More thoughts on the Pietersen ‘recall’

Here’s my – rather belated – three-pennorth on The Return Of The Pietersen. Many of these points have already been made here, and thank you.

In some quarters the debate has wrongly been framed as whether Pietersen should be recalled to the England side. The real issue is whether he should be eligible for selection, which is a different matter.

All that people of my persuasion have ever argued is that Kevin Pietersen should be treated exactly the same as any other England-qualified player. No more harshly, no more leniently.

Every cricketer is entitled to equal treatment in the eyes of the ECB. There must be no favours granted, no grudges borne. The only thing which matters is putting the best eleven players on the field.

If Pietersen demonstrates by form and fitness that he is one of the best six batsmen in England – for the format in question – then of course he should be selected. That evaluation should be made judiciously in the context of his prior accomplishments and known ability at international level. His track record does not automatically confer him a place, but is does count for quite a lot. This is not preferential treatment, but pragmatism. Not that the selectors are always so dispassionate: Alastair Cook, James Anderson, Stuart Broad and Matt Prior have all on occasion been selected through loyalty despite being unfit or out of form.

What Colin Graves essentially said – that if Pietersen proves his form in first-class cricket he can’t be ignored, but that the selectors make the decisions – was intrinsically reasonable and proper. The ECB chair should not be interfering with team selection, but it is his job to ensure the correct principles are being applied.

I did not immediately leap to the keyboard when the story broke because I’d heard the interview live, as it went out, on Five Live. And to my naked ear, in real time, it sounded more underwhelming than the headlines implied.

Before Graves made that comment, he repeatedly batted away a series of questions about the Pietersen affair from Gary Richardson, the presenter. Graves did not want to talk about the subject, but to Richardson’s credit – which only goes to show what can be done if journalists really try – he persisted, until Graves was backed so far into the corner that he had to say something.

To my ear, Graves’s comments sounded like a neatly-improvised deflection, not a pre-meditated gambit. The suggestion that, by saying what he did, he was revealing a new agenda, or firing a warning-shot across Paul Downton’s bows, is probably wide of the mark. Graves would never have made the assertion in the first place had he succeeded in getting Richardson to drop the subject earlier.

As the story gathered momentum, you can only imagine Giles Clarke’s fury, and Paul Downton’s embarrassment. And at this juncture we can feel entitled to a little schadenfreude. This is a mess utterly and entirely of their own creation, and neither man can deserve any sympathy when – as we are now seeing – their Frankenstein turns on its own creators.

The ECB’s later “clarification” – the statement that “only players who are…seen as a positive influence will be selected for England” – was typical Clarke: arrogant, pompous, and vindictive. I am convinced he came up with that wording personally. It resonates with his overweening determination to show who’s boss, while simultaneously burying his head in the sand. It was also wildly out of touch with the general mood. Have they learned nothing from the past thirteen months? As Nick Hoult said on Twitter: “Positive influence claptrap proof that some at ECB can’t tell which way wind is blowing”.

By the by, what exactly is a “positive influence”, and how is it defined? Aren’t scoring runs or taking wickets the only positive influences which really win matches?

In a piece already much-discussed, the Guardian’s Mike Selvey also misjudges both the mood and the facts by referring to Pietersen as “the fruit fly, the pest that will not go away”. Bizarrely seeing Paul Downton as the victim of the piece, Selvey does not grasp that the sacking is the fruit fly, not Pietersen himself.

Like anyone else, Pietersen is entitled to advance his career and seek to play for England again. That’s what cricketers do. He has committed no significant wrong – he hasn’t taken drugs, spot-fixed, or cheated. Why should he “go away”?

The reason the affair refuses to die is not Pietersen the man, but the dismissal itself: botched, unjust, unfair, venal, and selfish. People still know that and feel that, which is why it will never, ever, go away unless meaningfully redressed.

Changing tack, may I offer my apologies for my general absence from this site recently. I am in the midst of a huge project in my day job, and, alas, there are only so many hours in the day, which has made blogging virtually impossible of late. You may not hear very much from me for the next few weeks – but I’m sure you and James can manage without me! Thanks again to all of you for your comments, links, ideas, and everything you contribute to The Full Toss.