The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[m@tt]

Huh? Yes, I've defended his concerns over the amount of cricket he plays, but I've also said that he shouldn't be allowed back in either limited overs side.

[shankycricket]

People are very quick to bash KP - though thankfully on here most people are fairly sensible. Only Dhoni has played more days of international cricket since 2005 and will create problems both physically and mentally - he needs and wants to stay fresh so that he can perform whenever he plays. He works very hard on his game, despite what many people like to think. He is a confident guy, though also an insecure one - I wouldn't say money is a big factor for him but being loved is and that is why he seeks the big stage (hence why the big crowds and glamour of the IPL appeal to him) and the headline grabbing (in a good way) performances.

The idea that he isn't a team player and a bad apple is, frankly, ridiculous. If he was a problem, then England have had plenty of opportunities to get rid. He went long enough without centuries in both Tests and ODIs for England to drop him on form and give them an excuse to rid the team of a problem player. They didn't though. Of course, he isn't the perfect, selfless player some wish him to be and, thanks to his insecurities, I'm sure there are occasionally problems behind the scenes, but he is as happy as anyone when the team wins with limited contributions from himself, or when a team-mate gets a century to end a barren run (like Strauss this 'summer').

He wants to play but not to burn himself out and I believe that his concerns are very valid. He had been discussing/arguing about his schedule since last year, so the ECB knew it was an issue. In fact, that may be why they introduced the ODI/T20 clause into the contracts last year. A sceptical view, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the reason.

That said, he's made his bed, he's now got to lie in it. If he wanted to play in the World T20, he should have delayed retiring. Surely the home ODIs against Australia (the old enemy), South Africa (country of birth) and the West Indies (against his friend Gayle) would have appealed to him? Home series are very different to tours - he may still have to stay in hotels but his wife and child would be nearby and home comforts much more within reach.

As it is, if he is allowed back then he will probably retire again after the World T20 or possibly after the India ODIs. I can't see him wanting to play ODI series in New Zealand. As such, I cannot see Flower and the ECB allowing his back.

In terms of where he fits in were he to come back, getting him into the ODI side would be very difficult. In the T20 side, I think there is room - either for Bopara or Bairstow. Ravi's strike rate is still under a run-a-ball whilst Bairstow's overall Twenty20 record (for so Yorks and England) doesn't exactly demand inclusion - only one fifty (albeit a very good one against Pakistan) and a conservative SR, whilst he List A record is pretty average. Plus it would solve the issue of having the inexperienced duo of Bairstow and Buttler in the middle-order. But it's a moot point, he won't be back.

My only issue with KP is that he shouldnt be allowed to decide which series he rests in and I dont think we should change our international schedule for one player, no matter how good he is.
However, its ridiculous that he has to make himself available for ODIs in order to play T20Is.

[hopeforthebest]

This about turn by Pietersen will have repercussions in the England dressing room whatever the outcome. If his request is turned down by the ECB he will bring a glum face with him and if it's approved other players will feel he's got away with something.

[D/L]

...However, its ridiculous that he has to make himself available for ODIs in order to play T20Is.

That's a valid point. England need to reconsider the contracts system to give themselves, and the players, more flexibility. Those who sign a contract, though, should honour it.

[m@tt]

...However, its ridiculous that he has to make himself available for ODIs in order to play T20Is.

That's a valid point. England need to reconsider the contracts system to give themselves, and the players, more flexibility. Those who sign a contract, though, should honour it.

As I suggested in a previous post, that change was a new one and I suspect it was added to force KP to play both formats.

[shankycricket]

...However, its ridiculous that he has to make himself available for ODIs in order to play T20Is.

That's a valid point. England need to reconsider the contracts system to give themselves, and the players, more flexibility. Those who sign a contract, though, should honour it.

And I agree with that. He shouldnt have signed the contract.

I just think that the "Play Both or None" rule is based on a false premise that players will retire from ODIs and still play T20Is if allowed to do so. That is just not true. I firmly believe that KP is an exception. Most players reckon that ODI cricket is better and more important than hit and giggle stuff. Most players still would rather win a 50 over World Cup than the World T20, if asked to make a choice between the two.

And even if a player wants to actually quit ODIs and play T20Is, I dont think this new rule is going to prevent him from quitting ODIs (and in effect, T20I). At international level, T20 cricket is no more lucrative than ODI cricket. So those who hate ODIs wont hang around and play 15-20 ODIs a year just so that they could a handful of T20Is. They will retire from both, just how KP has done. So in essence, we run the risk of weakening the T20I side without actually strengthening the ODI outfit.

[hopeforthebest]

Coach Andy Flower hopes Pietersen doesn't regret one-day exit

But Flower said England were right to deny Pietersen his wish as otherwise "five or six players" might have done the same thing.

"When Kevin told me he wanted to retire from one-day cricket I must have had three or four subsequent meetings with him where I tried to dissuade him from doing so," Flower told BBC's Test Match Special.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Those are quotes from Andy Flower's reaction to KP's announcement. Clearly he was given every chance to think again before making his decision.

[m@tt]

The "five or six" players bit is OTT though.

Cook - doesn't play T20 Internationals
Bell - doesn't play T20 Internationals
Hales - doesn't play ODIs yet, only a handful of caps to his name. Will want to play as much international cricket as he can.
Trott - doesn't play T20 Internationals
Bopara - has only recently cemented place in limited overs team, not yet playing regular Test cricket
Morgan - switched to England so he could compete in World Cups and play Test cricket. Quitting ODIs would harm Test opportunities.
Patel - will want to play as much international cricket as he can
Kieswetter - doesn't play Tests, still young and will want to play as much international cricket as possible
Bairstow - will want to play as much international cricket as he can.
Buttler - will want to play as much international cricket as he can.
Bresnan - will want to play all forms, can be rotated if necessary thanks to strength of seam department
Broad - captain of the T20 squad but not playing ODIs would impact upon T20 form. Can be rotated when necessary.
Finn - not currently playing regular Test cricket and has just established himself as our leading ODI bowler
Anderson - doesn't play T20 Internationals. Can be rotated when necessary.
Dernbach - will want to play as much international cricket as he can

Leaving...
Swann - plays all formats but has a young son and, I believe, a second child on the way. Struggles with the extended time away but only in his fourth year of international cricket.

[D/L]

...However, its ridiculous that he has to make himself available for ODIs in order to play T20Is.

That's a valid point. England need to reconsider the contracts system to give themselves, and the players, more flexibility. Those who sign a contract, though, should honour it.

As I suggested in a previous post, that change was a new one and I suspect it was added to force KP to play both formats.

I would very much doubt that. Changes to the terms of a contract tend to have to be agreed between both parties and not to be unilaterally imposed.

[Kim]

They are standard contracts though D/L. KP cant negotiate his own

[m@tt]

And most players would have been unaffected by the new rule - I listed all the players above and only KP and Swann are concerns, the rest would have accepted the new clause without question.

[hopeforthebest]

There's no evidence to suggest that KP or anyone else question the contract they signed. The fact is that if KP had waited until he was asked to renew his contract in September, he could have played in the T20 WC and refused to sign. Whatever way you cut it, this whole mess is of his own making.

[ddb]

ECB won't budge...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... d-off.html

[Making_Splinters]

Of course the ECB shouldn't budge their essentially in a lose lose situation, there is no way KP should be allowed to dictate terms for any come back.

If he comes back it is as part of the rank and file.

[hopeforthebest]

That piece in the Mail is pretty explicit and confirms a piece in the Guardian that said Flower would be determined to get a firm commitment from Pietersen about his availability for the future. I wonder what the dressing room atmosphere will be when the players come together for the test.