The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[yorker_129-7]

It's hardly vaguely circumstantial though!

He followed a Twitter account. Are we to be judged on the basis of the actions of people we follow on Twitter now?

[Making_Splinters]

I don't see why there should be any objection to the ECB holding an inquiry unless some people actually have something to hide.

[yorker_129-7]

This England team is turning into an epic mess and an utter joke. The double standards are pi$$ing the crap out of me.

What "double standards" please?

[shankycricket]

This England team is turning into an epic mess and an utter joke. The double standards are pi$$ing the crap out of me.

What "double standards" please?

They have already been explained by some of the posters on this thread, who have a lot more patience than I do. You seem to struggle to understand the point and resort to personal attacks. So I won't waste my time.

[yorker_129-7]

If you're referring to James Anderson I've already outlined why the comparison is not really justified. If you aren't going to respond you'll have plenty of time to read it.

[sussexpob]

Tell me the difference between situation a and b below Yorker.....

A. A current England player makes an unwarranted and unprovoked comment onan ex England opener turned broadcaster on his own web page. Despite the person in question never being particularily influential....player is fined and publicly lamented.

B. A current England player makes an unwarranted and unprovoked comment on an ex England opener turned broadcaster in a highly distributed national paper in order to sell more of his upcoming books... Said insulted player is one of the most successful England captains ever, the point of which the article was attacking.... nothing
Struggling to see the distinction....

Just for argument sake explain to me in child's terms why this is different.... And don't give me a vague cop out answer . Tell me why one is acceptable and one not.....and dl, your comment does not apply as this Nick Knight issue occurred before the retirement issues came to play

[Kim]

KP questionned somedodys ability to do their current job - in breach of his conditions of employment.

JA questionned somebodys reputation in a job they havent done for years - with no breach of contract as the ECB would have cleared the book.

Again, as with Swann on KP,its a media fuss about very little - JAs comments really dont desrve the hedalines they are getting,


Far more important to me is that Jimmy looks like an alien on the book's cover.

[OffStumpYorker]

KP questionned somedodys ability to do their current job - in breach of his coditions of employment.

JA questionned somebodys reputation in a job they havent done for years - with no breach of contract as the ECB would have cleared the book.

Again, as with Swann on KP,its a media fuss about very little - JAs comments really dont desrve the hedalines they are getting,


Far more important to me is that Jimy looks like an alien on the books cover.

This is why current players releasing biographies while they are still playing is a bad Idea, I also agree with Kim, in that JA's remarks are probably less than a page of text and this is the problem with serialisation of books in newspapers they look for the controversial aspects over and above the actual context. Before making a judgement on this maybe everyone whos commenting should read the relevant pages in Swann and Jimmys books and then make a judgement on the context.

People also need to understand that most of Vaughan's success and tactical ability was down to Fletcher, and anyone who had read Steve James 'The Plan' would realise that fletcher was the driving force behind the tactics used by Vaughan on the field.

It this was any other thread than a KP one then this wouldnt have had as much mileage and I go back to a point that I've made many times before, One Man doesnt make a team successful, the collective aim of that team makes them a success. Reading comments on here Anyone would think that the England cricket team will collapse in a heap if KP doesnt play for england.

[sussexpob]

KP questionned somedodys ability to do their current job - in breach of his coditions of employment.

JA questionned somebodys reputation in a job they havent done for years - with no breach of contract as the ECB would have cleared the book.

Again, as with Swann on KP,its a media fuss about very little - JAs comments really dont desrve the hedalines they are getting,


Far more important to me is that Jimy looks like an alien on the books cover.

From Andrew Strauss commenting on KP's fine....

That's the way of the world," he said. "If you sign an England contract you can have opinions on certain things but can't say them publicly. That's the way it is and there are good reasons for that. Any employer would expect their employees to be aware of sensitive issues for their employers. This is an issue between the board and Kevin, more than the players. We've not been particularly involved with it. But you can understand that the board is concerned with making sure their broadcasters are looked after."

If this is about Broadcasters being looked after, then Vaughan is indeed a broadcaster, so there is no difference...

OSY, again you ignore the point. It is not about how offensive Anderson's words are, it is about how differing proceedures are in place depending on who says them.

[Kim]

What comments did Anderson make on MPVs broadcastng abilities?

[greyblazer]

If that is the case then why all the fuss about KP sending those texts? Last I heard KP didn't give tips to Saff players about going around the wicket to AS. So what is left? he may have said that AS is a dumb captain. If Swann can get away by publicly criticising his own teammates in his book then KP too should have.

[sussexpob]

What comments did Anderson make on MPVs broadcastng abilities?

On that inference I could assume then that it is acceptable to call Michael Vaughan a dim witted Sh*thead who couldnt bat for toffee when he was your captain, but to say that you were at home with an injury one match listening to Test match special and didnt like his commentary you would me marched into the office for a fine and dressing down.

Stop being purposefully obtuse, Kim. You know full well what I am getting it!

[OffStumpYorker]

KP questionned somedodys ability to do their current job - in breach of his coditions of employment.

JA questionned somebodys reputation in a job they havent done for years - with no breach of contract as the ECB would have cleared the book.

Again, as with Swann on KP,its a media fuss about very little - JAs comments really dont desrve the hedalines they are getting,


Far more important to me is that Jimy looks like an alien on the books cover.

From Andrew Strauss commenting on KP's fine....

That's the way of the world," he said. "If you sign an England contract you can have opinions on certain things but can't say them publicly. That's the way it is and there are good reasons for that. Any employer would expect their employees to be aware of sensitive issues for their employers. This is an issue between the board and Kevin, more than the players. We've not been particularly involved with it. But you can understand that the board is concerned with making sure their broadcasters are looked after."

If this is about Broadcasters being looked after, then Vaughan is indeed a broadcaster, so there is no difference...

OSY, again you ignore the point. It is not about how offensive Anderson's words are, it is about how differing proceedures are in place depending on who says them.

What offensive words did anderson use did he call Vaughan an expletive, or just that he said that the public perception of Vaughan being a 'great' captain wasnt necessarily correct. Please explain why these comments can be classified as being Offensive?

As far as I can see he made some personal observations on how he felt as a player under Vaughan as a captain compared to how he felt he was treat by Nasser. I personally done see anything offensive about that if its a genuine opinion.

so I dont think I missef point sussex I think you have missed the point and are looking for justification for your own stance on KP and painting him as the victim when hes possible far from the case.

[OffStumpYorker]

If that is the case then why all the fuss about KP sending those texts? Last I heard KP didn't give tips to Saff players about going around the wicket to AS. So what is left? he may have said that AS is a dumb captain. If Swann can get away by publicly criticising his own teammates in his book then KP too should have.

What KP did was not public though in regards to the texts, however they became public, although theres doubt about thier actual content, as they've most likely been deleted, so a lot of supposition exists. but the prime issue is that one was done publically, and to be totally honest Swanns comments on KP where more about the tension between the various factions one behind the skipper and one behind the coach.

Again Jimmy Andersons comments are innocuous and as a person whos played under 5 skippers he is well placed to make comparissions between them and the way that he was handled by them all, So please tell my why the remarks that JA made are supposed to be so inflamatory?

[shankycricket]

As always, there is this pedantry when it comes to KP. KP haters trying to find minor differences between the two cases and making it out that one is acceptable but not the other. The same old story!