The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[Making_Splinters]

Because the ECB allowed the player to play in additional cricket outside the international timetable, they were complicit with the decision and therefore should equally be responcible for dealing with the fairly obvious consequences a player playing extra cricket leads to.

Do they allow players to play as much county cricket as they physically can fit into a season?

[shankycricket]

One thing that baffles me is that IPL contracts get precedence over county contracts.

Why should a contract for domestic cricket in another country take precedence over domestic cricket in your own country?

[shankycricket]

Because the ECB allowed the player to play in additional cricket outside the international timetable, they were complicit with the decision and therefore should equally be responcible for dealing with the fairly obvious consequences a player playing extra cricket leads to.

Do they allow players to play as much county cricket as they physically can fit into a season?

I'd prefer if the ECB bar all centrally contracted players from playing in the IPL.

[Making_Splinters]

One thing that baffles me is that IPL contracts get precedence over county contracts.

Why should a contract for domestic cricket in another country take precedence over domestic cricket in your own country?

It's really very simple, the Counties sign no objection clauses before the player can play in the IPL.

[Making_Splinters]

Because the ECB allowed the player to play in additional cricket outside the international timetable, they were complicit with the decision and therefore should equally be responcible for dealing with the fairly obvious consequences a player playing extra cricket leads to.

Do they allow players to play as much county cricket as they physically can fit into a season?

I'd prefer if the ECB bar all centrally contracted players from playing in the IPL.

Which of course is exactly what they should do if they are going to refuse to accept the consequences of their own actions.

[rich1uk]

isn't this discussion a little premature , he hasn't actually said he wants to play ODIs again, just that he would like to still be involved in t20s which is what he always said. all we have is a article written by a journalist, and being a journalist will want to make it sound more dramatic by implying KP might do an "afridi" by "unretiring".

and again despite everyone pointing fingers at the IPL and giving it the predictable "oh but why didn't he rest when the IPL was on", he never actually said he was tired NOW and that was why he was giving up ODIs, he said that looking at the schedule and the number of ODIs that were being scheduled over the next 18 months to 2 years that he didn't think he could be at his best for all three formats if he continued to play in all three and ODIs were the one he enjoyed "least".

what would we really prefer, forcing a guy to continue to play all three formats and maybe burning out and his performance in all three formats suffering and therefore affecting the team or letting him play just in tests and t20s and maybe keeping him playing at a higher level. what we have ended up with is tests only, a situation that really benefits neither england nor the player.

as M-S is saying it is unrealistic to pretend the IPL does not exist or expect these guys at the height of their earning potential to miss out on it coz we aint talking about just this years IPL maybe contributing to his fatigue, with the way the england schedule is put together the IPL is going to be an issue every single year when it comes to players either getting a break or not for those few weeks.

[Alviro Patterson]

Slotting KP straight back in for Bell, who has done well, just sends a horrifically wrong message IMO. Just would make KP believe that this team is desperate to have him. And that is simply not true. Lets be honest, in the last 3 and a half years, KP has contributed to only 2 of our ODI victories. Whats all the fuss about? We are winning matches quite regularly without him.


T20, as I said, is different and our chances of retaining the World T20 in SL later this year hinge a lot on KP's availability.

England's chances of Twenty20 success depends on every player turning up, not on the availability of one show pony. England won the last T20 because everyone performed with bat, ball and field.

For KP to even reconsider coming out of retirement shows that he is a disruptive influence and England are better off without him. Besides there are players in County Cricket who could easily fill the void of KP and possibly improve Team England.

[rich1uk]

Slotting KP straight back in for Bell, who has done well, just sends a horrifically wrong message IMO. Just would make KP believe that this team is desperate to have him. And that is simply not true. Lets be honest, in the last 3 and a half years, KP has contributed to only 2 of our ODI victories. Whats all the fuss about? We are winning matches quite regularly without him.


T20, as I said, is different and our chances of retaining the World T20 in SL later this year hinge a lot on KP's availability.

England's chances of Twenty20 success depends on every player turning up, not on the availability of one show pony. England won the last T20 because everyone performed with bat, ball and field.

For KP to even reconsider coming out of retirement shows that he is a disruptive influence and England are better off without him. Besides there are players in County Cricket who could easily fill the void of KP and possibly improve Team England.

he never said he was considering it tho

he said the same as he always has , that he would like to play t20s. he never ever decided to retire from t20s he was forced to do so by the ECB after saying he wanted to stop playing ODIs.

in that article he was asked if he was missing ODIs and could he see himself changing his mind and he said no but gave it the predictable "never say never" response.

[Aidan11]

Because the ECB allowed the player to play in additional cricket outside the international timetable, they were complicit with the decision and therefore should equally be responcible for dealing with the fairly obvious consequences a player playing extra cricket leads to.

Do they allow players to play as much county cricket as they physically can fit into a season?

I'd prefer if the ECB bar all centrally contracted players from playing in the IPL.

Not sure if they would get away with doing that. It could prevent players signing England contracts in the future and hamper all the good work we have built up over the last few years.

I know it's an honour to represent your country but honour doesn't pay the mortgage and you're a long time retired in sport.

[Making_Splinters]

At the end of the day if the ECB is going to let players go to the IPL or indeed play any other extra cricket outside the international timetable then it also needs to factor the extra cricket they play into any decisions made on when a player will be rested during the international season.

They can't simply pretend the player didn't play extra cricket or that extra cricket won't have fitness implications down the line. If they don't want to be adding it into the equations then they shouldn't be letting them play in the first place.

[shankycricket]

If anyone genuinely thinks that there are batsmen in county cricket who could "easily" fill the void left by KP in the T20 side, then I really dont what to say.

As for the statement that "everyone performed with the bat in the last T20" that is simply not true. KP, Kieswetter and Morgan were the only ones who made a significant impact with the bat and KP was the only one who did it consistently.

Yes, we need contributions from everyone but the sooner you realise that KP has been rather incredibly pivotal to the T20 side, the better it is.

[hopeforthebest]

I think KP has a relationship with England that Mrs Thatcher used to describe some of her cabinet as "semi-detached".

[Alviro Patterson]

If anyone genuinely thinks that there are batsmen in county cricket who could "easily" fill the void left by KP in the T20 side, then I really dont what to say.

Just says that one hasn't followed this years Twenty20 campaign. There has been standout performances from England capped players by Luke Wright, Matt Prior, James Foster, Michael Lumb.

Then there are under-rate players who have been knocking on the door for a while, but can't get a foot in:
Chris Nash
Stephen Moore
Steven Croft
Tom Smith
Andrew Gale
Moeen Ali

As for the statement that "everyone performed with the bat in the last T20" that is simply not true. KP, Kieswetter and Morgan were the only ones who made a significant impact with the bat and KP was the only one who did it consistently.

Yes, we need contributions from everyone but the sooner you realise that KP has been rather incredibly pivotal to the T20 side, the better it is.

Can't underestimate Michael Lumbs contributions, he might not have scored huge but played an important part and Luke Wright has chipped in with business end innings runs against West Indies and New Zealand. KP wasn't part of the bowling attack who contained opposition line ups, they were as part to England's success.

No-one is disputing KPs contributions but it's not the be all and end all without him, English cricket is in a much stronger position than it was 2 years ago.

[shankycricket]

So a good performance in a domestic competition means they are going to "easily" replace the best T20 international batsman in the world and make the team better than it was with KP in the side?

[shankycricket]

Not saying that its the "be all and end all", as such. I just think people need to accept that our team would be helluva lot stronger with KP in the T20 side. So if he is available and is committed towards playing the World T20 and he has said that he is, then it is irrational not to pick him.