The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[Aidan11]

Ha, ha, ha. Keep it coming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/se ... en-cricket

I'm not convinced about that article. If KP gets the nod I'm sure we'll get Lawrence Booth trying to get some more dirt for his vile rag The Daily Fail.

[D/L]

There is speculation and there is inference and interpretation, essentially very similar in meaning, but with different emphases on credibility, I suppose.

I’ve yet to see a more credible interpretation of Pietersen’s denial than the one I’ve put forward.

Any road up, if there really could be no offence construed from these texts then, yes, it is perfectly possible to say they contained nothing offensive and, surely, Pietersen would have done so.

Which comes back to the context and the original intent doesn't it D/L, something that you've decided is a distraction when it is clearly actually the central point.

Seeing as you're essentially doing nothing but deciding for yourself how things happened then making an inferance upon that then for someone who doesn't actually agree with your "interpetation" then it holds no more credibility than anything else. At the end of the day whether you want to present your inferance as credible it doesn't matter does it, seeing as no one actually knows the content of the messages or even the question that was asked of KP then you're left with nothing more than arguments that hold up based on internal consistancy.

We can be reasonably sure that, during a meeting, the ECB confronted Pietersen with information they had received that he, Pietersen, had sent texts to the South African camp, the nature of which could be regarded as offensive to people in the England camp.

It would seem a waste of effort to continue the debate with anyone who would dispute that.

How is that deciding for oneself how things happened, as though without reference to what is known?

It holds much credibility to infer that Pietersen’s denial was due to his knowledge of the nature of texts and how closely that tallied with the description put to him. It is certainly more credible than a repeated reference to people holding that view not having been present at the meeting, somehow invalidating any conclusions drawn.

I repeat the question. What more convincing theory of the reason for Pietersen’s denial could there be?

[Aidan11]

I think there's more chance of Strauss coming back than KP now.

[D/L]

The truth as I see it is the ECB, probably rightly had to act with a heavy hand to quell the danger of the IPL vs England team commitments, but it seems they jumped full barrel at any opportunity to isolate the player, then used his career as the hangman's noose around his neck to make him jump himself and justify their actions.Its clear to see, whatever you stance, that the bargaining position is with the ECB also.

Thats what pissed me off most about the whole issue, the fact that I believe strongly that the ECB have thrown their weight behind bad or incomplete hearsay evidence and are using a persons career as leverage over the actual truth or resolution... its simply got to the point where the truth doesnt matter anymore, more about being proved right without regard to the team.

This post has such a wonderful clarity about the affair that it is a shame that the ECB will never see it. The most relevant comment I've seen on the subject, anywhere!

A wonderful clarity or does it just fit a shared conspiracy theory?

[hopeforthebest]

The truth as I see it is the ECB, probably rightly had to act with a heavy hand to quell the danger of the IPL vs England team commitments, but it seems they jumped full barrel at any opportunity to isolate the player, then used his career as the hangman's noose around his neck to make him jump himself and justify their actions.Its clear to see, whatever you stance, that the bargaining position is with the ECB also.

Thats what pissed me off most about the whole issue, the fact that I believe strongly that the ECB have thrown their weight behind bad or incomplete hearsay evidence and are using a persons career as leverage over the actual truth or resolution... its simply got to the point where the truth doesnt matter anymore, more about being proved right without regard to the team.

This post has such a wonderful clarity about the affair that it is a shame that the ECB will never see it. The most relevant comment I've seen on the subject, anywhere!

And why wouldn't the ECB finlly fed up with KP. Just list his behaviour in recent years:

His attempted coup to get Moores and Flower out of their jobs.
His moaning in the 2009 tour of WI that he was homesick
Going to the 2009 IPL and ends up unfit to play the full 2009 ashes
His Tweeting a foulmouthed message when not in the ODI squad to play Pakistan in 2010
His moaning in Oz that the WAGS should be brought out earlier.
His refusal to play the final ODI v India because of a groin strain which the team doctor said was manageable.
Then add on all he's been up to this year.

If you had such an employee you would want cast iron proof that things would be different in the future before re-employing him.

[Making_Splinters]

Dispute? I've repeatedly pointed out that the context is the key issue haven't I D/L.

When asked a question of whether or not something could be considered offensive by a second person out of the original context then regardless of the original intention the answer is almost always going to be yes.

Everyone can quite easily come up with a plethora of words that are either common place or highly offensive depending on context, if you remove the context and ask could this words use be offensive then it is just a rhetorical question at the end of the day.

You've decided that the actual intent of what ever was said is irrelevent and are therefore holding your own arguments together based on that internal consistancy, that doesn't make them credible. As someone who views anything taken out of context as holding no real meaning and the important issue is always the intent and situational delivery then your decision that the inability to deny something might be offensive is somehow important as rather empty to be honest.

There seems to be a very simple issue that I don't think your point is actually very important and you don't think mine is either, since neither of us actually knows what was said then and we're both basing things on nothing but speculation we're not going to be able to go much further than that.

[D/L]

...You've decided that the actual intent of what ever was said is irrelevent and are therefore holding your own arguments together based on that internal consistancy, that doesn't make them credible. As someone who views anything taken out of context as holding no real meaning and the important issue is always the intent and situational delivery then your decision that the inability to deny something might be offensive is somehow important as rather empty to be honest...

Not so. I said that the main significance was in the denial, not that the intent was irrelevant, so you are also wide of the mark in your extrapolation of that point.

Any chance, for the third time of asking, of a more convincing theory of the reason for Pietersen’s denial, other than he may have been worried it may have been revealed as false, by the way?

[Making_Splinters]

The issue has already been dealt with numerous times, D/L.

For the third or whatever number you want to assign to it the answer is pretty simple: When asked if something deviod of context could be offensive to another party then the answer will almost always be yes. It would be impossible to say anything else and admitting such an obvious idea would be hanging oneself in the circumstance.

Whether or not the comments were meant in an offensive manner was not actually the question asked despite it being the salient one.

If you ask a pointless question you will always get a pointless answer.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Funny isnt ithow people see things differently,? I think its a speculative pile of, Ill say tosh that bears no relation to reality and to the actual events that happened.

Ah well. Agree to differ etc,,,

maybe it just clarifies my opinion wonderfully....

[hopeforthebest]

Whether or not the comments were meant in an offensive manner was not actually the question asked despite it being the salient one.
----------------------------
He was asked if he made 'derogatory' texts and his agent admitted on his behalf that 'provocative' texts were sent. So the queation was asked.' I think is reasonable to equate 'derogatory' with the word offensive.

[D/L]

The issue has already been dealt with numerous times, D/L.

For the third or whatever number you want to assign to it the answer is pretty simple: When asked if something deviod of context could be offensive to another party then the answer will almost always be yes. It would be impossible to say anything else and admitting such an obvious idea would be hanging oneself in the circumstance.

Whether or not the comments were meant in an offensive manner was not actually the question asked despite it being the salient one.

If you ask a pointless question you will always get a pointless answer.

“Avoided” seems more apposite than “dealt with”, M_S.

It’s OK. Many will understand any failure to put forward a credible alternative theory for the reason for Pietersen’s denial.

[m@tt]

D/L,

Could you please tell me your interpretation of the two below statements in reference to the light they are in(by the way, the media stories you find these in universally pick up my understanding):

1. ‘The only route back for Kevin is reconciliation,’ said an ECB source. ‘He has to put his hands up and say, “Sorry guys, I sent the texts, but it was in the heat of the moment”. The sanctity of that dressing room is so strong that the apology would have to be made publicly.’

Just as a note, this statement was leaked to the press within 48 hours of the T20 squad being picked, and Flower and KP had already scheduled to meet on the Saturday the squad was selected to talk through the text issues.... clearly a call for KP to admit and be considered, or face a continued dropping.

With regard to this quote, the element that stands out is that this is for the T20 squad. The squad was announced on 21st August.

The whole silly saga started on 6th August, at the end of the second Test. Meetings and discussions took place. Pietersen was given the opportunity to deny or clarify the whole thing. He did not. So by 12th, England got fed up of not getting any answers and dropped him from the Test side.

Now the T20 announcement and the quote you have came out over 9 days later. I think it's fair game for England, at this point, to assume that the lack of denial suggests guilt and therefore, in order for him to get back in the dressing room where he belongs, an apology is needed.

And I think what the ECB source says is very reasonable. It's not asking for grovelling or to announce his undying love for Strauss, Flower and ECB men.

[Making_Splinters]

The issue has already been dealt with numerous times, D/L.

For the third or whatever number you want to assign to it the answer is pretty simple: When asked if something deviod of context could be offensive to another party then the answer will almost always be yes. It would be impossible to say anything else and admitting such an obvious idea would be hanging oneself in the circumstance.

Whether or not the comments were meant in an offensive manner was not actually the question asked despite it being the salient one.

If you ask a pointless question you will always get a pointless answer.

“Avoided” seems more apposite than “dealt with”, M_S.

It’s OK. Many will understand any failure to put forward a credible alternative theory for the reason for Pietersen’s denial.

Perhaps you can explain why that is not credible D/L, just to illustrate your own denial seeing as you seem to take such a strong position on the term.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Interesting, quite different way of looking at the KP Conspiracy.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 79767.html

[braveneutral]

First off, my apologies to braveneutral and AC for failing to recognise an irony - must be a moral there somewhere. Must read and digest more thoroughly perhaps.

As for the texts issue, it really has served to cloud what this thread was originally about.

Personally I think the issues need treating separately.

Kind regards to all.

No problem!