KP to retire from international cricket after 3rd test?

Told TMS he 'can't give any assurances the next test won't be his last'.

Leaves England's already fragile middle order in a big hole.

I'd be amazed if he did retire. He has so much left to give and has gotten over any injury worries. If Kallis is still playing at 36 batting, bowling and fielding at slip then KP can do the same.

Unless of course he's fallen out of love for the game, in that case its fair enough and he can focus on family life.

I would be amazed, with the India tour coming up and the ashes next year, I mean, its just doesn't make sense to retire he's only 32.

If he does retire and leave me flabbergasted, it would probably be Taylor taking his place, with Bopara coming back in and having Bell move up to 4, then Bopara and Taylor, which is quite worrying with Bopara not proven and Taylor a newcomer to the Test arena.

martyr wrote:I'd be amazed if he did retire. He has so much left to give and has gotten over any injury worries. If Kallis is still playing at 36 batting, bowling and fielding at slip then KP can do the same.

Unless of course he's fallen out of love for the game, in that case its fair enough and he can focus on family life.

I would be amazed, with the India tour coming up and the ashes next year, I mean, its just doesn't make sense to retire he's only 32.

If he does retire and leave me flabbergasted, it would probably be Taylor taking his place, with Bopara coming back in and having Bell move up to 4, then Bopara and Taylor, which is quite worrying with Bopara not proven and Taylor a newcomer to the Test arena.

No - he wants to have his cake & eat it. He wants to pick & choose which international matches he plays, so that he can engineer time not for actual rest/family life, but for more big bucks from hit & giggle.

I would agree actually, if KP retires from internationals, he will play the aussie big bash, all of the IPL then however much he can get in county cricket.

amanuensis wrote: He wants to pick & choose which international matches he plays, so that he can engineer time not for actual rest/family life, but for more big bucks from hit & giggle.

That is partially what he wants......because he is a super star....box office material...that leagues worldwide are willing to pay millions to have.....

ANYONE..in that position would excercise that option.....Bravo, Gayle, Ross Taylor, McCullum, Malinga, Lee....smaller stars than him, went down the same route...
Unlike many others he didn't want to dump test cricket...that his country values most...but the meaningless bi-lateral ODIs... that arev treated as Ashes practise these days by the clever

Strausses, Trotts, Cooks and Bells don't excercise that options...because they don't have one. ...none are willing to pay even 50K to have them in the Box offcie markets......

and another part in him wants to be made to feel special like superstars......Lara, Têndulkar, Malinga, Botham and even Warne in their country are..........
instead there is a grudging coach in his own country......who wants to be the center of universe with nodding school boys around him...an cannot bearv the glitter of another deemed bigger star than him......or the bureaucrats of ECB........."scapegaoating" him for their rivally with another cricket board

There is so much crap on here it is unreal. He has clearly got issues, but why are we even trying to guess the real reason? It will be revealed I'm sure, but it's not about his ego, or money. But I'll join in.....him and the coach hate each other...

I have no idea why he wants to leave (if its true) just guessing what he will do if he does

I'd imagine its very much a falling out with the ECB because KP wants to pick his matches so hes free to play T20 around the world

I go back to my original points when his one-day retirement was first announced:

There must be more to this than money and the schedule.

Money isn't an issue to him (or in my opinion the majority of IPL players). He does in an ideal world want to play more IPL, because it fuels his ego - he sees how millions of people in Bangalore love Chris Gayle and wants to be like that; to experience the kind of hero-worship which English players don't get over here, even from cricket fans. But he wouldn't be causing this whole cafuffle over what is in reality about 5 Twenty20 matches.

The schedule can't be a major issue to him, and his recent comments practically rule that out. He knows that England will manage him, and also evidently wants to play some T20.


If I'm going to speculate I'd say he doesn't get on with Flower and the ECB. But, sorry, he is acting like a spoilt child.

tbh no one other than KP can change matches like he did with the 149.

A issue here is why all this was leaked from the ECB and prompting his current comments

bearsfan wrote:tbh no one other than KP can change matches like he did with the 149.

A issue here is why all this was leaked from the ECB and prompting his current comments

Welcome to 606 v2 bearsfan!

Leaks will always happen. The real question is why he allowed himself to get into this situation in the first place.

bearsfan wrote:tbh no one other than KP can change matches like he did with the 149.

A issue here is why all this was leaked from the ECB and prompting his current comments

I would be interested to see what Prior could do slightly higher up the order say at 5, allow him to be a bit more selfish in his batting as at the moment he always has to play the situation and is usually put in plan England require such as batting quick for a declaration or batting with the tail rather than just going out there to score runs

England are hesitant to play 5 bowlers. Maybe Taylor at 5, Prior 6 and a Samit Patel type at 7

GSC wrote:England are hesitant to play 5 bowlers. Maybe Taylor at 5, Prior 6 and a Samit Patel type at 7

but not samit patel obviously

GSC wrote:England are hesitant to play 5 bowlers. Maybe Taylor at 5, Prior 6 and a Samit Patel type at 7

Its because usually we don't need 5 frontline bowlers, usually 4 bowlers do the job occasionally with a part timer.

amazing how we miss flintoff, more with the ball rather than bat towards the end, but to have another option like him who was an all out attack bowler is priceless. Is there any in county cricket. You have Stokes but he's nowhere near that level, any ideas?

It would be a real shame if he were to retire but at the same time i am getting pretty sick of it all.
As good a player that he is and a genuine matchwinner, he should either commit to the team or feic off. Constant calls of maybe stopping, maybe not, attempted U-Turns and negaitive comments do nothing for the team moral and solidity.

Go or stay KP, just make a damn decision already for good of the team.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/19138968

Theres more on the story here.

It does beg the question of how much of a stand off is there between KP and the ECB. It seems they have had such a sensitive relationship since the skipper issue and Peter Moores.

I for one would like for KP and ECB to iron out these issues. The limited overs decision again another one which made KP appear in a much more negative light. If the ECB had actually said 'We have explored every avenue to work out a resolution to benefit of both parties' instead what this has shown is a lack of compromise from both and I think they are both at fault.

KP comes across as if he is un-loved by the ECB. I do tire of these innuendo's. The question KP needs to ask himself is 'I am really putting myself out there' am I making any concessions. See for any decision he makes not to be percieved as anything but profit gain on his behalf requires a little bit of sacrifice on his behalf. He is a quality player and one England can ill afford to lose whilst they are on the top of their game at the moment.

The ECB however need to stop being so rigid in their policies. For example Cook captains the one-day side yet doesn't play T20. Why can't Pietersen prioritise T20 and miss one-day cricket? It is a loophole which totally undermines the policy.

The last word on KP. Should these decisions result in a much more financial gain for him in terms of the lucrative world of the IPL and other cricketing formats which offer pay day bonanzas, then he should be forced to give up his central contract to someone that will put the England team commitments first.

There will always be more to this than we will ever know. I also believe that the ECB can be less rigid but am also tired of the little quitting innuendos from KP. As an employee, it is he that must conform to the rules of his employer and not the other way around. With these quitiing innuendos, it brings a certain instability into the team.

Negativity within in a team can spread just as fast (if not quicker) than positivity.

I just get the feeling that he is perhaps treated more harshly than others would be. As legendkillar puts so well, Cook gets away with it (though admittedly he would play T20 if asked), as did Strauss before him. Yet KP doesn't want to play ODI's and all of a sudden he is public enemy number one.

The ECB need to move away from their draconian, old school beliefs and policies and accept that KP is the draw here, not them. England need Pietersen a huge amount - he is an English great and is in his absolute prime. It'd be a terrible waste were his Test career curtailed. The ECB should be there to run anything behind the scenes - we hear far too much from them for my liking. Spectators go to watch England but more importantly they go to be ENTERTAINED. Are England very entertaining without Pietersen? No, not really. In fact they are pretty bloody boring.

legendkillarV2 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/19138968

Theres more on the story here.

It does beg the question of how much of a stand off is there between KP and the ECB. It seems they have had such a sensitive relationship since the skipper issue and Peter Moores.

I for one would like for KP and ECB to iron out these issues. The limited overs decision again another one which made KP appear in a much more negative light. If the ECB had actually said 'We have explored every avenue to work out a resolution to benefit of both parties' instead what this has shown is a lack of compromise from both and I think they are both at fault.

KP comes across as if he is un-loved by the ECB. I do tire of these innuendo's. The question KP needs to ask himself is 'I am really putting myself out there' am I making any concessions. See for any decision he makes not to be percieved as anything but profit gain on his behalf requires a little bit of sacrifice on his behalf. He is a quality player and one England can ill afford to lose whilst they are on the top of their game at the moment.

The ECB however need to stop being so rigid in their policies. For example Cook captains the one-day side yet doesn't play T20. Why can't Pietersen prioritise T20 and miss one-day cricket? It is a loophole which totally undermines the policy.

The last word on KP. Should these decisions result in a much more financial gain for him in terms of the lucrative world of the IPL and other cricketing formats which offer pay day bonanzas, then he should be forced to give up his central contract to someone that will put the England team commitments first.

The ECB did, and always do, try their hardest to compromise. The compromise being that even if KP plays in the IPL he'll be rested fairly regularly. Anything further than that would be totally unacceptable.

Is KP un-loved by the ECB or does he just not like them? If anything this saga has confirmed to me that:

1. The English flag is one of convenience to him, allowing him to play internationally.
2. KP plays for the glory of KP and not the success of Team England.

The ECB's policies won't allow for that type of muddled priority-setting and nor should they.

On the issue of not being allowed to play T20 I think that that is very necessary. If players could quit ODIs but still be considered for a handful of T20s it would set a dangerous precedent for future players to do the same. ODIs needs to be protected, as they are a well-attended format which can't afford to lose the best players. The only reason a player should want to drop ODI cricket is the schedule. In that case T20 can go too, as the player concentrates on Tests. It particularly sends out the wrong messages where the player ditches ODIs but still plays IPL. The Cook situation is completely irrelevant to this. Firstly, retiring from T20 and still playing ODIs is different (less T20s) and secondly Cook is available for T20 anyway and definitely wants to feature.

Of course, in no way should the ECB let KP or anybody miss Tests for the IPL. For a start our early season Tests will be sold-out, so it is wrong to argue that we are fighting a losing 'battle' against the IPL when most English fans still prefer Tests by some considerable margin. Secondly, the its not as if we're banning our players from the IPL full stop - KP got to play eight matches this year and would only get a few more if he got what seems is his way. Thirdly, the IPL is a corrupt (look no further than N. Srinivasan, and the recent stories of spot-fixing), overlong, mediocre standard event which doesn't appeal to English fans. Should we let our contracted players miss Tests in front of a full house at Lord's to play in that? I think not.

Cook isnt selected for T20, there is a major difference here.
I do not buy for one second that KP is treated more harsly than any other player, in fact i believe that he gets probably a little more leniency.

Its a rock and a hard place situation, the rules are there for every player and every player is expected to abide by them (whether they are right or wrong is another story). If the ECB were to suddenly allow KP all he wishes then they would be accepting that he is bigger than the game and the ECB which is a seriously wrong thing to do.

If you put entertainment value above an establishment then that is a recipe for disaster in the long run as you will then have players picking and choosing when they will play. This is not a precident that i want to be set.

Fists of Fury wrote:I just get the feeling that he is perhaps treated more harshly than others would be. As legendkillar puts so well, Cook gets away with it (though admittedly he would play T20 if asked), as did Strauss before him. Yet KP doesn't want to play ODI's and all of a sudden he is public enemy number one.

The ECB need to move away from their draconian, old school beliefs and policies and accept that KP is the draw here, not them. England need Pietersen a huge amount - he is an English great and is in his absolute prime. It'd be a terrible waste were his Test career curtailed. The ECB should be there to run anything behind the scenes - we hear far too much from them for my liking. Spectators go to watch England but more importantly they go to be ENTERTAINED. Are England very entertaining without Pietersen? No, not really. In fact they are pretty bloody boring.

Treated more harshly than others? I don't think so. The Cook and Strauss issues are entirely irrelevant.

I disagree that KP is the draw and not England. We have the number one team in the world, featuring a number of other exciting players - Bell, Morgan (in ODIs), Prior, Anderson, Broad, Swann. People buy tickets to see England and frankly the absence of KP won't effect that.

People will still go and watch England, obviously, but they won't be entertained anywhere near as much. The others you listed don't even come close to KP in full flow. The key difference is that he can do it against any bowling attack and make them look like school children.

It'll make me think twice about paying such lofty prices, that's for sure. I watch sport to be entertained, and when I spend my money I want to spend it on seeing genius, the modern greats, the entertainers and the magnificent. KP qualifies as each of those, and there is only a handful in world cricket that do.

The ECB have probably been naughty here. It is clear that someone has leaked some of the negotiations to the press - likely as a ploy to turn some media and public opinion against KP as this rift comes to a head.

Aside from that, I just don't think they know how to handle a maverick player like KP. Their man management is fine with the law abiding quiet men like Strauss and Cook, certainly, but their no compromise stance will never work well with a Pietersen, a Gayle etc. They've just gone about it in the wrong way, and no way should a single word of negotiations have reached the public domain, that much is for sure.

The only thing that i can see that the ECB has done wrong in this is by possibly making public any intentions to review their process'. For the rest they have handled things very well. KP may be a maverick but that does not mean that he can single handedly govern the ECB and force them to compromise. Its unheard of and unacceptable. If in everyday life, if employees were allowed to dictate to their bosses then it would be chaos...

Fists, if you mainly go to see the cricket to be entertained by swashbuckling innings' then we will never see eye to eye on this as i am very much entertained by all aspects of the game, even the 'so called boring' tactical battles.

Shelsey93 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/19138968

Theres more on the story here.

It does beg the question of how much of a stand off is there between KP and the ECB. It seems they have had such a sensitive relationship since the skipper issue and Peter Moores.

I for one would like for KP and ECB to iron out these issues. The limited overs decision again another one which made KP appear in a much more negative light. If the ECB had actually said 'We have explored every avenue to work out a resolution to benefit of both parties' instead what this has shown is a lack of compromise from both and I think they are both at fault.

KP comes across as if he is un-loved by the ECB. I do tire of these innuendo's. The question KP needs to ask himself is 'I am really putting myself out there' am I making any concessions. See for any decision he makes not to be percieved as anything but profit gain on his behalf requires a little bit of sacrifice on his behalf. He is a quality player and one England can ill afford to lose whilst they are on the top of their game at the moment.

The ECB however need to stop being so rigid in their policies. For example Cook captains the one-day side yet doesn't play T20. Why can't Pietersen prioritise T20 and miss one-day cricket? It is a loophole which totally undermines the policy.

The last word on KP. Should these decisions result in a much more financial gain for him in terms of the lucrative world of the IPL and other cricketing formats which offer pay day bonanzas, then he should be forced to give up his central contract to someone that will put the England team commitments first.

The ECB did, and always do, try their hardest to compromise. The compromise being that even if KP plays in the IPL he'll be rested fairly regularly. Anything further than that would be totally unacceptable.

Is KP un-loved by the ECB or does he just not like them? If anything this saga has confirmed to me that:

1. The English flag is one of convenience to him, allowing him to play internationally.
2. KP plays for the glory of KP and not the success of Team England.

The ECB's policies won't allow for that type of muddled priority-setting and nor should they.

On the issue of not being allowed to play T20 I think that that is very necessary. If players could quit ODIs but still be considered for a handful of T20s it would set a dangerous precedent for future players to do the same. ODIs needs to be protected, as they are a well-attended format which can't afford to lose the best players. The only reason a player should want to drop ODI cricket is the schedule. In that case T20 can go too, as the player concentrates on Tests. It particularly sends out the wrong messages where the player ditches ODIs but still plays IPL. The Cook situation is completely irrelevant to this. Firstly, retiring from T20 and still playing ODIs is different (less T20s) and secondly Cook is available for T20 anyway and definitely wants to feature.

Of course, in no way should the ECB let KP or anybody miss Tests for the IPL. For a start our early season Tests will be sold-out, so it is wrong to argue that we are fighting a losing 'battle' against the IPL when most English fans still prefer Tests by some considerable margin. Secondly, the its not as if we're banning our players from the IPL full stop - KP got to play eight matches this year and would only get a few more if he got what seems is his way. Thirdly, the IPL is a corrupt (look no further than N. Srinivasan, and the recent stories of spot-fixing), overlong, mediocre standard event which doesn't appeal to English fans. Should we let our contracted players miss Tests in front of a full house at Lord's to play in that? I think not.

How have the ECB tried hard to compromise? I can't recall any situation to which they have ever compromised for the good of the team. There is the complaint from many players that their is too much cricket being played. Where is the compromise there? What about when the selectors dropped Anderson despite him coming out and saying he wanted to play? Where was the compromise?

If England want to be dominant in all forms of the games, then pick the best players for the situation. Policy will restrict that and we are then left moaning that we can't compete in all formats when in fact better planning and players health consideration would easily improve performances in all formats. KP not playing one-day is not catastrophic in the slightest. Many other countries allow players to dab in and out of the formats.

KP has had achillies injuries and at the age of 32 I am not surprised he wants to reduce his schedule. Looking at the current crop of players how many would want to change their schedule to the benefits of IPL or domestic cricket in general?

Look at Trescothick and Yardy. Classic examples of the demands of cricket becoming too over-bearing and affecting their health. Look at the Ashes in 2006-07 and how much the ECB balls'd up the players schedules. Take Flintoff. I am sure if he had his time again he would've wanted to ditch one of the formats of International cricket.

You say the Cook scenario is irrelevent when in fact it is very relevent. What it shows is that players not 'specialised' in all formats are given the free pass to play other formats. Why is there an issue with someone wanting take one format out? The message that sends out is that we haven't enough talent to fill that spot.

Eire, I enjoy all kinds of cricket, I really do, but I watched Alastair Cook score 294 and have to say I was considerably underwhelmed by it. It was turgid and, to be blunt, downright painful.

Even as a purist I was longing for a bit of innovation or aggression.

I love a tactical battle. A fast bowler steaming in, a batsman not scoring a run for a couple of overs whilst doing their utmost to survive. Setting a trap for a batsman. That is fascinating. But there are plenty of aspects of Test cricket that aren't, too.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/19138968

Theres more on the story here.

It does beg the question of how much of a stand off is there between KP and the ECB. It seems they have had such a sensitive relationship since the skipper issue and Peter Moores.

I for one would like for KP and ECB to iron out these issues. The limited overs decision again another one which made KP appear in a much more negative light. If the ECB had actually said 'We have explored every avenue to work out a resolution to benefit of both parties' instead what this has shown is a lack of compromise from both and I think they are both at fault.

KP comes across as if he is un-loved by the ECB. I do tire of these innuendo's. The question KP needs to ask himself is 'I am really putting myself out there' am I making any concessions. See for any decision he makes not to be percieved as anything but profit gain on his behalf requires a little bit of sacrifice on his behalf. He is a quality player and one England can ill afford to lose whilst they are on the top of their game at the moment.

The ECB however need to stop being so rigid in their policies. For example Cook captains the one-day side yet doesn't play T20. Why can't Pietersen prioritise T20 and miss one-day cricket? It is a loophole which totally undermines the policy.

The last word on KP. Should these decisions result in a much more financial gain for him in terms of the lucrative world of the IPL and other cricketing formats which offer pay day bonanzas, then he should be forced to give up his central contract to someone that will put the England team commitments first.

The ECB did, and always do, try their hardest to compromise. The compromise being that even if KP plays in the IPL he'll be rested fairly regularly. Anything further than that would be totally unacceptable.

Is KP un-loved by the ECB or does he just not like them? If anything this saga has confirmed to me that:

1. The English flag is one of convenience to him, allowing him to play internationally.
2. KP plays for the glory of KP and not the success of Team England.

The ECB's policies won't allow for that type of muddled priority-setting and nor should they.

On the issue of not being allowed to play T20 I think that that is very necessary. If players could quit ODIs but still be considered for a handful of T20s it would set a dangerous precedent for future players to do the same. ODIs needs to be protected, as they are a well-attended format which can't afford to lose the best players. The only reason a player should want to drop ODI cricket is the schedule. In that case T20 can go too, as the player concentrates on Tests. It particularly sends out the wrong messages where the player ditches ODIs but still plays IPL. The Cook situation is completely irrelevant to this. Firstly, retiring from T20 and still playing ODIs is different (less T20s) and secondly Cook is available for T20 anyway and definitely wants to feature.

Of course, in no way should the ECB let KP or anybody miss Tests for the IPL. For a start our early season Tests will be sold-out, so it is wrong to argue that we are fighting a losing 'battle' against the IPL when most English fans still prefer Tests by some considerable margin. Secondly, the its not as if we're banning our players from the IPL full stop - KP got to play eight matches this year and would only get a few more if he got what seems is his way. Thirdly, the IPL is a corrupt (look no further than N. Srinivasan, and the recent stories of spot-fixing), overlong, mediocre standard event which doesn't appeal to English fans. Should we let our contracted players miss Tests in front of a full house at Lord's to play in that? I think not.

How have the ECB tried hard to compromise? I can't recall any situation to which they have ever compromised for the good of the team. There is the complaint from many players that their is too much cricket being played. Where is the compromise there? What about when the selectors dropped Anderson despite him coming out and saying he wanted to play? Where was the compromise?

If England want to be dominant in all forms of the games, then pick the best players for the situation. Policy will restrict that and we are then left moaning that we can't compete in all formats when in fact better planning and players health consideration would easily improve performances in all formats. KP not playing one-day is not catastrophic in the slightest. Many other countries allow players to dab in and out of the formats.

KP has had achillies injuries and at the age of 32 I am not surprised he wants to reduce his schedule. Looking at the current crop of players how many would want to change their schedule to the benefits of IPL or domestic cricket in general?

Look at Trescothick and Yardy. Classic examples of the demands of cricket becoming too over-bearing and affecting their health. Look at the Ashes in 2006-07 and how much the ECB balls'd up the players schedules. Take Flintoff. I am sure if he had his time again he would've wanted to ditch one of the formats of International cricket.

You say the Cook scenario is irrelevent when in fact it is very relevent. What it shows is that players not 'specialised' in all formats are given the free pass to play other formats. Why is there an issue with someone wanting take one format out? The message that sends out is that we haven't enough talent to fill that spot.

What a terrific post, legendkillar.

Shelsey, saying that the ECB have tried to compromise is utter hogwash, to be honest. LK has it spot on in his assessment. Effectively, KP is penalised because he is our best player in all formats. If he were garbage at T20 or limited overs cricket there would have been no such issue.

See below:
They ( I dunno if it is ECB only ...I suspect Flower is a part of this) are playing games with him......making his confidential negotiations leaked into public domain.......and putting pressure on him to answer media in his defense.

It is his right as an employee to go and discuss his employment conditions in private.........and either to put him on the defensive in his negotiations or to manage the public opinion in their favor........sensing a possible debacle........the employers hit him under the belt...and leaked discussions that should remain entirely confidential.
He has been wronged multiple times......

Pietersen, who has played in 88 Tests, also expressed his anger that details of his discussions with the ECB had been made public.

"Did I leak anything to the media about the meetings I was having with the ECB? I never spoke to the media for one single second," he insisted.

"I never spoke a single word about anything that happened behind closed doors, or what I thought was closed doors."

See now fists, thats where we differ. I watched Cooks 294 and was amazed at his level of concentraction and application. Its those disciplines that get you 294 not the aggression. For me that was a master class in batting.

I do believe that the ECB should make public that they will investigate what procedures they have in place and will have closer contact with the players to see which is the best possible way forward in regards to players individual wishes. This is the only thing that i see that they are doing wrong.

By KP demanding change (and intimating at retirement) it has forced them to dig their heels in and say no as they, as an organisation, cant be seen to be directed by and individual player.

This situation is still very much salvagable if the ECB still show the intent and willingness to change by simply making an investigation into this.

It was a turgid 294 made against God awful bowling. If he had compiled those runs against say this SA attack then yes, I'd be in awe too. However, that's neither here nor there in terms of this discussion.

I agree re: an investigation. It is needed, because for details of their discussions to be leaked is a serious breach of confidentiality and Pietersen has every right to be fuming about it.

Whether KP is doing it in public or not is neither here nor there to be honest. He is still trying to dictate to his employer his wishes. This can never work and he will lose.

As i said, earlier, its a rock and hard place situation but one that can be solved.

Pietersen is a great bat but please GO. I'm tired of your BS. If you want the IPL money then fine but please stop boring me and expecting us to feel sorry for you.

Ta ta

Stella, that is incredibly short sighted and you clearly haven't seen last nights presser. It is not about money.

I dont mean an investigation into the leaking of private information, that goes without saying and heads should roll.

I am more refeering to the ECB having closed door talks with the players and management in order to find a more acceptable way forward in regards to the wishes of the ECB, the players and the paying public. That usually works a hell of alot better than an individual or boss dictating things.

I am sure that in these meetings, compromises can be made for all parties.

Fists of Fury wrote:Stella, that is incredibly short sighted and you clearly haven't seen last nights presser. It is not about money.

What's it about then? Time with his family?

Stella wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Stella, that is incredibly short sighted and you clearly haven't seen last nights presser. It is not about money.

What's it about then? Time with his family?

Seen his wife? Hell i would miss a game of cricket to stay in bed as well

This isn't a dictatorship by where Pietersen is wishing to control everything like he did with Moores affair. This KP wanting to lighten his schedule. Flower himself has not come out to criticise KP. This suggests that the demand KP is making is not one that is groundbreaking.

If the ECB allowed KP to ditch one day cricket, I don't think KP would be out on the attack on the ECB. If he then decided he wanted to pick and choose Test matches or T20 matches he wanted to play, then I am sure Flower would gladly show him the door.

KP for all his mis-demeanours with the ECB in the world of social media and the media itself would not be stupid enough to challenge the ECB should he be allowed back into the T20 fold. This is where the ECB are stupid because if they made a concession to KP, they could guarantee his loyalty to the other formats he would remain active in. If I were in the ECB I would try and cement KP until the Ashes next year.

I don't see KP playing beyond the Ashes next year. He would want to be part of the team that retains the Ashes. It is a legacy defining moment for England players especially and feeds into the KP ego. Kind of like feed the goat and he will score.

legendkillarV2 wrote: 1/ This isn't a dictatorship by where Pietersen is wishing to control everything like he did with Moores affair. This KP wanting to lighten his schedule. Flower himself has not come out to criticise KP. This suggests that the demand KP is making is not one that is groundbreaking.

2/ If the ECB allowed KP to ditch one day cricket, I don't think KP would be out on the attack on the ECB. If he then decided he wanted to pick and choose Test matches or T20 matches he wanted to play, then I am sure Flower would gladly show him the door.

3/ KP for all his mis-demeanours with the ECB in the world of social media and the media itself would not be stupid enough to challenge the ECB should he be allowed back into the T20 fold. This is where the ECB are stupid because 4/ if they made a concession to KP, they could guarantee his loyalty to the other formats he would remain active in. If I were in the ECB I would try and cement KP until the Ashes next year.

I don't see KP playing beyond the Ashes next year. He would want to be part of the team that retains the Ashes. It is a legacy defining moment for England players especially and feeds into the KP ego. Kind of like feed the goat and he will score.

1/ KP does have a history of this as you have highlighted
2/ He is attacking the ECB because they dont allow him what he wants?
3/ Is he not challenging them because they wont bow to him, see point 2.
4/ If the ECB made a conssion for KP, then this sets a dangerous precedent for future stars to do the same. Is KP only to show Loyalty when he gets what he wants?

Edit, You know i respect your opinions highly LK but i think that we are not going to see eye to eye on this. Still luv ya though

It's always been about the ECB. They are trying to take the moral high ground, yet they are consistently inconsistent. NOBODY know's what KP's gripes are, but most of you are ASSUMING they are unrealistic. If the ECB want KP for all their important games (they are not against resting players at all), then they could have done so, by compromise. But they are using the blackmail tactic of 'no one is bigger than the team mantra'. To me, it looks like the ECB are making themselves look more important than the players.

International Football teams rest players all the time, and change format and team selection based on the game, competition and status of that competition. We don't need KP or Cook for the NZ tests for example. These 2 series against them would have been ideal time give Bairstow and Taylor and a few others a chance, rather than pitching them into the firing line.

Botham was a legend, but had a big ego like KP, and they tried to destroy him as well. The ECB need to pull thier toffee-nosed heads out of their public schoolboy erses and think of the fans.

Fantastic last line, DJB. They really are stuck up twerps.

eirebilly wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote: 1/ This isn't a dictatorship by where Pietersen is wishing to control everything like he did with Moores affair. This KP wanting to lighten his schedule. Flower himself has not come out to criticise KP. This suggests that the demand KP is making is not one that is groundbreaking.

2/ If the ECB allowed KP to ditch one day cricket, I don't think KP would be out on the attack on the ECB. If he then decided he wanted to pick and choose Test matches or T20 matches he wanted to play, then I am sure Flower would gladly show him the door.

3/ KP for all his mis-demeanours with the ECB in the world of social media and the media itself would not be stupid enough to challenge the ECB should he be allowed back into the T20 fold. This is where the ECB are stupid because 4/ if they made a concession to KP, they could guarantee his loyalty to the other formats he would remain active in. If I were in the ECB I would try and cement KP until the Ashes next year.

I don't see KP playing beyond the Ashes next year. He would want to be part of the team that retains the Ashes. It is a legacy defining moment for England players especially and feeds into the KP ego. Kind of like feed the goat and he will score.

1/ KP does have a history of this as you have highlighted
2/ He is attacking the ECB because they dont allow him what he wants?
3/ Is he not challenging them because they wont bow to him, see point 2.
4/ If the ECB made a conssion for KP, then this sets a dangerous precedent for future stars to do the same. Is KP only to show Loyalty when he gets what he wants?

1) Like I said 'history' has he dared to challenge Flower publically? Nope. That to me stresses who is in charge

2) Is dropping one day cricket such a crime? Like stated he wanted to participate in Test and T20 formats. Hardly for me something that is earth shattering

3) My point was past tense and hypothetical. If he was allowed to lighten his schedule, I don't think he would try and push the boat further. Especially clashing with Flower as there would only be one winner. Why would you not want KP for the Ashes which will be priority in 2013.

4) Future stars. Again hypothetical. I can remember the first IPL and most of the England players weren't made an offer. Take the established order. Many are happy playing country cricket while on a central contract. Who else bar Pietersen plays across all formats? Broad and Swann perhaps. I doubt they would come out and challenge the status quo given how settled they seem with their schedules.

Let me ask all of you this. If you were a boss and one of your employess came to you and asked you for a change, would you not consider it?

Same Question yet this time said employee comes to you and demands a change or the are off.

What do you do?

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:It's always been about the ECB. They are trying to take the moral high ground, yet they are consistently inconsistent. NOBODY know's what KP's gripes are, but most of you are ASSUMING they are unrealistic. If the ECB want KP for all their important games (they are not against resting players at all), then they could have done so, by compromise. But they are using the blackmail tactic of 'no one is bigger than the team mantra'. To me, it looks like the ECB are making themselves look more important than the players.

International Football teams rest players all the time, and change format and team selection based on the game, competition and status of that competition. We don't need KP or Cook for the NZ tests for example. These 2 series against them would have been ideal time give Bairstow and Taylor and a few others a chance, rather than pitching them into the firing line.

Botham was a legend, but had a big ego like KP, and they tried to destroy him as well. The ECB need to pull thier toffee-nosed heads out of their public schoolboy erses and think of the fans.

well said

Billy,

If an employee came to you requesting change that would increase performance levels would you not give it due consideration?

LK, i can see where you are coming from but we have different perceptions of these events.

As i said early, this is a very difficult situation and both parties are at fault. Not just the ECB and not just KP.

A sit down with the players in an open and free discussion about what is best for all involved is the only way forward i feel.

The ECB have their rules but should be open to adjust them but KP should also not make demands and threats.

fists

You are seriously considering NOT going to watch England play if Pietersen retires?

One thing. If you pay to go and see one day of a test, then you're not guaranteed watching him bat anyway.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Billy,

If an employee came to you requesting change that would increase performance levels would you not give it due consideration?

Requesting being the key word here. Of course i would give it the highest consideration.

If an employee came to me demanding change for the better or they are off, then i would let them leave and then consider change.

There is a huge difference in how to approach people in all walks of life

Oh I'll still watch them, Stella. I love every single aspect of a day at the Test.

It just makes that price seem a little bit more steep without a box office name, though. Some of my most enjoyable moments at Tests have been watching KP bat. They're great memories.

Billy,

Yes I agree the ECB are not at fault fully. Making a case for KP is not something that is difficult given he is one of England's greatest batsman.

KP is no spring chicken. 32. He has being playing all formats now for nearly 7 years with the crazy schedules that ECB have put in place in that duration.

I doubt this would be a trend setting move given that past Pietersen it is difficult to see anyone who plays all 3 forms and is an asset to the team. I am not surprised KP is annoyed given that he has given the best years of his cricket to England.