Flower vs KP - Are the Battle Lines being drawn?

First topic message reminder :

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jan/07/andy-flower-england-team-director-kevin-pietersen

Interesting article on the Guardian suggesting that Andy Flower’s decision to either stay on as England director of cricket may rest on whether Kevin Pietersen remains part of the England set up. According to the article Flower has become increasingly exasperated with both Pietersen’s cavalier attitude to batting and the effect his ego has on the dressing room, with the root of the issues dating back to the infamous texts he sent to the South African players.

I really do not know what to make of this, think in any sport or team no player can be bigger than the team and the same should apply to KP. I can also have some sympathy with his views on KP’s batting, I have often thought that I struggle to think of a player of comparable talent who gets out in quite so many stupid ways. It also seems somewhat clear that KP has an ego to match his prodigious talent.

However whilst all this may be true as someone posted on another thread is the job of management not to manage egos and different personalities and get the best of them. Would have to think at the top levels of sport egos and over inflated opinions of one’s own worth are not exactly unusual traits to encounter. Also from a purely cricketing perspective whilst Pietersen may have many faults he is a box office player, perhaps the only English batsman we have capable of gluing you to your seat as a viewer or turning a game round single handedly in the space of a session. Surely there has to be a place for such a player in the team?

Where do we stand on this? Is Flower as the overall gaffer right to make such a stance and demand, can KP be forgiven for arguably seeing off two head coaches? Is he getting to an age where his contributions to the team do not justify the baggage that is seemingly part and parcel. Would be an ignominious end to a fine career but could Pietersen’s days as an England player be coming to an end?

To be fair though guys like Selvey do have contacts very close to the team that discuss things in private. The TMS team with chaps line Vaughn who still has personal contact with many members of the England set up would be aware of the general goings on. The "Swannsong" parting shot made it pretty clear there was some serious friction in the dressing room that led to him walking out rather than carrying drinks for the rest of the tour.
Whether the very specific "ultimatum" is properly represented here we dont know at all, but we do know that there are personality clashes in the England camp and that KP was part of that.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Meanwhile Alex Fergusson is a bad coach for getting rid of Roy Keane.

To be pedantic for a moment, I would describe Ferguson as a manager rather than a coach (in the same way, Flower should be described as a head coach, or director of cricket, rather than as a coach - he does comparatively little coaching).

Apart from that, the comparison is interesting: Ferguson is well-known for getting rid of his egos when he thought they became bigger than their boots (as well as Keane, there was Beckham, to an extent Ronaldo, and I think Rooney would have gone this summer under Ferguson). Some would argue that that reflected poorly on Ferguson as well, but there is no doubt his approach "worked" from a results PoV. There are doubts I would say about some aspects of Ferguson's career (notably succession planning - Man Utd not doing so well now, whether his approach damaged the ethos of football (now that is an interesting debate), and what his personality away from the sport meant), but there is no doubt he was incredibly good at winning trophies (sometimes not always with the best players).

There is another debate to be had as to whether football is a good comparison or model for cricket. Do we want international (or indeed club) cricket sides to be run as football league sides are? Not so sure myself...

Michael Vaughan's comments on KP and KP's own twitter post hint at the core of the story being close to the emerging situation I believe.

Vaughan, who I defended with vigor when he was around, is starting to sound like a sensationalist type poster, who 'talks' first and then studies the facts later

I bet anything he hasn't a clue as to KP's poor form of the last 18 months

It's the type of lazy comments that he suffered in his latter days. You'd think he'd know better

Fast going off my favourite player of all time and have told him on twitter!!!!

The other issue Ferguson does not have, which Flower obviously does, is within certain parameters Ferguson has an unlimited amount of players he can choose from to replace problem players, obviously there are limits to this as some players are not available or would be prohibitively expensive, but generally he has a good budget and a club that is attractive to players.

Flower does not have similar flexibility, he has an extremely limited amount of players to choose from so perhaps cannot really afford to be quite so ruthless as Fergie could. Not to suggest he should just allow players to ride roughshod over him and the rules in place but he perhaps does have to be a little more pragmatic.

As the Shane Warne article that KPF shared here suggests, England need the likes of Michael Vaughan to be involved a bit more closely to help them see the other side of the robotic world of Flower.

Rowley wrote:The other issue Ferguson does not have, which Flower obviously does, is within certain parameters Ferguson has an unlimited amount of players he can choose from to replace problem players, obviously there are limits to this as some players are not available or would be prohibitively expensive, but generally he has a good budget and a club that is attractive to players.

Flower does not have similar flexibility, he has an extremely limited amount of players to choose from so perhaps cannot really afford to be quite so ruthless as Fergie could. Not to suggest he should just allow players to ride roughshod over him and the rules in place but he perhaps does have to be a little more pragmatic.

Good point. KP goes then who comes in? Bairstow?

I don't see why there would be an ultimatum: "It's 'im or me".  One could imagine that there could be some bargaining as to the powers Flowers might have on the team and on KP in particular.  There is something about KP that seems to rub people up the wrong way and some of the stories of the past (him texting Australian bowlers telling them the tactics needed to get his team mates Trott, Cook etc out) seem barely believable and inexcusable if true.

There seems to have been many unresolved issues on both sides when KP was Captain (not sure if the truth has been outed in terms of biographies etc).

ps Warne is a "legend". Why would they make him captain when you have a Steve Waugh & and a Ricky Ponting to choose from. He had a "colourful" life outside of cricket - but what's wrong with that. When they made him vice captain they dropped him because of loss of form as a bowler.

Impossible to properly comment upon as we don't fully (if at all) know what the current situation is nor what has been going on before.

A few random thoughts together with certain questions, the answers to which would certainly aid my thinking. [For any lawyers and others of a legal mind looking in, the words ''allegedly'' and ''apparently'' should be inserted into all points below.]

* What did Pietersen actually do which is being complained about?

* When did it occur? The answer to this is particularly relevant to Flower's handling (or non-handling) of the matter(s). If it stems from the start of the tour, shouldn't action have been taken before rather than after a 5-0 drubbing?

* As Hoggy pointed out early on, trouble does seem to follow Pietersen around or, perhaps, he just takes it with him. I fully admit to having that latter take on things when he joined up with Surrey a couple of years or so ago. That was also the view of many at the time when he was seen as being foisted upon the Club by the ECB with supporters expecting him to regard Surrey's colours as merely a flag of convenience and waiting for trouble to arrive at the Oval. However, so far at least, things have worked out much better than that. Whilst some supporters would like to see Pietersen more at the Oval (practising if unable to play) and including more references to the Club in his many tweets, he has by several accounts - Adams, Batty and Stewart at various forum meetings - been close to a perfect role model, especially for the younger players, when he has been there. Sure, these people wouldn't publicly slate Pietersen in a room full of Surrey members but equally they wouldn't praise him so highly without just cause. On the field when he has played for Surrey, Pietersen has not only dazzled but been the embodiment of determination. In the final home CC match of 2012 when we needed to win to avoid relegation, Pietersen bowled very well and picked up a couple of important wickets - when he was replaced, acting captain Batty almost had to grab the ball from his hand.

* As a strong supporter of the county game and as for determining what is best for England going forward, I would welcome Pietersen and all players in contention for Test selection playing as much CC cricket in the opening weeks of the 2014 season as possible. However, following up on a point from Mike, how reasonable would it be for Flower to insist upon that if players already have IPL contractual obligations (which I suspect is the case for Pietersen)? If Flower insisted upon that in those (IPL) circumstances, I feel it would be interpreted as him looking for an excuse to ditch Pietersen rather than genuinely seeking a show of commitment.

* Something so important with all teams is balance. As regulars will know, I adore the team player. However, some of the best teams in sport have possessed one player who was not a team player but whose selfishness has been used for the good of the team. [Off topic so I'll be brief but the best example I can give is Gerd Muller - a World Cup winner with West Germany in 1974 and an international scoring record of 68 goals in 62 appearances. No tracking back for this short, squat and almost fat striker who just lived and played to score goals.] Pietersen is undoubtedly selfish, as Mike posts. As in my example of Muller, that doesn't - or shouldn't - automatically rule him out of international selection. That said, there still have to be some limits and, back to my first question, we just don't know what lines Pietersen has crossed or how far.

* Pandering to egos might be easy as Vaughan has stated but Mike is right to warn about the potential adverse impact on others in the team. This is another area where Lloyd was so good in the art of captaincy. He had a team crammed full of five star generals (and probably egos as well) but still managed to get vital support from the other comparative foot soldiers (Gomes, Dujon) as well. This is a further area where Cook probably needs to learn and fast.

Rowley wrote:The other issue Ferguson does not have, which Flower obviously does, is within certain parameters Ferguson has an unlimited amount of players he can choose from to replace problem players, obviously there are limits to this as some players are not available or would be prohibitively expensive, but generally he has a good budget and a club that is attractive to players.

Flower does not have similar flexibility, he has an extremely limited amount of players to choose from so perhaps cannot really afford to be quite so ruthless as Fergie could. Not to suggest he should just allow players to ride roughshod over him and the rules in place but he perhaps does have to be a little more pragmatic.

Right it was rather a lazy comparison but more to highlight the general principle rather than the specifics:

Managing egos is not just about creating an environment for one player at the expense of long term development of the team. Theres many examples of dickheads being stood up to and the team flourishing, and of course plenty of the opposite. Again going back to the all blacks, he never wouldve got picked in the first place. The approach has done wonders for their cohesiveness, and the results flowed.

In this case I would agree, in the short term England are pretty lost without KP. But with his knee and availability ( which if we go back to the original Selvey comments is what was really being talked about rather than whats been picked up and rehashed regarding their inability to work together) in question are england better served by starting form fresh in a positive managed environment with young guys like Balance and Taylor who are open to being coached and building a team.

Having said all that I do think Flower shouldve walked. But thats a different argument.



IPL contracts... have not been signed for this year yet. Theres talk of them being for 3 years and the whole tournament to avoid the drain of resources on part time players and ringers which is damaging to the leagues credibility. Maybe that puts some complexion on why the battle lines are being drawn

Stella wrote:

Rowley wrote:The other issue Ferguson does not have, which Flower obviously does, is within certain parameters Ferguson has an unlimited amount of players he can choose from to replace problem players, obviously there are limits to this as some players are not available or would be prohibitively expensive, but generally he has a good budget and a club that is attractive to players.

Flower does not have similar flexibility, he has an extremely limited amount of players to choose from so perhaps cannot really afford to be quite so ruthless as Fergie could. Not to suggest he should just allow players to ride roughshod over him and the rules in place but he perhaps does have to be a little more pragmatic.

Good point. KP goes then who comes in? Bairstow?

Someone who can average 35 and actually has a postive influence on the dressing. As opposed to 33 and obviously not. A top order containing Cook, Compton (or another opener) Root, Bell, Balance and Stokes - wouldn't be such a disaster

Kevin Pietersen and Andy Flower are in dispute - Michael Vaughan


On Wednesday, Flower denied he issued an ultimatum that would see either him or Pietersen, 33, quit the team.

But Vaughan says the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Pietersen should "bang their heads together" to ensure they remain in the setup.
He said: "There's clearly an issue between Kevin Pietersen and the team."
In an interview with BBC Radio 5 live, Vaughan added: "Andy Flower has seen all the headlines. He might not have said exactly what is reported, but there is clearly an issue between him and Kevin Pietersen.
"The best player, the maverick, the X-factor player is stood on the boundary during games. He is never involved in any of the team discussions."

But he can't be the only one. It can't just be Kevin Pietersen's fault that the team were hammered 5-0. He got more runs than anyone else. He played Mitchell Johnson as well as anyone - none of them played him well.
"I think it is sad we can't get the best out of someone like that. It would be a great shame if the one player that people would turn up to watch him play, and the one player that excites crowds for good and bad reasons, he never plays for England again."
"Kevin will have do things differently but mainly it is the management that will have to change how they deal with that kind of character," he added.
Captain Alastair Cook is being urged by Vaughan to get involved in the dispute as part of a push to take more control of the England side.
"Cook needs to say, 'This is my team, this where we want to go, this is how we want the team to play', and then go and pick the players to play that brand. I really think Alastair Cook has a big role to play in this."

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cricket/25649105

banbrotam wrote:

Stella wrote:

Rowley wrote:The other issue Ferguson does not have, which Flower obviously does, is within certain parameters Ferguson has an unlimited amount of players he can choose from to replace problem players, obviously there are limits to this as some players are not available or would be prohibitively expensive, but generally he has a good budget and a club that is attractive to players.

Flower does not have similar flexibility, he has an extremely limited amount of players to choose from so perhaps cannot really afford to be quite so ruthless as Fergie could. Not to suggest he should just allow players to ride roughshod over him and the rules in place but he perhaps does have to be a little more pragmatic.

Good point. KP goes then who comes in? Bairstow?

Someone who can average 35 and actually has a postive influence on the dressing. As opposed to 33 and obviously not. A top order containing Cook, Compton (or another opener) Root, Bell, Balance and Stokes - wouldn't be such a disaster

How many in that England side have averaged 35+ in the last 12 months?

There are 2 key issues that Vaughan highlights:

1) is this being turned into a 5-0 debacle is because of KP    

2) Cook.......when will he stand up and be his own man.....and leave his mark on this issue and the team in general instead of being a script.executionar

Again Vaughan is making his comments without, seemingly, knowing what (if anything) has actually happened.

guildfordbat wrote:Impossible to properly comment upon as we don't fully (if at all) know what the current situation is nor what has been going on before.

A few random thoughts together with certain questions, the answers to which would certainly aid my thinking. [For any lawyers and others of a legal mind looking in, the words ''allegedly'' and ''apparently'' should be inserted into all points below.]

* What did Pietersen actually do which is being complained about?

* When did it occur? The answer to this is particularly relevant to Flower's handling (or non-handling) of the matter(s). If it stems from the start of the tour, shouldn't action have been taken before rather than after a 5-0 drubbing?

* As Hoggy pointed out early on, trouble does seem to follow Pietersen around or, perhaps, he just takes it with him. I fully admit to having that latter take on things when he joined up with Surrey a couple of years or so ago. That was also the view of many at the time when he was seen as being foisted upon the Club by the ECB with supporters expecting him to regard Surrey's colours as merely a flag of convenience and waiting for trouble to arrive at the Oval. However, so far at least, things have worked out much better than that. Whilst some supporters would like to see Pietersen more at the Oval (practising if unable to play) and including more references to the Club in his many tweets, he has by several accounts - Adams, Batty and Stewart at various forum meetings - been close to a perfect role model, especially for the younger players, when he has been there. Sure, these people wouldn't publicly slate Pietersen in a room full of Surrey members but equally they wouldn't praise him so highly without just cause. On the field when he has played for Surrey, Pietersen has not only dazzled but been the embodiment of determination. In the final home CC match of 2012 when we needed to win to avoid relegation, Pietersen bowled very well and picked up a couple of important wickets - when he was replaced, acting captain Batty almost had to grab the ball from his hand.

* As a strong supporter of the county game and as for determining what is best for England going forward, I would welcome Pietersen and all players in contention for Test selection playing as much CC cricket in the opening weeks of the 2014 season as possible. However, following up on a point from Mike, how reasonable would it be for Flower to insist upon that if players already have IPL contractual obligations (which I suspect is the case for Pietersen)? If Flower insisted upon that in those (IPL) circumstances, I feel it would be interpreted as him looking for an excuse to ditch Pietersen rather than genuinely seeking a show of commitment.

* Something so important with all teams is balance. As regulars will know, I adore the team player. However, some of the best teams in sport have possessed one player who was not a team player but whose selfishness has been used for the good of the team. [Off topic so I'll be brief but the best example I can give is Gerd Muller - a World Cup winner with West Germany in 1974 and an international scoring record of 68 goals in 62 appearances. No tracking back for this short, squat and almost fat striker who just lived and played to score goals.] Pietersen is undoubtedly selfish, as Mike posts. As in my example of Muller, that doesn't - or shouldn't - automatically rule him out of international selection. That said, there still have to be some limits and, back to my first question, we just don't know what lines Pietersen has crossed or how far.

* Pandering to egos might be easy as Vaughan has stated but Mike is right to warn about the potential adverse impact on others in the team. This is another area where Lloyd was so good in the art of captaincy. He had a team crammed full of five star generals (and probably egos as well) but still managed to get vital support from the other comparative foot soldiers (Gomes, Dujon) as well. This is a further area where Cook probably needs to learn and fast.

Blast! One other point I meant to include -

* In an earlier post on another thread, Mike included the instruction or wish, ''Just bat Kevin''. In some of his innings on this Ashes tour, Pietersen came across to me as trying too hard and unnaturally to bat as a team man than the talented maverick.

Alastair, there is call of duty yet again, just like last year. Hope the 5-0 haven't taken all the fight and all the sense out of you and you would be able to rise above the Yes Sir robotic culture fostered in the team environment ones again.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Again Vaughan is making his comments without, seemingly, knowing what (if anything) has actually happened.

he knows that's why he is talking.
can he produce a certificate to legally verify the content of what he knows and is stating???

No he can't ??

but with that approach there will be no room for analysis and discussion....only press-releases, official statement and certificates will work....but media/ newspapers / forums are no court rooms......stories through sources published in media are a valid basis for discussions.

b.t.w does any have evidence of the "disruptive personality" of KP statements flying around recently??

Any press release offical statement from ECB now on the tour of Aus stating that his personality was disruptive or his ego / tantrums caused anything adverse in the dressing room ????  

Rowley wrote:
I really do not know what to make of this, think in any sport or team no player can be bigger than the team and the same should apply to KP. I can also have some sympathy with his views on KP’s batting, I have often thought that I struggle to think of a player of comparable talent who gets out in quite so many stupid ways. It also seems somewhat clear that KP has an ego to match his prodigious talent.

@OP
any evidence that KP has shown ego in a way that has been disruptive to the team during the tour of Aus ???

KP_fan wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Again Vaughan is making his comments without, seemingly, knowing what (if anything) has actually happened.

he knows that's why he is talking.
can he produce a certificate to legally verify the content of what he knows and is stating???

He's talking because that's his job. Doesn't mean he knows anymore than anyone else.

No evidence whatsoever, in the same vein I have no irrefutable evidence that man walked on the moon but when you hear something often enough you begin to look just pig headed by refusing to accept there may be something to it.

msp83 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Someone who can average 35 and actually has a postive influence on the dressing. As opposed to 33 and obviously not. A top order containing Cook, Compton (or another opener) Root, Bell, Balance and Stokes - wouldn't be such a disaster

How many in that England side have averaged 35+ in the last 12 months?

Root (just) and Bell. Trott isn't in the equation

Most surprising is that the much maligned Cook, averages 32, just one below the god of world cricket - in the last year

Obviously unfair to include Balance

So in a middle order discussion, assuming Root's short term future is 3 to 5 - it's a battle between KP and Balance. If KP commits to the team and states that he's going to start batting with responsibity, i.e. not give the impression that it's his way or else, then fine

Otherwise, he's clearly not worth the hassle

If he'd averaged 50 in the last year - he would be

Rowley wrote:No evidence whatsoever, in the same vein I have no irrefutable evidence that man walked on the moon

inappropriate  analogy

but when you hear something often enough you begin to look just pig headed by refusing to accept there may be something to it.

it applies both way.....if one believes it as a seemingly know fact for KP
one cannot ask for evidence for what Flower is seemingly know to do  

[quote="KP_fan"]

Rowley wrote: any evidence that KP has shown ego in a way that has been disruptive to the team during the tour of Aus ???

Yes! His complacent reaction to the understandable frustration with his play at that Perth test. He looked about as concerned as us England fans did, when McGrath got injured before Edbgaston in 2005!!

Whether the analogy is appropriate or not the point remains reasonable that there have been too many instances of disharmony or problems within the England camp in recent years where Pitersen has been central to the issues, whether this is just anecdotal or not eventually the sheer volume of the rumours and the noise becomes too hard to ignore.

banbrotam wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Rowley wrote: any evidence that KP has shown ego in a way that has been disruptive to the team during the tour of Aus ???

Yes! His complacent reaction to the understandable frustration with his play at that Perth test. He looked about as concerned as us England fans did, when McGrath got injured before Edbgaston in 2005!!

that's all that you have got....how the look on his face was   

am I allowed to point out how I thouhgt the look on the face of Flower was and what negative things I thouhgt his look represented   

In the grand course of inventing things we now have people blaming KP as the sole reason things went wrong. Theres no suggestion thats hwats happening here.
Just that he contributed to bad feeling and that Flower doesnt think his presence would be condusive to building a team for the future for a number of reasons :
He may have limited availability
He has injury problems
His manner upsets other players and he doesnt fit into the team dynamic
He doesnt follow instruction


If he had shown brilliant form in the last year or so it would be much harder to talk about dropping him. The difference with Cook is that he is young enough to recover and make a difference in the long term.

Rowley wrote:Whether the analogy is appropriate or not the point remains reasonable that there have been too many instances of disharmony or problems within the England camp in recent years where Pitersen has been central to the issues,

Central doesn't mean he was wrong   

whether this is just anecdotal or not eventually the sheer volume of the rumours and the noise becomes too hard to ignore.

it's OK that we want to react to rumors or perceptions based on past events for KP

then the perceptions based on Flower's personality......micro-controlling, defensive unable to manage anything that's different........carrying an agenda against KP, and spinning KP as an excuse to digress ECB and public attention from the debacle...also should require no more evidences.

If anything, Pietersen was trying to graft his way into some kind of form in a majority of innings he played in the series. He was trying hard to do that he ended up not playing his natural game and thus became less productive. People want him to bat like Boycott and when he does that, they say he ruined the momentum of the innings and ended up handing the initiative to the bowlers.
KP is so right, its difficult being Kevin Pietersen!.

Agree on that MSP. Weve heard endless criticism of Carberry and co for getting bogged down, and no criticism of stokes for trying to bat like a T20 and copying KPs example by aiming for the catchers in (the 4th test? cant remember now)
Its easy being the new kid who comes off once in a while.

Its the old thing with KP (see comments from Tuffnel) if he gets a century he still gets criticized for getting bored in the 140s
Theres always a frustration with him that he shouldve been a legend but instead will go down as a good player. Boycott is probably the most vociferous in managing to praise and damn him in the same breath.

banbrotam wrote:

msp83 wrote:
How many in that England side have averaged 35+ in the last 12 months?

Root (just) and Bell.

Thanks, Need to say no more!.

 

KP_fan wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Rowley wrote: any evidence that KP has shown ego in a way that has been disruptive to the team during the tour of Aus ???

Yes! His complacent reaction to the understandable frustration with his play at that Perth test. He looked about as concerned as us England fans did, when McGrath got injured before Edbgaston in 2005!!

that's all that you have got....how the look on his face was   

am I allowed to point out how I thouhgt the look on the face of Flower was and what negative things I thouhgt his look represented   

You misunderstand me. It's the press conferences afterwards, that I'm forming my opinion on. And his poor average in the last 12 months

What you're basically asking Flower to do, is to let him do what he wants, i.e.

1) Big bash. Of you go Kevin - never mind about getting some form back at your county
2) Don't bother about batting in a responsible manner (forget that all the others occassionally through their wicket away, the two other senior batsman have a least shown some contrition and giving the impression that they understand they were at fault)
3) Ignore the influence his 'example' sets on a now, enforced, young team

All for someone that has one of the poorest average of any of the batsmen during the last 18 months

Not certain there is anythign more to 'get'

KP_fan wrote:

Rowley wrote:Whether the analogy is appropriate or not the point remains reasonable that there have been too many instances of disharmony or problems within the England camp in recent years where Pitersen has been central to the issues,

Central doesn't mean he was wrong   

whether this is just anecdotal or not eventually the sheer volume of the rumours and the noise becomes too hard to ignore.

it's OK that we want to react to rumors or perceptions based on past events for KP

then the perceptions based on Flower's personality......micro-controlling, defensive unable to manage anything that's different........carrying an agenda against KP, and spinning KP as an excuse to digress ECB and public attention from the debacle...also should require no more evidences.

If you read my original post I am keen, or at least try to be, not to apportion blame or say Pietersen should be thrown to the wolves. Is a reasonable enough question to ask why other coaches have managed to work with KP but Flower cannot or will not. Is also reasonable to ask if such a failure shows a flaw in his coaching or people skills. Like most arguments I am sure there are faults on both sides, but when you have previous for this sort of thing there is an air of inevitability that people will make inferences around common demoninators and such like. To expect otherwise is beyond naive.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Agree on that MSP. Weve heard endless criticism of Carberry and co for getting bogged down, and no criticism of stokes for trying to bat like a T20 and copying KPs example by aiming for the catchers in (the 4th test? cant remember now)
Its easy being the new kid who comes off once in a while.

Its the old thing with KP (see comments from Tuffnel) if he gets a century he still gets criticized for getting bored in the 140s
Theres always a frustration with him that he shouldve been a legend but instead will go down as a good player. Boycott is probably the most vociferous in managing to praise and damn him in the same breath.

Incredible!! He averages 33 in the last year

Do you think this makes him immune from disucssion about his importance to the team?

I'll forget the personalities (I've already said if he averaged 50 in this spell - it's not a debate) please tell me why he is bulletproof to at least a conversation about his importance to the team

Any senior player with such a poor average must commit to getting their form back and can only do this by playing county cricket at the beginning of the season and forgetting the 'big bash'. If they don't they are setting a disruptive 'I'm a special case' example to the youngsters

Unfortunately, some on these boards think it's the KP of a couple of years back. It isn't. Since his injury troubles and 2nd row troubles (first one was Moore, second one Strauss) he hasn't been the same player

But let's make him the be all and end all of the team - as that's how you build a new team, with around six players with less than 20 caps

From KP's facebook account (Apologies if this is covered ground).

Kevin Pietersen 5 hours ago · "I am shocked and saddened by reports in the media today concerning my future with England... I wish to repeat my strong desire to continue playing for my country, and to help us regain the Ashes in 2015."

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: In the grand course of inventing things we now have people blaming KP as the sole reason things went wrong. Theres no suggestion thats hwats happening here.
Just that he contributed to bad feeling and that Flower doesnt think his presence would be condusive to building a team for the future for a number of reasons :

His manner upsets other players and he doesnt fit into the team dynamic
He doesnt follow instruction

any evidence towards those points on the tour of Aus.......or is he a mere convenient punching bag for the clever Flower to use as a digression ???

Any evidence that Flower is behind has started this rumour to deflect from the defeat, or just something kp_fan made up?

I think Pietersen should remain a part of England's plans. However, perhaps clues are there about his influence. After all wasn't there a quick move by him to leap on Swann's remarks about 'players heads up their own backside' even though Swann pointed out it wasn't him (guilty conscience perhaps)? Also there is the past fall-out with Moores as evidence he rubs people up the wrong way. I hope I am totally wrong but the clues are there.

msp83 wrote:If anything, Pietersen was trying to graft his way into some kind of form in a majority of innings he played in the series. He was trying hard to do that he ended up not playing his natural game and thus became less productive. People want him to bat like Boycott and when he does that, they say he ruined the momentum of the innings and ended up handing the initiative to the bowlers.
KP is so right, its difficult being Kevin Pietersen!.

Msp - your point above about Pietersen 'not playing his natural game' is very similar to the addition I made in my last post above. As you might say   , I look forward to your considered responses to my earlier questions and comments, some of which might surprise you in veering towards some appreciation of the maverick batsman.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I think Pietersen should remain a part of England's plans. However, perhaps clues are there about his influence. After all wasn't there a quick move by him to leap on Swann's remarks about 'players heads up their own backside' [ /quote]

Swann made a comment and KP recated as if ackownldeging it was him

so who is guilty here ??

Swann..for making a derogatory comment in the public about a fellow player......what action did ECB take about it?
What action did team management take to publicly
if at all anything Swann should be penalized.

Also there is the past fall-out with Moores as evidence he rubs people up the wrong way. I hope I am totally wrong but the clues are there. [/quote]

did he rub someone in a disruptive way on this tour ? was a note published by ECB to this affect

It's up to captains and managers to soothe egos and try to integrate great players into the team.
Of course, if the Pietersen situation is now so bad that it is wrecking morale and team spirit and leaving the dressing room in a shambles then he has to go.
Incidentally, averaging 30 in a side getting bowled out for a net 180 or so over a series is actually quite a good performance, so it's not as if KP failed completely.
Vaughan handled Pietersen well and I'm sure Brearley would have coped. But I feel neither of these ex captains would have wanted a player, however good, if (as some might feel/say) he was poisoning team spirit.

I have long given up trying to engage KPF on matters concerning England in general (by the way, anything to say about the medium-pace trundler Broad's performance on this tour?) and KP and Flower in particular. It is a shame, because he makes good sense on other topics, and occasionally makes good points even with re to the above, but they are lost in amongst the nonsense and the assumption that the world is black and white.

I suggest again for the peace of these boards that other sensible posters do likewise and don't feed the WUM. It is very tiresome.

I think guildford makes a series of excellent post in his salvo above. I am however a bit concerned about

* As a strong supporter of the county game and as for determining what is best for England going forward, I would welcome Pietersen and all players in contention for Test selection playing as much CC cricket in the opening weeks of the 2014 season as possible. However, following up on a point from Mike, how reasonable would it be for Flower to insist upon that if players already have IPL contractual obligations (which I suspect is the case for Pietersen)? If Flower insisted upon that in those (IPL) circumstances, I feel it would be interpreted as him looking for an excuse to ditch Pietersen rather than genuinely seeking a show of commitment.

I am fairly sure nobody as yet has contractual obligations towards this IPL. If they did then of course it would be unreasonable for Flower and the ECB to demand that the renege on their contracts (unless they offer financial compensation and buy out the contract). On the other hand, I don't think it at all unreasonable to ask that those who wish to be considered for selection for the first test (which I believe comes unusually late in the season in June) play all first class matches for their counties from say may onwards (they would still get to play the bulk of the IPL, and only return when they would be expected to return for the usual may tests).

In fact I would say they could even be stricter than that (I would have sympathy with an England management insisting that players play the entirety of the county season) - but accept that I am old-fashioned in my belief that to play for your country should require significant investment, including giving up on potentially lucrative deals in case of a clash (it is not as if the England cricketers are hard off; the situation is a bit different for some others, e.g. from Sri Lanka or West Indies).

No I am not saying that he did. I am more in the camp that this is the media (angry at a 5-0 Ashes whitewash) desperate to rock the boat and create a story.

Is a very difficult one around a player playing their natural game. Obviously KP is not Atherton or Boycott and any attempts to turn him into them at such a late age would in all likelihood be counterproductive and unlikely to produce any kinds of results.

However I do feel far too often “that’s just his natural game” is used as a cover all excuse to gloss over what can very often be poor shot choices. There are simply times where a more circumspect, less cavalier approach to your game are an absolute must. A player of experience and no shortage of talent should in theory be able to recognize when those times are and tailor his game accordingly.

If it's "just" a form thing then Pietersen should stay on. If it's a personality thing then it's different.
Form wise, he's England's best batsman and has been ever since he came into the side in 2005. He's that rarity - the match-winning batsman. Given that most matches and series are won by bowlers, KP does something few can do.
Ditch him if you must, but don't do it by saying he's not good enough, should make more runs, should get his head down, should play more responsibly etc etc

msp83 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

msp83 wrote:
How many in that England side have averaged 35+ in the last 12 months?

Root (just) and Bell.

Thanks, Need to say no more!.

How many Aussies did before that series?

Mike Selig wrote:I have long given up trying to engage KPF on matters concerning England in general (by the way, anything to say about the medium-pace trundler Broad's performance on this tour?) and KP and Flower in particular. It is a shame, because he makes good sense on other topics, and occasionally makes good points even with re to the above, but they are lost in amongst the nonsense and the assumption that the world is black and white.

I suggest again for the peace of these boards that other sensible posters do likewise and don't feed the WUM. It is very tiresome.

I think guildford makes a series of excellent post in his salvo above. I am however a bit concerned about

* As a strong supporter of the county game and as for determining what is best for England going forward, I would welcome Pietersen and all players in contention for Test selection playing as much CC cricket in the opening weeks of the 2014 season as possible. However, following up on a point from Mike, how reasonable would it be for Flower to insist upon that if players already have IPL contractual obligations (which I suspect is the case for Pietersen)? If Flower insisted upon that in those (IPL) circumstances, I feel it would be interpreted as him looking for an excuse to ditch Pietersen rather than genuinely seeking a show of commitment.

I am fairly sure nobody as yet has contractual obligations towards this IPL. If they did then of course it would be unreasonable for Flower and the ECB to demand that the renege on their contracts (unless they offer financial compensation and buy out the contract). On the other hand, I don't think it at all unreasonable to ask that those who wish to be considered for selection for the first test (which I believe comes unusually late in the season in June) play all first class matches for their counties from say may onwards (they would still get to play the bulk of the IPL, and only return when they would be expected to return for the usual may tests).

In fact I would say they could even be stricter than that (I would have sympathy with an England management insisting that players play the entirety of the county season) - but accept that I am old-fashioned in my belief that to play for your country should require significant investment, including giving up on potentially lucrative deals in case of a clash (it is not as if the England cricketers are hard off; the situation is a bit different for some others, e.g. from Sri Lanka or West Indies).

Mike - it seems pretty clear I was mistaken here. I had expected a prize attraction like Pietersen to have already been signed up for this year's IPL. Nothing to do with this 'Pietersen thread' but why shouldn't IPL ducks already be in a row now, at least for those players the teams definitely want and are prepared to pay through the nose for?

Yes, you are right - certainly going by recent years - that the first test this summer is unusually late, not being played until 16th June.

As you would certainly expect, I have no issue with old-fashioned cricketing beliefs.  

PS Have to agree with you on KPF. A shame though as there's knowledge and the odd good point waiting to be found there.

Rowley wrote:

However I do feel far too often “that’s just his natural game” is used as a cover all excuse to gloss over what can very often be poor shot choices.

Now after all these years of knowing what he is....is that a basis for Flower to issue an ultimatum to ECB

KP_fan wrote:

Rowley wrote:  

However I do feel far too often “that’s just his natural game” is used as a cover all excuse to gloss over what can very often be poor shot choices.

Now after all these years of knowing what he is....is that a basis for Flower to issue an ultimatum to ECB

No, but then has anyone argued it is?

sirfredperry wrote:If it's "just" a form thing then Pietersen should stay on. If it's a personality thing then it's different.
  Form wise, he's England's best batsman and has been ever since he came into the side in 2005. He's that rarity - the match-winning batsman. Given that most matches and series are won by bowlers, KP does something few can do.
  Ditch him if you must, but don't do it by saying he's not good enough, should make more runs, should get his head down, should play more responsibly etc etc

His form is worse than Root, Bell and only marginally better than Cook. Moreover even over 18 months, it's less than 40. "KP does something few can do" - what have a poorish average for a prolonged period?? Doesn't the facts count anymore?

Root was dropped, with a better recent record!!

I think you're talking about the old KP - the one before knee injuries and spats with former captains

The more I've looked into this and the more I'm convinced is do what the bold Aussies did in 1993, get rid of a player (Dean Jones in that case) who's great play is now outstripped by the hassle he causes