KP gets his priorities wrong

First topic message reminder :

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/

From J.Anderson:

"The ECB have been very good at handling a lot of situations," Anderson said. "They've got much better in the last few years at handling certain situations. They've handled it brilliantly at the minute and I'm sure they'll continue to do that and I'll leave them to do that.


Does this not tell you just how the dressing room feels.

skyeman wrote:From J.Anderson:

"The ECB have been very good at handling a lot of situations," Anderson said. "They've got much better in the last few years at handling certain situations. They've handled it brilliantly at the minute and I'm sure they'll continue to do that and I'll leave them to do that.


Does this not tell you just how the dressing room feels.

Or Andersons chances of getting a decent IPL contract? *shrug*

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

skyeman wrote:From J.Anderson:

"The ECB have been very good at handling a lot of situations," Anderson said. "They've got much better in the last few years at handling certain situations. They've handled it brilliantly at the minute and I'm sure they'll continue to do that and I'll leave them to do that.


Does this not tell you just how the dressing room feels.

Or Andersons chances of getting a decent IPL contract? *shrug*

Commitment, the key word

We have no idea exactly what "demands" Pietersen and his agents made of the ECB to facilitate his return to the one day arena. If he does return it is far more likely to be on ECB and Flower's terms than those dictated by KP.

My guess is that, as most papers have reported that his agents suggested that he was willing to return to ODIs so long as he could get his £2m payday by appearing in the full IPL (and thus missing test series v NZ), there is a lot of truth in these rumours.

Andy Flower has built the England team on the basis of the team being more than the individual players. Any player who is unwilling to accept that will find themselves on the outside, looking in.

The opinions of others in the England side would change if they drew the same offers from the IPL that KP does, I can tell you that right now.

Nobody can blame these players for playing IPL, though I'm not advocating missing Test series for it - that clearly shouldn't happen. Some leeway is needed for the tournament, though - it is here to stay.

Fists of Fury wrote:The opinions of others in the England side would change if they drew the same offers from the IPL that KP does, I can tell you that right now.

Nobody can blame these players for playing IPL, though I'm not advocating missing Test series for it - that clearly shouldn't happen. Some leeway is needed for the tournament, though - it is here to stay.

English players are played plenty well enough anyway. It is true that only three frontline England players currently have contracts - KP, Morgan (who was at the whole tournament this year because he wasn't wanted for the Test team) and Broad (who was injured). However, Fists is right that other England players clearly do want to play in the IPL - Graeme Swann, Alastair Cook, James Anderson, Ian Bell, Matt Prior, Chris Tremlett and Ravi Bopara were all in this year's auction and went unsold.

I can understand the desire to play, and there are a number of benefits from playing, but the player in return needs to understand that England duty comes first and that it is for the management, rather than the player, to decide when they should take a break.

Agreed.

No big surprise here

Kevin Pietersen 'left out' of England's ICC World Twenty20 squad.


Big shame that one of the best T20 players in the World will not get to play on the big stage (at the moment) and i think that his September contract negotiations might be eventful.

He hasn't been 'left out', he retired!

As you say a huge shame that the world's number one T20 batsman won't be playing in the tournament.

We can moan all we like at KP for retiring, but it all boils down to that ridiculous contract clause inserted by the ECB which smacks of paranoia.

Kevin Pietersen has been omitted from England's provisional 30-man squad for the ICC World Twenty20 in Sri Lanka later this year, despite his insistence that he was available for the event.

He then un-retired himself if his demands were met, but with no definitive statement on the subject coming from the ECB then as such he would be still "retired".

But i suppose they have now given they're answer with the naming of the T20 squad.

I just hope both parties can work together for a solution before it gets out of control.

Its all based on fear this. Not many of our players play/played in all 3 formats- bar kp, swan and broad..So he may feel a bit hard done by

But if kp was allowed to cut out the 50 over game but not the 20/20 many others could follow..

Frosty in the England dressing room in the morning.

The England dressing room is just fine - for a while now the rest of the team have been perfectly aware of just who Pietersen is, a rather arrogant and not very nice guy who always gives his all and with the rare ability to turn a game single-handedly.

I don't believe everyone in a team should necessarily get along all the time (indeed in my experience it is impossible so I would imagine when you spend as much time together as these guys do even more so). You have your ups and downs and your disagreements, but provided everyone is pulling their weight and aware of their role then happy days. With men like Flower and Strauss at the helm it is inconceivable that something like this affects the morale.

Mike Selig wrote:The England dressing room is just fine - for a while now the rest of the team have been perfectly aware of just who Pietersen is, a rather arrogant and not very nice guy who always gives his all and with the rare ability to turn a game single-handedly.

I don't believe everyone in a team should necessarily get along all the time (indeed in my experience it is impossible so I would imagine when you spend as much time together as these guys do even more so). You have your ups and downs and your disagreements, but provided everyone is pulling their weight and aware of their role then happy days. With men like Flower and Strauss at the helm it is inconceivable that something like this affects the morale.

In his interview with 606 v2 a couple of months or so back, Adam Hollioake when discussing his own captaincy said very much the same about players not needing to get along all the time. He emphasised the key aspect was to have professional respect for those playing alongside you. I'm sure this remains and probably always has been the case.

Interestingly (to me anyway), Hollioake added that he'd discussed this with former Surrey fast bowler Peter Loader who told him that several of Surrey's 1950s side didn't get on. That surprised me - in a rather naive way, I had expected the players in that era to ''all be jolly good chaps together'' or similar. However, as Hollioake pointed out, that didn't prevent them winning seven Championships.

As Mike and guildford rightly say, not everybody has to be bosom buddies. But it would worry me if there were factions within the dressing room.

That shouldn't be a problem with England as I think KP is probably a bit of a loner, and wouldn't have any support/ create divisions within the camp. The players know their responsibilities so won't make a big thing of it, and they definitely know that their a better side with KP in it.

I think the england players are pretty good mates. i reakon KP is a floater rather than a loner, i reakon they all have there own ideas but they all get on when it matters- in the dressing rooms during play, in the field and probally most importantly when thay are batting together.

I doubt there is any clear hate at all

Of course not, it is blowing it all out of proportion to suggest there are rifts.

People will have their own opinions, of course, but the important bit is that they respect each others contributions. Believe me, they'll respect KP's contributions.

I'd just add that this is a successful side - if we were deep in the doggy doo then that is when I would expect rifts to appear, if they were going to appear at all.

Cowshot wrote:I'd just add that this is a successful side - if we were deep in the doggy doo then that is when I would expect rifts to appear, if they were going to appear at all.

Yes and know. At the height of NZ's golden generation in 1986 Richard Hadlee and captain Jeremy Coney were communicating using John Wright (the vice captain) as an intermediary.

"Jeremy, Richard says he'd like 3rd man brought up to 2nd gulley" etc.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Cowshot wrote:I'd just add that this is a successful side - if we were deep in the doggy doo then that is when I would expect rifts to appear, if they were going to appear at all.

Yes and know. At the height of NZ's golden generation in 1986 Richard Hadlee and captain Jeremy Coney were communicating using John Wright (the vice captain) as an intermediary.

"Jeremy, Richard says he'd like 3rd man brought up to 2nd gulley" etc.

Now that's a personality clash! Don't remember it being talked about in the Press though. Was it public knowledge?

Cowshot wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Cowshot wrote:I'd just add that this is a successful side - if we were deep in the doggy doo then that is when I would expect rifts to appear, if they were going to appear at all.

Yes and know. At the height of NZ's golden generation in 1986 Richard Hadlee and captain Jeremy Coney were communicating using John Wright (the vice captain) as an intermediary.

"Jeremy, Richard says he'd like 3rd man brought up to 2nd gulley" etc.

Now that's a personality clash! Don't remember it being talked about in the Press though. Was it public knowledge?

I don't think it was when the matches were played. Wright mentioned it in his Autobiography "Christmas in Rarotonga" in the early '90s, and Coney may well have earlier (I've read "The Playing Mantis", but a very long time ago). Possibly Lance Cairns' autobiography in the late '80s did too.

Hadlee made himself very unpopular with his team-mates at the end of the (victorious*) Australian tour in 1985/86. Team policy was to divvy up man-of-the-match awards etc amongst all of the players. Hadlee was given a car for winning man-of-the-series (he took 33 wickets in 3 tests), and decided he wanted to keep it. After a fair old barney he kept the car, but donated half the value to the players' kitty - I understand the NZ team still does this. The (victorious*) England tour a few months later saw Hadlee and Coney's fall-out (or maybe it was the 86/87 home series vs the Windies**, I forget). Coney retired after that series.


*Sorry, but those things don't happen that often, so us Kiwis savour them on the odd occasion they do.
** New Zealand was the only country the great West Indian side didn't win in. Partly due to the home-town umpiring