It's Tough Being Me - The Kevin Pietersen Story

[Jono]

I'm sure KP is a **** but find it odd people are defending Strauss here. Say it in a pub maybe. But you step into the commentary box you can't be saying that ****. It was hilarious, but it was simultaneously a disgrace.

And I know people aren't defending him actually SAYING it publicly, but they're excusing it. Its inexcusable and it has brought more attention to the matter days before the series vs. England.

 

[YorksLanka]

reading morgans comments annoys me so much..he is a **** who knows jack all about cricket and should stick to football...****jockey..

 

[harsh.ag]

Why wouldn't you mention Flintoff, he was better than KP all-round? Just as much of a match-winner certainly.

No, it's not offensive, there's definitely something in all sports that seem to stop people coming ATGs. Brumby has mentioned it before. I have no idea what it is. Yet Flintoff is certainly in that cycle.

But the thing is, if you asked most ATGs themselves, they would take KP over Cook any day of their lives. Apart from somebody like Bradman, who harbored something against Miller for a long time.

England, the country and its cricket, in my view, has been very kind to Pietersen. They even have him in the official England ATG XI. What higher honour can there be?

I didn't want him on this as Flintoff wasn't temperamental, he was just too lazy to be fit for most of his career.

 

[grecian]

I'm sure KP is a **** but find it odd people are defending Strauss here. Say it in a pub maybe. But you step into the commentary box you can't be saying that ****. It was hilarious, but it was simultaneously a disgrace.

And I know people aren't defending him actually SAYING it publicly, but they're excusing it. Its inexcusable and it has brought more attention to the matter days before the series vs. England.

I couldn't give a **** about it either way really, hope they sack him, he's dull as ****. Mind you I'd rather they sacked Knight, Beefy and Warne first.

 

[grecian]

But the thing is, if you asked most ATGs themselves, they would take KP over Cook any day of their lives. Apart from somebody like Bradman, who harbored something against Miller for a long time.

England, the country and its cricket, in my view, has been very kind to Pietersen. They even have him in the official England ATG XI. What higher honour can there be?

I didn't want him on this as Flintoff wasn't temperamental, he was just too lazy to be fit for most of his career.

Nonsense he was unfit at the start, but his injuries at the end weren't. I'd say the drinking incidents made him pretty temperamental too. Anyway surely laziness would count that way too.

Not sure I get your point about what ATG's think? I'm sure most wouldn't have any of these people mentioned in teams. Making this Cook v KP is pretty simplistic I'd have thought.

 

[sledger]

I'm sure KP is a **** but find it odd people are defending Strauss here. Say it in a pub maybe. But you step into the commentary box you can't be saying that ****. It was hilarious, but it was simultaneously a disgrace.

And I know people aren't defending him actually SAYING it publicly, but they're excusing it. Its inexcusable and it has brought more attention to the matter days before the series vs. England.

I agree with every word of this post.

 

[YorksLanka]

to be fair to him, like him or loathe him, you cant deny KP's talents on the field and any opposition team would relish the fact that he wasnt in the team they were facing..A lot of people (including myself) dont like his swagger but lets be fair, he has the talent to back it up. I would have him any day of the week in my team(if you purely selected on cricketing ability). Also i dont buy this stuff about how good England have been to him, it works both ways in that he turned his back on his home country to play for England and then the press do the usual of building up someone to allow them to then knock them down( A La Cook)

 

[FBU]

The way I see it is that Pietersen was told he wasn't going to be selected for the World Cup, England moving on with younger players. KP then decided to cancel his central contract not wanting the ECB to be in control of his career and also feeling that they weren't going to select him for Tests either. Why not just go to Surrey and score loads of cc runs and then when Test selection came up he would be hard to ignore. If he still wants to play Tests for England why would he cancel his central contract? The ECB were phasing him out of the one day formats saying he was being rested. In 3 years played 19 out of 53 ODIs and 6 out of 36 20/20s. In those 3 years 20/20 average 45.50 - ODI average 41.88 which makes me wonder why.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm sure KP is a **** but find it odd people are defending Strauss here. Say it in a pub maybe. But you step into the commentary box you can't be saying that ****. It was hilarious, but it was simultaneously a disgrace.

And I know people aren't defending him actually SAYING it publicly, but they're excusing it. Its inexcusable and it has brought more attention to the matter days before the series vs. England.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't find it odd that Strauss is finding favour. He was the object of sympathy throughout the whole Text-gate rubbish, and people felt for him that the twilight of his career was stained by some dick with a mobile phone.

I'm not excusing him, he shouldn't have said it. But those - like KP's bum chum with the even bigger mouth - who say Pietersen would've been ripped to shreds while Strauss got away lightly are completely ignoring the sort of runs on the board that aren't made up of pulls and straight drives. Strauss conducted himself impeccably throughout his career, and has now made a solitary mistake. KP wouldn't be entitled to the same leniency.

 

[social]

The way I see it is that Pietersen was told he wasn't going to be selected for the World Cup, England moving on with younger players. KP then decided to cancel his central contract not wanting the ECB to be in control of his career and also feeling that they weren't going to select him for Tests either. Why not just go to Surrey and score loads of cc runs and then when Test selection came up he would be hard to ignore. If he still wants to play Tests for England why would he cancel his central contract? The ECB were phasing him out of the one day formats saying he was being rested. In 3 years played 19 out of 53 ODIs and 6 out of 36 20/20s. In those 3 years 20/20 average 45.50 - ODI average 41.88 which makes me wonder why.

Given that the decision to axe him was for non-cricketing reasons, it's highly unlikely that his form for Surrey would be relevant to any potential recall

 

[social]

So you would automatically select an old bloke who averages 37 in his last 16 tests would you?

Bradman-like compared to the captain

 

[Furball]

The biggest problem with England is with the ball not the bat.

You can't possibly have typed that with a straight face.

There's problems all over the England side but the batting has been a joke for ages now.

 

[harsh.ag]

Nah, if not for Broad, this English side would not have stood their ground against any team since the English Ashes of last year.

 

[GIMH]

You can't possibly have typed that with a straight face.

There's problems all over the England side but the batting has been a joke for ages now.

Nah he's definitely right. There are problems with the batting, but all of the new bats have hit big scores in their first couple of games, as BB said. Consistency is a big problem, and it's a young line-up that will need time. But the bowling, nobody knows where Anderson will go from here, whether Broad's injury is serious, who should be the spinner, who are the best other seamers, are Plunkett & Jordan viable solutions, is Stokes good enough to be frontline, who else is good enough, etc.

Bowling the bigger problem currently.

EDIT - haha reading through it's almost like I've decided to do a less eloquent version of BB's original post that you were replying to

 

[Adders]

I hear what you're saying, but I don't find it odd that Strauss is finding favour. He was the object of sympathy throughout the whole Text-gate rubbish, and people felt for him that the twilight of his career was stained by some dick with a mobile phone.

I'm not excusing him, he shouldn't have said it. But those - like KP's bum chum with the even bigger mouth - who say Pietersen would've been ripped to shreds while Strauss got away lightly are completely ignoring the sort of runs on the board that aren't made up of pulls and straight drives. Strauss conducted himself impeccably throughout his career, and has now made a solitary mistake. KP wouldn't be entitled to the same leniency.

AWTA. Unfortunate that the mike picked up his comment but I couldn't give a **** really...........when it comes to Strauss V's KP there is only 1 good guy and one ****, there is nothing that Strauss could do or say that would change that.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I'm sure KP is a **** but find it odd people are defending Strauss here. Say it in a pub maybe. But you step into the commentary box you can't be saying that ****. It was hilarious, but it was simultaneously a disgrace.

And I know people aren't defending him actually SAYING it publicly, but they're excusing it. Its inexcusable and it has brought more attention to the matter days before the series vs. England.

I think a lot of us are just relieved that Strauss has finally let slip what he really feels. Stops all the "He's a real hard working top guy" bollocks he has spouted for the last couple of years.

It was wrong and he is very lucky not to have been sacked. Plenty have had the sack for similar comments they thought were off air.

 

[Tom Halsey]

There is probably a counter-example to this but haven't most of the sackings of commentators for comments made when they thought they were off air been for racist/***ist/whatever comments? I mean calling someone a **** is silly in a commentary box when it could be overheard, but it's not like we didn't know that Strauss probably thought that of Pietersen anyway and it's not like we weren't fine with it. It seems in marked contrast with, say, the Ron Atkinson sacking, when he inadvertently aired a view that is abhorrent whether picked up on a mic or not.

That is not a defence of Strauss - doing what he did was silly - but I'm not surprised he hasn't been sacked.

 

[grecian]

There is probably a counter-example to this but haven't most of the sackings of commentators for comments made when they thought they were off air been for racist/***ist/whatever comments? I mean calling someone a **** is silly in a commentary box when it could be overheard, but it's not like we didn't know that Strauss probably thought that of Pietersen anyway and it's not like we weren't fine with it. It seems in marked contrast with, say, the Ron Atkinson sacking, when he inadvertently aired a view that is abhorrent whether picked up on a mic or not.

That is not a defence of Strauss - doing what he did was silly - but I'm not surprised he hasn't been sacked.

Yeah the comparisons are lazy and dim-witted, not surprising they came first from a lazy and dim-witted source. Yet he has lots of Twitter followers so we should take note apparently. Personally I see this as the ultimate democracy and can't wait to see Gaga and Bieber take up their rightful place as joint presidents of the World.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Yeah the comparisons are lazy and dim-witted, not surprising they came first from a lazy and dim-witted source. Yet he has lots of Twitter followers so we should take note apparently. Personally I see this as the ultimate democracy and can't wait to see Gaga and Bieber take up their rightful place as joint presidents of the World.

Are you calling me lazy and dim-witted?

Probably right though.

 

[grecian]

Are you calling me lazy and dim-witted?

Probably right though.

No Piers Morgan originally. I guess you're collateral damage in a worthy cause.