The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[Arthur Crabtree]

It depends on what your goal is Powelly. Is it to set a series of well defined rules to guide the behaviour of players for the benefit of the whole? Or is it to make allowances for particular stresses and needs of the individual, for the better benefit of the whole?

I think players who have contributed, and who have made the sacrifices, should have some reward. Most of us give more than is contracted in our work. If you went to your employer and they didn't return that goodwill, then you'd wonder at the unwritten part of your relationship.

Pietersen has given more hours to English international cricket than anyone else over the past ten years. Just acknowledge that.

[Alviro Patterson]

all we have been hearing from the ECB since they made the decision to rest anderson from the test next week is about the volume of cricket we have coming up and the concerns over players workloads etc etc

so KP asks them to do exactly what they said they are planning to do with players anyway, especially those that play in all three formats, and they refuse and we end up in a stand-off where we now lose arguably our best batsman from all limited overs cricket. i know his ODI form has been poor but if we were to be successful in ODIs in the short term we needed an in-form KP

i dont have alot of sympathy with guys earning what these guys make pleading tiredness etc etc especially when they choose to play in the IPL for purely financial reasons but the ECB could have handled this a lot better as well

yes i am and have been a KP fan but to say we would be better off without him in tests as well is nothing but drivel coming from people who dont like him and would obviously prefer not to see us field our best side, and you call yourself cricket fans ?

Out of interest, in what way could the ECB have handled KPs situation better? The way I see it is KP held the ECB to ransom by dictating when to play.

Difference is Anderson is a bowler, who are more prone to suffering injuries than batsmen and England employ a 4 man bowling attack. Already this year Anderson has bowled 402 overs of cricket consisting of 7 test matches, 3 ODIs, 3 warm up games and 1 County Championship.

Equivalent bowlers in last years County Championship
Charl Willoughby = 483 overs
Andre Adams = 480 overs
Callum Thorp = 477 overs
Ryan Sidebottom = 468 overs

With another 8 tests, 11 ODIs, 5 T20s and a World T20 to defend this year it's understandable why the ECB have decided to rest Anderson, who has already bowled 85% of a County Championship season.

Kevin Pietersen has faced 1386 balls in 7 test matches, 3 ODIs, 3 T20Is, 4 warm up matches and 1 County Championship match. KP might have played more cricket than Anderson but he has batted 231 overs.

If KP is whinging of fatigue now chances are he'll struggle come 2015, like Michael Vaughan did in 2007. There is so many up and coming youngsters in County Cricket and it's time for them to have their chance. All this KP being a good servant to the national cricket team is irrelevant when England aspire of World Cup glory in 2015 and a powerhouse in International Cricket.

BTW I'm a cricket fan and a firm believer of team play, unlike KPs name there is no "I" in team. I'd rather watch 11 Tim Bresnans play for England than 11 Kevin Pietersens.

[meninblue]

Word on the street is Kevin Pietersen asked ECB to be rested for half of the forthcoming ODIs. ECB said no but KP didn't like the response and mentioned Andrew Strauss got rested for the tour of Bangladesh as an example, ECB turned round and said to KP shouldn't have played in the IPL.

KP then decides to retire from ODI cricket but said he'll be available to play in Tests and T20Is, ECB said you have to retire from T20s as well as ODIs, KP went ahead with the retirement of limited overs cricket.

It is indeed disappointing if it is not a rumor. How is any cricketer who is core contracted player of the country justified in playing the domestic IPL but asking to be rested for the country matches soon following the IPL. If he has asked for a rest few months later it could have been different case. I think a international cricketer needs to be aware there is lot of cricket going on in 3 formats for the country. So he has to plan rest for lesser tournaments like IPL, Big Bash, BPL, SCL etc etc. If they play those tourneys and then ask rest in immediately following series then thats not good planning at all.

[rich1uk]

Out of interest, in what way could the ECB have handled KPs situation better? The way I see it is KP held the ECB to ransom by dictating when to play.

based on your earlier post about the rumoured series of events, KP asked the ECB if he could miss some of this summers ODIs, as i said earlier the ECB are already on record as saying they want to manage the workload of the core players, especially those that play in all three formats, like KP. as AC said above KP has probably played more international cricket than any other england player since he came into the team. why was it so unreasonable for him to assume he would be allowed to miss some games this summer when it is the ECB's stated policy ?

if anyone was being dictatorial and uncomprising it is the ECB , not only did they refuse to allow him to miss some games despite already allowing other players to rest, they then refused to consider him for t20s after he felt forced to retire from ODIs.

now as i have said above i want to see england field its best team in every single match we play, unless someone is injured they should play, i am not a fan of resting players at all as i dont agree that cricketers really do play more now than they used to, the difference is now that there are fewer gaps in the schedule where a player can get over niggly injuries.

if anyone seriously thinks any one of the england international teams, whether it be tests, ODIs or t20s are at their strongest without KP then they haven't been watching the same cricket i have been for the last 7 years.

[Peter Lanky]

I'm firmly with Hoggy and Powelly on this one. As I see it KP has not unilaterally done great things for England, rather it has been a partnership with both England and KP gaining something. Just because KP has a talent doesn't mean that he can dictate his own agenda. Like many other people with a talent, in this celebrity oriented age I believe he has started to see himself as something special, and thus the rules applying to everyone else don't apply to him (not unlike Baroness Warsi on the news thread) allowing him to pick and choose which conventions to comply with. I'm no fan of the ECB, but if they don't adhere strictly to the conventions then it allows anyone who sees themselves as something special to do the same and everything turns to farce, so the ECB is right in my opinion with it's stance. If KP considered that he needed a rest at some stage, he should have taken a rest from the IPL and not the England ODIs.

[Making_Splinters]

I'm firmly with Hoggy and Powelly on this one. As I see it KP has not unilaterally done great things for England, rather it has been a partnership with both England and KP gaining something. Just because KP has a talent doesn't mean that he can dictate his own agenda. Like many other people with a talent, in this celebrity oriented age I believe he has started to see himself as something special, and thus the rules applying to everyone else don't apply to him (not unlike Baroness Warsi on the news thread) allowing him to pick and choose which conventions to comply with. I'm no fan of the ECB, but if they don't adhere strictly to the conventions then it allows anyone who sees themselves as something special to do the same and everything turns to farce, so the ECB is right in my opinion with it's stance. If KP considered that he needed a rest at some stage, he should have taken a rest from the IPL and not the England ODIs.

Three issues with this:

Firstly he hasn't said they shouldn't apply to him just that if they didn't he'd play in the World T20.

Secondly the ECB doesn't strictly adhere to conventions anyway, they bend them as they have done for Strauss.

Thirdly why would everything turn to farce? The Australians don't have this system and they've done fairly well in both T20 and ODI cricket.

[D/L]

Well done to the ECB on standing firm on this issue and not letting Pietersen have his IPL cake and eat it, thereby creating a dangerous precedent. If we lose him from all forms of international one day cricket, then so be it. We may find though, that he reconsiders his position.

[andy]

Well done to the ECB on standing firm on this issue and not letting Pietersen have his IPL cake and eat it, thereby creating a dangerous precedent. If we lose him from all forms of international one day cricket, then so be it. We may find though, that he reconsiders his position.

agree fully with that post.

[Making_Splinters]

Well done to the ECB on standing firm on this issue and not letting Pietersen have his IPL cake and eat it, thereby creating a dangerous precedent. If we lose him from all forms of international one day cricket, then so be it. We may find though, that he reconsiders his position.

Again why is it a dangerous precedent? Other countries do not enforce a play both or none system and do perfectly well for example Australia who are arguably a better ODI side than we are and have had success in the T20 format as well, secondly if players don't want to play both then why should we force them to do so? For every KP or Swann there are plenty of other players around who can perform for England and in time may become better than them. Finally why people keep bringing the IPL into this is rather strange, most of the time it is the Test not ODIs that interupt the IPL - see this seasons West Indies tour or next seasons New Zealand tour.

When the ECB have bent rules in the past for other players, define the T20 and ODI side as seperate squads with differnt captains and plenty of players who play in one but not the other it seems a trifle silly in the end.

Of course this seems to be far more about the player than the action.

[ddb]

One point I'll make here: What's so wrong with going to the IPL? You can't let your personal bias against the IPL get in the way. There's nothing wrong with maximising your earnings in the short career cricketers have.

He's also brought up the issue that England are playing too many ODIs, maybe with good intentions as they want to win a WC, but then there must be some rotation.

Sachin Tendulkar, Sehwag etc are given rest from ODIs.

[Making_Splinters]

Within English cricket we seem to have forgotten the only reason we can have such as stick up our arse over the IPL is because we can afford to do so.

It's easy to go on about country over club when either route is going to leave you with a very healthy bank balance, if all of the English players who had tried to get an IPL contract had done so rather than just the couple that are easy to take pot shots at: Morgan, Bopara, Colly at the time and of course KP, I wonder whether we'd still see such a daft attitude towards it.

[Arthur Crabtree]

If it is a precedent that older players with long service are allowed flexibility, then it is a good one.

[shankycricket]

Word on the street is Kevin Pietersen asked ECB to be rested for half of the forthcoming ODIs. ECB said no but KP didn't like the response and mentioned Andrew Strauss got rested for the tour of Bangladesh as an example, ECB turned round and said to KP shouldn't have played in the IPL.

KP then decides to retire from ODI cricket but said he'll be available to play in Tests and T20Is, ECB said you have to retire from T20s as well as ODIs, KP went ahead with the retirement of limited overs cricket.

It is indeed disappointing if it is not a rumor. How is any cricketer who is core contracted player of the country justified in playing the domestic IPL but asking to be rested for the country matches soon following the IPL. If he has asked for a rest few months later it could have been different case. I think a international cricketer needs to be aware there is lot of cricket going on in 3 formats for the country. So he has to plan rest for lesser tournaments like IPL, Big Bash, BPL, SCL etc etc. If they play those tourneys and then ask rest in immediately following series then thats not good planning at all.

I have to agree with that.

[Making_Splinters]

Word on the street is Kevin Pietersen asked ECB to be rested for half of the forthcoming ODIs. ECB said no but KP didn't like the response and mentioned Andrew Strauss got rested for the tour of Bangladesh as an example, ECB turned round and said to KP shouldn't have played in the IPL.

KP then decides to retire from ODI cricket but said he'll be available to play in Tests and T20Is, ECB said you have to retire from T20s as well as ODIs, KP went ahead with the retirement of limited overs cricket.

It is indeed disappointing if it is not a rumor. How is any cricketer who is core contracted player of the country justified in playing the domestic IPL but asking to be rested for the country matches soon following the IPL. If he has asked for a rest few months later it could have been different case. I think a international cricketer needs to be aware there is lot of cricket going on in 3 formats for the country. So he has to plan rest for lesser tournaments like IPL, Big Bash, BPL, SCL etc etc. If they play those tourneys and then ask rest in immediately following series then thats not good planning at all.

I have to agree with that.

Considering the ECB has complete control over where and when their centrally contracted players play then to turn round and blame the player is a bit silly!

[shankycricket]

Again though the "play both or none" rule is absolutely ridiculous.

Were the ECB right not to allow KP pick and choose his ODIs? I think they were.
Were the ECB right not to allow KP pick and choose his formats? No, they were not. Thats blatently wrong.