Kevin Pietersen: A Great England Cricketer.

[Making_Splinters]

As I've said, Arthur, I'm not just focusing on the 80s but also the 90s which were arguably a tougher time for batsmen with a wider distrubution of quality bowlers.

To me a great player is one who is a long way above their peers, for example Bradman was not great because of 99 but because how much better that was than anyone else around him. Can the same be said of KP? He's played innings which no other England cricketer of his time can come close to, but holistically he's not streets ahead of either Bell or Cook.

[Arthur Crabtree]

All the best bats average 50-55. The bowlers 20-25. No one stands out.

There are innovators, like the the pioneers of the doosra, reverse swing... which I touched on at the beginning, with KP's switch hit. In a small way he figures on that map.

[D/L]

KP - IMO a very good cricketer, but not a great

I was careful not to overstate. Seeing as KP retires with an average only Boycott can match since Barrington, (that's 50 years) and with the second most tons ever, and one of our highest ever run scorers, surely he is an England great?...

No, he's not. I would go back to the point about it being so much easier for batsmen to score runs in the modern era and scoring many runs is also a consequence of playing many innings.

[budgetmeansbudget]

Probably in the top ten of the greatest egos ever to play cricket alongside the likes of Boycott, Botham and WG Grace.

[Gingerfinch]

Is it easier now? Debatable.

I will agree with ms, in that the 90's (and early 00's) was a harder era to bat, thanks to the great bowlers that were around, but their were only two good teams up until the 1950's, maybe longer. Nowadays players have to show their skill against different type's of bowling on different types of wickets.

I would say it's probably about equal. I remember a poster on the old 606, called hoggy_bear, who gave a good argument on this.

[D/L]

Is it easier now? Debatable.

I will agree with ms, in that the 90's (and early 00's) was a harder era to bat, thanks to the great bowlers that were around, but their were only two good teams up until the 1950's, maybe longer. Nowadays players have to show their skill against different type's of bowling on different types of wickets.

I would say it's probably about equal. I remember a poster on the old 606, called hoggy_bear, who gave a good argument on this.

It should be obvious that head protection, bats that are nearly all "middle" and limits on short-pitched bowling are fundamental (literally, game changing) changes that have made batsmanship much less difficult in modern times.

None of the 12 England batsmen higher than Pietersen in the test averages had those advantages. Perhaps, statistically at least, an argument could be made for his being the best of the modern era, but many would dispute even that.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Is it easier now? Debatable.

I looked this up before, and the fifties and the noughties showed spikes in run per wickets. So you could guess from that that batting either got easier then, for whatever reason, or there was a glut of better batters.

It doesn't really make any sense to suggest batters should be worse now. Preparation is more forensic now, and it is hard to imagine that amateurs could hold their own in the modern game, as they once did. Admittedly a level of bravery has been taken away, but I think that has really benefitted tail enders. Pretty much every era has found its best batters averaging between 45-55. The rest, like Bradman, or Headley, are freakish one offs. The bowlers are fitter, and have a greater number of variations. An old ball is more useful now in the hands of a fast bowler than it was in the seventies.

I wonder if we undervalue players now because we see more tools to evaluate them. We never used to spot the days when, say Michael Holding lost pace, because we didn't see a speedgun. We didn't see a pitch map, etc. There are wonderful bowlers around. Steyn, Philander, Harris, and Asif certainly was, until his ban. Bowlers being allowed to throw has also added another challenge for modern batters. Ground fielders are much better. As I said earlier, stats suggest the changes balance out.

[meninblue]

Batting has got easier on covered wickets but the bowlers are better now.Imagine what Steyn /Kumble/Murali/Bond/Mcgrath/Ambrose/Warne etc would have done had they bowled on those uncovered wickets.The strike rate of this era bowlers who bowl on covered wickets, against batsman with all available protection , and restrictions of body line ,bouncers etc is better than bowlers who bowled on uncovered wickets.Also the fielding nowadays is so high quality compared with yester years.I watched some highlights and a fielder runs behind ball as if he is just escorting it to the ropes.They took all the time in world to chase the ball .Hardly few took diving catches.Nowadays batsmen have to toil for runs considering the vast improvement in fielding standards.There were some easy as well as tough runs for batters in that era and there are some easy runs as well as tough runs for batters in this era as well.Then that time there was no time limit for tests innings, nowadays batters have to declare even if opponents look clueless about how to get them out.it can be debated any ways depending on whom you want to defend.

[KipperJohn]

Well, I can just about go back probably as far as Hutton, Compton, May, Dexter, Cowdrey, Barrington, Graveney, etc but it's very difficult with all the caveats, not to mention rose-coloured spectacles. Unless you were extremely lucky, you didn't get to see them much either as one does with the tv/media coverage now available - you certainly didn't get all the analysis of technique, dismissals etc. Reliance on fading memory and stats and a perception of what cricket standards were like then compared to now is pretty crude really.
What can be said is that statistically, Cook and KP's batting records are outstanding as far as the English record books are concerned.
I presume, in the end, it's results and the scorebook that actually count the most.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Pietersen's relationship with the UK has been as controversial as the merits of his international record. When KP answered to a forgotten question in a dining room queue in Australia, 'Don't ask me. I'm not English, I just play for them' was he brazenly and mockingly admitting his mercenary motives? Or was this classic English irony assimilated from his English mother?

As a UK citizen from birth it seems strange that Kevin should have to qualify for England. In fact he didn't really have to by ICC rules; the ECB just chooses to implement its own impediments. That Geoff Miller made a press announcement stating England would pick fewer overseas born players, while announcing the selection of Jade Dernbach and Stuart Meaker, suggested the ECB wanted this attractive talent, but resented the need. Later the ECB formalised this prejudice.

Pietersen seemed to have a good relationship with his team mates, who have lined up to defend his record in the dressing room. Steve Harmison reckoned there was some jealousy for his commercial deals and IPL contract. The mantra though seemed to be 'I didn't have a problem with him'. Except for the summer of 2012, when Kevin was placed under particular pressure from a campaign of ECB press leaks. And it has to be admitted that the English newspapers mostly hated KP with the passion of a wronged lover.

I was troubled by the attitude of the England fans to Pietersen. As he walked off the field after a hundred, the ground would stand up to applaud him to the pavilion. And Kevin would swing round to wave his bat to all of the crowd. It felt like a bond. But a fair degree of hate was spread thickly across the internet. We finally got some numbers on this with the many polls carried out to judge the public reaction to his sacking. 80% supported Pietersen. 20% didn't. What could be the problem? He was qualified for England and he scored record amounts of runs for them. Why the bother?

My view is that some of the reaction was the result of the modern UK cultural cringe. A lack of national confidence that leaves us constantly searching for approval as a nation. This is frequently seen in the UK's ceaseless monitoring of whether the US is thinking about us. How English did Pietersen feel? Was he using us like a slapper exploiting an elderly millionaire? This lack of confidence seemed to account for the pockets of hostility in the ECB and the press, and meant he lacked support in places of influence.

So what was KP like? Of course, I don't know. He seemed polite in interviews, though slightly remote, keeping people at a distance with a little evasiveness. Unlike many stars, we have scant impression of his private life. He doesn't drink, and he is a dedicated practiser. He was said to be flash, but is that so bad for a young man with many opportunities before him? There are no press stories to suggest he misused his celebrity. He seemed to know his worth in pounds. Many said he was cocky, but I'm not sure he was, just confident in his ability, and imaginative in his batting. Assured, but introverted.

And now he's gone, and I can have a little peace from the clusters of hostility he provoked. But I'm sorry for how it ended. That we had to make it all so difficult. This unique sacking has disillusioned me a little, a ligature that has tied off my enthusiasm. But I made myself write these two posts, because I was always going to. When I enjoyed the good days, when they came about. it's a little sentimental but, y'know, I can only play one way.

[GGAS]

Pietersen's relationship with the UK has been as controversial as the merits of his international record. When KP answered to a forgotten question in a dining room queue in Australia, 'Don't ask me. I'm not English, I just play for them' was he brazenly and mockingly admitting his mercenary motives? Or was this classic English irony assimilated from his English mother?

As a UK citizen from birth it seems strange that Kevin should have to qualify for England. In fact he didn't really have to by ICC rules; the ECB just chooses to implement its own impediments. That Geoff Miller made a press announcement stating England would pick fewer overseas born players, while announcing the selection of Jade Dernbach and Stuart Meaker, suggested the ECB wanted this attractive talent, but resented the need. Later the ECB formalised this prejudice.

Pietersen seemed to have a good relationship with his team mates, who have lined up to defend his record in the dressing room. Steve Harmison reckoned there was some jealousy for his commercial deals and IPL contract. The mantra though seemed to be 'I didn't have a problem with him'. Except for the summer of 2012, when Kevin was placed under particular pressure from a campaign of ECB press leaks. And it has to be admitted that the English newspapers mostly hated KP with the passion of a wronged lover.

I was troubled by the attitude of the England fans to Pietersen. As he walked off the field after a hundred, the ground would stand up to applaud him to the pavilion. And Kevin would swing round to wave his bat to all of the crowd. It felt like a bond. But a fair degree of hate was spread thickly across the internet. We finally got some numbers on this with the many polls carried out to judge the public reaction to his sacking. 80% supported Pietersen. 20% didn't. What could be the problem? He was qualified for England and he scored record amounts of runs for them. Why the bother?

My view is that some of the reaction was the result of the modern UK cultural cringe. A lack of national confidence that leaves us constantly searching for approval as a nation. This is frequently seen in the UK's ceaseless monitoring of whether the US is thinking about us. How English did Pietersen feel? Was he using us like a slapper exploiting an elderly millionaire? This lack of confidence seemed to account for the pockets of hostility in the ECB and the press, and meant he lacked support in places of influence.

So what was KP like? Of course, I don't know. He seemed polite in interviews, though slightly remote, keeping people at a distance with a little evasiveness. Unlike many stars, we have scant impression of his private life. He doesn't drink, and he is a dedicated practiser. He was said to be flash, but is that so bad for a young man with many opportunities before him? There are no press stories to suggest he misused his celebrity. He seemed to know his worth in pounds. Many said he was cocky, but I'm not sure he was, just confident in his ability, and imaginative in his batting. Assured, but introverted.

And now he's gone, and I can have a little peace from the clusters of hostility he provoked. But I'm sorry for how it ended. That we had to make it all so difficult. This unique sacking has disillusioned me a little, a ligature that has tied off my enthusiasm. But I made myself write these two posts, because I was always going to. When I enjoyed the good days, when they came about. it's a little sentimental but, y'know, I can only play one way.

[D/L]

Nobody is saying that batsmen are “worse” now, but simply that their task is easier. With head protection, superior bats etc. in the modern era, this cannot be sensibly disputed.

Obviously, if it’s become easier for batsmen, the task for bowlers must have become more difficult, but where is the evidence for saying they are fitter and/or better now and have greater variation?

Ground fielding, if not catching, is generally better now than it used to be.

[D/L]

Pietersen's relationship with the UK has been as controversial as the merits of his international record. When KP answered to a forgotten question in a dining room queue in Australia, 'Don't ask me. I'm not English, I just play for them' was he brazenly and mockingly admitting his mercenary motives? Or was this classic English irony assimilated from his English mother?...

...And now he's gone, and I can have a little peace from the clusters of hostility he provoked. But I'm sorry for how it ended. That we had to make it all so difficult. This unique sacking has disillusioned me a little, a ligature that has tied off my enthusiasm. But I made myself write these two posts, because I was always going to. When I enjoyed the good days, when they came about. it's a little sentimental but, y'know, I can only play one way.

A well written eulogy, if a little fanciful in attributing blame to the media for disaffection towards Pietersen. Our own impressions could be formed from his words and his actions, on and off the field, and by the company he kept.

Many had him down as a “big head” and a non-team player at an early stage in his career. After the texts, a few other descriptions would have been added.

We need to be sceptical about the claimed 80/20 support against Pietersen’s sacking, as people are always more vociferous in protest than in support. The true figure may actually be close to the reverse.

[Albondiga]

Pietersen was a very good batsman BUT not a great one. Great batsmen can play slow left arm bowling.

[bigfluffylemon]

Well written, both articles, Arthur.

D/L, your abuse of KP is getting a little tiresome. We get it, you hate him.

Answer me this, though: if the task of batsmen is so much easier now, how come no-one has averaged over 50 for England since the 1950's? Has England really produced not a single batsman in 50 years as good as any they produced in the first half of the century? And if batting is so much easier now, how come the batting averages for teams have shown very little difference by decade? Statistically speaking the 1940s were the easiest era to bat in:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ;type=team

England has statistically been one of the harder places to bat since the war
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ;view=host

Yet KP averages over 50 in England in that time.

It seems hard to justify an assertion that on the field he is not one of England's finest batsmen since the war.