprehend..??wats sooo confusing that u cant digest..?? Is it so tough that it should hamper the performance so badly that u couldnt score 100 of 20 overs against a team that had only six weeks of quality training for the very first time in their life...

Posted by CricketCrazy19 on (November 4, 2008, 12:05 GMT)

Mr Moores should rethink what he's talking about, he's ridiculing himself in this article. And, what's all this fuss about, why such hue and cry; it was just another game, though a huge one. English team would have gained much, had any one of them played to his best, but they got nothing significant to lose. Twenty20 cricket is mostly about individual performances and mindset, and on 1st November, none of that clicked for England. So, let the bygones be bygones for now, and KP should get his best shoes on for the next nail-biting(hopefully??) series, and I'm sure Dhoni/India won't make it any easier..

Posted by Daniel_Smith on (November 4, 2008, 10:57 GMT)

Having just read this article and my comments, I might have been a bit harsh. If Peter Moores' team talks are all as evasive and insubstantial as his comments above, no wonder the English players weren't clear about what was required.

Posted by Hoppers on (November 4, 2008, 9:45 GMT)

At least from the Packer era onwards, cricketers have been playing for a reasonable living and in recent years, many have become very wealthy. Moores should join a political party and stand as an MP - his mumbo jumbo might confuse enough people to get him elected. "What we didn't want to compromise at all was our preparation for the winter." What did the team and management do then? England had better brace themselves for a tonking in India.

Posted by Daniel_Smith on (November 4, 2008, 8:56 GMT)

This is a nonsense. If you can't raise your game to win £1 million dollars you've either got too much money already or you're not right in the head. Regardless of whether you agree or not with the Stanford series, the English players signed contracts and must be prepared to honour them.

Posted by Wiffy on (November 4, 2008, 8:29 GMT)

Earlier in the year when the ECB signed the contract with Stanford - where were these naysayers? There was only a big hoopla about the prize money. England have been concentrating on this since then. The fact that even the domestic leagues were talking about it and scrambling for the chance to play was testimony to this. Does anyone remember Harmison reversing his retirement to play? Can we forget all the talk during the South African tour about the Stanford match? So why can't Moores come up with a more plausible excuse for his team's dismal performance. Everyone knew this was a 20/20 game for 20 million - simple. Ain't rocket science.

PottedLamb, England have really come off looking like cream puff. Losing graciously would be to admit that you were hammered by the better team not whine and whimper to all who would listen!

Posted by Cricdish on (November 4, 2008, 6:17 GMT)

Wait. I don't understand why it is important to know whether the players were playing for England or for money. Why wasn't the aim to win? Why should the context matter? Isn't winning the primary goal of a sportsperson?

Posted by krik8crazy on (November 4, 2008, 4:08 GMT)

England failed miserably. There's no other way to describe their pathetic display. They were playing a cricket match and their one and only purpose should have been to win. Had they won, they could have donated the money to charity if they didn't feel good about winning it.

Posted by pietrojackson on (November 4, 2008, 2:49 GMT)

I hope [but doubt very much] that the whole English Cricket establishment is crawling with shame after reading/listening to Moores's comments.

How could he be allowed to trot out such absolute drivel ? Moores and Players couldn't work out 'what the tournament was about' .... 'the purpose of the match'.

Maybe they should have asked any intelligent 10 year old for clarification.

Is he trying to say that they hadn't worked out 20/20 ? Or that they were playing for money ? or they were playing for England ? How complex is this ?

As a professional you play to win; does it matter if you get 1x or 10x your normal rate ?

If you play for your country you play to win - if its 20/20, 50 over test - if its against Bangladesh or Australia.

Posted by bd_ind on (November 4, 2008, 0:32 GMT)

I kind of understand what he means. But on the other hand they had over 6 months to decide what this is all about. As a professional player, it should not be an excuse. And truth of the matter is England were always far behind in the shorter version of the game. Stop making excuses and try to improve. If they cant beat a WI side, considering their current situation, how can they compete with India or SA let alone aussies.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
ESPNcricinfo staffClose
Related Links
Players/Officials: Peter Moores
Series/Tournaments: Stanford Super Series
Teams: England
Tournament Results
Superstars v Middlesex at Coolidge - Oct 30, 2008
Superstars won by 58 runs
England v Trinidad & T at Coolidge - Oct 28, 2008
England won by 1 run
Middlesex v Trinidad & T at Coolidge - Oct 27, 2008
Trinidad & T won by 5 wickets (with 4 balls remaining)
England v Middlesex at Coolidge - Oct 26, 2008
England won by 12 runs
Superstars v Trinidad & T at Coolidge - Oct 25, 2008
Superstars won by 22 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days