KP - England career over

First topic message reminder :

"@bbctms: Reports suggesting Kevin Pietersen will NOT be selected for West Indies tour and World T20. Expecting ECB statement shortly #bbccricket

http://www.ecb.co.uk/news/articles/statement-kevin-pietersen

As that statement underlines, his career with England is done.

Discuss away, I'm sure this will be a hot topic...

skyeman wrote:Giles has just done a 360 as regards to KP in order to get the job.

Should he be in charge of England with ethics such as this ?

Why do you say this? If you're going on Giles's positive KP comments, then forget them. After all what else could he say!! Look at the storm when Cook refused to be positive about KP

Some excellent posts if I may say so, including Duty281 and CalCraig. Yes, it's very sad to see a player like Pietersen go. His Test record speaks for itself and there is no doubt that he has been one of England's best-ever batsmen.
But cricket, more than any other sport due to the length of Test matches, demands a happy changing room. Much has been done to accommodate KP in this respect but presumably the powers that be, including Cook, have now reckoned that with morale and confidence at rock bottom among the team, having KP around is just too much to put up with now.
Duty281 has listed the great KP knocks. Most Tests are won by bowlers but KP was that rarity - a match-winning batsman. I suppose we must be thankful that this mercurial, infuriating genius flourished for over 100 matches.

banbrotam wrote:

skyeman wrote:Giles has just done a 360 as regards to KP in order to get the job.

Should he be in charge of England with ethics such as this ?

Why do you say this? If you're going on Giles's positive KP comments, then forget them. After all what else could he say!! Look at the storm when Cook refused to be positive about KP

I feel it has made Giles look a wee bit silly by saying one week "he is worth millions to the team" and then agreeing to discard him even if he was convinced by others that it was best for the team. And of course he wants the top job  

I missed the Cook/KP rather heated discussion story from Sydney. Any info? Was this the beginning of the end for KP?

Of gawd. Where do I start.

It's best if I don't. I want be able to stop.

Our team is falling apart by the seems.

We need an amazing coach in quick to sort this out...

skyeman wrote:Boycott.  "You can be an individual within the team but you cannot just be an individual. He has said this is how I play take it or leave it, well they've taken it for long enough and now they've said thank you very much, we will leave it."


Shame for KP and fans but i like the bottle of Downton. An interesting first week in charge!

Yes I agree I like that he has come in and made decisions. After the last tour, everyone wanted to see change, and we're getting it. Whether it'll be successful or not is dependant on the youngsters coming through, but at least Downton and co clearly have a way they want to move forward.

And as Trussman put, in any sport, no one man is bigger than the team

I love KP but if the truth is that everyone hated him, what can we do.

If this still stems back from his texting Saffa players for the best way to get english players out he should have never come back..

BUt I still love the cricketer. He has demons. Thanks KP but its time to move on.



The England cricket team seems like a horrible place to be part of since the main man Freddie Flintoff has left. He was probably a player that gave the lads and team a much needed rest-bite and laugh..

We need characters in the team but not ones that suck the life out of the players.

And I agree with Botham on one point but not his other.

WE dont need to know why KP has left. Lets not dredge this up any more. Lets respect all sides and move on.

BUt he is right the ECB is a joke and is to cluttered.

skyeman wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:If that is correct, it would appear to weaken Giles' chances of landing the top job given his public backing of Pietersen when the initial squad was annonced.

On the contrary i feel. by agreeing with them, it has sadly strenghtened his claim.

When I posted previously as above, I did not appreciate that Giles was part of the group that had made the ''unanimous'' decision in respect of Pietersen. Sadly, I now fear that Skye is most likely correct in believing that Giles will be appointed team director.

An astute and biting comments from David Hopps in his cricinfo article:
''Giles, the favourite to replace Flower as team director, had previously called Pietersen a 'million pound asset', when asked about his future in Australia. If the decision to dispense with his services was unanimous, that represents quite a financial crash.''

If someone else is to be appointed team director, I find it astonishing that this group have made the decision to deny him the services of Pietersen. However flawed as an individual and damaging to the team that Pietersen may be, that surely is a decision for the team director.

I'll comment with a few further thoughts a bit later.

Sangakkara wrote:Towing the line is doing them wonders isn't it?.

You're suggesting that they want a side that is obedient, yet KP has been part of the squad for the winter tour. We lost.

Sangakkara wrote:In all seriousness, I would tend to agree - but the line they are towing is damaging to success. They are becoming inhibited cowards, frightened to show any flair or take any risks. Sport is not about taking the safe option. And as this winter has proven, taking the safe option can get you an absolute hiding..

Insulting to the likes of Broad and Root, who despite their flaws and young arrogance often produce entertaining performances. Again, these "cowards, frightened to show any flair or take any risks" played KP this winter. Not only that they welcomed him back, in 2012, after behaviour that would get anyone in any other organisation sacked. How is that the "safe option". You're way over emotional. You sound like that idiot Warne, who's just been moaning. I trust you have a cooler head when making managerial decisions!!

Sangakkara wrote:There isn't even an alternative to KP. It's not like there is a young superstar banging the door down for a chance. It's all... "Maybe him... Or he could potentially do a job"

Irrelevant. And actualy untrue. Ballance / Root / Butler are just three players I can think of. In addtion, . Didn't England manage without him, when he was dropped after the texting episode?

Sangakkara wrote:People are banging on about the importance of senior players. Well we've already lost Trott and Swann - why the hell are we throwing another one away? With no suitable replacement? .

Trott has indicated he's ready to return. I'm sure once he starts getting some runs, he'll be back. Interesting that as soon as KP is 'retired' - Trott acts in a positve manner

Sangakkara wrote:It's like Liverpool selling Luis Suarez with a shrug of the shoulders, saying "someone will come along eventually". Ludicrous.

Often happens at a football club. Fergie turned it into an art form. Keane was a classic example, who has arguably never been replaced. The team is everything. Strong managers know this. Fawning fans don't.

"Irrelevant. And actualy untrue. Ballance / Root / Butler are just three players I can think of. In addtion, . Didn't England manage without him, when he was dropped after the texting episode?"

add stokes to the list

guildfordbat wrote:

skyeman wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:If that is correct, it would appear to weaken Giles' chances of landing the top job given his public backing of Pietersen when the initial squad was annonced.

On the contrary i feel. by agreeing with them, it has sadly strenghtened his claim.

When I posted previously as above, I did not appreciate that Giles was part of the group that had made the ''unanimous'' decision in respect of Pietersen. Sadly, I now fear that Skye is most likely correct in believing that Giles will be appointed team director.

An astute and biting comments from David Hopps in his cricinfo article:
''Giles, the favourite to replace Flower as team director, had previously called Pietersen a 'million pound asset', when asked about his future in Australia. If the decision to dispense with his services was unanimous, that represents quite a financial crash.''

If someone else is to be appointed team director, I find it astonishing that this group have made the decision to deny him the services of Pietersen. However flawed as an individual and damaging to the team that Pietersen may be, that surely is a decision for the team director.

I'll comment with a few further thoughts a bit later.

I don't see the puzzlement. It's clear that KP was now such a liability, so mistrusted that he could not be part of the England set up, no matter what.

Any new coach would be daft to challenge this. He would find it within 30 minutes of taking the job, by talking to other players, why KP would be unsuitable. It actually would be another distraction and hence why the ECB took a very brave and bold decision

Of course the likes of Warne and Pat Murphy, who loved to have a go at those they beleive are the stuffed shirts, will spin this differently

As Agnew, who for once talks some sense, has aluded this wouldn't have been done unless it was clear that everyone was fed up of KP

I'm surprised at the defence. The Moores incident alone, was bad enough. And then there's the treatement of Strauss - who was never nothing but professional. KP then comes back and looks ordinary as his stats shows, goes back to his old ways and some are surprised that he's axed?

I don't think those criticising are looking at the whole of KP's career when it comes to this. It's like speeding points he was on 9 - now he gets a ban

At all clubs he has been at there as not only been disharmony among the players but also with supporters too.

A genius only on the strip it appears.

He will be better off in the IPL. They only have to put up with him for a short time  

First chance I've had to get to this and I suppose everything has already been said (probably several times  ) , but anyway :

Was I surprised ? Only at first - I rather expected him to play in the t20 and decisions to be left for the summer - but I guess with the new manager to start ( and it may well be Giles ) it is understandable they wanted to make a clean break straight away rather than have the KP soap opera drag on into the new season.
Let's face it : didn't we all know the KP story would - someday - end in tears ?
Is the decision reasonable ? Impossible for any of us to say as we don't have all the facts. But in general , selection of a player in any cricket team is based on a range of factors : perceived ability , recent form , character , "fit" with the team plan , future potential, fitness...
Now KP has been a wonderful player for England , so his recent form , perhaps best described as "patchy" doesn't rule him out - anyone with a record like his rightly gets allowed a lean spell in the way a lesser player wouldn't. It does , however , perhaps mean that leaving him out is no longer unthinkable.
I understand the man himself had expressed a desire to continue playing for England for at least the next couple of years. But - even passing over his propensity for sudden changes of mind - the fact that he has had his struggles with injury in recent times , and isn't getting any younger , may well have suggested to the selectors that he was no certainty to make it through even the next Ashes series in 2015. So that replacing him now might give a younger player a better chance to settle in than being thrown into a "big" series ? Understand I am not endorsing that approach as the best ; just pointing out that it is a defendable proposition.
The obvious swing factor is of course the character element : clearly
whatever you think of Pietersen from public observation , he does have an ability to upset teammates and team managers , and is perhaps at the best of times a "difficult" person in a dressing room. We have all known players a bit like that , have we not ? Larger than life , rather self centered , only buying into the team ethic when it suits ? When they are performing , and the team is winning , everyone rubs along OK ...but in times of drought they are sometimes of questionable value...
It seems the selectors have decided that the value that might have been derived from retaining Pietersen in the team for whatever future he had was likely to be negated by probable negative effects in terms of team harmony. It is a big call ...even a declining Pietersen had a huge matchwinning potential , and the team has already been weakened by the loss of Swann and Trott ; so I do not think they have taken this action lightly.
Is it the right one ? Time will tell . At least it puts an end to speculation over one key spot in the batting lineup. Places will be up for grabs early in the summer ; and if someone comes in and claims one with conviction people may well agree they got it right. And if rebuilding takes some time it may well be that the job of the captain and coach in that time will be made easier by the absence of an arguably disruptive influence in the dressing room. We aren't going to know for sure straight away.

Lastly , will I miss him ? Hell yes ! I heartily wish a way had been found to keep this brilliant player in the England team - playing a full part in their efforts , and happy in his own game - and continuing to entertain as few other batsmen can. But I have reluctantly accepted that this wasn't possible. Or at least the people who had to make a judgement in this matter felt that it wasn't.

So all I can say is , thanks for the memories , Kevin.

And as the team is bigger than the individual , I hope England go on to ensure that the decision does prove to have been the right one in the end.

Its gutting for the international scene as well.

KP not playing this form of cricket can only devalue the sport. If he tears up the IPL.. well look put it this way I may start watching the IPL just to watch him, which I would never have done before.

As bad as the ECB and set up has been , I still feel KP only has him self to blame for this. There is no smoke without Fire and He has burnt way to many bridges in his time..


KP you are an Englishman to me and allways will be. I dont want his memory being about some saffa that only cared about himself and not England.. But he is just mentally defective as part of a team..

He should have taken up Golf instead.

alfie wrote:First chance I've had to get to this and I suppose everything has already been said (probably several times  ) , but anyway :

Was I surprised ? Only at first - I rather expected him to play in the t20 and decisions to be left for the summer - but I guess with the new manager to start ( and it may well be Giles ) it is understandable they wanted to make a clean break straight away rather than have the KP soap opera drag on into the new season.
Let's face it : didn't we all know the KP story would - someday - end in tears ?
Is the decision reasonable ? Impossible for any of us to say as we don't have all the facts.  But in general , selection of a player in any cricket team is based on a range of factors : perceived ability , recent form , character , "fit" with the team plan , future potential, fitness...
Now KP has been a wonderful player for England , so his recent form , perhaps best described as "patchy" doesn't rule him out - anyone with a record like his rightly gets allowed a lean spell in the way a lesser player wouldn't. It does , however , perhaps mean that leaving him out is no longer unthinkable.
I understand the man himself had expressed a desire to continue playing for England for at least the next couple of years. But - even passing over his propensity for sudden changes of mind - the fact that he has had his struggles with injury in recent times , and isn't getting any younger , may well have suggested to the selectors that he was no certainty to make it through even the next Ashes series in 2015. So that replacing him now might give a younger player a better chance to settle in than being thrown into a "big" series ? Understand I am not endorsing that approach as the best ; just pointing out that it is a defendable proposition.
The obvious swing factor is of course the character element : clearly
whatever you think of Pietersen from public observation , he does have  an ability to upset teammates and team managers , and is perhaps at the best of times a "difficult" person in a dressing room.  We have all known players a bit like that , have we not ? Larger than life , rather self centered , only buying into the team ethic when it suits ? When they are performing , and the team is winning , everyone rubs along OK ...but in times of drought they are sometimes of questionable value...
It seems the selectors have decided that the value that might have been derived from retaining Pietersen in the team for whatever future he had was likely to be negated by probable negative effects in terms of team harmony.  It is a big call ...even a declining Pietersen had a huge matchwinning potential , and the team has already been weakened by the loss of Swann and Trott ; so I do not think they have taken this action lightly.
Is it the right one ?  Time will tell . At least it puts an end to speculation over one key spot in the batting lineup. Places will be up for grabs early in the summer ; and if someone comes in and claims one with conviction people may well agree they got it right. And if rebuilding takes some time it may well be that the job of the captain and coach in that time will be made easier by the absence of an arguably disruptive influence in the dressing room. We aren't going to know for sure straight away.

Lastly , will I miss him ?  Hell yes !  I heartily wish a way had been found to keep this brilliant player in the England team - playing a full part in their efforts , and happy in his own game  - and continuing to entertain as few other batsmen can.  But I have reluctantly accepted that this wasn't possible. Or at least the people who had to make a judgement in this matter felt that it wasn't.

So all I can say is , thanks for the memories , Kevin.

And as the team is bigger than the individual , I hope England go on to ensure that the decision does prove to have been the right one in the end.

   Very thoughtful post.

mystiroakey wrote:Its gutting for the international scene as well.

KP not playing this form of cricket can only devalue the sport. If he tears up the IPL.. well look put it this way I may start watching the IPL just to watch him, which I would never have done before.

As bad as the ECB and set up has been , I still feel KP only has him self to blame for this. There is no smoke without Fire and He has burnt way to many bridges in his time..


KP you are an Englishman to me and allways will be. I dont want his memory being about some saffa that only cared about himself and not England.. But he is just mentally defective as part of a team..

He should have taken up Golf instead.

Generally sums up my sentiments about KP.

Phenomenally talented, no doubt, but too often seemed to lack the team ethic, which showed in his style of play.

Yes, he could be a match-winner on his day, but over the last few years, those days were becoming fewer and farther between. Certainly his star in England test cricket seemed on the wane, though I've no doubt he can carve a good career for himself in one of the T20 franchises...his batting always seemed more suited to that format anyway.

It may well be that his attitude and apparent isolation within the England squad was down to the fact he is an honest, forthright chap and the others didn't take too kindly to some of the things he said. If so, that is a sad indictment of the England set-up, but if that is the prevailing mentality, then he was never going to fit in and he's probably better off out of it.

If, on the other hand, he was merely being a disruptive influence, then added to his recent lack of form, he wasn't worth keeping around.

For what it's worth I completely agree that English test cricket needs not only a new team, but a new team ethic...the emphasis being on team, rather than trying to massage the egos of individual "superstars". Australia showed us you don't need 11 world-class players to be a good team.

Just decent, honest players, with a modicum of talent and a whole load of fighting spirit and the mentality to keep calm and keep battling, when things get tough.

All that being said, I would hope KP isn't made the scapegoat for England's abysmal failure on the Australian tour. Based on performances alone, none of that squad should ever wear an England shirt again.

Taking a more sensible approach, I would hope they rebuild the team around Cook and 2 or 3 others, to at least give a core/spine of experience, but bring in a lot of new faces.

In any case I expect to see KP back home sharpish. But where will he live? Pietermaritzburg is his hometown but it's a teeny winny hell hole...

Cape Town is where all our cricketers move to eventually, so I'm sure he'd love a braai at Kallis' house, which is apparently the greatest event in history... but Jo'burg is home to the stars and wouldn't KP's ego love to call Brad Pitt, Angie Jolie, and George Clooney his neighbors? Decisions decisions!

kingraf wrote:In any case I expect to see KP back home sharpish. But where will he live? Pietermaritzburg is his hometown but it's a teeny winny hell hole...

Cape Town is where all our cricketers move to eventually, so I'm sure he'd love a braai at Kallis' house, which is apparently the greatest event in history... but Jo'burg is home to the stars and wouldn't KP's ego love to call Brad Pitt, Angie Jolie, and George Clooney his neighbors? Decisions decisions!

Heh - I'm sure you're right!

KP does strike you as a "bright lights, big city" kind of guy. I guess the Cape or Jo'burg are probably better environments for his family too.

Not sure if he will leave ENgland mate..

The Mario Balotelli why always me shirt comes to mind.

dyrewolfe wrote:

kingraf wrote:In any case I expect to see KP back home sharpish. But where will he live? Pietermaritzburg is his hometown but it's a teeny winny hell hole...

Cape Town is where all our cricketers move to eventually, so I'm sure he'd love a braai at Kallis' house, which is apparently the greatest event in history... but Jo'burg is home to the stars and wouldn't KP's ego love to call Brad Pitt, Angie Jolie, and George Clooney his neighbors? Decisions decisions!

Heh - I'm sure you're right!

KP does strike you as a "bright lights, big city" kind of guy. I guess the Cape or Jo'burg are probably better environments for his family too.

yes, no violence...................

GSC wrote:The Mario Balotelli why always me shirt comes to mind.

I think they also had the same hairstyle at one point too!

Jessica Taylor tweet;

Dominic Cork - there was no 'squaring up' to Alastair Cook or 'off-field antics' in Australia - you are lying,plain & simple.

Such devotion.  

Why is Cork accusing Jessica Taylor of squaring up to Cook?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Why is Cork accusing Jessica Taylor of squaring up to Cook?

   

Ok, my take on things.

From both camps, some very good posts above. Not surprisingly, some also a bit too emotional.

I'm going to try and steer a middle course here. Not because I'm bottling out but because we don't know enough to make a full assessment.

So what do we know? I think all sensible people would agree on the following:

1. - Pietersen has been a great batsman for England. He's probably not as good as he was but is still good enough - purely in batting terms - to hold his place in the side.

2.- His disciplinary record at club and international level is generally very poor.

3.- It seems pretty clear there have been further issues with him in Australia.

The nub of the matter for me is that we just don't know enough about number 3. I take Mike Selig's point from his excellent post that we are not consumers entitled to trawl through and study every bit of the small print in a commercial dispute. However, I think it's reasonable to regard the EWCB as trustees of our game with ourselves (ie paying spectators, either through the turnstiles or by Sky subscriptions) being one of the beneficiaries of that trust. In these circumstances, I feel we are entitled to learn more as to why this decision has been taken.

The EWCB also have to appreciate that the Ashes tour was disastrous and many followers of the county game saw at least parts of that coming for reasons entirely unconnected with Pietersen (posts on Tremlett particularly refer). This does not mean that the EWCB are wrong now on Pietersen but they need to understand that their standing has taken a severe jolt and it is not surprising if the cricket watching public want some evidence for their actions.

I know the mantra of ''what goes on in the changing room stays in the changing room'' is commonly cited nowadays. As above, I think it's fair that most things which go on there should remain private. However, I would question whether that is now being carried too far with the result that possibly even the most serious concerns are being kept quiet and the public are left scratching their heads when only action is taken and announced.

I certainly feel the communications in the build up to yesterday's announcement on Pietersen have been poor. I appreciate the situation (regardless of exactly what it was) could not have been easy. However, Cook was dreadfully ill at ease when trying to straight bat his way through a press conference whilst Giles' comment of a ''million-pound asset'' reeked to me of an audition to get Flower's job. Intentionally or not, it came across to me as, ''Pietersen's too valuable to drop but I can handle him.'' If Giles' comments were not intentionally manipulative, they were certainly misguided and naive given the announcement he was a party to yesterday. He would have been much better of saying nothing previously. I am aware several respected posters here have little time for Giles - I'm pretty sure I will be joining them. [He must also have been a pretty rubbish bowler as he failed to get me out in the one match I played against him but this isn't the place to hold that against him.   ]

So what next?

In theory, Pietersen remains contractually tied to Surrey whilst he has an England central contract which I believe remains in being and runs until the end of September 2014. Furthermore, Pietersen is highly regarded by Surrey's management for his professionalism and dedication. He actually joined Surrey (initially on loan from Hants) as far back as 2010 and, to the surprise of many including myself, has never (yet) caused any problems at the Oval. Admittedly, he has never been there for more than a handful of games each season.

Whilst many Surrey supporters would love to see Pietersen turning out more regularly for their county, I would doubt whether Pietersen will want the hard slog and grind that goes with Championship cricket, especially in Division Two. Maybe the odd game for Surrey in 2014 to partly remind the selectors what they are missing mixed in with a fair bit of IPL and some extra holidays - would be my guess. Surrey can't complain abouut that as they pay him nothing - his money for playing for the county comes entirely from his central contract.

I suspect the EWCB will be happy that he is out of their hair and be prepared for his central contract just to run down. I'm sure they won't want to risk the threat of litigation by seeking to cancel it. Again hard to say without knowing the facts but I would think they would be on questionable ground if they tried to do so. This also takes me to a rather fundamental point about Pietersen's conduct in Australia - if it was so bad, why wasn't he sent home before the end of the tour?

Finally, I note my old friend Skye suggests England might be more ''harmonious'' without Pietersen. There's probably some truth in that. I heard Mike Atherton say last night on Sky that Pietersen had become ''friendless'' and that there was now no one in or near the England camp to fight his corner. However, I would add that you don't often get harmony until you start winning.

"Whilst many Surrey supporters would love to see Pietersen turning out more regularly for their county, I would doubt whether Pietersen will want the hard slog and grind that goes with Championship cricket, especially in Division Two."

I am a Surrey fan- But not a huge one. International is my no.1 by some distance.

However its very easy to say KP is great for Surrey when he is rarely there... The problems may appear if he is there day in day out. So if he leaves and doesnt play for surrey I am not bothered.

Stella wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

kingraf wrote:In any case I expect to see KP back home sharpish. But where will he live? Pietermaritzburg is his hometown but it's a teeny winny hell hole...

Cape Town is where all our cricketers move to eventually, so I'm sure he'd love a braai at Kallis' house, which is apparently the greatest event in history... but Jo'burg is home to the stars and wouldn't KP's ego love to call Brad Pitt, Angie Jolie, and George Clooney his neighbors? Decisions decisions!

Heh - I'm sure you're right!

KP does strike you as a "bright lights, big city" kind of guy. I guess the Cape or Jo'burg are probably better environments for his family too.

yes, no violence...................

South Africans don't fear violence. plus the northern suburbs are pretty safe in any case!

in all seriousness I'd love for KP to relocate to Johannesburg and play two or three seasons of the local league, would make my over priced season tickets seem more bearable. with the plummeting rand, he could get a lovely house dirt cheap...

of course I'm writing all of this in jest, but barring fierce opposition from the wife, I think KP moving back to S.A. is as likely an outcome as any, really.

guildfordbat wrote:Ok, my take on things.

From both camps, some very good posts above. Not surprisingly, some also a bit too emotional.

I'm going to try and steer a middle course here. Not because I'm bottling out but because we don't know enough to make a full assessment.

So what do we know? I think all sensible people would agree on the following:

1. - Pietersen has been a great batsman for England. He's probably not as good as he was but is still good enough - purely in batting terms - to hold his place in the side.

2.- His disciplinary record at club and international level is generally very poor.

3.- It seems pretty clear there have been further issues with him in Australia.

The nub of the matter for me is that we just don't know enough about number 3. I take Mike Selig's point from his excellent post that we are not consumers entitled to trawl through and study every bit of the small print in a commercial dispute. However, I think it's reasonable to regard the EWCB as trustees of our game with ourselves (ie paying spectators, either through the turnstiles or by Sky subscriptions) being one of the beneficiaries of that trust. In these circumstances, I feel we are entitled to learn more as to why this decision has been taken.

The EWCB also have to appreciate that the Ashes tour was disastrous and many followers of the county game saw at least parts of that coming for reasons entirely unconnected with Pietersen (posts on Tremlett particularly refer). This does not mean that the EWCB are wrong now on Pietersen but they need to understand that their standing has taken a severe jolt and it is not surprising if the cricket watching public want some evidence for their actions.

I know the mantra of ''what goes on in the changing room stays in the changing room'' is commonly cited nowadays. As above, I think it's fair that most things which go on there should remain private. However, I would question whether that is now being carried too far with the result that possibly even the most serious concerns are being kept quiet and the public are left scratching their heads when only action is taken and announced.

I certainly feel the communications in the build up to yesterday's announcement on Pietersen have been poor. I appreciate the situation (regardless of exactly what it was) could not have been easy. However, Cook was dreadfully ill at ease when trying to straight bat his way through a press conference whilst Giles' comment of a ''million-pound asset'' reeked to me of an audition to get Flower's job. Intentionally or not, it came across to me as, ''Pietersen's too valuable to drop but I can handle him.'' If Giles' comments were not intentionally manipulative, they were certainly misguided and naive given the announcement he was a party to yesterday. He would have been much better of saying nothing previously. I am aware several respected posters here have little time for Giles - I'm pretty sure I will be joining them. [He must also have been a pretty rubbish bowler as he failed to get me out in the one match I played against him but this isn't the place to hold that against him.   ]

So what next?

In theory, Pietersen remains contractually tied to Surrey whilst he has an England central contract which I believe remains in being and runs until the end of September 2014. Furthermore, Pietersen is highly regarded by Surrey's management for his professionalism and dedication. He actually joined Surrey (initially on loan from Hants) as far back as 2010 and, to the surprise of many including myself, has never (yet) caused any problems at the Oval. Admittedly, he has never been there for more than a handful of games each season.

Whilst many Surrey supporters would love to see Pietersen turning out more regularly for their county, I would doubt whether Pietersen will want the hard slog and grind that goes with Championship cricket, especially in Division Two. Maybe the odd game for Surrey in 2014 to partly remind the selectors what they are missing mixed in with a fair bit of IPL and some extra holidays - would be my guess. Surrey can't complain abouut that as they pay him nothing - his money for playing for the county comes entirely from his central contract.

I suspect the EWCB will be happy that he is out of their hair and be prepared for his central contract just to run down. I'm sure they won't want to risk the threat of litigation by seeking to cancel it. Again hard to say without knowing the facts but I would think they would be on questionable ground if they tried to do so. This also takes me to a rather fundamental point about Pietersen's conduct in Australia - if it was so bad, why wasn't he sent home before the end of the tour?

Finally, I note my old friend Skye suggests England might be more ''harmonious'' without Pietersen. There's probably some truth in that. I heard Mike Atherton say last night on Sky that Pietersen had become ''friendless'' and that there was now no one in or near the England camp to fight his corner. However, I would add that you don't often get harmony until you start winning.

Great post Gb.

The alledged spat apparently came in the final Test at the near end of KP's tour. Not just Cork now, a few have said there was a near dust up.

skyeman wrote:



Great post Gb.

The alledged spat apparently came in the final Test at the near end of KP's tour. Not just Cork now, a few have said there was a near dust up.

Thanks, Skye. I guess there'll be more coverage of the alleged ''near dust up'' during the day.

Good to have you posting here again.

The all come back from the woodwork with news like this.. There is a positive!!

BBC wrote:England captain Alastair Cook played an influential role in the decision to end Kevin Pietersen's international career.

Cook was part of a three-man panel who met the batsman on Monday and told him of their decision.

Although some members of the England dressing room have no issues with Pietersen, the BBC has learned that Cook felt the 33-year-old's departure was in the best interests of the team.

Pietersen scored 8,181 runs at an average of 47 in 104 Tests for England.

So it was Cook's decision to end Pietersen English career ... and there I was thinking that Cook's credentials as an England captain was unproven or proven to be not very good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/26046932

I'm not over-emotional banbrotam. I have no emotional attachment to Pietersen. As previously stated, I was an advocate for dropping him during the recent tour.

I just hate scapegoatism and people not taking personal responsibility.

If Pietersen's presence on this tour was so poisonous, and so distracting that it caused 17 other professionals to be so affected that they could not even compete, then I think it says more about that squad than it does the individual.

There may well be a very good reason for this "sacking" that we don't yet know about, and I will reassess my opinion if that becomes known. But in the absence of one in the public domain, it looks like the team and coaches shirking responsibility and finding an easy scapegoat. And it stinks.

And on a couple of your other points;

Suggesting Trott has perked up since Pietersen's retirement, seems to suggest that you believe he was the cause of Trott's depression - which is unfair and insulting.

And as someone else already stated, when Manchester United need to replace a player, they have the whole football player market to choose from. A luxury not enjoyed by an international team.

Has anyone used Kp as a scapegoat?

England football team have had similar issues with john terry.

The French rugby and footy team have had the same issues with there players.

So no need to use club examples

Sangakkara wrote:I'm not over-emotional banbrotam. I have no emotional attachment to Pietersen. As previously stated, I was an advocate for dropping him during the recent tour.

I just hate scapegoatism and people not taking personal responsibility.

If Pietersen's presence on this tour was so poisonous, and so distracting that it caused 17 other professionals to be so affected that they could not even compete, then I think it says more about that squad than it does the individual.

There may well be a very good reason for this "sacking" that we don't yet know about, and I will reassess my opinion if that becomes known. But in the absence of one in the public domain, it looks like the team and coaches shirking responsibility and finding an easy scapegoat. And it stinks.

And on a couple of your other points;

Suggesting Prior has perked up since Pietersen's retirement, seems to suggest that you believe he was the cause of Prior's depression - which is unfair and insulting.

And as someone else already stated, when Manchester United need to replace a player, they have the whole football player market to choose from. A luxury not enjoyed by an international team.

Trott! Although Priors batting depressed me  

mystiroakey wrote:Has anyone used Kp as a scapegoat?

England football team have had similar issues with john terry.

Just wait till Jessica finds out kps been banging mrs trott

Where’d I get Prior from?

That’s my emotion getting the better of me.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Has anyone used Kp as a scapegoat?

England football team have had similar issues with john terry.

Just wait till Jessica finds out kps been banging mrs trott

Wonder if they used the rabbit  

Bit sanctimonious of some of the cricket hacks to bemoan lack of real information from the cricket powers over "real" reason for KP's sacking.
To his credit, Mike Atherton - who was as secret and as tight-lipped as hell when a player - has articulated the tell-too-little, tell-too-much dilemma of the ECB very well.
The usual "let's-knock-the-establishment-stuffedshirts" brigade have come out of the woodwork and some have even taken Cook to task - the man who did his utmost to reintegrate KP.
At least one thing has united all - the realisation that KP was one helluva player and that it's a crying shame that we won't see him walk out to bat for England again.

The first thing I would have to say, purely as a fan is that this is a great pity. I am a fan of the game but by no means as obsessive or knowledgeable as most on here. However when he was on song KP is one of those guys who can pretty much glue me to my seat or put down whatever I am reading and give cricket my undivided attention. All sports, be it cricket, football or whatever needs such figures and international cricket is poorer for the absence of such a player.

However that is not to say that I particularly disagree with the decision. Far too many rumours emerging of how difficult KP can be around the dressing room, with the squaring up with Cook being just the latest in a long list, for even the staunchest KP defender to dismiss them as baseless. Clearly he is a difficult guy to both manage and be around.

Now this does lead to the question as to whether an inability to manage KP’s personality is a poor reflection of Cook’s man management skills, and it is a reasonable question. However, as I am sure has already been said perhaps a more valid question is, Does an ageing player whose moments of brilliance are becoming far more infrequent continue to justify the efforts and hassle? Clearly the board have decided he doesn’t.

What obviously also has to be considered is the team are clearly going through a transition at the minute. Trott is not certain to return, Swann is gone and other senior players such as Prior are woefully out of form and surely on borrowed time. Seems fairly obvious that a good few young players will be joining the England set up very shortly, pretty obvious the Board would like those players to enter a harmonious and well drilled dressing room.

However to pick up on the point GB has raised do feel the ECB owe their fans and supporters a little more communication than they have been given thus far. Irrespective of how he is viewed in the dressing room KP is a popular guy with the fans so they deserve better. However the risk of such a policy is that should too much be said about what impact KP had on the dressing room there is a risk of him being scapegoated for all the sins of this tour and he certainly deserves better than that.

sirfredperry wrote:Bit sanctimonious of some of the cricket hacks to bemoan lack of real information from the cricket powers over "real" reason for KP's sacking.
  To his credit, Mike Atherton - who was as secret and as tight-lipped as hell when a player - has articulated the tell-too-little, tell-too-much dilemma of the ECB very well.
  The usual "let's-knock-the-establishment-stuffedshirts" brigade have come out of the woodwork and some have even taken Cook to task - the man who did his utmost to reintegrate KP.
  At least one thing has united all - the realisation that KP was one helluva player and that it's a crying shame that we won't see him walk out to bat for England again.

Oh yes you will. It'll only take one more disasterous series before the Bring Back KP mob will be banging down the doors of the ECB. There will be some coach shuffling, and before you know it, he'll be back.

No its over GE.

this is it.

Good luck to the lad in the IPL and the commentary team.

Rowley wrote: What obviously also has to be considered is the team are clearly going through a transition at the minute. ...

From good to rubbish and with KP booted out the transition to abysmal will be complete.

Sounds like politics from the under-performing England senior players.

By dredging up the "rift" with Peterson they divert attention from their own inept performances.

I wonder if the "rift" with Peterson would have necessitated his removal had England won? Of course not.

well he was removed during the SA set of games, at the time we were winning and no.1 in the world.

KP is no scape goat GE, he was just on his last strike

Just time for a new start.

Stop infecting this side of the forum bud.. There arn't enough posters on the cricket boards to deal with you.

Except it hasn't distracted at all. And comes after Flower walked.

At the end of the day, why is it always Kevin Pieterson who clashes with authority figures? Maybe it's Pieterson

GSC wrote:
At the end of the day, why is it always Kevin Pieterson who clashes with authority figures? Maybe it's Pieterson

It is a reasonable point that perhaps cuts to the chase of this debate. When you fall out with pretty much every person you meet at some point you perhaps have to accept it is you not them!

Nore Staat wrote:

BBC wrote:England captain Alastair Cook played an influential role in the decision to end Kevin Pietersen's international career.

Cook was part of a three-man panel who met the batsman on Monday and told him of their decision.

Although some members of the England dressing room have no issues with Pietersen, the BBC has learned that Cook felt the 33-year-old's departure was in the best interests of the team.

Pietersen scored 8,181 runs at an average of 47 in 104 Tests for England.

So it was Cook's decision to end Pietersen English career ... and there I was thinking that Cook's credentials as an England captain was unproven or proven to be not very good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/26046932

A few points;-

1.Of course some members won't have an issue. You could still have ten that did though. The Beeb spin on this (with Pat Murphay's fingerprints all over that statement!!) means nothing
2.Cook's not daft enough to have done so, without knowing that he has the backing of the dressing room. Certainly not as daft as KP was in 2009!!!
3. If it's Cook or KP, then Cook wins. Simply because he knows how to captain a side to a major series win and is a far better example to the youngsters
4. KP averaged around 40 since he came back and 33 in the last year. This cannot be ignored. His lack of runs gets to a stage where he not worth the 'special' hassle. Freddie was towards the end, simply because he still fought for the team and more importantly made telling contributions

I do feel for KP in some regards, the Maverick has always been shunned in English sports in favor of the honest trier. But like I said, post Pedalo when someone acts out in the England team, its always KP

Nore Staat wrote:

Rowley wrote: What obviously also has to be considered is the team are clearly going through a transition at the minute. ...

From good to rubbish and with KP booted out the transition to abysmal will be complete.

Insulting to the youngsters. Root? Ballance? Taylor? Butler? Are all written off, some not even given a chance by you

England's so called transformation coincided with us getting a decent No.3, i.e. Trott has been far more important as his absence showed