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!