The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[sussexpob]

D/L,

Could you please tell me your interpretation of the two below statements in reference to the light they are in(by the way, the media stories you find these in universally pick up my understanding):

1. ‘The only route back for Kevin is reconciliation,’ said an ECB source. ‘He has to put his hands up and say, “Sorry guys, I sent the texts, but it was in the heat of the moment”. The sanctity of that dressing room is so strong that the apology would have to be made publicly.’

I doubt very much that the statement from the "ECB source" was intended to conveyed the meaning that a quick confession would be rewarded by a more or less immediate selection for the World T20 (or any other format).

It seems a rather strange interpretation that anyone confessing to a very serious breach of trust would, in effect, have suffered no sanction whatsoever.

You avoided the question, I asked you to provide me with your interpretation of these words

[hopeforthebest]

Johnathan Agnew is reporting that KP will definitely not be going to India but the announcement of the squad will be delayed to give Andy Flower time to evaluate whether Bopara should be included. How yo can evaluate a batsmen's readiness for test cricket from his performance in T20 baffles me.
It seems to me that if Flower had done as many cartwheels to get Pietersen back into the fold as he's willing to do for Bopara, this whole sorry business would have ended by now.

[D/L]

D/L,

Could you please tell me your interpretation of the two below statements in reference to the light they are in(by the way, the media stories you find these in universally pick up my understanding):

1. ‘The only route back for Kevin is reconciliation,’ said an ECB source. ‘He has to put his hands up and say, “Sorry guys, I sent the texts, but it was in the heat of the moment”. The sanctity of that dressing room is so strong that the apology would have to be made publicly.’

I doubt very much that the statement from the "ECB source" was intended to conveyed the meaning that a quick confession would be rewarded by a more or less immediate selection for the World T20 (or any other format).

It seems a rather strange interpretation that anyone confessing to a very serious breach of trust would, in effect, have suffered no sanction whatsoever.

You avoided the question, I asked you to provide me with your interpretation of these words

My interpretation of the statement would be that the reconciliation process, due to the seriousness of the issue, would take some time (which is really just another way of saying what I originally said).

[Making_Splinters]

Should we also accept what the South Africans said at the same face value that some seemed to accept what Swann said about any decision the ECB made about Pietersen, M_S? A little reading between the lines is often a good idea.

Having made sure the leak of the existence of the texts had damaged our test chances, why would the South Africans not downplay their content? The remark that it was banter between team-mates made by one of their officials was clearly ludicrous, anyway.

Of course, we’ll never know the verbatim content of the texts but what we do know is that Pietersen could not force himself to deny the nature of them as described to him. Also, the one word we seem to know was used is said to be quite an offensive one in the Afrikaans language .

Again, D/L, in abstraction of context the definition of a word is somewhat meaningless. I'm sure we can all think of examples of words which have drastically different significances when used in different contexts and as the old saying goes if you pick and chose your start and end points you can make any correlation you want to.

Personally I found the description the South Africans chose to use very illuminating as it basically made the point that the content was something that could be seen as very offensive outside a certain circle and having been involved in Rugby and Cricket clubs for the best part of half a century I'm well aware of what "banter" actually means.

Yes, context is the key, M_S, but the choice of words issue is far less significant than Pietersen being unable to force himself to deny the nature of the communication as described to him at the time and for which he was asked to apologise.

As far as I am aware, D/L, KP has not said that the messages were meant directly in a derogatory or offensive manner. A simple recognition of the differing contexts of which a message would be seen in explains the predicatment KP found himself in; whether or not his original intentions were or were not harmfull became irrelevent the second they were exposed to a person independent of the original senario. Again the choice of the word banter is particularly enlightening but at least we can agree that context is important and that is something that despite the media's best intentions we know absolutely nothing about.

We can speculate about context but with out knowing what it was then it is impossible to say that the only word we know actually was meant as anything more than a throw away comment or as a directed and barbed attack.

[hopeforthebest]

My word how many circles are yo guys going to go in, before you give it up.

[D/L]

No circles on this side of the debate, hftb. Speculating about the wording is pointless. The really damning element in all this seems to be Pietersen’s refusal to deny the nature of the texts as put to him by the ECB.

[Making_Splinters]

No circles on this side of the debate, hftb. Speculating about the wording is pointless. The really damning element in all this seems to be Pietersen’s refusal to deny the nature of the texts as put to him by the ECB.

Wording and context are actually key to the entire issue and they are something that we are never going to know. What ever the original intention was it became irrelevant when the matter was presented by a party that also did not know what was said. In fact we don't even know how the ECB chose to frame the matter, considering the subjective nature of the matter then the question, "Could these be considered offensive" is entirely down the perception of the person in question not the original intention at all.

At the end of the day the entire matter is based around a single word deviod of context, personally I actually don't think someone sending something offensive about someone else is a serious matter at all. As adults we should be able to get over it.

[Kim]

Johnathan Agnew is reporting that KP will definitely not be going to India but the announcement of the squad will be delayed to give Andy Flower time to evaluate whether Bopara should be included. How yo can evaluate a batsmen's readiness for test cricket from his performance in T20 baffles me.
It seems to me that if Flower had done as many cartwheels to get Pietersen back into the fold as he's willing to do for Bopara, this whole sorry business would have ended by now.

They are evaluating his state of mind not how he does in a T20 I think. Quite right they take time - they spent time and money on Tresco befiore the 2006 ashes - and still got it wrong

[Gingerfinch]

At the end of the day the entire matter is based around a single word deviod of context, personally I actually don't think someone sending something offensive about someone else is a serious matter at all. As adults we should be able to get over it.

---------------------------------------

So, you would be ok if one of your employees sent a text to a competitor, calling you a useless tosser?

[D/L]

A reasonable interpretation of an event we understand to have happened, i.e. the meeting at which Pietersen was confronted by the ECB with a description of the nature of the texts as the ECB considered them to be (however they came by that information), is that the ECB’s description of them tallied so well with Pietersen’s knowledge of them that he felt unable to issue a denial.

All other issues, particularly opinions as to context, seem peripheral and logical somersaults merely a distraction.

[Making_Splinters]

At the end of the day the entire matter is based around a single word deviod of context, personally I actually don't think someone sending something offensive about someone else is a serious matter at all. As adults we should be able to get over it.

---------------------------------------

So, you would be ok if one of your employees sent a text to a competitor, calling you a useless tosser?

I have actually commentated on this before Ginger, I've never sacked anyone for making personal comments about any member of my staff - the obvious exception would be if they were discriminatory in nature, something that has never happened - however I have sacked people for passing on company information to other people. All that has always mattered to me is whether or not people can have a working relationship when they're on my time or in other words whether people are capable of acting like adults.

[Making_Splinters]

A reasonable interpretation of an event we understand to have happened, i.e. the meeting at which Pietersen was confronted by the ECB with a description of the nature of the texts as the ECB considered them to be (however they came by that information), is that the ECB’s description of them tallied so well with Pietersen’s knowledge of them that he felt unable to issue a denial.

All other issues, particularly opinions as to context, seem peripheral and logical somersaults merely a distraction.

Seeing as no one knows what actually happened that is also nothing but an opinion on context.

[Gingerfinch]

At the end of the day the entire matter is based around a single word deviod of context, personally I actually don't think someone sending something offensive about someone else is a serious matter at all. As adults we should be able to get over it.

---------------------------------------

So, you would be ok if one of your employees sent a text to a competitor, calling you a useless tosser?

I have actually commentated on this before Ginger, I've never sacked anyone for making personal comments about any member of my staff - the obvious exception would be if they were discriminatory in nature, something that has never happened - however I have sacked people for passing on company information to other people. All that has always mattered to me is whether or not people can have a working relationship when they're on my time or in other words whether people are capable of acting like adults.

But KP wasn't sacked was he? I thought (could be well wrong) that all he had to do was apologise (and mean it) and he was back in the side. The ECB were correct in disciplining him IMO. What's gone on since, is a mystery to me.

[D/L]

A reasonable interpretation of an event we understand to have happened, i.e. the meeting at which Pietersen was confronted by the ECB with a description of the nature of the texts as the ECB considered them to be (however they came by that information), is that the ECB’s description of them tallied so well with Pietersen’s knowledge of them that he felt unable to issue a denial.

All other issues, particularly opinions as to context, seem peripheral and logical somersaults merely a distraction.

Seeing as no one knows what actually happened that is also nothing but an opinion on context.

Let us have a more convincing theory of the reason for Pietersen’s denial then.

[Making_Splinters]

At the end of the day the entire matter is based around a single word deviod of context, personally I actually don't think someone sending something offensive about someone else is a serious matter at all. As adults we should be able to get over it.

---------------------------------------

So, you would be ok if one of your employees sent a text to a competitor, calling you a useless tosser?

I have actually commentated on this before Ginger, I've never sacked anyone for making personal comments about any member of my staff - the obvious exception would be if they were discriminatory in nature, something that has never happened - however I have sacked people for passing on company information to other people. All that has always mattered to me is whether or not people can have a working relationship when they're on my time or in other words whether people are capable of acting like adults.

But KP wasn't sacked was he? I thought (could be well wrong) that all he had to do was apologise (and mean it) and he was back in the side. The ECB were correct in disciplining him IMO. What's gone on since, is a mystery to me.

Well being left out of the side and being stripped of a central contract is about as close to being sacked as an England cricketer can be. Thankfully the actual content of what has happened since everyone decided to sit down and deal with matters has been left out of the public domain.