Pietersen v Flower: A coach's view

Brilliant teams need an understated leader who watches the process unfold moment-to-moment and nurtures the process whilst simultaneously being able to look ahead into the distance and see the danger to ensure the ship can be steered to calmer waters whenever it is needed.

Part of this is challenging the team and its individuals from getting too cosy and thus allowing a level of complacency to enter a team's consciousness. The slippage can be subtle, but it is so destructive to the winning culture if not attended to day by day. You are effectively the team's conscience and have to regularly hold up the mirror to show the less appealing elements of the team's activity and responses.

Demanding leader that he is, Andy Flower must have annoyed even his greatest supporters in the team at times. Leading an elite sporting environment is not a role for anyone who wants to win a popularity contest.

The sadness for me is in the clarity of the black-and-white thinking KP appears to prefer. Whilst it may help his performance it would appear to hinder his ability to engage fully with people he appears to have little regard for. Being able to co-exist with all types is an important quality to have, especially with the group's leader, whatever one's differences.

For those who wear their preferences so openly, having a disregard for others can have a detrimental effect on people feeling comfortable around them. When this happens in a team environment, long-term performance suffers.

If it is 'the main man' (from a performance perspective) then it can intimidate others and thus become a block to an individual feeling central to the team and producing the level of performance which comes with that genuine sense of inclusion. People want to, and need to feel valued.

With young players, such personalities can have an inspirational effect on performance if 'the main man' rates them. Unfortunately, the polar opposite is also true. That's where great coaches and great captains step in, and work on the environment to ensure strong personalities do not overpower the team culture and its need for shared ownership.

It must be a place where all voices are heard and all feelings respected for a team to grow over time into a high-performing unit, and be a caring family system.

Egotistical behaviour and immaturity in many players can make elite sport a difficult environment for coaches. As a head coach, achieving all-round success within a team sport is limited by the quality of thinking held by one's charges.

With a joined up long-term development plan, players can be inculcated with a respectful culture whereby each person supports each other's growth. This leads to a healthy learning culture that enhances a team's chances of enjoying sustained success.

Is the highly-respected Andy Flower a demanding leader who managed to extract high-level performances from his charges through skilful management of a complex group of people? Or, is Andy Flower the big problem for English cricket and the reason for its downturn as Kevin Pietersen would like people to believe?

The data supports the view that the intense, passionate and determined Flower led a group of good cricketers into a world of dedication that enabled them to become very good cricketers over time. The results were aided by the outstanding contributions by some brilliant performers like Kevin, Graeme Swann, Matt Prior, and James Anderson. But could they have done it without him? History suggests not, but we will never know.

Maybe the answer to the above questions would have been clearer if Andy Flower had stood down from his role after the Ashes success in 2013? If so, he would have been feted as a truly remarkable coach who transformed an international sporting team from also-rans into the world's best team over time.

Andy is a man whose precision, both in terms of planning and choice of words, created a new level of professionalism for professional cricketers in Zimbabwe (when captain) and with England (as head coach). Apparently, there was no cosying up to star players and no soft-soaping of what success in top sport required in terms of attitude and commitment. But clearly the intensity of the environment became too much for some players the longer his reign continued with England.

Should he, as the England coach have lightened up more? Or, should the selectors have realised that players reach a stage in their careers when they can no longer commit the same energy to a role that they were prepared to when they were busy establishing themselves in the team?

But, the problem is that if there are insufficient players of quality pushing to get into the team, it is a massive risk to de-select any player whose attitude and approach is on the wane, albeit subtly, in favour of an untried newcomer.

Thus, what happens, is the coach remains demanding, the players get tired of his/her approach, and resentment builds in a team which they don't reveal other than to fellow players with a similar axe to grind. Thus, the team culture gets polluted with a silent mutiny about the coach and his/her methods.

Performance then suffers, and the coach gets frustrated, sometimes angry and increasingly demanding and the cycle of resentment gets worse and worse, until eventually the whole thing explodes in people's faces. The coach feels let down because they have continued to give all they can in the best way they knew possible, and the players feel relieved that disaster may bring about a new regime.

Then, because of the fall-out, any individual who is believed to have been central to the undermining of the culture then gets the blame, and takes the hit.

In 2013, the signs were there that Andy Flower's team was decaying: specific players falling out with each other; a coterie of senior players forming an unhealthy tight bond that seemed to make life difficult for outsiders; the influential captain (Andrew Strauss) retiring a year beforehand; players urinating on the pitch at The Oval after winning a third successive Ashes series as part of a victory celebration; the indifferent quality of players moving through a revolving door to replace established senior players; egotistical players wanting to receive greater recognition for being greats (in their minds) and publicly talking about team and personal legacies.

If he were really smart (and also selfish) Andy Flower would have walked away from English cricket's top job in September 2013, and protected his record.

Andy Flower is a smart guy who is less concerned with image and reputation than he is doing the best job he can for his employer, and serving his family's needs. In this way he is very similar to Gary Kirsten. They love and respect the game of cricket, and they want to help others experience a similar experience and depth of connection. They are evangelists for their sport.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that spending too long a period of time as a performance manager with an international sporting team can have a detrimental effect on one's humour, perspective and ability to relax. It can become all-consuming for those at the coalface.

The more times a person sees the same thing, the less they see. Historical perspectives of individuals can become entrenched views and where the eyes were once fresh, they become tired and stop exploring the detail with a child-like curiosity. Most significantly, the team can get bored of you and your voice.

Nurturing effective relationships with star players is vital for a coach in professional sport. Without the support of the senior player group, a coach is dead in the water. But sometimes, over-indulgence of a star can also become a major problem because the rest of the senior player group can feel resentful about such treatment. Perhaps that is their problem, and they need to manage their own jealousies better, but it is a difficult dynamic to manage once it develops in a team. People rarely admit to having it, but it is there.

Andy Flower would seem to be the recipient of much of Kevin Pietersen's ire in his new book, though Matt Prior seems to be reviled for positioning himself as the ultimate team man. I have always believed that unless one is in the space it is impossible to know the exact nature of the relationship between two people but clearly Kevin has had little regard for Andy's ability as a coach from way back.

The role Kevin has played in the England team has been the one of a brilliant individual. His performances have been sensational at times. In fact, without his 158 at The Oval in 2005, England would have lost the match and with it, been unable to regain the Ashes. Who knows how long that sequence would have gone on without the belief of winning them back in 2005?

Disappointingly, Kevin seems unable to recognize the role played by Andy Flower (and some others) in the management of the group process that culminated in some exceptional team results being achieved on a consistent basis between 2009 and 2013. By Kevin suggesting his own five-year-old son could have done what Andy accomplished, reveals to me a lack of understanding on Kevin's part about what goes into facilitating top performance in others. I find it a disrespectful comment too.

Trust is a vital element in enjoying successful relationships and maybe his opinions were as a result of losing trust in key people and some of his comments were an emotional release emanating from deep scars. I certainly felt it was unfair to portray him as the bad guy because I have first-hand knowledge of some very good things he has done behind the scenes to support English cricketers.

It has been the most horrible 12 months in the ECB's history. There have been no winners.

The reality is elite sport is a messy place. Individuals are driven by a desire for the spotlight, recognition, feeling valued, wanting a sense of belonging and needing some financial and emotional security because it could all end in a split second through loss of form, confidence, or fitness.

Insecurity dominates most people but they are too afraid to acknowledge their human frailty in the team context and thus have to wear - to quote Dr Ken Jennings - 'the mask of competency', which means the reality of the issues get buried quite deep until a demanding moment brings them to the surface. When it does, they can explode like a boil being lanced and pollute the environment for longer than it takes to clean up the mess.

Every team faces the need for renewal. Doing so ahead of bad times is vital if the horrors experienced by the England cricket team last year are to be avoided by others in future.

The fascinating aspect of renewal for me is the unknown. How will it play out as consequence of change? When space is created in a system, it can be fascinating to observe who has the desire to fill it. Who, despite having all the credentials to fill it ,decides to remain in their previous role? Some very good players seem unable to, or choose not to, influence the culture of the team in a more dominant manner once their more senior teammates move on.

Often it is an ambitious young person who has the chutzpah to seize the moment and make a big impact on the new culture which then inspires other more established members of the group to follow their lead. For example, it was Kevin Pietersen who filled the space in 2005, despite being a debutant.

In my experience, sport is not a hierarchy where people shift up one notch in an orderly fashion as a consequence of those at the top of the tree moving on. The coach's challenge is to create an environment in which people can become exceptional.

The skill for every coach is in creating a learning context that people want to be part of because they see the value in their own personal growth as well as being part of others' development too. Ultimately, when a person/player understands that their life is about being in service to others it all becomes so much easier.

Being more loving towards all is what makes the difference in life.