The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[hopeforthebest]

Pietersen is not going to un-retire unless someone in the England camp makes the first move. His pride wouldn't allow it.
The worst thing that can happen to Pietersen is England winning the T20 WC without him.

[Kim]

I'd like it if the selectors stick to their guns. The whole situation borders on schoolboy stuff but KP has retired and our ODI side has had a decent series without him. Early days, yes but he's not irreplaceable.
We will miss him in 20/20's but hey, we can at least build for the furture, as KP is no spring chicken.

I tend to think in pro sport the future is now. Priority is the up coming world cup not building for the next one.
Sticking to your guns is good as long as havent just used them to shoot yourself in the foot which has, arguably, happened here. Its a difficult one though - I keep changing my mind but keep coming back to noone is getting any benefit of where we are now. When the status quo is lose:lose its not good

[Arthur Crabtree]

Not sure about that. Practically all people would feel they had missed out, and be a bit abashed that they could be replaced so easily.That's normal. But KP has always seemed to give a lot of support to his fellow England players. I guess we probably can't really know how he would feel about this.

[Gingerfinch]

I'd like it if the selectors stick to their guns. The whole situation borders on schoolboy stuff but KP has retired and our ODI side has had a decent series without him. Early days, yes but he's not irreplaceable.
We will miss him in 20/20's but hey, we can at least build for the furture, as KP is no spring chicken.

I tend to think in pro sport the future is now. Priority is the up coming world cup not building for the next one.
Sticking to your guns is good as long as havent just used them to shoot yourself in the foot which has, arguably, happened here. Its a difficult one though - I keep changing my mind but keep coming back to noone is getting any benefit of where we are now. When the status quo is lose:lose its not good

I kind of agree. I wanted Scholesy to play in the Euro's after all but bringing KP back would make a mockery of their decision and make them look weak, IMO.

[rich1uk]

I'd like it if the selectors stick to their guns. The whole situation borders on schoolboy stuff but KP has retired and our ODI side has had a decent series without him. Early days, yes but he's not irreplaceable.
We will miss him in 20/20's but hey, we can at least build for the furture, as KP is no spring chicken.

I tend to think in pro sport the future is now. Priority is the up coming world cup not building for the next one.
Sticking to your guns is good as long as havent just used them to shoot yourself in the foot which has, arguably, happened here. Its a difficult one though - I keep changing my mind but keep coming back to noone is getting any benefit of where we are now. When the status quo is lose:lose its not good

I kind of agree. I wanted Scholesy to play in the Euro's after all but bringing KP back would make a mockery of their decision and make them look weak, IMO.

which is what this whole thing is about really

two very stubborn parties both unwilling to compromise but both being worse off because of it

[Gingerfinch]

I'd like it if the selectors stick to their guns. The whole situation borders on schoolboy stuff but KP has retired and our ODI side has had a decent series without him. Early days, yes but he's not irreplaceable.
We will miss him in 20/20's but hey, we can at least build for the furture, as KP is no spring chicken.

I tend to think in pro sport the future is now. Priority is the up coming world cup not building for the next one.
Sticking to your guns is good as long as havent just used them to shoot yourself in the foot which has, arguably, happened here. Its a difficult one though - I keep changing my mind but keep coming back to noone is getting any benefit of where we are now. When the status quo is lose:lose its not good

I kind of agree. I wanted Scholesy to play in the Euro's after all but bringing KP back would make a mockery of their decision and make them look weak, IMO.

which is what this whole thing is about really

two very stubborn parties both unwilling to compromise but both being worse off because of it

Yep and now there should be no turning back. Move on and get on with it. KP may even improve his test batting? Every cloud..............

[D/L]

It’s not about stubbornness. It is about one party to an agreement sticking to it, knowing the consequences of not doing so, and another one wanting special treatment to avoid the commitments he entered into.

[hopeforthebest]

It’s not about stubbornness. It is about one party to an agreement sticking to it, knowing the consequences of not doing so, and another one wanting special treatment to avoid the commitments he entered into.

That's it in a nutshell.

[Arthur Crabtree]

That kind of inflexibility isn't good management in my view. And isn't likely to succeed in the long term. This kind of situation will keep recurring, unless the ECB extend the accommodation they showed to Strauss, to all other players.

[D/L]

It is preferable to the chaos that would ensue from being seen to indulge certain players and not others. The ECB may well decide to introduce more flexibility into their contracts system. In fact, I think they should. In Pietersen’s case, under the present system however, no other sensible course of action was open to them.

[hopeforthebest]

It isn't as if the contract KP signed is a couple of years old, he signed it only last September knowing full well it's contents and the schedule of games that lay ahead. If there is a guilty party in all of this, it's certainly not the ECB.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I suppose it comes down to your views on man management and how to get the best out of your options. To me, sticking by absolute rules is a recipe for trouble. And England haven't always done it. Others think we should do it the army way. If we are going to do it that way, then we should expect it to be always done that way.

[Aidan11]

He's got a century for Surrey today.

[hopeforthebest]

I suppose it comes down to your views on man management and how to get the best out of your options. To me, sticking by absolute rules is a recipe for trouble. And England haven't always done it. Others think we should do it the army way. If we are going to do it that way, then we should expect it to be always done that way.

You seem to take the view that this is a case of 'the little man' being oppressed by a giant organisation. Whereas in fact it is a dispute between a Muti-millionaire who's whole career has been based on self interest and an organisation doing it's best to serve English cricket.

[Alviro Patterson]

He's got a century for Surrey today.

Small boundaries and a flat track at Guildford, not a patch on Joe Roots 135* at a bowler friendly Rose Bowl.