Strauss Calls Pietersen A C***

We could hardly believe our ears. There we were, innocently watching a cricket match, when one of the good guys of English cricket swears on air. He might have thought they’d gone for an ad break. Who knows? But Andrew Strauss calls Pietersen a c*** very clearly. And yet the criticism has been subdued.

Let me put it this way: what would the reaction have been if Kevin Pietersen had been caught calling Andrew Strauss a c***?

The answer to that question tells us everything we need to know.

KP would have been publicly hung, drawn, and quartered. His critics would have indulged in a feeding frenzy of self-righteous vilification, seizing on the incident as proof of his vile and treacherous nature.

But because it was actually Strauss who said it, the response has been rather different.

This is good old Straussy we’re talking about. He’s one of our own – a man of impeccable integrity, beyond reproach, and probably from the “right sort of family”.

So Strauss was “unlucky” that a private comment was picked up by a microphone. People feel sorry for him. Strauss calls Pietersen a c*** but he’s allowed one mistake. And of course, he was only saying what everyone thinks anyway.

It’s been extraordinary how many people have used Strauss’s vulgar remark as an excuse to attack Pietersen himself, even though he played no part in the incident.

The thing is, they say, KP is a c***.

Is he? What evidence is there, beyond his apparently brash and provocative manner? Drill down into the accusations against him, and you’ll find very few facts, but an awful lot of mythology.

The truth is that Pietersen-haters want to think he’s a c***. And when you ask them to cite concrete reasons, they wriggle and squirm.

The ingratitude is unattractive. Pietersen made twenty three centuries for England, many of which won vital test matches. He scored more than 8,000 test runs. He at all times approached his cricket with dedication, discipline and hard work. He did very little wrong that anyone can actually prove. And his reward is to be labelled a c***.

Hang on, you might say – what about those text messages? Didn’t he abuse Andrew Strauss – calling him a “doos” – and relay tactical information to the South African team?

All these claims are generally regarded as inarguable fact, and continue to propagated by the press.

There is not one jot of evidence they are true. Pietersen admitted sending “provocative” BlackBerry instant messages, but did not concede he criticised Strauss or conveyed strategic tips. The ECB accepted this; here’s their statement from October 2012:

http://www.ecb.co.uk/ecb/about-ecb/media-releases/pietersen,319876,EN.html?Pf=com.otherobjects.cms.model.structure.Folder-L-11

The truth is that only the recipients and Pietersen himself know the content of those messages. To the best of my understanding – and I’ve looked into this pretty closely – no journalist or administrator ever saw them at first hand. All we know of them is what the South African players decided to leak to the press.

Bear in mind that at the time they were playing England in a test series. Might the South Africans possibly have had a tiny incentive to embellish or distort what Pietersen texted, in the hope of destabilising their opposition?

The ECB swallowed the ploy hook, line and sinker. Once the claims emerged, the team management decided to invert the usual principles of justice and assume Pietersen was guilty until proved otherwise.

Had any other player been anonymously accused of something by the opposing team, without any evidence being presented, Hugh Morris and Andy Flower would surely have either brushed it off as a scurrilous slur, and defended their player – or at least, if that player denied the accusation, taken their word for it. But then it was always one rule for KP, and another for everyone else.

What happened next isn’t absolutely clear, but reportedly Hugh Morris asked Pietersen to demonstrate that he had neither called Strauss a “doos” nor disclosed tactics. KP was unable prove a negative – never easy – because he had not “retained” the messages. Perhaps that implies guilt. But how exactly was Pietersen to prove he had never said “doos”? If you preferred to think he’d done it, you could always accuse him of deleting the smoking gun.

And so England dropped him. The South Africans – whose plan had worked to perfection – laughed all the way to the bank.

Despite KP’s denials, and lack of evidence to the contrary, almost everyone believes the claims are true. Why? Because his critics wanted them to be true. They loved the story, because it sounded just like the kind of thing Pietersen might do. It played directly to their prejudices – to their characterisation of KP as a treacherous, toxic, interloper.

When I confront people who continue to cite the claims as fact, and point out the reality, they absolutely hate it. They have no counter-argument, and they know it. By revealing the inconvenient truth, I’m spoiling their fun.

So in overview, Pietersen was accused, by England’s opponents, of calling Strauss a “doos”, while Strauss is on tape calling Pietersen a “c***”. Who comes out of it worse?

Some observers have said that if as respected and mild-mannered a man as Strauss thinks Pietersen is a “c***”, there must be something in it. Why else would he be driven to say it unless it were true?

There is some merit in that argument. But we can look at it several ways. We don’t specifically know why Strauss formed this opinion; perhaps it was solely based on text-gate. Strauss is convinced that Pietersen abused him in the messages, but he has no more evidence on which to base this than anyone else. For one thing, he conceded that: “I am confident, in retrospect, that he did not give the South Africans information on how to get me out.”

If Strauss goes around his workplace calling people a “c***”, is he really as mild-mannered and judicious as we have always thought? Perhaps, like anyone, he has prejudices, and allows emotions to cloud his reasoning.

And why do we assume that if Strauss thinks Pietersen is exactly what that word implies, he must be right, and the latter must be in the wrong? Why should be Strauss’s judgement be seen as inviolable? If his relationship with Pietersen broke down, it is not possible that he was at least partly to blame? In the chapter of his autobiography which covers those fateful events in 2012, Strauss recounts Pietersen’s apparent paranoia and dislocation, without it seemingly occurring to him that these problems did not develop within a vacuum, but may in fact have reflected the way he was managed.

Is Strauss now also open to the charge of hypocrisy? During text-gate, his attitude appeared, to me at any rate, slightly priggish and self-righteous. He said:

“All of that time, effort and commitment from our players over a three-year period to make our environment special and different were undermined in one episode. For me, he had crossed the line. He seemed to be at best destabilising and at worst undermining our carefully cultivated team environment.”

When Strauss calls Pietersen a c*** he was making a private comment to several colleagues. In 2012, Pietersen was making a private comment to a friend. The circumstances were not identical – they were no longer team-mates – but while we know the tone and spirit of Strauss’s remark was obscene and aggressive, we can’t be sure the same applies to KP. Surely the Middlesex man has surrendered the moral high-ground?

And where does this leave Strauss’s objectivity as a commentator? His role is to analyse as dispassionately as possible, and he commented on two Ashes series in which Pietersen played. It’s interesting that people like me, who criticise the establishment, are accused of possessing an “agenda”, while someone in Strauss’ position is seen as simply telling the truth.

It highlights yet again the inherent problem with ex-players in the commentary box – of hiring someone who has personal equity in the team’s backstory to inform the public of what’s happening. If, say, Nick Robinson had been caught calling Ed Miliband a “c***”, how much longer would he remain in the job?

Maxie Allen

74 comments

  • Great article, well argued, written with passion and with logic and reason throughout. You have a view and you argue it well. I agree with nearly all of it, commented on it where I usually do, and recommended it to my readers.

    Sadly, you’ll be dealing with the fallout from the Piers Morgan tweet, where all of this will be ignored so people can froth and spit their bile. Good luck.

  • I’m just not buying this double standard stuff. If Strauss had made the comment as an England player – or England captain – then you’d have a direct comparison to text gate and a valid point. As it is, Strauss is nothing more than an ex-player commenting on another ex-player. And no, if Pietersen said horrible things about Strauss as two retired players, I wouldn’t care.
    I have no idea what KP is like. I’ve never met the man. But the fact is that he played 104 test matches for England so if he’s been the victim of some institutional double standard designed to force him out, then it’s taken 104 tests and 10 years, which is pretty inefficient even for the ECB.
    I don’t know what happened between him and Strauss and Cook, and honestly I don’t care. There have been enough rumours over the years from various dressing rooms to confirm that KP isn’t the easiest bloke in the world. We were getting belted with him in the side, he’s 33, he’s injury-prone and his best years are behind him. Maybe if the history wasn’t there he would have been given more leeway – but it is, and he was always going to be the first to go after the Ashes. Cook, Moores and Downton will stand or fall by results in the next couple of years, and if results don’t go well they’ll all be out of a job – which is as it should be. But for right or wrong, the KP era is over. It was brilliant, and I loved watching him – but it’s done. Time to look to the future.

    • KP may be a knob but it’s amazing how little there is in the way of substance to support this view.

      In the above post, all we really have are “enough rumours from various dressing rooms”.

      Is that really adequate to prematurely curtail his career when, on merit, he’d still be picked?

      Again, it’s one thing to suspect that KP might be a pain in the arse but if he’s going to axed prematurely, surely there’s need to be a better reason than this playground nonsense.

      • You take the words right out of my mouth. Spot on. For years we’ve been told he’s an arse, but without ever being told what he actually does. Is he rude? Abusive? Disobedient? Threatening?

        Tregaskis – who comments below – made a crucial point on Dmitri’s blog. Strauss has given the game away, The reason they fired KP is not because of any particular thing he did, but because a few of them think he’s a c***. They don’t think he’s a c*** for any specific reason. They just think he’s a c***.

    • Thanks for your comment, Kev. I appreciate it’s not a direct comparison, but I still feel there’s a double standard in terms of the tone of the reaction. If KP’s alleged texts mean anything, then Strauss-gate means something.

    • Extremely well done!
      You been able to complete miss out the role of the ECB and the media in all of this debate. The propagandising is obviously based on all of those who see Pietersen as an icon and has absolutely nothing to do with justice. Let’s move on then, hey?????????????????

  • Strauss should be sacked,we don’t need two faced hypocrites commentating on our game. Plus that word is the worst and should not be used under any circumstance.

  • This is clearly a Pier Morgan Blog but he hasn’t the balls to publicise it as that. For me the whole KP saga is easily summed up with this question … Given that KP is unarguably a talented batsman and will get your side vital match winning runs … Why is that 2 coaches, 2 captains and numerous teammates prefer not to have him in their team … Unless of course the truth is that he is a c#nt ?

    • The Full Toss is a blog edited by two guys (myself and Maxie) who have different views on cricket. We rarely agree. We also have several guest writers. They’re listed at the bottom of our home page. This is not a Piers Morgan blog and I rather resent the accusation. We are a broad church, and have published pro-Moores / anti-KP articles in the past too.

    • “This is clearly a Pier Morgan Blog but he hasn’t the balls to publicise it as that.”

      Because Piers Morgan is notoriously shy of self-promotion.

    • Either the SA players leaked it or a journalist sneaked into the SA dressing room, cracked the player in question’s mobile code , and started casually browsing his texts in the off chance there might be something he could use for a story.

  • Good article, Maxie. Well researched, well reasoned, well written.

    I am not sure that Piers Morgan has done you any favours recommending this piece on Twitter. As you can see already, you will now have every troll, troglodyte and knuckle dragger sniffing around your blogs for an opportunity to spew out their brainless, vitriolic bile.

    Now you are officially Outside Cricket, you are going to be in the cross hairs of every asinine assassin and psychotic sniper this side of Dumbsville, so you had better dust off your tin hat!

  • Andy Gray was sacked for making sexist comments…surely Staruss should be sacked as well. This would also spare us from the most boring and least insightful commentator on cricket I can ever recall.

      • I wouldn’t put Strauss’s lapse on a par with Atkinson/Keys-Gray – there were far more unsavoury overtones to what they said. But Andy Bull makes a good point in the Guardian today: if a professional sports broadcaster, not an ex-player turned pundit, had called someone a c*** live on air, would it have been dealth with so leniently?

  • Excellent article. My position is slightly different and less critical of Strauss. At the time of text-gate, etc., Strauss reacted emotionally, stung by what he saw as personal betrayal. The smart thing to have done would be to have declared absolute faith in Pietersen, denounced the Saffers’ attempts to undermine the England dressing room, and picked KP for the next test. But Strauss was feeling vulnerable because of his own position at the end of his career, and did not see the bigger picture right away (obviously, the vengeful Flower was no help). However, after that series, Strauss took a cooler view and made a public reconciliation with Pietersen, allowing the team to move on and KP’s eventual “reintegration.” See too the magnanimous tone of his autobiography. He did this for the team. However, privately he remains angry and resentful with Pietersen, and this has now slipped out to the public. I don’t think that Pietersen, whose attitude to the world seems to be somewhat solipsistic, realized what he had done by falling out with the one person who would have been loyal to him through thick and thin. He never intended to fall out with Strauss. How did it happen?

    Before the West Indies series, after the disaster of the UAE tour and semi-redemption of the Sri Lanka tour, Pietersen had been loyally, and loudly, publicly backing Strauss to come through his batting slump. In fact, KP was roundly criticized on Sky and in the press for having the nerve to suggest that criticism of Strauss was unfounded. The falling out with Strauss seems to have been collateral damage from a) the contretemps with Flower over the IPL and b) the “KP Genius” affair, in which — even Flower has admitted — Pietersen’s complaints were not properly addressed. Strauss was too preoccupied with his batting and captaincy failures to realize that his key batsman was disgruntled. Pietersen was understandably aggrieved that not only was the ECB leaking stories about him to the press, so, it appeared to him, rightly or wrongly, were members of the team, feeding the KP Genius account with insider information. And let’s recall that half the team, including the new boy, Taylor, had signed up to that account and were presumably giggling about it in the dressing room. Flower and Strauss handled this appallingly, and KP went into meltdown. Neither men have admitted their mistake, as Pietersen was forced to admit his, both publicly and privately (his more recent admission of error was made off his own bat and sounded sincere, although I don’t believed he yet fully understands Strauss’s sense of personal betrayal), but continue to nurse a grudge against Pietersen. I understand Strauss’s position more than I do Flower’s.

    • “The smart thing to have done would be to have declared absolute faith in Pietersen, denounced the Saffers’ attempts to undermine the England dressing room, and picked KP for the next test.”

      Just to add: think what this would have done for Strauss’s prestige in the dressing room and England’s morale. Pietersen would have been grateful to have had his misdemeanour overlooked, and would have tried his damnedest at Lord’s. We might have squared the series and, by the narrowest of margins, retained our no.1 position for a few more months. Strauss could have retired with an even better record, and the smirk would have been wiped off Graeme Smith’s highly slappable face! Even if we’d lost, long-term damage may have been avoided.

      • Clive – excellent points and many thanks indeed. I see what you mean about cutting Strauss some slack for how he reacted to the events of 2012, in terms of his emotional state. But I still don’t understand why he wasn’t more sceptical of the SA claims. Why did he take them at face value?

        The blame for the over-reaction lies at the door of Morris and Clarke, whose job it was to rise above the emotional fray.

        Interesting to bring KP Genius back into the spotlight again. That tale underlined many aspects of the core problem – the management circled their wagons around one of the insiders, Broad, and defended him to the hilt, while instinctively siding against Pietersen. If you read the ECB’s press release, you’ll notice it says that Broad played no part in the “creation” of the account. It did not deny he contributed to it.

        I sometimes think this whole thing is about inside v outside cricket. Broad is inside. From January 2009, Pietersen was outside.

        On a different note, does anyone think that Pietersen was the first player in the history of the game to say something “provocative” about someone in their own team to a friend in the opposing team?

        • “If you read the ECB’s press release, you’ll notice it says that Broad played no part in the “creation” of the account. It did not deny he contributed to it.”

          Maxie,very good point, I’d missed this subtle distinction. It’s very probable that the KP Genius account was being fed information from inside the dressing room. The fact that KP Genius was gently mocking rather than blisteringly satirical is beside the point: Pietersen clearly felt his team-mates were sneaking on him.This puts into perspective Strauss’s talk of a culture of trust in the dressing room that Pietersen betrayed. It was betrayed by the team-mate(s) who leaked information to KP Genius, and by the team members who signed up to it it. How come James Taylor was signed up to it after only being in the team five minutes? At least Taylor had the decency to stop following it shortly after his innings with KP, a partnership that nearly turned the Headingley match around.

          As I said, the press mostly dismissed this affair, or mentioned it only to instantly pour scorn on Pietersen’s side of it. Even after Flower admitted mishandling it, they chose not to revisit it.

          I also wish to correct an error in my original post:

          the “KP Genius” affair, in which — even Flower has admitted — Pietersen’s complaints were not properly addressed.

          Flower did not admit that he had been unfair to Pietersen. He merely said that, in retrospect, he’d mishandled the KP Genius affair.

          P.S. Broad and KP are still Twitter buddies… Make of that what you will.

          • My guess is that Pietersen and Broad have made up – certainly, since Februay 4th, Broad in public seems to be gently sympathetic to KP’s position (see his comments on the fine-leg fielding) while simultaneously not wanting to bite the hand which feeds him.

            The significance of KP Genius is only this: when it blew up the ECB gave the alleged culprit (Broad) the benefit of the doubt, took his word for it, and tried to protect him.

            When text-gate emerged, the ECB gave the anonymous sources the benefit of the doubt, did not take KP’s word for it, and tried to ruin him.

      • Except that Pietersen’s replacement – Johnny Bairstow – probably did better in that match than KP would have done…….

        • Well, that opinion is surely counter-intuitive (read: bollocks), because at Headingley, Pietersen had produced the greatest innings from an England player since Gooch’s (very different) 156* at Headingley in 1991. I can’t believe you watched that match and thought “Yeah, but in the next test, I bet an almost complete rookie can do better.” (Actually, I can’t believe you watched that match period.)

  • I don’t think Strauss’s comments are very important. Ultimately, everyone knows they didn’t like each other and now Strauss has been caught saying something indiscreet when he thought no one was listening. Bad luck for him but it doesn’t really reveal anything new.

    However, the reactions to the comment are interesting. They’re like a UV light shone on the faultlines within English cricket.

    Why, for example, are the likes of Mike Atherton so quick to make excuses for Strauss?

    For mine, it’s as clear as a whistle that you’ve got some blokes whose interests overlap. They’re part of the establishment, all dining out at the same pro-ECB trough and they’re damned if some brash chav like KP is going to crash their party.

    Just look at the blokes who has rushed to Strauss’s defence. When they all take the same line so reliably, it’s hard to consider them impartial. It seems co-ordinated, like they’re all reciting the same talking points.

    • ‘t’s hard to consider them impartial.’
      They may just take the view that what man thinks of another on a personal level is irrelevant and it is. Strauss made a comment, believing it to be a private conversation – his error was not in making the remark it was that he didn’t check he was off-air first. The apology was for a broadcasting error, not for holding the opinion – because Strauss is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else.

      Let he who has never expressed a derogatory opinion about someone in private cast the first stone.

      • I agree that Strauss not liking Pietersen is no big deal.

        But why do the usual suspects have to fall over themselves to make excuses for Strauss?

        It’s like they’re pre-emptively trying to shore up their position against any criticism that would, in turn, cast further doubt on the wisdom of axing Pietersen prematurely and without proper explanation.

        They want people to believe that Cook and Strauss and all the pro-ECB water-carriers are the decent, honest chaps while KP is just one rogue snake in the grass. KP and his cronies always have an agenda, we’re told, so don’t listen to anything they say about anything.

        But Strauss’s comment allows that mask to slip a little bit. Maybe it takes two to tango? Maybe KP’s not the only one with an agenda?

        The pro-ECB bloc relies heavily on these questions not being seriously aired. They like them to be outside the parameters of sensible discussion. That’s why anyone who goes down this route is belittled as a ‘conspiracy theorist’. But you don’t need to be part of the tinfoil hat brigade to identify behaviour born out of overlapping interests.

        That’s why they’ve piled in so quickly to make excuses for Strauss. Move along, nothing to see here.

    • Thanks, Tom. I completely agree. Strauss is a classic establishment figure; he is an insider, so he will be protected. Pietersen was not, so he wasn’t. It really is all about cliques.

  • What a sensible article.Puts all the rumours and innuendo in a clear light.Always believed KP was hard done by with Straussgate.The dressing room with KPGenius was allowed to run by Flower because it was hurting KP and Strauss because he was struggling with his own problems.KP was doing his best for England while AF was busy undermining him.What a different story for English cricket if AF had done his job and put aside his hatred of KP.Most of those who judge KP have never met him choose to believe what they read,sometimes by vindictive sports writers and just enjoy putting a high achiever down.I have found KP to be a decent young man.Caring and thoughtful of his friends.So to you KP haters,hatred just eats always and can only hurt the hater in the long run.

    • Thanks, Julie. It sometimes seems to me that the case against Pietersen amounts to:

      1. Jason Gallian threw his kitbag out of the window.
      2. Er…
      3. That’s it.

      • Downton spoke out after everyone demanded the ECB explain themselves but he was rounded on and had to apologise for contravening the court order.

        This whole episode goes to show how quick people are to discredit either the words of the establishment or the aggrieved depending on which side they’re entrenched on, or to dig up history (or ignore it) to further their views.

        The Flower interview at the weekend reminded us there wasn’t just 1 scapegoat for the ashes whitewash, several people lost their jobs/ were dropped for varying reasons granted.

        KP’s desire to play test cricket again would certainly be more believable if he showed up for Surrey in the County Champs and stuck two fingers up to the ECB (similarly Cook’s creds as captain will be more believable after some test wins) speaking of which…. looking forward to Wednesday, cricket anyone?

        • Prince,
          Exactly. The degree to which both sides seem willing and able to ignore contrary evidence in this affair, and the degree of bile just astounds me. Apparently you either have to be a pro-KP conspiracy theorist or an arrogant ECB stooge to have a horse in this race. I’m neither. I can see the logic behind KP’s sacking both from a personality and form/rebuilding cycle perspective – but I also think it’s a marginal decision at best and one that’s been badly handled. I enjoyed James Morgan’s (overdue?) attempt at some even-handedness and perspective, partly for its quality but also for its rareness.
          But I guess my perspective does make it easy for me to move on. The King is dead, long live the King and all that. I don’t think KP has much good cricket left in him, and that makes me further baffled at the poison that’s being unleashed into English cricket’s Body Politic. Is all this really worth it for maybe 10 tests more of KP of uncertain vintage? Doesn’t seem so to me.
          But I’m with you. I’ll be tuning in on Wednesday hoping to see the new breed continue their encouraging form from the Sri Lanka tests. It’s the established players that let us down in that series, as they did in Australia. Should they find some form too, there will be plenty to look forward to.

          • Hi Kev – I see where you’re coming from and in fairness I don’t avoid anti-KP evidence where it exists. The thing is, almost none exists beyond vague rumours of him being difficult in undefined ways.

            My strength of feeling is little to do with Pietersen’s absence weakening the team – as I’ve said on here before, Swann’s retirement hurts the team much more.

            Rather, I feel so strongly because of what the Pietersen scandal – and that is not an exaggeration – tells us about the way English cricket is run and the establishment’s attitude to us.

          • I think the point is, for many people, KP is irrelevant to the debate as anything more than a cypher. It’s the way the ECB and the press have behaved over the matter. I think this post on the Telegraph sums it up quite well:

            “Look, let’s get something clear here, it’s not about whether Pietersen is Mother Teresa, it’s totally irrelevant whether you like him or not.

            It’s not about whether Strauss is a really splendid chap or not. It’s also totally irrelevant.

            All we have had from the likes of Pringle, Agnew, Etheridge, Newman, Selvey et al is abuse towards anyone sticking a hand in the air and saying “hang on a sec”. calling them “KP acolytes”, “keyboard warriors” and so on.

            I really don’t care if someone likes Pietersen’s personality or not. It’s not relevant to anything either.

            What IS relevant, and what so called journalists have refused to address in any way whatsoever – or even ask – is a whole series of perfectly legitimate questions about the whole affair.

            The response to this particular story is instructive not because Pietersen is a lovely chap, but because of the way they have quite remarkably blamed Pietersen for what Strauss actually said.

            I don’t care if people can’t abide Pietersen. I’m not that fond of him myself. Successive straw man arguments by having a go at Piers Morgan are just diversionary tactics too, in order to avoid addressing any of the points.

            At no point have any of them queried the constant and endless leaks from the ECB – you don’t even hear a whisper of criticism for the scandalous behaviour of the then England captain having his private email to the ECB in 2009 leaked to the media, it’s regarded as perfectly reasonable, and never once has anyone wondered whether that appalling breach of trust may have had a bearing on subsequent events. When quite a lot of players actually come out supporting Pietersen after the Ashes, it’s dismissed as being of no relevance to the meme that he’s actually Heinrich Himmler. Who within the ECB has leaked constantly since then?

            We’ve had the story of the team meeting at Melbourne which Nick Hoult broke here and HAD to have been leaked from within the team environment (and when the ECB talked about the sanctity of the dressing room, not a single line about the contradiction), we’ve had the 50 item dossier repeated several times when it’s turned out not to be true, but also has to have been an internal leak. We’ve had the tale of the stand up row with Cook witnessed by 150 people when quite amazingly not a single one of them has come forward to say anything about it. We’ve had the whistling after dismissal thing which MUST have come from someone in the actual dressing room unless it was made up.

            We’ve had Paul Downton say that Pietersen was fine when England had a strong captain, and zero analysis of the implication of that. We’ve had Downton seriously exceeding his brief by saying he has influence on selection and no comment there. He even had to apologise to Pietersen and once again that was used as an excuse to launch another attack on him in the press. We’ve had Alastair Cook slating another player in a press conference as a cheat and being let off with no adverse comment, or even about the way he talked about “I” won this and “I” won that. Rather than criticise Cook’s shambolic captaincy at Headingley, instead it was dismissed as simply being bitter comments from friends of Pietersen – quite astonishing.

            And let’s not even get into the categorisation of people as “outside cricket” from the ECB which has at no time been remotely criticised.

            Pietersen ain’t coming back. It’s not the point. The conduct of the collected cricket press has been nothing short of utterly shameful over the last few months. So intent are they on casting Pietersen as Satan they have not done their jobs and the ECB has not been held to any kind of account whatsoever for anything they have done or said.

            Few if any people are “KP supporters” in the way it is portrayed. It is lazy and a means of avoiding doing the kind of questioning that really ought to be their stock in trade. The rising anger is less about one player than it is about the whole rotten edifice. That they don’t get that is why this carries on.”

            • Exactly. Also, the argument pointing to his poor recent form is deeply flawed. Pietersen was in essence a test batsman, and raised his game for the big occasion. What does he have to inspire or motivate him to perform nowadays? It’s not reasonable to assume that his poor IPL mean he would have failed in this summer’s tests.

  • Yes that would be right.They don’t tell you that Captain Jason Gallian was given his marching orders at the end of the season because of his unpopularity.Poor KP.He hasn’t had a lot of luck during his career.So many things that have happened to him have occurred when he was trying to help England can be thankful that his love of the game and perhaps his stubbornness have kept him playing

      • Yes, the press are waiting to pounce on Pietersen the moment he slips up. Even if he says something innocuous that we knew already, like wanting to play for England again, this becomes ‘Pietersen distracting from MCC bicentennial, as usual, it’s all about him.” On the other hand, the ex-England captain can make an unprovoked, gratuitous, foul-mouthed attack on KP, and…it’s all Pietersen’s fault. Some of these journalists would have loved Soviet Russia.

        • That Michael Calvin piece was ridiculous. Pietersen turned up to do his bit, quietly and helpfully (he could have shunned it given the way the MCC is part of the ECB) and his reward is?

          Pietersen appears to have made more mistakes because he is subject to a degree of scrutiny far beyond that of anyone else in cricket.

  • An unpleasant occurrence that can best be describes as vulgar and an expression that should now be applied to Mr Strauss. I am fairly certain that KP will not be too upset and take the attitude,

    “I have been called worse things by better people “

  • No doubt, we’ll be accused of not toeing the establishment line and being too much in thrall to Piers Morgan – A Man whom no one can take seriously – This is summed up by today’s Article in The Independent by Stephen Brenkley – Having read this – I can see why its circulation has dropped below the 100,000 Mark.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/his-language-may-have-been-coarse-but-andrew-strauss-was-voicing-a-common-view-of-kevin-pietersen-9588079.html

    Still at least it allows a welcome distraction from the travails of a certain Australian ex-entertainer!

      • Incidentally, I had a comment removed from that article, but the very similar one on Brenkley’s article was allowed to stay. That was a Dowtonesque piece of chutzpah from Calvin, to claim that Strauss’s unprovoked tirade was the fault of the “toxic personality” of a man not even in the same room as him

        • What was your removed comment?

          Calvin seems to particularly revel in Pietersen’s demise. Of course, when you write something much milder about Cook, you’re being cruel to the poor little lamb.

  • the KP pr juggernaut is very quiet on his relentless pursuit of the 20/20 dollar or his hopeless form. View his 20/20 stats this year ( or his stunning one run off 11 balls that lost the game for Surrey last Friday night ) Facts need to be faced – KP is a busted flush barely able to get through a 50 over game with his dodgy knee. His ( probably justified ) dropping from the test side was inevitable anyway.

    • It’s not about his form – if he’d been dropped for form and told – go back to Surrey and make runs, then fair enough. Perhaps anyone’s form would collapse if they had nothing to aim for any more.

  • Really good article. Just told DT commenters to read something worthwhile instead of reading more drip, drip poison from the “ECB establishment’s” mouthpiece.

    If KP had said that on air/off air then of course he would have to put on his tin helmet. The affable, quiet, oh-so-nice Mr Strauss letting rip. But don’t worry folks, Strauss said it off-air so it doesn’t count! Well according to a lot of writers who hate KP! Apparently the fact that Fox TV picked it up doesn’t count because there were not many people watching or listening!!! The amount of excuses being run out for Strauss would make your eyes water! As far as I am concerned, Strauss’ reputation has gone down in the pits with the rest of them. Hypocrites one and all: “You cannot say anything about me but I can say whatever I want about you..!” Then of course we come to the “apology,” or I should say, “unreserved apologies!” He meant it and he said it and an “unreserved apology,” is utterly meaningless! He certainly would not have apologised had he not been caught.

    Instead of having respect for Strauss I now find myself asking questions about this Oh-so-nice man? And the rest of these horrid people! Cook and Prior betrayed all their team in Australia. Cook was useless and the rest of the so-called “senior” players were hopeless. They, of course, were never held up to scrutiny for their miserable and inept playing. Flower got away with all his bad management, as did Gooch and Clark and Downton! None of them have taken responsibility for the failure of the ECB management. They have all been “let off” by most of the press, well the establishment’s lackeys.

    Evidence? What evidence? I am disgusted more than I can express. Strauss should have been sacked, but of course he will be let off for being a pillar of the establishment! I still do not want to see this England team play. I find it just all so horrible.

    Thanks Maxie, only article that analyses what has happened as opposed to what the establishment’s press want us to think has happened. Cheers.

  • Pietersen has a single-minded and competitive streak which a lot of sportsmen have, they need to be focused, but some people take this for arrogance

  • Strauss is a retired commentator using bad language. KP texted the opposition during a series about his captain, using basically the same word. This is a massive differences, that virtually ignored.
    The suggestion that SA invented the content so of the txt is laughable. As is the ignorance of KP’sfall out with so many dressing rooms.

    • In the same game, half of the team, including new boy James Taylor, were following a spoof internet account created by a friend of Stuart Broad, which was clearly being fed information from inside the dressing room. Flower and Strauss ignored Pietersen’s annoyance over this, which explains KP’s subsequent meltdown in the press interview after the match (actually, he tried to avoid talking about it, but the press goaded him till he snapped). As for the content of private messages, they are no business of anyone but the sender and receiver and no one else has seen them to this day. The word ‘doos’ used as an insult (presuming this was used by Pietersen) means no more than “twit” or “twat” in most contexts.

      In that game Pietersen scored one of the most brilliant centuries any of us has seen and took four wickets. If the others had been as engaged with the game at hand asKP rather than sniggering about their team-mate behind his back, we might have won.

      At least you didn’t use the words “Piers Morgan.”

      • Not sure how any of this contradicts my statements Clive. You are right, two wrongs don’t make a right re KP Genius, never suggested otherwise.
        To suggest no one else saw the “private” messages belies the facts. How did the media find out about them? I suspect the receiver was fairly stunned by KP’s lack of loyalty and timing given they were in the middle of a tests series and showed it round the dressing room. He should choose his friends more carefully (further evidence of ego led delusion).
        My wife is Afrikaans, I’ll go with her translation…
        Lastly (probably not I suspect), the fact selectiveness of this article is disturbing. Anything anti-KP lacks evidence, but anything pro is acceptable, “reportedly”, etc.

        • Two wrongs may not make a right, but one wrong may lead to another – KP Genius came first in the chronology.

          To say no one saw else messages belies the facts – well, what are the facts? Can you name me a journalist who saw them at first hand? The impression we generally get is that someone in the dressing room *told* a journalist about them.

          Fact selectiveness – the fact that the content of the messages is not a fact, is, well, a fact. Can you cite any *facts* I failed to mention? I used ‘reportedly’ on purpose – to make the distinction between what is known, and what is not known.

          I never said Pietersen definitely never did what he was accused of. The ECB statement doesn’t completely rule it out, as I referenced above.

          Am I going to far to suggest this – those who take an instinctive dislike to Pietersen *want* him to have said ‘doos’. To discover he might not have done is disappointing.

    • 1. If Pietersen did text that – and we don’t know the context – what did it really matter? Pietersen had publicly revealed his dislocation from the team – what difference did it make if he mildly reinforced that impression with a private remark to one person. They were professional colleagues, not members of a religious cult.

      2. Was Pietersen the first cricketer in history to privately moan about a team-mate to a friend in the oppo?

      3. Why is it laughable to suggest that the recipient of the text unthinkingly mentioned something from it, and then one person who overheard repeated it to someone else, who mischievously exaggerated it?

      4. Which dressing rooms did KP fall out with? We know his kitbag was thrown out of the Notts dressing room. Did he have a falling out with Hampshire, Surrey, or any of his IPL teams? To the best of my understanding, there was no fallout at Natal either.

  • You forget that what Strauss said was reactive – being that he was already abused by KP. KP proactively abused his own team mate of the time. KP is a vile creature. One that gets on famously with Shane Warne and Piers Morgan. That explains it all. Ugly narcissists, only concerned with Rolex’s, fame, selfie photos etc. Cook/Strauss are gentleman you would happily go for a drink and have an interesting conversation. A conversion with KP ‘ya bru, I got a new hummer’. Never forget everything KP does, it’s for the money and not for the England shirt

    • I find it difficult to believe that this is a serious adult comment Aiden. Unless you know the people involved personally. I don’t, but I can assure you that I would certainly not like to have a drink with the ungentlemanly South African Strauss as his language decries all and any signs of breeding that I consider a gentleman to have. As for Cook, having watched his body language on the field he comes across as very juvenile and using this as a guide line I would very much doubt that any conversation with him would be worthwhile. I do not know the man however so I am making assumptions as I believe you are in your dismissal of Morgan and Warne.

    • Strauss called Pietersen a c*** on live television two years after the latter may have called him a doos. Not very reactive. Pietersen was, I’d argue, not being pro-active – the ECB had spent the summer leaking his contract negotiations, fining him for trivial reasons, and turning a blind eye to Twitter taunts from his own team-mates There may have been other factors too.

      Pietersen could be forgiven a sense of paranoia after he was fired as captain for writing a private e-mail to his boss which was then leaked.

  • Fantastic article, should be printed off and posted to the Ecb, every single player and media outlet.

  • One thing worth recalling is how after the India series Flower went out of his way to praise Pietersen — not just for his batting, but his attitude. “Kevin has been excellent in every way” — direct quote. After that, Pietersen was re-awarded his central contract.

    What changed 12 months later? Well, England lost, just as we had lost against South Africa. Then the tune changed remarkably. Flower is so arrogant he may actually believe that no team coached by him can lose unless disrupted by Pietersen. Alternatively, and just as plausible, KP was sacrificed to distract attention from the appalling leadership of Alastair Sheep.

  • Interesting article.
    It seems that many people have chosen to take sides and think the best or worst of either man based on the person’s established views of either player.

    I believe there is one other option being missed by most – both Pietersen and Strauss are C***s. Both have contributed in equal measure to this ongoing, petulant feud and, whether they realise it or not, people are simply arguing about who is the biggest/worst of the two. I don’t understand why anyone really cares.

    They are equally culpable, equally emotionally immature and equal in the prat stakes and should both do a head-over-heels and get over themselves.

    • The fundamental point most people on this blog miss, is that KP undermined his team. Strauss didn’t (as a retired independent commentator). Anyone who has played sport should appreciate the significance of this, never mind at International level. Therefore, KP is a much bigger c@nt.

      • I don’t think anyone misses that here. I don’t think even Pitersen’s most ardent supporters would have been that surprised if he’d been sacked permanently after Textgate.

        It wasn’t an incident without context, though. When KP was captain the ECB asked him to write a memo with his suggestions for improving the team. He did so, and the ECB leaked it and used is an an excuse to sack him whilst he was on a plane.

        The ECB has openly leaked against him ever since. Who was undermining the team?

        Come 2012 Pietersen is playing in a team with a coach who can barely disguise his hatred for him, an employer which is leaking his contract negotiations to the press, and team mates who are openly mocking him of Twitter.

        Who was undermining the team?

        Amid all that, and on the brink of being sacked, he played one of the great innings in Test history. Everything has context.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting