KP Returns?

Rather interesting set of affairs.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/841723.html

Seems KP and an England return is destined to be cricket's Pacquiao-Mayweather, or more pertinently, Ross and Rachel until he retires. For what it's worth I'm not convinced anything could have gone differently over the last year if KP was back. Last five years averaged in the low 30s for ODI and low 40s for test. The genius who simply ran out of work to produce. Given what has transpired since, though, certainly worth a gamble on a faded genius than guys who possibly just don't have "it".

I think it's very improbable that KP will return to England side.  I really don't think it would be advisable either.

This more highlights the sad state of affairs that England cricket is in. The fact that KP is now being looked at as an option is ridiculous. Pathetically run organisation.

Nachos Jones wrote:This more highlights the sad state of affairs that England cricket is in. The fact that KP is now being looked at as an option is ridiculous. Pathetically run organisation.

The ECB later sought to clarify Graves' remarks saying the situation regarding Pietersen had not altered. "Colin Graves is correct. Nothing has changed - only players who are playing consistent high-quality county cricket and who are seen as a positive influence will be selected for England," a spokesman said.

It remains unclear whether Graves' comments were the hint of willingness to let bygones be bygones or, much more likely, merely a typically bullish response to what he regarded as a tiresome question, intended to convey where his priorities lie.

Or is this just a case of reading the headline not the article?

I read the article and still see it as them not fully closing the door on him when they had already retired him. Its a kneejerk reaction in the response to Englands poor performances at the World Cup so far.

No smoke without fire and all that.

there is a realization.....Eng is terribly weak without KP.
He may see an immediate return to limited over cricket....,especially given that Morgan is also tacitly amenable to it.

and the test return depends on how Eng cope against Aus in yet another Ashes starting soon.

offcourse on the side KP has to show 'intent and eligibilty' by going thru the motions of playing some county cricket and picking up some cheap runs here and there.

I bet Morgans view has changed now its his place at stake

Tacking on to this a quick fact check on the myth of KPs ODI invincibility:
He last played ODIS in 2013, and then less than half the games.
Of the 10 he was in the team for England won 3, lost 5 and had 2 uncompleted (the one that got underway England were 53-3 off 15 with KP out for 6)
The 11 he wasnt present for England won 7 and lost 4.
2012 they won 12 and lost 2 and 1 NR, KP only played 4 of those.

England were quite capable of being crud even with KP in the side, and quite capable of winning without him. He hasnt been massively relevant in this format since 2011.

KP is living off his legend imo. A legend forged in the first five years of his career. The Ashes hundred in the fifth test. The three hundreds in South Africa in his first ODI series. Reverse sweeping Murali for six on his way to a double ton. In the proceeding years, however... He's been injured, he's been inconsistent, and more importantly, England have hardly been world-beaters even with him there. Was quite present for the noteworthy whitewashes in recent history
5-0 vs Australia - He played
5-0 vs Australia - He played
3-0 vs England - He played

He was there when the English were the last recognised powerhouse to lose a series vs West Indies. He was there for both home series defeats vs South Africa.

There are sports where you can have 10 (or whatever the number) rather average professionals, and one outlier genius and it's enough as long as the professionals play above themselves to give the genius a chance to make the difference (this is more common in low scoring sports), cricket isn't one of those sports.

Id agree King, although KP was massively relevant and head and shoulders Englands best player in T20. And probably still would be (now hes fit again) if he wasnt such a silly sausage.


Morgan too is trading off reputation of course.

3-0 is supposed to read Vs Pakistan. That was the time he was proving very susceptible to the left armer bowling the one that does nothing. It was a remarkable weakness for a top class player to have. KP could probably have played T20s, but then he'd have to have been available for ODI, if I'm not mistaken? Cook was still captain at the time, so ECB cornered themselves on that charge, I feel.

Re: Morgan. I feel for him a tad, because I could have told you three months ago that making him the captain was a doomed experiment. Don't really know what you can do from here because Cook probably isn't coming back to ODI (if you ask me, a little stupid to write him off so quick, but realistically, long as he's part of the Test set up, won't have too many chances in domestic cricket to stake a claim). Bell is one of those players who's average is a fair representation of what to expect... Maybe get Root to open and get a guy like Roy in the middle? I'm not sold on Ali in ODI, he seems like a poor imitation of the Gilchrist mould. The explosivo dynamo left hander. Not panned out that way

Morgans form had gone before he was made Captain, especially in T20 when really he was only a real force in his first few matches. His average in botrh limited formats has slipped dramticaly in an era when most top batsmens are ballooning.
The last 12 months of ODIs hes averaging somewhere in the mid 20s. Cooks career average is now higher, and he was scoring more when dropped than Morgan has recently.
I doubt the captaincy is helping him take the time to rediscover his game, nor does it help England make the call to drop him.

England have a history of players like this who have bright spells where they are genuine world forces, become superstars, then remain seemingly untouchable as their form collapses.
KP to some extent was one. Harmison the classic bowler example, evenbb when he did get dropped there was howls of anguish.

It would be nice if England could manage to keep a talented player playing well for more than 24 consecutive months. Who was the last career long genuine star they had in any format?

a return is certain if Eng go out today

Not at all.
Firstly Englands focus wont be on ODIs again for some time.
Secondly he still doesnt have a county contract
Thirdly he is still actively disliked by a large part of the squad and ECB, the vague support he got from Morgan wont count for much when he gets sacked as captain and quite possibly dropped.
Forthly its hugely unlikely he will still be fit for the next world cup, even the next T20 one will be a push. KP has only managed a brief period of fitness in the last year or so and has only played a handfull of domestic T20 games. He hasnt played first class or one day games  at any level for a long time now, and wasnt in good form when he last did.

Picking him would do nothing to change Englands long term problems with any of their squads and most especially the ODI one. Their focus will be back on tests, the last thing they will want is to stoke more KP nonsense and myth building.

Yeah that's true.....they managed to put together a happy dressing room for the world cup.
Cricket's all about being matey, happy, friendly nice and homogenous in the dressing room

At least you know why you never get the call up

KP_fan wrote:Yeah that's true.....they managed to put together a happy dressing room for the world cup.
Cricket's all about being matey, happy, friendly nice and homogenous in the dressing room

KPF, you missed the 'right kind of family' bit!

msp83 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Yeah that's true.....they managed to put together a happy dressing room for the world cup.
Cricket's all about being matey, happy, friendly nice and homogenous in the dressing room

KPF, you missed the 'right kind of family' bit!

You need to be a bit of a stats guru as well. I wonder how Moores is getting on looking at those stats. I can't help but feel that no matter how many times he looks at them, we will still have lost the game!

And Moores is going nowhere, as Down in the Dumps has declared in public!.

Are you happy with your new signing, Guildford.... or not?

The Loaded Dog wrote:Are you happy with your new signing, Guildford.... or not?

To paraphrase Mark Twain, I think news of Pietersen's reincarnation may be premature. It is not a done deal yet. The latest items covered on the official Surrey website are a tribute to Micky (dad of Alec) Stewart and a plug for a Help for Heroes game - both with a lot to commend them but neither are hardly likely to push KP out of the news!

Like surely all English counties, Surrey would welcome Pietersen as a batsman. Unlike some other counies, they would also welcome him as an individual. Alec Stewart and others at the club have consistently commented on how good he has been with the younger players. As regards his attitude when playing for Surrey, I would add that whenever I've seen him he's displayed total commitment. Some may think there of a dominating double century he scored at the home of cricket (Woodbridge Road, Guildford ) against Lancs when he totally took poor Kerrigan to the cleaners, far more so than Australia did a year or so later. However, what really sticks in my mind is when he bowled against Notts at the Oval in our final home match of 2012 needing a win to avoid relegation. That was achieved with Pietersen bowling a splendid spell and taking two important wickets. Acting captain Batty had a real job to take him off and literally take the ball out of his hands.

Some of the issues as I see them:

* Pieteresen's appearances for Surrey have been sporadic over the years. Can he play and maintain enthusiasm week in, week out at county level? I suspect the answer to this will depend upon how much of a carrot is being dangled by the ECB and how genuine it is.

* Pietersen's fitness. His knee has clearly been a handicap. I hear that has much improved although am obviously in no real place to comment. Particularly in the light of the disastrous signing of Graeme Smith, I would expect Surrey to insist on a proper full medical before making what would be a new signing.

* Pietersen is still committed to playing in the Caribbean League. Stewart is on record as saying that previously ''didn't work''. As recently as last month, this appeared to rule out Pietersen's re-signing.

* Pietersen turning his back on the IPL and being able to play then for Surrey would clearly be of benefit to Surrey and might compensate to some extent for Caribbean unavailability. However, it should be noted that we will anyway probably have Sangakkara at that same (IPL) time (given no team signed Sanga in the IPL auction). Stewart is also on record as saying that, ''We mustn't just get promotion to Division One but be good enough to stay there.'' Stewart might want to consider whether signing Pietersen would give us too much of an artificial lift and only hasten the chances of relegation from the top level in 2016 (assuming we had then reached there).

* Pietersen will need to be realistic as to what Surrey can pay him. A salary cap operates in the domestic game (which bizarrely has been reduced this coming season - some thanks there to Gooseberry's bete noire Leics and others wishing to maintain a mediocre status quo) and Surrey are already not too far off it. Therefore, not an infinite amount of dosh on the Oval table.

All in all, a signing I would welcome provided it has been fully assessed by both parties rather than being rushed into simply because it is now possible.

Another potential banana skin, I'd think - how long is KP's audition for? Is it a whole season of performance, or can he chuck three hundreds in four innings, and that will be that?

I do hope ECB is honest in throwing KP a bone here. He's turning down biggish money to give it one last go. Would be cynical if this is all a PR exercise on their part to shoosh the public.

Knowing the ECB's trackrecord, it is very hard to trust them.......
More like an attempt to turn the attention away from England's (happy dressing room and all), horrendous performance in the world cup.......
Hope Pietersen doesn't commit without clarity from the ECB.

kingraf wrote:Another potential banana skin, I'd think - how long is KP's audition for? Is it a whole season of performance, or can he chuck three hundreds in four innings, and that will be that?

I do hope ECB is honest in throwing KP a bone here. He's turning down biggish money to give it one last go. Would be cynical if this is all a PR exercise on their part to shoosh the public.

its the other way round........a negotiated deal for his international return will be struck first....between his agent and ECB

and then as a PR exercise and to let ECB hold their public image of having "followed the process and made KP give up IPL ( or some small part of it)" would be played in media before selecting him

and the legend of KP lives on

Mike Atherton's got an interesting view on Pietersen potentially pulling out of the IPL. He believes that as Hyderabad got Pietersen at a low price at auction, it's not financially appealing for KP to play in the IPL this year.

Relatively low. There's a difference. It's not De Villiers type money ($1.5 million at least), but £200k for eight weeks work is crazy money. Especially at the tax rates IPL players get. Much more than he'd earn at County. Do I think he'd have had a harder think about it if he was turning down seven figure sums? Maybe, but he's made a lot of money playing cricket, nearly seven figure a year every year for England, two $1 million IPL stints, his Woodworm contract was worth a million, his Adidas deal worth about the same. Can't think it's a money based decision £200k is still cray money

Raf - you're right about the money and especially with your comment, ''Much more than he'd earn at County''. Surrey would probably be the only county who could afford to shell out any where near to IPL sums but the salary cap would prohibit them from doing so.

guildfordbat wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:Are you happy with your new signing, Guildford.... or not?

* Pietersen turning his back on the IPL and being able to play then for Surrey would clearly be of benefit to Surrey and might compensate to some extent for Caribbean unavailability. However, it should be noted that we will anyway probably have Sangakkara at that same (IPL) time (given no team signed Sanga in the IPL auction). Stewart is also on record as saying that, ''We mustn't just get promotion to Division One but be good enough to stay there.'' Stewart might want to consider whether signing Pietersen would give us too much of an artificial lift and only hasten the chances of relegation from the top level in 2016 (assuming we had then reached there).

This is a weird point for me - Gotta do whatever you can to get to the dance - then worry about what moves you'll pull out the bag when you get there!

Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:Are you happy with your new signing, Guildford.... or not?

* Pietersen turning his back on the IPL and being able to play then for Surrey would clearly be of benefit to Surrey and might compensate to some extent for Caribbean unavailability. However, it should be noted that we will anyway probably have Sangakkara at that same (IPL) time (given no team signed Sanga in the IPL auction). Stewart is also on record as saying that, ''We mustn't just get promotion to Division One but be good enough to stay there.'' Stewart might want to consider whether signing Pietersen would give us too much of an artificial lift and only hasten the chances of relegation from the top level in 2016 (assuming we had then reached there).

This is a weird point for me - Gotta do whatever you can to get to the dance - then worry about what moves you'll pull out the bag when you get there!

Olly - I understand your reaction. However, there's a large difference between playing Division Two and Division One cricket. Sometimes, a bit like strutting your stuff at the school disco and then having to dance a waltz at the Blackpool Tower Ballroom!

Yes, we desperately want to get to the promised land but it is also important that we stay there when we do. We'll have a better chance of achieving the second of those aims if the players who help us reach Division One are continuing to improve all the time and are committed to remaining at the club.

By way of some example. At the back end of the 2011 season we signed Pragyan Ojha for the final few CC games. In the few weeks he was with us, he was immediately effective and spun us to Division One. However, it was a promotion we were ill equipped to handle without him and two seasons later we were relegated.

That all said, I'm probably making it seem more of an issue generally and to me than it is. However, you asked and, whilst I don't believe it's a valid reason for not signing Pietersen, I think it's worth a bit of consideration. The more cricket the likes of Roy, Ansari, Burns and Sibley play in a promotion season will prepare them better for the top level. Signing Pietersen will almost certainly restrict playing time available for at least one of those four. That might be deemed a small price worth paying but it should at least be determined up front.

Guildford,
I posted something on the World Cup thread in reference to your post below.
Here is the full uncut version...

The Loaded Dog wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:PS Olly - more Surrey news as requested by LD on the ''KP Returns?'' thread.

Thanks for your excellent inside knowledge reply on the "KP Returns" thread, mate.
So the terms & conditions of any yet to be signed agreement will be the crucially important factor if any deal is to go ahead.
He was on the pre-game show panel here yesterday along with McGrath, Fleming and a comedian/sports presenter named Tony Squires.

I would say that he seemed very perky and confident about his new plan. He also made some pertinent remarks about the current WC generally, certain players, what goes on in the dressing room... and even a little bit about his experience about playing in a team (Melb Stars) who were also under some sort of (media) pressure going into the BB final.

He believes some of the doubt (they had got close in previous years but failed at the final hurdle) got to him during the flight over to Perth.
He claimed he is usually not the type of person to fear opposition or harbour negative thoughts... but this time it got to him. Thought it was brave of him to talk about his mindset in such an honest way, however, he still oozes confidence and I've no doubt he still has what it takes to perform at the highest levels... in all forms of the game.

Re: the Surrey salary cap.
He can still attract other sponsorships and endorsements though, yes?
If so, then he'll be earning decent money... maybe something approaching what he would if he were playing in the IPL.

LD - just saw and replied to your main post on the other thread.

As regards sponsorships and endorsements, I'm no expert but believe that would be ok. They would though have to be demonstrably genuine. The Club - with the Oval raking in money as a Test ground - would be very wary of anything that might cause them to fall out of favour with the ECB.

PS Particularly for Olly re my earlier post - when Surrey appointed Graham Ford (incidentally often referred to as Pietersen's mentor) as head coach in early 2014, the club's chairman, Richard Thompson, referred to it as the abandonment of a ''quick-fix culture''. Such a culture had come to epitomise the final year of Chris Adams' reign. Some might remind Thompson of his words if Pietersen were to re-sign.

kingraf wrote:Relatively low. There's a difference. It's not De Villiers type money ($1.5 million at least), but £200k for eight weeks work is crazy money. Especially at the tax rates IPL players get. Much more than he'd earn at County. Do I think he'd have had a harder think about it if he was turning down seven figure sums? Maybe, but he's made a lot of money playing cricket, nearly seven figure a year every year for England, two $1 million IPL stints, his Woodworm contract was worth a million, his Adidas deal worth about the same. Can't think it's a money based decision £200k is still cray money.

Thanks for the explanation. Even after Mr 20% and the taxman take a cut, KP's still looking at taking six figures home from India.

guildfordbat wrote:LD - just saw and replied to your main post on the other thread.

As regards sponsorships and endorsements, I'm no expert but believe that would be ok. They would though have to be demonstrably genuine. The Club - with the Oval raking in money as a Test ground - would be very wary of anything that might cause them to fall out of favour with the ECB.

PS Particularly for Olly re my earlier post - when Surrey appointed Graham Ford (incidentally often referred to as Pietersen's mentor) as head coach in early 2014, the club's chairman, Richard Thompson, referred to it as the abandonment of a ''quick-fix culture''. Such a culture had come to epitomise the final year of Chris Adams' reign. Some might remind Thompson of his words if Pietersen were to re-sign.

I've just read an interview with Graham Ford in this week's 'the Cricket paper'. The interview is primarily about Sangakkara joining Surrey but there's still some mention of Pietersen. Going by other more recent reports and some of Pietersen's own heavily loaded comments, it is noticeable how quickly things have apparently moved on in the last few days (the paper was published on Friday and I would guess the interview took place a day or two before).

Anyway, in Ford's own words:
''As it stands he [Pietersen] is not part of our team.
I mean, he will always be a part of us because he was a very popular bloke in the dressing room but he is not registered to play for us.
There are a lot of rumblings going on just at the moment in the media and such like but that's for the ECB to decide at that level, it's not for us.''

The interview ends with Ford neither ruling in or ruling out signing another overseas player for this year's t20:
''We are not going out there to make signings for the sake of it, we want to grow from within and if that takes a little bit longer then the better that will be for the squad moving forwards. I am not looking for a short-term fix.''

As I say, the context in which Ford makes his final comment above is in relation to a possible overseas t20 player. However, it could also be interpreted as relating to Pietersen (it's certainly remarkably similar to the quote that I supplied last night from chairman Thompson).

That all said, it should be recognised that Pietersen has been connected to Surrey since 2010. Furthermore, as I posted yesterday, and as Ford now confirms, he's been ''a very popular bloke'' at the Oval. That should enable Surrey to present Pietersen's signing (if it happens) as the continuation of an existing positive arrangement rather than just ''a short-term fix''.

I expect more news in the next few days.

guildfordbat wrote:

Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:Are you happy with your new signing, Guildford.... or not?

* Pietersen turning his back on the IPL and being able to play then for Surrey would clearly be of benefit to Surrey and might compensate to some extent for Caribbean unavailability. However, it should be noted that we will anyway probably have Sangakkara at that same (IPL) time (given no team signed Sanga in the IPL auction). Stewart is also on record as saying that, ''We mustn't just get promotion to Division One but be good enough to stay there.'' Stewart might want to consider whether signing Pietersen would give us too much of an artificial lift and only hasten the chances of relegation from the top level in 2016 (assuming we had then reached there).

This is a weird point for me - Gotta do whatever you can to get to the dance - then worry about what moves you'll pull out the bag when you get there!

Olly - I understand your reaction. However, there's a large difference between playing Division Two and Division One cricket. Sometimes, a bit like strutting your stuff at the school disco and then having to dance a waltz at the Blackpool Tower Ballroom!

Yes, we desperately want to get to the promised land but it is also important that we stay there when we do. We'll have a better chance of achieving the second of those aims if the players who help us reach Division One are continuing to improve all the time and are committed to remaining at the club.

By way of some example. At the back end of the 2011 season we signed Pragyan Ojha for the final few CC games. In the few weeks he was with us, he was immediately effective and spun us to Division One. However, it was a promotion we were ill equipped to handle without him and two seasons later we were relegated.

That all said, I'm probably making it seem more of an issue generally and to me than it is. However, you asked and, whilst I don't believe it's a valid reason for not signing Pietersen, I think it's worth a bit of consideration. The more cricket the likes of Roy, Ansari, Burns and Sibley play in a promotion season will prepare them better for the top level. Signing Pietersen will almost certainly restrict playing time available for at least one of those four. That might be deemed a small price worth paying but it should at least be determined up front.

I understand your points Guildford - but for me I'm a believer in you get there first - I also think it'd be good competition for places - you have a surplus of batters, then the incumbents know they need to perform to stay in the side, the others know if they get a sniff they need to take advantage. Always good to keep people on their toes I think

LD - RE salary cap and all. Indeed, through Sponsors etc, I imagine he'd get a good deal more money, but if I'm not mistaken, it would still be taxed at >45% (assuming his accountant isn't skilled in the dark arts). Playing IPL in India affords him a 10% entertainer's tax rate, and probably similar opportunities to make additional money from sponsors. I know Dale Steyn makes a killing off the field during IPL, and KP is probably more marketable.

Olly - I'm more neutral here than heavily opposed to you. I take your implied point that if we want everything to be perfect before we land our plane on the Division One runway, we may not only never get there but instead find ourselves running out of fuel at 20,000 feet! However, I would hope you'll agree that the more we are prepared for life after a safe touch down the better.

I would emphasise that this matter certainly wasn't intended to be at the top of the list of possible issues I gave in my first post when replying to LD's question to me. I do though feel it could be raised as an issue by some and, probably even more so, following Ford's comment only last week about ''not looking for a short-term fix''.

The most important aspect to me is that if Pietersen is to be re-signed, he first be subject to a proper medical. We cannot afford to incur the same sort of disruption and expense that came in the wake of signing Smith.

I would love Pietersen to sign for my Essex side, but I don't think he'd fit with the line-up we have. Surely it's Hampshire or Surrey?

Cricinfo are desperately continuing to flog this dead horse of a story misleading headlines

http://www.espn.co.uk/cricket/sport/story/410609.html

"Peter Moores seeks to answer question evasively"

http://www.espn.co.uk/cricket/sport/story/410909.html

"KPs tweets less inflamatory than those of other ex England players"

I understand that there is some mileage about Pietersen re-signing for Surrey although how much could ultimately depend upon how bloody the World Cup debrief at Lord's turns out to be.

Other issues for Surrey are how close they are already to the salary cap and whether Pietersen's hopes of a Test recall would be increased by playing for a Division One county.

I shouldn't spill the source for the above but do regard it as reliable.

Particularly for Olly - just come across an article on Pietersen's possible return to Surrey in the London Evening Standard earlier this week. Here's an extract -

''No senior figure at Surrey is likely to veto a deal for Pietersen. There is concern, however, that its implications would carry as many potential drawbacks as benefits at a club where the overriding priority is to secure promotion.
For this reason, not everyone at the Kia Oval is convinced about the move. While Pietersen's conduct at Surrey never caused problems, and he was reasonably popular in the dressing room, there are those who believe it is time for youngsters to start taking a more central role. Surrey have already signed Sri Lanka batsman Kumar Sangakkara and there is a feeling that the two global stars could slow the development of their youngsters.''

Olly - I don't expect you to go along with that. In fact, I know you won't. I just reproduce it now to show that I wasn't a million miles off the mark when first flagging potential issues. The Evening Standard is close to the Oval in every sense and is rarely wide of the mark in its reports.

That said and as the Evening Standard appears to acknowledge in its first sentence above (''No senior figure ... likely to veto a deal ...''), it seems more of a concern to be sorted than a total showstopper.

If Jonathan Trott can come back, so can KP. In fact, I'd suggest Trott's return will be far more damaging to the team than KP's return would be. Not because he's a loose cannon, or unpopular, but because the rest of the team will be treading on eggshells the entire time. Teams perform better when relaxed and confident, I can't see an England team with such a weak link being remotely successful.

Azzy wrote:I would love Pietersen to sign for my Essex side, but I don't think he'd fit with the line-up we have. Surely it's Hampshire or Surrey?

KP won't come back to Hampshire. Southampton was too much of a drive back to his home in Chelsea, so that's why he left.

guildfordbat wrote: ...The most important aspect to me is that if Pietersen is to be re-signed, he first be subject to a proper medical. We cannot afford to incur the same sort of disruption and expense that came in the wake of signing Smith.

My prediction is that a KP return to county cricket will fairly quickly lead to long term injury lay offs - either actual injury or niggling injuries exacerbated by diplomatic/face saving considerations.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

guildfordbat wrote: ...The most important aspect to me is that if Pietersen is to be re-signed, he first be subject to a proper medical. We cannot afford to incur the same sort of disruption and expense that came in the wake of signing Smith.

My prediction is that a KP return to county cricket will fairly quickly lead to long term injury lay offs - either actual injury or niggling injuries exacerbated by diplomatic/face saving considerations.

Afternoon Corporal - not the worst prediction I've ever heard by any means. The thing Surrey particularly need to guard against (as happened with Smith) is that they don't end up paying an injured Pietersen shedloads of cash whilst he sits on the sidelines or goes shopping with his wife!

Alastair Cook, it is reported by some Indian newspapers, suggested that a KP return to international level is unlikely.......
Same reports also say that Cook thought his sacking as ODI skipper was wrong!.

I saw something about Cook complaining about his sacking too.
Obviously pushing his own agenda... like KP.
May the best man win!

Also, with Trott still loitering around, I really feel this whole situation is getting even worse. It is so destabilising for England.

guildfordbat wrote:Particularly for Olly - just come across an article on Pietersen's possible return to Surrey in the London Evening Standard earlier this week. Here's an extract -

''No senior figure at Surrey is likely to veto a deal for Pietersen. There is concern, however, that its implications would carry as many potential drawbacks as benefits at a club where the overriding priority is to secure promotion.
For this reason, not everyone at the Kia Oval is convinced about the move. While Pietersen's conduct at Surrey never caused problems, and he was reasonably popular in the dressing room, there are those who believe it is time for youngsters to start taking a more central role. Surrey have already signed Sri Lanka batsman Kumar Sangakkara and there is a feeling that the two global stars could slow the development of their youngsters.''

Olly - I don't expect you to go along with that. In fact, I know you won't. I just reproduce it now to show that I wasn't a million miles off the mark when first flagging potential issues. The Evening Standard is close to the Oval in every sense and is rarely wide of the mark in its reports.

That said and as the Evening Standard appears to acknowledge in its first sentence above (''No senior figure ... likely to veto a deal ...''), it seems more of a concern to be sorted than a total showstopper.

I'm not going to deny it's a concern Guildford, it is. But if I liken it to football for a moment, it's almost like getting a talented youngster in on loan in the Championship and getting promoted, then him not being there in the Premier League. A contingency plan would need to be put in place, so next winter in this case, a replacement for KP can be brought in or promoted.

KP is finished as an international cricketer. He should just grow old gracefully and retire instead of disgracefully.

The only way he should get back into the England side is find some really decent county form (nowhere near that) and if England were to start with a whole new team. He obviously has plenty of issues (just look at his comments) with many of the players in the current side and there is just no way a team can operate with such fractions within a squad. I'll bet he wished he had kept his Dartmouth Tunnel-esque mouth shut now rather than spouting off about everybody and anybody to all and sunder. If so he may have found it a slightly easier route back into the team.

If KP ever suspected there was even a 1% chance of a recall, I bet he would have kept quiet. But you've had selectors, coaches, players, former players, media, all saying 'never in a million years'. Finally we now have someone at the ECB with some common sense, who says the door is open to ALL players, and KP is doing his best to grab that chance, even if it is still only 1%.

I like KP's attitude to this potential return, I like Graves' open-minded approach, and I loathe the position taken by Whitaker.

I really wish that England had not made this big song and dance about sacking Pietersen. If they had just selected the team on form he could have been quietly dropped (as he would not have played any first class cricket before the Sri Lankans arrived). As it is the ECB played right into Pieteresens giant ego.

What are his chances of scoring the kind of runs needed to force a rethink? Pretty minimal. since January o flast year he has only played T20 matches and not very well. Playing in the second division against some dreadful bowling attacks he will need to score huge. Meanwhile the english Middle order (Ballance, Bell, Root) will be playing against a weakened WI side and looking to fill their boots.

If Pietersen had secured a big IPL deal would he still be interested?

Sangakarra and KP in Division Two....