KP 326 not out today

[AndyinLiverpool]

​That's a fertile argument.

All I'll say on the KP argument is that cricket's a team game.It's history is littered with greats who knew that in certain situations the needs of the team were paramount,and thus were able to temper their games to meet such needs.

​Or you could allow him to score his runs, take catches etc.

I really don't get the 'not a team player' thing. The team is rubbish. Pietersen is a better batsman than the others available. What's the problem?

Now there is another establishment yes-man calling the shots, expect the England team to become even more bland, lifeless and unsuccessful.

[Ovis aries]

Geoff Boycott said weeks ago that nothing would change with the Strauss appointment.

[sage]

​No you didn't I said it first

​I'm Spartacus

[Ovis aries]

​I'm Spartacus

​No I'M Spartacus

[sage]

​No I'M Spartacus

​etc etc

[TroyDyer]

Asked Graeme Swann what he thought about the KP situation, but he said he hadn't paid much attention as he was just concentrating on his football. 

[ramblur]

​Or you could allow him to score his runs, take catches etc.

But it is a team game and KP,as a senior pro,should be setting an example to the younger players.Take the Ashes fiasco.When KP came in with early wickets down,he should have got his head down to try and retrieve the situation (still punishing the bad ball,which he's capable of) until such time as the situation's improved,whereupon he might become more expansive.But what examples do we get -a loft over an infielder,whereupon the captain pulls him back to the boundary,knowing the ego couldn't resist the challenge-goodbye KP,someone else to repair the damage,with even more pressure.Then,in the same situation ,we get those ridiculous leg side clips,with a field set for them.Same result.

As I've said,many of our past great players were able to play to the situation of the team,in other words play unselfishly.If cricket isn't a team game,then why did they all feel the need to do this? I'm sorry,I'll never regard KP as one of the game's greats.I see him as a highly talented batsman who played purely for himself.

[AndyinLiverpool]

But it is a team game and KP,as a senior pro,should be setting an example to the younger players.Take the Ashes fiasco.When KP came in with early wickets down,he should have got his head down to try and retrieve the situation (still punishing the bad ball,which he's capable of) until such time as the situation's improved,whereupon he might become more expansive.But what examples do we get -a loft over an infielder,whereupon the captain pulls him back to the boundary,knowing the ego couldn't resist the challenge-goodbye KP,someone else to repair the damage,with even more pressure.Then,in the same situation ,we get those ridiculous leg side clips,with a field set for them.Same result.

As I've said,many of our past great players were able to play to the situation of the team,in other words play unselfishly.If cricket isn't a team game,then why did they all feel the need to do this? I'm sorry,I'll never regard KP as one of the game's greats.I see him as a highly talented batsman who played purely for himself.

​Except these are professional sportsmen, allegedly at the top of their profession, not six-year-olds. They ought to be able to work it out for themselves, and, indeed, have to work it out for themselves once they are out in the middle. 

The blame heaped on Pietersen for the Ashes shambles was ludicrous. It was the worst prepared team ever; One senior member went home with some mental disorder or other, which can't have suddenly appeared; another retired from cricket midway through because his shoulder had suddenly gone bad; and Pietersen gets the crap for the tour's failure.

I honestly wonder why he would want anything to do with English cricket.

[eddie]

But it is a team game and KP,as a senior pro,should be setting an example to the younger players.Take the Ashes fiasco.When KP came in with early wickets down,he should have got his head down to try and retrieve the situation (still punishing the bad ball,which he's capable of) until such time as the situation's improved,whereupon he might become more expansive.But what examples do we get -a loft over an infielder,whereupon the captain pulls him back to the boundary,knowing the ego couldn't resist the challenge-goodbye KP,someone else to repair the damage,with even more pressure.Then,in the same situation ,we get those ridiculous leg side clips,with a field set for them.Same result.

As I've said,many of our past great players were able to play to the situation of the team,in other words play unselfishly.If cricket isn't a team game,then why did they all feel the need to do this? I'm sorry,I'll never regard KP as one of the game's greats.I see him as a highly talented batsman who played purely for himself.

​As did Geoff Boycott, Sunil Gavaskar, Brian Lara, Shahid Afridi, Ricky Ponting, Jonathan Trott, Jacques Kallis, Steve Waugh and Sachin Tendulkar  when they were at the wicket. Throw in bowlers like Richard Hadlee and Shane Warne, a wicket keeper like M S Dhoni and you could pretty well build a great 'selfish gobshites' team there.

 

[ramblur]

But what should they be working out for themselves? Taking on the boundary fielder is ok when we are now even deeper in the mire because of KP? Or ,because of KP it's their responsibility to knuckle down? I know how I'd have been feeling in that dressing room,and there'd have been a lot of swearing under the breath.

[ramblur]

​As did Geoff Boycott, Sunil Gavaskar, Brian Lara, Shahid Afridi, Ricky Ponting, Jonathan Trott, Jacques Kallis, Steve Waugh and Sachin Tendulkar  when they were at the wicket. Throw in bowlers like Richard Hadlee and Shane Warne, a wicket keeper like M S Dhoni and you could pretty well build a great 'selfish gobshites' team there.

 

​I'm sure a few of those would have tempered their natural games according to the situations their teams found themselves in.I've seen Viv Richards and Sobers graft when needs be.It's pretty obvious this situation is going to polarise opinion.

I didn't get the bit about the bowlers,Eddie.Are you suggesting they bowled for themselves rather than the needs of the team?

[Anag Ram]

He is a good player and once a great player but lets be honest he isn't likely to come in and make us this great team all of a sudden. To be fair I would like to see a young attacking player come in as we have a few but seem scared of playing them

 

​Pietersen is a one-man publicity machine. He can't help himself. Cheap runs against a team with a bowling attack as lethal as a gnat's fart is not preparation for Boult, Starc and Johnson.

The decision to leave KP cannot and should not be altered. They should have dropped him not sacked him but now that they have it's time to look to the youngsters. I agree that having Cook, Lyth and Ballance as your top three hands the momentum to the opposition.

I would love to see Hales given a go but I'm not sure he really believes he is a test player. Also, he can make more money in the IPL.

He's the type of maverick pick Australia would go for and exactly the type of player we are scared of playing.

We are obsessed with bowlers who bat a bit and so will never play a promising spin bowler. If we play a youngster and he fails we hang him out to dry. 

The Trott debacle shows how safe we have become.

My biggest hope is that Strauss builds on this decision to shake up selection and prove to Broad, Bell, Cook and co that no-one should get too comfortable.

[-JW-]

I hate the fact that KP always plays the victim. He is obviously a cu*t of the highest order.

Why would any sportsman criticise their colleagues and accuse some of bullying in an autobiography, even though he is still an active professional? Yeah, good way to build bridges that is, bridges that needed to be re-built after he already burned them down. Several times in fact.

No surprise he's jetting straight out to India for the rupees in the IPL, rather than staying with his county.

 

[Mostyn6]

I hate the fact that KP always plays the victim. He is obviously a cu*t of the highest order.

Why would any sportsman criticise their colleagues and accuse some of bullying in an autobiography, even though he is still an active professional? Yeah, good way to build bridges that is, bridges that needed to be re-built after he already burned them down. Several times in fact.

No surprise he's jetting straight out to India for the rupees in the IPL, rather than staying with his county.

 

​the reason being that the influential people in cricket get away with all sorts and the paying customers should be exposed to what is actually happening. 

I've read KP's book, and although I don't like him, in fact he's the kind of person I'd leave the room to avoid, I don't believe for one second that what he says in the book isn't true. I find it more worrying that the likes of Andy Flower and Matt Prior held their positions of influence for so long.

I think KP is a victim. Had he been a public school boy or son of a previous England test player, he might have fitted in more, but with less talent. To be told to knuckle down and show your commitment and talent to win your place back, which means sacrificing potential earnings of the IPL, only to be told you're actually never going to be considered is disgraceful treatment.

What message does it send out? If his behaviour was bad, he should've been bombed out years earlier. If he was okay up to a point, and then his actions got worse, he's had his punishment and should be allowed to get on having served his 'ban'.

I find it a punishment for no actual crime. 

[eddie]

​I'm sure a few of those would have tempered their natural games according to the situations their teams found themselves in.I've seen Viv Richards and Sobers graft when needs be.It's pretty obvious this situation is going to polarise opinion.

I didn't get the bit about the bowlers,Eddie.Are you suggesting they bowled for themselves rather than the needs of the team?

Not really - just that they were completely self-centred *********. A bowler can't really be a non-team player, because if he doesn't bowl to the captain's instructions, he's chewing the cud down at fine leg for the rest of the day.

​Mate of mine played with Richard Hadlee for several years - said he had never known anybody so absolutely obsessed with his own personal statistics. There may have been a bit of jealousy involved in that, of course, but Hadlee famously won awards which it was commonly accepted went into the 'pool' to be shared amongst team-mates - except when they were really good awards (like cars), the others never saw any of it. I don't really need to add anything about Warney - his narcissism is world-renowned.

[eddie]

 

My biggest hope is that Strauss builds on this decision to shake up selection and prove to Broad, Bell, Cook and co that no-one should get too comfortable.

​Mine is that we get buried by New Zealand, thrashed by Australia, Strauss falls on his sword and they finally pluck up the courage to give the job to Michael Vaughan or Nasser Hussain.

[Gary Teale]

​Mine is that we get buried by New Zealand, thrashed by Australia, Strauss falls on his sword and they finally pluck up the courage to give the job to Michael Vaughan or Nasser Hussain.

​Why do you dislike Strauss so much? I hope we somehow win these series and start building. Why would the two mentioned be so much better?

[eddie]

​Why do you dislike Strauss so much? I hope we somehow win these series and start building. Why would the two mentioned be so much better?

Just because I disagree strongly with an appointment and feel that it is one that is dreadfully negative, why is it that you assume that I dislike them, and not only dislike them but you are able to seemingly quantify the extent of said dislike?

​Strauss is the natural administrative extension of Cook. I didn't dislike him as a player, but as a captain he was ultra-negative, formulaic, reactionary, inflexible and attritional - traits which Cook also shows in abundance. Vaughan was an innovative captain, inventive and proactive. Whether batting or in the field, Strauss's captaincy was epitomised by a rigid structure to the side, always utilising six batsmen and four pace bowlers, always looking to contain first and seldom taking the initiative.

Strauss's Ashes victories were achieved against an Australian side in near turmoil whereas Vaughan's victories were achieved against the team that had dominated world cricket for more than a decade. However, they were achieved and he is to be congratulated for that. You can only beat what is put in front of you.

Vaughan had the clout and respect to stand up to the claptrap of Moores for a while, a man so utterly obsessed by statistics to the exclusion of everything else, but in the end 'the management' was too much for him, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff and Swann who all basically slung their proverbial hooks over a couple of seasons.

Hussain as captain was largely responsible for the transformation of English cricket from those dark days of being the worst test side in the world, and he and Duncan Fletcher lifted the team over the space of a couple of years into one that actually won four successive test series and rose to third in the ICC rankings, something that we hadn't achieved since the days of Mike Brearley. The one thing he had in abundance was passion, and I would rate him as my all-time third-best England captain behind Mike Brearley and Michael Vaughan.

[Albert]

There's a bit of talk that stomping out Pietersen's recall hopes may have damaged England's hopes of securing Jason Gillespie as the new coach. This alongside a myriad of other proclamations by Strauss seems to really have signalled who's in charge over in England. Surely the coach should have some input at the very least. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

It seems to me that Strauss intends to be in complete control of everything. 

Watching England is going to become even less exciting than it has been over the last couple of years.