The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[Dilbert]

Given that for the majority of Englands rise to the top (widely accepted as being the Andrew Strauss era) Pietersen was bang out of form and on more than one occasion was on the verge of being axed from the team on performance alone it shows how comparatively little impact he had. Cook and Trott have been the bedrock of Englands recent successes, which is why their failure against South Africa exposed the batting line-up so much. Pietersen up until about 6 months ago was performing maybe once a series, if that.

Well, if after being bang out of form, he can still top batting averages for over a year, and score more runs at a better average and SR than your "bedrock" batsmen, I fail to understand how his contribution can be irrelevent.

[hopeforthebest]

I don't think Pietersen's talent as batsmen is relevant to the current situation. This is all about his character and and desire to put team England ahead of other things.

[D/L]

Given that for the majority of Englands rise to the top (widely accepted as being the Andrew Strauss era) Pietersen was bang out of form and on more than one occasion was on the verge of being axed from the team on performance alone it shows how comparatively little impact he had. Cook and Trott have been the bedrock of Englands recent successes, which is why their failure against South Africa exposed the batting line-up so much. Pietersen up until about 6 months ago was performing maybe once a series, if that.

Well, if after being bang out of form, he can still top batting averages for over a year, and score more runs at a better average and SR than your "bedrock" batsmen, I fail to understand how his contribution can be irrelevent.

Thankfully, some comment is informed by more than mere statistics.

[sussexpob]

Andrew Symmonds was such a good ODI and T20 cricketer. He was dropped form international team and then he later on failed to even perform in the last IPL. Even Murali is struggling nowadays.

Murali is over 40, and an old 40 year old having bowled by far the most overs in test history, he actually said at about 35 the sheer amount he bowled for Sri Lanka meant he was physically shot years ago, not really comparative. And Andrew Symonds was an alcoholic who was suffering from depression about the time his international career ended, indeed him turning up to a radio broadcast and saying he likes to perv on Matt Hayden's wife, and that his newly signed team mate Brendan McCullum was a piece of *modded*, throughly intoxicated at the time, seen him dropped from the test squad, and then going out and getting smashed out his face at the World T20 ended his international career for good when he was suspended and kicked out the squad.

Cricket Australia actually said they would maintain his international career if he went to see a psychologist for alcohol treatment, but I think at the time Symonds made a remark that he would prefer to fish and drink then play cricket.... again, unless KP starts drinking vodka for breakfast, its not comparable. Im pretty sure a retired McGrath, Warne and Gilchrist on the flip side did well in IPL.

Cmon guys, whatever he did off the field can be debated, but surely you can acnowledge his onfield performances?

Indeed, in simplistic terms, anyone who says KP is not needed in pure performance terms should go and stick their head in a toilet.... you can justify his non selection through some means, but denying his ability as Englands best batsman is simply making yourself look stupid.

[hopeforthebest]

Certainly Pietersen's talent is needed but is Pietersen the man needed? That is the kernel of what is under consideration.

[sussexpob]

Certainly Pietersen's talent is needed but is Pietersen the man needed? That is the kernel of what is under consideration.

Quite literally, this comment shows just how silly this argument is.... if you tell me England need his talent then you have no argument against his continued non selection.

Forgive me, but isnt sport about talent and nothing else? As I said previous to this, how many people have time to dwell on friendships and personal business in the fractions of a second it takes for the ball to leave the hand to you playing it??? Cricket is a game of instinct, you dont have time to dwell on things, so dressing room BS does not impact what you do with the bat.

General confidence can, and as I illustrated on the other thread, Ian Bell is a guy who has struggled with mental strength and toughness, and is it mere coincidence that all his best test match innings follow in conjunction with KP playing at his most destructive best?

Faisalabad - KP scores a quick 100, Bell makes a score.
Lords - KP hits 152 in 180 balls, Bell makes a score of 199
Trent Bridge - Bell scores 235 after KP hits 185 in 230 balls....

These are just a few examples of when, it is clear to me, the meek character of Bell takes strength and gains confidence in seeing his partners brashness at the other end.

His next best test score, I think, came with Trott playing a masterful double hundred vs Sri Lanka....Batsman feed from batsman, not from drinking in the pub together. You think a batsman finds comfort knowing the people in the dressing room are his friends, or the fact the guy 22 yards away who is out there with you has the ability to score big and qucikly?

Only a weak minded man would say the former, and they generally dont make good cricketers.

[yorker_129-7]

Given that for the majority of Englands rise to the top (widely accepted as being the Andrew Strauss era) Pietersen was bang out of form and on more than one occasion was on the verge of being axed from the team on performance alone it shows how comparatively little impact he had. Cook and Trott have been the bedrock of Englands recent successes, which is why their failure against South Africa exposed the batting line-up so much. Pietersen up until about 6 months ago was performing maybe once a series, if that.

Well, if after being bang out of form, he can still top batting averages for over a year, and score more runs at a better average and SR than your "bedrock" batsmen, I fail to understand how his contribution can be irrelevent.

So he's our best batsman since we became #1? From where I'm standing, and the results we've had since getting their, that's not saying much. And doesn't prove he was any more than a bit-part player in getting us there to start with.

[yorker_129-7]

So far, Pietersen’s commentary deal is a non-story. The only thing that can prevent him commentating is an objection from the ICC. If that were to happen, given recent events, many would understand.

Salman Butt I believe was on the receiving end of one of these at the last 50 over world cup.

[sussexpob]

Given that for the majority of Englands rise to the top (widely accepted as being the Andrew Strauss era) Pietersen was bang out of form and on more than one occasion was on the verge of being axed from the team on performance alone it shows how comparatively little impact he had. Cook and Trott have been the bedrock of Englands recent successes, which is why their failure against South Africa exposed the batting line-up so much. Pietersen up until about 6 months ago was performing maybe once a series, if that.

Well, if after being bang out of form, he can still top batting averages for over a year, and score more runs at a better average and SR than your "bedrock" batsmen, I fail to understand how his contribution can be irrelevent.

So he's our best batsman since we became #1? From where I'm standing, and the results we've had since getting their, that's not saying much. And doesn't prove he was any more than a bit-part player in getting us there to start with.

In real terms, without KP's runs in the last 5 tests, we would have lost to Sri Lanka 2-0 and been whitewashed by South Africa.

Instead we drew 1-1, and could have, given more time, went into the South Africa final test with more confidence and at 1-1...

[Dilbert]

Given that for the majority of Englands rise to the top (widely accepted as being the Andrew Strauss era) Pietersen was bang out of form and on more than one occasion was on the verge of being axed from the team on performance alone it shows how comparatively little impact he had. Cook and Trott have been the bedrock of Englands recent successes, which is why their failure against South Africa exposed the batting line-up so much. Pietersen up until about 6 months ago was performing maybe once a series, if that.

Well, if after being bang out of form, he can still top batting averages for over a year, and score more runs at a better average and SR than your "bedrock" batsmen, I fail to understand how his contribution can be irrelevent.

So he's our best batsman since we became #1? From where I'm standing, and the results we've had since getting their, that's not saying much. And doesn't prove he was any more than a bit-part player in getting us there to start with.

So he didnt help you get there, he didnt help you while you were there. Where exactly did he get his 50 avg from then?

[greyblazer]

Since Ashes 09 Trott one of England's best has made 2516 runs at 49 and KP 2429 runs at 48.58. In his worst year 2010 KP averaged 41.55 which doesn't help his average. Well many players won't mind averaging 41.55 at their worst though

[Dilbert]

Given that for the majority of Englands rise to the top (widely accepted as being the Andrew Strauss era) Pietersen was bang out of form and on more than one occasion was on the verge of being axed from the team on performance alone it shows how comparatively little impact he had. Cook and Trott have been the bedrock of Englands recent successes, which is why their failure against South Africa exposed the batting line-up so much. Pietersen up until about 6 months ago was performing maybe once a series, if that.

Well, if after being bang out of form, he can still top batting averages for over a year, and score more runs at a better average and SR than your "bedrock" batsmen, I fail to understand how his contribution can be irrelevent.

Thankfully, some comment is informed by more than mere statistics.

I'm sorry, I didnt understand what you are trying to say here. Can you please elaborate?

[hopeforthebest]

sussex your continual boosting of KP by denigrating Bell just shows how desperate you are. This is, nor has ever been about KP's talent or that of any other player, trying to make it so just shows how little you and KP's other sympathisers have grasped the situation.

[Dilbert]

sussex your continual boosting of KP by denigrating Bell just shows how desperate you are. This is, nor has ever been about KP's talent or that of any other player, trying to make it so just shows how little you and KP's other sympathisers have grasped the situation.

Actually, if you read the posts, many of these so called anti KP brigade are making statements that his contribution was almost nil in terms of Englands success, his absence doesnt matter at all and he wont be missed by the Eng team.

[sussexpob]

sussex your continual boosting of KP by denigrating Bell just shows how desperate you are. This is, nor has ever been about KP's talent or that of any other player, trying to make it so just shows how little you and KP's other sympathisers have grasped the situation.

forgive me.... as you have quite rightly put, my fatal error in this discussion was to assume that the national team of a country is to be picked on talent lines and not personality lines. How stupid of me to think that England are a better team with their best historical player in the side.

I look forward to Keith Lemon's England debut.