I know we have a smallish minority of cricket fans lurking around the site. But, as yet, no debate over the KP scenario? Anyway, saw this on twitter - and just had to share, darlings!
If they play EM they have to let him play his natural game and attack bowlers. Some players KP being the main one have mentioned Englands over analytical approach and I think that would not help a player like EM. Piers Morgan.... well the less said the better.
Why, when we get a talented team do we always manage to shoot ourselves in the foot? It started with Botham, they wanted him to be aggressive on the pitch and a saint off it, then we had Gower's kamikarsy pilot escapade, Freddy Flintoff, why does it matter if someone goes on a pedalo in the early hours if they are producing on the field? O/T a second Cromer, why are you upsetting Carla on twitter?
There's the irony. KP was ushered out of the side door for doing things 'his' way, and being bold, adventurous and unorthodox. Exactly what Morgan's batting brings to the party I'm yet to be convinced, but Garry Ballance could well be the answer, if the ECB are truly looking for ten Alastair Cook clones
Because a) it's not overly difficult and b) because imho the 1975 are a talentless bunch of tossers who continue to release the same two chord dirge which joe gullible public can't get enough of Anyway, she can handle it.
Well that was part of the problem. You can't try and stifle a player like KP as it ruins his game. Yes he may get out poorly now and again but equally he can win you a match. No way KP should of gone based on cricket but of course we dont know the ins and outs of him off the pitch. You have to question the man management of KPs cricket by Cook and the ECB, he is talented let him do it his way batting. It worked for a while but England are too one dimensional in the way they play. Try and get the top order to grind out big runs to give our bowlers something to protect. We have been very successful and did it very well but if it doesn't work we dont have many players who can take the game to the opposition. Australia played brilliant attacking cricket at times and we need to have something to combat that. Buttler looks a talent but not ready for tests just yet same with Ballance.
Holy mother of mercy, read this and weep This is not flair being coached out of the game, it's about punishment for having the audacity to show any in the first place!! Wake the **** up, ECB and Paul Downton. http://www.espncricinfo.com/thestands/content/story/717821.html
I don't know what the stats show in cricket but in football they show incontrovertibly that it is a mistake to invest too much in a star player. A team's success is generally determined by the quality of the lesser talents in it. If discarding KP allows the England team to perform better as a unit, the decision will be well justified.
Agree to an extent. The team should always take priority, but cricket is unusual in the sense it is a team game with large individual elements. No one really knows the ins and outs of why KP has been dropped. In terms of cricket talent and performance it was wrong but off the field it maybe the correct decision, especially as teams tour together for months on end it maybe correct. I do have my concerns for English cricket over the next couple of years though. New coach may change this view.
I'm looking forward to seeing how our two new players - they being T.Methic and Phil Osophy - get on in comparison to KP's career. Have to say although I obviously don't know the full story behind the decision, but from what I do know I think it's absolutely bloody ludicrous! I also have to say that despite him clearly being a very, very good cricketer, and I know that until this winter he had almost unbridalled success, I'm not really a big fan of Alistair Cook's captaincy or his demeanour both on and off the pitch. I personally think he gives off a negative vibe and don't find him a particularly inspiring character at all.
And the limp-wristed excuse for axing KP seems to be that he failed (more than everyone else involved) to toe the corporate, Cook induced party line. I've heard words like 'disruptive' mentioned, plus they keep trotting out () the old chestnut about him having to be 'reintegrated' after the South Africa "text-gate" affair. Potentially a draconian step backwards by the ECB - when after a complete mauling down under, we needed consolidation more than chaos!?
I have seen KP bat a number of times and on his day (and he has more good days than bad) he is the most entertaining player I have seen since Gilchrist but with more power and (arguably) a wider range of shots. He is also unusual in that he excels at all three forms of the game. However for all his class everywhere he has played (and I mean everywhere) he has fallen out with either team mates or the management or both and it is never, in his opinion, "his fault". It is not just the ECB which some people seem to be implying. It is easy to forgive a tatlented player's foibles when the team is doing well and he is performing at the top of his game. Would KP have been discarded had he scored three centuries in the Ashes? I think not, but he didn't and his supposed behaviour has caused his fall from grace. Reading between the lines it would seem that KP has fallen out with Cook and the ECB can either back their captain who is young and an equally effective batter or risk losing him by keeping KP in the team against his wishes. I can understand the logic also as if the ECB feel KP is so disruptive then with the loss of Trott and Swann and probably Tremlett and maybe Finn there will be an influx of new blood into the team who they wish to mould into a squad going forward. I think it is a brave decision and only time will tell if it is a wise one.
Good call, Norfolkbhoy. Maybe I've been guilty of being swept along in the social media frenzy surrounding all this - of which there's lots! Your last line is the poignant one, we'll have to wait and see, as you say. But Lehman doesn't suffer fools, and look how they (Australia) dealt with David Warner - and how he repaid them over the ashes tests. That's how you approach man management, not shying away from the real issues and dealing in half-truths http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/219889.html
For another, as yet unmentioned, perspective on the decision: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/717443.html
An interesting take from Martin Crowe. However, if knee problems were worsening - and in any way responsible for his England demise, why could the ECB not have mentioned this in dispatches? Apart from anything else, it would have alleviated some of the vitriol thrust in their direction from all sides since that announcement. What's the betting he's top scorer in this year's IPL, having been freed up to participate in the whole thing, rather than the first few weeks? The selectors may not have played into his hands, but they've sure played into his bank account
Well, as Martin Crowe says, KP may have another season in him, so the knee problem would not in itself have determined the timing. And secondly, I presume the ECB would prefer to take the flak than publish their assessment of KP's fitness. They don't have to go public on issues that could potentially be more damaging to KP himself than his being discarded by England cricket. It seems to me that too much of the debate is about Pieterson as a personality and the perception of the ECB as dull and witless jobsworths. But this same ECB has just overseen the most successful period in English cricket for a couple of decades. They can't be that stupid or clueless. As for KP, when you look at the test match averages, his is only slightly better than Cook, Trott and Bell. The "characters" like KP, Botham, Gower etc. may have public appeal, but in the hard statistical light of day they actually don't appear to be so outstanding.
Really?? Botham was at one time the leading test wicket taker of all time on the planet and smashed many records throughout his universally distinguished career. David Gower was until recently the leading English run scorer of all time, and captained teams that won both the Ashes and in India, and both are recognised around the world as two of the very finest exponents of their craft to have ever lived so I'm not sure what you're talking about there to be honest. Don't forget they didn't have Bangladesh to play against back then to bump up their averages (as was the case with Ian Bell in his early career). And I'd hardly say that the last "couple of decades" have been the "most successful period in English cricket", throughout the 90's and early 00's we were generally crap against anyone half-decent and could hardly take a test from the Aussies, let alone come close to winning a series. The most successful period has been in the past eight years since the 2005 Ashes victory, which also coincided with the career of one Kevin Pietersen. Coincidence? Just wondering Robbie, are you a particularly big fan of cricket?
Averages can also be somewhat misleading in terms of saying if a player is great or not, of course they can give an indication though. But players like Flintoff, KP and Botham could take the game away from the opposition and almost win matches by themselves. They are also feared by opposition which can take a lot of pressure away from the rest of the team. If they bat or bowl they can bring a greater intensity to the game be it smashing a boundary or bowling a well directed bouncer.
I think what stood Botham apart was his naked desire to win every match! On the field of play he hated the Aussies with a real passion, but once stumps were pulled at close of play he'd happily drink them under the table!
