Difficult to know what to make of KP claims

Obviously I haven't read it and I'm not rushing out to buy Kevin Pietersen's book.   But it's almost impossible to avoid the analysis of the points he raises.   The character assassination of Matt Prior is a bit of a surprise given that it's often been quoted how Prior made the first move in getting him back into the team after the textgate scandal.   And Graeme Swann has made that point in his initial view of the book as "a work of fiction".

 

Jonathan Agnew has also made the point that he wouldn't have come back into the team after textgate but for Flower's support.   So it's difficult to square the Pietersen account with the reality.   That said, my personal view is that it's unlikely to be invented in it's entirety.   We tend to assume that things remain the same within a team environment, but that's not the case.   Prior could have been a great team man during the period when he was on the up and an increasingly brooding presence lashing out at others as his personal performances dropped considerably to the point when even his greatest supporters would agree he had to be dropped.

 

And we also know that the bowlers were petulant every time someone misfielded - we all saw that from the TV pictures.   And the commentators all commented on how it was over the top.   So his comment that fielders were asked to apologise to the bowlers for mistakes doesn't seem particularly unlikely.   (Having said that, I automatically apologise to the bowler when I screw up in the field - doesn't everyone?)

 

One point that I definitely have some sympathy for Pietersen on is the question of wanting his wife and child on tour with him for the whole tour.   Everyone's different and to him it was key, so surely it was in England's interests to facilitate that for any player that wanted that.   There's no debate about how professional he was - he turned up on time and trained hard at all times - surely what he does and who he has with him outside of those times is (a) up to him and (b) in England's best interests to get right.   It's an issue that won't go away, unless of course Andrew Strauss is right and Test cricket is marginalised to such an extent that tours shorten considerably.

 

Equally, I totally disagree with Pietersen that anyone could have coached England during the period they got to number 1.   He suggested that they were that good that the coaching role wasn't important - I've always thought the opposite.   In the historical context of great teams like the West Indians in the times of Clive Lloyd or the Australian's under Steve Waugh, England were distinctly average and yet they made it to number 1, albeit for a very short time.   That was a victory for the sum of their parts rather than individuals, although Pietersen's right to point to his number of man-of-the-match awards.   He could undoubtedly win games of cricket for England that without him they couldn't have entertained thoughts of winning.

 

So the jury's out, for me at least.   Over time a consensus will presumably be reached on how much of Pietersen's book is true, how much is an exaggeration, and how much is pure fabrication.   I only hope that it's objectively assessed and that some attempt is made to see if what he says has elements of truth, or if elements of his book are entirely truthful.   If the concensus comes from what the (anti-Pietersen) majority want to think rather than the reality, that will be an extension of the bullying that he claims was so prevalent.

 

I don't believe that it's entirely fiction, no matter what Graeme Swann would have us think.   What will be interesting now is the reaction in the coming days, weeks and even months and years, as Pietersen's right - players under contract will not criticise the ECB.

 

Shaky start for Downton

By all accounts, Paul Downton is a good selection for the England Cricket MD position, but I can't say his immediately endeared himself to me in his position.   My memories of his playing days are hazey but in short I remember someone who was picked for his batting rather than his keeping, but generally failed to deliver with the bat.   Of course his playing credentials are irrelevant to his current position, so I was looking forward to seeing how things would go.

The subject that's worried me is Kevin Pietersen.   Not the decision itself, as Pietersen disgraced himself with the whole South Africa/Strauss incident and was lucky to get a second chance, but more the rationale behind the decision.

Downton has said that he went to Sydney for the final game of The Ashes and observed a player that was "disengaged".   I watched a fair bit of it myself and there were a few of Pietersen's colleagues who didn't appear to be 100% either....not a total surprise as they were getting beaten for the fifth time.   Graeme Swann couldn't even be bothered to complete the tour.   But most importantly, I thought the comments from Downton showed a misunderstanding of "ego" players and completely undermined Alastair Cook.   Apparently Pietersen was ok to play when managed by strong people around him, but this was a new team and that was no longer the case.   The inference was that Cook is or was too weak to handle him - not a great statement of confidence in your captain.

I also find it hard to believe that Downton didn't come across players of Pietersen's ilk when playing.   We've all played with them - players who when losing can't be seen to be trying their hearts out because that would imply their best wasn't good enough.   Instead, as it becomes clear they'll lose, those players start to lark about, trying to pass off the inevitable defeat that is hurting them so badly as a trivial event.   It's part of how they manage to stroll out to bat as if they own the stage - when they're at their best they win, they believe.   In club cricket, another trait of these players is their desire to integrate with the opposition after your team has been soundly beaten (and no other time)....it's all part of their attempts not to let a terrible result dent their confidence - they're a winner.

Nevertheless, the decision to sack Pietersen was made and, strangely, a non-disclosure agreement was made between both parties.   At this stage it's difficult to see why that was necessary as Downton says there was no one incident that caused a problem on the tour (it remains to be seen if anything important comes out once the NDA runs out, but Downton appears to be talking pretty candidly despite the NDA).   Pietersen himself has publicly stated that he was not disengaged and has also questioned comments from Downton that he couldn't find one supporter of Pietersen.   Of course, we don't know how the questions were asked as any player wanting an international career was unlikely to say anything that could go against the prevailing attitude and potentially threaten their future selection.   But we do know that two of the players who assumed their international career was over after the tour, Carberry and Tremlett, came out and said that Pietersen hadn't been a problem on the tour.

So while Pietersen's sacking was to a certain extent inevitable, and his performances in Australia certainly did him no favours, Downton's handling of things to date have made me concerned for his potential to be successful in his role.   And while he keeps saying things that are opinions only, Pietersen will continually respond publicly and the team won't be able to move on fully.   It's a pity he appears to be doing his media training on the job rather than before taking such an important role.

An England win!

How refreshing to wake up, check Cricinfo, and see that England have won!!   I had a momentary panic at 5:20 this morning when I read the top headline referring to England men's battering in the latest ODI before realising that wasn't the women's result.   Thank goodness for that....I was worried when Australia came back from 30odd for 5 in their 1st innings to gain a 1st innings lead, but a great partnership in the 2nd innings between Lottie Edwards and Jenny Gunn and some inspired bowling led to a 61 run victory.

Now to consider the men's ODI team which the terrible headline on Cricinfo was referring to.   Watching the start of the match was painful from an England perspective - yes early wickets happen but Root got stuck as if in a Test match.   Those that knock Pietersen should consider what the result might have been had he been batting 3 rather than Root.   (I agree with this piece from Tom Moody saying how much England need Pietersen.)   With the squad they're allowed to pick from (i.e. missing Pietersen/Broad) for the next match I'd be going for Carberry at 3 if they insist on that balance to the side or, ideally, to drop Root for Briggs or Tredwell.   If they're worried about the batting they could drop Rankin for Woakes to ensure they bat down to 8 with Bresnan and Jordan to follow, plus the spinner.   But unless he simply can't hit the cut strip I'd give Finn a go at Rankin's expense- he can't do much worse!

England seem to have settled on the number 6 slot for Bopara in ODIs but he's an option at 3 if England rejig the order and feel there's no one else for 3.   I didn't agree with any of the pre-match chat from the commentators/experts that England were a bowler light on the weekend - Bopara is a bowler in ODIs....his record compares well to Stokes and Bresnan (although in Bresnan's case he had to bowl in powerplays, and Stokes is very light on games played, but you get my point).   Bopara's bowling stats also compare well with Woakes incidentally.

Maybe a little of the resilience shown by England women can rub off on the men - I'm not holding my breath but it would help if they picked the best side.

Facts v opinion in the reporting of the KP saga

This post from King Cricket (and the parody piece it's following up on from the day before) pretty much sums up my feelings on the way that the KP story has been reported in the UK press (as you may be aware from when I wrote this piece)....nice to know I'm not alone on this!

Like children in the playground

 

You'll have noticed my lack of comment on the whole Kevin Pietersen debacle.   That's partly because of work/childcare etc, but partly because I don't know what to make of it.   KP is clearly like an only child who needs constant care and attention or otherwise he throws a tantrum.   Some of the players (e.g. Broad, Swann and Anderson) show so much petulance at times that you wonder if they're really past adolescence too so I assume they dig at him relentlessly.   All in all it amounts to a skirmish that resembles children bickering in the playground.

It's easy to give an opinion and without all the facts it's likely to be wrong.   But from what's in the public domain it's clear that Pietersen wanted to play the whole IPL and there will be others hoping that he'll pave the way for them, such as Morgan who apparently came to KP's defence on Twitter.   In that respect, Pietersen is playing the role of the elder child testing the parents' patience - he may not be successful, but I suspect the ECB will be a little more understanding with Morgan requests the same at some point.

I imagine most readers of Cricket Burble will be extremely anti-Pietersen.   I've not got a strong opinion.   Knowing the detail that Strauss and Flower plan with though, I think they'll be cursing themselves for not treating Pietersen with all the care and attention he feels he needs.   It's easy to say that he needs to fall in with the team ethic, but some players need love and adoration more than others, and all need bespoke handling to get the best out of them.   It would be interesting to know if Strauss and Flower have spent time thinking in detail about what could motivate Pietersen to new heights and ensure that he and his team mates gel....and then put in place that individual plan.

When West Indies toured here, much was made by the commentators about the fact that their most talented players weren't playing such as Gayle, Sarwan and Jerome Taylor.   It was said then that it was the job of the management to ensure that these characters were integrated and moulded into the best possible team for the West Indies.  

I don't hear anyone saying the same about England's management of Pietersen.   Being hard on Pietersen is acceptable (under the assumption that it leads to mid and long-term benefit for the England team), but only if at the same time they're reiterating to the rest of the team that all characters need to be integrated into the team.   It's not a popularity contest....it's about getting the best XI on the pitch to win for England, and Pietersen is undoubtedly in England's best XI.   It's both Pietersen and the ECB's responsibility to find a compromise, and the rest of the player's responsibilities to reintegrate him.

Fault on both sides in KP limited overs retirement

I've been agreeing with those that say that 3 formats of cricket is too much for a while now and for me it's 50 over cricket that has to go.   So does Kevin Pietersen by the sounds of it.  

Where the ECB have gone wrong is stipulating that you have to play ODIs and Twenty20 or neither.   Clearly there's no reason for that because the formats are very different and the squads change between the two - e.g. Cook, Trott, Bell and Prior who all play ODIs (most of the time), but not Twenty20.  

An easy compromise was available - Pietersen to play on in ODIs and Twenty20s until the end of this contract and then all England contracts to change to split the formats when they were next agreed.   That would have left England with one of the best Twenty20 batsman in the world available for the World T20 later in the year.   As an aside, it would have meant he was available for the ODIs this summer, but they're of zero importance so England could have "rested" him if necessary to ensure he was available for Twenty20.

The problem with how things have turned out is that the ECB had the wrong contracts in place and would now be forced into something of a climb down to get their best Twenty20 batsman to come out of retirement for that format only.   How do you resolve that?   Ask all pro cricketers in this country for their opinion and then take their opinion on board wahtever the result - it would certainly mean that contracts would not group together ODIs and Twenty20 and the ECB could claim to be a forward thinking organisation listening to employees.

End result, England get their best team on the pitch for the world T20 and a happier more likely to succeed Pietersen for Test cricket.   Chances - slim to zero!

Pietersen and Kohli show the way

Amazing watching the likes of KP and today Virat Kohli in full flight. When a batsman is really on top of a bowling attack it's incredible to watch them dictate the field and then place the ball where the fielder was before. Or in some cases ignore the field and just hit the ball for six.

I didn't get to see much of Pietersen's recent knocks but I saw the highlights of Kohli's and it really was sensational - the very best any of the commentators had seen so that's the combined spectating of the likes of Mark Nicholas, Tubby Taylor, Mark Slater and Tony Greig. It was essentially batting like the final stages of a Twenty20 innings for an extended period of time leaving one of the best ODI bowlers in the world, Lasith Malinga, with figures of 7.4 overs, 1 for 96. And also leaving Dilshan who scored 160 not out (off 165 balls) way short of the man-of-the-match award.

Kohli ended up with 133 not out off 86 at a strike rate of 154 to give India a chance of going through to the tri-series final if Australia do them a favour and beat Sri Lanka in the final group match. To get the bonus point they needed to win inside of 40 overs and did so with 20 balls to spare, scoring 321-3. Pretty special - why can't they do that every time?!?

Where is Samit Patel?

When the England squad was announced for the Pakistan series I commented on one of the many cricket sites that I read that I would have taken Samit Patel, either instead of Bopara or a pace bowler, giving England the opportunity to match Pakistan's 3 spinners if they wanted to. With speculation mounting that Morgan will be dropped, it seems Bopara is near certain to play but talented though he is, I don't feel any more confident in him than Morgan. Personally I'd stick with Morgan and tell him to look to be aggressive. It looks like they might both play now anyway, as Bell is ill.

Interesting that most of the pieces that refer to Morgan being likely to be dropped use Pietersen as the headline when surely the headline should be about Morgan? This piece on Cricinfo is an example - titled Pietersen low on runs and time...then suggesting Morgan will be dropped and Pietersen won't. Pietersen pulls in reader interest like no other clearly.

It will be interesting to see how England's batting line up, sans Samit Patel, fares - I can't say I'm feeling confident!

Strauss on his team mates

A huge amount was made of Graeme Swann's comments about Kevin Pietersen's lack of leadership credentials in his recently released autobiography, and yet any tensions that those words caused were never apparent to any external observer. Perhaps the England team have found that happy blend of honesty and even taking the mickey out of each other that allows sides to build up fantastic morale?

It's a near impossible thing to get right because it's rare that all players can give as good as they get, so invariably "banter" between team mates is something that is enjoyed rather more by some than by others. And if the team aren't careful, one or two players all too easily become the target for the majority of "banter", leaving them feeling a little ostracised.

Interesting then to hear Andrew Strauss - in relatively unguarded mood - make a few comments about his team mates and Chairman of Selectors, tongue in cheek. The whole video is about an hour and twenty minutes so here's a few of his comments I thought were interesting....

Simon Hughes asked Dusty Miller about how Strauss had come to be captain of England and Miller explained how he originally didn't see Strauss as a one day player and he thought at the time England needed the same captain for ODIs and Tests. His view that Strauss couldn't play ODIs changed and that opened things up for Strauss to become captain. Strauss' view (paraphrased): "What Dusty's is really trying to say is that after the Kevin Pietersen / Peter Moores fallout, there weren't many other options".

Simon Hughes also asked if Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott were really as boring as it appeared. Answer, "yes"! Strauss then clarified when asked if Trott participated in the changing room banter or if he was a loner....no, he's not a loner, "but don't let anyone tell you he's a normal bloke because he isn't". Apparently Trott has a habit of walking off to the next tee on the golf course before his opponent has finished the previous hole as he's so wrapped up in his own game, so it's not just batting where he's self-obsessed.

And what of the team comedian Graeme Swann? Strauss likens him to a Mars bar - the first one tastes great and the first time you meet Graeme Swann it's a very enjoyable experience. By the 15th Mars bar you're feeling sick, and continually spending time with Swann makes you feel that way too apparently.

Nice to know the England captain feels comfortable ribbing his team mates a little without fear of admonishment.

A balanced view on Pietersen would help England

I always read Stephen Brenkley's pieces for The Independent and he's a good writer but this one about Pietersen is just poor. It references a bloke in a pub, a cab driver and the unsubstantiated rumours that he might have wanted to retire from at least one form of cricket after the World Cup. Next he'll be quoting a "source" or a "close friend" tabloid style. It's a poor piece of writing.

The one thing that everyone in the know is unanimous on is that no-one works harder on their game than Kevin Pietersen, so any suggestion that his heart isn't in it should be ridiculed. Pietersen is this generation's Ramprakash so, while his place shouldn't be taken foregranted, he should be given every opportunity to succeed. Those that know him suggest that far from not caring, he almost wants it too much.

While his dismissals are often cause for annoyance from those willing him to succeed (because more often than not they're of his own making rather than the bowler's) Pietersen still averages late 40s in Test cricket after a relatively prolonged slump. And remember that's a slump which includes a double hundred. Andy Flower isn't a fool - if he didn't think Pietersen was the right man he'd move on, but he knows that Pietersen is key to reaching the stated target of world number 1.

I know there are many who read this blog who have taken against Pietersen, but for me baseless articles like Brenkley's this weekend have a lot to answer for. Few facts, mostly gossip. Journalists agree that there is no England player more polite and helpful to them, but they also confirm he reads everything and tackles them about perceived untruths. On Sky yesterday the Cricket Writers on TV all agreed they wouldn't drop Pietersen this summer if it was their decision, so suggestions that he may be dropped can wait until he's not scored a 50 and we're into August to have any credibility. He's only batted twice for England this summer after all. Sigh...

Hopefully Brenkley will quickly return to writing properly.

Door opens for Morgan and Hussey

I previously questioned why squads had to be limited in number and said it wasn't good for the World Cup that Eoin Morgan and Mike Hussey wouldn't be gracing the latter stages of the tournament. Well, it seems fate has conspired to allow them both their chance and Hussey describes it as "a dream come true".

Morgan is getting his chance following Pietersen's withdrawal due to a hernia. Pietersen isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I think his withdrawal is a huge blow. His batting is good enough that in the latter stages of the tournament he would have had the capability to win the game single-handedly, as Adam Gilchrist did in the 2007 final. But on top of that, his bowling should always have been a key part of England's strategy in this World Cup and he's being replaced by a non-bowler. Pietersen's bowling was quality yesterday and he was extremely unlucky not to have wickets to add to his economy rate of 3.75 in 8 overs, particularly the missed stumping.

England's best team now is: Strauss, Bopara, Trott, Bell, Morgan, Prior, Collingwood, Bresnan, Swann, Broad, Anderson. And Bopara needs to bowl.

KP as an opener?

That's not something I saw coming - using Pietersen as an opener. It didn't really work today with Pietersen making a start and not converting (no change there then), but it will be interesting to hear from England after he match whether this is the plan for the World Cup when it starts.

Stuart Broad played in the end, despite not being well, although why England felt they needed to ask the ICC for dispensation to play Tremlett (who's not in the squad) in a warm up game confuses me. It's up to them what they do isn't it - other sides have even fielded 12 or 13 players!

Disappointed that Bopara isn't in the side, as I imagine King Cricket might be given their Bopara piece yesterday - I thought the top 7 picked themselves and it was just a matter of working out what order to bat them in....

England 1st team for the World Cup

Assuming the walking wounded make it for the 1st match of the World Cup I'd be going with:

Strauss, Trott, Bell, Pietersen, Bopara, Prior, Collingwood, Bresnan, Broad, Swann, Anderson.

If Collingwood finds batting form I'd bring him higher in the order because otherwise you've got four loose flashy players in a row. Yardy can consider himself unlucky and could come in for any of the bowlers on spin-friendly wickets, which some will be.

It's difficult to get concerned about the World Cup at this stage - if England make it to the knockout stage I'll take an interest then! Believe it or not, that's not until 23rd March! Three thoughts for you coming into the World Cup:

Limited squad numbers

I assume there's a very good reason for having a set number of players in a squad but off the top of my head I can't think of one. If the national board can pay for accomodation and flights, wouldn't it be easier to allow them as many as they need or want? That way the likes of Mike Hussey could grace the later stages of the competition....with it being 6 weeks in total, there is the prospect of some of the world's great players watching the final stages from home, fully fit. That seems daft, given that everyone - spectators, players and sponsors alike - want to see the best players available contesting the World Cup.

Warm up matches

Warm up matches need to be against local first class sides - warm up matches between international sides are just World Cup matches without anything riding on them. Completely pointless!

ODIs in general

Although he was quick to deny it, it's been claimed that Kevin Pietersen was considering retiring from ODIs after the World Cup. If he isn't, he isn't, but some will do eventually if the ICC don't take the decision to end ODIs and go back to two forms of international cricket. Twenty20 is where the money is and Test cricket is where the real skill and quality cricket is. Difficult though it is, the ICC and member countries need to take the decision to bring ODIs to an end.

Who will win? I'm going for Sri Lanka given that they're on home turf (until the final anyway). But there's any number of teams that can win it and with the final just the one match it's impossible for anyone to predict with any accuracy.

Weather could come to Australia's aid

Sadly (for England supporters) the rain yesterday in Adelaide meant that the mouth-watering prospect of watching Kevin Pietersen, already with a double century to his name, and Ian Bell, who looked in sumptuous form, step on the accelerator prior to a declaration that would have left Australia an awkward few overs to see out at the end of the day, didn't become reality. It seems a shame that England will now almost certainly have to declare, having scored 1,068 for 5 over their last 2 innings given the Adelaide weather forecast.

If the weather was decent I'd be wanting to get a lead of over 450 because England won't want to bat again, but second guessing how much play there will be over the next two days will be tricky for Strauss. As a pessimist I fear a draw as Ponting will dig in second time round, and Australia won't gift England two wickets with schoolboy running again. But there is just a little optimistic streak in me that says that Anderson might be helped by cloudy and humid conditions and, more importantly, that Swann could turn it big, take a 5 for, and take England to victory. Fingers crossed!

Odd Bits and Bobs - Ashes related

A couple of things I've noticed in the last week or so.

1) Ian Chappell talks a lot of rubbish - one example being how disappointed he was in Steven Smith bowling in a long sleeve sweater in the Australia A game in windy Hobart. Is that a crime?

2) That moustache suits Ben Hilfenhaus. Looks like a modern Dennis Lillee. Mitchell Johnson and Kevin Pietersen, on the other hand...

Ashes Highlights

If you're struggling for time to watch Ashes highlights, or you don't have Sky or ITV4 then try the ECB highlights....they're only a couple of minutes per session! Long way to go in the series but after day 1, I think it's going to be a thriller. Siddle's day to remember got England 8 down but personally I was a bit disappointed the way England gave their last 2 wickets away - if we lose by twenty runs they may regret that. Especially Anderson who - despite successfully pulling off a reverse sweep before his dismissal - was choosing a risky shot against the spin instead of playing the percentages.

(That's not to say Bell didn't play brilliantly apart from the occassional swish when batting with the tailenders, including the shot he got out to, but I don't understand why the established batsman is so often the man to get out).

The good news is the starts that a number of England players got - Cook, Trott, Pietersen and Bell will hope to convert starts to centuries in future. It's possible that the Aussies will bat England out of the game tomorrow - and yesterday certainly wasn't a good start(!) - but it wouldn't surprise me if this turns out to be a very close Test completed on the 4th day....

Ponting v Pietersen?

If Pietersen does challenge Ponting as top run scorer in the series then England will be onto a good thing. My money is on Strauss eclipsing both but then, as this piece in The Independent says, Ponting's apparent downturn has seen him averaging 47 - I'd hate to see him hit a run of form!

Surrey experiment with Pietersen

Surrey obviously felt that Kevin Pietersen was worth the risk to team unity, despite the fact that he might only play a game or two during next season. But they will also be looking closely at tickets, shirt sales and other merchandise to see what impact he has there.

It's interesting too that this news came out after Mark Ramprakash picked up his injury - no doubt talks were already in progress, but I wonder if the Surrey might have discussed his early season availability with the ECB before agreeing this. England's first Test v Sri Lanka isn't until 26th May so although I can't find a 2011 fixture calendar (surely this is in place by now?!), Pietersen could play an important role for Surrey if he can help fill the void left by Ramprakash until the first Sri Lanka Test.

Clarke struggling with back injury

Shane Warne famously talked Kevin Pietersen into England's team for the 2005 Ashes, saying that he wanted to play against the best England had to offer. Can't say I agree....it's always good to hear the opposition are struggling with injuries, and if Michael Clarke can't play that can only be beneficial to England....

Unswerving loyalty (and stupidity) from Mike Hussey

Captaincy isn't easy and it's important the players understand that no captain can make the right call every time. But Mike Hussey really has taken loyalty to an extreme when he says: "who better to learn under then Ricky Ponting?"

I could try to list the huge number of people that make up the answer, but time is short so instead perhaps it's best to ask the question the other way round. "Who is worse to learn from than Ricky Ponting?" In recent cricketing history, that's easy. Andrew Flintoff, Kevin Pietersen and Mohammad Yousuf. Apart from that Ponting is inferior to all other international captains.

But that doesn't mean I think Australia should make a change either - I still think he's best for the Aussie job for the moment.