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...

Herschelle got "away" with the Cronje taint as you call it because he didn't go through with it. You can bet he wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a cricket stadium had he done that. Quite different scenarios in any case - accepting and then reneging on a fix isn't the same as getting into arguments with every side you find yourself in. You're comparing apples with carrots. A more apt comparison would be Lance Klusener, who in 2004 was still probably one of the top five ODI players in the world, who got the chop, for not quite backing his skipper, and adding a negative presence.

Skye - I'm not surprised people are backing KP, everyone loves an anti-estabpishment maverick, and given the support he got post text-gate, fans would probably be in support of him if started throwing babies over the balcony at Lord's like some Spartan. The ECB could have probably handled it better, but Im not sure it would have made a difference at all... 80% would still point to Mumbai and Headingly and scream out "This is why we need KP back". I found his self-directed interview in 2012 stating it's hard being me the most appalling gruff I've ever read and it was such a shameless publicity stunt, but that got him sympathy too. So, yeah I think PR-wise, KP just has a better marketing machine than ECB, and they'd lose in the court of public opinion in any case, so might as well just keep their heads down and wait for the storm to pass.

kingraf wrote:Herschelle got "away" with the Cronje taint as you call it because he didn't go through with it. You can bet he wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a cricket stadium had he done that. Quite different scenarios in any case - accepting and then reneging on a fix isn't the same as getting into arguments with every side you find yourself in. You're comparing apples with carrots. A more apt comparison would be Lance Klusener, who in 2004 was still probably one of the top five ODI players in the world, who got the chop, for not quite backing his skipper, and adding a negative presence.

Skye - I'm not surprised people are backing KP, everyone loves an anti-estabpishment maverick, and given the support he got post text-gate, fans would probably be in support of him if started throwing babies over the balcony at Lord's like some Spartan. The ECB could have probably handled it better, but Im not sure it would have made a difference at all... 80% would still point to Mumbai and Headingly and scream out "This is why we need KP back". I found his self-directed interview in 2012 stating it's hard being me the most appalling gruff I've ever read and it was such a shameless publicity stunt, but that got him sympathy too. So, yeah I think PR-wise, KP just has a better marketing machine than ECB, and they'd lose in the court of public opinion in any case, so might as well just keep their heads down and wait for the storm to pass.

   

You talk a lot of sense. Good points.

James Whitaker came through as a complete clown here.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/716965.html
If these are the lot who are going to put together the band of philosophy lecturers, then good luck England, they would need all the luck in the world to go their way!. What a joker!.

I agree with kingraf, the ECB are better off putting their heads down and sticking to the silent mode!!. They come across as pathetic no-hopers the moment they open their mouth.
The Indians are coming with an Ishant Sharma led bowling unit, Any Ali, Parry and Bairstow can hope to score big against them. So that should give them a reprieve until they meet Australia and South Africa next year. If they are lucky, the strom will be well over by then.......

msp83 wrote:James Whitaker came through as a complete clown here.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/716965.html
If these are the lot who are going to put together the band of philosophy lecturers, then good luck England, they would need all the luck in the world to go their way!. What a joker!.

Must agree. it was pure scripted meaningless BS.

Apart from a vague swipe at KP again.


Legal reasons now   Sounds serious.

For all the KP fans there is a programme now on Sky Sports 2 called KP's Greatest Innings - Currently on Headingley 2012, had the Oval 2005, good viewing!

After the Whitaker fiasco, I am getting reconciled to the events. I have come to the conclusion that like India with Fast bowlers, England are not framed to manage mavericks. In both context if one or 2 flourish, it is despite the system and not because of it. KP flourished for 10 years with a hiccup here and another one there, but the system has at last taken him down. If he was a conformist, then he would have survived, but that wouldn't have made him half the player that he became. Shame KP couldn't be a radical on the field and a conformist off it or even find greater balance in his personalities, and on reflections, he would certainly find that he made mistakes on the way, some pretty stupid ones at that some times. Shame England couldn't find a better set of managers either to get the best out of this flawed genius. A loss for everyone in the end.
Anyways, hope KP would provide glimpses of his talent in the IPL and domestic cricket, and would remind England of what they are missing for the next couple of years.......

Olly wrote:For all the KP fans there is a programme now on Sky Sports 2 called KP's Greatest Innings - Currently on Headingley 2012, had the Oval 2005, good viewing!

Cheers.

At the end of the day - for me KP shouldn't have been reintegrated to begin with. In sporting terms selling your captain out to opposition is unforgivable and trying to cover it by essentially interviewing yourself is putrid... But the English still love KP. How management still carries the blame for a player failing to find one authority-type he liked in 14 years as a pro is beyond me. Sounds a bit like blaming Mancini for failing to control Balotelli, and then blaming Mourinho before him. Professional athletes get enough lee way as is. KP should just be thankful that he was talented enough to get away with being anti-authority for this long

KP worked well under Clive Rice, Shane Warne and Michael Vaughan.

kingraf wrote:Great player by all means, and when he respects you, he can be great guy apparently, but I don't see how it's management's responsibility to make sure you're not a pr!ck.

    Apparantly following our disasterous few years, we're going back to the old ways. Rather than it been about the team, we're now going to do what some posters obviously want and make sure that we only bother about one player

He was their best player and highest run scorer during the Ashes. Incredible decision to sack him, in a bad way.

msp83 wrote:KP flourished for 10 years with a hiccup here and another one there

        Apparantly trying to oust your coach and slagging off your captain to the opposing side, where you just happened to be raised, is OK in msp83's world of fun

msp83 wrote:If he was a conformist, then he would have survived, but that wouldn't have made him half the player that he became

After the Moores fiasco it's a miracle he did survive. I wrote at the time, that it was a despicable act of cowardnace by the ECB and KP should have simply been booted out

I mean how many of us would be daft enough to go to the board and say that all the team wanted the coach sacked, without checking that any of them did. I'd have easily ranked it as crickets daftest moment, if it hadn't resulted in someone losing his job

Wonder what Moores thinks about this? Have you ask him msp83?   

msp83 wrote:Shame England couldn't find a better set of managers either to get the best out of this flawed genius. A loss for everyone in the end.

So he averages 33 in the last year and makes it clear that his way is the only way, but it's poor management? The hits just keep on a rolling  

I take it back ECB, but what for legal reasons could possibly stop them from saying what KP has done this time. Can't be very trivial.

Something to do with Flower resigning may i guess.

Indicating there were legal restrictions in place, Whitaker said: "We are in a precarious situation in terms of what we can say."

Asked if the truth would ever come out, he said: "It's tricky to say.

banbrotam wrote:

kingraf wrote:Great player by all means, and when he respects you, he can be great guy apparently, but I don't see how it's management's responsibility to make sure you're not a pr!ck.

    Apparantly following our disasterous few years, we're going back to the old ways. Rather than it been about the team, we're now going to do what some posters obviously want and make sure that we only bother about one player

I appreciate the clear implication that things should not only be about one player. That is obviously right. However, I also believe that the EWCB have a wider responsibility to ''bother about'' the cricket watching public. I'm currently being harangued by my Club (Surrey, perhaps ironically) to pay 68 quid to watch a day of the India Test in the summer. That's a lot of dosh to me - not all of us with a Guildford post code are stock brokers! If I'm expected to stump up that money, I feel it's reasonable to expect to see England's current best batsman or at least to be told in plain language why I can't.

You simply don't put one of the worlds best batsmen out to pasture at 33, especially when you have already lost one stalwart and are trying to bed in new players. Arguments about his average over the last year are fairly pointless given his record before then and the fact the whole England batting line up has struggled. It's indisputable that his replacement will be a poorer player.

Dressing room problem he may well be but he has got by for nearly a decade in test cricket and it seems unlikely he is getting worse with age. Unless he has done something which has alienated the entire dressing room, this decision cannot be correct.

There's an excellent article today (as nearly always) by Richard Spiller in The Surrey Advertiser concerning Pietersen from the county perspective.

As Spiller comments, ''... for all his fallouts with other teams, Surrey have enjoyed their link with him.'' The county are keen to see him playing for them this summer but restrictions imposed by the salary cap and the now likely early paying up and termination of Pietersen's central contract could prevent that.

Spiller quotes cricket director Alec Stewart, ''Nothing is settled - Kevin's ECB and Surrey contracts ran concurrently so the end of one brings the other to a finish.'' Whilst Surrey could afford to pay Pietersen a salary similar to that he was receiving under his central contract, restrictions imposed upon all counties by the salary cap do not allow them to do so given they are thought to be close to the financial ceiling already (that's unless the ECB give special dispensation which seems unlikely).

Spiller suggests that the best chance Surrey supporters have of seeing Pietersen playing for their club is in some T20 games (I believe there is some leeway with the salary cap for T20s). However, his availabilty for that is still considered to be limited with this year's domestic T20 season being spread over a large chunk of the season and Pietersen expected to be playing in the IPL and Caribbean some of the same time.

Spiller refers to Stewart being ''bemused'' and quotes him further, ''You want the best players to be in the side - we don't know what's happened and until we do it's going to be a mystery. I just find it hard to understand that it got to a stage where such a cut-throat decision had to be made.''

Echoing very much my own previously posted thoughts and concerns, Spiller concludes, ''Pietersen has excited massively varied emotions ever since arriving from South Africa and that won't change now. But spectators paying high prices to watch England matches at the Oval and elsewhere can be excused for wanting to know what has gone on and the excuses that legal reasons and employment law make that impossible are unlikely to wash.''

If Pietersen does not play any First Class cricket and spend the rest of his career in T-20s, that will be a massive shame....... Is it likely that he'll play CC for any other side?

msp83 wrote:If Pietersen does not play any First Class cricket and spend the rest of his career in T-20s, that will be a massive shame....... Is it likely that he'll play CC for any other side?

Totally agree about 'a massive shame'. One of my best ever watching cricket days was when Pietersen absolutely blitzed the Lancs attack at Guildford in 2012.

I think it's exceptionally unlikely he'll play CC for any other side. Two reasons:
1. Very few would be able to afford him. Whilst - to again quote Spiller - ''Surrey are the most profitable club in the country by miles and are expected to return a profit comfortably over £1 million'', many clubs are actually losing money.
2. In any case, the baggage and risk that goes with his too regular fallouts would put many sides off.

Don't know what to make of the Whitaker comments - or "no comments"

As I indicated the other day , i think they had legitimate , if debateable , reasons for easing him out. But how legal issues can prevent him from discussing some of the reasons , I am unsure.
Would theorise there may be some agreement between the parties relating to contract , etc ...but I am just guessing really so am staying out of this until the dust settles...

But I would note in passing that if they wanted to settle the matter now so the summer season can proceed later without the whole focus of the media being on KP and his relations with captain and coach ; then the current sh.tstorm would suggest they might have had a point.

With Moeen getting called-up to the England squad, we could do with a replacement at New Road. Worcester is a lovely place when it isn't under water, sure KP would love it there...

In seriousness, I'm not sure whether KP's ego/ambition would allow him to play lots of county cricket. The odd game perhaps to show that he's still got it, but I think he'd find it too easy and I think he's the kind of bloke who either needs a challenge or a lot of £££ to drop a level.

Then again, maybe I'm speaking out of hope as I don't really fancy seeing our bowling attack against him!

Mat wrote: ...

In seriousness, I'm not sure whether KP's ego/ambition would allow him to play lots of county cricket. The odd game perhaps to show that he's still got it, but I think he'd find it too easy and I think he's the kind of bloke who either needs a challenge or a lot of £££ to drop a level.

Then again, maybe I'm speaking out of hope as I don't really fancy seeing our bowling attack against him!

Mat - Yes, I'm sure you're absolutely right there about Pietersen not wanting the hard grind of regular county cricket. Probably especially now that Surrey are in Division Two with not much there (post Alan Richardson's playing retirement   ) to challenge him and his ego. However, even a few matches would have been good for Surrey. In my opinion, it would also have given a boost to the struggling county game.

alfie wrote:Don't know what to make of the Whitaker comments - or "no comments"

As I indicated the other day , i think they had legitimate , if debateable , reasons for easing him out. But how legal issues can prevent him from discussing some of the reasons , I am unsure.
Would theorise there may be some agreement between the parties relating to contract , etc ...but I am just guessing really so am staying out of this until the dust settles...

But I would note in passing that if they wanted to settle the matter now so the summer season can proceed later without the whole focus of the media being on KP and his relations with captain and coach ; then the current sh.tstorm would suggest they might have had a point.

Alfie - don't entirely follow your last para. There's certainly a ''sh.tstorm'' but hasn't a lot of it been caused by how the ECB have mis-handled things?

Saw a bit of Whitaker on Sky last night. For once, I thought msp was being quite benevolent in describing him as a ''clown''. He came across dreadfully, as much in control as a straw in the ocean.

People heading up large organisations cannot hide behind  the excuse of ''legal advisers''. (This is aimed at Whitaker, not you Alfie) - there is a clue in their title as to what such people do; they give advice, not instructions. If, as now to me seems likely, the ECB have signed a confidentiality agreement preventing them from discussing / explaining about Pietersen upon legal advice, then they have been staggeringly stupid in doing so. This isn't like a normal employee grievance / resolution where the thrown aside employee picks up a cheque, dusts himself down and walks away with no further questions asked of either side. Here, we have the national and international cricketing media relentlessly wanting answers upon behalf of their readers (and, yes, their own profits) - the ECB really should have seen this coming.

As I touched on earlier in this thread, almost all the whole Australian tour has been an embarrassing shambles. A 5-0 stuffing with numerous individual (Trott, Swann, Finn, Tremlett, Rankin) issues along the way, of which surely some should have been foressen by the ECB. None of that excuses any serious wrong doing by Pietersen but it and Whitaker's most recent performance sure as hell don't inspire me to give the ECB my unconditional backing without any meaningful explanation.

Yep Id say the best course of action would be that he comes out and says "Cook said KP was a massive tw@t and he hates him"
KP then sues, but the ECB lawyers successfully prove that he is and so we can the legally describe him as one on the internets.
Cook then sues the ECB on the grounds he actually called him a great big tw@t.

Theres a point where things are best left unsaid.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Yep Id say the best course of action would be that he comes out and says "Cook said KP was a massive tw@t and he hates him"
KP then sues, but the ECB lawyers successfully prove that he is and so we can the legally describe him as one on the internets.
Cook then sues the ECB on the grounds he actually called him a great big tw@t.

Theres a point where things are best left unsaid.

Peter - I appreciate your usual use of humour and exaggeration to make a good point. Nonethess, I still feel that an agreed explanation would have been far more helpful to all than the current dripfeeds, guesswork and speculation. The way things have been left, they are not going to properly go away until England start regularly winning Tests.

guildfordbat wrote:The way things have been left, they are not going to properly go away until England start regularly winning Tests.

To be honest I think that would have been the case whatever the ECB had come out and said.

Guildford asked me for my latest homework on this on the ICC thread. The truth is I don't really have anything to add at this stage. I realise that some people find the lack of any kind of meaningful statement from the ECB frustrating/unacceptable. My personal view is very much along the lines of "what happens in the changing room stays in the changing room" but I fully accept that this is borne out of personal experience and that the levels I operate at make this largely irrelevant in this case, with the media scrutiny etc; that I am swimming against the tide in this respect and that fans are now considered as customers who have "the right to know".

But there it is, my personal view is I'm not particularly interested in finding out why the ECB have taken this stance now. I would rather concentrate on the cricket which is happening and will happen rather than what has happened and could have been happening. That just reflects me, and I totally understand those who think differently.

The argument that they can't make any statement for "legal reasons" does seem like a cop-out, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

As an aside, when news broke of Pietersen allegedly criticising Taylor's batting against South Africa last year, I commented that on this occasion whoever had leaked the information was more culpable than KP himself, precisely because it had happened it private and should have stayed private; I received a fair amount of support for this approach from some people who now seem to have somewhat changed their mind, or at least softened it.

On BBC cricket by Ed Smith on why 'Cricket chiefs don’t owe fans Pietersen explanation' which i too disagree with for several reasons. Mainly because they used the batting form of KP as a feeble excuse and quite frankly TOSH. Then if England carry on doing badly, media and fans will be calling for "we want KP back" and "sack the board" which will add more pressure to both board and the losing team.

Handled badly.

It could drag on for months.

Mike Selig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:The way things have been left, they are not going to properly go away until England start regularly winning Tests.

To be honest I think that would have been the case whatever the ECB had come out and said.

Guildford asked me for my latest homework on this on the ICC thread. The truth is I don't really have anything to add at this stage. I realise that some people find the lack of any kind of meaningful statement from the ECB frustrating/unacceptable. My personal view is very much along the lines of "what happens in the changing room stays in the changing room" but I fully accept that this is borne out of personal experience and that the levels I operate at make this largely irrelevant in this case, with the media scrutiny etc; that I am swimming against the tide in this respect and that fans are now considered as customers who have "the right to know".

But there it is, my personal view is I'm not particularly interested in finding out why the ECB have taken this stance now. I would rather concentrate on the cricket which is happening and will happen rather than what has happened and could have been happening. That just reflects me, and I totally understand those who think differently.

The argument that they can't make any statement for "legal reasons" does seem like a cop-out, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

As an aside, when news broke of Pietersen allegedly criticising Taylor's batting against South Africa last year, I commented that on this occasion whoever had leaked the information was more culpable than KP himself, precisely because it had happened it private and should have stayed private; I received a fair amount of support for this approach from some people who now seem to have somewhat changed their mind, or at least softened it.

Very much agree.

Lets not forget the furore that happened after figures in the RFU decided the public should know what the players had said in a private world cup post mortem. It ended some players international careers, further damaged the public perception of the team; all to ensure they could get rid of the coach and undermine one faction on the board.

How would the players feel if everything were dragged out into public? How would KP feel and his supporters if the ECB published a damning dossier of misdemeanours, rumour and scandal? A name and shame campaign?
He had the opportunity to go quietly and with dignity. He couldve retired. Instead he chose to play a media war to force the ecbs hand.
When before has a board been backed into a corner where they have to announce specially that they wont be picking someone for a tour? When have they had to explain every selection in detail? Did we all demand an explanation of what Root had done to be described as having a bad attitude during the ashes and temporarily dropped? Have we asked for full details of what Swann drank and when and what videos he was watching when he damaged his elbow? Do we demand intimate knowledge of who was sleeping with Thorpes wife when he quit? What Rashid did on the performance tour to make even boycott hate him?

Is KP that damn special?

He cant even die quietly.

A few good points there PSW

Could be by some, a deep fear of losing someone who has been a massive part of Englands success since 2005 and the fear of maybe returning to the dark old days.

Mike Selig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:The way things have been left, they are not going to properly go away until England start regularly winning Tests.

To be honest I think that would have been the case whatever the ECB had come out and said.

Guildford asked me for my latest homework on this on the ICC thread. The truth is I don't really have anything to add at this stage. I realise that some people find the lack of any kind of meaningful statement from the ECB frustrating/unacceptable. My personal view is very much along the lines of "what happens in the changing room stays in the changing room" but I fully accept that this is borne out of personal experience and that the levels I operate at make this largely irrelevant in this case, with the media scrutiny etc; that I am swimming against the tide in this respect and that fans are now considered as customers who have "the right to know".

But there it is, my personal view is I'm not particularly interested in finding out why the ECB have taken this stance now. I would rather concentrate on the cricket which is happening and will happen rather than what has happened and could have been happening. That just reflects me, and I totally understand those who think differently.

The argument that they can't make any statement for "legal reasons" does seem like a cop-out, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

As an aside, when news broke of Pietersen allegedly criticising Taylor's batting against South Africa last year, I commented that on this occasion whoever had leaked the information was more culpable than KP himself, precisely because it had happened it private and should have stayed private; I received a fair amount of support for this approach from some people who now seem to have somewhat changed their mind, or at least softened it.

Thanks, Mike. I always appreciate your posts. As you say, it's a ''personal view'' and I would have the Corporal die in a ditch before denying you that right!   

I did think though that my comment about the EWCB having a trustee-like role with the cricket watching public being beneficiaries of that trust would strike a chord with you. As I said earlier, I agree we're not like consumers entitled to trawl though and study every bit of the smallprint of a commercial dispute. However, I do believe we're entitled here to know more than nothing. That's why I largely support the view of ''what happens in the changing room, stays in the changing room'' but believe this is too significant a matter to be rigidly (and conveniently) treated like that. I'm not sure if the 'softening' attitude from Taylor comment is aimed in my direction - you have an admirably elephantine memory when it comes to my posts   - but, if so, that's my attempt to explain it.

Also, yes, the ''legal reasons'' argument may be true but the EWCB are still responsible for that being the case.

Btw, I trust it's noted that I've never been a great supporter of Pietersen in this issue but far more a critic of the EWCB. My personal view is that such criticism is strongly justified.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mat wrote: ...  

In seriousness, I'm not sure whether KP's ego/ambition would allow him to play lots of county cricket. The odd game perhaps to show that he's still got it, but I think he'd find it too easy and I think he's the kind of bloke who either needs a challenge or a lot of £££ to drop a level.

Then again, maybe I'm speaking out of hope as I don't really fancy seeing our bowling attack against him!

Mat - Yes, I'm sure you're absolutely right there about Pietersen not wanting the hard grind of regular county cricket. Probably especially now that Surrey are in Division Two with not much there (post Alan Richardson's playing retirement   ) to challenge him and his ego. However, even a few matches would have been good for Surrey. In my opinion, it would also have given a boost to the struggling county game.

He might be more keen to play Division Two cricket now he knows he won't have to face the mighty Richo!

In all seriousness, your point about him playing just a few games would lead to a boost in county cricket is a very pertinent point. For a lot of the counties, playing a Surrey side that has Pietersen in could potentially be a massive money-spinner. I wouldn't be happy seeing him whack our 70mph trundlers all over the place but a lot of people would go to a game that they knew KP was playing in just to say they saw him play. And him playing T20's or One Day games on the county scene would be an even bigger money-spinner.

guildfordbat wrote:

Btw, I trust it's noted that I've never been a great supporter of Pietersen in this issue but far more a critic of the EWCB. My personal view is that such criticism is strongly justified.

Same here. When it comes to one of Englands greastest ever and whom has helped to bring so much success. VERY JUSTIFIED.

KP will be a loss but I can understand the ECB wanting to move on and develop a side.

All rather odd and by all accounts both parties have been immature over the years towards eachother.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Don't know what to make of the Whitaker comments - or "no comments"

As I indicated the other day , i think they had legitimate , if debateable , reasons for easing him out. But how legal issues can prevent him from discussing some of the reasons , I am unsure.
Would theorise there may be some agreement between the parties relating to contract , etc ...but I am just guessing really so am staying out of this until the dust settles...

But I would note in passing that if they wanted to settle the matter now so the summer season can proceed later without the whole focus of the media being on KP and his relations with captain and coach ; then the current sh.tstorm would suggest they might have had a point.

Alfie - don't entirely follow your last para. There's certainly a ''sh.tstorm'' but hasn't a lot of it been caused by how the ECB have mis-handled things?

Saw a bit of Whitaker on Sky last night. For once, I thought msp was being quite benevolent in describing him as a ''clown''. He came across dreadfully, as much in control as a straw in the ocean.

People heading up large organisations cannot hide behind  the excuse of ''legal advisers''. (This is aimed at Whitaker, not you Alfie) - there is a clue in their title as to what such people do; they give advice, not instructions. If, as now to me seems likely, the ECB have signed a confidentiality agreement preventing them from discussing / explaining about Pietersen upon legal advice, then they have been staggeringly stupid in doing so. This isn't like a normal employee grievance / resolution where the thrown aside employee picks up a cheque, dusts himself down and walks away with no further questions asked of either side. Here, we have the national and international cricketing media relentlessly wanting answers upon behalf of their readers (and, yes, their own profits) - the ECB really should have seen this coming.

As I touched on earlier in this thread, almost all the whole Australian tour has been an embarrassing shambles. A 5-0 stuffing with numerous individual (Trott, Swann, Finn, Tremlett, Rankin) issues along the way, of which surely some should have been foressen by the ECB. None of that excuses any serious wrong doing by Pietersen but it and Whitaker's most recent performance sure as hell don't inspire me to give the ECB my unconditional backing without any meaningful explanation.

Hi guildford.

Sorry if I was less than clear with that comment...what I meant to imply was that no matter how or when Pietersen's England career ended , it would become the only story of any interest to the press , completely dominating coverage of any actual cricket being played...if it had occurred , say , during the India series in a few months ; or in the lead up to the next Ashes Tests , it would likely have resulted in some rather unhelpful coverage serving to undermine the efforts of the team and it's leaders to get on with the job in hand.
Not suggesting this was a prime reason for getting rid of him ! But just that it is probably better to get this stuff out of the way now so we can all move on.

Of course a lot of people don't want to...

And , like Mike , I do not expect chapter and verse on what was said and done in the dressing room (though I suppose we will eventually get various versions in the writings of different interested parties   )

Also think Ed Smith made some good points in that article up on BBC site.

Meanwhile , an interesting Test Match in progress in NZ...

Pietersen should go to baseball - then he'd realise that "three strikes and you're out".
'Course, then you get to argue with the umpire but eventually you have to go.
Isn't that what we have here?
Prima Donnas fail to appreciate the fine line between prima and donna.

I'm sympathetic to his fans who love to watch him play.
But not to Kev, and strongly feel England are best off moving on without him.

Just a thought, Had Shane Warne been an English player, would he have survived the 1999 form slump?

Surrey are keen to retain Pietersen despite the possibility of central contract getting settled. They would want him at least in the limited over games.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2014/content/current/story/717253.html

msp83 wrote:Just a thought, Had Shane Warne been an English player, would he have survived the 1999 form slump?

Anderson and Broad hardly had great starts to their careers and Bells had more slumps than and East coast cliff
A player of Warnes ludicrous talents wouldve easily ridden the storm, especially in an era which led them hailing Ashley Giles as the King of Spain on the grounds he could bowl like a wheelie bin and wasnt Ian Sailsbury.
Would have have ridden through the drugs and betting scandals so easily? Maybe not but is that such a bad thing?
Australia of course overlooked him for the captaincy because he was not seen as a team man. England at least gave KP the opportunity to screw itup.

msp83 wrote:Surrey are keen to retain Pietersen despite the possibility of central contract getting settled. They would want him at least in the limited over games.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2014/content/current/story/717253.html

Meanwhile, as Surrey try to figure out a way of signing Pietersen and keeping within the salary cap, Tremlett continues to sit back on the physio's couch and be treated for his latest injury whilst drawing a salary from Surrey for his one year contract ....   

An interesting read.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/717207.html

im a fan of KP and think he's a very good player, but i have no problem with him having his career brought to an end, no one is bigger than the team

HOWEVER

what i do have a problem with, is the fact that the ECB haven't come out and said why he's been axed now, and not earlier on down the line, when he was arguarbly more destructive within the side..

kingraf wrote:At the end of the day - for me KP shouldn't have been reintegrated to begin with. In sporting terms selling your captain out to opposition is unforgivable and trying to cover it by essentially interviewing yourself is putrid... But the English still love KP. How management still carries the blame for a player failing to find one authority-type he liked in 14 years as a pro is beyond me. Sounds a bit like blaming Mancini for failing to control Balotelli, and then blaming  Mourinho before him. Professional athletes get enough lee way as is. KP should just be thankful that he was talented enough to get away with being anti-authority for this long

I find myself relating to your message in some ways and not in others.

There is a part of me that loves the rebel. The anti-authority figure who is going to do what he does and be true to himself no matter what. When KP is despatching the ball into the next parish, we all love it.

The other half of me says it is irresponsible to compromise the team for the benefit of one man.

Kevin Pieterson embodied elements of both types. He could be mercurial on his day and be the darling of all around him. On another day, he could be back stabbing, anti-team and in truth, somebody you wish wasn't there.

I will choose to remember the best of Kevin Pieterson, whilst all the time hoping that we can acquire another great batsman in the future who has non of KP's (many) faults.

One KP in a lifetime is enough, methinks.

4L - Yeah, we're pretty lucky in South Africa - our current greats seem to all be choir boys, who put the team before anything. I suppose that's why I take exception to KP's behaviour, back here... the team is a real family, and even players who have since long been removed from the set-up (i.e Jacques Rudolph) are invited back into the change room to celebrate. The concept of putting one man's needs above the team is quite foreign, and rather un-South African.

All this makes me wonder whether KP would have gelled into the squad had he stayed South African... He is of course on texting terms with the team, so he probably would have - but I have to wonder if KP's continuous bust-ups weren't a result of representing a country that was essentially your second choice, especially as your average couldn't put you in the top six of your first choice.

Might be drawing a long bow there , kingraf   

KP has had some troubles with just about every team he ever played with , so I suspect he would have done so in SA too...

If , of course he ever made the team. He was just a handy offie when he went to England to develop his batting , was he not   

Of course, it's nothing but wild conjecture, Alfie, and not a theory I'd publish in, say, a cricketing journal. But KP has been such a strange case, I'm inclined to believe it has some merit. He probably would never have gotten within an earshot of our national team, although with our spin reserves being perennially dry, it's quite plausible that he could have made into the team eventually, as a bowling all-rounder averaging, say 35-ish with the ball and 30-ish with the bat. To my knowledge, it wasn't that nobody that KP couldn't bat, it's just that we didn't know just how well he could bat. In any case KP is a pr!ck... and I certainly wouldn't miss him, had he represented us. That said, he didn't, and I can thus enjoy his genius without ever thinking of all the asinine idiocy he seems incapable of avoiding

alfie wrote:And , like Mike , I do not expect chapter and verse on what was said and done in the dressing room (though I suppose we will eventually get various versions in the writings of different interested parties   )

Also think Ed Smith made some good points in that article up on BBC site.

Meanwhile , an interesting Test Match in progress in NZ...

Hi Alfie - firstly, thanks for confirming and clarifying matters in your slightly earlier post. As for this one, I too agree (as per my earlier posts) that we should ''not expect chapter and verse on what was said and done in the dressing room.''

However, imo, that doesn't mean we should accept being fobbed off with no explanation concerning such a significant matter as this. That's why I largely disagree with you in your assessment of Ed Smith's article. In my view, it's a rather cheap and easy article.

Smith overeggs the pudding so much as to completely spoil what he serves up. Take these examples - ''Sacking players is an unaviodable part of sports management. Trashing reputations should be avoided wherever possible ...'' and ''it is a mistake to think that managers and selectors ''owe'' fans a total explanation for their strategy or selections.''

A trashing of Pietersen's reputation is not demanded or expected (even if it is justified) by myself or, I believe, most reasonable followers of the game. Nor is a total explanation. Merely some explanation with credibility and in plain language (as opposed to the ghastly management speak the other day of Whitaker who came across more as a hapless bufoon than someone taking the national team forward).

I understand your personal desire to move on with your reference to the Test in NZ. I just feel the way Pietersen's sacking has been mis-handled makes that very difficult for many of us.

I do agree with Smith that ''England's immediate future ... will be determined by how well they play cricket.'' I said much the same to Skye on this thread when I commented that sacking Pietersen will not bring harmony to the England camp and that we will have to wait for that until we again start winning matches. That will go a long way to silencing the noise of the EWCB's critics - a noise that may always have been inevitable with Pietersen one day but a noise their actions have increased in volume.

now that Pietersen will no longer be able to play for England in the test match format of the game, the important question/issue is who the F*** is going to take over?

1)  James Taylor - but he is too small. The Aussies in particular will bully him into the ground.
2)  Gary Ballance - Was the favourite to replace KP if Flower was still in charge.
3)  Eoin Morgan - But there are still unanswered questions about his batting technique for the test match level.
4)  Ravi Bopara - Doesn't seem to have the mental toughness/ability.
5)  Johnny Bairstow - Big question marks over his ability/braveness to face high class fast bowling (Kemar Roach was the first to give him a real working over, and now M.Johnson has done the same in the recent Ashes series).
6)  Anyone else ? - Perhaps even move Cook to 4 to relieve the workload pressures on his shoulders of having to captain and open the innings. Or consider playing Matt Prior to bat at 4 as a specialist batsman only.

Taylor for me to take his spot


He isn't too small...remeber 'the little master'...

Ballance IMO another full season in county cricket, but should be an odi regular

Morgan no way he should be anywhere near test cricket!!

Bopara- Ive lost all faith in his batting! (im an essex fan!!)

Bairstow- Shocking technique, no good for test match cricket.

CF wrote:Taylor for me to take his spot


He isn't too small...remeber 'the little master'...

Ballance IMO another full season in county cricket, but should be an odi regular

Morgan no way he should be anywhere near test cricket!!

Bopara- Ive lost all faith in his batting! (im an essex fan!!)

Bairstow- Shocking technique, no good for test match cricket.

Yes Taylor is too small. And the reason I say this is that the 2 little masters of batting Hanif Mohammed and Sunil Gavaskar had one thing in common that Taylor just doesn't have and that is a touch of genius and class. Taylor is nowhere near as good or as great as what Hanif and Sunil were. In terms of skill, Taylor is at best nothing more than another Lord Gower of the post-1985 vintage (i.e. a batsman who looks to attack and frustratingly keeps getting out in the same way -> edging the ball through to the slips or to the wicketkeeper).