Kevin Pietersen: :(

cheesyboy

cheesyboy

cheesyboy

Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,603
Location
Gloucestershire
Is anyone else sharing in my grief at, what appears to be, the final extinguishing of his England career?

I don't like to get too hyperbolic, but I really do shake my head at the management of the ECB. Why continue to rule him out? It's just going to run all summer unless the team performs: heaps pressure on Cook.
 
It's frustrating that Vaughan had to rule himself out of the role because he was given the clear information that Moores was not going anywhere and then, one test result later, Moores was on his way (good one, again, ECB)

I'm not convinced Vaughan would have got the gig anyway, not part of the same old boys setup as Strauss, but I rather wish he had.
 
GSVBagpuss said:
I seem to be in the minority here but I don't think he's worth the punt -
  • He's 34 and a trouble maker in the dressing room
  • He made runs yes, but against Leicestershire haven't won a FC game for two seasons.
  • We are not playing well, but is it better to bring KP in at risk for maybe two summers before he retires or let Ballance / Root cement their places?
Click to expand...

Well, they did bring 34-year-old Trott back, when he seemed woefully short of the task - even levering him into an unnatural position to squeeze him into the side.

Let's not make light of how incredible Pietersen's innings was. No, he wasn't facing a world class attack but 355no, including a final wicket partnership of 139 when the no11 scored 5 and 290 scored in one day, is nothing short of phenomenal. Plenty of other batsmen have faced that Leics attack and failed to score 300+. And it puts paid to any fitness worries.

I wouldn't put him straight into the team anyway - 3,4,5 have done nothing to warrant being dropped. But to have him as a replacement option, or as an extra batsman if they go, for example, with Moeen as opener would be ideal with the Ashes approaching. Who else are we going to bring in to the middle order in the event of injury to the current 3 guys?
 
Reading between the lines, it seems pretty clear that Cook is the main barrier to KP's return to the side. Strauss was open to having KP on board in an advisory role, the Head of the ECB is open to KP playing again, but there are "trust issues" in the team.

Probably also add Broad and Anderson to Cook's name. But Cook is the main stumbling block.
 
Breaking news:

Kevin Pietersen: Colin Graves rejects 'deceit' over England recall

New England and Wales Cricket Board chairman Colin Graves has rejected Kevin Pietersen's claims that he was deceived about a possible international return, BBC Sport has learned.
The ECB is to issue a response to the batsman's claims after he was told his bid to earn a recall had been in vain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32752558
 
Suspect Graves won't have technically guaranteed KP a return to the England side if he scored a hat-full of runs in county cricket. He'd have just told him he would be hard to ignore.

So that's ok, you see. He never promised. Or had his fingers crossed. Or something
 
I think we can safely conclude that Graves is talking weasel words here.

He obviously told KP enough that the picture was clearly that he, as the incomming Chairman of the ECB, was prepared to give KP the chance to get back in the team, and that therefore KP had a chance at getting back in the team.

He didn't say it was assured he would get back in the team, since that's not the chairman's call and it relies on more than just an agreement as KP has to play well enough to get the place - but he gave enough indication for KP, and the public frankly, to conclude that KP wouldn't be vetoed if he could prove his form warranted selection.

It's probably the case that Graves didn't bank on such resistance from Cook, and other senior team members (Anderson, Broad), and has had to back down, internally, due to that resistance.

Whatever his reasons for the about-turn, to claim that he didn't mislead KP is simply garbage. He ****ed up - by presuming that it was his call to make, and giving that impression to KP.
 
MarcLister said:
That's what I didn't get at the beginning of this whole sorry affair. Graves is not a selector and would not be able to get KP back into the team without either intimidating the selectors or removing them (if he can even do this) and replacing them with selectors loyal to him.
Click to expand...

It's not quite even that. I'm sure Graves never purported to be able to actually select KP, but the impression he gave was that he would be able to clear the way so that KP's selection would be assessed on a fair cricketing basis, rather than based on past grudges.

If Strauss had said to KP that he wouldn't be selected for the NZ tests, and there were no plans to bring him in for the Ashes, but that he would be considered on his merits if a change to the middle order was needed, then KP would have been accepting. The trouble is that the path for him back into the team is not simply based on his ability to play, or a space opening up, but relies on removal of actual obstacles - obstacles which Graves had told or insinuated to KP would be removed.
 
Seems that, indeed, Graves had told KP there would be a "clean slate". KP was never promised, nor expected, any guarantee to return to the team.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32764672

Graves, in the manner a professional politician would have been proud of, managed to put out a denial statement denying something no-one had actually accused him of. Whilst avoiding addressing the thing he HAD been accused of, of course.

Frankiemac said:
And look how well that turned out. The dressing room was split and poisonous. He should have been dropped there and then, yet more inept handling by ECB. The bloke deliberately went out of his way to screw his team mates over. That is the be all and end all.
Click to expand...

He didn't try to screw anyone over. The early allegation that he was giving playing tips to the Saffers turned out to be entirely unsubstantiated - he was bantering about Strauss.
 
I believe the captaincy thing was actually that the ECB hierarchy was unhappy with performances and asked for a report from Pietersen on his opinion of Moores. Pietersen reported that he didn't rate Moores at all, which was pretty much in line with the sentiment at the ECB.

At the same time, Pietersen was suffering from something of a disjointed dressing room cohesion - with some players not being happy with his captaincy.

Hence, the ECB got rid of them both. He didn't ultimatum the board about Moores' removal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom