The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[D/L]

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

...if you tell me England need his talent then you have no argument against his continued non selection...

On the contrary; for Pietersen’s undoubted cricketing talents to be dispensed with, we could reasonably form the opinion that there must have been plenty of good argument for it.

A significant one, if we are to believe what has been reported (and any legal action taken against these reports by the Pietersen camp is conspicuous by its absence), is that his actions have made it very difficult, if not impossible, for other players to work with him.

This happens in all walks of life. Cricket cannot be immune to it.

[greyblazer]

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.

I look forward to Keith Lemon's England debut.

SP,

Did you read the article by Steve James? He indicates Strauss left a straight one as he was perhaps distracted

[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.

I look forward to Keith Lemon's England debut.

SP,

Did you read the article by Steve James? He indicates Strauss left a straight one as he was perhaps distracted

No, but please forward me the link, I am in need of a laugh.

[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.

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

No problem. It was simply that your reply to a post that took factors other than statistics into account, simply referred to statistics.

[sussexpob]

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

...if you tell me England need his talent then you have no argument against his continued non selection...

On the contrary; for Pietersen’s undoubted cricketing talents to be dispensed with, we could reasonably form the opinion that there must have been plenty of good argument for it.

A significant one, if we are to believe what has been reported (and any legal action taken against these reports by the Pietersen camp is conspicuous by its absence), is that his actions have made it very difficult, if not impossible, for other players to work with him.

This happens in all walks of life. Cricket cannot be immune to it.

And just like in real life, if your employer was to sack a person who was unpopular but worked like a demon and never made mistakes, they would rightly be taken to court for false dismissal....

[greyblazer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricke ... trite.html

[meninblue]

I doubt the think tank will ignore KP as a team man aspect and give value only to KP as a batsman. i think the decision to welcome him will depend on the former aspect . If that was the case he would not have been dropped for Lords and T20, as well as he would not have been attending the meeting with Strauss.

[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.

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.

Sussex, being facetious becomes you.

[D/L]

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

...if you tell me England need his talent then you have no argument against his continued non selection...

On the contrary; for Pietersen’s undoubted cricketing talents to be dispensed with, we could reasonably form the opinion that there must have been plenty of good argument for it.

A significant one, if we are to believe what has been reported (and any legal action taken against these reports by the Pietersen camp is conspicuous by its absence), is that his actions have made it very difficult, if not impossible, for other players to work with him.

This happens in all walks of life. Cricket cannot be immune to it.

And just like in real life, if your employer was to sack a person who was unpopular but worked like a demon and never made mistakes, they would rightly be taken to court for false dismissal....

I think we both know that any account, supported by evidence, of such an employee’s conduct whilst at work would also be taken into account by any tribunal, sp.

[shankycricket]

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?

I am sure it would be attributed to the tainted series against Pakistan where KP got runs and boosted his average against a side that was "not trying". Even though the fact is that he hardly hit the ball off the square in that series and most of his runs have come in important series.
He averaged 60 in the Ashes. He was the Man of the Match at Adelaide, England's first win in that series, which set us up nicely for the series victory. But then that is of course irrelevant because it was KP who scored them.
KP was our highest run scorer in the series against India, the series which propelled us to the No.1 ranking . He set it up with that Lord's double hundred and was the only player to get past fifty in each of the 4 matches. Cook averaged 60 on the face of it. But all his contributions were restricted to one match. Trott barely played in that series.
Without KP's masterclass at Colombo, the No.1 ranking could have been lost long ago.

But scrap all that. KP is a crap batsman. The worst cricketer of all time. He is the one responsible for all the match fixing in the world. He is the one responsible for Strauss being utterly shite with the bat. He is to be blamed for the crime that he committed by helping England win an ICC tournament. Ban him.

[shankycricket]

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.

[sussexpob]

I think we both know that any account, supported by evidence, of such an employee’s conduct whilst at work would also be taken into account by any tribunal, sp.

Indeed, but to be fair, the ECB arent contractually bound to pick Pietersen or renew his contract, and sueing the ECB would destroy his career, so we both know any legal action isnt going to happen even if the evidence was there at KP's disposal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricke ... trite.html

A disgraceful and ridiculous article. Isnt it amazing the amount of failed BS England crickters who talk about KP with such a lack of respect its untrue... its nothing but inmitigated jealousy. Maybe Agnew and James would know more about playing for England, had they made more than a few tests between them after being so crap....

I dont think Joseph Goebbels could have wrote such a one sided piece of propaganda rubbish.

Sussex, being facetious becomes you.

Avoiding sensible answers and coming up with personal comments rather than argue the point(because you dont often have one) becomes you

[greyblazer]

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?

I am sure it would be attributed to the tainted series against Pakistan where KP got runs and boosted his average against a side that was "not trying". Even though the fact is that he hardly hit the ball off the square in that series and most of his runs have come in important series.
He averaged 60 in the Ashes. He was the Man of the Match at Adelaide, England's first win in that series, which set us up nicely for the series victory. But then that is of course irrelevant because it was KP who scored them.
KP was our highest run scorer in the series against India, the series which propelled us to the No.1 ranking . He set it up with that Lord's double hundred and was the only player to get past fifty in each of the 4 matches. Cook averaged 60 on the face of it. But all his contributions were restricted to one match. Trott barely played in that series.
Without KP's masterclass at Colombo, the No.1 ranking could have been lost long ago.

But scrap all that. KP is a crap batsman. The worst cricketer of all time. He is the one responsible for all the match fixing in the world. He is the one responsible for Strauss being utterly shite with the bat. He is to be blamed for the crime that he committed by helping England win an ICC tournament. Ban him.

More crimes reported. Now that KP after guiding the youngster Taylor went inside the dressing room and blasted him. The results of this bullying was found out after 3 weeks and published. Who knows? he may have damaged Taylor's confidence forever

[shankycricket]

I think we both know that any account, supported by evidence, of such an employee’s conduct whilst at work would also be taken into account by any tribunal, sp.

Indeed, but to be fair, the ECB arent contractually bound to pick Pietersen or renew his contract, and sueing the ECB would destroy his career, so we both know any legal action isnt going to happen even if the evidence was there at KP's disposal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricke ... trite.html

A disgraceful and ridiculous article. Isnt it amazing the amount of failed BS England crickters who talk about KP with such a lack of respect its untrue... its nothing but inmitigated jealousy. Maybe Agnew and James would know more about playing for England, had they made more than a few tests between them after being so crap....

I dont think Joseph Goebbels could have wrote such a one sided piece of propaganda rubbish.

Sussex, being facetious becomes you.

Avoiding sensible answers and coming up with personal comments rather than argue the point(because you dont often have one) becomes you

[hopeforthebest]

It wasunt me wot dunnit sir, it was the ECB and rotten papers wot dunnit.