It's Tough Being Me - The Kevin Pietersen Story

[OverratedSanity]

Well tbh I think you've made another assumption here. Strauss didn't infer he'd prefer KP over any of the others?

No, but he could have easily pointed out how well Ballance and Root are going right now and how settled his batting lineup is. Not saying that sends a message, whether intentional or not, that KP would be in the side if he and Strauss got along.

Most English posters here have made that point quite well, that England's batting lineup right now is going pretty well, and they don't really need to bring back a 34 year old. It's stupid that the ECB director didn't have enough brains to say the same thing.

 

[cnerd123]

Why does Strauss need to trust KP anyways? He's not even batting with him anymore.

 

[Pratters]

How do England know they won't need him for the Ashes? This is ****iness of the highest level. Just say we will see how the summer goes. Door is not shut for the summer. It's a long summer ffs. Play the tests v Nz. This is just bull****.

 

[Dan]

KP's a dick, not a vindictive sociopath. If he starts running ****s out left, right and centre or intentionally underperforming it wrecks his image more than anybody else's. Given that this whole thing is a battle for public support (and ffs, KP's in the lead despite being a dick and having Piers Morgan on his side, so that in itself tells you how ****ing inept the ECB are), if he starts being more of an entitled prat than usual and costs England games of cricket doing so, he's losing that support crazily quickly.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I don't think it's a matter of the team not trusting him, it's Strauss.

I think Cook does, hardly supportive of him last year.

 

[Niall]

Kumar is a beast on twitter.

Kumar SangakkaraVerified account
‏@KumarSanga2
"I don't trust @KP24 enough for him to play for England but I trust him enough to advise me on ODI cricket" #strausslogic .

 

[harsh.ag]

I find the whole 'has trust ever won a game of cricket' thing completely facile. If the rest of the team didn't trust KP then that doesn't translate well out in the middle does it. How are you supposed to put on a key partnership with someone you can't trust?

Whether or not they shouldn't trust him is a fair discussion. But if they feel they can't (and it should be that the team can't, rather than the ECB for it to be an issue) then it's a fair reason not to play him.

Trust him to do what, Gimp? He isn't going to sell out tactics and strategy and weak spots to New Zealand and Australia. If anyone thinks he will, they are a daft prick and need to be sent to a mental facility. Other than that, they can trust him to score runs and take catches, and that's what this should be about. Now, again, he may not make it because Ballance is not droppable right now, but the above is irrelevant.

 

[Cabinet96]

No, but he could have easily pointed out how well Ballance and Root are going right now and how settled his batting lineup is. Not saying that sends a message, whether intentional or not, that KP would be in the side if he and Strauss got along.

Most English posters here have made that point quite well, that England's batting lineup right now is going pretty well, and they don't really need to bring back a 34 year old. It's stupid that the ECB director didn't have enough brains to say the same thing.

90% of average fans are idiots. They see we drew in the Windies and they'd be riot if someone suggested that they think nothing needs to change, even if it's in a sub section of the team.

 

[GIMH]

Trust him to do what, Gimp? He isn't going to sell out tactics and strategy and weak spots to New Zealand and Australia. If anyone thinks he will, they are a daft prick and need to be sent to a mental facility. Other than that, they can trust him to score runs and take catches, and that's what this should be about. Now, again, he may not make it because Ballance is not droppable right now, but the above is irrelevant.

Despite the difference that individual brilliance makes, I think it's important to remember that it is still a team sport. You have to be able to trust your team-mates. Saying he won't run people out deliberately is, again, facile. In all walks of life, teamwork is about trust. KP was always blighted by the 'not a team player' tag before all this ****. if nobody in the setup trusts him, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Test matches don't happen in a bubble. Warne may have been a **** but his team-mates could trust him every which way on the field.

As I say, whether it's fair that Strauss thinks he doesn't deserve that trust is another debate. But in and of itself, it's a good enough reason not to pick someone.

 

[Dan]

No, but he could have easily pointed out how well Ballance and Root are going right now and how settled his batting lineup is. Not saying that sends a message, whether intentional or not, that KP would be in the side if he and Strauss got along.

Most English posters here have made that point quite well, that England's batting lineup right now is going pretty well, and they don't really need to bring back a 34 year old. It's stupid that the ECB director didn't have enough brains to say the same thing.

Yeah, exactly. All this KP-Strauss trust garbage distracts from the very salient point that there isn't a spot for Kevin Pietersen in the English XI because he isn't a substantially better option than the incumbents. When your statement is saying "it's all about trust, it's about what happened in 2012, it's about how much of a dick KP is and what he does for team morale", you're implying, intentionally or otherwise, that if it weren't for KP doing that he'd be in the team and everything would be rosy.

On the current performances of the England middle order, he wouldn't be. So why are they ignoring that? Either they're idiots, or they have no faith in Ballance, Root and Bell to collectively perform well enough vs. New Zealand and in the Ashes to keep KP out of the side. And that's a terrible message to be sending to your batsmen.

Not to mention it says to all of the ****s stacking up runs in County cricket that they mean nothing unless you're Straussy's boi. Although to be fair the treatment of James Taylor has made that abundantly clear for the last three or four years that making runs doesn't actually mean all that much.

Heck, Strauss could even have sabotaged KP by saying that the only spot up for grabs in the New Zealand series is the opener's berth!

 

[harsh.ag]

As I say, whether it's fair that Strauss thinks he doesn't deserve that trust is another debate. But in and of itself, it's a good enough reason not to pick someone.

You're missing the part where the guy making that decision is heavily biased, and that shouldn't happen.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, exactly. All this KP-Strauss trust garbage distracts from the very salient point that there isn't a spot for Kevin Pietersen in the English XI because he isn't a substantially better option than the incumbents. When your statement is saying "it's all about trust, it's about what happened in 2012, it's about how much of a dick KP is and what he does for team morale", you're implying, intentionally or otherwise, that if it weren't for KP doing that he'd be in the team and everything would be rosy.

Agreed, of course, but just imagine for a second, this wasn't a home series, and an away one, and they had to select a squad. Would KP have made it as backup for Ballance/Bell/Root? Of course not, and the "trust" speech would have been needed to been given. I am just glad the truth is right out there without pretensions.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, exactly. All this KP-Strauss trust garbage distracts from the very salient point that there isn't a spot for Kevin Pietersen in the English XI because he isn't a substantially better option than the incumbents. When your statement is saying "it's all about trust, it's about what happened in 2012, it's about how much of a dick KP is and what he does for team morale", you're implying, intentionally or otherwise, that if it weren't for KP doing that he'd be in the team and everything would be rosy.

On the current performances of the England middle order, he wouldn't be. So why are they ignoring that? Either they're idiots, or they have no faith in Ballance, Root and Bell to collectively perform well enough vs. New Zealand and in the Ashes to keep KP out of the side. And that's a terrible message to be sending to your batsmen.

Not to mention it says to all of the ****s stacking up runs in County cricket that they mean nothing unless you're Straussy's boi. Although to be fair the treatment of James Taylor has made that abundantly clear for the last three or four years that making runs doesn't actually mean all that much.

Heck, Strauss could even have sabotaged KP by saying that the only spot up for grabs in the New Zealand series is the opener's berth!

Well no, because if they said the reason he's not up for selection is performance-based, then that would actually heap pressure on those guys you reckon must be hurt by what Strauss is saying. Ballance gets a pair in the first Test against NZ after Strauss has said he's keeping KP out of the side, then what do you think happens? It would have been completely ridiculous for him to say it, true or not.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Kumar is a beast on twitter.

WAG!

Is that his real account?

 

[GIMH]

You're missing the part where the guy making that decision is heavily biased, and that shouldn't happen.

Clearly I'm not missing the point, given I said - and you quoted! - this:

As I say, whether it's fair that Strauss thinks he doesn't deserve that trust is another debate

 

[Spikey]

i guess you could say....it's tough being KP

 

[OverratedSanity]

Despite the difference that individual brilliance makes, I think it's important to remember that it is still a team sport. You have to be able to trust your team-mates. Saying he won't run people out deliberately is, again, facile. In all walks of life, teamwork is about trust. KP was always blighted by the 'not a team player' tag before all this ****. if nobody in the setup trusts him, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Test matches don't happen in a bubble. Warne may have been a **** but his team-mates could trust him every which way on the field.

As I say, whether it's fair that Strauss thinks he doesn't deserve that trust is another debate. But in and of itself, it's a good enough reason not to pick someone.

Yeah but no one is even saying the team doesn't trust KP. It's just a trust issue between KP, and Strauss and the ecb.

 

[Niall]

WAG!

Is that his real account?

Very much so.
https://twitter.com/KumarSanga2

 

[Dan]

Despite the difference that individual brilliance makes, I think it's important to remember that it is still a team sport. You have to be able to trust your team-mates. Saying he won't run people out deliberately is, again, facile. In all walks of life, teamwork is about trust. KP was always blighted by the 'not a team player' tag before all this ****. if nobody in the setup trusts him, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Test matches don't happen in a bubble. Warne may have been a **** but his team-mates could trust him every which way on the field.

Give me a single substantive difference between Warne's trustable dickishness and KP's apparently un-trustable dickishness (other than having a competent board vs. having an incompetent board). I genuinely cannot see how this argument makes any sense whatsoever.

I think the bigger question is why the ECB would think to appoint someone who has personal issues with current players to such a high-level position, and then accept him making career-changing decisions about those players on the basis of those personal issues. That, in itself, is utterly insane.

 

[harsh.ag]

Clearly I'm not missing the point, given I said - and you quoted! - this:

Yeah, I get that, but what I meant was that there is a difference between "What Strauss thinks as Strauss" and "What Strauss thinks as director of English cricket".