The captain and the coach

This is meant to be Kevin Pietersen's year. He now faces a home Ashes series he has to dominate not only as a batsman, but as captain. Then, in an electrifying prospect, he will lead his adopted country to his homeland, where he so stunningly broke into the England side four years ago. Caribbean tours, such as England will undergo in the spring, are rarely dull either, and a resurging if not quite resurgent West Indies side should not be taken for granted. Over the next 12 months, he will begin to define his place in the pantheon.

The men who chose Pietersen to lead England took a significant risk, not only in burdening their greatest asset but by placing power in the hands of an uncompliant character. It appears, with strong rumours circulating of a damaging rift between Pietersen and coach Peter Moores, that they are about to understand what having Pietersen as captain really entails. In the end he will have to have it his way; that could end up with his tenure lasting five years or five months. They should not have promoted Pietersen if unprepared to give him his head, however much that may sometimes cut against the grain. He has rarely done otherwise.

The tension between him and Moores, which has been a problem throughout and preceding his captaincy, may well end up costing the coach his job. Other than creating financial and administrative difficulties, it is hard to see how this hurts England. Moores was to have been a cheerful counterpoint to an increasingly glum Duncan Fletcher; a personable motivator; a new voice on one-day cricket in which England had long struggled. During his 20 month tenure to date, England have won just one Test match in twelve against top-rank opposition; in limited overs cricket there have been some exhilarating successes, offset by equally crushing reverses. Furthermore the impression seems to be that more players have been annoyed than inspired by his methods. With Duncan Fletcher the intentions were clear; you could agree or disagree with his nostrums, and the results, until the last year or so, encouraged the former. Moores seems intangible; he has rarely been much criticised for England's average performances, mostly because the team seems to bear so little of his imprint. Crucially, and in total contrast to Fletcher, he has failed to establish a decent working relationship with any of his captains; without the backing, overt and implicit, of the captain, no coach can succeed at this level. If that truly is the case in the current situation, Moores must be the one to lose out.

That should not necessarily entail a mad rush to install a direct replacement. With such an important year imminent, there is no time for a new face to bed in quietly. And with a captain like Pietersen, one suspects the right man may not be found easily or quickly. A simple solution would be to retain the relevant backroom staff and coaches, with respected manager Hugh Morris to act as a convener when necessary, in lieu of a head coach. Although not in keeping with prescriptive modern fashion, it would be a flexible situation which should suit Pietersen without leaving him isolated and unsupported. Unless someone who has the respect of the captain and his team can be found, it is the best recourse. By rolling the dice and making Pietersen captain, the England management showed faith in an impressive cricketer. Now they must back him.