Is Moores appointment a rushed job?

	© Getty Images

Less than 72 hours after he was appointed by England to succeed Duncan Fletcher, some are questioning the decision whether Peter Moores is the right man to be England’s coach.

In The Daily Telegraph, Mark Nicholas says the whole processed was too rushed:

Filling this man's boots will be no sinecure and quite why the ECB have done so in haste is a mystery. Having commissioned the Schofield report, it might have been wise to wait for its findings, which are due in mid-May. Michael Vaughan can handle the team perfectly adequately in the short-term and Peter Moores could have dealt with the peripherals. But Moores was signed and delivered in full before Fletcher's tears had dried. It has a strange smell about it. The ECB should have covered the globe in their search for the right man, or men even, for the demands of modern international cricket may now call for separate coaches in the two forms of the game. The ever-present nature of the role, the endless nights away from home and the repetitive calls to arms, take an extraordinary mental toll. But not a bit of it - out with the old, in with the new, just like that.

In The Observer, whose Vic Marks refers to Moores as cricket’s Steve McLaren, former England captain Mike Brearley offers a similar view:

Installing him permanently in the job at this stage risks putting him in too difficult a position; if things go wrong over the next year, the future of an excellent person might be compromised. He should either have been selected as provisional coach or allowed to get experience with the England squad under someone else …. [and] there can have been no proper search. However good Moores is, there was no time to advertise the job. His selection smacks of favouritism. It is not right for such an important job to be handed out without a proper competition.

Read in App

Elevate your reading experience on ESPNcricinfo App.

Download App Now