KP gets his priorities wrong

by Jack Sheldon

Not for the first time in his distinguished career, Kevin Pietersen has taken the cricketing press by surprise. His sacking, or should I say resignation, from the England captaincy in January 2009 after just three Tests was the first example. And now he has repeated the dose by retiring from both forms of the international one-day game in seemingly complicated circumstances.

As far as I can gather from the ECB’s press release KP wanted to stop playing the 50-over game, and instead play only Tests, Twenty20 Internationals and, of course, the IPL. But the ECB have decided, in an echo of the way they previously reacted to his request to oust coach Peter Moores during his short stint as captain, that opting out of the middle format of the game only is not permissible. Their reasons for this are actually quite sound. Playing in Twenty20 but not ODIs suggests a player picking and choosing their cricket, and sets a dangerous precedent for others in an era where, in England at least, the 50 over game is fast becoming subservient to the shorter and longer forms of the international game. Although why Pietersen didn’t delay his retirement until after September’s World Twenty20 in Sri Lanka is unclear, particularly as he has reiterated that he “would have readily played for England” in that event. The England management get things right more often than not these days, and I can completely understand why Andy Flower doesn’t want Pietersen waltzing in and out of the dressing room whenever he likes.

For me, Pietersen has got his priorities completely wrong. He says that, at almost 32, it is time to let others gather experience for the 2015 World Cup. But 32 should be a batsman’s peak, and recent form suggests that after a few years of indifferent form, he is now back to his best. He will only be 35 in 2015, and it is very reasonable to believe that he will still be amongst the best one-day batsmen in world cricket. Therefore, I am drawn to the conclusion that other issues have cropped up. Has he ever fully patched up relations with the ECB’s top brass? Has the lure of IPL money become too much? Was he riled by the decision to fine him for his opinions on Nick Knight? Whatever the reason I am willing to dismiss the theory that he doesn’t care for the 50 over game. Evidence for this can be found in his joy at finally scoring an ODI hundred in the UAE this winter and his infamous tweet describing his omission from the squad against Pakistan in 2010 as a “f**k up”.

It should also be pointed out that Pietersen is likely to have plenty of opportunities to become a globetrotting Twenty20 player in four or five year's time when his international career has finished. For now his involvement in the IPL, and therefore earning capacity, is unlikely to be increased, and whilst still playing in the Test team, he probably won’t be able to play much in the Big Bash League either. And I’m sure that more cricket for his beloved Surrey, now an option, is not his number one priority in life.

The blow will be hard to take for England. Despite his much publicised ODI century drought between October 2008 and this February, KP was arguably England’s greatest limited-overs cricket of all time. Three hundreds in his first major international series, against South Africa in early 2005, brought Pietersen to the attention of the wider cricketing public. And after another incredible ton against Australia ahead of that summer’s Ashes, Bob Willis said on commentary that his batting had “shades of Vivian Richards”. It took his average 18 ODIs to drop below the 100 mark, and by 2008 he had seven hundreds. One of the most memorable came against New Zealand at Chester-le-Street in that year, when he unveiled his trademark switch-hit for the first time. Ironically his retirement came in the same week that the ICC cricket committee recommended a change to the LBW law to take the shot into account.

But perhaps his most significant contribution to the limited overs game came in the format that he wanted to keep playing. It took Kevin a few years to get to grips with Twenty20, but once he did in 2010 his big hitting propelled England to their first ever international trophy and he was Man of the Tournament. In the two years since his good form in the flashiest type of cricket has continued, with him passing the 1,000 career runs landmark, and reaching the top of the ICC Rankings.

I could be wrong, but I have a strange feeling that we have not seen the last of Kevin Pietersen in England one-day colours. Here’s hoping that he gets his priorities in order, and remembers that he could, and perhaps can still be, one of the very best in the world for years to come.

Jack Sheldon is a teenage cricket writer and has also started his own blog, found at http://thepavilioncricket.blogspot.co.uk/

Is that you, Shelsey?

Has anyone been watching the Kent-Warks game today? Before the game Charles Colville asked Knight what he thought about KP, obviously referring to his retirement not Knight's personal views on him which are not great know I imagine, and the awkward silence before Colville realised who he had asked about KP was brilliant!

http://v2journal.com/kp-gets-his-priorities-wrong.html

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Is that you, Shelsey?

yup

Very good piece. However I cannot see KP going back on this decision. He has proven in the past that he is very dogmatic and exceedingly stubborn.

Shame - I just wonder how long we will see him in England whites.

JDizzle wrote:Has anyone been watching the Kent-Warks game today? Before the game Charles Colville asked Knight what he thought about KP, obviously referring to his retirement not Knight's personal views on him which are not great know I imagine, and the awkward silence before Colville realised who he had asked about KP was brilliant!

I think it was quite deliberate!. Later on Mike Atherton said to Knight on commentary "Haven't seen you for a few days, been up to much?" in a tone which suggested of schoolboy teasing, which was followed by another pause. All good fun, and luckily Knight seems to have taken it pretty well, even if I don't agree with him that his absence is a good thing for the 50 over team.

I did quite enjoy Knights reply of "there are millions of things I think about KP", or something like that! I am sure Nick has taken it fine, he wouldn't say anything overly derogatory about KP for the risk of his job. And that is something that I really enjoy about Sky's coverage, that all the commentators seem to be good friends and have some really good banter between them.

As for him improving the ODI side by not playing. I completely disagree with that like you. Even without his two hundreds in the UAE, I still would have put him in a list of our top 2 of our ODI batsmen (With Mogs) by a considerable distance as well. He has the ability to score game changing scores very quickly which no-one else bar Morgan can do, and that makes him incredibly valuable to any limited overs team in the world. He's not irreplacable though, but it will take some work to find a successor.

And to anyone who wasn't watching the CB40 game today, here's a trivia question! Out of all the English qualified active cricketers, who has the lowest bowling average (100 wickets min)? Answers on the back of a postcard to Mr. Dizzle, Lords, St John's Wood, London. There is no prize.

I'm not fussed whether he plays or not, but I find it rather sanctimonious of the selectors. They can pick and choose when he plays in the ODI's (they can drop him at will), but KP can't?

KP puts bums on seats, the selectors do not. Double standards.

But I also agree in not letting KP waltz in and out of the dressing room when he chooses. Who does he think he is, Andrew Strauss?

A well argued piece, but there are a few points I'd take issue with:

A player of KP's ego will almost always think dropping him is a mistake. And in the case you produce vs Pakistan, it probably WAS a mistake. We also have Swann saying the 50 over version is not his favourite. Since their opinion (if I've understood them correctly) fits my own prejudice, perhaps I'm a little too likely to take them at their word.

Secondly, I think choosing to drop the short versions to play on in Tests is entirely the right decision if he feels playing all of them is getting too much. The error players generally make is to go on a season too long, but in the end only the player him (or her) self knows when the joy has gone out of it. Maybe in KP's case he'll rediscover the "joy" of the fifty over game, but frankly I doubt it.

KP is a difficult character in many ways, but he does tend to wear his heart on his sleeve and blurt things out (eg Mr Knight) so we generally know what he's thinking and feeling. In fact at times it is hard NOT to know what KP is feeling! So when he says he'd keep playing 20/20 if given the chance and implies the Selection policy is wrong, I'm inclined to think that's what KP believes. chuckle. Most players would have blandly announced their retirement from the short form and shut up. But not KP. Oh no.

The conclusions I draw from the evidence is that KP feels that the total amount of cricket is getting too much and the 50 over format is his least favourite. That since he can't ditch the 50 over stuff on its own, he has a choice between playing just Tests or just short form. And given that choice he'd rather play the real game - Test Match Cricket. That seems to me to be the important thing, and why I think KP has got his priorities right.

Big question is what will KP now do with his free time?

Will he be playing first class cricket for Surrey and thus preparing for tests, or will he jet round the world playing in the various T20 tournaments for big money?

Quite frankly, he can do as he wishes. If the selectors can drop him, or dictate what form of the game he can play, then he too can do what he wants. I hope he keeps focused on test cricket, as he will leave a big hole in the team if he quits it all.

I'm not his biggest fan, but he is a top class cricketer and I'd rather he was in the team than out of it.

A battle of ego's I fear.....

But if he chooses to chase the $ (which he is entitled to do) then his test place becomes at risk as he will have no meaningful practice. In recent years KP has shown he cannot just switch it on in the longer form and needs time at the wicket to get his form back.

The chances of him appearing in the Ashes series next year are now lower than they were.

LondonTiger wrote:Big question is what will KP now do with his free time?

Will he be playing first class cricket for Surrey and thus preparing for tests, or will he jet round the world playing in the various T20 tournaments for big money?

How many T20 and ODI internationals get scheduled during the IPL season?

Agree with pretty much everything Cowshot said yesterday. He hasn't really freed himself up for IPL as PSW points out, he is just reducing his workload in order to prolong his test career. If he had to carry it all on I could see him packing it all in pretty soon, but now I can see him playing test matches for another 4 or more years, which is great. Priorities totally correct.

The endless string of boring ODIs massively extends the time they spend away from home and leads to burnout. He has a young family and has spoken before of his exasperation at the endlessness of the international season.

If I had my way there would be no 50 over cricket anyway. Tests and T20 only is the way forward. The ICC are insistent that ODIs are their primary money spinner, but they also have concern over lack of attendances at test matches. Surely if there were no ODIs then people would go and watch test matches more, and the income would just be transferred rather than lost. ODIs are just a combination of all the negatives from Tests and T20s with none of the benefits.

Having a young family hasn't stopped him before? Perhaps Jessica is with child? I agree the ODI's are superflous now. If the powers at be so cherish the first class form of the game, they better move quickly or we'll be doomed to switch hits and muligans for ever and a day!

jeffwinger wrote:Agree with pretty much everything Cowshot said yesterday. He hasn't really freed himself up for IPL as PSW points out, he is just reducing his workload in order to prolong his test career. If he had to carry it all on I could see him packing it all in pretty soon, but now I can see him playing test matches for another 4 or more years, which is great. Priorities totally correct.

.

Wheras I can see him playing in Big Bash/IPL/English T20 but no first class cricket and then trying to walk straight into the test lineup. I hope I am wrong, and in 12 months time we will know, but if not his test career will not last much longer.

he wont play f/c cricket....i cant see him going back to surrey and being content with him playing 4 day games for pratice.

CF wrote:he wont play f/c cricket....i cant see him going back to surrey and being content with him playing 4 day games for pratice.

So what is he going to do then? He can't play just tests (no FC cricket means he'll eventually be dropped) and domestic T20 games, IPL and Big Bash. When the Ashes circuses roll into town, KP will not want to be on the outside looking in. He will play enough 4 days games for Surrey to keep himself fresh enough for Tests.....

I agree with the corporal here.

KP well within his rights to ditch the overly played, and often drab ODI cricket, and opt to play in Tests and T20 only. Ridiculous of England to take the childlike stance of 'you can't play one without the other'. They've made a huge mistake and thus are losing their premier batsman for the defence of our world T20 crown. Without KP we can forget even competing in that tournament.

KP's priorities are just fine, if he opts to choose Test cricket over limited overs than maximum respect to him, I say. He knows what the pinnacle of the game is, and has stuck to it. I'm (not for the first time, admittedly) entirely on his side. A royal balls up by the ECB.

Fists of Fury wrote:I agree with the corporal here.

KP well within his rights to ditch the overly played, and often drab ODI cricket, and opt to play in Tests and T20 only. Ridiculous of England to take the childlike stance of 'you can't play one without the other'. They've made a huge mistake and thus are losing their premier batsman for the defence of our world T20 crown. Without KP we can forget even competing in that tournament.

KP's priorities are just fine, if he opts to choose Test cricket over limited overs than maximum respect to him, I say. He knows what the pinnacle of the game is, and has stuck to it. I'm (not for the first time, admittedly) entirely on his side. A royal balls up by the ECB.

Would you be happy if all the test players (or the ones on central contracts) decide they only wanted to play Tests and T20's, and we have to bring in peripheral players (or Lions?) for that format of the game? Would the ICC even allow them to field fledgling or 'B' team players rather than their A listers?

I also agree that the ECB are cutting off their nose to spite their face....

I wouldn't be happy, no, but you do have to respect the wishes of individuals. Deciding that you can either play both or none is ridiculous, given that ODI's and T20 are as vastly different as Tests are to ODI's. Cook and Trott playing ODI's but not being considered for T20's tells you all you need to know about that.

Isn't the trouble that the ECB have contracts for Test players, but then one contract that covers both ODI and T20 cricket? So if KP was to retire from just the ODI format he'd still be getting the same amount of money for just playing one format, whereas at least Cook and Trott are making themselves available for the T20 games and are not being picked on performance grounds.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised for the ECB to separate the T20 and ODI contracts and let KP have his wish of only playing T20's. All that would be an almighty U-turn by then. I don't agree with their decision, but they have to stick with it.

Fists of Fury wrote:I wouldn't be happy, no, but you do have to respect the wishes of individuals. Deciding that you can either play both or none is ridiculous, given that ODI's and T20 are as vastly different as Tests are to ODI's. Cook and Trott playing ODI's but not being considered for T20's tells you all you need to know about that.

Just for clarity, I totally agree with all you say. Only puting up some themes for discussion......

FOF the problem they have with him is that it shows a lack of commitment, and they have been adamant that thats a key criteria for selection in their squads full stop. I can understand they are wary of being held to ransom by oplayers who think they are bigger than the team, when the England ethos (and success) has been built on the opposite. Yes some players arent asked to play both, but the ECB attitude is if we ask you you should jump at the chance, not whinge about playing in the IPL. They have dropped and ignored players in the past for similar attitudes. Its brave to stand up to your best player.
Theres also a wider issue with the IPL , the ECB and some other boards are very wary of a domestic competition taking precedence over international cricket. I suspect had KP been willing to give up the IPL they wouldve been more flexible with his schedule, if he wants time off why not then? Theres a big power struggle with the IPL and the ECB are wary of having windows for domestic T20...if the IPL gets one will other competitions too? Where will that leave international cricket?

Fair points Peter. But it works both ways. They drop him, he shows passion (albeit a bit misguided), and then gets fined for it. Why should this committee sit at their desk and decide one of the best players in the world must resign from the international limited overs game? They are only as good as the team they put on the field. If they 'stick to their guns', and others follow, they will very soon be out of a job as the team crumbles in front of their very eyes.

KP is entilted to earn a living, and if he continues to show he is our best batsmen in tests and T20's, they should compromise. And if others, like Swann, would like to join him, then so be it....

Right its about balance ... the ECB has to defend the primacy of international cricket ( or at least they do whilst its not their domestic tournament ) or it will simply cease to exist. They also have a need to protect the team ethic and make sure everyone understands the commitment levels required.
They havent demanded he retires from ODIS and T20, theyve given him a tough choice he didnt want to have to make.
KPs fallings out over twitter and other things are a sideshow to this but do show his "bigger than the game" attitude. If theres only one person whos always rubbing up against the ECB then is it the ECBs problem or that individuals?
Hes a huge loss for England and it will be yet another push in the direction of them looking at reducing the international calender and a more flexible attitude toward their plays commitments. But that will cause problems for the international game down the line. Less games, less income, less top players competing. The money and power becomes increasingly tied up in domestic T20....the world dies.

Haven't really got much time to comment on this topic. When I read about KP's call on cricinfo, my first reaction was shock, then a bit of understanding, and then disappointment, and then a little bit of hope.
KP was regaining his mighty touch in ODIs, and was nicely fitting into the role of an opener, and thereby bringing in a massive improvement to England's ODI plans. So the decision to give up the format was shocking, particularly as one considers the fact that he said he's all for playing for England in all formats, as late as Feb this year.
Then came the understanding bit, he has a young family and he stated he's more of a family type in the past as well, anyone remember the drama around his county shift? Far too many ODIs are being played the world over, with obnoxious 7 match series becoming a regularity in English schedules in recent times. KP is 32, although that is not a huge age for a modern cricketer, particularly a batsman, may be he's feeling like needing more rest. And its not so much about playing in the IPL, England usually do not play many ODI matches during that time. And England's winter schedule won't give him space to play too much of the BBL either. Don't think something like the BPL would have enough of challenge or money to make KP take such a decision either.
I am not a big fan of T-20 cricket, although I don't have a lot against it and in fact watch games in parts, particularly international ones. Kevin Pietersen and Chris Gayle are the best batters in the format, and missing one of them from the seen would certainly be disappointing, particularly as he hasn't really made the decision to give up on the format.
I hope KP would find renewed interest in both forms of limited overs cricket at the international level and would make himself available for selection. Otherwise the ECB would find ways to make use of his tallent in one format in which england have done alright, thanks to Pietersen to a great extend.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:KPs fallings out over twitter and other things are a sideshow to this but do show his "bigger than the game" attitude. If theres only one person whos always rubbing up against the ECB then is it the ECBs problem or that individuals?

Don't forget falling out with Natal, Nottingham, Peter Moores, Hampshire & now Andy Flower.

While I don't warm to KP I do think ultimately his latest move may help to shake up the current arrangements - hopefully in a beneficial direction.

The basic choice seems clear - either cut down on the unrealistic demands of the international calendar or accept it as the norm that players need not be interested in playing in all forms of the game at international level.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Right its about balance ... the ECB has to defend the primacy of international cricket ( or at least they do whilst its not their domestic tournament ) or it will simply cease to exist. They also have a need to protect the team ethic and make sure everyone understands the commitment levels required.
They havent demanded he retires from ODIS and T20, theyve given him a tough choice he didnt want to have to make.
KPs fallings out over twitter and other things are a sideshow to this but do show his "bigger than the game" attitude. If theres only one person whos always rubbing up against the ECB then is it the ECBs problem or that individuals?
Hes a huge loss for England and it will be yet another push in the direction of them looking at reducing the international calender and a more flexible attitude toward their plays commitments. But that will cause problems for the international game down the line. Less games, less income, less top players competing. The money and power becomes increasingly tied up in domestic T20....the world dies.

It takes two to start a fight. If the ECB showed a bit more control regarding the scheduling of the international games, perhaps it wouldnt have reached this point. Relentless scheduling of meaningless ODI's are just clogging up the annual calendar. Milking the players dry for their own gain no doubt. They are every bit as much to blame as KP, and the others who are tired of this. It's just a bunch of average test crickers picking on one of the best. Or maybe it's because they see him as an intruder?

Here is Fists' article

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-bloxham/ecb-what-have-you-done_b_1571498.html

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Here is Fists' article

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-bloxham/ecb-what-have-you-done_b_1571498.html

Thanks Shanky. Couldn't agree more with the article. The ECB seem to allow certain 'nice boys' to circumvent the process, but KP, because he is a much better all round player of both formats, is discriminated against. Perhaps he should have went on a run of ODI 'ducks' and he would just have got dropped......which would have saved all the drama and denied the selectors their spot in the limelight...

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Here is Fists' article

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-bloxham/ecb-what-have-you-done_b_1571498.html

Thanks Shanky. Couldn't agree more with the article. The ECB seem to allow certain 'nice boys' to circumvent the process, but KP, because he is a much better all round player of both formats, is discriminated against. Perhaps he should have went on a run of ODI 'ducks' and he would just have got dropped......which would have saved all the drama and denied the selectors their spot in the limelight...

Who has circumvented the process?

If you are referring to Strauss then he was simply dropped from T20, as Cook and Trott have been. There is no example of a player ducking out of ODIs but wanting to play Tests and T20s other than KP.

Shelsey93 wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Here is Fists' article

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-bloxham/ecb-what-have-you-done_b_1571498.html

Thanks Shanky. Couldn't agree more with the article. The ECB seem to allow certain 'nice boys' to circumvent the process, but KP, because he is a much better all round player of both formats, is discriminated against. Perhaps he should have went on a run of ODI 'ducks' and he would just have got dropped......which would have saved all the drama and denied the selectors their spot in the limelight...

Who has circumvented the process?

If you are referring to Strauss then he was simply dropped from T20, as Cook and Trott have been. There is no example of a player ducking out of ODIs but wanting to play Tests and T20s other than KP.

So if you are the best player in the team, you have to play every game, and burn out physically and mentally, whilst the not so good get it easy, and preserve their test career? Clearly there is no deliberate circumvension, so of all our top 4 test batsmen, Strauss, Cook and Trott get to put their feet up and KP has to slog it out. Short sighted and pathetic in my opinion. Getting punished for being the best...mmm.

Three letters

IPL

If he didn't play in that then his wish would have been granted.

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Here is Fists' article

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-bloxham/ecb-what-have-you-done_b_1571498.html

Thanks Shanky. Couldn't agree more with the article. The ECB seem to allow certain 'nice boys' to circumvent the process, but KP, because he is a much better all round player of both formats, is discriminated against. Perhaps he should have went on a run of ODI 'ducks' and he would just have got dropped......which would have saved all the drama and denied the selectors their spot in the limelight...

Who has circumvented the process?

If you are referring to Strauss then he was simply dropped from T20, as Cook and Trott have been. There is no example of a player ducking out of ODIs but wanting to play Tests and T20s other than KP.

So if you are the best player in the team, you have to play every game, and burn out physically and mentally, whilst the not so good get it easy, and preserve their test career? Clearly there is no deliberate circumvension, so of all our top 4 test batsmen, Strauss, Cook and Trott get to put their feet up and KP has to slog it out. Short sighted and pathetic in my opinion. Getting punished for being the best...mmm.

If he genuinely felt that there was strain placed on his body he could opt out of the IPL, and choose to retire from both forms of the one-day game. But he will still play the IPL, and wanted to play T20 Internationals. Of course if he didn't retire the ECB would have been sure to manage his workload, and would thus probably have rested him from a fair few ODIs anyhow.

But the point stands that he is not yet 32 and should be at the peak of his physical powers.

The IPL is a part of cricket now, and it offers vast riches, so you cannot blame the players for taking part in that competition. Also, a series of T20 matches won't hurt anybody physically.

George Dobell of ESPNcricinfo has written a fantastically balanced piece on the matter, I'd suggest finding that to take a look at. It is far less ranty than my own piece that Shanky has kindly provided a link to above, but in essence shares the same views on the situation.

The ECB may not share your's or George's views!

Fists of Fury wrote:The IPL is a part of cricket now, and it offers vast riches, so you cannot blame the players for taking part in that competition. Also, a series of T20 matches won't hurt anybody physically.

"The IPL is a part of cricket now"

Yes, it is, although its a part of cricket which plenty of players have opted out of at various times and which is, in my opinion, far, far less important than any international cricket. In our packed England schedule I see no particular reason for England players to prioritise it, though I have no problem with them playing a few weeks of it if they give their all for England when they return.

"it offers vast riches"

Does this really matter to KP? He is paid handsomely by the ECB already, and that is before you add endorsements etc. I suspect the pull of the IPL, for him, is more the popularity it gives him in India

"A series of T20 matches won't hurt anyone physically"

Perhaps true, although the chance of injury certainly isn't eliminated. But they will take him away from his family, and prevent him from resting.

Shelsey, KP did exactly that, though. He played in the IPL, then came back as soon as England required his services. There is nothing wrong with taking that approach. The riches shouldn't be underestimated, either. He gets paid a huge sum of money for a few weeks work in the IPL, more than he gets paid in a year by his ECB contract. It's a short career, fair play to them for maximising the money they make out of it, although I agree in some cases where that has been put ahead of their country I find it very disrespectful to both their nation and the game.

OK so I wade into the argument with a few points:

Firstly I fail to take DJ'sbox point about how it's ok for the ECB to pick and choose which games Pietersen can play? Actually it's not the ECB, it's the England selectors whose job it is to pick the best available team. If they think Pietersen on current form shouldn't be there then their job is to not pick him. Pietersen's job is to make himself available for selection if he wants to play. So YES it is ok for the selectors to not pick Pietersen, and NO it isn't ok for Pietersen to not make himself available for the odd game because he doesn't feel like playing (or that is, he is perfectly entitled to, but shouldn't then expected to be picked ever again). Of course if there is a valid reason for him not making himself available then that's fine.

I should take issue with Fists comment that T20 isn't that physically demanding (I paraphrase somewhat) - he is IMO wrong there and I have explained the physical and mental challenges incurred in T20 cricket at length before.

Anyhow, on the issue at stake here: I firmly echo Fists point that T20 and 50 overs are very different formats. When 50 over cricket first came in, the sides picked were essentially the test sides. ODI specialists only started appearing regularly in the 90s, and it has taken people a while to get their head around the balance of quality versus speciality in T20 but we're more or less getting there. So most (all?) international teams have different T20 and 50 over sides.

Does that mean that the ECB is being unreasonable by insisting everyone who makes themselves available for T20 must also be for 50 over cricket? I think so. If you accept that players can opt out of ODI cricket to prolong their test career, or as other boards to vice-versa (and there is nothing wrong or to be worried about in this case either - see a later point) then you should accept that T20 is a format in its own right too. I honestly think within 5 years the ECB will have separate contracts for T20 internationals also (and more T20 internationals will be played - at the moment T20s are very much like ODIs used to be, a couple of matches at the start or end of a tour; I can't see that continuing for too long, and again this isn't a bad thing).

So was Pietersen's stance reasonable? IMO it was not: the claim that he wants to preserve himself for test cricket when he is a perfectly fit and able 31 year old is bunkum. It is clearly a shame as he is England's best ODI batsman (with Morgan) and of course the premier T20 bat in the world. One can't help but feel some sort of arrangement and discussions should have taken place: some compromise should have been reached. Could the ECB have agreed to "rest" Pietersen from the odd ODI series, provided he played most of them and carried on in T20s? Would that have been too much like the thin-edge of the wedge? I don't know. I do feel that every effort should have been made to further his career in both formats: I wonder whether the intransigence came from the ECB, Pietersen or (more likely) a mixture of both.

What will Pietersen do now? I am not so sure that county cricket is really a better preparation for test cricket than the IPL, so given he will almost certainly play the IPL, the big bash, and any other T20 league set up, he will be playing under pressure, against quality bowling fairly regularly. I think his test form will be just fine.

Anyway onto a final comment: I still can't quite understand the contempt which some (almost all of them English) fans (and the odd player) have for the 50 over game. This stems from a belief that in some sense Test cricket is the only form of the game that matters. This is nonsense. Test cricket is IMO the most interesting form of the game to watch, but both 50 over cricket and T20s are worth watching in their own way, and not in comparison to either each-other. Comments such as "endless meaningless ODIs" are absolutely balderdash: the majority of cricket played is still test cricket, even if you have a 2 test series followed by 7 ODIs. And why are the ODIs "meaningless"? no one calls a 2-team test series meaningless as far as I remember...

And just a reminder that the title of world champion is reserved (hopefully not for very long) to ODI (and T20) cricket. And matters. It is really only English fans (in my experience) who have this complete "test fetish". It also ignores the fact that the vast majority of cricket played (and IMO the vast majority of good quality cricket played) is not test cricket. To infer (as some do) that only test cricket matters and (even) only test cricket is "real cricket" is frankly insulting to the vast majority of cricketers (and the vast majority of international cricketers also) who ply their trade around the world.

As such I feel Pietersen's obvious disinterest for the 50 over format (if that is indeed how he feels, and not just how it's being portrayed) harmful rather than beneficial to the global game. That does not invalidate the previous points: some compromise should have been reached, and the ECB is silly for demanding that players have to play ODIs if they want to play T20s.

Mike, an excellent and well balanced post. Not much more to add, really.

Something does need to be done, though. KP and the ECB need to sit down and iron out any differences. It is a huge waste for such a great player to not be playing any form of limited overs cricket for his country; let us hope they all see sense.

I do wonder if the selectors are making problems for themselves by obsolving players from T20 if they don't want to play ODI's?

Does anyone know if other countries have similar selection policies?

No, England didn't either until now, and it is garbage. Seems like they are throwing the toys out of the pram.

It is ridiculous given the huge difference between ODI and T20 cricket.

They're creating big problems for themselves by taking such a stance, as more players are likely to follow KP in the coming years, given the horrendous ODI schedules.

Pietersen has never missed any England commitments to play IPL. He could go there for the whole tournament and earn at least double his usual salary, but he doesn't. He has always put England before the IPL and in future years he will do the same because the only thing that the IPL clashes with is the spring test series. This isn't anything to do with the IPL, it's about prolonging his career and not bothering with ODIs, the most drawn-out and pointless form of cricket. That the ECB have then said he can't play T20Is as well is their choice, no one can have a go at KP for that.

Mike, I am happy to say I hold a fair bit of contempt for ODIs these days, and have done since the advent of T20Is. In my view, it is merely another step in the development of the one day game. Over the years there have been many new formats, alterations and regulations in one day cricket, each incarnation superseding the previous. T20 cricket does the same job as ODI cricket, and it does it better. There should be continual development for the good of the game. The only constant is Test cricket, and rightly so. ODIs do not provide the short-blast entertainment and mass appeal of T20s, and do not provide the same intrigue as a Test match. I just don't see what purpose 50 over cricket serves any more, and I feel that 3 formats of the game is too many. I call ODIs meaningless because the games are too regular to be worthwhile and too dull in the majority of cases. The competitions are contrived, the teams rarely play their best sides and I don't feel like anybody really cares about it any more: fans, players or coaches.

Thanks FOF

Seems to be a strange policy that they invoke. I know Alec Stewart posted something about possibly Anderson following suit.

Anyway onto a final comment: I still can't quite understand the contempt which some (almost all of them English) fans (and the odd player) have for the 50 over game.

I don't like the 50 (or 40) over game because it is bad for the techniques of batsmen and bowlers alike and is a very negative form of cricket. Even in the '80s and '90s generally I'd only watch the last ten overs. Don't watch it at all these days.

I think Anderson probably should follow KP's lead. I'd rather he had the same schedule as Strauss and played high quality Test cricket 12 times a year than continuously flogged himself all over the world and missed Test matches. He doesn't always get picked for one day games anyway so I doubt people would be as disappointed as with KP, and the physical issues are far more understandable for a fast bowler. I had actually been wondering for a while whether Anderson might knock one-dayers one the head given his injury history and desire to become a Test great.

jeffwinger wrote:
Mike, I am happy to say I hold a fair bit of contempt for ODIs these days, and have done since the advent of T20Is. In my view, it is merely another step in the development of the one day game. Over the years there have been many new formats, alterations and regulations in one day cricket, each incarnation superseding the previous. T20 cricket does the same job as ODI cricket, and it does it better. There should be constant development for the good of the game. The only constant is Test cricket, and rightly so. ODIs do not provide the short-blast entertainment and mass appeal of T20s, and do not provide the same intrigue as a Test match. I just don't see what purpose 50 over cricket serves any more, and I feel that 3 formats of the game is too many. I call ODIs meaningless because the games are too regular to be worthwhile and too dull in the majority of cases. The competitions are contrived, the teams rarely play their best sides and I don't feel like anybody really cares about it any more: fans, players or coaches.

What about the 95 countries who don't play test cricket? They should only play T20s?

I agree about the tinkering of the rules; a lot has been needless and some just plain daft (supersubs?).

I find ODIs fascinating. I give two things which ODIs does differently from the other 2 formats:
- batting: the way of constructing an innings. You can't afford to start as slowly as you might be able to in tests, but if you come in in say the 10th over of an ODI you have to build your innings in a specific way according to pitch/situation/etc.
- bowling: depending on what time you are called onto bowl you have to bowl in an entirely different way. So you could be hunting for wickets, looking to strangle the score or just damage limitation. OK these happen to some extent in tests, but not to the same extent (except when one side is well ahead in test the onus is almost always on taking wickets; in T20s of course it is almost exclusively on restricting scoring, whatever the situation) and certainly not in such a short period of time.

And finally "the only constant is test cricket" is nonsense. Test cricket has been anything but a constant. Over the course of the years Test matches have lasted 3,4,5 or endless days; overs have had 8 and 6 balls; days have lasted any number of hours and overs (in fact the concept of a fixed number of overs during a day is fairly recent); the LBW law has changed, fielding restrictions have been brought in; matches have been played on artificial wickets, or wickets just made on what we would now call an outfield; pads, helmets, bats and of course balls have all changed (or been introduced); who knows what the future holds? Day-night cricket is IMO a near-certainty; not too long ago people were talking about 6-days, or a limit on the amount of overs you could bat for...