KP YES OR NO? IN ALL FORMATS

MINE

t20 no
odi no
test no

whats yours?

On current form:

T20 - Yes as an opener
Odi - Yes as an opener
Test - Yes until someone younger with better temperament comes along

On form over the last two years

No, no, no

Of course, Yes. Opening in one-day cricket suits him.

He should have been opening in t20 and odi's for years really

Gregers wrote:He should have been opening in t20 and odi's for years really

Perhaps. I think its only just starting to click that, since batting powerplays and now two new balls were introduced, the best place for the best player to bat in one-day cricket is in the top three. Pinch-hitters were only necessary when they would miss the powerplays and harder ball completely if they didn't bat in the top three.

How can people say 'Pietersen should've been opening in ODIs and T20s for years'?

In England in swings around, Pietersen's technique isn't good enough to open in those conditions. Now throw in 2 new balls.

In answer to the question

Tests: No
ODIs: No
T20s: Yes

ok so my wummier post is getting more respect than my serious one- just to make it clear- kp in all 3 formats - 100% garanteed!! and he can open in all of them

Shelsey93 wrote:

Gregers wrote:He should have been opening in t20 and odi's for years really

Perhaps. I think its only just starting to click that, since batting powerplays and now two new balls were introduced, the best place for the best player to bat in one-day cricket is in the top three. Pinch-hitters were only necessary when they would miss the powerplays and harder ball completely if they didn't bat in the top three.

The 2 new balls is only a benefit to batsmen in Asia. If you where playing at Wanderers, Lords, Wellington on a greentop it was be the worst place to bat.

Obvious yes. Probably the most obvious answer ever.

Tests - NO
ODI - Yes
T20 - NO (#3)

Tests: Yes. Bad series against Pakistan but an excellent 12 months beforehand.

ODIs: Yes. Would have said no before this series but now he's got that first century in 3 years out of the way, more should follow.

T20Is: Yes. Whilst he has suffered loss in form in Tests and ODIs since 2009, he hasn't stopped being a brilliant and effective T20I player.

Every team needs a KP, the English batting line up is long and can afford having a player like KP, even if he isn't the most applied batsman out there, when he comes off he is spectacular, and it hurts me to say that cause I just don't like the man.

There should be big doubts about his test place. He's been very patchy in recent years, really since his return from injury, with very obvious failures against the better attacks (SA & Pakistan).

YES


AMANUESIS: he averaged 80 odd last year in tests!

Bloody hell - you shouldnt even need to aks that. hes a cert.

Nah he is rubbish. bairstow would batter him in a ginger contest. sorry engkand wsles and beer android. its messy

[quote="mystiroakey"]Nah he is rubbish. bairstow would batter him in a ginger contest. sorry engkand wsles and beer android. its messy[/quote]

clearly you cant tell what defines the word 'rubbish'

cf it was a wum- kp is my fav player if you didnt know all ready

ICC Rankings:
T20 : 2nd ( 2nd highest ranked england player)
ODI : 26th ( 3rd highest England player)
Test 20th (4th highest England player)

Given he now has a specialist role in both limited overs formats as an opener Id argue his test place is the nearest one to being under threat, and hes just come off a year averaging over 80.
Add to that he offers a bowling option in every format and its plain silly to argue he shouldnt be playing in all formats.

yeah tis silly- lol

KP and Cook should be dropped from the ODI side, and Anderson should be dropped from the test side along with Broad and perhaps Swann as well!.

msp- i see what your doing

errmm starting to think i am the only sane one here- my boy bairstow kills it and mogs is proving he is stuck in some eternal rut- needs a change up- CC for sure- bairstow needs to be giving the chance in both limited over formats 100%- even in the first 20/20 although he wasnt great- still hang about, wereas mogs just lazily fked it

jeez, give it up mysti


msp

msp83 wrote:KP and Cook should be dropped from the ODI side, and Anderson should be dropped from the test side along with Broad and perhaps Swann as well!.

Let me guess mean while our test team should include Samit Patel, Luke Wright, Darren Pattinson, Saj Mahmood, Ian Blackwell and Rob Key while were at it

hodge wrote:

msp83 wrote:KP and Cook should be dropped from the ODI side, and Anderson should be dropped from the test side along with Broad and perhaps Swann as well!.

Let me guess mean while our test team should include Samit Patel, Luke Wright, Darren Pattinson, Saj Mahmood, Ian Blackwell and Rob Key while were at it

A fair bit of weight in that list

think of the money spent on lunches and teas for that team

Simple answer. England's best player by a country mile, unequivocal yes in every single format.

whats the complicated answer?

i think everyone apart from gregers would want KP in the side, in all forms of the game

It seems we have quite a few posters on here with either a) incredibly short memories, or b) the mental capacity of a brick.

I literally despair when I see guff like 'Pietersen should be dropped from the test side' being written. One bad series, for Christ's sake. His record in the five day game speakes for itself.

An emphatic yes in all forms.

i agree chris..

he averaged 80 in 2011 in test cricket, and he is getting his form back in limited overs cricket.

Wonder why it is that discussion about getting dropped only seems to apply to the good players (Graveney, Gower, KP to name just a few).
There are some who average 45 who people think should be averaging 55. So the call goes out for these players to be dropped in favour of.....guys who average 35, for Pete's sake.
It certainly happened with Graveney and Gower and now happens with KP. IMHO, Pietersen should ALWAYS be in the Test and 50-over side. Not all that bothered about Twenty-20.

hodge wrote:

msp83 wrote:KP and Cook should be dropped from the ODI side, and Anderson should be dropped from the test side along with Broad and perhaps Swann as well!.

Let me guess mean while our test team should include Samit Patel, Luke Wright, Darren Pattinson, Saj Mahmood, Ian Blackwell and Rob Key while were at it

That's a decent side, Matt Prior should be asked to find his 2007 form and Mark Ramprakash should be playing at 3 in place of the borring Trott!.

sirfredperry wrote:Wonder why it is that discussion about getting dropped only seems to apply to the good players (Graveney, Gower, KP to name just a few).
There are some who average 45 who people think should be averaging 55. So the call goes out for these players to be dropped in favour of.....guys who average 35, for Pete's sake.
It certainly happened with Graveney and Gower and now happens with KP. IMHO, Pietersen should ALWAYS be in the Test and 50-over side. Not all that bothered about Twenty-20.

But this is an English cricket ritual, demanding KP's dropping, even if he scored a ton in the last match. Then the line would be other than when he scored a double ton, a 175 and a 150 and a few 50s, he had an average time!!.
So all that we can do is to try and make at most out of these debates, having some good old funn!!.
But on a rather serious note, I think Kevin Pietersen is England's best T-20I player, and he is world class in tests, and barring a rather prolonged rough patch, he has been the best ODI batter for them in a very long time.

who ever demands KPs dropping is mad or on a 'wum'.

morgan on the other hand!! not so sure, id rather just play test players in the odi game- if your good enough at test your good enough at odi- its just being intelegent enough to understand risk and reward and the in game situ

mystiroakey wrote:who ever demands KPs dropping is mad or on a 'wum'.

morgan on the other hand!! not so sure, id rather just play test players in the odi game- if your good enough at test your good enough at odi- its just being intelegent enough to understand risk and reward and the in game situ

I'm not sure I agree with this, some players like Michael Vaughan or Ian Bell can be a bit too "classical" for ODIs, in the sense that the shots which bring them boundaries in tests more often than not only bring them singles in ODIs, hence their SRs struggle. Anyway Morgan's record in ODIs for England is excellent, and I don't see why one poor 4 match series should have us questioning his place.

vaughan was good enough for tests, but he wasnt good enough for odi's..

he never made a odi hundred, so that forumla dosent work...

mystiroakey wrote:id rather just play test players in the odi game- if your good enough at test your good enough at odi- its just being intelegent enough to understand risk and reward and the in game situ

Nonsense. There are so many examples of top rate ODI players who were useless/average in tests: Bevan, Symonds, Fairbrother, Bracken, etc. It looks like Morgan may join that list.

Similarly there are numerous excellent test players who couldn't play ODIs that well at all: Atherton, Hussain, Langer, the afore-mentioned Vaughan and Bell, even Slater (although why he couldn't play ODIs is a bit of a mystery). I'm sure I could come up with more examples if I thought about it a bit.

There are some similarities, mainly on the mental side (pressure and intensity) but overall there is no reason why someone who is successful at tests should be successful at ODIs and vice-versa.

i completely agree with that post mike

Yes to all. He's England's best player in all formats when 'on it' and their only game-changer across all 3.

On the subject of whether someone is "just" a good one-day player, I once heard Geoff Miller explain why Neil Fairbrother was great for the limited over stuff but NOT a good choice in Tests.
Miller pointed out that the dabs and flicks would probably go to hand in a Test but that F'brother would invariably get away with them in one-dayers.
It was also said that Fairbrother played great when eight an over was the requirement, but froze when presented with a Test opportunity. Another case in point is Michael Bevan, who was one of the great one-day finishers, but had a very modest Test record.

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:id rather just play test players in the odi game- if your good enough at test your good enough at odi- its just being intelegent enough to understand risk and reward and the in game situ

Nonsense. There are so many examples of top rate ODI players who were useless/average in tests: Bevan, Symonds, Fairbrother, Bracken, etc. It looks like Morgan may join that list.

Similarly there are numerous excellent test players who couldn't play ODIs that well at all: Atherton, Hussain, Langer, the afore-mentioned Vaughan and Bell, even Slater (although why he couldn't play ODIs is a bit of a mystery). I'm sure I could come up with more examples if I thought about it a bit.

There are some similarities, mainly on the mental side (pressure and intensity) but overall there is no reason why someone who is successful at tests should be successful at ODIs and vice-versa.

I think the only reason why a high quailty batsman cant play at both levels succesfully is because they cant apply themselves to it. Therefore i agree with what you say but only on a mental level- which i suppose when it boils down to it is a good enough reason why one player plays well in tests and not in odi's. Bear in mind i am talking about quailty test players that have a range of batting skills, not odi specialists. I honestly believe that morgan is better than just an odi specialist!

you say slater is a mystery - what do you think of matt prior! complete mystery for me

lets be honest here guys - we brought cook into the odi fold and he has been a revelation- many did saythat he was a test player only before he came in!

i also reakon the cat could play 20/20 an all!

some have it- some dont. but the best batsmen can play any format- because if your good enough at test level- where you need to be able to play the innings based on the situation infront of you! players that can adjust can play in any format

KP is easily good enough to play all forms, anyone who questions that, is a muppet IMO..

except for gregers

Gregers has been lying to us all this time, he rates KP really...

Gregers wrote:I needed a world class middle order player, you needed a world class top order player