Day five at Headingley, and the KP question

A peculiar match, in the end, and interesting to assess which side had the better of it, on points at least. We took nineteen wickets – an improvement from just two at the Oval – and achieved a small first innings lead. We also put South Africa under periods of pressure.

The tourists will know that we can beat them, and have a fair chance of doing so at Lord’s, to square the series, when they will have more to lose than we will. But both sides will also know that, pound for pound, South Africa are playing the better cricket and have more players currently in the ‘zone’. Our first innings batting was again rather sclerotic, and we repeatedly failed to consolidate good positions.

The first of the two major talking points concerns our selection for the third test: the balance of the side will be endlessly debated over the next few days.

Personally, I’m bored of talking about four bowlers v five, mainly because there’s almost no chance that Flower and Strauss will alter such a key plank of their strategy at a moment like this. It would smack of panic and confusion. But there is a case for it this time. South Africa bat deep, and Lord’s is a tough place to take twenty wickets. We have to win the match to save the series.

My guess is that Swann will return for Bresnan, who was overall less threatening than Finn at Headingley. Broad looked knackered and off-colour until yesterday’s wonder spell. His mojo is a fragile entity, reminiscent of a temperamental photocopier. Hopefully he’s now cleared the paper jam and returned it to functionality.

James Taylor will play at Lord’s: there will be huge reluctance to stymie his development after a doughty effort on debut.

Talking point number two revolves around the latest Kevin Pietersen melodrama. The Lord’s test may be KP’s last, or so he strongly implied in a rather strange interview with TMS yesterday afternoon.

“I can’t give any assurances [that the next Test will not be his last]. I love playing Test cricket, but there are obstacles and I’ll decide what happens at the end of the next Test.”

God knows what he’s up to, but it must be significant that this latest display of brinkmanship comes just after one of his best ever test innings, and one which reminded us all just how much we’d miss him if he’s gone.

On the face of it, Pietersen is asking the ECB for more freedom to pick and choose which cricket he plays. He claims this is primarily to protect his family life – although his arguments are confused – and stresses that “it’s absolutely 100 per cent not about money”.  However, he appears to have been demanding the right to play a full IPL season next year.

Given that KP has always been accused of carpetbaggery, of taking advantage of his English connections for his own personal interests with no emotional allegiance to this country’s cricket, his present tactics are providing unbelievably potent ammunition for his many critics. Never before has he appeared so brazenly selfish, nor so nakedly put his own needs before England’s.

But look at this from Pietersen’s point of view. He yesterday took the remarkable step of publicly accusing the ECB, in effect, of deliberately leaking details of his contract negotiations to the press.

“Did I leak anything to the media about the meetings I was having with the ECB? I never spoke to the media for one single second,” he insisted.

“I never spoke a single word about anything that happened behind closed doors, or what I thought was closed doors.”

The ECB have not denied his imputation, which I suspect to be true, mainly because there’s a precedent. In January 2009, when he was captain, KP was asked to write a private memo to England management about his thoughts for the team’s future. He did so, and his private criticisms of then-coach Peter Moores were leaked to the media. The ECB then sacked Pietersen – who’d done nothing wrong – to save face.

Even before Kevin Pietersen first played for England, many in the press had it in for him. From the start he was portrayed as a flag-of-convenience mercenary, as inveterately selfish, and as a rather weird loner with few friends in the dressing room.

KP’s every word or deed, on-field or off-, is scrutinised, and usually criticised, more than any other England player in history. Every cricketer makes mistakes, both in the middle and personal, but Pietersen’s are latched on to and revelled in.

It stands to reason that other current senior England players have contract disputes with the ECB, but we don’t get to hear about them. Pietersen’s are released into the public domain. And he’s hardly the first English cricketer to request leeway over his commitments. In the 1980s, both Ian Botham and Graham Gooch skipped tours, but without tarnishing their images as consummate patriots and team-men.

If you were Pietersen, wouldn’t you think the whole world’s against you? He is without allies, either in the press, dressing room, or ECB corridors. He is invariably cast as the villain, whatever he does – which doesn’t include falling off pedaloes or turning up drunk for nets. He was sacked as captain for no reason. Why should he put any faith in the ECB’s fairness or goodwill?

As such, you can understand why he has to provoke and hustle in the way he does. Circumstances – and admittedly his personality, too – mean he has to play a different game from everyone else. And a game it is – the ECB are no innocents in all this. KP has to look after himself, because if he doesn’t, no one will.

Maxie Allen