KP of the Overflow - Continued....

First topic message reminder :



And the bush hath friends to meet him, and their kindly voices greet him

In the murmur of the breezes and the river on its bars,

And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended,

And at night the wond'rous glory of the everlasting stars.



The real question is - how many times can a thread get bumped to make the same point ad nauseam?

Olly wrote:

Olly wrote:Ian Bell has come out and backed KP. I suppose he can't be trusted either...

Broad too now (in the telegraph). There be a storm a brewin

Although reading the article further it appears broad thinks this will happen in 5 years time (Broad's commitment to comedy knows no boundaries)

Olly wrote:

Olly wrote:

Olly wrote:Ian Bell has come out and backed KP. I suppose he can't be trusted either...

Broad too now (in the telegraph). There be a storm a brewin

Although reading the article further it appears broad thinks this will happen in 5 years time (Broad's commitment to comedy knows no boundaries)

Perhaps Broad hasn't completely shaken off the effects of his recent illness ....

Has to be remembered that it's a lot easier to take the high Road when you know the guy simply isn't coming back.

Hmm not sure there's anything contradictory or inflammatory in what Ian Bell or Stuart Broad are saying. They both said they'd have no problem playing with him in the future and that's it basically.

I just think they should have left the gate open. You never know... you might just need him for one last hurrah.

Then history might judge him slightly differently if he plays a big part. If he fails... so what? It's still worth a try. He can be 'shown the door' again (or open it again himself) at a later date without much explanation needed.

I sort of have this nightmare that he might indeed be sent a distress signal from the ECB if the NZ series doesn't go to plan. Sure, they would have to concede some pride (if at all possible), be in an even more desperate situation... together with a media-driven frenzy of public demand flaring up again in the weeks prior to the Ashes.

I agree with the basic premise of what Ian Chappell is saying. OK, there might be a 25% psychological tug there... but I think he is being honest and forthright in the main. That's the typical Australian way of looking at the situation. Don't forget, not long ago we were in a similar state of turmoil and hard decisions had to made on administrative, coaching/support/player levels. Every change seemed to make things worse at times.
We had to weather a severe storm which seemed to last for ages... but luckily for us it petered out after only a few years or so.

Of course, KP has carried more of a load for England than similar players for Australia who were in and out of the side due to lack of form (e.g. the Waugh twins, Hayden), personality and off-field issues (Warne, Symonds... just to name a couple) or for simply being prickly and sometimes difficult to manage players - or ones who didn't quite fit into the 'atmospheric' mold of the dressing room 'vibe' (MacGill).

Yet after having sat out some time or had years of being unselected in the Test side, for whatever reason, most were able to come back into the fold at some later date and make huge or significant contributions. Some even reached greater heights than would have been thought possible.
That didn't mean we all liked their personalities or carrying on... on and off the field. You've got to swallow that. They were all selected to do a job & succeed - all idiosyncrasies aside - and perform for the team and up to public expectations. That was the main priority.

A guy writes an autobiography slagging off his team mates............He sends text messages telling the opposition how to get team mates out....and he upsets team mates in the dressing room ad nauseum..............Consistently tried to undermine Captain Cook..

Even in today's mercenaries times there must be some room for "integrity" in sport surely...

Maybe I'm old school like Sir Alex Ferguson......Maybe I have standards..

England have done the right thing........Pietersen has no place playing for a civilized Country...........

Well done England..

Broad should be sacked. He's supposedly a leader in the dressing room, yet p1sses on the chips of England's sponsors so he can go boozing and laughing about KP with his ol' buddy Prior. Joke of a person. If someone chucked a packet of crisps at his head he'd crumple to the ground in tears.

Broad and Prior have done nothing wrong. There 2 blokes going out on the lash, no complaints at all. There blokes at the end of the day and enjoying life. Well done to them I say. Any punishment is stupid.

When you are expected as a senior player to attend an ECB function, you attend. You don't act like a 14 year old and go drinking with your buddies. Broad's attitude to authority is nothing short of scandalous and it shows just how bad the dressing room is if a supposed elder statesman thinks getting drunk is more important than fronting for his employers' sponsors. Disgraceful.

Prior has done nothing wrong though. Although he should have known better really.

He's had a night out, and not harmed anyone. How should he have known better?

The Loaded Dog wrote:
....
That didn't mean we all liked their personalities or carrying on... on and off the field. You've got to swallow that. They were all selected to do a job & succeed - all idiosyncrasies aside - and perform for the team and up to public expectations. That was the main priority.

Hi LD - another Surrey story from the past. Well, you do seem to like them or at least humour them.

Shortly after Adam Hollioake became Surrey's captain in 1997, one of the first people he looked to discuss his new role with when he returned to his native Australia was Peter Loader. Loader had emigrated out there in the 1960s but in the previous decade had played a major role as a fast bowler for Surrey helping them to a record seven consecutive County Championship titles.

Hollioake was keen to know ''what made that 1950s side tick'' and probed the relationships between the players. I think it's fair to say that the public's perception of a successful sporting team from that era would largely have been ''all jolly good chaps together''. Loader was emphatic that was not the case. He stressed, '' some of us didn't get on and we didn't often socialise together but we all always had respect for each other's ability. That was what mattered.''

Hollioake has since been quoted as saying that Loader's experiences and comments influenced his approach to captaincy in which he certainly made a decent fist of things.

Some may (and do) consider Pietersen's transgressions so extreme that the above is not relevant. I still though find it interesting. As an aside, I consider it immensely to Hollioake's credit that he took the trouble to seek guidance from someone who had experienced success four decades earlier.

As for Pietersen, I tend to agree with a comment someone else posted the other day on the Surrey Supporters Club website - ''he may be a prat but he's not an unmanageable prat''.

true he has had a night out and not harmed anyone. But if you have a work appointment in the morning you wouldn't get away with missing it without a good reason. In reality the reason is not so important, the fact is he wasn't present when he should have been, so a verbal warning should suffice. End of story.

LivinginItaly wrote: true he has had a night out and not harmed anyone. But if you have a work appointment in the morning you wouldn't get away with missing it without a good reason. In reality the reason is not so important, the fact is he wasn't present when he should have been, so a verbal warning should suffice. End of story.

I was talking about Prior.

If Prior knows Broad has an event to attend, he's supposed to be mature enough and responsible enough to say to his mate "enough now, you've got work in the morning".

These aren't 19 year old kids making their way in the world. They're at the top, and Broad has responsibilities. If he doesn't take them seriously, give them and his place in the team to someone who will treat them with the respect they deserve.

Think Telford Vice, a local journo who moonlights for Cricinfo, got it right this weekend (he wasn't speaking about KP, though. He was speaking about Dale Steyn). Those who tout their ability as their sole reason for being in the team will only be kept for as long as the ability is there.


Re Broad. I don't like Broad much... But bit of a molehill this

kingraf wrote:
...

Re Broad. I don't like Broad much... But bit of a molehill this

Agreed. Broad should get a b*llocking (which I'm sure he has) and we should move on.

Broad had a night out with Prior and old Fredye, more importantly he missed an ECB event due to his exploits the previous night. That is irresponsibility, but not a crime for which there should be any over the top reaction. The PR Director should have a word with him, and that has to be it......
There is not much to blame Flintoff or Prior in this, they didn't have an ECB event to attend the next morning, and they were having a night out.

Here is something from that Broad that is so typical of recent England attitude. Talking about limited overs skipper Eoin Morgan, Broad has to say this.
"I think Morgs, although he didn't score the runs he would like to in the World Cup 50-over, he led the team well and he had the respect of the team in the changing room."
So that's what it is, the less you perform with bat and ball! the more you are respected and trusted!!!!

If you're a born loser and have a loser for a captain, odds are you're happy and will respect that captain.

Prior is a legend and has never done anything wrong but that's another story. 

Drinking is fine, can hardly stop them. I find it quite funny, on a night out once I saw a smashed Rory Hamilton Brown the night before a t20 game, when we asked him about it he simply replied "it's only Middlesex lads"

Apparently discipline and respect aren't qualities required in England internationals. Personally I trust KP to behave a lot more than Broad. The guy turned down a free lunch.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-new-zealand-2015/content/story/878807.html
Alastair Cook says he issued no ultimatum on Pietersen, and that he wasn't even consulted on the decision and that it was all Andrew Strauss' decision though he does not disagree with it.
OK. Interesting. If that is what he says, either Alastair Cook is lying, or as Pietersen said, "he is also a company man".......

kingraf wrote:Think Telford Vice, a local journo who moonlights for Cricinfo, got it right this weekend (he wasn't speaking about KP, though. He was speaking about Dale Steyn). Those who tout their ability as their sole reason for being in the team will only be kept for as long as the ability is there.


Re Broad. I don't like Broad much... But bit of a molehill this

Although they did keep picking KP even when his form was right off. Its funny to think back a few years when 75% of the internet was calling for him to be dropped and banging on about ho overatted he was.

Azzy wrote:Apparently discipline and respect aren't qualities required in England internationals. Personally I trust KP to behave a lot more than Broad. The guy turned down a free lunch.

Trust and KP are two words that just don't go together.

Need I remind you he texted South African players with tips on England players weaknesses and that was when he was in the England side. Sorry but a person like that is in no position whatsoever to be trusted and that was just the start of it.

Apparently the #1 Test team in the world needed tips on how to get England batsmen out? Right.

He texted South African players with tips on England players' weaknesses? Calling Andrew Strauss a doos was the great secret? His greatest weakness is the South Africans knowing that someone in his team calling him a doos?

The tip seemingly went on these lines. Call him a doos and he'll forget where his offstump is!!!!

England used KP as a scapegoat. Even after the 5-0 in Australia, when KP was the top scorer, he shouldered the lion's share of the blame. Not the other 10 batsmen failing to score any runs, not the inept bowlers, not the atrocious fielders. KP. It was ridiculous at the time, and it'll look even more ridiculous once England have lost both series this summer.

I will drink my own p!ss and post the video on Youtube if England lose both Test Series this summer.

This is all bloody ridiculous - KP is an injury-prone, past-his-best, divisive player. Better off out.

England will not miss him this summer.

If that's the criteria for England selection, Stuart Broad needs to be dropped as well. Castigated, blamed for every England failure of the past three years, then treated like scum in the media.

"Castigated, blamed for every England failure of the past three years, then treated like scum in the media."

This hasn't happened to KP.

Having had the privilege of watching Kevin Pietersen's recent triple century, I very much identify with these words from Graham Ford, Surrey's Head Coach, writing in the latest members' newsletter:
''Those who attended the Leicester match were certainly treated to four full days of amazing cricket. The Pietersen innings has to be one of the best Championship batting performances ever. Those there saw an absolute genius at work showing that he is at the peak of his powers. It is really sad that this great entertainer is lost to the international game.''

The last sentence really stands out for me. Regardless of where blame lies and whether Pietersen's exclusion is merited or not, I cannot shake off that feeling of sadness.

There should be no doubting that at his best Pietersen was a mighty fine batsman. Perhaps not quite at the "great" level like some recent batsmen (Sachin, Dravid, Ponting, Kallis) but certainly in the next bracket (Smith, Sehwag, Hayden etc) and most assuredly the best attacking batsman of the modern era for England.


We will never know if he still had the ability to be a major force in Test Cricket due to the bungled way his removal from the team happened. Until his most recent first class innings, I would have said that his waning powers and that he relies on his eye rather than technique meant that he would have struggled. Now I still feel that, but there is more doubt than there was.

I've got no problems if we've decided not to play him in tests, we don't need him

But ODI/T20's he could still be handy

Tiger - I respect that post, thank you.

Interesting that you mention two other batsmen who played for Surrey, Ponting and Smith.

I was mightily impressed by Ponting. Not just his batting but his whole attitude. I saw him in his last fc game at the Oval. Throughout his final innings in which he scored a ton, he continued to practise shots when at the non-strikers end. Right to the end always trying to improve. Deeply committed as well; I recall him staring daggers at Roy and struggling not to go ballistic when his young batting partner was out to a loose shot in the final over of the day of a CC match at Guildford. [Ponting was capped by Surrey at the end of his short spell with the club and I was pleased to have played a part in that.]

I was far less taken with Smith. From an early stage, I thought his interests were too heavily slanted towards himself with scant regard to his new employer and their followers.

guildfordbat wrote:Having had the privilege of watching Kevin Pietersen's recent triple century, I very much identify with these words from Graham Ford, Surrey's Head Coach, writing in the latest members' newsletter:
''Those who attended the Leicester match were certainly treated to four full days of amazing cricket. The Pietersen innings has to be one of the best Championship batting performances ever. Those there saw an absolute genius at work showing that he is at the peak of his powers. It is really sad that this great entertainer is lost to the international game.''

The last sentence really stands out for me. Regardless of where blame lies and whether Pietersen's exclusion is merited or not, I cannot shake off that feeling of sadness.

Believe it or not , I share that sentiment. Would love to have found a way to reconcile the parties so that KP could return to the fold (almost certainly not in Test Cricket , as England are , understandably , looking to the future ; but in the limited over game) Not looking too likely now ; although I am pleased to see he is still turning out for Surrey !
Strong statement from Ford "at the peak of his powers " Really ? You saw it , guildford ; and clearly it was a fantastic innings ; but the setting was surely a few steps down from confronting McGrath , Warne etc ... I'd have thought "he showed he's still got it " might have been a bit less hyperbolic...

Alfie - I totally believe you share that sentiment. Not in doubt.

I also completely take your point about the reference to ''at the peak of his powers''. I raised an eyebrow about that when I first read Ford's comments. Not that it was necessarily wrong but that it needed the opposition to be of the class of McGrath, Warne, etc to prove it. I would have been inclined to shorten that sentence for greater effect and end it ''absolute genius at work''.

Having emphasised the brilliance of Pietersen's undefeated triple century in his last innings, I guess it's only fair to record that he was out today for 1.

I wasn't there to see it but understand it was a good ball that got him in pretty wretched batting conditions. There again, in all likelihood his supporters will already be emphasising that while his detractors won't care.

EDIT: I'll probably be accused of being a Pietersen hater as I halved his score. He actually made 2. My apologies to all for the inaccuracy, whichever side of the fence you are on.

In that light how does Boparas 4 against Leicestershire rank?

As insignificant as your post.

Noted young Jason Roy has scored another ton. Hope he and other Surrey youngsters would learn some good cricketing lessons from Pietersen. Roy, if he keep improving his long format efforts, could evolve into a next generation global superstar.......

I've been banging on about Jason Roy since I saw him as a teenager playing for Surrey seconds at Guildford back in the days of the original 606 forum. He is an amazing talent and is now bringing increased maturity to his game. He's also a top notch fielder.

Roy's Surrey contract for this season prevented him playing in the IPL. While he presumably got extra dosh for this restrictive clause, I understand he was very keen anyway to continue to develop his 4 day game.

I realise this will probably result in some posters willing him to fail but I also understand Pieteresen rates Roy's batting highly. As an individual though, I would assure all that Roy is far more introverted.

Davies is another Surrey player who was discarded too early. He's always looked like a good player whenever I've seen him bat.

Stella - Davies is a very stylish left hander who has been in extremely good form since the start of the season. He also adapts particularly well to the state of the game and the innings needing to be played. He suffered badly from Maynard's death which indirectly led him to give up keeping. At the moment, I feel the question of ''why isn't he keeping?'' still tends to hang over him and obscure attention being focused on his batting. I also suspect the national selectors have a concern about his inner strength and I can understand that.

guildfordbat wrote:
EDIT: I'll probably be accused of being a Pietersen hater as I halved his score. He actually made 2. My apologies to all for the inaccuracy, whichever side of the fence you are on.

It was initially reported as being 1 on CricInfo.

As to Jason Roy - he will probably be in the ODI squad announced later this week, but with Morgan retaining the captaincy not sure there will be a spot for him to play. Ali and Hales will open, followed by Taylor and Root. Morgan surely at 5 with 6 and 7 occupied by Stokes and Buttler (both too low).

The biggest thing counting against Surrey players trying to break into the team, especially the test team, is that Surrey have been in the second division for much of the last decade (7 of 10 seasons?)

Tiger - without wishing to check and depress myself further, 7 of 10 sounds about right. The reasons are many and varied but it's certainly a poor state of affairs for a Club with Surrey's financial clout.

Your comment about that counting against Surrey is definitely the way it is imo. However, I do feel that sometimes too much is made of playing for an ordinary side. I'm not for a moment putting any Surrey batsman in his class but even if we had Bradman at his peak playing for us it would still do little to enable our bowlers to regularly take 20 wickets and win a match.

But if they are looking at Taylor, Vince and Roy - scoring against first division teams will make a difference. James Vince scored >1500 runs in D2 last season, this season in 10 completed innings has 161.

It should of course make no difference to selection for ODI squads

I dont think its so much being in a bad team its mor eplaying against poor opposition in low intensity matches that the issue. Runs and wickets in div 2 alone dont mean that much, the selectors need to see that players can compete with the best. Its also something KP himself has said that players will only reach their potential by playing high intensity cricket against better ones. The standard of some cricket in div 2 has declined gradually and I genuinely beleive its time we had a shake up even if that means losing some of the old counties.