The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[Arthur Crabtree]

Slotting KP straight back in for Bell, who has done well, just sends a horrifically wrong message IMO.

Fair enough. He can wait for a spot. Maybe when one of the others needs resting...

[shankycricket]

The one thing I can 100% agree with KP on is this:

"OK, the ECB may say me playing in the IPL makes it hard to rest me but what annoys me is that, with every other board the IPL is a matter of fact. It's not going away.

Very true, but the truth is KP had a chance to rest during the IPL and chose not to, he was als scheduled to miss the WI's ODI series anyway.

In the end it looks like its turned out ok, Bell has come back and is putting together decent scores at a reasonable rate, so the question is do England really miss KP to the extent he can hold them to ransom? The answer is almost an emphatic no.

At the end of the day the other big boards have gotten used to the IPL and just get on with it now, England are the only ones who seem to be still trying to drag it in to discussion rather than accepting it's there. The IPL isn't going away as KP says so England really do need to get used to the idea and get on with the game.

I wouldn't have KP back in the ODI side untill he has proven himself in both county and Test cricket and furthermore untill another player deserves dropping.

I do however hope as previously mentioned in this thread that the ECB do away with the requirement to play both or none when they review the central contracts come the close of the summer, that's not to get KP back in the T20 side but to remove a competely useless bit of red tape that will see our player retiring sooner than they would otherwise as Swann has already hinted that he is going to be doing.

[shankycricket]

At the end of the day, you dont want to tell a player, no matter how well you do, if X is back from retirement he will get that spot automatically. Thats ludicrous. Particularly when KP said that he will return to ODIs only if "there is a change to the punishing schedule". A player has to make himself available unconditionally. The FTP is already set in stone and they are not going to change it because of one player. So the schedule will continue to remain the same. So what he is basically saying that he should be allowed to pick and choose his ODI series. Now that should not be allowed. People will compare it to the SRT scenario but you have to got to remember that he is 39 years old and he has never "demanded" rest. There is mutual understanding between him and the selectors. That is not the case here and KP's decision to retire because he was not rested will not have gone down too well with the selectors.

[OffStumpYorker]

The one thing I can 100% agree with KP on is this:

"OK, the ECB may say me playing in the IPL makes it hard to rest me but what annoys me is that, with every other board the IPL is a matter of fact. It's not going away.

Very true, but the truth is KP had a chance to rest during the IPL and chose not to, he was als scheduled to miss the WI's ODI series anyway.

In the end it looks like its turned out ok, Bell has come back and is putting together decent scores at a reasonable rate, so the question is do England really miss KP to the extent he can hold them to ransom? The answer is almost an emphatic no.

At the end of the day the other big boards have gotten used to the IPL and just get on with it now, England are the only ones who seem to be still trying to drag it in to discussion rather than accepting it's there. The IPL isn't going away as KP says so England really do need to get used to the idea and get on with the game.

I wouldn't have KP back in the ODI side untill he has proven himself in both county and Test cricket and furthermore untill another player deserves dropping.

I do however hope as previously mentioned in this thread that the ECB do away with the requirement to play both or none when they review the central contracts come the close of the summer, that's not to get KP back in the T20 side but to remove a competely useless bit of red tape that will see our player retiring sooner than they would otherwise as Swann has already hinted that he is going to be doing.

The only boards that are really impacted by the IPL at the moment is the ECB and WICB, the reason for this is that the IPL is at the END of the southern hemisphere's summer, so unless a team is touring the WI's or England they are not impacted as much as these two boards.

The point about the ECB making allowances for the IPL is totally wrong, its an INDIAN domestic tournament, the fact that England players make themselves available to play in it, during thier 'rest' period between Winter and Summer is not the ECB's problem its a problem for the players concerned. ECB does schedule decent rest periods for players, but they happen to be at a time when the IPL is on or other T20 leagues, due entirely to the fact the IPL is on between the Winter and Summer season for English players.

The best example of this is me taking 3 weeks off from my job then doing a contract during those 3 weeks for another employer, then havign the audacity of moaning about being too knackered when I return to my regular job.

As for the point about the dual 50 and T20 games clause, I cant see it being relaxed, unless they decide to issue a graduated pay scale, based on the matches played. Such that each format a player is avaialble for is worth a percentage of the total contract, eg 15% for T20, 25% for ODI's and 60% for tests, such that a Player who drops ODI's loses 25% of his contract value, etc.

[Kim]

I think KP is talking BS tbh. Might come back if we alter central contracts, change the international schedule and create an IPL window which alters both the international and domestic schedule? And we should do this for a bloke who has been trying to find a way to give up ODis - but keep his central contact money- for about 2 years just because he hasnt 100% got his way?

No thanks.

[Making_Splinters]

The IPL is the ECBs problem, if they want to say it isn't then they should remove all control they have over their players playing in it which is where your analogy and almost everything else people tend to write on this falls down.

As for the contracts, I see no real reason why they can't just band them seeing as they do that anyway to a large degree.

[OffStumpYorker]

The IPL is the ECBs problem, if they want to say it isn't then they should remove all control they have over their players playing in it which is where your analogy and almost everything else people tend to write on this falls down.

MS, the ECB dont restrict players from going to the IPL, so its down to the players won time management, the only time the ECB can step in is if a specific player is injured and under a central contract. Even then the IPL team can request an independant medical to validate the players fitness.

[Making_Splinters]

The ECB have to give the all clear for any centrally contracted player to play in the IPL they can also choose to call them back when ever they want, we have seen other boards step in and say what a player can or can not do such as CA saying Watson could only play as a batsman in the past or SCA saying that Vernon could only play two out of three games for Somerset earlier this season.

You can't have all that power then try and shirk off any responsibility for the outcome, it's down to both parties not just the player and while I might not agree with the personalised sentiment KP attached to pointing that out I do agree with the overall message.

Should England do well in the World Cup in Sri Lanka we'll likely see more of our players starting to get through the auction.

[meninblue]

At times decisions have to be taken which benefit the team, rather than the individuals. There will be exceptions but the way ECB handled a player of KP's quality in this case gives a strong signal to other players. I wondered if England would suffer without KP, however, England have won both the ODI's with enough control .

[Making_Splinters]

And what would that signal be I wonder?

You have to consider that quite a large number of our international players have tried to play in the IPL over the years though only a small number have been successful, something I expect will change if England have a strong World Cup in Sri Lanka. No ECB stance is going to stop players wanting to play in the IPL so what is the signal supposed to be, play in it and accept you may be cutting your international career short? Not entirely sure how that benefits the team.

I said in the past that I would not want any exception made for a single player - despite the ECB doing just that in the recent past - as no player is bigger than the team, but equally I don't think the ECB should be ignoring its responcibilities as a board and simply saying "Oh it was your choice".

[meninblue]

The signal is you cannot play the domestic IPL and then ask rest for your country's international tour immediately following the IPL.

[Making_Splinters]

Hardly Adi since the ECB were going to rest KP for part of the Windies ODIs.

And if that is the supposed signal then it is nothing more than a demonstration of the ECB shirking their duties: They were complicit in allowing a player to play in a foriegn competition and as such they should also be prepared to plan for how the additional work load can be managed both abroad and at home. If they are not prepared to do this then they should either refuse to allow any player to play overseas like the BCCi does or they should not limit the cricket any player plays at all including during the home season.

[Alviro Patterson]

At the end of the day the other big boards have gotten used to the IPL and just get on with it now, England are the only ones who seem to be still trying to drag it in to discussion rather than accepting it's there. The IPL isn't going away as KP says so England really do need to get used to the idea and get on with the game.

I wouldn't have KP back in the ODI side untill he has proven himself in both county and Test cricket and furthermore untill another player deserves dropping.

I do however hope as previously mentioned in this thread that the ECB do away with the requirement to play both or none when they review the central contracts come the close of the summer, that's not to get KP back in the T20 side but to remove a competely useless bit of red tape that will see our player retiring sooner than they would otherwise as Swann has already hinted that he is going to be doing.

IPL is conveniently scheduled for other major cricket boards as their cricket season is predominantly between October and March, only ECB has a cricket season running between April and September. It may be inconvenient for test nations touring England in May when their star players are playing IPL but ECB have to got fit 7 tests, 10 ODIs and 2 T20Is and there isn't the timescale to start international cricket in June.

No chance ECB will allow players to pick and choose which limited overs format to play, it only weakens the ODI side and decreases chances of England winning the 2015 World Cup.

[Making_Splinters]

I don't believe I mentioned making a window for the IPL, I said that if the ECB are going to let players play then they have to be responcible when it comes to the blatently obvious effects that it will have on their fitness for the rest of the English summer.

And I don't quite see how letting players play either limited overs format weakens the ODI team, if we look around the world players tend to retire from T20 rather than ODIs - Strauss, Clarke, Tendulkar and Ponting. In fact given the none too subtle noises Swann has been making the current set up will weaken us for the 2015 World Cup by causing players to retire wholesale early.

[shankycricket]

I simply do not understand why the ECB should make any special "rest" allowances in international cricket for any player just because they play a DOMESTIC tournament in ANOTHER country.