KP gets his priorities wrong

by Shelsey93 Fri 01 Jun 2012, 12:28 pm

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/

by Mike Selig Wed 06 Jun 2012, 12:23 pm

Cowshot wrote:
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.

"Technique" is very much an overused and meaningless term TBH: Viv Richards and Don Bradman were at the time both castigated with having poor technique; not sure what you mean by bowling technique: usually people referring to technique mean the mechanics of the action, and I fail to see how ODI cricket can possibly change that; if you're saying it encourages bowlers to bowl the wrong line and length and/or into the wrong mindset then that is a matter of strategy, not technique, and whilst I agree that ODI cricket does encourage back of a length rather than full of a length bowling, my point about adapting still stands: England and Australia's bowling attacks are showing you can bowl two different stock lengths in the different formats.

Don't understand how you can not like something when you don't watch it either.

by jeffwinger Wed 06 Jun 2012, 12:33 pm

Mike Selig wrote: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...

I meant constant in terms of the basic game played, as opposed to ODI vs T20 etc. That will make much more sense in the context of my argument. I was just expressing myself lazily, sorry.

by Mike Selig Wed 06 Jun 2012, 1:00 pm

jeffwinger wrote:
Mike Selig wrote: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...

I meant constant in terms of the basic game played, as opposed to ODI vs T20 etc. That will make much more sense in the context of my argument. I was just expressing myself lazily, sorry.

I'm not so sure. ODIs have now been around for about 40 years, how long until we accept them as a constant?

Test cricket (in any format) has been around in some format since 1840 (when the USA played Canada in New-York, and although the match hasn't been awarded test status, it is probable that the standard was much higher than many early test matches of the 1800s; indeed this is the first recognised international match in any sport). Cricket itself has been around since at least 1493 (official documentation mentions a match played in France then, where a fight broke out), and probably as early as the 11th century (although no official confirmation, there are mentions of a seemingly similar game being played by the King's court). So (mathmo hat on) test cricket has been around for roughly 1/3d of time since cricket (and more likely 1/6th), whereas ODI cricket has been around for about 1/4 of time since test cricket has been.

Anyway this is a bit of a silly post (laced with trivia so I can appear knowledgeable and clever); but the point remains, ODIs have been around for a while now, and are very popular in most parts of the world (indeed more popular than tests in almost all). The previous world cup was an excellent tournament (in terms of quality of contest) and certainly a lot more absorbing than the previous 2 (whose main fault was that Australia were ridiculously good so made the whole thing entirely predictable, and of course took an age). I don't think ODI cricket is ready to die out quite yet.

by Shelsey93 Wed 06 Jun 2012, 1:18 pm

Fists of Fury wrote: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.

I am not denying that there is a huge difference. But I do believe that somebody who wants to play Tests and T20s, should be perfectly able to play ODIs - it is in between the two. Certainly, I think it is dangerous to start saying that T20 Internationals are more important than ODIs, when we still play for more ODIs, and still play the World Cup in the 50 over format.

I agree with Mike somewhat that the contempt with which some English fans seem to hold the 50 over the game is over the top. Not that I find 7 match ODI series or random series v Australia particularly desirable. However, I think that the 50 over game is an entertaining format and I personally prefer it to T20. I'd rather see a batsman construct a century than blast 40 off 15 balls and then get out. The idea that 'all but the last 10 overs' are dead boring is also often very wide of the mark.

by Cowshot Wed 06 Jun 2012, 1:51 pm

"Technique" is very much an overused and meaningless term TBH: Viv Richards and Don Bradman were at the time both castigated with having poor technique; not sure what you mean by bowling technique: usually people referring to technique mean the mechanics of the action, and I fail to see how ODI cricket can possibly change that; if you're saying it encourages bowlers to bowl the wrong line and length and/or into the wrong mindset then that is a matter of strategy, not technique, and whilst I agree that ODI cricket does encourage back of a length rather than full of a length bowling, my point about adapting still stands: England and Australia's bowling attacks are showing you can bowl two different stock lengths in the different formats.

Don't understand how you can not like something when you don't watch it either.

Ok - hardly watch it. Occasionally might catch a highlight and - shuddering faintly - watch an England game. Or at least the last ten overs. But it's certainly not a habit.

Technique:

Batsmen: tempted to nurdle outside off stump and faced with a barrage of medium pace just back of a length. Constantly required to play shots to balls that in a Test would be left strictly alone. Someone who has played a lot of 50 over stuff is imo much more likely to get out playing outside the off stump than one who hasn't (there are always exceptions like your Laras and Tendulkars. But I think they are exceptions, not the rule) T20 is see ball hit ball. It doesn't impinge on the Test mindset in the way the requirements of a 50 over game do. That's one example. There are others, eg the 50 over game tends to create players who are good off their body, but not so good at driving.

Bowlers: Cut down the pace a bit and bowl back of a length. Groan. It nearly wiped out spin and fast bowling back in the '80s and '90s! Granted there is the occasional spinner these days, but for a long time firing darts at a batsman's feet was about all they seemed able to do.

Batsmen like Sir Viv and the Don were Masters of their Craft and as such can play shots most of us can't. KP these days is similar. Sir Viv's trademark was the good length ball outside off over the midwicket boundary. Would you really recommend it as a shot a young up and coming player like Johnny Bairstow should use? Think it got Sir Viv out once or twice as well, but he'd usually got about 150 by then so it didn't matter. Laugh

On the pure mechanics of both batting and bowling, both are drill actions - the action is grooved and perfected by repetition. If the bowler is constantly pulling the ball down short of a length, he or she will find it harder to pitch it up a bit when required. A batsman who is in the habit of nicking one through a vacant gully in the 50 over game will find it harder to resist the shot in a Test match. For a batsman, the fact that decisions as to shot have to be made instantaneously makes this tendency more pronounced than for a bowler.

An example where all these factors (and more) came together was in our 3-1 Ashes win Down Under. Aus hammered us in the one dayers afterwards, and played in the Tests like a 50 over side.

So for these reasons I think there is a case to be made that the 50 over game is bad for Test techniques.

by ShankyCricket Wed 06 Jun 2012, 1:54 pm

Negative Effects of the IPL on a spin bowler's approach

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/567333.html

by ShankyCricket Wed 06 Jun 2012, 2:10 pm

We have rested a player who does not want to be rested and refused to rest a player who wanted a rest. Great man management, isnt it? Tumbleweed

by Mike Selig Wed 06 Jun 2012, 2:23 pm

Cowshot wrote:
"Technique" is very much an overused and meaningless term TBH: Viv Richards and Don Bradman were at the time both castigated with having poor technique; not sure what you mean by bowling technique: usually people referring to technique mean the mechanics of the action, and I fail to see how ODI cricket can possibly change that; if you're saying it encourages bowlers to bowl the wrong line and length and/or into the wrong mindset then that is a matter of strategy, not technique, and whilst I agree that ODI cricket does encourage back of a length rather than full of a length bowling, my point about adapting still stands: England and Australia's bowling attacks are showing you can bowl two different stock lengths in the different formats.

Don't understand how you can not like something when you don't watch it either.

Ok - hardly watch it. Occasionally might catch a highlight and - shuddering faintly - watch an England game. Or at least the last ten overs. But it's certainly not a habit.

Technique:

Batsmen: tempted to nurdle outside off stump and faced with a barrage of medium pace just back of a length. Constantly required to play shots to balls that in a Test would be left strictly alone. Someone who has played a lot of 50 over stuff is imo much more likely to get out playing outside the off stump than one who hasn't (there are always exceptions like your Laras and Tendulkars. But I think they are exceptions, not the rule) T20 is see ball hit ball. It doesn't impinge on the Test mindset in the way the requirements of a 50 over game do. That's one example. There are others, eg the 50 over game tends to create players who are good off their body, but not so good at driving.

Bowlers: Cut down the pace a bit and bowl back of a length. Groan. It nearly wiped out spin and fast bowling back in the '80s and '90s! Granted there is the occasional spinner these days, but for a long time firing darts at a batsman's feet was about all they seemed able to do.

Batsmen like Sir Viv and the Don were Masters of their Craft and as such can play shots most of us can't. KP these days is similar. Sir Viv's trademark was the good length ball outside off over the midwicket boundary. Would you really recommend it as a shot a young up and coming player like Johnny Bairstow should use? Think it got Sir Viv out once or twice as well, but he'd usually got about 150 by then so it didn't matter.

On the pure mechanics of both batting and bowling, both are drill actions - the action is grooved and perfected by repetition. If the bowler is constantly pulling the ball down short of a length, he or she will find it harder to pitch it up a bit when required. A batsman who is in the habit of nicking one through a vacant gully in the 50 over game will find it harder to resist the shot in a Test match. For a batsman, the fact that decisions as to shot have to be made instantaneously makes this tendency more pronounced than for a bowler.

An example where all these factors (and more) came together was in our 4-1 Ashes win Down Under. Aus hammered us in the one dayers afterwards, and played in the Tests like a 50 over side.

So for these reasons I think there is a case to be made that the 50 over game is bad for Test techniques.

You are describing ODIs from the early 90s. The game has moved on a lot more. There is a lot more to bowling in ODIs then pace off and back of a length. It is about keeper the batsman guessing with subtle variations. Both Broad and Anderson have used their ODI skills to good effect in test matches.

England won the ashes (3-1) because they were a much better team. They lost the one-dayers after the ashes because they didn't actually care about them, and Australia were trying to restore some pride.

T20 has done wonders for spin bowling, spinners are bowling (and taking wickets) more now than they did throughout the 90s.

by Stella Wed 06 Jun 2012, 2:42 pm

I still enjoy 50 over ODI's but not the 7 matches against the Aussies this summer.

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 06 Jun 2012, 2:45 pm

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Negative Effects of the IPL on a spin bowler's approach

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/567333.html

I read that one, it's an excellent article. But then again Swann and Ajmal are probably the two top T20 bowlers in the world and also the top two spin bowlers in tests, so it's not incompatible. I do think that sometimes learning your trade as a bowler in T20 can be detrimental to your bowling in the longer form of the game.

by Cowshot Wed 06 Jun 2012, 2:45 pm

3-1 correction accepted!

Agree entirely that T20 has done good things for the game in general and thoroughly approve of it. My original approval was for reasons that have turned out to be thoroughly secondary - I liked it because almost anyone who has played cricket at all will have played a 20 over game. Few of us will play a multi-day game let alone a Test, more will play a 50 over game. But the 20 over version allows a direct comparison with the experience of almost everyone who's held a bat. In fact what T20 has done is up the scoring rate across all forms, along with the Aussie Blitz approach to batting. Much more important.

Think it's a bit unfair to say England didn't care about the 1 dayers. Do think my point about Australia playing in the Tests like a 50 over side has truth to it. Yes, we were a much much better side. hohohoho. Smile

by Mike Selig Wed 06 Jun 2012, 2:48 pm

Fists of Fury wrote: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.

Back to the question on Pietersen: this is surely the crux of the matter. We all accept T20s and 50 over cricket are entirely different, surely? So why should a player feel obliged to play both?

I take a small issue with Shelsey's point that someone who is good at T20s and Tests should be good at ODIs, because they land somewhere in between. It is certainly true of Pietersen, but in general the skillset for all 3 formats are very different, and being good at the two extremes doesn't mean you'll automatically be good at the middle one.

For batting say, there are some batsmen who are essentially "4 or nothing" batsmen: they'll struggle at ODIs (their only possible position is opening) because on the whole you have to nudge and nurdle as well as block and hit, but can be perfectly adequate test match batsmen (which is their natural game) and T20 ones (where they take more risks, but when it comes off they score at a very quick rate in the powerplay): someone like Rahane, or even Bell or Prior are reasonable examples.

For bowling, a pure wicket-taker can be handy in T20s if alongside a bunch of economical ones, and of course tests in a 5 man attack - but bowl simply too many 4-balls in ODIs to be worth his place (3-40 in a T20 is acceptable; is 3-60 in ODIs?). Someone like Malinga or Umar Gul springs to mind - not great ODI bowlers by any means.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 06 Jun 2012, 2:48 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:Thanks FOF

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

Anderson isnt really guaranteed a start in limited overs anyway. Hes been in and out the team.
Certainly for T20 his type of bowling isnt always the most effective. Fast strike bowlers (Finn) and mystery ~~chuckers~~spinners ( err Patel???lolz) tend to be the most successful.

Interesting to hear KP talk about his T20 batting before the last test. He pretty much relies on big straight hits now, much like Pollard and Sehwag...and infact uses the "innovative" cross bat shots more in tests.

by DouglasJardinesbox Wed 06 Jun 2012, 6:58 pm

Sorry, you cannot talk about KP and One Day and T20 Internationals anymore. He thinks he is too big for the game and we have kicked him out. Please talk about Ravi instead.....

Regards,
Geoff M.

by **Fists of Fury** Fri 08 Jun 2012, 9:29 am

Brilliant from ANdy Zaltzman over at ESPNcricinfo, as well:

http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/andyzaltzman/archives/2012/06/why_has_kp_retired_time_will_t.php

by ShankyCricket Fri 13 Jul 2012, 8:35 pm

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/572361.html

He has unretired. Yahoo

I dont think he should just walk back into the ODI side. The current top 5 have done well. But great to have him back in t20. I dont see him returning to the ODI XI until the India tour.

by Shelsey93 Fri 13 Jul 2012, 8:45 pm

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/572361.html

He has unretired.

I dont think he should just walk back into the ODI side. The current top 5 have done well. But great to have him back in t20. I dont see him returning to the ODI XI until the India tour.

Not yet an unretirement - but as I've said on the other thead George Dobell rarely writes utter tripe, and so there is a strong possibility that negotiations really are ongoing.

by ShankyCricket Fri 13 Jul 2012, 8:50 pm

Shelsey93 wrote:
shankythebiggestengfan wrote:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/572361.html

He has unretired.

I dont think he should just walk back into the ODI side. The current top 5 have done well. But great to have him back in t20. I dont see him returning to the ODI XI until the India tour.

Not yet an unretirement - but as I've said on the other thead George Dobell rarely writes utter tripe, and so there is a strong possibility that negotiations really are ongoing.

Kevin Pietersen has sensationally opened the door for an England comeback in limited-overs international cricket, admitting he would "love to play for another three or four years in all forms of cricket."

by Shelsey93 Fri 13 Jul 2012, 9:02 pm

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:
Shelsey93 wrote:
shankythebiggestengfan wrote:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/572361.html

He has unretired.

I dont think he should just walk back into the ODI side. The current top 5 have done well. But great to have him back in t20. I dont see him returning to the ODI XI until the India tour.

Not yet an unretirement - but as I've said on the other thead George Dobell rarely writes utter tripe, and so there is a strong possibility that negotiations really are ongoing.

Kevin Pietersen has sensationally opened the door for an England comeback in limited-overs international cricket, admitting he would "love to play for another three or four years in all forms of cricket."

If you read further down the quote is in the context of if the schedules were right he would "love to play for another three or four years in all forms of cricket". Not much of a shift there, as he blamed the schedule for his retirement in the first place and its not going to change overnight.

The fact that he's had meeting with Hugh Morris etc. is more of an indication that there might be some movement.

by msp83 Sun 15 Jul 2012, 9:01 am

Hopefully KP will be back to play for England in the limited over formats.
England's ODI plans have worked at home, but I don't they have found answers to their conventional challenges when playing away from home.
A firing Pietersen would help them find significant answers there.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 15 Jul 2012, 5:07 pm

Mods...can we get this merged with the other KP thread...just so the same discussion is all kept together.

Flower has stated the policy will not be fudged to bring him back, hes either in for every tour they want him for or hes out.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/572498.html

Flower, a man of principle who counts loyalty as a major factor, does not see a way back for Pietersen. "As things stand at the moment, no, there isn't,"he told the Mail on Sunday.

"The situation is the same as it was when he first approached us. The ECB are determined to protect all three formats of the game and part of that is not setting a precedent of allowing players to retire from one-day cricket alone.

"The intent behind it is that we are serving English cricket in its entirety," Flower added. "We have to take personalities out of the equation. We all are lucky enough to have the choice about what we do. There are many people in this world that aren't lucky enough to have a choice. Here we're talking about a sporting situation and we all have our choices. I don't have to sign a contract with the ECB if I don't want to."

Sounds like Flower wont cut a deal to get KP back in.

by skyeman Sun 15 Jul 2012, 5:43 pm

Got to agree with AF on this, showing his experience and integrity. As much as i like KP he has done himself NO favours with first retiring and in my opinion not really thinking it through and then having second thoughts about the T20 and 2015 World Cups and then hoping the bosses relent.

And his statement about not being "well looked after" Balderdash.

By allowing KP to get his own way now might see the team-building of the last three years go out of the window. He is an attractive and occasionally a very destructive batsman, but allowing him to disrupt plans and become a destabilising influence on the squads is not something England need on the eve of this important series.

No player is ever bigger than the team.

by Shelsey93 Sun 15 Jul 2012, 8:10 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Mods...can we get this merged with the other KP thread...just so the same discussion is all kept together.

Sorry, this article ended up being posted about 3 times! I accidentally put it in the wrong section, so re-did it in the main section, and then Adam reposted it when he published it on the Journal! Sorry.

by DouglasJardinesbox Mon 16 Jul 2012, 7:36 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Mods...can we get this merged with the other KP thread...just so the same discussion is all kept together.

Flower has stated the policy will not be fudged to bring him back, hes either in for every tour they want him for or hes out.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/572498.html

Flower, a man of principle who counts loyalty as a major factor, does not see a way back for Pietersen. "As things stand at the moment, no, there isn't,"he told the Mail on Sunday.

"The situation is the same as it was when he first approached us. The ECB are determined to protect all three formats of the game and part of that is not setting a precedent of allowing players to retire from one-day cricket alone.

"The intent behind it is that we are serving English cricket in its entirety," Flower added. "We have to take personalities out of the equation. We all are lucky enough to have the choice about what we do. There are many people in this world that aren't lucky enough to have a choice. Here we're talking about a sporting situation and we all have our choices. I don't have to sign a contract with the ECB if I don't want to."

Sounds like Flower wont cut a deal to get KP back in.

Didn't Flower miss a tour a while back, for family reasons? Or was that on medical grounds? Anyway, on 'Cricket Writers on TV' this past Sunday, they all reckon Flower should (and will) miss a tour soon to 'rest'. If that happens, then the hypocrisy would drip from every pore of the management team....

by Dorothy_Mantooth Mon 16 Jul 2012, 8:32 am

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Mods...can we get this merged with the other KP thread...just so the same discussion is all kept together.

Flower has stated the policy will not be fudged to bring him back, hes either in for every tour they want him for or hes out.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/572498.html

Flower, a man of principle who counts loyalty as a major factor, does not see a way back for Pietersen. "As things stand at the moment, no, there isn't,"he told the Mail on Sunday.

"The situation is the same as it was when he first approached us. The ECB are determined to protect all three formats of the game and part of that is not setting a precedent of allowing players to retire from one-day cricket alone.

"The intent behind it is that we are serving English cricket in its entirety," Flower added. "We have to take personalities out of the equation. We all are lucky enough to have the choice about what we do. There are many people in this world that aren't lucky enough to have a choice. Here we're talking about a sporting situation and we all have our choices. I don't have to sign a contract with the ECB if I don't want to."

Sounds like Flower wont cut a deal to get KP back in.

Didn't Flower miss a tour a while back, for family reasons? Or was that on medical grounds? Anyway, on 'Cricket Writers on TV' this past Sunday, they all reckon Flower should (and will) miss a tour soon to 'rest'. If that happens, then the hypocrisy would drip from every pore of the management team....

But was KP not rested last year against India in the ODIs? Also from what was reported at the time of his "retirement" he was due to be rested from the West Indies ODIs this Summer.

I think everyone understands that the Schedules are way too busy and the ECB are trying their best to manage the workload of players. What they are not prepared to do is let players pick and choose which limited overs format they can play.

by Stella Mon 16 Jul 2012, 9:24 am

Resting and retiring are slightly different. Plus I doubt Flower will rest then coach an IPL team in the same year.

by Shelsey93 Mon 16 Jul 2012, 10:22 am

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:
DouglasJardinesbox wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Mods...can we get this merged with the other KP thread...just so the same discussion is all kept together.

Flower has stated the policy will not be fudged to bring him back, hes either in for every tour they want him for or hes out.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/572498.html

Flower, a man of principle who counts loyalty as a major factor, does not see a way back for Pietersen. "As things stand at the moment, no, there isn't,"he told the Mail on Sunday.

"The situation is the same as it was when he first approached us. The ECB are determined to protect all three formats of the game and part of that is not setting a precedent of allowing players to retire from one-day cricket alone.

"The intent behind it is that we are serving English cricket in its entirety," Flower added. "We have to take personalities out of the equation. We all are lucky enough to have the choice about what we do. There are many people in this world that aren't lucky enough to have a choice. Here we're talking about a sporting situation and we all have our choices. I don't have to sign a contract with the ECB if I don't want to."

Sounds like Flower wont cut a deal to get KP back in.

Didn't Flower miss a tour a while back, for family reasons? Or was that on medical grounds? Anyway, on 'Cricket Writers on TV' this past Sunday, they all reckon Flower should (and will) miss a tour soon to 'rest'. If that happens, then the hypocrisy would drip from every pore of the management team....

But was KP not rested last year against India in the ODIs? Also from what was reported at the time of his "retirement" he was due to be rested from the West Indies ODIs this Summer.

I think everyone understands that the Schedules are way too busy and the ECB are trying their best to manage the workload of players. What they are not prepared to do is let players pick and choose which limited overs format they can play.

That's the point. The schedule England are faced with in coming years is full on - probably too full on. But the management understand that and will manage players as best as possible. We've already seen rests this year for a number of players, and I can only imagine that that will become more frequent. KP would certainly, given that he plays all three forms of the game, be a strong candidate for rests.

However, there is a difference between choosing your own schedule, which includes the IPL and all T20 internationals, and being rested in accordance with ECB plans as a contracted player should. It is a goal of the England team to be number one in the world in ODIs and to win World Cups. That won't be achieved if the players don't comply with the management's planning - something which would be happening if KP was allowed to chose when he is available.

by ShankyCricket Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:22 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/9402211/Kevin-Pietersens-new-set-of-one-day-demands-to-play-for-England-again-display-stunning-arrogance.html

by **Fists of Fury** Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:33 am

I'd be very surprised if he wanted to play IPL ahead of Tests at this stage, particularly in light of his recent comments stating that he was chasing 10,000 Test runs and 30 centuries.

Until we hear a statement from either the ECB or KP himself, I don't think it is worth discussing. I'd rather media discussion were to concentrate on the upcoming SA series.

I reckon Biltong is a mole in the English media, attempting to spread discord Wink

by ShankyCricket Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:36 am

Fists of Fury wrote:I'd be very surprised if he wanted to play IPL ahead of Tests at this stage, particularly in light of his recent comments stating that he was chasing 10,000 Test runs and 30 centuries.

Until we hear a statement from either the ECB or KP himself, I don't think it is worth discussing. I'd rather media discussion were to concentrate on the upcoming SA series.

I reckon Biltong is a mole in the English media, attempting to spread discord

But he also said in February that he wants to plays the 2015 World Cup. Then what did he do? Retire from ODIs. So I am not sure we can take KP's comments at face value anymore and this is coming from one of his biggest supporters.

by **Fists of Fury** Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:39 am

Likewise, people get misquoted a lot. It is difficult to take ANYTHING at face value in this day and age.

by ShankyCricket Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:43 am

But if(big if) that article is true, then he should never be considered for England duties agsan.

by **Fists of Fury** Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:45 am

Don't get so carried away. Even if it were true there could be a whole host of caveats and reasons behind certain things.

It is not for the likes of us to say who should or shouldn't ever play for England again. The management will make the decisions, and they invariably make the right ones. Let's leave it up to them, eh?

by ShankyCricket Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:50 am

Sorry, I dont want to see a player who wants to pick and choose which Test matches he plays in, represent England.

by Shelsey93 Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:51 am

I second Fists that I can't believe he would realistically chose IPL over Test duties.

by ShankyCricket Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:53 am

Shelsey93 wrote:I second Fists that I can't believe he would realistically chose IPL over Test duties.

I agree that its unlikely. Thats why I said (big if) but if its true then he surely cant miss early summer Tests and then expect walk into the team whenever available.

by **Fists of Fury** Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:57 am

I agree, Shanky. Play IPL by all means, but not at the expense of Tests.

I hope for everyones sake that this is resolved quickly, with the outcome that KP is fully committed to Test cricket for the foreseeable future. England need his runs, and KP needs Test cricket to really cement his legacy (he already has one, but he is on the cusp of true greatness).

by ShankyCricket Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:58 am

Fists of Fury wrote:I agree, Shanky. Play IPL by all means, but not at the expense of Tests.

I hope for everyones sake that this is resolved quickly, with the outcome that KP is fully committed to Test cricket for the foreseeable future. England need his runs, and KP needs Test cricket to really cement his legacy (he already has one, but he is on the cusp of true greatness).

Absolutely!

by ShankyCricket Mon 16 Jul 2012, 12:02 pm

Test cricket would be better with KP rather than without him. But he must remain fully committed to the cause. Resting in a few hit and giggle international matches is fine, asking to miss the Test matches though is unacceptable and can set very dangerous precedents.
Lets hope the story is untrue. But if it is true, then the ECB must take a hard stance.

by Shelsey93 Mon 16 Jul 2012, 12:02 pm

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:
Shelsey93 wrote:I second Fists that I can't believe he would realistically chose IPL over Test duties.
I agree that its unlikely. Thats why I said (big if) but if its true then he surely cant miss early summer Tests and then expect walk into the team whenever available.

Absolutely

by ShankyCricket Mon 16 Jul 2012, 12:11 pm

Almost every journo on Twitter feels that the Telegraph story is reliable.

by Stella Mon 16 Jul 2012, 12:12 pm

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Almost every journo on Twitter feels that the Telegraph story is reliable.

Has Pietersen been on twitter to say otherwise?

by ShankyCricket Mon 16 Jul 2012, 12:14 pm

Stella wrote:
shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Almost every journo on Twitter feels that the Telegraph story is reliable.

Has Pietersen been on twitter to say otherwise?

No.

by Stella Mon 16 Jul 2012, 12:15 pm

I would if it's not true!

by Shelsey93 Mon 16 Jul 2012, 12:21 pm

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Almost every journo on Twitter feels that the Telegraph story is reliable.

I would add the caveat that Derek Pringle is their mate and so they aren't going to come on and say they think he's taking cobblers! There is a difference between a story being reliable and 100 percent accurate.

by **Fists of Fury** Mon 16 Jul 2012, 12:25 pm

Oh it will be reliable, but as Shelsey says, in journalism it takes only one or two misplaced words to put a whole different spin on a story.

The media are never the most trustworthy of sources, and until a statement is released by either the ECB, KP or both, then I will remain sceptical as to the exact details.

by msp83 Mon 16 Jul 2012, 2:07 pm

Pietersen hasn't said anything on these lines, so is the case with the ECB. Unless either of the parties come up with something clear, I would give KP the benefit of doubt.

by Mike Selig Mon 16 Jul 2012, 2:12 pm

I am beginning to think that KP, as well as not being particularly nice, is maybe a bit thick, if he has really come up with the nonsense Mr Pringle is suggesting.

I understand he leaves a lot of his affairs to his agent(s) and it is of course normal that they will do everything to maximise his profits. Perhaps this is just their way of asking for a pay rise.

TBH I find the whole thing bemusing. Given that the ECB made clear that they wouldn't accept KP to "pick and choose" which ODIs he played in, how anyone could think they would find it ok for him to do so for tests as well is beyond me.

I am equally bemused by Pringle's placing of Botham quite so comprehensively above KP. I would say as players Botham has marginally the upper hand, but KP has achieved a lot more.

Think we should just hold our horses and wait for some clarification from either party.

by **Fists of Fury** Mon 16 Jul 2012, 2:31 pm

Pietersen is as good a cricketer as Sir Ian Botham, without doubt. Yes Beefy was a magnificent bowler, but nothing more than a very decent batsman that had the x-factor. KP is a truly world class batsman, and also has that x-factor, so we can't really place him a notch below because he doesn't bowl, particularly given his achievements as you say, Mike.

I'd also give KP the benefit of the doubt here, unless we hear otherwise. As you say, he was told he can't pick and choose with ODI's, so surely it is very unlikely that he will now be asking to do so with Tests.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:17 pm

England cant complain too much about KPs flouncing, hes only English in the first place beacuse of it

by Sponsored content