It's Tough Being Me - The Kevin Pietersen Story

[Pothas]

I'm pretty sure Compton had had three seasons in a row averaging 50 plus. The last of which was in the high 90s where he won player of year. Pretty sure Compton's 2013 season might have been better than Carb's at a division higher as well.

Also relevant about Compton is remember how they dropped him and then made him play that warm up game for Worcestershire (or whoever it was) making it seem the door was still open. He got runs and they never picked him for anything ever again. Bit like KP here in some ways, especially when we found out he didn't really fit in with the team environment, or something like that, later.

Just had a look and the season before he averaged 90 he averaged 57, before that we are talking low 30s for a good few seasons. Carberry had one awful year in 2012 but apart from that he had been consistently excellent for about 5 or 6 years. Is also worth remembering that he had to recover from a serious illness,I reckon that is the biggest reason he was not in line to replace Strauss when he retired. I don't really disagree with you that in 2013 Compton had the better case, he had certainly had a better couple of years, but I don't think he is a better player.

Also, this is way better than talking about KP.

 

[Top_Cat]

 

[Cabinet96]

Also, this is way better than talking about KP.

I could talk about actual cricket all day. Sadly people would much rather talk about shenanigans like this. Been asked by four people, who aren't cricket watches, about the KP fiasco in the last couple of days. They're disappointed when I can't build up a head of steam to explain it all to them.

 

[harsh.ag]

Really hope Lyth turns out well and shows some flair at the big stage. Have been looking at his batting for a while now. He seems to have a well rounded technique, and a good reach. Really gets into the shots. Just hope he doesn't turn into another stonewaller.

 

[marc71178]

Re Cook's batting - the daggers will be out again if he fails in the tests v New Zealand tbh, and rightly so. Two tests more of failures in the Ashes and the sacking calls will increase. Now, I am not wishing for a failure. However, the point is that while Cook has made some runs in the Windies, he is still not in comfort zone.

Oh yes, I mean he's only past 50 5 times in the last 10 innings when at the other end there's a vacancy so clearly he's in danger.

 

[Cabinet96]

Dominic Cork calls Kevin Pietersen ?a bad egg? and defends ECB decision | Sport | The Guardian

 

[Spark]

I swear to god if I read another office workplace analogy again...

 

[GIMH]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=fNexLoG19rg

 

[Cabinet96]

Says a lot that video has been posted about 5 times. No one reads this hell pit of a thread. 2500 posts in it. What a cluster ****.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Yeah I already know that NZ are gonna break us like a Maori on meth

 

[nottsinexile]

“Never in the history of cricket has so much been written about a man with so few scruples”

“ A man is judged by the company he keeps” or "cannot keep in the case of KP"?

Please can this thread be consigned to the dustbin of history?

 

[Jono]

Don't you believe me

No I do, I meant "right I get ya".

 

[Spark]

“Never in the history of cricket has so much been written about a man with so few scruples”

“ A man is judged by the company he keeps” or "cannot keep in the case of KP"?

Please can this thread be consigned to the dustbin of history?

no, because in the wise words of sun tzu and gandhi, "best thread ever 10/10 would read again"

 

[Prince EWS]

I think way too many people take an essentially doctrinal approach to this issue and selection in general.

In one corner, you have those who believe his effects on team morale and his relationship with other players and support staff should be irrelevant, and if he's going to bat marginally better than someone else in the side then he has some sort of natural right to selection.

In the other corner, you have those who would rather lose without Pietersen than win with him, drawing a somewhat arbitrarily line in the sand: a point of dickishness after which no-one is considered for selection even if they'd be a net benefit.

The reality is that selection is neither really about rewarding deserving players based on their merits of their skills or fostering some sort of minimum team morale, it's about winning series. Both Pietersen's batting and his effect on team morale are relevant factors; the real question we must be asking ourselves is will selecting Pietersen increase England's chances of winning more series? The answer to this. despite what people in #TeamKP think, can not be deduced merely by asking whether he's a better batsman than who England are playing, but rather whether he's better by a big enough margin to make up the fact that he probably does have a negative effect on the performance of other players in the side. Whether or not that's actually his fault isn't important; England should be looking to win more series rather than placing blame and punishing wrong-doers.

This is why it made perfect sense to drop him after the Ashes even if he wasn't the worst performing batsman -- a Pietersen who played great innings and averaged high 40s in a functioning side was worth selecting even if he pissed people off, but a Pietersen who was only marginally better than the next best player outside the eleven in a fractured, divided side was not. So I think England got that right. What they haven't got right is basically everything since that point.

 

[Cabinet96]

I think way too many people take an essentially doctrinal approach to this issue and selection in general.

In one corner, you have those who believe his affects on team morale and his relationship with other players and support staff should be irrelevant, and if he's going to bat marginally better than someone else in the side then he has some sort of natural right to selection.

In the other corner, you have those who would rather lose without Pietersen than win with him, drawing a somewhat arbitrarily line in the sand: a point of dickishness after which no-one is considered for selection even if they'd be a net benefit.

The reality is that selection is neither really about rewarding deserving players based on their merits of their skills or fostering some sort of minimum team morale, it's about winning series. Both Pietersen's batting and his affect on team morale are relevant factors; the real question we must be asking ourselves is will selecting Pietersen increase England's chances of winning more series? The answer to this. despite what people in #TeamKP think, can not be deduced merely by asking whether he's a better batsman than who England are playing, but rather whether he's better by a big enough margin to make up the fact that he probably does have a negative affect on the performance of other players in the side. Whether or not that's actually his fault isn't important; England should be looking to win more series rather than placing blame and punishing wrong-doers.

This is why it made perfect sense to drop him after the Ashes even if he wasn't the worst performing batsman -- a Pietersen who played great innings and averaged high 40s in a functioning side was worth selecting even if he pissed people off, but a Pietersen who was only marginally better than the next best player outside the eleven in a fractured, divided side was not. So I think England got that right. What they haven't got right is basically everything since that point.

I think everybody who has a mere vague interest in the whole saga (if you can consider it an interest as such) should have to read this post. Everybody got angry because he hadn't done one thing, and people like Jono talk about how his dickishness isn't new, but they clearly took a cost benefit analysis type approach with regards to his influence on the dressing room and his batting quality when deciding not to pick him anymore after the Ashes.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah, nice points PEWS.

What they haven't got right is basically everything since that point.

- What should England have done differently since dropping him at that time?

- His backers claim that he is an improved player with the knee sorted out a fair bit. If this is true and he might be able to make runs well, what should England's approach have been?

 

[weldone]

If England really does better in a series without Pietersen than with him, then they should be glad that they didn't take him to West Indies! Losing a series against West Indies would've been so humiliating! More humiliating than losing a one-off ODI match against Bangladesh in the WC I guess...

 

[GIMH]

It was a good post from Cribbage.

 

[Cabinet96]

If England really does better in a series without Pietersen than with him, then they should be glad that they didn't take him to West Indies! Losing a series against West Indies would've been so humiliating! More humiliating than losing a one-off ODI match against Bangladesh in the WC I guess...

We should also be glad we didn't play him v India at home, as not beating them would've been the real humiliation. In fact, KP was captain last time they didn't, so that 08 series basically doesn't count we were so handicapped.

 

[GIMH]

Yeasssss