The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[OffStumpYorker]

I'll stop posting on this thread until more information becomes available, because I don't want to risk annoying more posters.

AC, Its not annoying, I dont mind discussing this.

I'm sure that if Flower had said he wanted KP then he would have got him.

But with the aledged content then flower coulnt risk having a disruptive influence in the dressing room for an important test, which on the balance of probablities england may well have lost anyway but my alternate reality machine has stopped working so Its largely a mot point as to whether KP would have made a difference or not to the result.

[meninblue]

The most cunning is the BCCI. They take players from every country except Pakistan. But when it comes to giving players to BPl or the SLPL then they do not give . Why should ECB show a friendly attitude towards BCCI when BCCI is keen on expanding their own tournaments and trying to gain competitive advantage by restricting availability of its players to other T20 tournaments.

thats a whole new can of worms, but would Indian players want to play in the BPL or SLPL, when the fees are a significant fraction of what they get from the IPL?

Well, let the players decide. At least give a chance to those who want to earn money in other competitive tournaments if it doesnt clash with international duty for those cricketers. But no, they didn't even allow ICL to put it's head up. No way they will allow their players for non Indian T20 tournaments. It's not actually about players not wanting to earn more, it's about BCCI wanting to restrict their players or other tournaments from growing.

[OffStumpYorker]

And its good they dont take the Pakistanis in the IPL. There are some things which should be more important than cricket. You of all people should understand that... you are from Mumbai.

dilbert, thats totally uncalled for, unless you have proof positive the Pakistan cricketers were involved in Mumbai, then that shouldnt be the reason for stopping them, it wouild be like England banning any German from working in the UK becuase of the atrocities of the Nazi's.

[OffStumpYorker]

The most cunning is the BCCI. They take players from every country except Pakistan. But when it comes to giving players to BPl or the SLPL then they do not give . Why should ECB show a friendly attitude towards BCCI when BCCI is keen on expanding their own tournaments and trying to gain competitive advantage by restricting availability of its players to other T20 tournaments.

thats a whole new can of worms, but would Indian players want to play in the BPL or SLPL, when the fees are a significant fraction of what they get from the IPL?

Well, let the players decide. At least give a chance to those who want to earn money in other competitive tournaments if it doesnt clash with international duty for those cricketers. But no, they didn't even allow ICL to put it's head up. No way they will allow their players for non Indian T20 tournaments. It's not actually about players not wanting to earn more, it's about BCCI wanting to restrict their players or other tournaments from growing.

Thats the crucial point Adi, KP isnt stopped from playing in any league he wants providing it doesnt clash with internationals, which at the moment it does, as the IPL runs Late Apr-Early Jun which is when the first series of the summer takes place.

[meninblue]

The most cunning is the BCCI. They take players from every country except Pakistan. But when it comes to giving players to BPl or the SLPL then they do not give . Why should ECB show a friendly attitude towards BCCI when BCCI is keen on expanding their own tournaments and trying to gain competitive advantage by restricting availability of its players to other T20 tournaments.

thats a whole new can of worms, but would Indian players want to play in the BPL or SLPL, when the fees are a significant fraction of what they get from the IPL?

Well, let the players decide. At least give a chance to those who want to earn money in other competitive tournaments if it doesnt clash with international duty for those cricketers. But no, they didn't even allow ICL to put it's head up. No way they will allow their players for non Indian T20 tournaments. It's not actually about players not wanting to earn more, it's about BCCI wanting to restrict their players or other tournaments from growing.

Thats the crucial point Adi, KP isnt stopped from playing in any league he wants providing it doesnt clash with internationals, which at the moment it does, as the IPL runs Late Apr-Early Jun which is when the first series of the summer takes place.

Yes OSY, thats why i am saying, what KP's intentions are will be clear by his actions. If he renews it means he is okay missing the IPL. If he does not it means that he prefers playing IPL rather than the international tour. So before making a mind what his preference are i would wait until September.

Actually ECB should market its FLT20 properly and get the most of it. They have case studies with successful tournaments like IPL, but they don't seem to manage it well. Lalit Modi is the man to go after He is more keen to make a better tournament than the IPL since he was removed

[meninblue]

The most cunning is the BCCI. They take players from every country except Pakistan. But when it comes to giving players to BPl or the SLPL then they do not give . Why should ECB show a friendly attitude towards BCCI when BCCI is keen on expanding their own tournaments and trying to gain competitive advantage by restricting availability of its players to other T20 tournaments.

How is BCCI involved in any of this? When did ECBs attitude towards BCCI become an issue here?

And its good they dont take the Pakistanis in the IPL. There are some things which should be more important than cricket. You of all people should understand that... you are from Mumbai.

Yes, there are some reasons which i am aware of but if that is the reason/case then why Wasim Akram is the Kolkatta coach, Rameez Raja is the commentator. Why are batsman, bowlers and fielders treated differently.

Why didn't they give NOC to Indian cricketers to play in SLPL and why did they use their influence to get down the ICL.

[OffStumpYorker]

No problem Adi, a bit of a misunderstanding on my part.

I totally agree its KP that has to say what he wants then for the ECB to say if they are willing to agree to it or not. As I siad Im not sure the ECB will issue a central contract to KP this year, but they may offer an incremental so that which ever county he signs for wont be out of pocked if hes called on for england duty.

[Dilbert]

And its good they dont take the Pakistanis in the IPL. There are some things which should be more important than cricket. You of all people should understand that... you are from Mumbai.

dilbert, thats totally uncalled for, unless you have proof positive the Pakistan cricketers were involved in Mumbai, then that shouldnt be the reason for stopping them, it wouild be like England banning any German from working in the UK becuase of the atrocities of the Nazi's.

Well, if the Nazis were still active or Hitler ruling Germany, UK would have done it. You think North Korean public would be freely allowed in US to work? Same happened with Zim cricket... similar things happened to SA cricket. You think SA cricketers were responsible for apharthied? No, their govt was, but the world banned them from playing cricket, as a message to SA govt to clean up its act.

Theres a history of nations boycotting sports events for similar reasons... so its not really uncalled for. Sportspersons may not be directly involved, but this is one way of sending a message to Pakistan to clean its act up.

[meninblue]

No problem Adi, a bit of a misunderstanding on my part.

I totally agree its KP that has to say what he wants then for the ECB to say if they are willing to agree to it or not. As I siad Im not sure the ECB will issue a central contract to KP this year, but they may offer an incremental so that which ever county he signs for wont be out of pocked if hes called on for england duty.

Yes, they will still give him a chance. It is upto KP to grab the contract. Which format he prefers will entirely be his own choice.

His retirement and then unretirement shows that he prefers international tournaments more. It was just a tactic to have everything at his own convenience. So i feel he will sign the ECB contract.

[m@tt]

Well it's taken 160 pages, but Godwin's Law has finally been achieved.

[Dilbert]

The most cunning is the BCCI. They take players from every country except Pakistan. But when it comes to giving players to BPl or the SLPL then they do not give . Why should ECB show a friendly attitude towards BCCI when BCCI is keen on expanding their own tournaments and trying to gain competitive advantage by restricting availability of its players to other T20 tournaments.

How is BCCI involved in any of this? When did ECBs attitude towards BCCI become an issue here?

And its good they dont take the Pakistanis in the IPL. There are some things which should be more important than cricket. You of all people should understand that... you are from Mumbai.

Yes, there are some reasons which i am aware of but if that is the reason/case then why Wasim Akram is the Kolkatta coach, Rameez Raja is the commentator. Why are batsman, bowlers and fielders treated differently.

Why didn't they give NOC to Indian cricketers to play in SLPL and why did they use their influence to get down the ICL.

SLPL, ICL are different topics. Firstly, they are unrelated to the KP issue. We can debate about that somewhere else.
Regarding Akram and Ramiz, the whole point of boycott is to deter the Pakistanis from active participation. No one will watch IPL because Akram is the coach or Ramiz is a commentator. But their players will be watched. Hence the boycott... to send a message.

Anyway, I guess my earlier post came across as rude or very strong, so i apologise for that. I have very strong feelings about 26/11 for certain reasons...

[OffStumpYorker]

And its good they dont take the Pakistanis in the IPL. There are some things which should be more important than cricket. You of all people should understand that... you are from Mumbai.

dilbert, thats totally uncalled for, unless you have proof positive the Pakistan cricketers were involved in Mumbai, then that shouldnt be the reason for stopping them, it wouild be like England banning any German from working in the UK becuase of the atrocities of the Nazi's.

Well, if the Nazis were still active or Hitler ruling Germany, UK would have done it. You think North Korean public would be freely allowed in US to work? Same happened with Zim cricket... similar things happened to SA cricket. You think SA cricketers were responsible for apharthied? No, their govt was, but the world banned them from playing cricket, as a message to SA govt to clean up its act.

Theres a history of nations boycotting sports events for similar reasons... so its not really uncalled for. Sportspersons may not be directly involved, but this is one way of sending a message to Pakistan to clean its act up.

Actually the cricketing authorities in SA helped bolster Aphartid as they tried to refused to allow D'Oliveria to tour which was the cataylst for thier final expulsion by the ICC, and the cricketers in the country took a stand against thier board and government, wasnt it clive rice's team tha bowled a ball, walked off the field for 10 minutes in protest at the system. It also didnt stop South African's working abroad, Lamb, Robin & Chris Smith, and Wessels spring to mind as just a few that did exactly that.

In regards to Zimbabwe there was actually a security concern for england, they received credible death threats if the toured Zimbabwe, but it didnt stop zimbabwians playing in other countries either, the Flowers, Olonga, and others left to pursue thier cricket abroad, mainly SA, Aus, NZ and England.

Most boycots also happen for other reasons look at the 80 and 84 olympics,they were boycoted by the US and Russia/warsaw pact respectively mainly, that later in response to the US boycotting 1980.

Maybe a better anology than the Nazi's would have been the IRA attacks during the 70's, 80's and 90's.

[OffStumpYorker]

Dilbert, I can understand having strong reasons, for or against certain things for things that happened in the past.

I'm sorry if you suffered becuase of Mumbai, but to punish individuals that had nothing to do with the incident, dont forget Pakistan was an effective dicatorship at the time, so the people couldnt do anything to change it, is a very strong reaction especially 4 years after the event.

[Dilbert]

OSY, Well, let the Pak cricketers openly take a stand against terrorism and condemn openly those involved, as we have proof of Pakistans complicity in the act.... just like the SA cricketers took a stand.
We will still not allow them, just like the ICC didnt allow the Saffers.

My only point was, the Pak crickets non involvement is a political issue, which originated from their (Pakistans) involvement in 26/11 attacks, and their refusal to do anything about it.
This snub is one way of hurting them... although you cant compare anything to the magnitude of those attacks.
The general public feels that why should we allow the Pakistanis to earn millions when they have an agenda of terrorism against us... see Kashmir, Punjab, Bangaladesh war, and the numerous Mumbai attacks.

Do you know this - Dawood Ibrahim is a well known terrorist, prime suspect in Mumbai 96 blasts. He is on Interpols top ten since 1999.
Javed Miandad, after knowing this, has married his son to Dawoods daughter... thats the general attitude towards India.

[Dilbert]

Dilbert, I can understand having strong reasons, for or against certain things for things that happened in the past.

I'm sorry if you suffered becuase of Mumbai, but to punish individuals that had nothing to do with the incident, dont forget Pakistan was an effective dicatorship at the time, so the people couldnt do anything to change it, is a very strong reaction especially 4 years after the event.

I guess our posts crossed.
Like I said earlier, let the Pak cricketers openly take a stand against terrorism and condemn openly those involved, as we have proof of Pakistans complicity in the act.... just like the SA cricketers took a stand. You think they'll do it? No chance. Do you see anyone from Pakistan applauding Osamas killing in Pakistan? Theres a difference... the SA cricketers took a stand in what they believe is right, Pak cricketers are taking a stand in what they believe is ok.

Also, they were effectively banned from the year 26/11 happened. They played in the 1st edition.