KP says he 'wants to commit to all forms of cricket for England'

First topic message reminder :

I presume he'll be 'rested' for the NZ tests or something

He has failed to acknowledge these derogatory texts according to the ECB. So it is pretty obvious that he has sent them, and the saffers have leaked it

Olly wrote:He has failed to acknowledge these derogatory texts according to the ECB. So it is pretty obvious that he has sent them, and the saffers have leaked it

Well, yes. But I suppose the question is how derogatory, and the nature of sending them.

If he wants to have a moan in private then fine. Having a moan to the saffers undermines our entire team.

KP says iit isn't the end. I suspect the ECB will want an apology, most likely public, to put this to bed

GSC wrote:KP says iit isn't the end. I suspect the ECB will want an apology, most likely public, to put this to bed

He apologised yesterday, though I think he conveniently omitted mention of the texts (?)

Aye. The main problem seems to be that.

Tbh, as much as people criticize the ECB for this, KP has been a massive idiot.

To speak about your team mates behind their backs, to the team that you're up against in one of the biggest test series in many of years is pretty low. We all have grudges and groans with team mates, but what he did by crawling back to the saffer's is too far imo.

I began by defending KP, but, I can't any longer. He's been stupid and broke off any trust he had from his team mates. It wouldn't have been a happy dressing room all week, and it would have been disruptive clearly. Right call made.

The only problem is if England don't win there'll be idiots blaming the ECB for dropping Pieterson.

A happy team is more likely to win.

Theres plenty of people who would have KP committed

Let England be happy!, and they can lose like a set of happy jokers. Never in the world I thought Andrew Strauss to be a pathetic little egotist of this kind. He better get some runs at least to stave off well directed criticism if his team would go on to lose the match and the series.
Without Pietersen, the number 1 position would have been a goner already, I think Strauss is feeling silly for all the wickets that KP took in the last match as it exposed the captain and coach to be terrible jokers!.

I think we should reign back on shouting our heads off at Flower and Strauss. They are the main reasons why we have got it together in the last few years. Yes, this has all been a big mess, and tbh no one has come out of it looking particularly great, but, Strauss and Flower have been a superb double act so let's not ridicule them completely.

However, if Strauss wasn't captain he would have been dropped a while ago now. He has been awful this series, playing poor shots and overall looking over the hill.

My word how we are going to miss KP, that knock was sensational and everyone can see he is batting superbly, looks in fine nick. I just can't see 6 batsmen, even with Bairstow called up. The line up would look weak and they can use the excuse of Finn's home ground, Bres hasn't done anything wrong plus he can bat. 5 man bowling attack at Lord's methinks.

Shelsey93 wrote:A very confusing set of developments. I guess we still don't know the full story, so I won't judge the ECB right now.

All I can say is that not having KP won't suddenly make us a terrible team, though having two inexperienced batters isn't ideal. We still have 4 world class batsmen, and I include the captain in that.

I suppose the natural reaction from KP will be another u-turn, and probable retirement. It may be that his position is now untenable in any case.

Pietersen's interview in which he said he would play for England in all formats of the game looks like being made in order to manipulate and force the ECB and the selectors's hands into picking him for the 3rd test. Now that this sly and perhaps devious ploy hasn't worked out as he had hoped, he may just stick 2 fingers up to the ECB and the selectors by deciding that he doesn't want to play for England anymore in any formats of the game.

Seems KP has stated that although he was shocked by today's development, this has changed nothing in yesterday's interview.

GSC wrote:If he wants to have a moan in private then fine. Having a moan to the saffers undermines our entire team.

But he is a Saffa after all, so he moan all he likes to his fellow brothers, if this will help him to overcome any mental problems/issues he is having in order that he can more frequently bat like the way he did on that Saturday afternoon at Headingley.

Did Shelsey call Strauss a world class batsman? Well, I'd be interested in knowing your definition of world class.

If scoring runs against WI despite being Poopie against others for a long time makes you world class, then I suspect Ravi Bopara would be the best thing since sliced bread.

For all this talk about KP being far and away England's best player, Cook is the one nominated for test, ODI and overall cricketer of the year.

Indeed of the 4 England players nominated, KP does not feature

GSC, Cook is a fine player, no doubt, but not in the KP bracket. Statistically he is nearby, but overall - no.

Why? Because Cook isn't as flashy? Runs are runs, even if Cooks style isn't as flashy as KPs. And even then Cooks been very good in ODIs too.

Interesting that Trott won it the year before. Maybe England's rise to #1 was based on more than just KP

Because Cook doesn't possess the ability of KP to force results, to turn games on their head etc.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Did Shelsey call Strauss a world class batsman? Well, I'd be interested in knowing your definition of world class.

World class was probably the wrong term, but he is certainly more than capable of scoring important runs against any opposition.

I can't agree with the idea that KP is our best batter by a country mile. He is a fantastic player, and as Fists says, our best at turning the screw. But Cook, Trott and Bell have all been just as important in their own ways.

Fists of Fury wrote:Because Cook doesn't possess the ability of KP to force results, to turn games on their head etc.

If an opener scores a 150 in the first innings...as Cook does regularly...then that forces a result. It changes the game from the outset to favour his team.
Id be suprised if we went through every one of Pietersens 100's how many actually changed the course of a match completely, its happened a few times, but mainly he will have scored runs in good totals on good pitches like most batsmen do.

I think you'll find he has many more defining innings than almost every batsman playing today, let alone solely his team mates.

OK, so what are they. Obviously the Ashes was huge but apart from that how many times have his runs been the sole reason for a game changing.
And in what way does scoring say a 100 in the second innings differs from setting your side up to win by scoring a 100 in the first innings ?

Fists of Fury wrote:I think you'll find he has many more defining innings than almost every batsman playing today, let alone solely his team mates.

That is an amazing claim given the Quality of batsmen around. I would dearly love you to expand on this claim.

Ok, let's take Jacques Kallis.

Kallis, for all his enormous qualities as a batsman, doesn't have anywhere near the defining innings of Kevin Pietersen. It is what holds JK back from being ranked alongside the likes of Lara and Ponting. Great batsmen win games for their countries almost single handedly and in a fashion that sets them apart.

That's the kind of thing I'm looking at here.

His last 2 centuries have put England in winning positions (vs Sri Lanka and South Africa). I'm not sure any other batsman in the England ranks would have been capable of either.

No, i think you are getting confused here bewteen flashy scores or fast tons rather than consistent batting. If you are looking at that then i would have David Warner of Australia in ahead of KP as he can single handely turn matches on their head in quick fashion.

As for JK, i am pretty sure that he is going to be remembered up there with the likes of Lara and Ponting and in matches gone by he has also single handedly won SA matches with both bat and ball.

Im struggling to understand the concept of a defining innings. Is it one you remember because it was pretty and quick ? He certainly hasnt made a lot of really big scores which are just as useful as quick ones.
And again where are the examples of these single handed wins, I think you'd find quite often he had a lot of support and in any match to win you have to take 20 wickets so the bowlers usually play a part.
But again if an opener makes 200 he has...not single handedly but to a very large degree...massively helped win a match. Just as much as KP has ever done.

For the record, i am not having a dig at KP as i think that he is an excellent batsman and one that will be missed greatly from the side. Its just comments like Fists has made in an attempt to elevate him above some superb batsmen that has me bemused.

He may never get to reach the heights of the other batsmen as he will probably retire but he is a long way off their company right now.

No, it is one that is extraordinary in winning a test match.

Here is an example from an article I wrote some time back.

If we cast our memory back to the Sydney Cricket Ground in January of 2006, the above point becomes particularly relevant. The two greatest batsmen on display in this game, Kallis and Ponting, both had significant success. Kallis scored 111 in the first innings, followed up by 50 not out in the second. Ponting, on the other hand, made 120 in the first innings, and a match winning 143 not out in the second. Statistically, you couldn't argue with either performance. The manner in which the runs were compiled however, presents a different outlook in its entirety.

During that first innings, it was eminently clear that Jacques Kallis and South Africa were desperate for a big first innings total, betrayed by their snail-like run-rate of less than three runs per over. Conversely, Ponting came out and made his 120 from 174 balls, a brisk enough strike rate for sure. This is of far less consequence to this debate than the second innings, however.

After taking a first innings lead of 92 runs, South Africa's batsmen were required to really push on in order to declare and set Australia an imposing total whilst giving themselves enough time to take the ten wickets needed for victory. Herschelle Gibbs went about this task in the right manner, making 67 from 74 balls before falling, though his partner Kallis looked far more concerned with playing for his average in crawling along at barely a strike rate of 50 once again. Upon setting Australia a difficult 287 in 76 overs, Ricky Ponting strode to the crease and blitzed 143 from just 159 balls to lead Australia to an unlikely victory.

That Test match, to my mind, is a prime example of why Ricky Ponting will always be rated as a greater batsman than Jacques Kallis

Therein lies the difference. Kallis has never played an innings of the kind that Ponting did that day - he took the match by the scruff of the neck and dragged his side over the line. KP has done that on several occasions, too, starting with his debut series in the 2005 Ashes.

Nicely put fists. I agree entirely regarding Punter-Kallis.

Watched most of that Ponting innings and it was a fearless one.

I really dont think thats true at all personally. You dont define a batsman..or at least I dont...by the odd fantastic innings. Like I say Pietersen really hasnt made that many knocks in his career anyway, they are once in a blue moon scores. What matters over the course of a career is consistently helping your team to good totals, which Kallis has been amazingly good at his whole career.
I can remember KP throwing his wicket away stupidly when his team needed him far more times than I can remember him singhle handedly winning matches.
Kallis and Ponting are both all times great, KP is nowhere near that level IMO.

You wrote that so it must be true?

I have been watching cricket for many many a year and i have seen many batsmen have many a great innings. I even admire Raul Dravid for his sheer consistency and concentration, not that flashy but in his prime one of the best batsmen in the world and one that made huge scores that put opposition on the back foot.

A batsman does not have to score at a rate of knots to have a defining innings. I think thats where you get a little confused in this Fists.

Whatever floats your boat, but a fearless batsman that single handedly engineers winning positions for his side will always rate higher than a one paced plodder that might have saved a few games, but rarely/never wins them with a moment of genius, in my book.

Statistics are a good marker, and show great consistency as you say, but they are far from everything.

eirebilly wrote:You wrote that so it must be true?

I have been watching cricket for many many a year and i have seen many batsmen have many a great innings. I even admire Raul Dravid for his sheer consistency and concentration, not that flashy but in his prime one of the best batsmen in the world and one that made huge scores that put opposition on the back foot.

A batsman does not have to score at a rate of knots to have a defining innings. I think thats where you get a little confused in this Fists.

No, I simply used it to help explain my argument as it saved me from re-typing it.

I'm not saying you have to score at a rate of knots. I'm saying you need to regularly win matches for your side. Ponting does that, Dravid did that, Lara did that, Tendulkar does/did that, and to an extent Pietersen has done that though perhaps slightly less regularly than say a Ponting or Lara. Kallis simply hasn't done that.

Anyway, this is not meant to be an assassination of JH Kallis, who is a sublime cricketer. It was simply an example to reinforce my point.

Fists of Fury wrote:No, it is one that is extraordinary in winning a test match.

Here is an example from an article I wrote some time back.

If we cast our memory back to the Sydney Cricket Ground in January of 2006, the above point becomes particularly relevant. The two greatest batsmen on display in this game, Kallis and Ponting, both had significant success. Kallis scored 111 in the first innings, followed up by 50 not out in the second. Ponting, on the other hand, made 120 in the first innings, and a match winning 143 not out in the second. Statistically, you couldn't argue with either performance. The manner in which the runs were compiled however, presents a different outlook in its entirety.

During that first innings, it was eminently clear that Jacques Kallis and South Africa were desperate for a big first innings total, betrayed by their snail-like run-rate of less than three runs per over. Conversely, Ponting came out and made his 120 from 174 balls, a brisk enough strike rate for sure. This is of far less consequence to this debate than the second innings, however.

After taking a first innings lead of 92 runs, South Africa's batsmen were required to really push on in order to declare and set Australia an imposing total whilst giving themselves enough time to take the ten wickets needed for victory. Herschelle Gibbs went about this task in the right manner, making 67 from 74 balls before falling, though his partner Kallis looked far more concerned with playing for his average in crawling along at barely a strike rate of 50 once again. Upon setting Australia a difficult 287 in 76 overs, Ricky Ponting strode to the crease and blitzed 143 from just 159 balls to lead Australia to an unlikely victory.

That Test match, to my mind, is a prime example of why Ricky Ponting will always be rated as a greater batsman than Jacques Kallis

Therein lies the difference. Kallis has never played an innings of the kind that Ponting did that day - he took the match by the scruff of the neck and dragged his side over the line. KP has done that on several occasions, too, starting with his debut series in the 2005 Ashes.

That does to an extent come down to a batsman's style though Fists, as the old saying goes, generally "test matches are won by bowlers, and saved by batsmen."

A Sachin/Ponting can put in that quick century to set up an unlikely win because they're aggressive batsmen - you can say similar about Trescothick/Gayle/Astle - they just do/did it less often. Kallis and Dravid will go down as greats more for the games they saved when all looked lost - a different job that usually (granted KP in 2005 was an exception) requires a different skill set.

The same fearless batsmen who also throws his wicket away rather than play a defensive innings for a draw and then says well thats just how I play guys so take it or leave it ?
Like I say those great innings constitute a tiny percentage of Pietersens career, so if thats how he is judged it doesnt say much about all his other runs.

Fists of Fury wrote:Whatever floats your boat, but a fearless batsman that single handedly engineers winning positions for his side will always rate higher than a one paced plodder that might have saved a few games, but rarely/never wins them with a moment of genius, in my book.

Statistics are a good marker, and show great consistency as you say, but they are far from everything.

I am not having a go at you but i think that you really miss the point here. If you want great flair then ODI cricket is for you. I would rather have a batsman score 250 runs with a SR of 50 that a batsman who scores 100 with a SR of 80+.

KP has had his moments but as Diggers says, he has been out more times to silly shots than he has made match winning innings'.

Fists of Fury wrote:

eirebilly wrote:You wrote that so it must be true?

I have been watching cricket for many many a year and i have seen many batsmen have many a great innings. I even admire Raul Dravid for his sheer consistency and concentration, not that flashy but in his prime one of the best batsmen in the world and one that made huge scores that put opposition on the back foot.

A batsman does not have to score at a rate of knots to have a defining innings. I think thats where you get a little confused in this Fists.

No, I simply used it to help explain my argument as it saved me from re-typing it.

I'm not saying you have to score at a rate of knots. I'm saying you need to regularly win matches for your side. Ponting does that, Dravid did that, Lara did that, Tendulkar does/did that, and to an extent Pietersen has done that though perhaps slightly less regularly than say a Ponting or Lara. Kallis simply hasn't done that.

Anyway, this is not meant to be an assassination of JH Kallis, who is a sublime cricketer. It was simply an example to reinforce my point.

But you said that KP does it better than anyone in cricket? Now i am confused as to what you mean?

As for Kallis, believe it or not he has won matches with both brilliant batting and excellent bowling. I have him as the best all round cricketer of all time.

Oh I'm not denying that, Pete. I'm a huge fan of flamboyant batsmen and I'll always tend to rate them higher than a solid if unspectacular batsman that churns out similar statistics. Such ratings are objective to a personal level, so I've no problem if others view it differently.

But, what I do believe, is that flamboyance is part of greatness. They do things that others simply cannot even dream of doing. Muhammad Ali - flamboyant, unrivalled in skill as a heavyweight boxer. Usain Bolt. Roger Federer. Diego Maradona. Each of those names have been capable of the extraordinary, and for me that has to rank higher than those that are simply capable of being consistent albeit in a more orthodox manner.

eirebilly wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

eirebilly wrote:You wrote that so it must be true?

I have been watching cricket for many many a year and i have seen many batsmen have many a great innings. I even admire Raul Dravid for his sheer consistency and concentration, not that flashy but in his prime one of the best batsmen in the world and one that made huge scores that put opposition on the back foot.

A batsman does not have to score at a rate of knots to have a defining innings. I think thats where you get a little confused in this Fists.

No, I simply used it to help explain my argument as it saved me from re-typing it.

I'm not saying you have to score at a rate of knots. I'm saying you need to regularly win matches for your side. Ponting does that, Dravid did that, Lara did that, Tendulkar does/did that, and to an extent Pietersen has done that though perhaps slightly less regularly than say a Ponting or Lara. Kallis simply hasn't done that.

Anyway, this is not meant to be an assassination of JH Kallis, who is a sublime cricketer. It was simply an example to reinforce my point.

But you said that KP does it better than anyone in cricket? Now i am confused as to what you mean?

As for Kallis, believe it or not he has won matches with both brilliant batting and excellent bowling. I have him as the best all round cricketer of all time.

You won't be able to name more than 5 current cricketers that have played more defining innings than Pietersen, is what I'm saying.

And, for the record, Kallis ain't as great as Garry Sobers

Fists of Fury wrote:

You won't be able to name more than 5 current cricketers that have played more defining innings than Pietersen, is what I'm saying.

And, for the record, Kallis ain't as great as Garry Sobers

I tell you what, how about you name me five match defining inning's that KP has made and i will give you 5 current players with the same ability.

Did you not rate Amla's innings in the first test? I would rate that as match defining but you will say that it was boring so doesnt count

Its the defining innings thing for me. Your career is defined every single time you walk to the crease, not just by your best scores. Pietersens career is just as defined by his failures as his successes, so I really cant make him a great solely on the back of occasional great knocks. Its just all fur coat and no knickers basically.

Hasim Amla
Greame Smith
AB de Villiers
JH Kallis

David Warner (already has three tremendous knocks that has Pulled the Aussies from the brink and put them into a winning position)
Ricky Ponting
Michael Clarke
Michael Hussey

8 players from Englands biggest rivals that automatically spring to mind when thinking of having the ability to change matches. It does not always have to be flamboyant, just effective.

Saying KP has defining innings is silly so hes better than cook is quite frankly silly. Cook setting the foundation has been a faar more integral part of England wins than a Pieterson 'defining innings that comes along every few years or so.

the advent of T20 and such seems to be making a perception that run rate is more important than runs.

Oval, 2005 - 158 (you know all about that one)
Edgbaston, 2006 - 142 (almost 50% of England's 1st innings runs vs Murali)
Lord's 2007 - 134 (second innings, 90 more runs than anyone else, very nearly won us the match as India secured a draw 9 down).
Napier 2008 - 129 (next highest score was 42 in incredibly difficult conditions. Kept England afloat amidst collapse and allowed them to win game).
Mohali 2008 - 144 (again kept England afloat on a turning deck as he scored almost 50% of the runs helping us to avoid the follow on).
Centurion 2009 - 81 (second innings dig as we clung on for a draw with 1 wicket intact)

So there I've given you examples of match winning and match saving innings of the highest calibre. There are many more, too. Adelaide double century was a huge one.

GSC, don't say it is silly. That is immature and uneducated. If you want to dispute my claims, then say something worthwhile.

Good examples Fists

I have already posted 8 players with the same capability to get the same result and only from 2 nations.

Look, KP is an incredibly good batsman, dont get me wrong but you have attempted to class him up there with such Modern greats as Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar, Dravid and Kallis which is simply wrong in my opinion as he has never achieved (keeps playing he may) what they have as yet.

The problem I have with Kallis is that for a long time, he was the saffa's best batsman but time and time again, he came to the crease with his team say, 150 for 2 and he just plodded on regardless. Now, I know Dravid is similar but that was his role in the team.

Kallis has the ability to wreak havoc but IMO played within himself to often