Cut the nose to spite the face

First topic message reminder :

Did they just cut the nose to spite the face ?

Yes indeed ECB cut their nose to spite their face.

With 7000 runs, 88 tests @ 50+ average, a big 100 in his last overseas innings in Lanka to keep England hanging in as No. 1 and another big hundred in what was defnitely his LAST test to yet again keep them hanging by a flimsy thread as No.1....KP's status as their biggest superstar in the last 3 decades and a legend in English cricket is already confirmed.


The intent obviously was to "hit back and hurt back".......instead of finding ways to reconcile and move forward.
Unfortunately ECB's timing was as bad as their intent.
.
If it was repraminding and putting down a newbie with 20 odd tests and 1500 runs.....then ECB's intent to "hit back and hurt" may have worked.......but here they have probably added martyrdom to an exisiting superstardom.

KP could have finished with 9000 or even 10,000 runs in the next 3 years....even without those extra 2,000 runs runs..nothing changes in his standing as a cricketer...the loser is English cricket.

An extraordinary batsman, who served England well for long, a flawed genius who acknowledged his flawed emotionalism and one who took severeal steps towards reconcillation....the super star who was made a martyr today by the bureaucrats who did a classic " cut their nose to spite their own face"......is how history would sum it up when dust settles over this issue.

Mike Selig wrote:I overslept this morning so had to skip breakfast.

Lunch will be the usual sandwiches, although the chocolate spread has been replaced by peanut butter, and the nectarine by a plumb (british, despite being more expensive than the spanish ones - how does that work anyway) and tomato (spanish, do the british do tomatoes? Not near where I'm living it would seem) for variety.

I haven't yet decided on dinner, so there's a post to look forward to to break up the tedium later on.

Mike, if you're going to ignore someone, just ignore them, there's no need to be rude about it. Given that KP_fan's last post was actually free of illogical ranting it makes yours look worse.

Mike Selig wrote:I overslept this morning so had to skip breakfast.

Lunch will be the usual sandwiches, although the chocolate spread has been replaced by peanut butter, and the nectarine by a plumb (british, despite being more expensive than the spanish ones - how does that work anyway) and tomato (spanish, do the british do tomatoes? Not near where I'm living it would seem) for variety.

I haven't yet decided on dinner, so there's a post to look forward to to break up the tedium later on.

Made me chuckle.

Mike Selig wrote:I overslept this morning so had to skip breakfast.

Lunch will be the usual sandwiches, although the chocolate spread has been replaced by peanut butter, and the nectarine by a plumb (british, despite being more expensive than the spanish ones - how does that work anyway) and tomato (spanish, do the british do tomatoes? Not near where I'm living it would seem) for variety.

I haven't yet decided on dinner, so there's a post to look forward to to break up the tedium later on.

Would have done better to ignore or respond to the points.

Flower's statement give me hope as well as concern me. He has taken some much needed responsibility for the management's failures during the saga. It is a first good step in the right direction on the management's part to get the ball rolling to try and see if the situation could be resolved. His' not setting a time frame to resolve is understandable, but implicitly suggesting the matter is not one of priority is concerning. There is also the hint that Pietersen may not make it to India.
Think again Strauss did better on the question of the KP apology, he had said its a first step in the right direction, but flower said its inadequate. Both did imply it is not enough, but there is a difference, and I know which is better if you really want to resolve the issue. Then, to be fair to Flower, I am saying this after reading the cricinfo report, so he may have said not exactly inadequate, but something to the effect of not enough.......

I think it's a good interview by Flower overall TBH.

He has identified that the start of all this was Pietersen's concerns over scheduling, and suspects that a lot of this was down to Pietersen wanting to play the full season in the IPL. I'm not sure I agree and I'm not sure questioning Pietersen's motives is that sensible - in the overall analysis this is a fairly poor start from Flower, but he is closer to the situation than I.

He then admits that the management and him in particular could have handled things better, and hints that he will be doing some serious soul-searching as to what he could have done differently to avoid things coming to this point.

He moves on to point out that contrary to what some people are saying KP is not being picked on or singled out, it is just that what he did was a lot more serious (in his view - and I agree) than what others have done in the past.

He ends up by acknowledgeing the apology, but saying that in itself it's not enough to resolve the issue. He puts the onus very much on Pietersen to do this, but clearly leaving the door open for a possible return should things reach a satisfactory resolution. He rightly doesn't want to put a timetable or a deadline because there's no knowing how long things will take.

It's typical Flower: honest, to the point, taking pressure off Strauss by taking the blame for management failures and pointing out it is a team issue, whilst trying not to burn anymore bridges. I do think the initial "dig" at Pietersen's wish to play IPL was unhelpful, but apart from that it was first class.

The onus is now on Pietersen to put his ego aside and clear the air with his team-mates properly.

msp83 wrote:Flower's statement give me hope as well as concern me. He has taken some much needed responsibility for the management's failures during the saga. It is a first good step in the right direction on the management's part to get the ball rolling to try and see if the situation could be resolved. His' not setting a time frame to resolve is understandable, but implicitly suggesting the matter is not one of priority is concerning. There is also the hint that Pietersen may not make it to India.
Think again Strauss did better on the question of the KP apology, he had said its a first step in the right direction, but flower said its inadequate. Both did imply it is not enough, but there is a difference, and I know which is better if you really want to resolve the issue. Then, to be fair to Flower, I am saying this after reading the cricinfo report, so he may have said not exactly inadequate, but something to the effect of not enough.......

Flower's elaboration today is much better than the his earlier sketchy mumblings...or statements of all and sundry.
Clearly he is stating the position of ECB....and letting everyone know where things stand.

Even if the stand of ECB/ Flower is biassed....we al know where ECB stands...now formally.
and what direction they are gunning in......to get legal evidence of texts and use that as a basis to justrify not offering KP a central contrcat.

it's clear Flower holds a strong say...and he doesn't want KP back ...no more illusions or beating around the bush.

Hope for KP
--content of texts is legally not incriminating...or not made availbale at all.
--Publlic / media pressure continue to build on ECB....... if Eng flounders in T20 and India.
--KP should keep playing FC cricket and whatever T20s........and keep performing

This could be resolved in a day, if both parties want to. Flower is happy to stall, to ensure KP doesn't get a central contract, and therefore go to India.

If I was KP, I'd tell them to stick it, and go somewhere else, where he is wanted....(if he can find somewhere that is...)

I'm starting to dislike Flower immensely

I expect with the ODIs and T20 WC coming up Flower has other things on his plate. I also think that it is too soon to try to sort anything out now, tempers will still be high, and until everything is know and everyone has had time to reflect all that will happen will be another bust-up.

I see no evidence of Flower wanting to deny Pietersen a central contract, he clearly wants to sort things out and then decide whether it's worth having Pietersen back.

The irony of Pietersen "going somewhere where he's wanted", that seems to be his career path, having now fallen out with 2 countries and 2 counties.

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:This could be resolved in a day, if both parties want to. Flower is happy to stall, to ensure KP doesn't get a central contract, and therefore go to India.

If I was KP, I'd tell them to stick it, and go somewhere else, where he is wanted....(if he can find somewhere that is...)

I'm starting to dislike Flower immensely

I know what i said but

Tosh, Flower wants him back as much as the England fans do, if it can be soughted, of course he wants the best player back. But not at the expense of the team.

KP wants to be back for India {where he is loved} and i am sure he will be. He can not play for another country for four-seven years anyway.

Mike Selig wrote:I expect with the ODIs and T20 WC coming up Flower has other things on his plate. I also think that it is too soon to try to sort anything out now, tempers will still be high, and until everything is know and everyone has had time to reflect all that will happen will be another bust-up.

I see no evidence of Flower wanting to deny Pietersen a central contract, he clearly wants to sort things out and then decide whether it's worth having Pietersen back.

The irony of Pietersen "going somewhere where he's wanted", that seems to be his career path, having now fallen out with 2 countries and 2 counties.

Not best loved at Natal and Surrey either.

the response of Flower will be interpreted by KP's advisors...exactly as he has stated.
and they would know now.....there is no staright way of getting back.

When driven to a no-hope-nothing-to-lose situation....remember, the party sitting still pretty from a legal point of view is KP.

KP might sue ECB.

Also following that KP will come out in the open and state his versions...media will have a field day with juicy stories.

Remember all the he's not nice/ he's rude/ he doesn't love me/killed the ghorsts and spirits of happiness doesn't count as evidences or even charges in case of a legal suit.

Law still follows innocent unless proven guilty.

I say lets wait 2 months and see who was right. Only sensible way to go, because no one knows as of yet.

KP_fan wrote:the response of Flower will be interpreted by KP's advisors...exactly as he has stated.
and they would know now.....there is no staright way of getting back.

When driven to a no-hope-nothing-to-lose situation....remember, the party sitting still pretty from a legal point of view is KP.

KP might sue ECB.

Also following that KP will come out in the open and state his versions...media will have a field day with juicy stories.

Remember all the he's not nice/ he's rude/ he doesn't love me/killed the ghorsts and spirits of happiness doesn't count as evidences or even charges in case of a legal suit.

Law still follows innocent unless proven guilty.

What?

I didnt want to enter into these discussions again but could you please explain to me what KP could sue the ECB for?

eirebilly wrote:

KP_fan wrote:the response of Flower will be interpreted by KP's advisors...exactly as he has stated.
and they would know now.....there is no staright way of getting back.

When driven to a no-hope-nothing-to-lose situation....remember, the party sitting still pretty from a legal point of view is KP.

KP might sue ECB.

Also following that KP will come out in the open and state his versions...media will have a field day with juicy stories.

Remember all the he's not nice/ he's rude/ he doesn't love me/killed the ghorsts and spirits of happiness doesn't count as evidences or even charges in case of a legal suit.

Law still follows innocent unless proven guilty.

What?

I didnt want to enter into these discussions again but could you please explain to me what KP could sue the ECB for?

My thoughts exactly.

eirebilly wrote:

KP_fan wrote:the response of Flower will be interpreted by KP's advisors...exactly as he has stated.
and they would know now.....there is no staright way of getting back.

When driven to a no-hope-nothing-to-lose situation....remember, the party sitting still pretty from a legal point of view is KP.

KP might sue ECB.

Also following that KP will come out in the open and state his versions...media will have a field day with juicy stories.

Remember all the he's not nice/ he's rude/ he doesn't love me/killed the ghorsts and spirits of happiness doesn't count as evidences or even charges in case of a legal suit.

Law still follows innocent unless proven guilty.

What?

I didnt want to enter into these discussions again but could you please explain to me what KP could sue the ECB for?

Good Lawyers will find him several reasons.....all or any of....
defamation
hurting livelihood
unfair/ illegal termination of contrcat
unfair / unreasonable dropping from side

KP_fan wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

KP_fan wrote:the response of Flower will be interpreted by KP's advisors...exactly as he has stated.
and they would know now.....there is no staright way of getting back.

When driven to a no-hope-nothing-to-lose situation....remember, the party sitting still pretty from a legal point of view is KP.

KP might sue ECB.

Also following that KP will come out in the open and state his versions...media will have a field day with juicy stories.

Remember all the he's not nice/ he's rude/ he doesn't love me/killed the ghorsts and spirits of happiness doesn't count as evidences or even charges in case of a legal suit.

Law still follows innocent unless proven guilty.

What?

I didnt want to enter into these discussions again but could you please explain to me what KP could sue the ECB for?

Good Lawyers will find him several reasons.....all or any of....
1/ defamation
2/ hurting livelihood
3/ unfair/ illegal termination of contrcat
4/ unfair / unreasonable dropping from side

1/ Have the ECB defamated his character? Not from what i have seen
2/ Sorry but not possible
3/ Has he had his contract terminated?
4/ you really are clutching at straws here.

This thread has gone on far too long and i am sorry KP_fan but the longer it goes on the more ridiculous your theories become. I am truely not going to respond anymore to this.

eirebilly wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

KP_fan wrote:the response of Flower will be interpreted by KP's advisors...exactly as he has stated.
and they would know now.....there is no staright way of getting back.

When driven to a no-hope-nothing-to-lose situation....remember, the party sitting still pretty from a legal point of view is KP.

KP might sue ECB.

Also following that KP will come out in the open and state his versions...media will have a field day with juicy stories.

Remember all the he's not nice/ he's rude/ he doesn't love me/killed the ghorsts and spirits of happiness doesn't count as evidences or even charges in case of a legal suit.

Law still follows innocent unless proven guilty.

What?

I didnt want to enter into these discussions again but could you please explain to me what KP could sue the ECB for?

Good Lawyers will find him several reasons.....all or any of....
1/ defamation
2/ hurting livelihood
3/ unfair/ illegal termination of contrcat
4/ unfair / unreasonable dropping from side

1/ Have the ECB defamated his character? Not from what i have seen
2/ Sorry but not possible
3/ Has he had his contract terminated?
4/ you really are clutching at straws here.

I hear your opinion ( whihc you make sound like it is a court's verdict
Mark the words...or shall i say this page and see how if they don't take him back does he and his lawyer responds.

Mines fish pie..

eirebilly wrote:This thread has gone on far too long and i am sorry KP_fan but the longer it goes on the more ridiculous your theories become. I am truely not going to respond anymore to this.

doesn't matter whether you respond or not...

it's nothing betrween you an me....as I stated before i respond to content and not specific posters...

and I generally write as I see it happening...and as I see it coming......

I wrote on this forum within my first 5 odd posts that KP has played his last inning for England......much before the ruckus broke out in the media

KP_fan wrote:

I wrote on this forum within my first 5 odd posts that KP has played his last inning for England......

Fair enough KP fan, on this post, lets wait awhile and see how it plays out. Speak again soon after the T20 WC when hopefully it should have been resolved either way.

Very glad that KP is doing the right thing for now, at last.

I lost it when he said KP could sue the ECB for not picking him

ECB sources have leaked again...that they are angry with KP and will try to block him from being a commentator.
it appears Prior and anderson will be commmentaing for sky sports thouhg


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/kevinpietersen/9498526/Kevin-Pietersen-could-be-banned-from-working-as-TV-pundit-at-Twenty20-World-Cup.html



ESPN Star Sports announced ­yesterday that Pietersen would be working for them during the tournament in Sri Lanka, where England will be trying to hold on to the trophy they won in the West Indies in 2010.


Yet the event belongs to the ICC and it has the right to vet ­commentators used by the host ­broadcaster. Pietersen could fall foul of that process should pressure be brought to bear by the England and Wales Cricket Board.


Pietersen’s latest move, which has angered many at the ECB with its insensitive timing, looks like another provocation and could have implications in any possible attempt by him to secure a central contract. Having criticised his team-mates in the dressing room, he would now be doing so to millions of viewers – an unavoidable situation if he wanted to do the job properly.


ESS, which holds the broadcast rights for ICC tournaments, said yesterday that Pietersen – who was named player of the tournament when England won it in 2010 – would be on its “presentation and analysis team” during the event.


“I’m very excited at working at the World T20 and watching England defend their trophy,” Pietersen said yesterday, before realising that it had to be ratified by ICC.


Current players have worked in television and radio before when under contract, usually when they have been injured, and James Anderson and Matt Prior will both be in Sky’s London studio during the tournament.

But as one senior ECB source said of Pietersen’s latest move: “It is hardly the act of a man trying to build bridges.”
Pietersen is meant to be meeting Andrew Strauss over the next few days to explain himself over the texts he sent to South Africa’s players, but this latest move is unlikely to endear him either to his Test captain or to the selectors, who will decide whether or not to offer him a new central ­contract next month. To them, it will be another point of conflict with a player increasingly alienating himself from the team ideal.

Strauss and the ECB management are still smarting from the fact that Pietersen has not yet conveyed any kind of regret for his actions in person, choosing only to communicate through his agent and PR men.

Perhaps he has sensed the weight and hardness of opinion against him and has thrown caution to the wind. If not, you have to marvel at how poorly he is being advised.

Pietersen is a superb batsman but there is a sense that his presence has shackled some individuals in the squad, such as Ian Bell, who has grown in his role as an opener in the 50-over game since Pietersen’s initial retirement from limited-overs ­internationals.

Before rain washed out yesterday’s first one-day international between England and South Africa in Cardiff, the Warwickshire batsman once again gave a glimpse of why he has become so highly rated.

The morning start had already been delayed to 2pm and the match reduced to 24 overs when, after a ­single delivery from Morne Morkel – a wide – the players went off again for rain. Play briefly resumed after 10 ­minutes, with the match reduced to 23 overs, but only 5.3 overs were ­possible before the rain returned. In that time, Bell smashed 26 runs off 18 balls, including two sixes off a Morkel over that went for 16 and two fours off Lonwabo Tsotsobe.

It was the kind of dominant batting for which Pietersen is famous, but as Bell has shown, it is no longer ­exclusive to him

While KP is free to do what he likes, the smart move would be to lay low for a while.

This is beyond ridiculous. He is going to commentate on a sport, not throw knifes at kiddies. Give the man a break. This is verging on victimisation.

The way things are shaping up, or rather not doing so, I think KP will have to lookout for himself. He's more than likely to be left in the cold without a central contract and would be left without a county. In that case a return to the test side would be even more dificult. So perhaps he should at least look to cash in through commentary and the T-20 tournaments all over the world, as he's unwanted in England.

^when he does realize it's the end of the road for him........he will open his mouth in the media...we will hear his side of the story....and he might sue ECB also for he has nothing to lose

we will not sue the ecb ..

he is a decent lad thaqt has made mistakes and I hope everyone can sort this out!!

I am looking forward to listening to KP as he wont be playing(sadly)

The latest actual news is that KP and Strauss are set to meet up in the next couple of days. If that goes well then KP and Flower will have a chat. Flower wants reassurance that Pietersen genuinely understands the harm he's done apparently, and commitment to England over the IPL.

On the commentary thing, KP's contract states specifically he can do commentary stints but not criticise current England team-mates. I don't think the ECB can complain given they are happy for Prior and Anderson to work for Sky, and there is little evidence (one anonymous "senior source" which could mean anything) that they have much of a problem with it. I think Sky aren't best pleased - as main sponsors of English cricket no doubt they would have liked first bite at any England player. KP of course will have to tread carefully, and given his apparent limitted intelligence this won't be easy.

As for KP sueing the ECB - it would certainly be in character, but I doubt he'll get much joy out of it.

Good to hear Mike

The usual pattern is for Flower to have a chat to every (current and potential) England player before any anouncement of central contracts takes place. At the moment apparently Flower doesn't want to talk to KP until he (Pietersen) has sorted out the issues with the team, which I think is understandable.

Hence the upcoming conversation with Strauss (about which we won't hear anything probably, but will certainly take place), but also probably with other senior players such as Prior, Swann and Anderson (rumoured, could be wrong).

It is thought that anouncements of touring parties and central contracts could be delayed because of all this, as Flower wants the players to concentrate on the ODI series.

Mike Selig wrote:The latest actual news is that KP and Strauss are set to meet up in the next couple of days. .

Please share the source of the latest actual news

If things goe the way mike has reported, then there is some hope for light at the end of the tunnel. Lets hold on and see.

msp83 wrote:If things goe the way mike has reported, then there is some hope for light at the end of the tunnel. Lets hold on and see.

I am new here and don't know the background of people much....is he a press reporter or some such with access to otehrwise unpublished reports

I had also heard a Strauss-Pietersen chat was due to take place soon. Makes sense - the obvious first move which had to be made to resolve the situation. I am very happy to let this all be done hopefully with practically no media attention. Won't be solved overnight but there is hope.

Meanwhile cricinfo carries a moderately amusing article about KP's impending transfer to Pakistan...apparently some respondents have taken it seriously

KP fan certain people just dont lie. he may not be seeing your posts- therefore couldnt answer it anyway..

mystiroakey wrote:KP fan certain people just dont lie. he may not be seeing your posts- therefore couldnt answer it anyway..

Did I say he is lying ?

If there is a news there must be a source.....and without the source and validation it cannot be a basis for rationale analysis

as i said he probally cant read your posts. I would like the link myself though

Vic Marks makes some good points....in Guardian

Last week's instalments of the Pietersen soap opera had him being heckled when getting a golden duck at Southampton, being omitted from the ODI squads and then being enlisted as a TV pundit by ESPN for the World T20. On the websites, in press boxes and in pubs the arguments about Pietersen and his treatment by the England and Wales Cricket Board rage on. As in the vast majority of arguments very few minds have been changed along the way.

There has been much talk of Pietersen and principles. We have also been told "it's not just about the texts" as if there has been a grudging realisation of the absurdity of dropping someone on the basis of private messages sent to friends in the opposition team that are believed (correctly, no doubt) to be derogatory about his captain. Yet it was all about the texts when the Lord's Test team was announced. Remember the melodramatic delay to discover whether Pietersen would reveal all and apologise. He could not meet that deadline and was dropped. Only subsequently did we hear more about "other issues" – ethics, trust and "team dynamics", whatever they may be.

Principles fit more easily with leader writers than cricket teams. Indeed England's "principled" stance with the heavy emphasis on loyalty and team unity can be seen as a new and, ambitious departure. In the past England players were welcomed back into the fold often after self-imposed exiles, sometimes in South Africa, with very few quibbles about loyalty. The pragmatists usually prevailed.

Overseas Richard Hadlee won a Test for New Zealand at Christchurch in 1987 against the mighty West Indies when he and his captain, Jeremy Coney, were not talking. (It was alleged that Hadlee had defied the team's agreements by not sharing his winnings.) Shane Warne merrily denigrated his coach, John Buchanan, in public, yet kept being picked.

Before today's brave, new world pragmatism usually ruled, which made life simpler. It enabled Geoffrey Boycott, Graham Gooch, Ian Botham, Andrew Flintoff or even Hadlee to continue being selected even if they contravened the odd "principle". At the end of the last football season the pragmatic approach may not have done much harm to Manchester City, Roberto Mancini or Carlos Tevez.

We are also told: "It's all about the IPL." Pietersen would not be alone in the England team in wanting to maximise any possible earnings from the T20 bonanza in India. However, he is alone in that dressing room in that he is the only one in great demand in India. Jimmy Anderson and Graeme Swann both put themselves up for auction in February but there were no bidders, a source of less amusement to them than the KP genius Twitter account. With an IPL contract they may see Pietersen's point. Instead, they keep implying how much better things are without him.

From the outside it looks as if Pietersen was fairly happy in the dressing room until the parody account started and then he lost his sense of humour and paranoia took over. Who were his friends in the team? Collingwood and Vaughan, both now gone. Then Morgan and Bopara, both had the IPL connection, neither in the team at the moment. He didn't have anyone he could really turn to until Prior spoke to him and reassured him the dressing room were happy with him despite some of them having some fun with the parody account.

Once the texts came to light it seems things have changed in the dressing room. Now it comes down to trust. If he had negative things to say about the captain what had he been saying about them? He might have been discussing things with his SA friends without thinking that what he said might be used against the England team. Bowling tactics, team selection etc... maybe not with a particular friend but if someone else in the team had seen the texts and thought that the information might be useful. Maybe he realised why we couldn't get any wickets in the 1st Test and decided to make up for it in the 2nd Test.

I don't suppose we will find out the outcome until after the one day series finishes.

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:If things goe the way mike has reported, then there is some hope for light at the end of the tunnel. Lets hold on and see.

I am new here and don't know the background of people much....is he a press reporter or some such with access to otehrwise unpublished reports

He's pretty high up the hierarchy of the French cricket board (basically one of the two guys who actually does anything for France Cricket), and while that may not seem that impressive it does mean he knows people in high places. I've never known him to be inaccurate, so I suspect this is spot on.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:If things goe the way mike has reported, then there is some hope for light at the end of the tunnel. Lets hold on and see.

I am new here and don't know the background of people much....is he a press reporter or some such with access to otehrwise unpublished reports

He's pretty high up the hierarchy of the French cricket board (basically one of the two guys who actually does anything for France Cricket), and while that may not seem that impressive it does mean he knows people in high places. I've never known him to be inaccurate, so I suspect this is spot on.

France and cricket ?......i didn't know those two had a link.......anytime aftert the 1900 Paris Olympics¨.

Neverthless and regardless I do see your point that the news is coming from sources in high places


If thatv is the case it confirms the point that many of us are making in favour of KP.......that leaks about KP issues.....from people within the establishment to their convenience don't stop....nothing is done and no one is held accounatble

To answer KP_fan, no I'm not a reporter. MfC makes it sound a lot grander than it actually is, I do know a few guys who work for the ECB and ICC. Anyway regarding conversations between KP and Strauss (and the way England deal with renewing central contracts) nothing I have said is particularly secret - it is actually mentioned in an article in the Sunday Times. I would never post anything on here which was private, or mentioned in confidence.

Mike Selig wrote:To answer KP_fan, no I'm not a reporter. MfC makes it sound a lot grander than it actually is, I do know a few guys who work for the ECB and ICC. Anyway regarding conversations between KP and Strauss (and the way England deal with renewing central contracts) nothing I have said is particularly secret - it is actually mentioned in an article in the Sunday Times. I would never post anything on here which was private, or mentioned in confidence.

Thanks for clarifying.
Else if the KP situation goes from bad to worse....... and his lawywers start scouting the web for source of leaks....to frame their case... your connections in ECB/ ICC, will not be suspected and will come out clean.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/9501026/Kevin-Pietersen-in-trouble-again-as-talks-with-England-captain-Andrew-Strauss-held-up.html


First, there were rumours that KP told the South Africans to go around the wicket to Strauss even though they have been doing it for the last 3 series. And now KP is bein accused of criticising a player, whom he was encouraging and guiding on the field during their partnership? You just couldn't make it up. The ECB could come up with better excuses tbh because this is childish (if it wasn't already).

This witch hunt is becoming an utter disgrace now.

So if KP criticised Taylor "openly", how did Strauss come to know about it only today?

It is a confusing article from Derek Pringle TBH: he says that Pietersen criticised Taylor in front of the rest of the team, yet somehow this is new evidence to Strauss, which will put the talks in jeopardy?

Am I the only one who sees that this is blatantly contradictory, presumably if KP did criticise Taylor in front of the team then Strauss has known about it all along, and it has nothing to do with the text messages.

The article is unbelievably vague on specifics: we don't know the context, the nature or the tone of the criticisms.

This is so far the only report of this that I've seen, but it raises a lot of unhealthy questions at a time when it did appear (to me and one of my 'contacts') that things were actually moving in the right direction.

1) Is it even true? It all sounds very implausible (not that KP would criticise a team-mate IN PRIVATE WITH HIS TEAM - which is not the hanging offence Mr Pringle seems to think it is, but why Taylor, and why after the two had shared a crucial partnership - again the nature of the criticism would be good to know).

2) How did Mr Pringle get this information? From what I gather it was a changing-room conversation between team-mates. If so, then there is no way this should have got out - what happens in the team stays in the team. If this was leaked by a player or member of coaching staff (and if it was a changing-room moment then it's hard to see who else) they are guilty of an incredibly damaging offence. I explain further because this is a crucial point, and an obvious one to me.

Teams will usually debrief and chat about how things could have been done better (and what went well) either in the changing room, or afterwards in the hotel room. It is absolutely vital that this debrief is honest, so for that to be possible, everyone needs to know that they can say what they really think without the possibility of it damaging them in the long term. Sometimes things get heated, and people say things they won't necessarily be proud of (criticisms and slanging matches are not uncommon), but particularly in a team which is underperforming, this "clear the air" routine is vital. I've participated in more than a few now as coach. If anything said during one of these sessions left that room I would be fuming.

Frankly, if this was a "debrief criticism" from Pietersen about Taylor, and it has got to the press, then there is an issue of trust in the team, but this time it ain't Pietersen to blame at all.

3) Did Pietersen actually do wrong this time?

Well of course this depends on the nature and tone, and context. If it was a debrief, and KP said something along the lines of "I thought Taylor was a bit too passive at times, and this put all the scoring pressure on me" then that is honest and reasonable (even if you disagree) and there is nothing wrong with KP expressing his thoughts.

If on the other hand KP on getting out launched into a scathing "well, I'm the only guy good enough in this team, look at the potential new kid he could only score 30 out of a partnership of 150, England need me a lot more than I need them" type of tirade, and this was done in public rather than in the changing-room (or hotel room, or team meeting place) then that's obviously not cool, although I would suggest of all his offences it isn't the worse one, and certainly something which should have been dealt with quickly and privately (with a quick "sorry lads, didn't mean that, just annoyed with the world").

Pringle suggests that debutants should be off limits. I agree only partially - certainly a nervous newbie isn't going to be put at ease by being dished in front of the team, and so the manner of criticism becomes important, but that doesn't mean that all criticism is not on; anyone who has made it to that level will take the criticism on board anyway and see it not as a negative, but as a way to improve.

4) What's Mr Pringle's angle?

As I said to start with the article is confusing. I do think Pringle in the past has been quick to jump on KP's back. This could just be a matter of him trying to land more stuff on KP. It is noticeable that the article includes no quotes from anyone associated with the ECB about the matter in hand.

To sum up, we just don't know enough specifics about this current matter for now, but this article for me on its own suggests wrong-doing, but not from Pietersen: valid (even invalid) criticism of teammates in the privacy of a team environment are not only acceptable but necessary, and if that's what happened then this story should never ever have come out. None of this changes that KP's texts were inexcusable (some would say unforgivable). But that is a separate issue, and what needs to be cleared with chats with Flower and Strauss.

If he's upset Jimmy then Kevin has now got me to worry about, which is far worse than Andy Flower and the ECB.

JDizzle wrote:If he's upset Jimmy then Kevin has now got me to worry about, which is far worse than Andy Flower and the ECB.

The only thing KP worries is the scoreboard. I fear that is where the problems are coming from. Especially from Mr Pringle, who could'nt even worry the scorer when he played.

Great post before, Mike.

If anyone upsets Jimmy they have me to answer to! No singling out KP here.

And as Mike said, it's very much how KP went about it. If he just said to Taylor, Strauss and Flower "Look, I feel Jimmy scored to slowly and put me under pressure" then it is completely fine. Pringle is a very anti-KP writer, so I'm not sure how much truth there will be in that article.