It's Tough Being Me - The Kevin Pietersen Story

[Niall]

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

KP's ***y missus is not a fan of Cork, so I'd take his opinion as seriously as Piers Morgan though.

 

[Cabinet96]

KP's ***y missus is not a fan of Cork, so I'd take his opinion as seriously as Piers Morgan though.

There's an interesting correlation though. Young players love KP. It's probably because they look up to him so much and he's actually really knowledgeable about batting, and acts as a sort of mentor for them. But pretty much any player who has some sort of senior influence seems to have a really bad relationship with KP. That's three captains now who have publicly made it clear they wouldn't want KP in their team. Whoever was captain of Notts from 2001 to 2004 probably feels the same.

 

[Prince EWS]

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

I think a big failing has been the inconsistent messages and, at times, outright lack of communication at all. After he was dropped they should have told him point blank, "A combination of your poor batting form and the negative effect you have on team morale has led us to believe that we're more likely to succeed without you in the side than with you at the current time. If you continue to perform domestically and the circumstances within the team change, you may be considered for a recall." He'd have still had his public strop but I think he would have copped that a lot better in general.

The biggest failing though has come from Strauss, who has outright said he won't be considered this summer. That's ridiculous. I don't think he should be in the team right now, but things can change dramatically over the course of a summer of cricket; it'd madness to rule out a player entirely. Even Pietersen himself said this of his meeting with Strauss:

I went into the meeting expecting Strauss to say that England's batting order is good at the moment but if I continued to score runs and if an injury occurred then I would be in contention to play. I would naturally have to earn my recall, but at least I would be eligible. But no.

That would have been a perfectly fine way to handle things. If you're going to drop him on a combination of factors ('cost/benefit analysis' as Cabinet said) then you need to stick to that principle and realise such an analysis could also lead to his recall. Instead, Strauss has taken a hardline authoritarian stance and made the whole thing seem like a punishment, which is not only dire within itself but gives people the completely wrong impression of his original dropping. I think Strauss essentially belongs to this group of people I spoke of:

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.

 

[GIMH]

It's all a work. Just wait to see Clarke's face when Cook hands him the team sheet for the first test and KP is on there

 

[GIMH]

Tbf as I recall it Strauss's words were 'he's not in our plans' - I could be wrong. Not quite the same as 'won't be picked'

 

[Spark]

Tbf as I recall it Strauss's words were 'he's not in our plans' - I could be wrong. Not quite the same as 'won't be picked'

Is there any functional difference, given how the English set up approaches things?

 

[Pratters]

They have followed this same method for a while now. Before the World Cup, there were rumblings about Pieterson. Cook brushed it aside. It meant that the focus was on the cricket. I guess they tried to follow the same approach this time. However, this was exactly like the field settings which are directed by Moores at times to Cook. By the time they come about, the match situation has changed a bit.

 

[GIMH]

Is there any functional difference, given how the English set up approaches things?

No - probably not - but if disaster struck, and they were bold enough to look outside their 'plans' then because 'he's not banned'...

Just playing semantics really. I'm probably ahead of Pietersen in the queue

 

[social]

No - probably not - but if disaster struck, and they were bold enough to look outside their 'plans' then because 'he's not banned'...

Just playing semantics really. I'm probably ahead of Pietersen in the queue

From what I gather, the ECB has to appear to be leaving the door slightly ajar as to "ban" him leaves them open to a legal action

In other news

Stuart Broad blames illness for missing Test match sponsors' event after allegations of drunken night out - Telegraph

Assuming that this did happen, if I were Strauss, I'd come down really heavily on Broad (even punting him for the first test) as to do nothing will leave the ECB open to accusations of favouritism

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's all a work. Just wait to see Clarke's face when Cook hands him the team sheet for the first test and KP is on there

KP is basically Punk at this point, right?

 

[honestbharani]

KP is basically Punk at this point, right?

So Strauss is Triple H... Who is DB? And I assume continuing the analogy, Cook is Randy Orton?

 

[Gob]

“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?

who said those things? jaqen h'ghar

 

[Jono]

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.

If he's really that toxic surely Bell doesn't say what he just said?

 

[fredfertang]

Just about every cricket team I ever played for contained at least one **** and I find it difficult to believe any of you can say any different - the good guys just stick together and take the piss out of said **** whenever appropriate, so it really should not be a problem at Test level any more than it was for the somewhat less exalted sides I used to turn out for

 

[harsh.ag]

Andy Zaltzman: It's KP's fault | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

"Perhaps they could have drawn the saga out a little longer, picked Pietersen for the first Test, and then, just as he walked onto the Lord's outfield to resume his engrossing, undulating international career, released a trapdoor in the outfield to send the opinion-splitting batsman plummeting into a secret tiger pit deep underneath St John's Wood. Although even that would at least have had clarity and finality....

...It is not entirely inconceivable that, by late July, Strauss will once again be describing Pietersen as a Cricketer of Unbelievable Natural Talent, as he did last summer in the commentary box, albeit in the form of an acronym...."

 

[Furball]

From what I gather, the ECB has to appear to be leaving the door slightly ajar as to "ban" him leaves them open to a legal action

In other news

Stuart Broad blames illness for missing Test match sponsors' event after allegations of drunken night out - Telegraph

Assuming that this did happen, if I were Strauss, I'd come down really heavily on Broad (even punting him for the first test) as to do nothing will leave the ECB open to accusations of favouritism

Haha no chance, Broad's the chosen one. Doesn't seem to matter how he performs or how much division he causes.

 

[Spikey]

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

Look Spark, it's like the household budget y'know?

 

[Spikey]

KP is basically Punk at this point, right?

How dare you

 

[Spikey]

The former England seamer cited as evidence a number of controversies of the South Africa-born batsman Pietersen’s brilliant but chequered career. Cork also took issue with the contents of Pietersen’s autobiography – in which Alastair Cook, Andy Flower and team-mates Jimmy Anderson and Matt Prior were criticised.

“You can’t just publish a book, and slaughter everybody in the side, and [then] they say ‘Oh yes, come back in, yes, yes,’” he said.

.

 

[Furball]

I really need to read the book again, other than calling him grumpy he doesn't say much about Jimmeh.