The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[hopeforthebest]

The newly elected chairman of the ECB has to come out and clarify exactly what he promised Kevin Pietersen if he wants his organisation,and more importantly himself, to regain any credibility. For a man of such an outspoken nature he's become very quiet of late.

Probably sensible

As I understand it, Graves officially takes up his post tomorrow.

[Arthur Crabtree]

It sounds like only Strauss isn't accountable to results. Everyone else is. Cook has been given seven games to improve.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Strauss wasn't part of the set up when the initial carrot was dangled.

He's come in and said sod all this incentive nonsense, you ain't playing when I'm around and I'm telling you straight so you know where you stand.

Of course, Strauss inherited a previously existing situation. If assurances were made before his arrival, they have to influence his decisions. He has allowed the past to impact on his direction in every other way, apart from Graves' promise.

[Gingerfinch]

Strauss wasn't part of the set up when the initial carrot was dangled.

He's come in and said sod all this incentive nonsense, you ain't playing when I'm around and I'm telling you straight so you know where you stand.

Of course, Strauss inherited a previously existing situation. If assurances were made before his arrival, they have to influence his decisions. He has allowed the past to impact on his direction in every other way, apart from Graves' promise.

You can't blame Strauss for going against Graves' words. The fact is, Graves shouldn't have opened his massive gob.

[sussexpob]

Strauss wasn't part of the set up when the initial carrot was dangled.

He's come in and said sod all this incentive nonsense, you ain't playing when I'm around and I'm telling you straight so you know where you stand.

Of course, Strauss inherited a previously existing situation. If assurances were made before his arrival, they have to influence his decisions. He has allowed the past to impact on his direction in every other way, apart from Graves' promise.

You can't blame Strauss for going against Graves' words. The fact is, Graves shouldn't have opened his massive gob.

Of course he shouldn't have opened his gob..... but he did, so to be taken seriously he has to stick by his words.

[Gingerfinch]

Strauss wasn't part of the set up when the initial carrot was dangled.

He's come in and said sod all this incentive nonsense, you ain't playing when I'm around and I'm telling you straight so you know where you stand.

Of course, Strauss inherited a previously existing situation. If assurances were made before his arrival, they have to influence his decisions. He has allowed the past to impact on his direction in every other way, apart from Graves' promise.

You can't blame Strauss for going against Graves' words. The fact is, Graves shouldn't have opened his massive gob.

Of course he shouldn't have opened his gob..... but he did, so to be taken seriously he has to stick by his words.

Who Graves? I thought Strauss was in charge?

[SaintPowelly]

Strauss wasn't part of the set up when the initial carrot was dangled.

He's come in and said sod all this incentive nonsense, you ain't playing when I'm around and I'm telling you straight so you know where you stand.

Of course, Strauss inherited a previously existing situation. If assurances were made before his arrival, they have to influence his decisions. He has allowed the past to impact on his direction in every other way, apart from Graves' promise.

You can't blame Strauss for going against Graves' words. The fact is, Graves shouldn't have opened his massive gob.

[SaintPowelly]

Strauss wasn't part of the set up when the initial carrot was dangled.

He's come in and said sod all this incentive nonsense, you ain't playing when I'm around and I'm telling you straight so you know where you stand.

Of course, Strauss inherited a previously existing situation. If assurances were made before his arrival, they have to influence his decisions. He has allowed the past to impact on his direction in every other way, apart from Graves' promise.

You can't blame Strauss for going against Graves' words. The fact is, Graves shouldn't have opened his massive gob.

Of course he shouldn't have opened his gob..... but he did, so to be taken seriously he has to stick by his words.

Is Graves a selector ?? or in any position to dictate team selection ?? I thought he wasn't

[Arthur Crabtree]

A promise of a 'clean slate'. Graves arguable should have said this (it was the right things to do, as the decision to sack KP in the first place was a scandal) though not in accordance with his colleagues. But he most certainly made the assurance, publicly and privately. Strauss just ignored it and ran with personal feeling.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Graves wasn't selecting KP, he was unsacking him. Saying he would be judged on merit. That makes it a matter of ECB policy.

[Aidan11]

This was the first item on SSN today even pushing the report on last night's CL game into second place.

[sussexpob]

Strauss wasn't part of the set up when the initial carrot was dangled.

He's come in and said sod all this incentive nonsense, you ain't playing when I'm around and I'm telling you straight so you know where you stand.

Of course, Strauss inherited a previously existing situation. If assurances were made before his arrival, they have to influence his decisions. He has allowed the past to impact on his direction in every other way, apart from Graves' promise.

You can't blame Strauss for going against Graves' words. The fact is, Graves shouldn't have opened his massive gob.

Of course he shouldn't have opened his gob..... but he did, so to be taken seriously he has to stick by his words.

Is Graves a selector ?? or in any position to dictate team selection ?? I thought he wasn't

Well, is Strauss a selector? Is his coach? Is Whitaker? When asked, he said the selection process remained the same, so I doubt it, especially on tours. The exact nature of Strauss' job is still incredibly vague, by his own provided definition.

And Graves is Harrison and Strauss' boss, so he is in the perfect position to dictate whatever he wants.

[Gingerfinch]

A promise of a 'clean slate'. Graves arguable should have said this (it was the right things to do, as the decision to sack KP in the first place was a scandal) though not in accordance with his colleagues. But he most certainly made the assurance, publicly and privately. Strauss just ignored it and ran with personal feeling.

That's down to Strauss. Many managers bring personal matters into play, rightly or wrongly. In this instance I do think KP was treated harshly, though he must have feared the worst when Strauss become the boss.

[budgetmeansbudget]

Graves wasn't selecting KP, he was unsacking him. Saying he would be judged on merit. That makes it a matter of ECB policy.

But he wasn't in a position to do so as he hadn't officially taken up his post.

[Arthur Crabtree]

He clearly brought his historical feelings into a situation that had moved on. Strauss felt let down by KP calling him a doos to the SAns. But KP went through his truth and reconciliation and played after that. KP was later sacked and then the ECB offered him a way back. But Strauss acted under the influence of prior resentments.