Kevin Pietersen - His Legacy.

First topic message reminder :

Gregers is going to have a field day with this one...

Now, before I get started, a lot of this is clearly hypothetical at this moment in time, so there will be differing scenarios based upon his performances in the next few years.

Kevin Pietersen is a figure that often divides opinion amongst English cricket fans. Many love the flamboyance, the celebrity status and most importantly the weight of runs that comes with KP, whereas there are of course no small amount that believe him to be brash, arrogant, and accuse him of throwing his wicket away all too often, which they say prevents him from being a great of the game.

As we all know, Kevin has an English mother and a South African father, and due to his being born in South Africa you hear many referring to him as 'the South African' (or one of them!!).

What I'd like to know, is how do you rate Pietersen personally? Furthermore, once all is said and done do you see him being regarded as a great of the English game, possibly even world cricket?

As I referred to at the beginning of this article, a lot depends on Kevin's returns over the next few years of his career. At this moment in time he is averaging in excess of 50 in Test cricket, almost a benchmark for greatness, and is well set to become England's highest run scorer/century maker, alongside Alastair Cook (who will eventually top both), I'd say.

Should he do so, and let's say he ends his Test career with 9000 runs and in excess of 25 Test centuries, would you regard him as an all time great? Personally, I would, and I already do view KP as a great cricketer. A consistent run scorer, very good at converting 50's into big 100's, and an innovative and exciting player that can destroy and demoralise attacks in the manner that Viv Richards et al were known to do.

Should he suffer a drop in form and fade long before such figures are reached, I'd still be very much tempted to class him as a great of the English game.

Like I said though, KP divides opinion like no other, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Gregers, you need not apply, I already know yours

Thanks

Fists - I'm most annoyed at you and the rest of the guys. I'm really trying to work this afternoon but keep getting pulled back to this thread by all your unmissable posts!

I'll respond further in a few minutes to Mike's first class post ....

My apologies, Guildford, it has also had severe consequences on my productivity.

Fists of Fury wrote:You won't find many bigger fans of Jimmy A than me, KB.

A truly world class bowler, and his mastery of the art of swing bowling leaves me mesmerised. I feel he is finally getting his dues now, since his excellent tour of Australia where he dispelled many remaining doubts.

I won't be far behind you.

Been a massive fan of him since his emergence into the side with his red and blue hairstyles. As the commentators often allude to, on his day, he is simply unplayable.

Also a cracking all round team player, one of our best and most energetic fielders. It's a shame; i personally believe that due to a certain Mr Flintoff's exploits as Captian that Jimmy will never get that chance to Captain his country.

Fists of Fury wrote:
Just one point I'd make, really, is with regard to KP being selfish. As you say, most great batsmen are selfish and it is actually a necessary trait at times, but it is also what drove him to come to England in the first place - that selfish desire to forge himself a career and make good on the obvious potential he had. Again, you have to be self-centred to do such a thing, so in that instance I wouldn't see it as a bad thing.

Agreed, providing it doesn't have a negative effect on the team. I think with KP it sometimes has.

Actually a point I forgot: KP's stance on Moores (that basically he wasn't a good enough coach to be the head coach of a national side) has been shown to be spot on, and no doubt contributed to England being where they are now.

Tell you what, I'd want him (KP) in my side any day of the week.

I think I touched on that earlier, Mike. It was another example of the bravery he has shown in his decision making throughout his career, even at a cost to himself i.e. the captaincy loss.

No doubt it has played a huge part in transforming the England setup into one that is incredibly dynamic and as a result, highly successful.

I agree that KP has at times caused a rift or two in the dressing room by all accounts, but as you referred to in your earlier post, the sublime man management skills of Flower and Strauss have set things to rights, and I believe it is a harmonious dressing room at this moment in time. KP knows he is valued for his runs, and I think he is happy within himself for that.

Agree with you, he would get in to any side of mine, and any side in world cricket that's for sure.

Just read through quickly, but really don't get where Gregers is coming from with the "how many match-winning knocks has KP played in T20s compared to Dhoni, Hussey and McCullum?" question. Erm, man of the tournament in the world T20s, including big knocks (match-winning) in the semis and final)? Couple of other MOM performances in that tournament, a MOM performance in the last T20 he played in fact (despite a chipped finger) What more do you want?

Basically think Mike is spot on with everything, so won't bother making it a double post The positives far outweigh the one negative (his arrogance), and there's no doubting that he is a team player who cares, very much, for his country, and who works, very hard, to help them.

Just read through the posts and it reminds me of a recent debate about Ali in the boxing section and people were viciously attacking him has a person, which KP gets to a certain degree.
AS KB said, and i will too, i just don't care what a sportsman does off field but what he/she does in the big arena is all that matters to me.
And KP certainly does deliver, not all the time (no one can) but when he does, as Mike says he just makes you want to watch. How many others can you say that about?
In cricketing terms the man is a CLASS act.

Mike Selig wrote:

Let's talk about KP ....

As a person:

KP isn't very nice. It really is that simple. He is arrogant, selfish and self-centred. I don't just say this, I have heard it from one of his coaches (I shan't name-drop as it was in a private discussion). It is a measure of how good man-managers Flower and Strauss are that he apparently now has his place in the changing-room. The selfish thing doesn't bother me that much (every great batsman has to be a bit selfish) but sometimes his arrogance proves costly.

He probably does think the county game somewhat beneath him. Personally I think this is a shame. I understand where FoF is coming from, but ultimately he is where he is in part thanks to the county game (he certainly wasn't getting anywhere in SA), and he should respect that. I have no doubt that he thinks he's doing Surrey a favour by occasionally playing for them, but remember he needs a county to employ him to play for England, and Surrey took him in when Hampshire effectively sacked him. No, his attitude towards the county game is definitely wrong.
....

2) He wouldn't have fared so well against great bowlers. Well he did ok against Warne and McGrath in '05 didn't he? To those who suggest they weren't at their peak then, I suggest you rewatch McGrath's spell at Lords (KP made 50odd and came in in the middle of it) and Warne's at Edgbaston. KP also came out in credit during England's whitewash in Australia, which was possibly the greatest achievement of (just to wind up guilford a bit) the greatest side of all time.

Mike - a near perfect post.

You have covered exceptionally well what I was trying to convey earlier; ie tremendous admiration for his talented and exciting batting together with a dislike of parts of his character.

I need not say more about his batting. Unless anyone wishes to quibble exactly where he is today between very good and great, there is not (or should not be) an issue.

As for his attitude, Fists (and some others) see the side of the coin showing him to be dedicated and committed. For me (and again some others), the other side of that same coin shows him to be ''arrogant, selfish and self-centred''.

You say ''the selfish thing doesn't bother you that much'', Mike. I can understand that from a coaching and playing perspective. However, it does bother the members and supporters at what is meant to be ''his county''. There was considerable unease last season when Jason Roy (magnificent talent btw) was dropped from a county match in order to give Pietersen playing time. Pietersen's apparent indifference towards his new county up to that point only made the situation worse.

I agree that many of the critcisms that come Pietersen's way are ''unfair''. These actually annoy me as they are probably rightly seen as ridiculous and only serve to weaken the ones I have and naturally view as valid. I certainly also agree that Pietersen cares for his country. I would though like him to extend some greater care and interest to Surrey. After all, as you suggest, both Pietersen and England would have been in a right pickle if Surrey hadn't signed him last season (I recognise our motives were far more to do with commercial marketing reasons than altruistic cricketing sentiments).

It takes all types to make up a team in all sports. Furthermore, it is often desireable to have a mix of characters. [Going momentarily off topic, I have long maintained that a great football team needs one player who is not a team player and cares only about his own goal tally.) Pietersen belongs in the current England team (it would be absurd to suggest otherwise) and may well before long be deservedly in an all time England XI. However, I still don't like him or respect him as a person and nor do I see anything incompatable with that.

Mike - finally, your point 2). Like Gregers, you overstate and so weaken your case. But we all know that, don't we?

Nice one Guildford. On my mobile now so won't respond properly, but rest assured I will when back at my computer tomorrow.

i am not trying to say that KP himself is without fault in his relationships at county level but take the example given above when jason roy was dropped so KP could play. how do we know that it wasn't andy flower and the ECB putting pressure on surrey to get KP some game time but its KP thats getting the stick for it ?

rich1uk wrote:i am not trying to say that KP himself is without fault in his relationships at county level but take the example given above when jason roy was dropped so KP could play. how do we know that it wasn't andy flower and the ECB putting pressure on surrey to get KP some game time but its KP thats getting the stick for it ?

I think the point is regardless of who was responsible for KP being picked, the man himself was responsible for his indifference towards the county which rankles guilford.

Mike Selig wrote:

rich1uk wrote:i am not trying to say that KP himself is without fault in his relationships at county level but take the example given above when jason roy was dropped so KP could play. how do we know that it wasn't andy flower and the ECB putting pressure on surrey to get KP some game time but its KP thats getting the stick for it ?

I think the point is regardless of who was responsible for KP being picked, the man himself was responsible for his indifference towards the county which rankles guilford.

i get that but its still a little bit of a case of "shooting the messenger" if the decision to drop roy for KP was pushed by the ECB and nothing to do with KP himself

rich1uk wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

rich1uk wrote:i am not trying to say that KP himself is without fault in his relationships at county level but take the example given above when jason roy was dropped so KP could play. how do we know that it wasn't andy flower and the ECB putting pressure on surrey to get KP some game time but its KP thats getting the stick for it ?

I think the point is regardless of who was responsible for KP being picked, the man himself was responsible for his indifference towards the county which rankles guilford.

i get that but its still a little bit of a case of "shooting the messenger" if the decision to drop roy for KP was pushed by the ECB and nothing to do with KP himself

Rich - my understanding is that the ECB did indeed put pressure on Surrey to select Pietersen. However, my point is very much as put by Mike. Pietersen wasn't just the messenger but a package who up to that point had shown no interest in his new county. Incidentally, I believe Pietersen wanted the county match practice on this occasion.

By contrast, Chris Tremlett regularly supports Surrey and encourages his county colleagues when prohibited from playing due to his central contract. It is no coincidence the reception he gets at the Oval is far more enthusiastic than that for Pietersen.

Some great points being made so far, here is my two pence worth on some of the points raised:

I think the general agreement is that KP has by far the ability to reach the pedestal of great English cricketer, and possibly the potential to be remembered as a great of the world game. I also agree with the consensus that Kevin has yet the reach his full potential and could be scoring far more heavily than he does at the moment. This is more prevelant in the ODI form of the game where he gets in and out, but in test matches he normally goes on to get a monstrous score if he gets past 50.

The way he bats must also be a plus point. He will have brought so many young fans to the game because he brings excitement when he plays the game. He will be remembered for the innovation he brought to the game, I mean in 50 years time when everyone is playing the switchhit his legacy will be sealed in that aspect!

Now on to KP the man. The words self centred, arrogant, egotistical have all been used to describe Kevin. And I would say all of these are probably true. However, if he wasn't like this would he get the weight of runs he does? I would say probably not. His desire to be the best his unrivalled. Like someone alluded to earlier, numbers of coaches say he spends the most time in the nets trying to perfect his technique and yes, he may sometimes tread on other people's toes but when he does I believe that he is genuinely trying to do what is best for him and the team. With the whole Moores debacle I think that he knew that Moores wasn't the man to take the team forward and so it has been proved. He could have gone about his actions in a better way but he did what he thought was the right thing.

I believe that Andrew Flintoff was a far more disruptive dressing room influence than KP. Yet he gets lauded as a hero? Is it because of his "Jack the Lad" image? The working class hero as it were. He has caused far more aggravation than KP and he is loved, I assume it is just because of KP's image that he portrays as a rock star of the game.

I get on KPs case because I feel that he could be so much more. His record in an era of batting records, for me, puts him one step below greatness.

When you look at what he achieved in South Africa on his first ODI tour, I am disappointed that I am unable to say he is Englands greatest ever ODI batsman.

Finally as he is getting older and perhaps losing some of that fantastic eye and timing he seems to be struggling with a wider variety of bowlers - and not just the left arm pie chuckers.

However what I think is largely irrelevant

His record isn't really inferior to the other greats currently playing though, LT, particularly when you consider that he has barely play against Bangladesh, west indies and Zimbabwe, as many of the others have.

I think an average of 50 is exceptional in any era, to be honest.

It is crazy that we are saying he hasn't performed to his potential when you look at the pure stats, but I guess it highlights just how talented he is and the kind of records he could be breaking. As has been mentioned though, a batsman playing in his style isn't really suited to record breaking numbers.

You're right with regard to ODI's, though. That is one format where he hasn't fulfilled his potential, given his style perfectly suits it's and his blistering start to his ODI career. Not quite sure why it hasn't happened for him (though his record is still a good one).

Gregers wrote: KP rarely coverts starts to 50s and then 50s too 100s

Pietersen's 50-100 conversion rate: 19:25 (43.2%)
Tendulkar: 44.7%
Kallis: 42.1%

Ahem...

Gregers wrote:I don't believe he has the temperament for test cricket especially when the going gets tough

He was our best player from 2006-2008. You may not like his attitude, but I can't see how you can question his temperament in the longer format.

Gregers wrote: the field KP is very average as well, who can forget his first ashes series when if the ball was in the air near him you knew he wasn't going to hold it.

One series, five Test matches out of 78. He had an awful series in the field, it happens. Since then, he's been very reliable, whether at gully or on the boundary.

Gregers wrote:In tests he is a liability at the crease and in my opinion he is behind the likes of Bell, Thorpe, Butcher, Ramps and even Trott in the line of best English middle order players in the modern era.

Liability? Seriously?

Bell - from 2005 until 2009, he failed to reach his massive potential. Only in the last couple of years have we seen that potential released.
Thorpe - an excellent player
Butcher - good player, nothing more
Ramps - a complete failure at international level
Trott - has been excellent, but whose to say he won't go through a rough patch like KP did?

Gregers wrote:He is not consistent enough and should have been dropped several times from the national side.

From the ODI side, yes definitely (and he has been). From Tests, his past record saved him. And can you blame the selectors for continuing to pick a player who averaged over 50 and was our best and most consistent* batsman until 2009?

You'll probably disagree. But Strauss was dropped, Cook went through a long phase of failing to convert 50s whilst Bell and Colly were both dropped and on 'last chance saloon' several times during this time. Pietersen was the one player who consistently scored runs series after series.

Gregers wrote:In ODI's he once again shows his lack of discipline as well of appearing to give up like he did at the world cup earlier this year.

He hasn't performed in ODIs for a long time and I agree that he should be dropped. Doesn't change the fact that he's been outstanding in Tests over the last year.

Gregers wrote: Finally, in T20 the great myth is that KP is any good. In domestic t20 he has done literally nothing of merit.

According to the ICC Player Rankings, he is currently #2 behind Morgan. Further, he has the best ever rankings score in the format.

Only Bredan McCullum has scored more runs in the format. His average of 36.7 is excellent - only Symonds, Morgan and Misbal Ul-Haq average more out of those who have batted more than 10 innings. His 142.8 strike rate is also among the best (13th, with the same 10 innings criteria).

And Player of the Tournament at the last World T20. So much for the myth.

I don't really care about his domestic T20 record, as long as he carries performing for England.

Gregers wrote:We then come onto his attitude. [...] And then we have his disastrous captaincy of England. [...] However many 'great' players have made awful.

We know his attitude has lost him friends along the way. Does't mean he's not an excellent cricketer. Some arrogance is good though (see Australia's team of the 90s and 00s) and he backed up the arrogance with runs. But arrogance isn't typically an English trait so didn't go down well with some fans.

Same goes for the captaincy - it went jubblies up and stalled his career, but it doesn't change the player he was before he was sacked and the player he's been this year.

Gregers wrote: So where do I see KP in 3 years time? Certainly not with 10,000+ test runs. I'd imagine he will be retired from tests and probably ODIs.

In 3 years time he will be 34, so he may have few years in him, depends how many runs he scores. Whilst I don't expect him to play ODIs much longer, I think you under-estimate his hunger for Tests. You are very critical of his attitude and personality, so consider this: KP longs to be accepted, it's common knowledge, and he will want to be remembered, to leave a legacy. You do that in Tests, not in ODIs and T20, and he knows that. He will play the format as long as he can, maybe 10k will be the target. Although after he quits Tests, he'll probably become a T20 freelancer - I highly doubt he'd carry on County Cricket unless there were contract issues.

As for what I think... 10k will be too much, but he should overtake Gooch. But he will be remembered as a very good player, maybe even great depending on how the next few years go. Plus he's a triple-Ashes winner (at least), that always goes down well.

An odd man, his personality and behaviour has lost him friends and isolated himself on a few occasions and he has had journalists frequently try to psycho-analyse him over years, looking at his need for acceptance etc (although some journalists also say he is very polite, even shy away from the cameras and cricket). He is a player that needs to be managed well, but is that his fault? Can he help who he is, can he help being insecure and wanting to be accepted? It's a fault, and one that has led to, in my opinion, irrational dislike of him.

And for all the claims about how he doesn't care, he works very hard on his game and the fact it took him so long to come out of the barren run of 2009-10 was through no lack of effort. That commitment could see him finish with 9,000 Test runs and an average in excess of 50. Not bad for a player who 10 years ago was a off-spinner and No. 9 batsman.

Great post M@tt

Fists of Fury wrote:

Also, a slightly more cynical view on things, but does the 50% South African come into it with some people, too? I think some people resent that almost, not sure why when he is as much English as he is Saffer, and I'm not sure people would be so critical if his name was Harry Hobbs from North Yorkshire.

Fists - meant to respond to this earlier.

I suspect that unfortunately you do have a point here although still don't believe it's the major issue. Whenever someone is different from the norm and particularly when concerns get raised about them, their nationality is probably too easy for some to think about. I hope that doesn't apply to me in the case of Pietersen and genuinely don't believe it does.

I'm on record as saying that I admire tremendously his exciting batting talent but dislike his self-centred attitude and, in particular, near contempt of county cricket. [Worryingly for both of us, Mike appears to hold a similar view!] This view seems fairly uncommon. His many supporters cite what I regard as ''selfish'' as ''self-driven''; I can follow that. His more extreme detractors (and there seem to be a good few of those as well) slate not just his character but his batting; that to me is ridiculous and they lose all credibility as a result.

As far as I'm concerned, his background is irrelevant. To me, its about (1) talent and (2) attitude. He wins hands down on the first but falls short on the second. I may be wrong but at least I'm consistent - I've said the same thing for forty odd years about another England batsman. That one came from a pit village in West Yorkshire - not Harry Hobbs but Geoff Boycott.

A perfectly reasonable and balanced argument, Guildford, and one that I can accept. I can't accept, as you rightly say, when someone tells us just how garbage his batting is and what a liability he is - I have to question whether they have suffered some sort of trauma to the brain when such statements are made.

Like I said earlier, leaving aside KP's county issues and his disregard for wherever he is at (Hampshire, Surrey, Notts whoever), he strikes me as a team man for England. I have no doubt that what he does he thinks he is doing it for the best of the team and his form. I think Flintoff was a more negative impact on the England dressing room yet people are willing to gloss over this whilst assessing his Test Career?

You're probably right, JD.

I'm a Warwickshire fan, but prefer Bell and Trott to be a success with England in Tests, given that that is the pinnacle of the game. I'm not as hardcore a fan as some of the Surrey lot here, though, I'd say.

By the way, meant to say, tremendous post, M@tt.

JDizzle wrote:Like I said earlier, leaving aside KP's county issues and his disregard for wherever he is at (Hampshire, Surrey, Notts whoever), he strikes me as a team man for England. I have no doubt that what he does he thinks he is doing it for the best of the team and his form. I think Flintoff was a more negative impact on the England dressing room yet people are willing to gloss over this whilst assessing his Test Career?

Its a fair point. Which one of them has been in trouble for heavy drinking and was regualry sent off from training sessions to get a massage because he wasnt ina fit state to take part effectivley. Fintoff and Hoggard both ahd a very poor attitude to training and being coached.

I have been thinking about this for a few days now, and I guess my biggest bug bear with Pietersen is that he seems to get out to bad balls far more often than other batsmen.
What seems to be an inner need to dominate the bowlers means he tends to pre-meditate aggressive shots and ends up in positions that make hitting the ball properly nigh on impossible.
In recent times he has also taken to moving around a lot, so that he is on the move when he tries to hit the ball. This invariably leaves him unbalanced. When he stands still(er) and treats the ball on it's merit he is much more effective.
For much of the time since he made his debut, KP has been England's best batsman. That is no longer the case, but let us see where his career goes.

Finally for me to many players in any sport are deemed great. When he retires we can judge where he is - but right now i stand behind my previous statement - he is a clear step behind greatness. I rate him behind Jayawardene, Sangakkara and Sehwag -- all of whom I deem excellent but as of yet none of whom I deem great.

I think he is actually a better batsman than those, guys, LT, but can see why you would think otherwise.

I do still think he is England's best, too, but the competition from others now should have a positive effect, most definitely.

When he does knuckle down he really is tremendous (i.e. leaving those bad balls and playing on its merit!!) so let us hope he continues to do so and really goes on to make himself great.

Oh he can hit the bad balls, just if it is short and wide outside off then a square cut has more merit than a slog sweep.

Ha, very true! I'd like to see him leave those that are way outside off early in his innings though. Asking for a snick.

I was interested to look at the test rankings there. I know they don't tell you everything you need to know but you look at KP's highest rating which was 909 and that was in 2007, now he is down at 770. I have no idea how easy it is to lose ranking points and how many you lose but that does seem like quite a big drop to me. Not saying he isn't still a fantastically gifted player but it does show that he isn't quite up with where he was a few years ago.

The injury had a lot to do with that, killer, and obviously the subsequent drop in form whilst he found his feet again. If he continues in the same vein he did against India this summer it'll continue to rise. 909 is a huge ranking by the way, not many get that.

Yeh, I looked at the other rankings and there were only a couple above that so I did assume it was a pretty big ranking. I am sure it will rise into the 800's in no time.

On another note, it is great to see that Cook and Bell are both more or less at their highest rankings. Just shows they are getting better and better. This batting line up we have now really is as strong as I can ever remember (though I am only 26) and I see them going from strength to strength. I personally have backed Bell throughout his career and am so pleased he is finally reaching his potential.

Pietersen is absolute class, and I can't believe some of the derision and criticism he gets at times. Since emerging as an international in 2004 / 2005 he has consistently been - by a big margin, too - England's best batsman. How anyone can get to over 6,000 runs in tests with an average of over fifty and then have someone question whether or not they have the aptitude for the five-day format is ridiculous.

Some genuinely important knocks under pressure in there, too. He'll certainly pass Gooch's test record of 8,900 runs (so will Cook, mind you) and rightly be remembered as one of the greatest players of his era.

All you English fans boys bigging up Pietersen is a joke. The current nature of pitches has helped Pietersen have a 'successful' career. His technique is pretty ordinary. He can't play left arm spin. Against high class seam/swing he's found wanting. He lacks a backfoot game.

Just imagine Pietersen playing in the 1990s, he would've struggled to play a handful of Tests.

i rate KP as one of england's best batsman his record shows it, averages high 40's, averaged over 50 majority of his career.

He has had injury problems and the captaincy issue which affetced him

however form is temporary, class is permanent...

(gregers im sorry, but i rate him)

Demon Racer wrote:His technique is pretty ordinary.

1) In what way?
2) Does it matter anyway?

Mike Selig wrote:

Demon Racer wrote:His technique is pretty ordinary.

1) In what way?
2) Does it matter anyway?

Well in the current climate we hear talk about 'great' players far too often. Pietersen's limitations are being hiding by flat, benign pitches. In my mind, the days of the 'great' batsmen will end after Ponting, Dravid, Kallis and the Midget retire.

Demon Racer wrote:All you English fans boys bigging up Pietersen is a joke. The current nature of pitches has helped Pietersen have a 'successful' career. His technique is pretty ordinary. He can't play left arm spin. Against high class seam/swing he's found wanting. He lacks a backfoot game.

Just imagine Pietersen playing in the 1990s, he would've struggled to play a handful of Tests.

sorry mate but sounds like a bunch of SA sour grapes that. KP averages over 50 in tests, despite playing predominantly in England (where the pitches tend to do a bit more - like SA and NZ). He has a very sound defensive technique (big stride - head over the ball). He has a weakness against left-arm spin granted, but to say he would've struggled to play a handful of tests in the 90s when England had maybe one middle-order player who was any good is pretty ridiculous.

Demon Racer wrote:All you English fans boys bigging up Pietersen is a joke. The current nature of pitches has helped Pietersen have a 'successful' career. His technique is pretty ordinary. He can't play left arm spin. Against high class seam/swing he's found wanting. He lacks a backfoot game.

Just imagine Pietersen playing in the 1990s, he would've struggled to play a handful of Tests.

Yes, of course he would. Keep telling yourself that.

Are we to believe that there has been a quantum leap backwards in the space of a decade? The great run makers of this decade (Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting etc) were all also pretty handy in the nineties. No marked improvement since the nineties turned in to the 00s, with the exception of Ponting which was down to maturing as a player more than anything. Kind of blows a hole in that theory.

The truth is, Pietersen is a genuinely world class batsman who'd average mid forties or better in any era.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Demon Racer wrote:All you English fans boys bigging up Pietersen is a joke. The current nature of pitches has helped Pietersen have a 'successful' career. His technique is pretty ordinary. He can't play left arm spin. Against high class seam/swing he's found wanting. He lacks a backfoot game.

Just imagine Pietersen playing in the 1990s, he would've struggled to play a handful of Tests.

sorry mate but sounds like a bunch of SA sour grapes that. KP averages over 50 in tests, despite playing predominantly in England (where the pitches tend to do a bit more - like SA and NZ). He has a very sound defensive technique (big stride - head over the ball). He has a weakness against left-arm spin granted, but to say he would've struggled to play a handful of tests in the 90s when England had maybe one middle-order player who was any good is pretty ridiculous.

An average of 50 in Tests boosted by flat pitches. Pietersen has a clear weakness out off and driving through the off side. He's limited and would've been found out in the 90s.

He has racked up 9 hundreds at Lords/Oval, which are two very flat pitches. 9/13 home hundreds on the flatter pitches...

88Chris05 wrote:

Demon Racer wrote:All you English fans boys bigging up Pietersen is a joke. The current nature of pitches has helped Pietersen have a 'successful' career. His technique is pretty ordinary. He can't play left arm spin. Against high class seam/swing he's found wanting. He lacks a backfoot game.

Just imagine Pietersen playing in the 1990s, he would've struggled to play a handful of Tests.

Yes, of course he would. Keep telling yourself that.

Are we to believe that there has been a quantum leap backwards in the space of a decade? The great run makers of this decade (Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting etc) were all also pretty handy in the nineties. No marked improvement since the nineties turned in to the 00s, with the exception of Ponting which was down to maturing as a player more than anything. Kind of blows a hole in that theory.

The truth is, Pietersen is a genuinely world class batsman who'd average mid forties or better in any era.

90s had great bowlers like Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar at their peaks. Pietersen average above 40 in that era? You're having a laugh!

Demon Racer wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

Demon Racer wrote:His technique is pretty ordinary.

1) In what way?
2) Does it matter anyway?

Well in the current climate we hear talk about 'great' players far too often. Pietersen's limitations are being hiding by flat, benign pitches. In my mind, the days of the 'great' batsmen will end after Ponting, Dravid, Kallis and the Midget retire.

That doesn't answer either question.

In what way is Pietersen's technique ordinary?
And who cares what his technique is like if he gets runs? Vaughan had a better technique than Ponting, I know who I think is the better player...

Lords was not flat this year, where he battled his way to a double-hundred which was IMO the defining moment of England's summer as it ensured England got to a huge (in the circumstances) first innings score with which India couldn't cope. I'm not saying he hasn't benefitted to an extent from the pitches generally being flatter, but he's also produced some great knocks on tough pitches, and against world-class bowling.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Lords was not flat this year, where he battled his way to a double-hundred which was IMO the defining moment of England's summer as it ensured England got to a huge (in the circumstances) first innings score with which India couldn't cope. I'm not saying he hasn't benefitted to an extent from the pitches generally being flatter, but he's also produced some great knocks on tough pitches, and against world-class bowling.

One good innings doesn't mask plenty of other 'freebie' hundreds. Whilst the pitch was slightly fruity, the bowling attack was pub standard, so it balances itself out. It was a fine innings, but I might've scored runs against Sharma and Singh. Kumar and his all sorts would've got me though lol.

Mike Selig wrote:

Demon Racer wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

Demon Racer wrote:His technique is pretty ordinary.

1) In what way?
2) Does it matter anyway?

Well in the current climate we hear talk about 'great' players far too often. Pietersen's limitations are being hiding by flat, benign pitches. In my mind, the days of the 'great' batsmen will end after Ponting, Dravid, Kallis and the Midget retire.

That doesn't answer either question.

In what way is Pietersen's technique ordinary?
And who cares what his technique is like if he gets runs? Vaughan had a better technique than Ponting, I know who I think is the better player...

And there we go, 'And who cares what his technique is like if he gets runs'? Flat pitches have nullified the need of needing a great technique.

I would much rather watch some with a rocket solid technique, than a thrasher. Kallis gold dust.

to prove it wasn't a one-off, from the list of KP's hundreds:

142 vs Sri Lanka (incl. Murali at his best) 2006. Made from an innings total of 295 (221 while KP was at the crease), next best score 30 (extras 38) - Edgbaston

134 vs India 2007 (highest team innings in the match was 298). Made from 232 while he was at the crease, next best score 42. Lords

101 vs India 2007, match-saving knock in the fourth innings. The Oval

129 vs NZ 2008. Made from a first innings score of 253. next best score 42. Napier

115 vs NZ 2008. Made from a first innings of 364 (England won by an innings). Nottingham (=swing)

100 vs SA 2008. Innings of 316 (highest innings of the match was 318). Only centurion of the match. The Oval

144 vs India 2008. Inninsg of 302, next best 62. Mohali

202* vs India at Lords that I mentioned.

I could also include his match-saving first hundred against Aus at the Oval, and several fine fighting fifties in tough conditions. More than "one good innings" I'm sure you'll agree

that is one of the daftest arguments Ive ever heard.

He isnt good because his technique wouldnt have worked against bowlers and conditions that dont exist anymore?
His batting is good because it is developed to work against the bowlers and conditions he faces today. Their are few batsmen around who vcan match Pietersen in tests or T20, he must be doing something right.
And to dismiss him as merely a slogger is daft in the extereme. If Geofff Boycott can praise his abilities and skills then he must be doing something right.
Judge these players against their contemporaries, Pietersen is a very good batsman. he has a range of shots and an ability to inovate that takes advantage of his raw power. Its not as if physical strength is cheating all of a sudden or are we going to say that the great fast bowlers were just blasters? It still takes skill to do it will control.
If youre going to run down his achievements to say he only scores runs against weak attacks in favourable conditions (which clearly isnt the case anyway) then youre going to sound like the kind of person that says Tendulkar and Dravid arent that good.


You really are taking a view then trying to fit the facts to prove there.
I have no problem with people saying hes not a great ( I dont think he is, just very good) but try and come up with sensible reasons rather than just trashing the guy and beating him with made up facts and twisted logic.

Demon racer, I thought Gregers would take some beating but you have just served up the biggest, steaming pile of turd I have ever had the misfortune to read on this cricket forum.

Glad that the other guys put you right, anyway.

Demon Racer wrote:
And there we go, 'And who cares what his technique is like if he gets runs'? Flat pitches have nullified the need of needing a great technique.

I would much rather watch some with a rocket solid technique, than a thrasher. Kallis gold dust.

Clearly you don't understand: batting is about scoring runs, it doesn't matter what your technique is like or what you look like provided you score runs. "Technique" is another meaningless word (like "talent"): everyone thinks they know what it means, but actually it doesn't matter.

But using the criteria that everyone uses Vaughan had a better technique (by far) than Ponting. So does Ian Bell. So did Mark Ramprakash come to mention it. I know which one of those 4 I'd want in my team.

And again, in what way is Pietersen's technique poor? I said earlier on this thread it is a perfectly reasonable technique for someone who plays like he does. His technique doesn't get him out (except sometimes against left-arm spin where he has a tendency to play with his pad).

Oh and to add:

Pietersen did score runs against great bowlers, he made bags of them against Warne and McGrath in 05 then 06/07. This included his 50odd at Lords when McGrath was unplayable, and his 158 at the Oval when Warne had England in knots.

I have my criticisms of KP, but I stick to reasonable ones.

So let me get it straight Pietersen, apart from a few decent knocks on spicy pitches, is deemed 'great', yet a similar player like Shewag is a flat track bully? Now I'm confused...

I never said KP was "great". And I never said Shewag was a "flat track bully". You've made several comments which I've asked you to expand on and you've failed to. I see no point in continuing this debate further.