The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[Dilbert]

Two wrongs don't make one right I don't see any justification that what KP did was correct because Swann had done it couple of years back.

Who is saying what KP did was correct?

I have seen some tweets , some posts and some comments which indicate that people expect KP not to be punished because Swann did it. That's why i posted it.

Well, theres a difference between "what KP did was correct" and "what Swann did was also bad"
People might be peeved at Swann not being punished rather than KP being punished. Or with the double standrads.

[meninblue]

Two wrongs don't make one right I don't see any justification that what KP did was correct because Swann had done it couple of years back.

Who is saying what KP did was correct?

I have seen some tweets , some posts and some comments which indicate that people expect KP not to be punished because Swann did it. That's why i posted it.

Well, theres a difference between "what KP did was correct" and "what Swann did was also bad"
People might be peeved at Swann not being punished rather than KP being punished. Or with the double standrads.

In any case i would never agree with the logic that KP or someone else should not be punished because Swann wasn't. Rules and Law should not work like that although consistency is expected. IMO that does not justifies KP's actions at all as some tweets, posts and comments i have read suggest.

[OffStumpYorker]

Why do people keep mis-quoting what amounts to about 2-5 paragraphs from swanns book?

To set the record straight (before I get ready to go to lords), Swann makes reference to the atmosphere under the Moores/KP regime, and what it was like to be a junior player in those circumstances.

Should he have told lies and said it was all hunky-dorey when everyone knew it wasnt.

IMHO, KP and should never have been Captain of England he had the wrong personality, with Moores as coach is was like oil and water, and it wasnt just Swann that thought so. I beleive that Atherton, Nass and Vaughan also thought KP was the wrong choice.

As I've said before it really doesnt matter if KP plays for england again, England will always field XI players on a cricket pitch, and I will always support the team that takes the field, anyone who cannot support an England XI becuase one player is not there really isnt an England cricket fan.

Players come and go, some lose form, others fall out of favour, some just have egos that are too big, look at Boycott when he wasnt given the captaincy in the 70's so he stormed off into a self declared exile for a few years. Did england unduly suffer his loss, maybe but they still fielded XI players, people still turned out to see the team play, and things continued as they had done for 100 years previously.

I really dont see a way back for KP in the short term (next 6-12 months), and when he does come back it will be under the terms and conditions of Strauss (or the current captain), and Flower (or current coach), it will also be difficult for the dressing room to trust him after these texts, so he could be even more isolated from the dressing room until that trust is rebuilt.

In the end I tihnk we've seen the last of KP for a period of time, if not forever, as he made the mistake of believing that England need him more than they need any other player.

[meninblue]

Enjoy the match, OSY

A guilty cricketer should be punished. Whether they are bad at their skills or great should not matter. Whether it is Swapnil or Sachin. Both were punished, irrespective of their status as cricketers.

[Dilbert]

Enjoy the match, OSY

A guilty cricketer should be punished. Whether they are bad at their skills or great should not matter. Whether it is Swapnil or Sachin. Both were punished, irrespective of their status as cricketers.

Who are these Swapnil and Sachin who were punished Adi?

[#Brown]

Thanks OSY, I wanted to post something similar in regard to Swann's book, i.e. what he said and the context in which he said it, but haven't had chance.

All this talk of double standards etc is nonsense.

[meninblue]

Enjoy the match, OSY

A guilty cricketer should be punished. Whether they are bad at their skills or great should not matter. Whether it is Swapnil or Sachin. Both were punished, irrespective of their status as cricketers.

Who are these Swapnil and Sachin who were punished Adi?

Swapnil Asnodkar (Goa captain punished for Ranji match Fixing) , Sachin Tendulkar (Punished for Ball tampering) . Irrespective of their status as cricketers punishment was given to both. That is what one example of which i mean by "A guilty cricketer should be punished. Whether they are bad at their skills or great should not matter. Whether it is Swapnil or Sachin. Both were punished, irrespective of their status as cricketers."

[sussexpob]

Enjoy the match, OSY

A guilty cricketer should be punished. Whether they are bad at their skills or great should not matter. Whether it is Swapnil or Sachin. Both were punished, irrespective of their status as cricketers.

Tendulkar was not punished. The political arm of the BCCI threw their considerable weight behind him and sacrificed the last test match of the series rather then see him charged. The third test was relabelled a 5 day friendly after the Indian team refused to accept their punishments from the ICC and the ICC in turn refused to sanction the test match with the Indian team looking to play those players and ignore the bans , and in the end only Sehwag coped the ban while Harbi/Ganguly/Tendulkar et al all played in the next match.

So I dont think saying punishment for one player in the Indian team is also like punishments for the others. Its a very bad example, clearly the BCCI would never have let Tendulkar be punished and even threw away a chance to level the series by cancelling the last test match rather then let him serve his ban.

On the flipside, when a similar issue arised in arguing Sehwag's test ban they did back down to the ICC and refused to pick him, making him serve his ban for the affair..... So skills and status do matter to India, its nonsense to argue otherwise.

[meninblue]

Enjoy the match, OSY

A guilty cricketer should be punished. Whether they are bad at their skills or great should not matter. Whether it is Swapnil or Sachin. Both were punished, irrespective of their status as cricketers.

Tendulkar was not punished. The political arm of the BCCI threw their considerable weight behind him and sacrificed the last test match of the series rather then see him charged. The third test was relabelled a 5 day friendly after the Indian team refused to accept their punishments from the ICC and the ICC in turn refused to sanction the test match with the Indian team looking to play those players and ignore the bans , and in the end only Sehwag coped the ban while Harbi/Ganguly/Tendulkar et al all played in the next match.

So I dont think saying punishment for one player in the Indian team is also like punishments for the others. Its a very bad example, clearly the BCCI would never have let Tendulkar be punished and even threw away a chance to level the series by cancelling the last test match rather then let him serve his ban.

On the flipside, when a similar issue arised in arguing Sehwag's test ban they did back down to the ICC and refused to pick him, making him serve his ban for the affair..... So skills and status do matter to India, its nonsense to argue otherwise.

Thanks, I was not aware of that.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I think the problem is Yorker that some of us don't feel that KP has much of a case to answer, and the suspension unfair. I also don't like the fact that someone who has given so much to the success of English cricket should be treated this way. Though it is not right that anyone should be treated this way. Plus there are further issues over the press and the ECB.

Have a good day at the cricket. Hope it doesn't rain.

[sussexpob]

Enjoy the match, OSY

A guilty cricketer should be punished. Whether they are bad at their skills or great should not matter. Whether it is Swapnil or Sachin. Both were punished, irrespective of their status as cricketers.

Tendulkar was not punished. The political arm of the BCCI threw their considerable weight behind him and sacrificed the last test match of the series rather then see him charged. The third test was relabelled a 5 day friendly after the Indian team refused to accept their punishments from the ICC and the ICC in turn refused to sanction the test match with the Indian team looking to play those players and ignore the bans , and in the end only Sehwag coped the ban while Harbi/Ganguly/Tendulkar et al all played in the next match.

So I dont think saying punishment for one player in the Indian team is also like punishments for the others. Its a very bad example, clearly the BCCI would never have let Tendulkar be punished and even threw away a chance to level the series by cancelling the last test match rather then let him serve his ban.

On the flipside, when a similar issue arised in arguing Sehwag's test ban they did back down to the ICC and refused to pick him, making him serve his ban for the affair..... So skills and status do matter to India, its nonsense to argue otherwise.

Thanks, I was not aware of that.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/106790.html

As you can see, the scorecard is for a "First Class match".. the game was supposed to be the third test match but the game was stripped of its test match status after India refused to accept the Denness decisions to ban players in the team. A tour match was put in its place to fill the gap and to appease fans with tickets, I am unsure whether or not the scores or wickets made by players were contributed to their test overall figures in the end....

India actually conceeded the series also.

[meninblue]

Enjoy the match, OSY

A guilty cricketer should be punished. Whether they are bad at their skills or great should not matter. Whether it is Swapnil or Sachin. Both were punished, irrespective of their status as cricketers.

Tendulkar was not punished. The political arm of the BCCI threw their considerable weight behind him and sacrificed the last test match of the series rather then see him charged. The third test was relabelled a 5 day friendly after the Indian team refused to accept their punishments from the ICC and the ICC in turn refused to sanction the test match with the Indian team looking to play those players and ignore the bans , and in the end only Sehwag coped the ban while Harbi/Ganguly/Tendulkar et al all played in the next match.

So I dont think saying punishment for one player in the Indian team is also like punishments for the others. Its a very bad example, clearly the BCCI would never have let Tendulkar be punished and even threw away a chance to level the series by cancelling the last test match rather then let him serve his ban.

On the flipside, when a similar issue arised in arguing Sehwag's test ban they did back down to the ICC and refused to pick him, making him serve his ban for the affair..... So skills and status do matter to India, its nonsense to argue otherwise.

Thanks, I was not aware of that.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/106790.html

As you can see, the scorecard is for a "First Class match".. the game was supposed to be the third test match but the game was stripped of its test match status after India refused to accept the Denness decisions to ban players in the team. A tour match was put in its place to fill the gap and to appease fans with tickets, I am unsure whether or not the scores or wickets made by players were contributed to their test overall figures in the end....

India actually conceeded the series also.

Still i feel irrespective of the status of cricketers , punishment should be given if the incident demands. Because that has not happened in the past , would not change my thinking that it should not happen in current situation or future. So i don't see anything wrong in KP being punished by his own board. Let us see how ECB reacts to similar issues in the future. But IMO they have started well.

[OffStumpYorker]

I think the problem is Yorker that some of us don't feel that KP has much of a case to answer, and the suspension unfair. I also don't like the fact that someone who has given so much to the success of English cricket should be treated this way. Though it is not right that anyone should be treated this way. Plus there are further issues over the press and the ECB.

Have a good day at the cricket. Hope it doesn't rain.

thanks a/c, the problem is that kp in a press conference intimated that lords would be his last test, so why wouldnt the selectors want to look at other players, the texts just put the final nail in the coffin, *kp was given time (5 hours) to state if he had sent private derogatory texts about teammates to the opposition, something he didnt do.

i see both sides but belive that there are consequnces for actions and kp is paying the price for his actions.

[D/L]

I think the problem is Yorker that some of us don't feel that KP has much of a case to answer, and the suspension unfair. I also don't like the fact that someone who has given so much to the success of English cricket should be treated this way. Though it is not right that anyone should be treated this way. Plus there are further issues over the press and the ECB...

It would be interesting to know what proportion that “some” represents, but that’s by the by, as we’ll never know. I think a greater number would consider that one player sending derogatory texts about a team mate to anyone, let alone a member of the opposing team, is unacceptable and fully deserves punishment.

Still, we all have different standards, I suppose.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Reasonably put, Yorker. I think KP felt forced into a position in which he couldn't confirm his future because of how the ECB had been chipping away at him all summer. And then they used his reaction against him. And then even used his apology against him. This is how organisations deal with dissenting voices. The ECB carries on serenely. KPs career is pulped, and his reputation and achievements tainted.