The inquiries the hacks should pose to Downton

Dear standard cricket writers, throughout the previous ten months any semblance of us have given the majority of you an exceptionally tough time. Furthermore, which is all well and good. You’ve let your peruses down. At the point when the Petersen issue started, it was quickly clear the ECB’s story didn’t stand up to anything. It barely expected the nous of a Woodward and Bernstein to detect a concealment. Paul Downton and Giles Clarke were masking, muddling, and out and outlying. They have executed an extraordinary duplicity, and their lead emphatically looks like defilement. How did you, the cricket press, respond? Most of you turned over and had your bellies tickled.

You signally neglected to perform your responsibility

Which is to view position to be answerable. You didn’t pose the troublesome inquiries. You didn’t examine. You didn’t examine. In a peculiar reversal of editorial standards, a considerable lot of you favored the foundation against your peruse. Why? Not many of us could very understand it. Was it sluggishness? Smugness? Is it safe to say that you were withdrawn from regular cricket devotees? Were great relations with the ECB more critical to you than news coverage? Did you loathe the brashness of bloggers and BTLers, who encroached on your domain and afterward thought for even a second to scrutinize your judgment? Or on the other hand would you say you were basically excessively near the Britain progressive system, and hesitant to implore your companions?

There were obviously various respectable exemptions. We don’t associate you all with a similar reputation. However, to those of you who evaded your obligations – whatever the explanation – you currently have a valuable chance to make up for yourselves. Tomorrow Paul Downton will give a progression of media interviews. This is how you will respond. You will set the plan – and not permit him to control procedures. You will bite the bullet, and pose him the inquiries he would rather not reply. You will view him to be answerable and get to reality.

For what reason did you sack Kevin Petersen?

75 days have passed since the classification understanding lapsed. Why as of recently have neither you nor any ECB agent spoken freely? Whose thought was the secrecy arrangement – yours or Petersen’s? On the off chance that yours, for what reason did you need one? On nineteenth April you said, “I showed up in Sydney on 31 December and it was obvious from Andy Blossom that there were two issues we were confronting. He [Flower] was dubious about his future – and what were we going to do about Kevin?”

Considering that Britain were then 4-0 down, with the Cinders lost, Swann resigned, Trott sick, no third seamers or spinner, and Cook, Root and Chime all in unfortunate structure, for what reason was Kevin Petersen (the series top scorer) your superseding need? At a similar question and answer session you said, of Petersen, that during the Sydney test, “I have never seen anybody so withdrawn based on what was happening”. Considering that he was handling at fine leg, for what reason would you say you were giving him such close consideration? What did he explicitly do which proposed withdrawal?