The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[Kim]

An advantage? The only leak I know of is the one about KP not in fact wanting rest but wanting to play IPL instead of tests.

This leak was to counteract KPs retirement statement where he said it was all about wanting rest. It wasnt about seeking advantage but about (albeit sneakily) letting the world know the true situation. If KP hasnt been so economical with the truth it wouldnt have happened.

Obv if there have been other leaks, above might be BS.

Not that two wrongs make a right - but how did the press know about Kps unhapiness aboy the parody account?

IMO its been a PR war on both sides (EG Kps video ) and its an unfortanate fact of life that leaking is part of it. Think theres a danger of beating the ECB over the head over an unpleasant tactic while totalling ignoring just how badly KP has apparently behaved.

There was that leak, and then one about him wanting to miss the NZ series, and play all formats except during the IPL. We don't know for certain if this is true. It may have been an extreme bargaining position in order that he might secure a slightly less advantageous outcome. I can't remember all the press, there may be more. But this fragment that found its way into the press can't ever be properly evaluated. yet this has been the core of the antipathy that has built up around Pietersen.

If you leave out hearsay, I can't see that Pietersen has acted badly at all. Just the futile and guarded protests of a vulnerable and isolated person, who wants to keep on playing cricket, with reasonable accommodations, but doesn't know who to trust.

That was all the same thing wasnt it? We know for certain that in a PR war KP- inexplicably - didnt deny it though.

Arthur how are the texts that hes apologised for hearsay now?

I dont know if hes vulnerable or isolated any more than I know that hes the money grabbing team spirit destroyng swine that others portray him as.

[D/L]

I am quite devastatingly pissed at all those who are drawing such strong generalisations about KP's personality.

But its alright for you to draw generalisations about those that work in the ECB and label them as untrustworthy, incompetant, even though you dont know them. Interesting, point of view.....

But the ECB are the only ones to leak private meetings in all this, AFAIK.

If that’s a reference to the revelation that Pietersen had retired from one day international cricket, I’d describe it as a statement, not a leak.

[D/L]

Lost for words. This is the ECB that doesnt punish Swann for publically passing derogatory comments regarding a teammate. This is the same ECB that doesnt punish Stuart Broad that contained swear words but punishes KP for the "Knightgate". This is the same ECB that allowed Strauss to quit one of the shorter formats but changed the rules when they came know to about KP's possible retirement. This is the same ECB who leaked the details of a private meeting but are reportedly annoyed with KP's you tube video.
So consistent.

That seems to be a seriously warped view of things, taking no account of the relative degrees of seriousness of the things mentioned.

[Arthur Crabtree]

There wasnt. I have no proof that Australia exists cos Ive never been there but Im pretty sure it does. The media said the texts existed, the SA management said they existed, Kp didnt deny they existed and I think you can be pretty sure players on both sides would have known they existed. The word was they were derogatory or critical. SA management said they were banter. In view of this is it really unreasonable for the ECB to ask KP just to confirm they were not bad mouthing the captain. They didnt ask to see the texts or know what was in them. They didnt even intrude on his privacy by asking SA managemnet or anyone to show them the texts.

You say they lacked evidence. I say we dont know what evidence they had but assume they wouldnt have done this without being pretty damned certain of where they stood.

This depends on what the ECB were trying to achieve doesn't it?

[D/L]

Two things i didn't know. Broad was living with the man who started the fake KP twitter account. Broad joined an hour later.

The ECB sacked the person who put KP up for press duties after the Headingley Test.

Both these I've seen below the line on news stories. Anyone know if these are true? The second feels so believable that it should be true.

First one is that, Broad posted a picture with the man who started the account 1 hour after he had started it, putting him in maybe the same place.

Second haven't heard that, where's it from?

Hmmm....I wonder if Broad will be disciplined for this. Surely, he should be dropped from the third Test too, if the ECB are consistent....

Apparently, the individual concerned has stated that no cricketers were involved in the “spoof” account.

Drop Broad for cricketing reasons, but not on the basis of tittle-tattle.

[D/L]

Yeah they seem to take drop players based on media allegations.

Do they? I thought in Pietersen’s case, it was justified by a full confession to some fairly serious wrongdoing.

[OffStumpYorker]

I am quite devastatingly pissed at all those who are drawing such strong generalisations about KP's personality.

But its alright for you to draw generalisations about those that work in the ECB and label them as untrustworthy, incompetant, even though you dont know them. Interesting, point of view.....

Good point, well made, OSY. Double standards at work there, perhaps.

Just heard Strauss's press conference on the wireless. Thought he acquitted himself with dignity. His saying that it may be a while before Pietersen may again be considered for an England squad must give some indication of the offensiveness contained in those texts.

That comes down to the team ethics and openess that Strauss and Flower implimented in the fall out of the Moores/KP debacle. Where by every player was allowed to say what they wanted without reproach to the person saying it in the dressing room, and it was seen as the end of the matter, but in public and to the opposition they showed a unified front.

IF kp has broken that trust why would they allow him back in wondering whether he was being honest in these meetings, or taking humbrage and then speaking out of turn to who ever outside the dressing room.

[Kim]

There wasnt. I have no proof that Australia exists cos Ive never been there but Im pretty sure it does. The media said the texts existed, the SA management said they existed, Kp didnt deny they existed and I think you can be pretty sure players on both sides would have known they existed. The word was they were derogatory or critical. SA management said they were banter. In view of this is it really unreasonable for the ECB to ask KP just to confirm they were not bad mouthing the captain. They didnt ask to see the texts or know what was in them. They didnt even intrude on his privacy by asking SA managemnet or anyone to show them the texts.

You say they lacked evidence. I say we dont know what evidence they had but assume they wouldnt have done this without being pretty damned certain of where they stood.

This depends on what the ECB were trying to achieve doesn't it?

They were trying to get KP to play in this test werent they? That why they gave him extra time. What else could they be after?

[Arthur Crabtree]

That was all the same thing wasnt it? We know for certain that in a PR war KP- inexplicably - didnt deny it though.

Arthur how are the texts that hes apologised for hearsay now?

I dont know if hes vulnerable or isolated any more than I know that hes the money grabbing team spirit destroyng swine that others portray him as.

I'm describing as hearsay the leaks, because they present such a limited insight into the negotiations between the ECB and KP.

By the way, on this thread I pasted some posts by Mike Selvey from below one of his articles, where he says that the information revealed wasn't a leak, but an off the record briefing given from the ECB to the press. This suggests that the releases were not in exchange for a free dinner by an anonymous ECB employee. Selvey defended these as normal and ethical.

[D/L]

But it was just an "allegation" when he was dropped though. For a team so obsessed with "principles", they forgot the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

Perhaps Pietersen’s refusal to assure the ECB he had sent nothing derogatory led them to think that perhaps he wasn’t entirely innocent.

Keep the excuses coming. They are hilarious.

[hopeforthebest]

KP told the ECB that he was planning that video and they asked him not to go ahead but in his own way he did.

[Kim]

That was all the same thing wasnt it? We know for certain that in a PR war KP- inexplicably - didnt deny it though.

Arthur how are the texts that hes apologised for hearsay now?

I dont know if hes vulnerable or isolated any more than I know that hes the money grabbing team spirit destroyng swine that others portray him as.

I'm describing as hearsay the leaks, because they present such a limited insight into the negotiations between the ECB and KP.

By the way, on this thread I pasted some posts by Mike Selvey from below one of his articles, where he says that the information revealed wasn't a leak, but an off the record briefing given from the ECB to the press. This suggests that the releases were not in exchange for a free dinner by an anonymous ECB employee. Selvey defended these as normal and ethical.

Yes I saw that. Didnt know what Selveys point was really. Same effect isnt it - something in the public realm to your advantage without a provable source?

[Arthur Crabtree]

They were trying to get KP to play in this test werent they? That why they gave him extra time. What else could they be after?

Well they have more than one agenda. One is picking a credible side to play SA. Another is dealing with Kevin Pietersen! I know that sounds cranky, but it fits with everything else that has happened this summer.

[ddb]

I expect the ICC anti corruption unit and affiliated bodies to share information privately, but the media would never share it privately. Very very rarely would they take that approach.

Think that's ignorant. There's a lot they know about that they wouldn't say for whatever reasons.

[meninblue]

There wasnt. I have no proof that Australia exists cos Ive never been there but Im pretty sure it does. The media said the texts existed, the SA management said they existed, Kp didnt deny they existed and I think you can be pretty sure players on both sides would have known they existed. The word was they were derogatory or critical. SA management said they were banter. In view of this is it really unreasonable for the ECB to ask KP just to confirm they were not bad mouthing the captain. They didnt ask to see the texts or know what was in them. They didnt even intrude on his privacy by asking SA managemnet or anyone to show them the texts.

You say they lacked evidence. I say we dont know what evidence they had but assume they wouldnt have done this without being pretty damned certain of where they stood.

This depends on what the ECB were trying to achieve doesn't it?

Arthur, Indian management and thinktank were keen to get rid of Vinod Kambli due to his antics. He was a player who was compared with Sachin. Some boards have not at all tolerated the distractions and rightfully so IMO. Players who cause concerns are more likely to be proactively monitored or maybe even sidelined by the administrators if he becomes a regular distraction.