The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[mikesiva]

Meh, As i've said people can take umbrage if they so please I really dont care, I'm never likely to meet them or exchange christmas cards with them, or be invited to thier house, so it matters little what people think of me and I will continue expressing my opinions whether people like them or not.

I beg to differ...I'd love to meet up with other messageboarders over drinks, maybe around Christmas, and somewhere like around then, and as you're a London resident like me, who knows?

Now that I've finally got around to meeting Red, BN and FTS, I like them so much that I find it hard to disagree with them on CMS!

It was so much easier to argue with them when they were faceless messageboarders....

D/L, there's an article from the Telegraph that's a few pages earlier which talks about the strong grounds KP had to sue the ECB if he wasn't offered a central contract. I'll bump it up again, if you can't find it.

In essence, the WICB lost their cases against Sarwan, Simmons and now Deonarine because they dropped them from a central contract without following their own procedures laid out in their contracts. I believe the issue is that the ECB contracts stipulate maintaining certain cricket standards to have a contract renewed, while the issue with KP is a disciplinary matter, and as such, because KP has worked more than 12 months on a contract, according to UK law, he now has the same rights as a permanent employee.

[KipperJohn]

Hi all from the sunny Algarve.

Contracts have always been Interesting legal issues. Without having the neccessary info it's impossible to make some form of reasonable judgement. However, IF KP's central contract has expired (do they last for one year - are there 'rollover' clauses?) and IF it is in the gift of the ECB as to whether to award hin another one then he could hardly sue for breach of contract.

He was presumably contracted to play limited overs cricket for England but decided to resign from doing so (hence the title of this thread) - didn't hear that that was a breach of contract by him.

No doubt the lawyers are making a mint out of this!

[D/L]

...D/L, there's an article from the Telegraph that's a few pages earlier which talks about the strong grounds KP had to sue the ECB if he wasn't offered a central contract. I'll bump it up again, if you can't find it...

Don't bother, Mike. I think that was written by someone called Hoult who has already shown he is a complete buffoon when it comes to legal matters.

[D/L]

It’s hugely amusing to see opinions on the level of contrition Pietersen is being asked to show from people who can have no real idea of the nature of his offence.

Indeed, which quite equally applies to both people who think he should and should not come back.

Of course if the people who are in the best position to say whether he should be back in the team or not make a decision then everyone will be happy to accept their decision.

Of course, nobody not directly involved can have the complete picture, but it seems that Pietersen’s apologists are the ones who have the less complete one (or are in some form of denial).

The lack of any legal action from the Pietersen camp against the reportage would suggest little exaggeration of the nature of his transgressions, i.e. sneaky and nasty.

[Making_Splinters]

It’s hugely amusing to see opinions on the level of contrition Pietersen is being asked to show from people who can have no real idea of the nature of his offence.

Indeed, which quite equally applies to both people who think he should and should not come back.

Of course if the people who are in the best position to say whether he should be back in the team or not make a decision then everyone will be happy to accept their decision.

Of course, nobody not directly involved can have the complete picture, but it seems that Pietersen’s apologists are the ones who have the less complete one (or are in some form of denial).

The lack of any legal action from the Pietersen camp against the reportage would suggest little exaggeration of the nature of his transgressions, i.e. sneaky and nasty.

It seems everyone is opperating with exact same amount of actual information, D/L.

Of course the key point was actually the people who have the most complete picture will be making decisions so regardless of how they turn out they will be made from a significantly more informed view point than any on here.

[D/L]

It’s hugely amusing to see opinions on the level of contrition Pietersen is being asked to show from people who can have no real idea of the nature of his offence.

Indeed, which quite equally applies to both people who think he should and should not come back.

Of course if the people who are in the best position to say whether he should be back in the team or not make a decision then everyone will be happy to accept their decision.

Of course, nobody not directly involved can have the complete picture, but it seems that Pietersen’s apologists are the ones who have the less complete one (or are in some form of denial).

The lack of any legal action from the Pietersen camp against the reportage would suggest little exaggeration of the nature of his transgressions, i.e. sneaky and nasty.

It seems everyone is opperating with exact same amount of actual information, D/L.

Of course the key point was actually the people who have the most complete picture will be making decisions so regardless of how they turn out they will be made from a significantly more informed view point than any on here.

No doubt, M_S, but what exactly will more inform that point of view; principle or expedience?

[rich1uk]

both i would hope

if what he has done was indeed serious enough to exclude him permanently then i dont doubt given how the ECB have dealt with this so far that they wouldn't hesitate to do so

however if it is something that can be managed i hope they recognise we are a stronger side with him in it

[Making_Splinters]

It’s hugely amusing to see opinions on the level of contrition Pietersen is being asked to show from people who can have no real idea of the nature of his offence.

Indeed, which quite equally applies to both people who think he should and should not come back.

Of course if the people who are in the best position to say whether he should be back in the team or not make a decision then everyone will be happy to accept their decision.

Of course, nobody not directly involved can have the complete picture, but it seems that Pietersen’s apologists are the ones who have the less complete one (or are in some form of denial).

The lack of any legal action from the Pietersen camp against the reportage would suggest little exaggeration of the nature of his transgressions, i.e. sneaky and nasty.

It seems everyone is opperating with exact same amount of actual information, D/L.

Of course the key point was actually the people who have the most complete picture will be making decisions so regardless of how they turn out they will be made from a significantly more informed view point than any on here.

No doubt, M_S, but what exactly will more inform that point of view; principle or expedience?

Well it is difficult to say whether or not the ECB will be bowing to either master with out being in possession of all the information that they hold, D/L. I'm sure some will say that the ECB will be abandoning their previous standpoint if KP comes back but at the same time it isn't actually possible to know if that is the case.

[D/L]

I would hope that expedience wouldn’t inform the decision. For expedience, one can read short-term advantage at the expense of long-term gain and the sacrifice of principle.

[rich1uk]

I would hope that expedience wouldn’t inform the decision. For expedience, one can read short-term advantage at the expense of long-term gain and the sacrifice of principle.

if they were going to do that they wouldn't have dropped him for arguably the most important test we have played for the last couple of years, especially given the form he was in, or exclude him from selection for the defence of the t20 world cup

[yorker_129-7]

Isn't this just England crickets version of the ' Parable of the Prodigal Son'.

In terms of farce, more like “The Return of the Pink Panther”.

"KP you fool"

[KipperJohn]

Anyone ever thought that communicating with your opponent as to how to get a team mate out is pretty close to trying to influence the outcome of the game (no matter in what context the text might have been sent or what the intention really was).

We are told time and again that the players are advised about how they must conduct themeslves vis-a-vis those who are around the game and want to corrupt it.

I posted before that the anti-corruption unit should have been involved somewhere along the line in all this, otherwise their existence is meaningless.

I'm not saying KP was corrupt - but he laid himself wide open to it.

[rich1uk]

Anyone ever thought that communicating with your opponent as to how to get a team mate out is pretty close to trying to influence the outcome of the game (no matter in what context the text might have been sent or what the intention really was).

We are told time and again that the players are advised about how they must conduct themeslves vis-a-vis those who are around the game and want to corrupt it.

I posted before that the anti-corruption unit should have been involved somewhere along the line in all this, otherwise their existence is meaningless.

I'm not saying KP was corrupt - but he laid himself wide open to it.

the daily mail admitted ages ago that he didn't do that and they were incorrect in alleging he had

[greyblazer]

Anyone ever thought that communicating with your opponent as to how to get a team mate out is pretty close to trying to influence the outcome of the game (no matter in what context the text might have been sent or what the intention really was).

We are told time and again that the players are advised about how they must conduct themeslves vis-a-vis those who are around the game and want to corrupt it.

I posted before that the anti-corruption unit should have been involved somewhere along the line in all this, otherwise their existence is meaningless.

I'm not saying KP was corrupt - but he laid himself wide open to it.

the daily mail admitted ages ago that he didn't do that and they were incorrect in alleging he had

Yeah daily fail did admit that they were wrong.

"As Sportsmail explained on Monday, Pietersen did not, for example, tell South Africa's bowlers in the texts to go round the wicket"

KP himself has categorically stated that at no point of time did he give any tips on how to get Strauss out. I can tell you, even a fool won't tell the Saffa bowlers especially Morkel to go around the wicket, as it is a tactic which they have employed time and again with success. In the 2004/05 series in SA, Strauss scored heavily against them, but after that series, everytime SA have played against England, they have employed around the wicket tactic to Strauss.

Ah, even I told that before the series on my blog which in itself tells you everyone knows it The work of some naughty journalist, who picked it up from somewhere on the internet and published it. A few people still seem to believe what daily fail said though.

[hopeforthebest]

Anyone ever thought that communicating with your opponent as to how to get a team mate out is pretty close to trying to influence the outcome of the game (no matter in what context the text might have been sent or what the intention really was).

We are told time and again that the players are advised about how they must conduct themeslves vis-a-vis those who are around the game and want to corrupt it.

I posted before that the anti-corruption unit should have been involved somewhere along the line in all this, otherwise their existence is meaningless.

I'm not saying KP was corrupt - but he laid himself wide open to it.

the daily mail admitted ages ago that he didn't do that and they were incorrect in alleging he had

Yeah daily fail did admit that they were wrong.

"As Sportsmail explained on Monday, Pietersen did not, for example, tell South Africa's bowlers in the texts to go round the wicket"

KP himself has categorically stated that at no point of time did he give any tips on how to get Strauss out. I can tell you, even a fool won't tell the Saffa bowlers especially Morkel to go around the wicket, as it is a tactic which they have employed time and again with success. In the 2004/05 series in SA, Strauss scored heavily against them, but after that series, everytime SA have played against England, they have employed around the wicket tactic to Strauss.

Ah, even I told that before the series on my blog which in itself tells you everyone knows it The work of some naughty journalist, who picked it up from somewhere on the internet and published it. A few people still seem to believe what daily fail said though.

As far as I'm aware KP hasn't made any such statement, his agent has been handling everything and the media have been printing things.