Does Kevin Pietersen deserve the axe in ODIs?

[Howe_zat]

Anyway, back on topic.

What, exactly, are we saying if we drop KP from ODIs? The reasoning behind doing so is one of four things:

1. He's not suited to the ODI format.
2. He's not suited to the position, and we don't have anywhere else to put him.
3. He's not good enough to be playing internationals altogether.
4. He needs a spell in county cricket while some ODI series is on.

Now, then, we are not talking about a guy like Bell, who has never really found his game in ODIs, and we are certainly not talking about a guy like Prior who has notable technical reasons for being poor at ODI cricket. This is KP, a man who just two years ago was among the best we've ever had. He batted at 4-5 doing it too. Add that to his run in T20 and we find that reasons no.1 and no.2 are, evidently, bollocks.

if you're going to drop someone from one format you need to have a logical reason for doing so. In this case, highlighting a particular tab on statsguru is not good enough. ODIs are just the one format that's suffered the wrong end of KP's inconsistency since he came back from injury.

Which brings us onto no.3. This is incredibly harsh to me. He's played a few good knocks across other formats and I think he's worth persisting with. If you disagree, and think we should cut him off completely, fine. Maybe you think we've got someone good enough to replace him. I don't agree but I can see why you'd think that.

At this stage, no.4 is the only option that I can really get on board with. The thing is, we did that last year.

Nah, you're being ridiculous. The whole thread from the start has just been an elaborate troll - and I should clarify by saying that I'm not calling you a troll as a member, but instead playing the posts here and saying that this thread has been a troll from the start.

I will say nothing except that this side-step greatly amused me.

 

[Prince EWS]

There are certain things I'm not allowed to say.

 

[Cevno]

Tbf , the same thing also happened with the poll in the Viv Richards - Tendulkar ODI thread too and one thread on Bradman and Tendulkar was specifically created to try and make fun of people(failed though) who voted for Tendulkar and then call them biased based on nationality etc...

But i can't understand the bias argument here at all. Why would the English fans be biased when the poll question is should he be dropped from the England side? If he is performing really poorly, he is harming their side not anyone else's. Infact logic implies it should be the opposite unless they have a personal bias towards Pietersen specifically.

Had the question been "Has Kevin Pietersen been terrible?" even then it would have made some sense.
Would Indian fans voting no in a thread "Should Yuvraj Singh be dropped from tests" be biased?

You could claim he is overrated by English fans in your opinion(fair enough) and even laugh at it later if he continues this run(if you feel so strongly about it) ,but can't really dismiss their opinion as biased here.

 

[centurymaker]

There are certain things I'm not allowed to say.

I'm now 100% sure about IT....

 

[Furball]

Anyway, back on topic.

What, exactly, are we saying if we drop KP from ODIs? The reasoning behind doing so is one of four things:

1. He's not suited to the ODI format.
2. He's not suited to the position, and we don't have anywhere else to put him.
3. He's not good enough to be playing internationals altogether.
4. He needs a spell in county cricket while some ODI series is on.

Now, then, we are not talking about a guy like Bell, who has never really found his game in ODIs, and we are certainly not talking about a guy like Prior who has notable technical reasons for being poor at ODI cricket. This is KP, a man who just two years ago was among the best we've ever had. He batted at 4-5 doing it too. Add that to his run in T20 and we find that reasons no.1 and no.2 are, evidently, bollocks.

if you're going to drop someone from one format you need to have a logical reason for doing so. In this case, highlighting a particular tab on statsguru is not good enough. ODIs are just the one format that's suffered the wrong end of KP's inconsistency since he came back from injury.

Which brings us onto no.3. This is incredibly harsh to me. He's played a few good knocks across other formats and I think he's worth persisting with. If you disagree, and think we should cut him off completely, fine. Maybe you think we've got someone good enough to replace him. I don't agree but I can see why you'd think that.

At this stage, no.4 is the only option that I can really get on board with. The thing is, we did that last year.



I will say nothing except that this side-step greatly amused me.

The problem is that option 4 really doesn't achieve anything.

Pietersen smashed a domestic OD ton for Surrey whilst he was dropped for the Pakistan series and Bell utterly dominated the CB40 tournament last year and has been utterly rubbish in this stint in the ODI side.

I think Pietersen's problem is that he's well aware of how crap he's been in the last couple of years and is trying far too hard to become Kevin Pietersen (2005 edition). His MO in ODIs for the last couple of years has generally been to look a million dollars before finding a completely brainless/unlucky way of getting himself out (think Munaf's catch in the WC for a good example of the latter.)

And I'm completely unwilling to join in a witchunt when almost no questions are being asked of Ian Bell. For some reason Pietersen gets judged by completely different standards to the rest of his team-mates (think the reaction to Edgebaston 2008 or Jamaica 2009, when Pietersen got himself out playing dumb shots in the 90s - Pietersen was slated in the press on both occasions and virtually nothing was said about his team-mates who failed in both games), which is utterly ****ing ridiculous.

 

[Jacknife]

The problem is that option 4 really doesn't achieve anything.

Pietersen smashed a domestic OD ton for Surrey whilst he was dropped for the Pakistan series and Bell utterly dominated the CB40 tournament last year and has been utterly rubbish in this stint in the ODI side.

I think Pietersen's problem is that he's well aware of how crap he's been in the last couple of years and is trying far too hard to become Kevin Pietersen (2005 edition). His MO in ODIs for the last couple of years has generally been to look a million dollars before finding a completely brainless/unlucky way of getting himself out (think Munaf's catch in the WC for a good example of the latter.)

And I'm completely unwilling to join in a witchunt when almost no questions are being asked of Ian Bell. For some reason Pietersen gets judged by completely different standards to the rest of his team-mates (think the reaction to Edgebaston 2008 or Jamaica 2009, when Pietersen got himself out playing dumb shots in the 90s - Pietersen was slated in the press on both occasions and virtually nothing was said about his team-mates who failed in both games), which is utterly ****ing ridiculous.

I agree with all the above but especially the bolded part and have said the same, on a number of occasions. For KP himself, it must be really hard to take because as has been said, he was the best player, England have probably ever had, in ODi's, he's seeing the ball great, seems in great form, has been doing the business in T20's without any problems for years but for some reason he's just not making that big score.
Like you say it appears that he's almost trying to hard, which is obviously leading to problems. I firmly believe, that when he gets this monkey off his back and gets a ton in ODi's, it will be a huge weight off his shoulders.
I also believe, if KP can get back to his old self in ODi's, it will be one of the key ingredients, to take England to the next level in ODI'S.

 

[Jacknife]

Nah, you're being ridiculous. The whole thread from the start has just been an elaborate troll - and I should clarify by saying that I'm not calling you a troll as a member, but instead playing the posts here and saying that this thread has been a troll from the start.

Not only do you think there's only one right answer, but you think that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically biased or illogical in some way. Now we all have our topics in which we hold beliefs as strong as that (for example, I think anyone who believes the human eye is better placed to adjudge lbws than tracking technology to be deluded at best), but it's the height of arrogance to then start a poll on the matter and use the results not to help you form your opinion on the topic, but to help you go on a crusade about how people have biased agendas. Frankly, that's terrible foruming. If the poll went the other way, you would've just used it as evidence to support your opinion, but because it went the way it did, you've decided to just use it as "evidence" of the majority of the forum having a deep-seated biased agenda and you've ranted about that. Of course, anyone who disagrees with you knows deep down that you're right - because you always are - but has an agenda of some sort. What's the point of a poll if you don't think anyone can logically come up with anything but one answer?

Basically my point is that if you hold an opinion so strong on something - and we all have our topics where we do - that if anyone disagrees with you, you automatically assume they're biased, have an agenda or are ********, then you have no right creating a poll on it and listing what you believe to be an entirely invalid option that couldn't be reached through logical thought. We're all allowed to disagree here, but you've gone a step further and basically insinuated that no-one actually disagrees at all and those who claim to are just biased or insane - I think that about some topics too, but I don't start polls and list options I feel invalid, like you have here, as I know the poll results will mean nothing to me. The poll function isn't here for you to use a personal agenda-tester to fuel your hypocritical rants.

 

[Spark]

@PEWSz

 

[grecian]

The problem is that option 4 really doesn't achieve anything.

Pietersen smashed a domestic OD ton for Surrey whilst he was dropped for the Pakistan series and Bell utterly dominated the CB40 tournament last year and has been utterly rubbish in this stint in the ODI side.

I think Pietersen's problem is that he's well aware of how crap he's been in the last couple of years and is trying far too hard to become Kevin Pietersen (2005 edition). His MO in ODIs for the last couple of years has generally been to look a million dollars before finding a completely brainless/unlucky way of getting himself out (think Munaf's catch in the WC for a good example of the latter.)

And I'm completely unwilling to join in a witchunt when almost no questions are being asked of Ian Bell. For some reason Pietersen gets judged by completely different standards to the rest of his team-mates (think the reaction to Edgebaston 2008 or Jamaica 2009, when Pietersen got himself out playing dumb shots in the 90s - Pietersen was slated in the press on both occasions and virtually nothing was said about his team-mates who failed in both games), which is utterly ****ing ridiculous.

Nonsense I'm judging on his form over the last two years, which is unacceptable for anyone in a test-playing nation. This thread is actually showing a complete opposite to what your saying, everyone's attacking Bell on a thread not designed for him. Everybody but KP has been blamed for his failures. How long does the poor form go on for, without carping back to the past, and how he was great? To reiterate for the umpteenth time, Two years is not form, it is a major part of his career. This is a perfectly logical reason to drop him IMHO.

They both need dropping, and I don't care about the disruption caused to a very very mediocre (when it matters) outfit.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nonsense I'm judging on his form over the last two years, which is unacceptable for anyone in a test-playing nation. This thread is actually showing a complete opposite to what your saying, everyone's attacking Bell on a thread not designed for him. Everybody but KP has been blamed for his failures. How long does the poor form go on for, without carping back to the past, and how he was great? To reiterate for the umpteenth time, Two years is not form, it is a major part of his career. This is a perfectly logical reason to drop him IMHO.

They both need dropping, and I don't care about the disruption caused to a very very mediocre (when it matters) outfit.

Yeah, that's more or less exactly what I think. KP used to be a top hole ODI bat, but then so did Nick Knight & Allan Lamb, should we call them back because they've proved they can cut it once upon a time?

For once we do have some youngsters with some good figures on the board coming through, if we don't take a leap of faith now, then when?

 

[Howe_zat]

The point about KP being excellent in ODIs two years ago is relevant because it proves he's not unsuited to the format or role, which should be your only reason for keeping him on in Tests but dropping him from ODIs.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He scored two 50s versus SL in the test series, didn't he?

If he'd managed something similar in the ODIs he'd have answered his critics without recourse to Twatter, but didn't, so the question remains.

 

[grecian]

The point about KP being excellent in ODIs two years ago is relevant because it proves he's not unsuited to the format or role, which should be your only reason for keeping him on in Tests but dropping him from ODIs.

The point being made by brumby and I, is that was a long time ago, and is becoming less relevant as the matches go by.

I don't understand why KP can't do it anymore, in ODI'sbut he clearly can't.

Just let him play tests and 20/20, it's not that big a deal for someone who's past 30 to give up one form of the game. May keep him fresh for the other forms and keep him playing longer.

 

[Spikey]

Nah, you're being ridiculous. The whole thread from the start has just been an elaborate troll - and I should clarify by saying that I'm not calling you a troll as a member, but instead playing the posts here and saying that this thread has been a troll from the start.

Not only do you think there's only one right answer, but you think that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically biased or illogical in some way. Now we all have our topics in which we hold beliefs as strong as that (for example, I think anyone who believes the human eye is better placed to adjudge lbws than tracking technology to be deluded at best), but it's the height of arrogance to then start a poll on the matter and use the results not to help you form your opinion on the topic, but to help you go on a crusade about how people have biased agendas. Frankly, that's terrible foruming. If the poll went the other way, you would've just used it as evidence to support your opinion, but because it went the way it did, you've decided to just use it as "evidence" of the majority of the forum having a deep-seated biased agenda and you've ranted about that. Of course, anyone who disagrees with you knows deep down that you're right - because you always are - but has an agenda of some sort. What's the point of a poll if you don't think anyone can logically come up with anything but one answer?

Basically my point is that if you hold an opinion so strong on something - and we all have our topics where we do - that if anyone disagrees with you, you automatically assume they're biased, have an agenda or are ********, then you have no right creating a poll on it and listing what you believe to be an entirely invalid option that couldn't be reached through logical thought. We're all allowed to disagree here, but you've gone a step further and basically insinuated that no-one actually disagrees at all and those who claim to are just biased or insane - I think that about some topics too, but I don't start polls and list options I feel invalid, like you have here, as I know the poll results will mean nothing to me. The poll function isn't here for you to use a personal agenda-tester to fuel your hypocritical rants.

Best new post.