The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[hopeforthebest]

Considering that he played his last T20 in the West Indies series when he'd just taken over as captain of England and he made 20 odd off 20 odd that doesn't stack up.

What actually happened is Strauss turned round and said don't pick me, he then simply stopped playing T20 at any level to make himself unselectable for England and no one said anything.

That's just a conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact.

[Making_Splinters]

Well how do you go about explaining the ECB removing their brand new captain in all formats after a single game which he didn't do badly in?

[Making_Splinters]

Well, here it is from the man himself:

"Never say never. But at this stage, I've got no plans to play Twenty20 cricket,"

"For me, it just makes sense that I step aside from the Twenty20 and give myself the time to prepare properly for 50-over and Test cricket."

http://www.espnstar.com/cricket/international-cricket/news/detail/item354849/Strauss-staying-out-of-T20-format/

[OffStumpYorker]

Well, here it is from the man himself:

"Never say never. But at this stage, I've got no plans to play Twenty20 cricket,"

"For me, it just makes sense that I step aside from the Twenty20 and give myself the time to prepare properly for 50-over and Test cricket."

http://www.espnstar.com/cricket/international-cricket/news/detail/item354849/Strauss-staying-out-of-T20-format/

And the Paragraph inbetween those two quotes goes

"My reasons for not playing Twenty20 cricket are firstly that there are some limitations in my game in that format and secondly I believe strongly that for me to continue playing well in the 50-over format and Test cricket something's got to give."

So he recognised that he isnt cut out for T20 cricket ar fact reflected by him not playing a T20 game since 2009 at any level. This just made it more difficult for him to be selected.

[hopeforthebest]

Strauss had just been captain of England for about 9 months and clearly recognized that captaining in all formats would be impossible. Add to that he understood his limitations in T20 which the selectors had recognized by picking him on only 3 previous occasions.
Pietersen hasn't to my knowledge claimed he wanted to stop playing ODI because he had limited ability in that format.

[Making_Splinters]

Well, here it is from the man himself:

"Never say never. But at this stage, I've got no plans to play Twenty20 cricket,"

"For me, it just makes sense that I step aside from the Twenty20 and give myself the time to prepare properly for 50-over and Test cricket."

http://www.espnstar.com/cricket/international-cricket/news/detail/item354849/Strauss-staying-out-of-T20-format/

And the Paragraph inbetween those two quotes goes

"My reasons for not playing Twenty20 cricket are firstly that there are some limitations in my game in that format and secondly I believe strongly that for me to continue playing well in the 50-over format and Test cricket something's got to give."

So he recognised that he isnt cut out for T20 cricket ar fact reflected by him not playing a T20 game since 2009 at any level. This just made it more difficult for him to be selected.

Missing the point being made here a little, the ECB say that KP can not play T20 for England if he will not play ODI cricket for England because you have to be availible for selection in both to play either format.

Yet here we have Strauss in public saying that he will not play T20 cricket - essentially retiring himself from the format - yet he was still able to continue playing and indeed captaining England in the ODI format. The reason for the decision is ultimately irrelevant.

Rich pointed this out very well earlier, Strauss got away with it because he was not a key member of the T20 side.

[OffStumpYorker]

No MS you are missing the point, Strauss Identifed that T20 did not suit his batting style, and thats where the emphasis is, something that the team management agreed with.

You can perm it any way you want but Strauss was not cut out for T20 games, he was considered for the T20 in SA ahead of the T20 WC but rightly stated that it wasnt fair on the Team in the long run, see another quote from the same article.

[url]There were reports that Strauss was almost pressed into action when injury curtailed England's other Twenty20 options at the start of their ongoing South Africa tour.

Strauss does not deny them but appears relieved he was able to stay on the sidelines after all.

"There were some considerations given. But ultimately, me playing in a one-off capacity is not going to help the team long term," he explains.
[/url]

[Making_Splinters]

No MS you are missing the point, Strauss Identifed that T20 did not suit his batting style, and thats where the emphasis is, something that the team management agreed with.

You can perm it any way you want but Strauss was not cut out for T20 games, he was considered for the T20 in SA ahead of the T20 WC but rightly stated that it wasnt fair on the Team in the long run, see another quote from the same article.

[url]There were reports that Strauss was almost pressed into action when injury curtailed England's other Twenty20 options at the start of their ongoing South Africa tour.

Strauss does not deny them but appears relieved he was able to stay on the sidelines after all.

"There were some considerations given. But ultimately, me playing in a one-off capacity is not going to help the team long term," he explains.
[/url]

OSY, why he retired has nothing to do with the point here.

The ECB say you have to play both T20 and ODI cricket to play either for England, that is why KP can not play in the World T20.

Strauss was allowed to quit T20 cricket and continue to play ODI cricket for England yet KP is not allowed to quit ODI cricket and play T20 cricket for England.

There various merits in the two formats don't change that clear and obvious set of double standards being used by the ECB with two senior players in the side.

[D/L]

There are no double standards at play here. The ECB, as employer, is entitled to not select (or rest) players as they see fit. A player, as an employee, just like any employee in any job, assuming good health, is not entitled to rest himself over and above a normal holiday entitlement.

It may suit the ECB to introduce a more flexible contract system that would benefit the ECB as much as it may any player long after Pietersen has hung up his bat for good. Until then, however, the current system is in force and the ECB cannot be seen to be indulging a player who wishes to avoid the obligations he has put his signature to.

[Alviro Patterson]

Strauss had just been captain of England for about 9 months and clearly recognized that captaining in all formats would be impossible. Add to that he understood his limitations in T20 which the selectors had recognized by picking him on only 3 previous occasions.
Pietersen hasn't to my knowledge claimed he wanted to stop playing ODI because he had limited ability in that format.

Andrew Strauss stepping down from Twenty20s came at a time when he was barely appointed the England captaincy, succeeding Kevin Pietersen.

In 2009 England were scheduled to tour West Indies, host West Indies, play in World Twenty20, host The Ashes, play in Champions Trophy and tour South Africa. Something had to give and Strauss chose his weakest form of cricket.

It has proved to be a brilliant decision as England regained The Ashes, a successful tour of South Africa, and winning the 2010 World T20 led by a one day specialist and defined England's meteoric rise in international cricket.

Strauss not playing Twenty20 was for the good of England Cricket, Kevin Pietersen not wanting to play ODI cricket is not.

[Making_Splinters]

Whether the ECB allowing Struass to stop playing T20 was a good move or not is really rather irrelevant here, the ECB have set their stand out with regards to KP playing T20 by saying that a player can not play only one limited overs format a position that they themselves have already ignored for another player.

You can't hold something up as a hard and fast rule and justify your decisions based on its immutability when you have broken it in the past.

[hopeforthebest]

Whether the ECB allowing Struass to stop playing T20 was a good move or not is really rather irrelevant here, the ECB have set their stand out with regards to KP playing T20 by saying that a player can not play only one limited overs format a position that they themselves have already ignored for another player.

You can't hold something up as a hard and fast rule and justify your decisions based on its immutability when you have broken it in the past.

You really are chewing this same bone quite a lot.

[Kim]

Whether the ECB allowing Struass to stop playing T20 was a good move or not is really rather irrelevant here, the ECB have set their stand out with regards to KP playing T20 by saying that a player can not play only one limited overs format a position that they themselves have already ignored for another player.

You can't hold something up as a hard and fast rule and justify your decisions based on its immutability when you have broken it in the past.

Important to remember this rule was only put into contracts in September 2011 so didnt apply when Strauss "retired" from T20s. Times change.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Well done Splinters. I got a bit tired of this one, but I 100% agree with you.

[Making_Splinters]

Whether the ECB allowing Struass to stop playing T20 was a good move or not is really rather irrelevant here, the ECB have set their stand out with regards to KP playing T20 by saying that a player can not play only one limited overs format a position that they themselves have already ignored for another player.

You can't hold something up as a hard and fast rule and justify your decisions based on its immutability when you have broken it in the past.

You really are chewing this same bone quite a lot.

Not really, I don't think an exception should be made for any single player as I said previously whether you agree with a rule or disagree with it you have to accept that it is there just as those who disagree with the switch hit have to do or people like myself who disagree with over limitations on bowlers in ODIs have to do also.

I dislike firstly the suggestion that the onus should be on a player in the era of central contracts and not with the Board and secondly the ECB have shown that there is little reason for this rule in their own actions in the past as other boards have also done.