We now know how England have responded to the Massacre of St John’s Wood. Ian Bell moves up to three, and Joe Root to four, with Jonny Bairstow recalled to the side – at the expense of Gary Ballance – to bat at five. More on that in a moment.
Judging by your thoughtful comments on my report from the third day of the Lord’s test, I feared my analysis had been too tetchily negative. Looking back now, my words seem almost romantically naive – helplessly optimistic on England’s behalf. The reality of England’s plight defied even the most relentless scepticism.
To repeat a phrase I used on Saturday night, this was men against boys. Australia have more than just the big mo. Barring a miracle, they have already won the mental war. England are scared of them. With both bat and ball.
Where Australia shimmer with confidence, authority, muscular vigour and controlled aggression, England are supine, brittle, and effete.
It all comes down to self-belief. Australia have an expectation to succeed which stays just the right side of arrogance or complacency. England may talk a good game, with their narrative of ‘brands’, but this contrived, dad-dancing rhetoric is self-deluding, and in their hearts they know this.
It may not be impossible to confect confidence, by talking yourself into a certain mindset, but it’s very difficult, and England have far from achieved it. Their victory at Cardiff surprised the team themselves more than anybody, and this is the crucial, fatal point. Deep down they know they’re not quite good enough to live with Australia.
But one can still validly ask the question – was Cardiff a freakish one-off, exploiting Australian rustiness, or can England regain enough of the élan and composure they mislaid at the M4 services and prepare for Edgbaston with clear minds, boosted by the batting reshuffle and personnel refresh?
At least – and this is one factor strongly in their favour – they have ten days off between matches. The horrific memories of Lord’s will feel less acute than had the next test followed immediately, giving England at least some opportunity to reboot.
In cricketing terms, Australia’s bowling equips them with an incendiary firepower, which at Lord’s brutally exposed the porous nature of England’s batting. The hosts lack an artillery of such destructive ordnance.
Mark Wood’s pace nosedived in the second test – he could yet be replaced by Steve Finn, named again in the squad – while James Anderson went wicketless. England can very rarely win without Anderson leading the charge, but now he’s too old to do everything in his in-tray – open the bowling, close up an end, regain control, break partnerships, and mop up the tail. By continuing to use him as both stock and strike bowler, Cook has burned Anderson’s candle at both ends – until now only a stub remains.
England’s pace, or lack of it, is key – because historically (1932-33, 1954-55 , 1970-71, 1977, 2005), they have only beaten competitive Australian sides when armed with excellent fast bowlers. We won in 2009 and 2013 because Australia’s batting was weak, and in 2010-11 because their bowling was too. But the Australia of 2015 vintage are stronger than all three of those predecessors.
While their batting is far from the finest the nation have ever fielded, it still has the depth and resolve to prosper against the best England can currently offer with the ball. What’s more, David Warner is due a major innings. And Michael Clarke hasn’t even got going yet.
But what about England, after their top-order remix? On an individual level, I’ve always been very fond of Jonny Bairstow, and it’s great to see him get another opportunity. But his inclusion causes as many problems as it solves.
On one hand, Bairstow brings form. On the other, his technique might well be too loose to resist Johnson, Starc and Hazlewood. At four, Root – who’s England’s safety-net – risks earlier exposure to the new ball. To a greater extent still, so does Ian Bell. If he’s not playing well at four, why will he play better at three – a more demanding position?
Bell’s struggles have prompted a national outbreak of head-scratching. If dropped, who best to replace him? Well, can anyone think of a batsman with an exceptional test record, of proven accomplishment, who’s fit, in form, still young enough – and bats at number four?
It is not gratuitous to talk about Kevin Pietersen. The Bell conundrum makes it a live issue. Whether or not it makes cricketing sense to pick Pietersen for Edgbaston is irrelevant (although whether he would fare better than Bairstow probably is). What really matters is that the selectors are not allowed to select him. The ECB have tied their hands, for no reason beyond petty vindictiveness.
In a climate where England’s batting cupboard is bare, where to make ends meet the selectors are forced to pick unconvincing batsmen and then play them out of position, the highest run scorer in the history of English cricket sunbathes on a beach in Miami. The people in charge think that makes sense. Andrew Strauss would rather lose the Ashes than eat even a sliver of humble pie.
And this in a country where Graham Gooch and Mike Gatting abandoned England to earn apartheid rand but were welcomed back into the team, and the heart of the establishment, at the very first opportunity. Makes you proud to be British.
Pietersen’s banishment may be egregious and absurd, but his return would do nothing to ease England’s thorniest problem – the fragility of the top-order. My solution would be to replace Adam Lyth with Michael Carberry, who played the Australian quicks as well as anyone, if not better, in 2013-14. Investing in youth is all very well, but they’ll perform better with experienced batsmen to play around. There is nothing wrong with the medium-term fix of selecting a veteran pro from county cricket when common sense argues its expedience. Just ask Chris Rogers. But Carberry committed the cardinal sin: he criticised the ECB,
England’s management have had eighteen months to learn the lessons of the last Ashes and rebuild for this series. And now here we are, with the selectors recalling cast-off and frantically patching up the team with sticky-tape. England still have no reliable opening pair, no number three, a quandary at four, problems with two of the seamers, a wicket-keeper who’s going backwards, and no outright spinner. This is the legacy of the lost year under Peter Moores. This is the legacy of responding to England’s worst-ever tour by sacking someone who wasn’t responsible for it and then trying to carry on as normal.
But I could not make this point nearly as well as Zephirine, on our comments board yesterday, with whose words I’ll sign off.
What is making me really very very angry about this last Test is that it’s exactly what happened to us in the last Ashes. And it seems that nothing has been done, in the intervening 18 months, to provide England players with the technical armoury to deal with the fast, intelligent, attacking bowling that was as certain to reappear as the Australians were certain to be wearing dark green caps of a baggy design.
Having offered the two ludicrous explanations that the annihilation in the last Ashes was “Kevin Pietersen’s fault” (Paul Downton) and/or “the end of an era” (Andy Flower), it was decided that all England needed to do was improve their attitude, their ethic and philosophy. Their strength would then be as the strength of ten because their hearts would be pure. No-one confronted the fact that England’s batsmen had been blown away by pace and guile and they desperately needed to learn how to deal with both.
‘Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.’ It’s hardly rocket science. What did they think was going to happen, Johnson would have mysteriously forgotten how to bowl? Starc would get the measles?
Oh, well, yes, they did prepare something. The pitches.
Never, ever seen the obsession with Carberry. Second Div quality. Only went To Oz because of Flower’s childish attitude toward Compton. Look at Compton and Carberry’s 2013 stats and tell me that’s not so. Convince me Carberry’s stats are in anyway better at all.
I think that’s rather unfair to Carberry.
He’s a fine batsman who might have achieved great things but for his serious illness mid career. And not many mediocre players have made a first class triple century.
I agree it’s wrong Compton didn’t go to Australia, and it would have been interesting to see how he fared.
Though neither are in scintillating form at the moment, either might make a viable replacement at either 2 or 3. Should Lyth fail, of the two, I’d give Compton the nod, while Carberry seems a more natural number three.
Let’s say England decided to use the “Dad’s Army” selection criteria, which is not ever a bad thing, I really do believe that Rob Key still has the batting ability against Australia, to help England. Laugh? Seriously, Rob Key has done the business consistently against Australia over the years beit as a Test or County player.
KP could not do any worse than what is being trundled back to the pavilion, but we know he won’t get back in.
You mentioned Carberry, I like that, and is better than Lyth at the moment.
Crompton, other than a bit of Saffa attitude, is better than sitting and watching the mess.
The little fella, James Taylor, has the shots and has been playing pitched up balls off his back foot all his life, he’s fine.
Anybody like James Foster still, or has that moment gone?
Sadly England are woefully short in bowling depth, so must learn how to contain as there is not 20 wickets out there.
Moen Ali is wasted at 8, get him up the order and play Rashid at 8/9 for goodness sake.
Here’s my side, for what it’s worth:
Cook
Carberry
Key
Root
Ali
Taylor
Buttler
Stokes
Rashed
Broad
Anderson
Before you say it looks a bowler short, there are 6 bowlers there, and they bat very deep.
What a mess……..
I think the Rob Key notion is worth discussing. Rather than throw in some newbie or out of sorts type go for the seasoned pro. I guess its what older English supporters would call the “David Steele strategy”. Its of course a stop gap approach but it gives you time for a longer term solution to emerge and Key’s a tough enough old bugger to take the barrage.
It’s at least a bowler short.
There’s a difference between front-line bowlers and all-rounders.
You’ve picked three all-rounders. That’s not going to cut it.
Also, not sure why you’d demote Stokes in the batting order when he’s looked pretty good.
Doug, few observations, Carberry apart.
No one, surely, would suggest moving Moeen so high with his technique and more Mitch and Starc to come? On form, Bairstow deserves first go before Taylor, and Stokes isn’t a third seamer by a long way, and he’s in better batting form than Buttler so I can’t see how you can switch them around.
Great post James. Loved your idea of The Masscre at St John’s Wood!
Now about KP. Even I have been led to thinking that it might be a good idea to give him a call but there is a problem when the trust has gone. Trust is the foundation of any good relationship. If he had not written that book in the way that he did, he could well have been back. After that, I can’t see a way. Trashing your team mates is petty vindictiveness in itself. Who could ever play in a team with him again without minding their backs. Who knows what else he might have up his sleeve if things were to go wrong once more. There is no keeping KP down :-)
Maybe none of this would matter if he came out and scored the runs that we need. A large part of me thinks that’s all we need but somehow, if left to me, I just couldn’t do it. Can Strauss and the rest be forgiven for feeling the same way? I guess when it comes to the Ashes the answer is probably no. The bottom line is that I wouldn’t be sorry to see him back and that’s desperation for you.
We are plumbing the depths at the moment. This minimal team change is probably the least damaging that could have been done. I don’t expect Bell to score any runs wherever he is but at least Root is left with a degree of shelter. We can’t afford to put Root in a position where he might sink or swim. He’s too important for that.
Also, Cook needs to stop allowing him to field in these dangerous positions where he has to wear a helmet. We don’t want any broken fingers or worse.
Maybe Bell will surprise us all and rise to the occasion. Stranger things have happened in cricket. If he doesn’t come good soon the underlying message is that there will no longer be a place for him. Sad that such a talented cricketer has been brought to this.
On that cheerful note I will say goodbye! Thanks for keeping us entertained James. You do a fine job :-)
Sorry! It’s Maxie not James. Assumed you would still be on paternity leave! Great post Maxie!
“Who knows what else he might have up his sleeve if things were to go wrong once more.” Look, KP’s just a cricketer. Admittedly one with a well-developed ego, but he’s hardly unique in that. He wrote his book AFTER being sacked (for reasons which remain unclear) and told he would never play for England again. The boats were already burned, but not by KP. (Incidentally, which of his team mates did he “trash”?)
Certain journalists and administrators go on about him as if he were some sort of Victorian melodrama villain; an infernal Moriarty figure who’s forever plotting and hatching cunning plans. All a little silly really.
Matt Prior
…who’s no longer in the team either and with whom there was a public reconciliation (or at least an allowing of bygones to be bygones) when Prior announced his retirement.
At the moment KP is a totem signifying that there are things much more important to the ECB than winning cricket matches.
The point is if he can be that brutal to Matt Prior he can do it to anyone.
But he did this AFTER they were playing together and AFTER he was sacked unfairly by a board and management team that included Prior (as one of the inner sanctum). Criticising teammates when your career is finished is nothing new.
Criticism can be fair and measured. His attack on Matt Prior went beyond the bounds of what is acceptable to me. It was personal, spiteful and vicious. It is to Matt Prior’s credit that he has not retaliated in any way. I know which of the two I would rather stand beside.
Just to repeat what I left at the tail end of the last post…
It’s unusual…normally when England lose, the bowlers get changed. I think one of Ballance, Lyth and Bell had to go based on their returns so far this year (although Cook is not doing so well either but he is, of course, impregnable) but the bowling has question marks against it.
There has been a call for “English” pitches. If Edgbaston is a greentop (as so many pundits seem to want), how will that help Anderson or Stokes or Wood? Broad is the only real seam bowler in that attack? He was already bowling more penetratively than the rest so is he expected to do everybody’s work? In any case, Hazlewood will do just as well, maybe better given his extra 5 mph pace.
Cook – this year 14 Test innings (one of them not out) – 716 runs at an average of 55. He has scored 2 centuries and 5 other scores over 50 (including the most recent 96). How much better does he have to do as a batsman before he is doing well enough for you?
Lyth is being castigated for his loose, unnecessary shot in the second innings at Lords, while Cook(y) wafted vaguely at one outside off-stump and was out for 11, without getting any criticism whatsoever. So far in this series, Lyth has scored 50 runs, Bell 73 runs, Ballance 98 runs, Cook(y) 139 runs and Ballance is the one being dropped. He has also scored about double the number of runs that Bell has this year. Frankly it was a toss of the coin which one of the non-impregnable trio would be axed.
It remains to be seen how Cook(y) will go in the rest of the series. If he is able to get out to a “tired” shot on 96, then he might never score another century. He certainly seemed to be struggling to score every single one of his runs.
“Where Australia shimmer with confidence, authority, muscular vigour and controlled aggression, England are supine, brittle, and effete.”
Does this description apply to Australia’s middle order?
How many runs have come from their positions 4, 5 and 6?
“England’s pace, or lack of it, is key – because historically (1932-33, 1954-55 , 1970-71, 1977, 2005), they have only beaten competitive Australian sides when armed with excellent fast bowlers. We won in 2009 and 2013 because Australia’s batting was weak, and in 2010-11 because their bowling was too. But the Australia of 2015 vintage are stronger than all three of those predecessors.
While their batting is far from the finest the nation have ever fielded, it still has the depth and resolve to prosper against the best England can currently offer with the ball. What’s more, David Warner is due a major innings. And Michael Clarke hasn’t even got going yet.”
I’m not sure the batting of the current side is definitively better than in 2009, when Australia had Katich, Ponting, Clarke and Hussey. Watson did OK and North made 2 tons and averaged 52 that series.
In fact, if you go back and look at 2009, you’ll find that Australia had 6 of the top 7 run-scorers that series, and made 8 of the 10 centuries. Australia lost that series because they didn’t take their chances in the Cardiff and then collapsed at Lord’s, not because their batting was particularly weak. I also think their bowling in 2009 lacked penetration.
The current side relies heavily on Smith.
On paper the 2009 line-up might look silver-plated but what actually happened? Australia collapsed in three of the five tests – Lord’s, Edgbaston, the Oval. Two of those led to the test wins which gave England the series. And England’s bowling was not especially strong – Broad was poor until the Oval and Anderson good rather than brilliant.
“On paper the 2009 line-up might look silver-plated but what actually happened?”
I already answered this. Australia had 6 of the top 7 run-scorers that series, and made 8 of the 10 centuries. If Australia’s batting was weak, England’s was weaker.
Australia lost that series because of their failure to take the last wicket at Cardiff and because of a shocking collapse at Lord’s (and Edgbaston).
Either way, I don’t think the current batting line-up is definitively better than the one in 2009. Look at the output of Australia’s batsmen at 4, 5 and 6 so far this series.
But when and how were those runs scored? Australia batted very well only at Cardiff, and from memory their only innings there comprised at least two of the centuries to which you refer.
Australia then collapsed in the first innings of three of the four of the remaining tests. If I recall correctly, Michael Clarke made two centuries, but both in the second innings (Lord’s and Edgbaston) when the game had already gone.
At the big moments during that series, the Australian batting failed, which is why England – without a particularly incisive attack, barring Swann – were able to edge a victory.
“But when and how were those runs scored? Australia batted very well only at Cardiff, and from memory their only innings there comprised at least two of the centuries to which you refer.
Australia then collapsed in the first innings of three of the four of the remaining tests. If I recall correctly, Michael Clarke made two centuries, but both in the second innings (Lord’s and Edgbaston) when the game had already gone.”
That may be true. But still, overall, Australia’s batting in 2009 was better performed than England’s. So I don’t think you can say the batting was ‘weak’ – or any weaker than the current line-up – given that output. Yes, in 2009 Australia collapsed a couple of times and that was telling but Australia’s current line-up failed in Cardiff as well, didn’t it? And that handed England a win. So I’m not really seeing the big point of difference between the 2015 and 2009 Australian batting line-ups.
If anything, the big difference between the current line-up and the 2009 Australian side is in the bowling. In 2009, Johnson was wayward, while Siddle and Hilfenhaus were solid but stodgy. Hauritz wasn’t much of a thread and Australia erred by not picking Clark sooner. This series, the Australian attack has some teeth and apparently enough depth to cover the absence of Harris (so far, anyway).
2009 was a weird series because, statistically, Australia were probably better than England but the hosts really capitalised when they got their noses in front – as demonstrated by those batting stats.
I know you’re determined to abandon all hope at the earliest opportunity but it’s not out of the question that England pull off a similar kind of victory this time around. They pressed their advantage for a victory in Cardiff – they could do that again in at least one of the remaining Tests.
I certainly wouldn’t rule it out on the grounds of Australia’s current batting line-up being miles stronger than it was in 2009. It’s not.
Didn’t Stuart Clark have a back injury? I remember when he did play, he was very effective, in a McGrath/Hazlewood kind of way.
“It is not gratuitous to talk about Kevin Pietersen. The Bell conundrum makes it a live issue. Whether or not it makes cricketing sense to pick Pietersen for Edgbaston is irrelevant (although whether he would fare better than Bairstow probably is). What really matters is that the selectors are not allowed to select him. The ECB have tied their hands, for no reason beyond petty vindictiveness.”
I have a question. What if Bell fails at 3?
Since the 2013 series in England, he’s averaged 28. In the last 7 Tests against Australia, he’s averaged 22.
If that continues, how long does he have? Two Tests?
If we see Bell discarded after the fourth Test, what would happen? Root to No.3 and someone like Taylor in at 4 or 5?
If the decision to axe KP is already questionable, surely an outcome where three batsmen cycle through the No.3 position (with two subsequently dropped) would bring that issue kicking and screaming into the spotlight all over again.
Not more than what it has already screamed and kicked, if ever there was going to be a day to reinstate KP it was on the 350 NO day…Its pathetic strauss and ECB have got away with this.
Except this time there will be proof it hasn’t worked.
When KP made his triple century, plenty of people said: ‘Well, the middle order is pretty strong right now – who would you drop?’
If we fast-forward three months and Ballance and Bell have both been discarded, that line is no longer tenable.
If it plays out that way, there will no longer be an argument to be made that the alternative to KP is actually pretty good. The alternative to KP will have been a proven failure and that will be much harder to wriggle away from.
haha ya, but they would still have ‘Trust ‘ issues right ?
It is absolutely clear ECB is prepared to loose
Gonthaar, spot on. The Cardiff Test and the ODI series have led to some forgetting that they’ve already constructed a narrative to explain defeat. (I think sometimes the ECB attach more importance to controlling the narrative than winning cricket matches – or even making money). The four year plan it’s called. It justifies not only losing this Ashes’ series but the next one as well. It’s on top of the ‘new era’ narrative they already had in place.
I’m not that surprised the ECB have done this. Who wouldn’t concoct a story to excuse being useless at their job for the next four years if you could get away with it? What is astonishing is how the MSM lap this nonsense up. For example Agnew wrote before the series that he would be happy to see some improvement on the last Ashes – so 1-4 would be hunky dory!
The only narrative worth a dime is “we’ve done all we can but the opposition are better”. I’d accept that. The latter part is probably true. However the ECB can’t argue the first part. They can’t even manage the first step of doing all they can by having all the best players available for selection. Instead we get ‘four year plans’ and ‘new eras’ that sound great on mission statements and in PP presentations – but don’t win cricket matches.
I think sometimes the ECB attach more importance to controlling the narrative than winning cricket matches…
Apart from the qualifier “sometimes”, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Given that the best test players don’t have more than about a decade for their entire career, a multi-year plan which abandons the concept of winning is effectively writing off a generation.
If they want long term development plans, they should be looking at county cricket and asking why English fast bowlers and wrist spinners are quite so rare.
In the meantime, just pick our best players, and do want you can to enable them to play at their best.
As I suggested in the original post, Strauss would rather lose the series than face.
I don’t think it’s a matter of losing face. Strauss has given the reason for dispensing with KP’s services as a matter of trust. No matter how badly the England team performs that concern remains. What kind of hypocrite would you call him if when in a time of trouble he fortuitously changed his mind about that.
True. It’s a matter of trust.
There is no way that KP could ever trust the ECB again. I certainly don’t trust them: Strauss, Cook, Flower, Clarke, Whitaker or Downton.
And of course the man of integrity himself: Colin Graves.
A perfect analysis.
Your correspondents have been brilliant. A fascinating discussion.
There are a tiny handful of exceptions in the MSM. Chief among them is Mike Walters:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/ashes-kevin-pietersen-elephant-room-6109653
every word of that rings true
every word of it rings true
Might be time to move on from the obsession with KP. He played every test in the last ashes series and did not affect the result. Yes he was a good player but he obviously cannot toe the line in a team environment. It’s ok to have a big ego but not at the detriment of the other ten blokes. I was in oz for the last series and to be honest I thought he performed in a selfish manner at times. England’s best batsman…yes,but he threw his wicket away at times where his team really needed him to dig in. I know everyone will say that’s his game and you have to take the good with the bad. Sorry,I don’t buy that. He was a senior player and his sides best batsman. Nobody knows the full story yet he seems to come up smelling of roses now that he is gone! The bloke was always in it for himself,time to move on and look to developing the next crop and forget about the cocky saffa mercenary!
Throwing his wicket away? Perhaps he followed the example of his captain. Go to 55 seconds into this:
He did throw his wicket away at times but that isn’t a reason to sack him and as for the other stuff you say well there is plenty of evidence against all that
“Might be time to move on from the obsession with KP. He played every test in the last ashes series and did not affect the result.”
I’ve never understood this argument. You could sack every one of them and use this as a justification.
The question is whether he’s one of England’s best players.
We were told the top order is too strong so KP couldn’t even demand a game. Well, now Ballance has been dropped and Lyth and Bell are both under pressure. How many more need to fall over before it’s clear KP should have been picked on merit?
“Yes he was a good player but he obviously cannot toe the line in a team environment.”
You say “obviously”, like the reasons for his axing have been made public. If it’s “obvious”, what did he do?
“I was in oz for the last series and to be honest I thought he performed in a selfish manner at times. England’s best batsman…yes,but he threw his wicket away at times where his team really needed him to dig in. I know everyone will say that’s his game and you have to take the good with the bad. Sorry,I don’t buy that. He was a senior player and his sides best batsman.”
He was England’s top scorer. But if he was so poor that you think he deserved to be sacked, what does it say about the decision to retain the likes of Cook, Root and Bell?
I knew I would be slaughtered for saying anything about the deity that is KP. I realise he topped the averages,he was far and away the poms most talented batsman! He was lucky to get back into the side after the whole texting saga! Then he continued to be an undermining and divisive character. Could he have been handled better? Absolutely! But there is only so much you can do. Have a look at his history,he has fallen out with most teams he has played for. Also,the Aussies worked Cooke out on the last tour unlike KP. He got himself out a lot of the time and didn’t seem to care less. Self obsessed tart!
“I knew I would be slaughtered for saying anything about the deity that is KP.”
No one thinks he’s a deity. I think most people accept he might be a bit of a knob. But the reasons for sacking him have always been totally unconvincing and England now find themselves in the middle of an Ashes series with one top order batsman dropped and two more struggling.
“He was lucky to get back into the side after the whole texting saga!”
Irrelevant. They let him back in. You can’t go back and use that as an excuse to sack him again.
“Then he continued to be an undermining and divisive character.”
How do you know? What did he do?
You say it like it’s all been laid out in a way that’s beyond dispute.
So tell us.
“Have a look at his history,he has fallen out with most teams he has played for.”
There have also been plenty who have defended him and said he was no problem. Listen to the way someone like Michael Vaughan speaks about him. Alec Stewart also seems to be a big fan. So don’t peddle this discredited line that everyone hates KP. We’ve been over this enough times for people to know this isn’t the case.
“Also,the Aussies worked Cooke out on the last tour unlike KP. He got himself out a lot of the time and didn’t seem to care less.”
How does this justify his sacking?
Why not just pick the team on merit? Why not just pick the best players available?
Isn’t that the way sport is meant to be?
I think you have to really tie yourself in knots to argue against this.
The ECB brought out a dossier on Pietersen after the last ashes series. He didn’t commit any crimes but he was undermining to captain and coach. Maybe he was right in his criticisms but it’s undermining I don’t care what you say. Yes he got along well with Vaughn because MV put an arm around his shoulder and told him how good he is. This is the only approach that stopped him from causing descent. Patience eventually ran out with the bloke. He needed to be making twice as many runs as anyone else and he was no longer doing that. His time was up.
The ECB brought out a dossier on Pietersen after the last ashes series.
Really, you’re clinging to that as justification for his (unprecedented) banishment ?
I don’t care what you say.
You do seem impervious to reasoned argument.
Bit harsh,I thought my argument was reasonable. I don’t care what you say was a throwaway line!
“The ECB brought out a dossier on Pietersen after the last ashes series.”
And it was an absolute farce.
It included things like whistling, looking out the window and glancing at his watch.
By all means, tell us – what did he do that you think warranted being sacked?
What did he do to ‘undermine’ Cook and Flower that warranted being sacked?
Surely the more valid question is why they were keeping a dossier on KP in the first place. Doesn’t that suggest a premeditated agenda on the part of whoever pushed for his sacking?
“Yes he got along well with Vaughn because MV put an arm around his shoulder and told him how good he is.”
So not everyone hated KP. Some people were able to manage him just fine. So let’s not fall back on the lazy argument that he’s fallen out with every ‘dressing room’. You need a real reason to sack a player and the reality is that some people have been fine with KP.
“Patience eventually ran out with the bloke. He needed to be making twice as many runs as anyone else and he was no longer doing that. His time was up.”
These are just assertions that make no sense.
What does it mean that ‘his time was up’?
Do you acknowledge that you don’t actually have any real reasons that would justify sacking KP?
I don’t know the exact reasons why he was sacked. Nobody does. A decision was made and you have to imagine it took into consideration the pros and cons of having KP in the side. You wouldn’t jettison your all time highest scoring batsman without reason would you? Or is it all just some vendetta against the man? Doesn’t really sound plausible. You have to admit that it’s likely that a lot of this saga he probably brought on himself. I don’t see a way back for him now.
“I don’t know the exact reasons why he was sacked. Nobody does.”
So how can you defend the decision if you don’t know why it was made?
The ECB said so and that should be good enough for everyone?
Do you not see how that is a problem?
“A decision was made and you have to imagine it took into consideration the pros and cons of having KP in the side.”
I imagine petty personal politics were also a factor.
Again, why is it any more complicated than whether he deserves a spot on merit?
If he’s good enough, he should be picked. Case closed.
That, however, hasn’t happened. And no one will say why.
“You wouldn’t jettison your all time highest scoring batsman without reason would you? Or is it all just some vendetta against the man?”
I’d suggest the following:
1) Flower despised him and pushed to get rid of him as his last act as coach.
2) They needed a scapegoat after the whitewash and KP was a convenient choice. They wrongly assumed that everyone would simply nod and accept the decision without asking for an explanation because, well, ‘no one likes him’.
3) They wanted to stick with Cook as captain but also knew that Cook was such a weak leader that he wouldn’t be able to cope with KP in the team. At this point, see No.2.
“You have to admit that it’s likely that a lot of this saga he probably brought on himself.”
Um… why?
You have a strange habit of simply making assertions without any kind of supporting argument.
KP didn’t sack himself.
Mmm.. You just compiled a list of assertions or conspiracy theories there Tom. Perhaps some are true but they are not facts. Yes cooke does not come across as the strongest of captains. Ricky Ponting was not Australia’s best captain yet Warney supported him. Besides,KP had a go at captaining England,how did that end up? Maybe everything I am saying are just assertions,however none of your replies are rock solid facts either
“Mmm.. You just compiled a list of assertions or conspiracy theories there Tom. Perhaps some are true but they are not facts.”
Of course they’re not facts. You asked for an explanation and this is what we’re left with in the absence of a straight answer from the ECB.
But, as we’ve seen, you seem to be content with no explanation at all. Right?
“Yes cooke does not come across as the strongest of captains. Ricky Ponting was not Australia’s best captain yet Warney supported him.”
There is a difference between being weak tactically and being a weak leader. No one ever criticised Ponting’s ability to lead a team.
“Besides, KP had a go at captaining England,how did that end up?”
How is that relevant?
The ECB railroaded him out of the job when he told them Peter Moores wasn’t up to it.
“Maybe everything I am saying are just assertions, however none of your replies are rock solid facts either.”
I never suggested otherwise.
The ECB has never offered an explanation so we have to connect the dots ourselves.
How is that relevant?
I think it is relevant. Obviously Cooke isn’t the strongest leader of men. But he is the captain and needs the support of his men. You suggest that KP was not at all at fault for losing the captaincy. Captaining your countries cricket team requires a degree of political savvy. You have to play the game. Just ask Michael Clarke. I’m not sure what relationship KP and Cooke had but respect has to be given to captains and coaches or the whole system breaks down. I agree on one thing,from a pure cricketing perspective he should be in the team. He needs to ask himself why he is not
“I think it is relevant. Obviously Cooke isn’t the strongest leader of men. But he is the captain and needs the support of his men. You suggest that KP was not at all at fault for losing the captaincy.”
What has KP losing the captaincy got to do with his sacking 5 years later?
He was asked for his opinion on Moores – he then gave it, believing it to be confidential. That was leaked. The ECB shat themselves and sacked him as captain. But, I ask again, what does that have to do with his eventual sacking as a player 5 years down the track?
You’re connecting two unrelated events because you don’t have a proper explanation.
Also, if KP actually did something to seriously undermine Cook, I’m sure we’d have heard of it by now. Instead, it may have been a case of the ECB thinking Cook simply didn’t have the force of personality to lead the team with KP still there.
“Captaining your countries cricket team requires a degree of political savvy. You have to play the game. Just ask Michael Clarke.”
I’m not sure what Clarke’s example demonstrates. He’s retained the captaincy despite pissing off a lot of people. No one has sacked him for whistling either.
“I’m not sure what relationship KP and Cooke had but respect has to be given to captains and coaches or the whole system breaks down.”
Well, it turns out KP was correct about Moores, doesn’t it? It took the ECB two bites of the cherry but they got there eventually.
We’re talking about professional sportsmen here. They’re entitled to have a view about the way the team is run. Look at Shane Warne. He was openly contemptuous of coaches throughout his career. Should he have been sacked?
“I agree on one thing, from a pure cricketing perspective he should be in the team. He needs to ask himself why he is not.”
That’s a bizarre thing to say. He’s written a book giving his account. Maybe it’s time we asked the ECB?
The book was a mistake,if he ever had notions of playing for England again you perhaps wouldn’t accuse the bowlers of being bullies. He went outside the sanctity of the dressing room and not for the first time. His relationship with Anderson and Broad would probably poison the whole dressing room. I’m sorry,the blokes a gigantic tool who has brought this on himself. There might have been a way back before his self serving book!
“The book was a mistake.”
That was after they sacked him so can’t be used to justify the original decision.
You’re just grasping at straws.
“He went outside the sanctity of the dressing room and not for the first time.”
Oh, the sanctity of the dressing room! It’s like you’ve just swallowed the ECB talking points whole and haven’t bothered to question them in the two years since this all happened.
What about the guys who set up a fake Twitter account taking the piss out of him? What about the ECB’s constant practice of leaking whenever it suits them?
“His relationship with Anderson and Broad would probably poison the whole dressing room.”
You assume this? I doubt it’s the case.
“I’m sorry,the blokes a gigantic tool who has brought this on himself.”
He didn’t sack himself. That decision was made by other people.
Do you concede that you’re unable to offer a single viable reason for that decision?
“There might have been a way back before his self serving book!”
Rubbish. Don’t use the book as a way to justify the decision after the fact.
Same as you I can only guess why he was sacked. There are two schools of thought here and we represent opposing ones. Nor the ECB or KP come up smelling of roses. I realise he was sacked before the book but how can there be a way back now after he spoke about players who are still in the team? Anyway,as an Aussie I am selfishly glad he’s not playing in the current series
“Same as you I can only guess why he was sacked.”
That’s a false equivalency. KP has given his account and there’s been a ton of coverage on this question. We are free to connect the dots based on all of that.
It’s not sufficient to simply say: ‘Dunno – I guess the ECB must have had a good reason.’
“There are two schools of thought here and we represent opposing ones.”
The difference is that my school of thought offers an explanation. Yours does not.
You simply shrug your shoulders and assume the ECB knows best.
How about being a bit more critical and questioning whether they’re full of shit?
“Nor the ECB or KP come up smelling of roses.”
Don’t do that. Don’t just call it even.
The ECB made the initial decision. They bear far more responsibility than KP.
“I realise he was sacked before the book but how can there be a way back now after he spoke about players who are still in the team?”
There was never any way back after the ECB decided to sack him without explanation.
To suggest otherwise is just another attempt to make KP complicit in his own downfall when it was a decision made entirely by other people.
The ECB made the initial decision. They bear far more responsibility than KP.
They made that decision why exactly. We have been going back and forth andI believe my position to be valid. You believe KP is in no way complicit in his own downfall. He has come out with his side of events and it is self serving horse dung. That’s how I read it but like I have being trying to say my view is as much based in evidence as yours
“They made that decision why exactly. We have been going back and forth andI believe my position to be valid.”
What ‘position’ is that? You’ve offered no explanation for why the ECB sacked KP. What’s valid about that? It’s not even a ‘position’ in the first place.
I’ve given you my view on why the ECB made that decision. You have no explanation at all. Agreed?
The ECB could have just come out and told us why they sacked him. But they didn’t. Why do you think that is?
“He has come out with his side of events and it is self serving horse dung.”
Compared to everything that the ECB says? That’s not self-serving?
Again, they could give a full and proper explanation but they haven’t. Perhaps because they know it would only damage them further.
“like I have being trying to say my view is as much based in evidence as yours.”
No. It’s really not.
Your view seems to be that we don’t know for sure why the ECB sacked KP so let’s just assume they had a good reason. That’s laughable.
My view relies on partial explanations from different quarters – including KP – as well as the ECB’s complete failure to properly explain their own decision to sack one of their best players.
For mine, that’s the most damning element. The ECB leaks and leaks and leaks. If they had a good reason to sack KP, we would have heard all about it.
We haven’t, so we have to join the dots based on bits and pieces of information gleaned from other sources.
That is a million times more valid than your approach, which is simply to decide that we don’t know anything, so let’s just call it even and assume equal culpability on both sides. That’s inadequate.
What ‘position’ is that? You’ve offered no explanation for why the ECB sacked KP. What’s valid about that? It’s not even a ‘position’ in the first place.
Really? That’s what I been doing for hours. The bloke is an egotistical,self absorbed,traitorous,whinging narcissist! There is no one reason why he was sacked but plenty of evidence over the years to back it up. He is corrosive to team spirit. Good player though,so the rest should be ignored!
“Even if the ECB dossier is only half true it proves his corrosive influence on the dressing room.”
How? Tell me.
Stop being vague and pretending it’s a real explanation.
If he was so corrosive, why have so many of his former teammates been sympathetic toward him?
You haven’t offered a single reason he was sacked. Do you accept this?
“The bloke was skating on thin ice after the texting rubbish. Personally I think that should have ended him. ”
Well, it didn’t.
They brought him back into the side so you can’t just pivot back to that because you’ve got nothing else.
Why not just admit you have no explanation for his sacking?
“I have no problem putting up with difficult and different characters e.g botham and warne. England did well to get 100 or so tests out of KP but eventually the collective has to outstrip the individual.”
Still no explanation of why he was sacked.
Do you concede that you’ve been unable to give a single reason for that decision?
“1. Went out drinking late in Adelaide against instructions of coach
2. Told team physio his knee would really be playing up if England went 3-0 before Perth test
3. Got out playing a terrible shot than went back into the changing room and told some of the younger players that they are useless c**ts”
Are you saying he told a player to his face that he was “useless c***”? Are you sure about that?
Either way, do you think these are reasons to end a player’s career?
Should Warne’s career have been ended when he was caught giving information to John the bookmaker? What about when he slagged off Scott Muller and got caught saying ‘can’t bowl, can’t throw’ on camera?
I asked you to give me a reason KP was sacked. None of these suffice. They are weak as piss and everyone knows it.
“Those are 3 examples which I believe to be true. Do you honestly think this man is conducive to team spirit? Can forgive the drinking one as Broad was also involved in that.”
So you’ve given me three reasons but have now decided one of them doesn’t count? Have you been drinking?
“Admit it,not everything I say lacks credibility !”
You still haven’t given me a reason KP was sacked.
Why don’t you just admit that you don’t have one?
Scott Muller thing is crap.Warne never said that. He also did his time over his indiscretions. You are missing the point,Warne was a positive influence in the dressing room. Never got the captinancy after those incidents. That was punishment enough. Was always a team man and I have yet to hear any different accounts from ex teammates. KP on the other hand! I just gave you two credible reasons why he was let go! Accept my view on things please
“I just gave you two credible reasons why he was let go!”
These were nowhere near the threshold required toe end a player’s career. Don’t kid yourself.
Look how quickly you defend Warne for getting mixed up with bookmakers – but KP desvered to be sacked for saying someone is “useless”?
That’s ridiculous.
“Accept my view on things please”
You should accept and admit that you have no proper reason for KP’s sacking.
“The bloke is an egotistical,self absorbed,traitorous,whinging narcissist!”
Even if this were all true, it’s not a reason to sack him.
“There is no one reason why he was sacked but plenty of evidence over the years to back it up.”
What evidence?
This is what I meant when I said you’ve been unable to offer an explanation of why he was sacked.
You’ve got nothing. Admit it.
Really! Even if the ECB dossier is only half true it proves his corrosive influence on the dressing room. The bloke was skating on thin ice after the texting rubbish. Personally I think that should have ended him. Unforgivable in my book,total disloyalty. If an Aussie player did that I wouldn’t care how good they were. That’s my personal opinion though. I have no problem putting up with difficult and different characters e.g botham and warne. England did well to get 100 or so tests out of KP but eventually the collective has to outstrip the individual.
“Even if the ECB dossier is only half true it proves his corrosive influence on the dressing room.”
How? Tell me.
Stop being vague and pretending it’s a real explanation.
If he was so corrosive, why have so many of his former teammates been sympathetic toward him?
You haven’t offered a single reason he was sacked. Do you accept this?
“The bloke was skating on thin ice after the texting rubbish. Personally I think that should have ended him. ”
Well, it didn’t.
They brought him back into the side so you can’t just pivot back to that because you’ve got nothing else.
Why not just admit you have no explanation for his sacking?
“I have no problem putting up with difficult and different characters e.g botham and warne. England did well to get 100 or so tests out of KP but eventually the collective has to outstrip the individual.”
Still no explanation of why he was sacked.
Do you concede that you’ve been unable to give a single reason for that decision?
Reasons
1. Went out drinking late in Adelaide against instructions of coach
2. Told team physio his knee would really be playing up if England went 3-0 before Perth test
3. Got out playing a terrible shot than went back into the changing room and told some of the younger players that they are useless c**ts
Those are 3 examples which I believe to be true. Do you honestly think this man is conducive to team spirit? Can forgive the drinking one as Broad was also involved in that. I don’t believe everything I read,KP and Swann don’t get on but I don’t have much respect for Swann so I don’t trust his story either. Admit it,not everything I say lacks credibility !
“Can forgive the drinking one as Broad was also involved in that”.
Says it all. It’s OK if Broad transgresses, but not if Pietersen does.
“1. Went out drinking late in Adelaide against instructions of coach
2. Told team physio his knee would really be playing up if England went 3-0 before Perth test
3. Got out playing a terrible shot than went back into the changing room and told some of the younger players that they are useless c**ts”
Are you saying he told a player to his face that he was “useless c***”? Are you sure about that?
Either way, do you think these are reasons to end a player’s career?
Should Warne’s career have been ended when he was caught giving information to John the bookmaker? What about when he slagged off Scott Muller and got caught saying ‘can’t bowl, can’t throw’ on camera?
I asked you to give me a reason KP was sacked. None of these suffice. They are weak as piss and everyone knows it.
“Those are 3 examples which I believe to be true. Do you honestly think this man is conducive to team spirit? Can forgive the drinking one as Broad was also involved in that.”
So you’ve given me three reasons but have now decided one of them doesn’t count? Have you been drinking?
“Admit it,not everything I say lacks credibility !”
You still haven’t given me a reason KP was sacked.
Why don’t you just admit that you don’t have one?
“Yes he was a good player but he obviously cannot toe the line in a team environment.”
It’s so obvious that he’s not a team player that England somehow and mysteriously got to number 1 in the world in all formats of the game with him a key player in the side.
Nothing to do with the other players in the squad? It’s not golf mate!
Your point was that he wasn’t a team player. My point is that the TEAM (not him, the TEAM) got to number 1 in all formats with him in it.
And somehow he got picked for England 277 times in all forms of the game . For a good part of that period he must have been a reasonable team man at least and not just on the way up?
Mike Brearley (a wise old bird and a psychoanalyst of repute) is interesting on Pietersen. I am not quoting him exactly but I have heard him suggest that there are often established cliques within dressing rooms. He goes on to say that if there was one from which Pietersen was excluded, it would be natural for him to go some way towards forming his own. He would and did look to young players (or at least the less experienced – eg Carberry perhaps). Brearley would not suggest that he was not interested genuinely in helping them and or that he did not but, if I am understanding him correctly, creating a clique of one’s own is a relatively natural thing to do for someone who needs to belong but for some reason does not.
I am sure Pietersen was a pain in the backside quite often but he wouldn’t be the only cricketer like that. I suppose these guys live in each others’ pockets so much these days that problems of this nature just magnify and weak management lets that fester. Long experience as a manager would suggest to me that one cannot demand hearts and minds but one can demand acceptable behaviour within the workplace. I don’t see why a dressing room (or on the field) is different in that regard from any other working environment. We don’t know what happened exactly in the dressing room but it does look as though early and consistent intervention might have sorted out a few people – Pietersen included but one or two others as well.
Sigh I was expecting this post. Probably pre-written in the event of England losing a match.
It’s 1-1 in a series in which we were never expected to compete in. We were out bowled and crumbled under massive scoreboard pressure much in the same way (Johnson & Rodgers aside) they did in the first test.
Re: ‘KP was the highest scorer in the last series’ as justification for his inclusion in subsequent series. His total of 294 runs was behind 6 Aussie batsmen and had no bearing on the series whatsoever. He pipped Ben Stokes who played 2 fewer innings and scored the only English century of the series by 15 runs. He did score two 50’s, but compared to Cooks 3 and Bell’s 2 it hardly stands out.
“when were those runs scored?” indeed.
So why was hw the only kne dripped when he topped the series then?
“‘KP was the highest scorer in the last series’ as justification for his inclusion in subsequent series. His total of 294 runs was behind 6 Aussie batsmen and had no bearing on the series whatsoever.”
Are you really suggesting KP should be excluded on merit?
I think we all know that if you take the politics out of it, he was worth his spot.
I’m suggesting that particular point has been overplayed – similarly the innings v. Leicestershire. You’re quite right, his record speaks for himself and should have held a lot of weight in the discussions 18 months ago.
I’m yet to hear ‘the other side’ of the argument so will reserve judgement on what was politics, but having been ruled out of selection yes, I think there are more relevant issues to discuss around the current players in the series.
I’m yet to hear ‘the other side’ of the argument
Isn’t that the point ?
You could be reserving judgment for quite some time.
Indeed it is and certainly isn’t warming anyone around to their ‘side’ (if that’s what you call it).
I’m not sure KP chipping away on twitter has done him many favours either.
Wholly unedifying all round.
“I’m not sure KP chipping away on twitter has done him many favours either.”
Like that had anything to do with it?
This whole mindset is absurd. He was sacked for no specific reason. Should he just sit down, shut up and take his medicine from his ECB masters? Why?
He has every right to air his side of the story and now every right to question whether the correct decision was made in banning him. England said they didn’t need KP. England said the middle order was strong enough without him. Is that still true?
It’s like when people justify sacking him because of the book he wrote afterward. Shit that happened later can’t be used to retrospectively justify a dodgy decision.
He does have every right but it’s perhaps not wise if you’re hoping to be re-selected.
He was never going to be re-selected.
Don’t be naive.
Therefore let’s talking about the 2015 Ashes series.
“Therefore let’s talking about the 2015 Ashes series.”
We are.
But the ECB made their own bed when they sacked KP without explanation, ensuring that any future failure of the top/middle order would draw attention back to him. It’s entirely reasonable to point that out.
“I’m suggesting that particular point has been overplayed – similarly the innings v. Leicestershire.”
The fact KP top scored in the last Ashes is usually mentioned in response to those who suggest he was no longer worth a spot on merit alone or that he only averaged 29 in Australia and therefore deserved to be axed.
In response to that, it’s entirely reasonable to point out that he top-scored for England in his last series. He wasn’t great but it makes it hard to argue he was dropped for ‘cricketing reasons’.
The score against Leicestershire is usually raised in response to those who ask ‘what’s he done lately?’
Basically, those who defend dropping KP have been forced to scramble around for a series of erroneous justifications. The fact he top scored against Australia and then made a FC triple century in turn get wheeled out to rebut these bogus arguments.
Really, it should be simple: Is he good enough to demand a spot in the English Test side?
Well put Tom, can’t disagree.
I’d like to suggest another question perhaps the ECB have asked or are asking:
‘Is a KP worth the hassle?’
If they believe he could be a major factor in Eng winning the Ashes then the answer is a resounding yes.
It’s not about hassle.
It’s about egos and hurt feelings.
If Cook wasn’t such a weak captain, I doubt they’d have needed to sack KP in the first place.
“Really, it should be simple: Is he good enough to demand a spot in the English Test side?”
That really should be the second question. The first question should be why is he not available for consideration like every other England-qualified cricketer in the country?
Re: KP, sorry to add my tedious tuppence worth.
It’s a salient point now in the context that he was excluded on the basis of an excellent looking middle order (apart from bell ave 30 over 2 yrs at the time), which is what it was looking like it could be at the time.
He was told, irregardless of form, that he would not be considered, even on the back of scoring 350, under any circumstances should the men in place chronically lose form. Which they now have. Unsurprisngly.
He then took the decision to honour a pre-existing contractual commitment which he’d entered into after he’d previously, very publicly been sacked for the team losing 5-0.
The last 18 months, hell lets go back to 2012 really, of being an England fan has been an awful series of hollow victories of being proven right. I don’t like seemingly being able to spot problems that those running the team can’t, I’m a complete armchair fan/very occasional player who goes to about 3 days of live cricket a year, but every problem that has best this team for nearly 3 years has been sign posted a mile off. Yet we never seem to do anything about it.
I can accept, whilst lamenting, a lack of talent, I can’t accept an unwillingness to look what is evident in the face and just to decide to General Melchett through it anyway. Infuriating!!
English cricket, stop proving me right, I’m an idiot and a natural sporting pessimist and have no business ever being right about cricket.
8, 13, 16, 2, 68, 11 – Root
13, 2, 16, 15, 1, 7 -Compton
43, 31, 38, 12, 0, 43 – Carberry
17, 7, 26, 13, 6, 37 -Robson
0, 4, 59, 0, 0, 9 – Trott
By and far carberry seems to have dug it out the best of openers tried especially in the cauldron of ashes in aus.
With a bit more chance im sure he would have done better. Why is he totally forgotten now just for supporting KP?
You use stats to suit your argument far too obviously – of course if you extend the number to include all Carberry’s Ashes efforts it paints a fuller picture of his sub-30 average; the same number would also mean Compton’s two Test centuries, against Boult and Southee, have to be included….
What is quite clear (and highlighted by the exceptionally weak answers on here from them) is that those who dislike Pietersen really struggle to say why they do. It seems to boil down to (1) they believe everything the ECB says at face value or at the very least don’t challenge it in any way (2) they come up with all kinds of questionable generalisations which have been repeatedly contradicted by many of his fellow players over the years (ie that he undermines the team – by which they mean that Flower, Strauss, Cook and possibly Anderson think he does whereas about 4 or 5 times as many players and ex-players when asked have said he doesn’t).
So their dislike is either because they can see something distinctly nasty and unpleasant about Pietersen despite there being no evidence whatsoever (presumably through osmosis or such like) or because they are gullible and have swallowed the lies of the ECB and their Sky Sports embedded cronies. And being arrogant and pig-headed will never admit it – hence all kinds of contortions to “prove” Pietersen is some nasty ogre.
Personally I go on evidence. And from what I have seen the way Pietersen has been treated is the worst of any cricketer that I have seen in my lifetime – indeed I would say you’d have to go back to Harold Larwood to find a cricketer treated as badly.
From the moment he was sacked as captain it is clear that the establishment have had it in for him. The ECB has leaked and leaked and lied and lied and sports journalists (with one or two notable exceptions such as on this blog) have been either indifferent or even worse frequently actively supporting the ECB in their actions. The public have been treated with utter contempt by the sports media – we have been patronised, told to shut up and never ever given any proper Forum from which to challenge this pernicious character assassination.
And one more thing. The texts which have been sited on here and elsewhere by his detractors as justification for everything the ECB have since done – including lying to him twice more this year. They were wrong and he should have been punished – but the way the establishment keeps going on about it you would think he had murdered someone. Some players have not been banned for life in this sport for match fixing or illegal drug-taking and yet the establishment tried to do the same with him (ie ban him for life) for this! Massive overreaction and disproportionate don’t even get anywhere near it.
The fact is if Pietersen was not South African (ie not one of us) and not rich because of his IPL commitments, there would be nowhere near this level of abuse. Many of those people who dislike him throughout his career are simply jealous and invent all these transgressions to justify their blatant prejudice.
I have never before in my entire life seen a sporting figure smeared and attacked as much. Quite frankly, I would not have bothered watching England in Test cricket over the last 5 years if he hadn’t been playing. Their style of play has been drab and dull and he has brought some colour to it. I deeply resent that my enjoyment has been taken away by an arrogant establishment without any proper explanation as to why.
And as I’ve said on here more than once I won’t be supporting England ever again in Test cricket ( and indeed will be cheering on their opponents) until the ECB’s stance is reversed. If it never is, I will never again be an England test cricket supporter. A sad state of affairs but there it is. Sometimes principles are more important than simply giving in just because the ECB tell us to “move on”. As with Iraq, if you want to move on, you have to admit the truth first – for me, it’s that simple.
Thanks to this blog – again and again, it has shown that it is the only point of view that will challenge the North Korean-style propaganda that the ECB constantly try to force down our throats. Long may it continue.
Nothing particularly nasty or unpleasant about him mate. Just a childish and silly little knob head !
There you go -proving my point with pathetic abuse of him. How incidentally do you know he is “a childish and silly little knob head”? Have you ever met him or do you know anyone who does – or are you just parroting the lies and smears of what others say?
Shane. You say he’s a nob. Flintoff, Jones, Vaughan, Stokes, Root, Carberry, Tremlett, Giles, Davies, Stewart, Udal, Monty to name just a few, say he isn’t. They all know him. You and I don’t. Throughout his career the media constantly told us that Flintoff and Pietersen were rivals and didn’t get on. It was all nonsense. Fred is a chum and said ‘he’s not one of the top 10 most difficult guys he’s played with’. We were told he slagged off Carberry and Taylor in the dressing room. Both were false as the players themselves have admitted. We were told there was a dossier of numerous sins. It didn’t exist as previously described and proved to be a sham. I’m afraid the ECB line has no credibility.
I’m sure KP was arrogant and stubborn, but in my view the trust issue is simply with the board and Flower. The ECB don’t trust Pietersen not to embarrass them by repeatedly pointing out their prejudices, incompetence and elitism.
Careful James, Shane might know what he is talking about – he could be Shane Warne!
Hey Warnie, come clean and poke your head up (no, not that one!) – tell us what you know???
Ha ha,are you Dougie Walters mate?
Fair enough James I don’t know him personally. My guess is the ECB were probably looking for reasons to get rid as he was never truly forgiven for the texting scandal and only got back in the side because they felt they couldn’t do without him. He was made a scapegoat after the ashes but surely he must have known he was skating on thin ice professionally. Your board got rid of Gower for being a bit different so they have history. I have just had trouble with all the calls for his return. He looked like he had had enough in Australia and being such an outspoken character I’m not sure that he masked this very well. Yes he was probably shafted to a degree but I think it is time to move on. Different circumstances but this reminds me of Aussies pining for Warne long after he retired. KP was brilliant for England,time to be looking at what’s coming through the ranks and say goodbye to him.
Great post, Jeremy. KP’s treatment is appalling and amounts to an attempt at character assassination. It was decided to make him the scapegoat for the Ashes whitewash of 2013-2014. There was even a dossier kept on him, something we might have expected from the Stasi or in Stalinist Russia. I wonder if KP actually has a good legal case against the ECB and their cronies for slander etc ? Only the ECB could treat one the most talented batsmen ever to play for England so appallingly. It is an absolute scandal and one which they appear to have got away with too.
I believe in the real world they are Cooked by KP’s in their life that’s natural talented freaks who dont walk the road, and they just cant get over it and they are empathizing that to this situation and grow a dislike for KP
Thanks for your supportive words, Jeremy, and I think you analyse the dynamic perfectly. I’ve suggested myself here, in the past, that much of the animosity towards Pietersen stems from jealousy.
The reason this saga rolls on, and on, and on, all comes back to the lack of substance in the argument against him. Pietersenphobes base their dislike of him not on facts, but on an instinctive distaste, and then cast around wildly for evidence which justifies their prejudice. That’s why the kitbag incident at Notts keeps getting dredged up (it’s one of the few genuine occurrences anyone can cite, and even then you could argue Gallian was the bully and Pietersen the injured party).
The texts causes a scandal not because of what was said (we still don’t know their content) but because it was Pietersen who did it. Had James Anderson moaned privately to some friends in another team, the ECB would have brushed it off as a harmless error of judgement. They would not have demanded he hand over his phone for forensic data analysis, as they did with Pietersen.
What’s most egregious, as I mentioned in the post, is the comparison between how Pietersen has been treated, and what happened to the rebel tourists – who not only deliberately abandoned England to earn money, but in the process helped prop up the apartheid regime, in the full knowledge that millions of people across the world would be dismayed by their actions.
What happened to them? Both Gooch and Gatting were rushed back into the team at the first opportunity. Both later became selectors, and Gooch the batting coach. Gatting later took an senior post at the ECB and became MCC President.
Sums it All Up Maxie – My own little Pennyworth apropos of nothing is:
I read somewhere that when the Radio Times did a photoshoot with AC, the Great Pretender, that he had in train an army of publicists, sponsors reps, make up artists, all ready to fawn over his every move and utterance, like a cross between Louis XV, Madame de Pompadour and Henry VIII – while in the background, almost unnoticed and without fanfare, in his old 1972 Fiat 127 ( I think?), came the man, whose exploits behind the scenes and the frontline ensured a lifetime almost of enjoyment for the Summer Game as a kid – John Michael Brearley.
Sums it all up really – I hope MB will give Cook a copy of that great Tome of his The Art Of Captaincy to show Cook how is done – Oh, sorry , Cook thinks he knows it all already! – as summed up by that….that…still can’t find anything polite to say about last Sunday – Sorry Guys!
Whether your pro KP or against KP, we all know they didn’t have A reason to get rid.
The ECB management got together and decided it would be in the England teams best interests that they went their separate ways.
The factors behind this decision have been discussed over and over again, I really don’t know how you all have the stamina for it.
The factors have all been discussed? So how is that nobody knows what these factors are, other than Strauss’s obscure allusions to “trust issues”? The only meaning I can derive from this is that the ECB sacked Pietersen because he does not trust them. And why should he? But what does that have to do with selecting your best cricket team?
Frankly I could watch follow people argue over KP all day so there is something seriously wrong with me.
The ECB sacked and publically humiliated KP and offered no serious explanation just a meaningless soundbyte about “trust issues” (sorry, “massive trust issues”). Some people are willing to except this. Others are not. Anyone who thinks that this is acceptable behavior from the ECB should ask themselves how they would react if it had been another player, say Cook or Broad or Anderson, who had been treated in this way. Their reaction may have been slightly different.
Okay, the perceived factors have all been discussed.
I try to cover them here… http://njhcricket.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/why-couldnt-we-get-along.html
For me, it all boils down to this. When you take away all the huffing and puffing – the faux outrage and synthetic anger of the establishment – and the scrabbling around for inconsistent reasons and hypocritical criticisms of him – what are you actually left with to support the ECB’s treatment of him. The texts. That’s it. And that is worthy of a measured punishment – a ban of perhaps one or two games that he has already served.
It really is time that those critics of him put up or shut up. Either produce unequivocal evidence of his behaviour or admit you are lying about it.
One or two games for being a traitor? I think you can forgive most things when it comes to personal transgressions. He should never have been let back after that. That’s not a reflection on the second sacking. I don’t know how any England fan can forgive that one. He should have been sent back from whence he came!
Somewhat ironical I think that you would send him back to the very place where the real traitors of English cricket headed in order to grasp the apartheid rand. Added to which you support his being banned for life whilst these people were all in due course welcomed back to the fold with open arms. And there was I thinking Aussies didn’t suffer from English hypocrisy!
We had some of our own lads head over there. Kim Hughes and one or two others. Fairly sure none of them played for Australia again. Not sure how all of this is relevant to this discussion. That was politics thirty years ago. Not texting the opposition about your teammates three years ago. Apples and oranges I’m afraid !
It wasn’t politics. It was England players making themselves unavailable to play for England in order to participate in matches not approved by their governing body. This was being arranged behind the back of their captain while they were actually engaged in a losing ashes series. As a consequence they were banned for a few years and then in a number of cases returned to play for England again, to hold recent positions in management and to feel free to pontificate about Pietersen.
The relevance to your comment is comparison. You used the word traitor about Pietersen. This for the offence of sending texts the contents of which are unknown.You would have him banned permanently and deported to the land of his birth. Those who went to South Africa and the circumstances in which they did it can be seen as betraying their teammates and supporters making them more deserving of the word traitor.
This is without considering the moral aspect of breaking the boycott of apartheid
It’s the double standards and hypocrisy involved in the general treatment of Pietersen in comparison with others that gets to me and not just in the example I’ve given. I don’t know whether you hate him or not but a vocal number of English supporters do and along with a number of media people would like to airbrush him from history and pretend he never existed. This for one of the most exciting players of my almost 60 years of following England. I’ve yet to see or hear anyone mount a convincing justification of his treatment . It’s all guesswork, prejudice, insult, insinuating knowledge of offences not made public or clutching at straws such as the truly laughable ‘dossier’
Best reply I’ve had mate,just climbed back into my box. I might stick to Aussie cricket,I know more about the history for a start
Thanks Shane. It’s a difficult thing for me because I’ve supported England all my life and the Pietersen issue has destroyed all that. I find myself admiring the Aussie’s performance at Lords. An extremely traumatic experience for one of my advanced years!
“One or two games for being a traitor.” That is ridiculous ! You make it sound like he was on a military exercise!
It is clear, whatever you say, that you are letting your personal dislike of him completely and utterly cloud your judgement.
And what is also clear is there are lots more people like you – people who are pure and simply biased – not being fair or objective at all.
And then “He should have been sent back from whence he came”. Real anti-South African bigotry and personal (and completely unfair and unjustified) prejudice. You would never have said something like that if he was an Indian, West Indian or even an Aussie. Very disturbing comment that I think it is fair to say shows your true colours.
As I said – and perhaps this time if you are going to reply you could play the ball rather than the man – people have not been banned for life for match-fixing and for taking drugs. I’m not saying I approve of those at all – quite the reverse. But what a contrast between that and the fact that for a single text it is suggested that someone is banned for life.
I don’t expect I will get reasoned, rational and fair response from you. Your irrational dislike of Pietersen is completely clouding your judgement on this issue.
I don’t have a personal dislike of KP. How is saying he should be sent back anti bloody South African! Are you trying to paint me as a bigot? Always the way to to get the upper hand in an argument! Texting the opposition during a series about your teammates is traitorous and in my eyes deserves banishment in my opinion. I am not anti anything.
Go on, Shane, tell us the content of those text messages that you are so familiar with. Let us judge how worthy your opinion of them is.
How things change.