Kevin Pietersen

[TT Boy]

By intimating "who gives a toss about not seeing family", which you are by saying "I haven’t seen my family in over nine months. Who gives a toss?".

No.

 

[Richard]

OK, then, let's put it a different way:
What precisely are you intimating by saying that?

 

[four_or_six]

It doesn't matter whether he does or doesn't miss his wife. The problem is a) complaining about it (and it's not as if the press just made it up, he went for an interview with a daily mail reporter... what was he expecting to be asked?) and b) he and his wife decided, presumably between them, that they were going to be busy for a while, so he shouldn't really be requesting to go home off the tour.

 

[GIMH]

OK, then, let's put it a different way:
What precisely are you intimating by saying that?

I think he's saying that nobody else really gives a **** that he misses his family, not that he himself doesn't

 

[TT Boy]

I think he's saying that nobody else really gives a **** that he misses his family, not that he himself doesn't

 

[BoyBrumby]

No, Thorpe retired because he was 35, had an increasingly weakening back and no-one can go on forever. Thorpe was never, under any circumstance, going to play beyond the 2005 summer. He signed a coaching contract in Australia before the series against Bangladesh.

You realise your second sentence doesn't actually support your first, don't you?

Thorpe retired in a huff after he was omitted from the first Ashes test. Regardless of whether he was intending to retire after the summer his omission was clearly the catalyst for the timing of his decision.

 

[vic_orthdox]

How many Tests has Pietersen missed since his debut?

I know that he missed some ODIs in Australia, which was a real disaster for England.

Oh, wait...

 

[Richard]

You realise your second sentence doesn't actually support your first, don't you?

No, I don't, because it does. All players retire. Thorpe's intention was always for the 2005 season to be his last. And so it was - it just ended a few months earlier than he'd initially hoped.

Thorpe retired in a huff after he was omitted from the first Ashes test. Regardless of whether he was intending to retire after the summer his omission was clearly the catalyst for the timing of his decision.

The point of grecian's post appears to be that Thorpe could have played on for many more years had Pietersen not usurped his spot in 2005. Which, well, is wrong, plain and simple - he couldn't, his body was beginning to collapse. And even if it hadn't, precious few players can play far beyond 35 with normal strong bodies.

If the claim wasn't that Thorpe could have played for many more years then the point of mentioning how it'd have been good if Pietersen hadn't replaced him in 2005 seems non-existant.

 

[Richard]

I think he's saying that nobody else really gives a **** that he misses his family, not that he himself doesn't

Seems a slightly strange way of putting it, but it is possible to read it that way. "Who apart from me gives a toss?" would've been a less easily misinterpretable phrase.

In any case, I doubt Pietersen is asking anyone to cry for him and the fact that he's missing his family - he's simply saying that he does. Pietersen is a public figure; TT_Boy is not, so Pietersen's feelings will be reported (even if no-one but he cares), while TT_Boy's will not be.

Same way the very sad story of Jade Goody will be reported ad nauseum while countless other equally (and sometimes even more) sad ones won't be.

 

[BoyBrumby]

No, I don't, because it does. All players retire. Thorpe's intention was always for the 2005 season to be his last. And so it was - it just ended a few months earlier than he'd initially hoped.

No, it's a straw man. The fact he planned to retire later doesn't support your contention he retired when he did because of age and infirmity.

The point of grecian's post appears to be that Thorpe could have played on for many more years had Pietersen not usurped his spot in 2005. Which, well, is wrong, plain and simple - he couldn't, his body was beginning to collapse. And even if it hadn't, precious few players can play far beyond 35 with normal strong bodies.

If the claim wasn't that Thorpe could have played for many more years then the point of mentioning how it'd have been good if Pietersen hadn't replaced him in 2005 seems non-existant.

Probably safer to reply to what a poster actually says than what you imagine he did, I always find.

 

[Richard]

How many Tests has Pietersen missed since his debut?

I know that he missed some ODIs in Australia, which was a real disaster for England.

Oh, wait...

Actually most of the ODIs he missed were a real disaster for England. They just fluked 4 victories at the denounement which happened to hand them the tournament. 3 of them owed everything to a dropped catch (Tait off Joyce in the Australia group-game, Oram off Collingwood in the NZ group-game and McGrath off Bell in the first final) and the 4th of which (the second final) owed most to an important toss and an electrical storm.

I doubt even Pietersen's most fervent haters could claim his absence resulted in such circumstances conspiring in England's favour. Nor that the other massive factor (the wholesale turnaround in Collingwood's form, which lasted 3 games) had the slightest thing to do with him, as Collingwood's been playing ODIs alongside Pietersen for a long time now and has tasted lots of failure and a bit more success in that time.

 

[Richard]

No, it's a straw man. The fact he planned to retire later doesn't support your contention he retired when he did because of age and infirmity.

He retired in 2005 because of age and infirmity. The Pietersen selection meant he retired in July rather than September. My contention is that Thorpe could not and would not have played beyond 2005. I have made precisely no contention about why he retired in July rather than September. Although I'm sure you'd like me to have done, as evidenced by your replying to what you'd like me to have said rather than what I actually have.

Had Thorpe been young and in physical condition to play beyond 2005 (say, had he been 30 in said year) he'd not have retired because of Pietersen replacing him. He'd have kept playing and fought his way back in.

Probably safer to reply to what a poster actually says than what you imagine he did, I always find.

What I imagine he said is likely to be what he actually said.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He retired in 2005 because of age and infirmity. The Pietersen selection meant he retired in July rather than September. My contention is that Thorpe could not and would not have played beyond 2005. I have made precisely no contention about why he retired in July rather than September. Although I'm sure you'd like me to have done, as evidenced by your replying to what you'd like me to have said rather than what I actually have.

Had Thorpe been young and in physical condition to play beyond 2005 (say, had he been 30 in said year) he'd not have retired because of Pietersen replacing him. He'd have kept playing and fought his way back in.

What I imagine he said is likely to be what he actually said.

Classic straw man argument, the fact he planned to retire later doesn't contradict what grecian said. You said:

No, Thorpe retired because he was 35, had an increasingly weakening back and no-one can go on forever. Thorpe was never, under any circumstance, going to play beyond the 2005 summer. He signed a coaching contract in Australia before the series against Bangladesh.

Clearly implying that Pietersen's selection wasn't a factor or else why would you have started your post with "No"?

Unless, of course, in your understanding of English (sketchy as we know all too well) "No" isn't a negative response.

&, as Thorpe himself said, his dropping was the main factor (link):

"But, yeah, after England were bowled out for 155 and lost the first Test at Lord's I did think, 'Bugger you, I could have done something there. That situation was tailor-made for me.' But it was nothing compared to the despair I'd been through."

QED.

 

[Richard]

Right, let's read exactly what grecian said:

I really wish Thorpe hadn't retired.

Blaming Pietersen for the fact that Thorpe retired is plain silly, nothing less. Thorpe retired in 2005 because his body was no longer up for international cricket. If Pietersen had not usurped his spot in the Ashes series, his retirement would still have happened at, for all intents and purposes, the same time - 2 months is nothing, especially given what happened in said 2 months. And if his body had still been up for cricket in 2005, Pietersen usurping his spot would not have caused him to retire. You are attempting to read things into a couple of months between July and September, which I had absolutely no intention of mentioning the first thing about, in order to defend someone against me calling them out as wrong. It couldn't really be simpler than that, IMO.

Really, everyone is better-off with you ignoring me. Only slightly so, of course, as you still like to get a healthy dose of pathetic attempted shots in even with <ignore> use. But at least that way you're not wasting my time - or everyone else who's trying to read this thread - with silly reading little non-existent bits-and-pieces into my comments. And then having the nerve to accuse me of straw-man use.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Right, let's read exactly what grecian said:

Blaming Pietersen for the fact that Thorpe retired is plain silly, nothing less. Thorpe retired in 2005 because his body was no longer up for international cricket. If Pietersen had not usurped his spot in the Ashes series, his retirement would still have happened at, for all intents and purposes, the same time - 2 months is nothing, especially given what happened in said 2 months. And if his body had still been up for cricket in 2005, Pietersen usurping his spot would not have caused him to retire. You are attempting to read things into a couple of months between July and September, which I had absolutely no intention of mentioning the first thing about, in order to defend someone against me calling them out as wrong. It couldn't really be simpler than that, IMO.

Really, everyone is better-off with you ignoring me. Only slightly so, of course, as you still like to get a healthy dose of pathetic attempted shots in even with <ignore> use. But at least that way you're not wasting my time - or everyone else who's trying to read this thread - with silly reading little non-existent bits-and-pieces into my comments. And then having the nerve to accuse me of straw-man use.

Pointing out you're wrong is now "pathetic attempted shots", eh? Tempted to report the post, frankly, but will instead answer calmly.

I'm not reading anything into anything; you implied Thorpe's retirement was nothing to do with his non-selection and then used an argument which appears to support what you said, but in fact doesn't actually contradict what grecian said, so is pretty much a classic logical fallacy of the type which is sometimes called a "straw man". That's how I have "the nerve", you sanctimonious so-and-so.

Unless you'd like to tell the rest of the class why it isn't?

 

[Uppercut]

Hahaha, you guys have arguments over the most mundane things.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Haha AWTA so much.

 

[Richard]

Pointing out you're wrong is now "pathetic attempted shots", eh?

No - on the rare occasion you do such a thing, that is - but things along the lines of these are:
Worst Player to Play 50 Tests - Page 2 - Cricket Web
Worst Player to Play 50 Tests - Page 2 - Cricket Web
Sri Lanka agree to tour England in 2009 - Page 9 - Cricket Web
Happy birthday Watt0, SpaceMonkey and Somerset - Cricket Web
*Official* English Football Season 2008-2009 - Page 199 - Cricket Web
40 PPP is the best or not? - Page 2 - Cricket Web
list of batsman who you generally consider to be lucky/ unlucky - Page 4 - Cricket Web
A tribute.... - Cricket Web
If a cricketer's career was a tune... - Page 5 - Cricket Web
***Official*** South Africa in England - Page 179 - Cricket Web

Tempted to report the post, frankly, but will instead answer calmly.

Would presumably receive about as little attention as it would if I reported any of the above. I imagine mods have long since despaired of your vendetta against me, as demonstrated by the fact you've barely received so much as a ticking-off for your diabolical conduct.

I'm not reading anything into anything; you implied Thorpe's retirement was nothing to do with his non-selection and then used an argument which appears to support what you said, but in fact doesn't actually contradict what grecian said, so is pretty much a classic logical fallacy of the type which is sometimes called a "straw man". That's how I have "the nerve", you sanctimonious so-and-so.

Unless you'd like to tell the rest of the class why it isn't?

I've already mentioned, in fact. About 5 or 6 times now. Thorpe's retirement in 2005 had to do with his body being no longer up for Test cricket. It was hastened (ie, it happened 2 months earlier than would've been the case under happier circumstances) by the fact that he was treated poorly by the selectors, who picked Pietersen ahead of him for The Ashes.

grecian's comment "I wish Thorpe hadn't retired", followed by the implication that Pietersen's usurping him had some sort of ill-effect on the England team, is, well, misplaced. Had Pietersen not usurped Thorpe in 2005, the difference made to the England team would've been zero. They won the only series which Thorpe would have played instead of Pietersen. Thorpe was never, under any circumstances, going to play in 2005/06 or beyond. Therefore to blame Pietersen's selection in 2005 for him not doing is wrong, plain and simple.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Would presumably receive about as little attention as it would if I reported any of the above. I imagine mods have long since despaired of your vendetta against me, as demonstrated by the fact you've barely received so much as a ticking-off for your diabolical conduct.

You actually remember this stuff? I couldn't recall half of them and I made them.

I've already mentioned, in fact. About 5 or 6 times now. Thorpe's retirement in 2005 had to do with his body being no longer up for Test cricket. It was hastened (ie, it happened 2 months earlier than would've been the case under happier circumstances) by the fact that he was treated poorly by the selectors, who picked Pietersen ahead of him for The Ashes.

grecian's comment "I wish Thorpe hadn't retired", followed by the implication that Pietersen's usurping him had some sort of ill-effect on the England team, is, well, misplaced. Had Pietersen not usurped Thorpe in 2005, the difference made to the England team would've been zero. They won the only series which Thorpe would have played instead of Pietersen. Thorpe was never, under any circumstances, going to play in 2005/06 or beyond. Therefore to blame Pietersen's selection in 2005 for him not doing is wrong, plain and simple.

Yeah, repeating the same thing over and over isn't an actual cogent argument.

Moreover, whether Pietersen displacing Thorpe for the 2005 Ashes weakened us is a matter of conjecture, but to imply it had no effect on his retirement wasn't "misplaced" it was just wrong.

& I'm done. Do feel free to have the last word.

 

[Richard]

It did not cause him to retire in 2005. To suggest it did is wrong, plain and simple. It may have weakened or strengthened the team - personally, I'm not terribly bothered purely from the team POV, as we won anyway. I was disappointed for Thorpe, as he didn't deserve to be treated like that, but England won the series nonetheless.

That's all the last word I'll be having.