Buttler praises Strauss 'clarity' but results the key

Andrew Strauss addressed England's players and backroom staff for the first time at the team hotel on Tuesday. With only 48 hours before the start of the first Investec Test against New Zealand, he had some explaining to do. Such as why was Peter Moores sacked and why is Kevin Pietersen still persona non grata?

Just as no memoir from Titanic focuses on the excellent catering or the smooth journey before that pesky incident with the iceberg, so no contemporary report on English cricket can look far beyond the sackings, the infighting and the soap opera that has become the life of Pietersen.

It seems hard to believe that, less than two years ago, England won the Ashes without conceding defeat in a Test and reached the final of the Champions Trophy. Now, the reputation of English cricket has arguably never been lower. It is the job of the new director of England cricket to address it.

With such a task facing Strauss, it would be naïve to expect that he could quell all doubts in one go. If some players or staff remain sceptical, the majority of cricket followers are even harder to pacify.

There will be some comfort for Strauss, nevertheless, in the response of England's wicketkeeper Jos Buttler, who insisted that for the England team it was business as usual. Buttler has only met Strauss once before when, as a Middlesex player, he guested for Somerset against India in 2011 to find some form ahead of the Test series, but he knows his record and that will have counted for a lot.

"He was very open and honest about what has gone on and all the players respected that," Buttler said. "Nothing has been kept from anyone and everyone knows the reasons why things are happening and what the plan is moving forward.

"The players respected that and it was great to hear from the man himself what his visions are. You read things in the press and you pick on hearsay but to sit in a room and hear him say why these decisions have been made and what the plan is moving forward gives the players clarity about what is going on."

To some extent, the ECB only have themselves to blame for this situation. Their role in the carve-up of the ICC, their sometimes high-handed attitude towards those who pay their wages (the "outside cricket" press release, for example), their hubris and their handling of major decisions - such as Pietersen's sacking - has left themselves open to criticism. Derision, even.

And yet, beneath all that, there are admirable things going on, too. To see Mark Wood, who may well make his Test debut on Thursday in place of Chris Jordan, or Adam Lyth, or Ben Stokes or Buttler train at Lord's on Tuesday was to see the nucleus of a hugely talented, young, exciting and likeable side in development. It was to see the future of England cricket.

Equally, to witness the admirable Luke Sugg, who hit four centuries in the Blind World Cup in South Africa before Christmas, presented with England's Disability Player of the Year award of Monday night, was to be given a reminder that the ECB - for all their faults - have led the world in their funding of disability cricket. Women's cricket, too. And while these things may not generate many headlines, they still matter.

A series win against New Zealand would see England back to a respectable No. 3 in the Test rankings. A series defeat would see them slip to a desolate No.7. Hysteria could lurk, either way.

But which is the real ECB? Which is the real England?

It was a dichotomy typified by Strauss' first foray into the world of cricket administration. Here was a man who, not long ago, was the golden boy of English cricket: the captain who led them to No. 1 in the Test rankings and a batsman good enough to play Ashes-defining innings. He was respected, admired and liked.

But the move from whites to blazer has not been comfortable. The decision to continue Pietersen's period in exile - a period that may well end at the World T20 in India - could be used to argue either a lack of objectivity (Strauss allowing his personal feelings to interfere with the best interests of the team) or for the benefits of his recent dressing room experience. Less than 18 months ago, Strauss said he felt he lacked the experience to apply for the job he is now in. One wonders what relevant experience he gained from a year working as a pundit for Sky.

Strauss' record is more similar to Pietersen than he may like to accept. Not only have they both been responsible for ending Peter Moores' spell as England coach (Pietersen the first time; Strauss the second), but they both used the same word - albeit in a different language - to describe one another.

There are more double standards at play. It would, according to Strauss, "be harsh" to judge Eoin Morgan on his World Cup performance, but fair to sack Moores on his. He feels sorry for Moores because he "lacked time" to make a difference, yet he was the man who decided his time was up. England requires, according to Strauss, players that can make their own decisions under pressure, yet he has micro-managed to such an extent that the new coach will not be at liberty to select his own captain, vice-captain or England's record international run scorer. Not many top coaches will put up with such interference.

There is some irony the ECB talking about "trust," too. Whatever you think of Moores and Paul Downton, they deserved better than to learn of their sackings from the media. Indeed, in time, we may come to reflect that the latest instalment in Pietersen-Strauss actually helped the ECB by obscuring their wretched treatment of Moores.

The point of this is not to lambast the ECB - or Strauss - once more. It is to demonstrate that even those who have served England cricket with distinction can err or be judged harshly and that Strauss, now appointed, will need time to achieve the change he desires. If he really believes Moores was not the man for the coaching job - and one wonders with whom he consulted, because the Test squad seemed squarely behind their coach - then he is right to have acted swiftly and decisively. He will be judged by the results.

The point of all this?

A new summer of international cricket brings new hope. England have an exuberant, young side. A side that could inspire and engage. It is time to stop the in-fighting, time to stop focusing on the past, time to stop judging the team on the failings of the board. Just as Pietersen should be brought back into the fold - and that does not necessarily mean, just yet, into a Test team which has a fine-looking middle-order - Strauss and Graves and co. need to be given time to bring about the change of which they talk. In short, can't we all just get along?

As Buttler recognised, it's time to start again. Again.