The South African crowds turned their back on him when he scored his maiden ODI century; Yuvraj Singh had the audacity to get him out several times with ‘left arm filth’; and the Aussies called him ‘FIGJAM’ (F*** me I’m good just ask me). But nothing – I repeat, nothing – must annoy KP more than the England selectors.
After heroically leading the team to India after the Mumbai terrorist attacks, Pietersen looked like the model captain. In his last test on home soil, he scored a century against South Africa at the Oval. The players seemed to unite around him – putting paid to the rumours that he was an egotistical loaner.
But KP made one mistake – and in English cricket, that’s all it takes. He suggested, of course, that England’s overwhelmed, ineffectual and somewhat out of his depth coach, Peter Moores, was overwhelmed, ineffectual and somewhat out of his depth. A lot of the players knew it, the fans knew it, and the ECB probably knew it too – which is why they parted ways with their coach soon afterwards.
However, because Pietersen had shown the audacity to criticise a man appointed by the ECB, and the ECB can’t tolerate being made to look bad (even though they do a pretty good job of it themselves), Pietersen also lost his job; even though the decision to relieve Moores of his duties tacitly admitted that KP was right.
Note to KP: In this country it’s better to accept mediocrity and pull rank than try and bring about the changes you believe are necessary. If you care about your job – and care enough to make a stink, if a stink is required – you’ll suffer for it. If you want to get ahead mate, keep schtum.
The problem is that the fallout from the Pietersen-Moores row is still hindering English cricket. It’s the primary reason why, on the eve of a limited overs series again Sri Lanka, we’ve got a ODI captain who probably shouldn’t be in the side, and a T20 captain who’s likely to cause an incident that will make the Pietersen-Moores spat look like handbags at 22 yards.
Let’s face it. Kevin Pietersen should be England’s captain in the shorter forms of the game. It was a travesty of monumental proportions that he was overlooked in favour Cook and Broad. Yet to our knowledge, the only person who has had the courage to say so, and point out the intransigence of the selectors, is Shane Warne.
But if that snub wasn’t enough to get KP’s goat – he had, after all, publically admittedly his interest in the job – the news filtered through this week that Eoin Morgan has been named as Broad’s vice-captain. Talk about rubbing it in.
The message is loud and clear: the ECB would rather coat their nether regions in BBQ sauce and expose them to a colony of flesh-eating ants than give Pietersen a sniff of the captaincy again.
It doesn’t bother them that they’re cutting off their nose to spite their face – they don’t seem to care. Holding a grudge is obviously more important to the ECB than the welfare of English cricket. Now who’s got an ego problem again?
James Morgan
It is a disgrace that KP isn’t the captain in all forms of the game. Strauss doesn’t have the tactical nous and is only surviving on the individual skill levels of the core of the team. In an evenly matched game he will be found out time and time again for his formulaic approach.
Strauss has done a decent job in the test arena, although I agree he’s too conservative and formulaic. In his brief stint as captain, KP showed he had good instincts for the game. Then again, maybe a captain is only good as his team. Look at how many tests Ponting won, compared to a genuinely talented skipper like Stephen Fleming from NZ.
You could also mention, re KP’s sacking, that the ECB top brass had *asked* him to write a report on recommendations for the side. Then it was leaked, which wasn’t KP’s fault, and the ECB were so embarrassed by the press coverage that they had to get rid of the captain (who’s important in a cricket match) to salvage their own adminstrative pride. Disgrace is an over-used word whose meaning has been diluted, but if ever a sporting debacle merited its use, the KP captaincy episode did.
Why is Ian Bell never mentioned in these discussions? His place in all three formats is secure, he has a decent cricket brain, and real captaincy experience at Warwickshire.
What annoys about Cook is that the selectors decided so early in his career that he had to be captain (the public school and Essex background helped) and now he’s being shoehorned into an unsuitable role virtually for the sake of it.
I don’t agree that Pietersen should be captain of ‘all forms of the game’. Strauss hasn’t done anything wrong and I believe him to be a very decent captain with the potential to turn into a good one. Yes, he is negative, but it’s easy to sit on your sofa and say he should have done this and he should have done that, but it’s his neck on the line if his decisions backfire. At times he needs to be more ruthless and in time I believe he will learn that.
Pietersen did show a good cricketing brain in his short spell as captain but right now it is his form that we need to focus on. He’s just starting to work his way back to the top of his game so the last thing he needs now is to be hounded with question marks about whether he should or should not be England captain. Strauss is 34 now and although Cook is a certainty to fill his boots, a role as vice-captain for Pietersen may be a good move. However, I believe his ego is such that a permanent stint as skipper could hinder England’s progress in the future.
I’m pleased to see that The Full Toss is staying nice and contemporary. KP’s sacking was a farce, but it was a long time ago. Get over it. It’s just tedious to keep digging it up every time you’re bored. Likewise the obsession with Cook being Public school. Just sounds like juvenile class envy. You banged on endlessly about Cook being no good and only in the side because of his connections, and he proved you utterly wrong. He’s a quality opening bat and he shat all over your judgement of his batting with 700+ stultifyingly boring Ashes winning runs.
The limited overs teams are used to find the Test captains of the future. That’s obviously not likely to be KP so why waste the opportunity of testing someone else? He’s already past 30, and his form in the last couple of years has been so erratic he’s been picked largely on expectation rather than results. He’s lucky to still be in the side. You suggest KP is singled out for poor treatment, maybe he is, but he’s also still in the side because he’s KP. You can’t have it both ways. Lesser players would have been dropped based on his results.
Strauss has been a good – and successful – captain. Not the most aggressive, but he’s not always had the players to be aggressive with. People looking in from outside will wonder how English fans can possibly be so churlish regarding a captain who’s had the success Strauss has had.
If KP’s still in the Team when Strauss retires the selectors already know what he’s like as captain and can base a decision on that. By that time, though, I suspect his era will have passed and they’ll be looking to the next generation.