KP what now?

[david.b...@gmail.com]

Despite the fact that KP is the guy that can really whip the SA attack want him in Test cricket.

a) In the one corner we have KP, a man tha clearly has no issues with self-love and clearly understands how talented is is and demands consideration for it. He must be both a joy and a nightmare for his teammates.

He left SA and blamed quotas because it couldn't possibly be him (it never is). The truth is that he wasn't playing that well and his province did not see the obvious talent that stood before them. So he ended up being used as a spinner batting a no 8. So his province blew it, he didnt play well and he left and he made it big in Engalnd. Good for him.

b) in the other corner we have the ECB and like most cricketing boards, a bunch of old farts that believe it's their way or the highway.

KP also alludes to dressing room divisions. I wish I knew more about that. The fact that he pisses some of his teammates off is obvious.

It's a tough problem to sort out. The ECB is seen as being intransigent and KP clearly isn't an easy man to talk to since he believes he is always right.

If I was an England player I would support him fr 2 reasons
1. He is a special player
2. His fight could be used as a proxy for their player:ECB issues. If he wins the right to play more IPL then it s likely others will win tha right.

Let's see.

[jzfredricks]

The ECB have decided 2 things;
a) all players must play under the same rules
b) if you don't play by the rules, get lost

I've seen corporations try this, and funny enough, they lost some/most of their best talent.

The ECB need to get Real Madrid in and have a chat about how they deal with handfuls of superstars.

Leaking shit to the press is a dumb move, ECB.

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 8, 7:55 am, david.baker...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>

> b) in the other corner we have the ECB and like most cricketing boards, a bunch of old farts that believe it's their way or the highway.

I think their stand is not unreasonable. If they allow KP to have his
way then they open up a way for any player to contract with the ECB as
it suits him and play for his country and county when it suits him.

Either that or they make an exception for KP. Which is problematic
too. You'd have a set of contracted players who have bound themselves
to England and England's fixture list, who have put England before
full IPL seasons, and now you're going to ask one of them to step
aside for no other reason than that Himself feels like playing this
week? How good a situation is that?

He got a superb ton in the last test, and has played some other knocks
that have been lauded. Yet
88 151 8 7076 227 49.48
that's his test record. Compare that to Cook
82 144 9 6545 294 48.48
KP's not in a different league, is he? Not day in, day out.

Nobody's calling Graeme Smith an ATG player, but he's got a better
average than KP and got to the much discussed 7000 runs in less
innings and less matches.

Pietersen's a sort of potential ATG, but how often does he really do
the business for a player with such rich gifts?

But even if his performances (not his potential) were from a different
part of the galaxy, why should the ECB be making a special case for
Smith or any other player?

[Bob Dubery]

I don't believe it's the ECB who have been dropping big fat hints
about difficulties in the dressing room.

Leaks are not new. Brearley was complaining about them in 1981 when
one of the papers got hold of the England team list for one of the
Ashes tests before the selectors had contacted the players and
announced the team.

Pietersen doesn't have to like it, but he shouldn't by now be
surprised that it happens.

[Mike Holmans]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 22:55:18 -0700 (PDT), david.b...@gmail.com
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>Despite the fact that KP is the guy that can really whip the SA attack want him in Test cricket.
>
>a) In the one corner we have KP, a man tha clearly has no issues with self-love and clearly understands how talented is is and demands consideration for it. He must be both a joy and a nightmare for his teammates.
>
>He left SA and blamed quotas because it couldn't possibly be him (it never is). The truth is that he wasn't playing that well and his province did not see the obvious talent that stood before them. So he ended up being used as a spinner batting a no 8. So his province blew it, he didnt play well and he left and he made it big in Engalnd. Good for him.
>
>b) in the other corner we have the ECB and like most cricketing boards, a bunch of old farts that believe it's their way or the highway.

What evidence do you have that the people in charge of the England
team are old farts? Is it just because they are the board and
therefore must be old farts because all boards are? Other players, and
their autobiographies, offer quite a lot of evidence that the ECB have
done a great deal to make playing for England pretty agreeable.
They've bent over backwards to help many players through difficulties
and accommodate their personal circumstances.

From what one gathers, Andy Flower is one of those who is least
impressed by Pietersen's belief that KP should only play for England
when it's convenient for KP. Is Flower an old fart? What is your
evidence for his old-fartitude?

West Indies fell into the trap of trying to accommodate Brian Lara's
caprices and left the team in ruins as a result. England have made
some foolish decisions in the recent past trying to pretend that first
Michael Vaughan and then Fred Flintoff were likely to recover from
injury sufficiently robustly to resume as regular members of the team.
And those who follow county cricket will know that once a player
thinks he is bigger than the club, the club always loses until they
get rid of him (the Boycott wars at Yorkshire being the example of
which I have the most personal experience, but there have been others
over the last 30 years).

Supreme talent though KP may have as a batsman, as a person he is
clearly a major arsehole. Now that he's retired from international
limited-over cricket, if it's too onerous for KP to turn up and play
Test cricket when England are playing, then the best thing is for the
break to come as quickly and cleanly as possible.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Mike Holmans]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 22:55:18 -0700 (PDT), david.b...@gmail.com
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>If I was an England player I would support him fr 2 reasons
>1. He is a special player
>2. His fight could be used as a proxy for their player:ECB issues. If he wins the right to play more IPL then it s likely others will win tha right.

There's a case of the remarkable thing being that the dog did not bark
in the night here.

On just about every previous occasion over the last few years when
there has been an issue about a player, the other members of the squad
have been on Twitter or offering comments on or off the record to the
press.

On the KP issue, though, there is a very pointed silence. Even off the
record, no-one is expressing any support for KP. One gets the feeling
that they'd be very happy if KP would fully commit himself to the
team's cause, but that if he won't, they'd rather be rid of the diva.

As to his fight being a proxy for their player-ECB issues, I'd be
interested to know what these are.

On the IPL, apart from KP and Eoin Morgan, the leading players have
generally made a specific decision that their England careers are more
important to them and have preferred to play county cricket. That's
probably not unconnected to the fact that only KP and Morgan could
expect to make serious money out of the IPL: a centrally-contracted
player is getting a minimum of $300,000, and someone like Broad who
plays all three formats and is captain in one is liable to be on
somewhere near $500,000. Yes, some of them could get $150,000 for six
weeks work in the IPL, but if that were to jeopardise their main
source of earnings, it's not really going to be worth it.

Otherwise, as I mentioned in my earlier post, one feature of most
England players' comments about the ECB is how appreciative they are
of how supportive the ECB are, and the PCA frequently comment that the
ECB's approach to negotiations over player contracts is generally
constructive. I've no doubt that there are issues, because there are
always issues between employers and employees, but I get the feeling
that the players and the board are generally able to reach a
compromise acceptable to both sides.

Cheers,

Mike

--

[ozaroh...@gmail.com]

[Mike Holmans]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:14:33 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery
<mega...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

That it happens may not be too surprising, but it's still pretty
unprofessional for the ECB to leak details of discussions which are
supposedly confidential.

That said, it's not as though KP's representatives are the souls of
discretion. You can tell that negotiations about something are going
on because there will suddenly be a rash of statements on Pietersen's
behalf about how much he loves playing for England and how much he's
looking forward to it and how fantastic his form is. (Can anyone think
of any other players for any other country who spend so much effort on
shouting about how much they want to play for their team?) And I can
see how the odd ECB person acquainted with the details of the
negotiations might get a bit frustrated if the public statements don't
really square with the position being taken by KP and his agent over
the negotiating table and might feel like doing some counter-briefing.

Superstars don't have to be divas. You don't hear of Tendulkar holding
the BCCI to ransom, though I'm sure he's had the odd issue with them
over the years. One of the striking things about Bradley Wiggins
winning the Tour de France was how willing his teammates were to work
for him and how he mucked in himself - it's just about unheard-of for
someone wearing the yellow jersey to do the donkey-work of leading a
teammate out to set him up for a sprint finish, yet there was Wiggins
doing exactly that on the last day. Sir Chris Hoy didn't make a big
fuss when he didn't get selected to defend his Olympic sprint title.

On the other hand, Brian Lara was clearly an arsehole of major
proportions. The WICB spent ages trying to accommodate him, but it was
never enough, and the rest of the team ended up detesting him, to the
obvious detriment of the team as a whole.

It looks like KP is much more of Lara's than Tendulkar's persuasion.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[jzfredricks]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:25:37 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> always issues between employers and employees, but I get the feeling
> that the players and the board are generally able to reach a
> compromise acceptable to both sides.

Unless of course a player says he's wants to play Tests and T20, but not ODO. Then he can get stuffed.

[da...@parvana.co.uk]

Ok, the old fart statement was more of an administrator generalisation.
I could of called them 'blazers'.
I am an oldish fart myself. Less than 50 but not by much
So let me retract the old fart generalisation.

Lets just categorise them as intransigent.

Note I didn't really take sides except to say if I was an England player I would secretly back him because his victories may help me. Note I said it 'could' be used as a proxy, not it is being used as a proxy.

KP is an arsehole, I agree with you. Flower - I have a lot of admiration for him. I like Strauss as a captain.
I still wish we hadn't lost him though. I would be batting him at Number 5 in our setup.
Of course he probably would have had a fight with our admins and be threatening resignation.

I dont know the full detail. I am prepared to bet that no-one is less than 30% to blame. Exactly how the blame is apportioned I dont know

Question -
Will the next test be KPs last?
Will the ECB bend a bit?
Who does KP have dressing room problems with - Must admit KP was a twat for saying so.

Having said all that, what an innings in T2.
He is the one guy (along with Cook and Trott (to an extent)) that scare me a little
KP can sieze a game.

--
*Important Note: *The information contained in this message and or
attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any
action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than
the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any system and destroy all
copies.
*Parvana UK Limited* | (Company Registration Number: 05984245) | (VAT
Registration Number: 904 3007 69) | (Brick House, 150a Station Road, Woburn
Sands, Milton Keynes, MK17 8SG)
*Parvana Strategic Sourcing (Pty) Ltd* | (Company Registration Number:
2006/009124/07) | (VAT Registration Number: 4620233207) | (40 Upper Torquay
Avenue, Bishopscourt, Cape Town, 7708)

[Mike Holmans]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:56:48 -0700 (PDT), da...@parvana.co.uk tapped

the keyboard and brought forth:

>

>Ok, the old fart statement was more of an administrator generalisation.
>I could of called them 'blazers'.
>I am an oldish fart myself. Less than 50 but not by much
>So let me retract the old fart generalisation.
>
>Lets just categorise them as intransigent.

On what evidence?

Do you know what negotiating position they have taken? Do you know
what negotiating position KP and his agent have taken?

It's certainly the case that the two sides have failed to reach
agreement, but whose fault that is is unknown.

If KP's starting point is "I'm playing the whole of the IPL and that's
final" even though it rules him out of a home Test series and the ECB
aren't impressed, who's being intransigent?

As a trade unionist, I am not by any means a natural defender of the
employer when it comes to a dispute, but I recognise that employers
don't have to roll over and play dead just because one of their staff
is unhappy.

Evidence from other people suggests that the ECB are generally willing
to make a reasonable deal, though obviously they don't give in on just
anything. I'm therefore not willing to characterise them as
intransigent wihout some evidence that they are being unreasonable.

I wouldn't, for instance, be calling the ECB intransigent if they were
unwilling to agree to a clause giving KP the right not to turn up for
practice in the days before a Test and that he'll phone the coach on
the morning of the match if he feels like turning up. (I'm not
suggesting that KP has actually made that demand, but I'd think the
ECB would have every right to laugh in his face if he did.)

>Note I didn't really take sides except to say if I was an England player I would secretly back him because his victories may help me. Note I said it 'could' be used as a proxy, not it is being used as a proxy.

Depends on how extravagant his demands are. If I saw what KP was
asking for and thought it inconceivable that a board could possibly
agree to it, I might well wish he would put a sock in it because all
he's doing is giving players' demands a bad name, and making it far
less likely that the ECB will be flexible over my own issues.

>
>Who does KP have dressing room problems with - Must admit KP was a twat for saying so.

KP's history is littered with dressing rooms which ended up unable to
stand the sight of him. It's by no means impossible that he has
problems with the ones who aren't called "Kevin" or "Pietersen".

>Having said all that, what an innings in T2.
>He is the one guy (along with Cook and Trott (to an extent)) that scare me a little
>KP can sieze a game.

Which is why I hope that we don't lose him. Still, the waters closed
over his 50-over career with no break in England's run of success in
that format.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[skp]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 5:11:29 AM UTC-7, jzfredricks wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:25:37 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote: > always issues between employers and employees, but I get the feeling > that the players and the board are generally able to reach a > compromise acceptable to both sides. Unless of course a player says he's wants to play Tests and T20, but not ODO. Then he can get stuffed.

Back when there were only two forms of the game at the international level, players often retired from one form of the game (i.e just talking ODIs and tests here) but continued to play in others. Now that there are three forms of the game, why can't a guy retire from ODIs but make himself available for selection for tests and T20s.

I assume that the ECB (and perhaps other boards too) have a policy that if you wnat to play limited overs cricket, you have to be ready to play both ODIs and 20/20 if selected. But why do they have that policy and not a policy that if you want to play tests, you must also be ready to play the other two forms of the game if selected?

Take Dravid for example. He was a very good ODI player scoring more than 10K runs before being dropped. He then gets a surprise selection for the ODIs against England in 2011 but promptly announces his retirement from ODIs (to take effect upon conclusion of that series).

So, we had the Indian selectors saying "Rahul, the country needs you to play ODIs because our Sharmas and Rainas just can't get handle it" and Dravid saying "too bad, I only want to pay tests. But I will do you a favour and play this series only". No one made an issue of Dravid's decision. So, why should a guy like Pietersen - who rocks in tests and T20s - be precluded from retiring solely from ODIs?

skp

[Mike Holmans]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:00:19 -0700 (PDT), skp <vika...@gmail.com>

tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

> But why do they have that policy [of having to play both T20 and F50]

From Mike Selvey's excellent article on the subject, to be found at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/aug/07/kevin-pietersen-england-ipl-retirement

"The clear understanding, written into the contract, was that if you
retire from ODIs you do so from T20 as well.

In introducing this clause, inserted not at the instigation of Flower
(although approved by him) after consultation with players, employment
lawyers and the Professional Cricketers' Association, the ECB is
protecting the integrity of ODIs and its mandate to commit to trying
to win the next World Cup and the one beyond that."

Personally, I have great sympathy with anyone who thinks 50-over
cricket is a waste of time in the T20 era, and wants to play only T20s
and Tests.

However, those who run English cricket have decided to commit to
protecting the 50-over format and have decided that a form of contract
which links the limited-over forms of the game is an important part of
fulfilling that. I can see the justification for that: the key skills
required in 50-over and T20 are not that different, and the kinds of
things you'll do in practice are even more similar.

Over the last 15 years, the ECB have a pretty impressive record in
terms of setting goals and delivering them, although they've usually
been a couple of years late. It's still within the bounds of
possibility that England will be top of the rankings in all three
formats before South Africa leave: given where England were 15 years
ago, it's pretty strong evidence that the ECB's general strategy has
delivered quite a lot of return on the investment made.

Most of the key people directly involved with the running of Team
England from the management point of view are former Test cricketers.
The businessmen on the Executive Board seem to have a general attitude
of "you explain why you want x amount of money and how it's going to
fulfil the agreed goals and we'll see if we can afford it" rather than
trying to interfere with team matters.

One isn't really allowed to praise one's national cricket board: it is
virtually obligatory throughout the cricket world to deride boards as
useless. And I have loads of bad things to say about how the ECB has
buggered about with county cricket to the extent that it is almost
impossible to actually watch any first-class cricket if you have a
full-time job, and I'm not too satisfied about some other things.

But when it comes to Team England, it's actually pretty difficult not
to think they've largely done a fine job over the last decade or so,
to the extent that for me, I need to see some pretty convincing
argument that the ECB are misguided.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Unknown]

A fart in the wind.

The wicket fell,
KP advanced to the front,
and then he proceded to do a great stunt.
With hands on his hips,and tightly clenched fists.
His fart roared like thunder,
but came down like the mist.

max.it

[Calvin]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:54:56 +1000, Mike Holmans
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> However, those who run English cricket have decided to commit to
> protecting the 50-over format

By not playing it domestically?

--
cheers,
calvin

[Mike Holmans]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:21:29 +1000, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> tapped

the keyboard and brought forth:

They don't play five-day matches in the county championship as
preparation for Tests, either.

Given that the standard of batting in county cricket is lower than in
international 50-over cricket, playing 50 overs demands that people
bat more cautiously at county level than would be desirable at
international. Playing 50-over cricket at county level would therefore
actively militate against the ECB's stated goal of winning a World Cup
in the foreseeable future.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[mike]

The reason there isnt a 50 over competition is simple: after
C&G withdrew in 2006, they couldnt find a sponsor for it.

I would argue that there is a big difference between the skills
and approach to playing T20 and 50 over cricket, but not much
difference between playing 40 and 50. The counties still play
40 over comps, so in theory there shouldnt be a problem in
having no 50 over domestic comp.

I think until 1996 we only had 40, 55 and 60 over matches,
no 50 overs either. Then they changed the old B&H and NW
comps to 50 overs, and it didnt make any difference to
Englands record in the WC.

mike

[Mike Holmans]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:20:51 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>

tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Aug 9, 1:45�am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:21:29 +1000, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> tapped
>> the keyboard and brought forth:
>>
>> >On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:54:56 +1000, Mike Holmans
>> ><m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> However, those who run English cricket have decided to commit to
>> >> protecting the 50-over format
>>
>> >By not playing it domestically?
>>
>> They don't play five-day matches in the county championship as
>> preparation for Tests, either.
>>
>> Given that the standard of batting in county cricket is lower than in
>> international 50-over cricket, playing 50 overs demands that people
>> bat more cautiously at county level than would be desirable at
>> international. Playing 50-over cricket at county level would therefore
>> actively militate against the ECB's stated goal of winning a World Cup
>> in the foreseeable future.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mike
>> --
>
>The reason there isnt a 50 over competition is simple: after
>C&G withdrew in 2006, they couldnt find a sponsor for it.
>
>I would argue that there is a big difference between the skills
>and approach to playing T20 and 50 over cricket,

Why? I'm with you on approach, but I'm not entirely sure on the skills
side.

True, there's probably room, and it's probably even desirable, to have
a steady-as-she-goes batsman in a 50-over game which you might well
want to replace with an out-and-out slogger in T20, but most of the
skills are surely the same, aren't they?

I mean, you don't really want your 50-over batsmen to spend a lot of
time practicing how to leave balls they need not play at, do you?
They're going to spend their time practicing how to score runs as fast
as possible whichever form of the game it is, and I don't really see
how the idea of stopping batsmen from scoring as a bowler changes much
either.

Absolutely the batsmen in T20 are going to be far more aggressive, and
the bowlers will probably have to get used to bowling one-over spells
rather than having a chance to develop a rhythm, but I'm not really
sure those are different technical skills.

From the point of view of developing your limited-over internationals,
though, which is really the point at issue, isn't the pool of players
you're going to be looking at going to be just about the same, with a
couple of players at the edges who are earmarked for one format only?

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Calvin]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:47:14 +1000, Mike Holmans
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>> I would argue that there is a big difference between the skills
>> and approach to playing T20 and 50 over cricket,
>
> Why? I'm with you on approach, but I'm not entirely sure on the skills
> side.
>
> True, there's probably room, and it's probably even desirable, to have
> a steady-as-she-goes batsman in a 50-over game which you might well
> want to replace with an out-and-out slogger in T20, but most of the
> skills are surely the same, aren't they?

Not really. Pushing 1s and 2s for 30 overs is not a skill required for T20.

> I mean, you don't really want your 50-over batsmen to spend a lot of
> time practicing how to leave balls they need not play at, do you?
> They're going to spend their time practicing how to score runs as fast
> as possible whichever form of the game it is, and I don't really see
> how the idea of stopping batsmen from scoring as a bowler changes much
> either.

As a general rule I'd have thought there was more intent to get wickets in
T20 than ODOs but the differences are probably less for a bowler,
acknowledging the shorter spells.

> From the point of view of developing your limited-over internationals,
> though, which is really the point at issue, isn't the pool of players
> you're going to be looking at going to be just about the same, with a
> couple of players at the edges who are earmarked for one format only?

T20 is still in its infancy. I'd expect more divergence over time.

--
cheers,
calvin

[Mike Holmans]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:07:30 +1000, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> tapped

the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:47:14 +1000, Mike Holmans
><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>> I would argue that there is a big difference between the skills
>>> and approach to playing T20 and 50 over cricket,
>>
>> Why? I'm with you on approach, but I'm not entirely sure on the skills
>> side.
>>
>> True, there's probably room, and it's probably even desirable, to have
>> a steady-as-she-goes batsman in a 50-over game which you might well
>> want to replace with an out-and-out slogger in T20, but most of the
>> skills are surely the same, aren't they?
>
>Not really. Pushing 1s and 2s for 30 overs is not a skill required for T20.

Knowing how to score at least a single or a two if you can't whack it
over the boundary isn't a skill required in T20? The BBL must be very
different to any T20 I've watched.

You don't practice pushing singles "for 30 overs". You practice one
ball at a time. The technical skills you use in T20 and F50 are the
same: the difference lies in the mental approach.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 8, 2:10 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>

> That said, it's not as though KP's representatives are the souls of
> discretion. You can tell that negotiations about something are going
> on because there will suddenly be a rash of statements on Pietersen's
> behalf about how much he loves playing for England and how much he's
> looking forward to it and how fantastic his form is. (Can anyone think
> of any other players for any other country who spend so much effort on
> shouting about how much they want to play for their team?)

Darryll Cullinan. Couldn't stop talking about how he loved to play for
SA. I remember him saying how he'd put playing for his country "before
all other attractions". I remember that remark because it was hard to
square it with his having signed a contract binding him to a full
season of county cricket and making him unavailable for already
scheduled SA fixtures.

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 10, 1:05 pm, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Darryll Cullinan. Couldn't stop talking about how he loved to play for
> SA. I remember him saying how he'd put playing for his country "before
> all other attractions". I remember that remark because it was hard to
> square it with his having signed a contract binding him to a full
> season of county cricket and making him unavailable for already
> scheduled SA fixtures.

Come to think of it, maybe the two cases are quite similar. Cullinan
wanted to have his bread buttered both sides by making good money
playing elsewhere AND playing for SA when he wasn't otherwise
occupied. He also had fall outs (plural) with the national body,
couldn't make his mind up about which forms of cricket he wanted to
play for the country, and tended to move around between FC teams -
always with hints that it was nothing to do with his actual on-field
performance.

[Brian Lawrence]

No one seems to have picked up on this?

Apparently during the last Test KP texted Dale Steyn & AB de Villiers,
and was critical of Flower & Strauss. The ECB seem to have the details
of the texts. Will he be dropped for the 3rd Test?

Source: Derek Pringle, Daily Telegraph, Aug 11.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

[John Hall]

In article <a8nl4p...@mid.individual.net>,

Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_...@msn.com> writes:
>No one seems to have picked up on this?
>
>Apparently during the last Test KP texted Dale Steyn & AB de
>Villiers, and was critical of Flower & Strauss. The ECB seem to
>have the details
>of the texts. Will he be dropped for the 3rd Test?
>
>Source: Derek Pringle, Daily Telegraph, Aug 11.
>

Also a big story in most of the other papers, I think.

But in the latest development, it looks as though Pieterson may have
backed down:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/19229566
--
John Hall

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 11, 8:04 pm, Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawre...@msn.com> wrote:
> No one seems to have picked up on this?
>
> Apparently during the last Test KP texted Dale Steyn & AB de Villiers,
> and was critical of Flower & Strauss. The ECB seem to have the details
> of the texts. Will he be dropped for the 3rd Test?
>
> Source: Derek Pringle, Daily Telegraph, Aug 11.

Scyld Berry in the same paper says that the ECB don't know what was in
the texts.

What seems more remarkable to me is that players from opposing teams
are texting each other during a match and the teams can't ascertain
the content of the texts.

It was recently stated that KP was upset about a twitter channell that
parodies him (recently closed) because he felt that some members of
the England team were participating. Now, apparently, updates and
comments were made during the last match and that rules the team mates
out because they have restricted access to cell phones and other
mobile devices as part of the ICC's precautionary measures against
match fixing. But KP can text the opposition?

But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. What happens if two
opponents end up in the same bar after play and decide to have a beer
together? The line has to be drawn in a sensible place.

[ura...@umich.edu]

On Sunday, August 12, 2012 12:17:52 AM UTC-4, Bob Dubery wrote:

> What seems more remarkable to me is that players from opposing teams
> are texting each other during a match and the teams can't ascertain
> the content of the texts.

I don't see what the big deal is. So he exchanges text messages with opposition players during the match. Why should he not? ISTR Broad saying that cell phones are put away from 8 am to 8 pm on match days, so this texting is going on well away from the hours of play.

> But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. What happens if two
> opponents end up in the same bar after play and decide to have a beer
> together? The line has to be drawn in a sensible place.

Perhaps times have changed, but I thought the latter (drinking together after a day's play) was not uncommon. I don't see much of a difference between communicating with opposition players at the end of a day's play and having a drink with them. If the one is permissible, the other should be, and the one has been permissible for a long time.

IMO, a sensible place for boards to draw the line is the point at which the player has left the ground. Let them do what they want in their spare time.

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 12, 6:43 am, ura...@umich.edu wrote:
> On Sunday, August 12, 2012 12:17:52 AM UTC-4, Bob Dubery wrote:

<snip>

> Perhaps times have changed, but I thought the latter (drinking together after a day's play) was not uncommon. I don't see much of a difference between communicating with opposition players at the end of a day's play and having a drink with them. If the one is permissible, the other should be, and the one has been permissible for a long time.
>

Well it depends on who you talk to. Some teams and some players are,
allegedly, less keen to have a beer with the opposition than others.
But it goes on and I don't see why it shouldn't. And even if nobody
makes actual arrangements it can happen. I give Phil Neale a lift back
to the England team hotel after he came to speak to the CSSA. The SA
team busses were outside too. Both teams in the same hotel, so it's
entirely likely that player were going to bump into each other.

So I think the 8 to 8 rule that you mention would be drawing a line in
a reasonable place. At some point you have to let players get on with
their lives.

[Mike Holmans]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:43:15 -0700 (PDT), ura...@umich.edu tapped the
keyboard and brought forth:

Bradman invited Denis Compton to dinner in his hotel room during a
Test, and after they had eaten, Bradman picked up a bat and proceeded
to show Denis what he was doing wrong.

Can anyone spell "fuss about nothing"?

Cheers,

Mike
--

[John Hall]

In article <3d738cd3-b46c-456a...@googlegroups.com>,

ura...@umich.edu writes:
>On Sunday, August 12, 2012 12:17:52 AM UTC-4, Bob Dubery wrote:
>
>> What seems more remarkable to me is that players from opposing teams
>> are texting each other during a match and the teams can't ascertain
>> the content of the texts.
>
>I don't see what the big deal is. So he exchanges text messages
>with opposition players during the match. Why should he not?
>ISTR Broad saying that cell phones are put away from 8 am to 8
>pm on match days, so this texting is going on well away from the
>hours of play.

Apparently the problem is that he criticised Flower and Strauss in those
texts. You shouldn't be criticising your colleagues to the opposition
during a match. (Or at any time during the series, come to that.)

>
>> But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. What happens if two
>> opponents end up in the same bar after play and decide to have a beer
>> together? The line has to be drawn in a sensible place.
>
>Perhaps times have changed, but I thought the latter (drinking
>together after a day's play) was not uncommon.

I think times /have/ changed, more's the pity. At one time the away team
used to go into the home team's dressing room for a beer after the day's
play, but I don't think that the modern breed of team managers likes
that.

> I don't see much of a difference between communicating with
>opposition players at the end of a day's play and having a drink
>with them. If the one is permissible, the other should be, and the
>one has been permissible for a long time.
>
>IMO, a sensible place for boards to draw the line is the point at
>which the player has left the ground. Let them do what they want
>in their spare time.

But I don't think that liberty should extend to slagging off your team
mates.

[Ojas]

I was under the impression that only the evil IPL went around poaching and corrupting patriotic Crickets with promises of money and vice?

[Mike Holmans]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:18:35 +0100, John Hall
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>>IMO, a sensible place for boards to draw the line is the point at
>>which the player has left the ground. Let them do what they want
>>in their spare time.
>
>But I don't think that liberty should extend to slagging off your team
>mates.

I hope you only mean that in terms of public slagging-off in social
and/or mediated media.

If you are trying to suggest that a player should not be allowed to
phone his mates and have a moan about his colleagues (and texting is
the same as phoning someone), then you're imposing a restraint on
liberty which I'd recommend that no England player ever submitted
themselves to. (OK, if his only mates are bookies then he's not
allowed to phone them for anti-corruption reasons, but I think it's
only Marlon Samuels whose social circle is that limited.)

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 12, 11:23 am, Ojas <ojass...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I  was under the impression that only the evil IPL went around poaching and corrupting patriotic Crickets with promises of money and vice?
>

Is that a statement or a question? Either way I can't offer you much
in the way of insight.

[John Hall]

In article <a45f28plttspdvkkm...@4ax.com>,

It's one thing for him to moan in private (whether face to face or by
phone) with his mates, so long as he is sure that they can keep a
confidence. But it's quite another to do so with members of the
opposition while the series is still in progress. OK, maybe he sees
those members of the opposition as his mates, but they are still on the
opposite side. And, of course, it didn't remain private, which means
that one of the people he texted must have told someone else, until it
eventually reached the media.

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 12, 1:49 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I hope you only mean that in terms of public slagging-off in social
> and/or mediated media.
>
> If you are trying to suggest that a player should not be allowed to
> phone his mates and have a moan about his colleagues (and texting is
> the same as phoning someone), then you're imposing a restraint on
> liberty which I'd recommend that no England player ever submitted
> themselves to. (OK, if his only mates are bookies then he's not
> allowed to phone them for anti-corruption reasons, but I think it's
> only Marlon Samuels whose social circle is that limited.)

Well, yes. Players are human and entitled to blow off steam. Let's
face it, players have said some pretty rough things about each other
in the press and in books from time to time. Was it Greenidge who was
critical of Clive Lloyd whilst both were still playing?

I've read many times some of Botham's team mates would have liked to
be critical of him in the changing room but were physically afraid of
saying a contrary word.

Kepler Wessels was run out of the South African dressing room by a
posse lead
by Jimmy Cook - this was pre-admission, during the Gatting tour. Both
men shared a dressing room again later on.

Players are not always bosom buddies.

So it would seem that either England place absolute unity above all
else, or there is something else that the press haven't got hold of
(yet) which is the real reason for KP's axing and the texts were just
the last straw.

[Uday Rajan]

On Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:18:35 AM UTC-4, John Hall wrote:
> Apparently the problem is that he criticised Flower and Strauss in those
> texts. You shouldn't be criticising your colleagues to the opposition
> during a match. (Or at any time during the series, come to that.)

I don't see that act itself as a big deal --- people complain about their colleagues all the while, and there's no point being that sensitive about it. OTOH, as Bob suggests, it may be symptomatic of a deeper divide between Pietersen and some of his team-mates. And of course, a player who has lost the trust of his captain and manager is not going to survive in the team. I'm no big fan of Pietersen, but the manner of his departure is very unfortunate.

[Mike Holmans]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:50:58 -0700 (PDT), Uday Rajan
<uday...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>And of course, a player who has lost the trust of his captain and manager is not going to survive in the team. I'm no big fan of Pietersen, but the manner of his departure is very unfortunate.

I'm not sure that it's right to talk of his departure yet. He's been
dropped for the next game, but I don't think it's forever.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Uday Rajan]

On Sunday, August 12, 2012 3:53:49 PM UTC-4, Mike Holmans wrote:

> I'm not sure that it's right to talk of his departure yet. He's been
> dropped for the next game, but I don't think it's forever.

Possibly not, but it's a very important match for England, and the "You are not welcome here" message has been sent loud and clear. It will be difficult for Pietersen to come back into the team, since he'll have to it entirely on their terms. I suspect he's too proud for that, and is more likely to turn into a Gayle-type mercenary instead. (Ironically, Gayle seems to have sorted out his differences with the WI management).

[Calvin]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:34:51 +1000, Mike Holmans

<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:07:30 +1000, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> tapped
> the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:47:14 +1000, Mike Holmans
>> <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I would argue that there is a big difference between the skills
>>>> and approach to playing T20 and 50 over cricket,
>>>
>>> Why? I'm with you on approach, but I'm not entirely sure on the skills
>>> side.
>>>
>>> True, there's probably room, and it's probably even desirable, to have
>>> a steady-as-she-goes batsman in a 50-over game which you might well
>>> want to replace with an out-and-out slogger in T20, but most of the
>>> skills are surely the same, aren't they?
>>
>> Not really. Pushing 1s and 2s for 30 overs is not a skill required for
>> T20.
>
> Knowing how to score at least a single or a two if you can't whack it
> over the boundary isn't a skill required in T20?

Well it rather depends pn whether the batsman realises he can't whack it
to the boundary before or after the ball has been delivered.

> You don't practice pushing singles "for 30 overs".

Some teams do, certainly Australia does. Why else bat Forrest and Clarke
at #3 and #4?

> The technical skills you use in T20 and F50 are the
> same: the difference lies in the mental approach.

I can't accept that. Keiron Pollard for example is a very good T20 player
but a very ordinary ODO player. And don't try to tell me he has >1 mental
approach :-)

--
cheers,
calvin

[Mike Holmans]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:12:19 -0700 (PDT), Uday Rajan

<uday...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

I think a rapprochement is still likely. I think the message isn't
"You're not welcome here" but "You still haven't apologised for those
texts properly, and quite frankly we could do without having to spend
every bloody press conference answering questions about *you* and
spending the rest of our time trying to patch things up between *you*
and everybody else this week, so wait until the Tests are over and
we'll have another talk. We're tired of your shenanigans, and we'll do
without you if we have to. The ball's in your court, matey."

KP can either come in and toe the line or he can bugger off. Not
playing international cricket will seriously harm his commercial
value, so I expect to see a line being toed in fairly short order. KP
may be dim, but he's not *that* dim, surely?

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 13, 3:33 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> KP can either come in and toe the line or he can bugger off. Not
> playing international cricket will seriously harm his commercial
> value, so I expect to see a line being toed in fairly short order. KP
> may be dim, but he's not *that* dim, surely?

You've got to wonder about his advisers/manager. Either KP doesn't
want to listen to them or they're not actually doing a good job for
him. Kind of like Botham and Hudson.

[Mike Holmans]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:53:35 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery
<mega...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

Just the parallel which was occurring to me.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 13, 6:49 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:53:35 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery

> >You've got to wonder about his advisers/manager. Either KP doesn't
> >want to listen to them or they're not actually doing a good job for
> >him. Kind of like Botham and Hudson.
>
> Just the parallel which was occurring to me.

Hmmm.... seems like Pietersen is managed by a company of which he
himself is a director. Maybe he has a fool for a client?

[Mike Holmans]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:09:40 -0700 (PDT), Bob Dubery

<mega...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

No question about it. He should never have taken such a troublesome
client on.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Vijay Sharma]

It's really unfortunate to see KP go this way and I hope this isn't the end...surely this is not the end. I think KP likes Test cricket and his own legend too much to let it all slip away.

Having said that I don't think KP not playing international cricket will reduce his status in the T20 market. He is not a newbie that needs to make his name in the international scene first...he has already made his name quite a lot. If T20 clubs around the world will offer him contracts it would be because they already know what he is capable of and how he has been performing in T20s. He has been hot in the IPL and I am not sure his worth to the owners of IPL teams will reduce any bit if he stops playing Test cricket for England.

It's like Gayle...Gayle was an established international cricketer already and him not playing for the West Indies did not reduce his worth in the T20 market even a bit. If KP decides to stop playing Test cricket then it won't hurt him financially very much because he will still pick up contracts playing T20 leagues around the world. However it will impact his legacy as a Test cricketer and I suspect that is more important to KP. So hopefully he will patch up with ECB and play Test cricket for all of us to enjoy his exploits.

[mike]

well i hope so, but i'm not counting on it. although hes now
restated his commitment to england, and apologised, i dont see
the ecb changing their decision suddenly. i dont see much
sign of support or sympathy for KP, although if englands
batters fail again and they crash to another heavy defeat
at Lords, the ecb might find themselves facing criticism.

He seems to have sent these texts in some childish
attempt to get even with certain members of the team
who he felt were following this parody of himself on
twitter set up by a friend of broads. this seems so
ridiculous that it surely could be resolved by a face
to face meeting between him and those involved. The
other problem of how to square his desire to
play in the IPL with a central contract is more difficult
to resolve, unless one side changes their position

It cant be good for the team just before an important
match, to have this sort of side show going on, and
on, which will be a distraction to players on and off
the field during the next test.

matt

[Vijay Sharma]

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:15:58 PM UTC+5:30, mike wrote:
> On 15 Aug, 15:29, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's really unfortunate to see KP go this way and I hope this isn't the end...surely this is not the end. I think KP likes Test cricket and his own legend too much to >let it all slip  away.
>
> >
>
> > Having said that I don't think KP not playing international cricket will reduce his status in the T20 market. He is not a newbie that needs to make his name in the >international scene first...he has already made his name quite a lot. If T20 clubs around the world will offer him contracts it would be because they already know >what he is capable of and how he has been performing in T20s. He has been hot in the IPL and I am not sure his worth to the owners of IPL teams will reduce any >bit if he stops playing Test cricket for England.
>
> >
>
> > It's like Gayle...Gayle was an established international cricketer already and him not playing for the West Indies did not reduce his worth in the T20 market even a >bit. If KP decides to stop playing Test cricket then it won't hurt him financially very much because he will still pick up contracts playing T20 leagues around the >world. However it will impact his legacy as a Test cricketer and I suspect that is more important to KP. So hopefully he will patch up with ECB and play Test >cricket for all of us to enjoy his exploits.
>
>
>
> well i hope so, but i'm not counting on it. although hes now
>
> restated his commitment to england, and apologised, i dont see
>
> the ecb changing their decision suddenly. i dont see much
>
> sign of support or sympathy for KP, although if englands
>
> batters fail again and they crash to another heavy defeat
>
> at Lords, the ecb might find themselves facing criticism.

I think ECB want him back on their terms. I am not sure how much pride KP will have to swallow but ECB will make him swallow his pride. If England do badly in the Lord's Test and ECB open themselves up to KP's demands then it would reflect very badly on them. Whatever the ECB does it should do it because it believes that is the best way to go, and it should be independent of the result of the Lord's Test.

>
>
>
> He seems to have sent these texts in some childish
>
> attempt to get even with certain members of the team
>
> who he felt were following this parody of himself on
>
> twitter set up by a friend of broads. this seems so
>
> ridiculous that it surely could be resolved by a face
>
> to face meeting between him and those involved.

I am not too sure KP has done something wrong here. Every one of us has cribbed about our boss to our friends at some point. I am sure every cricketer has cribbed about their captain / coach to friends whether in the same team or opposition. Besides these are private texts / conversations. Why must ECB insist on KP making it public?

The
>
> other problem of how to square his desire to
>
> play in the IPL with a central contract is more difficult
>
> to resolve, unless one side changes their position
>
>
>
> It cant be good for the team just before an important
>
> match, to have this sort of side show going on, and
>
> on, which will be a distraction to players on and off
>
> the field during the next test.

I actually feel that England may do well in the coming Test. They may feel the need to prove to themselves, KP, and the rest that they are a team that can perform even without KP in the side.

I also fear that SA might become a little complacent and might spend too much time laughing at England's state only for England to come really hard at them

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 16, 6:53 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:15:58 PM UTC+5:30, mike wrote:

<snip>

> I think ECB want him back on their terms. I am not sure how much pride KP will have to swallow but ECB will make him swallow his pride. If England do badly in the Lord's Test and ECB open themselves up to KP's demands then it would reflect very badly on them. Whatever the ECB does it should do it because it believes that is the best way to go, and it should be independent of the result of the Lord's Test.
>

KP's full of it. He complains he's playing too much cricket, and he
has played a lot, but he exacerbates the problem by playing IPL. If
he's concerned about time away from the family and so on then let him
drop IPL.

A lot of things don't add up, and one of them is Pietersen's whining
about how much cricket he has to play. But he plays IPL, is in
negotiations with teams for the BBL... then he turns around and says
he has too much cricket too play and he doesn't see his kids growing
up etc etc. Well if he said that to the IPL they're not going to say
"play less IPL" are they? So why should the ECB (who would have rested
him against the WI anyway if he hadn't ruled himself out of
contention) be expected to make concessions when some of the KP's
burden is nothing to do with them but signed up for by him.

>
>
> > He seems to have sent these texts in some childish
>
> > attempt to get even with certain members of the team
>
> > who he felt were following this parody of himself on
>
> > twitter set up by a friend of broads. this seems so
>
> > ridiculous that it surely could be resolved by a face
>
> > to face meeting between him and those involved.
>
> I am not too sure KP has done something wrong here. Every one of us has cribbed about our boss to our friends at some point. I am sure every cricketer has cribbed about their captain / coach to friends whether in the same team or opposition. Besides these are private texts / conversations. Why must ECB insist on KP making it public?

They didn't, did they?. Last I read was the ECB wanted him to confirm
or deny, to them, that he sent the messages, and if he did to say that
they were or were not critical of his captain. They did not ask for
the contents to be made public, and since they haven't seen them they
have no way of knowing if anything KP makes available is the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Nor do we. SA won't get
involved because they don't need the distraction.

We know now that he did, and he describes them as "provocative".

Strauss wants a chat with KP about the messages, but he wants to chat
to KP in private and Strauss is not the type to air dirty linen in
public.

[Vijay Sharma]

On Thursday, August 16, 2012 11:49:40 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> On Aug 16, 6:53 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:15:58 PM UTC+5:30, mike wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I think ECB want him back on their terms. I am not sure how much pride KP will have to swallow but ECB will make him swallow his pride. If England do badly in the Lord's Test and ECB open themselves up to KP's demands then it would reflect very badly on them. Whatever the ECB does it should do it because it believes that is the best way to go, and it should be independent of the result of the Lord's Test.
>
> >
>
> KP's full of it. He complains he's playing too much cricket, and he
>
> has played a lot, but he exacerbates the problem by playing IPL. If
>
> he's concerned about time away from the family and so on then let him
>
> drop IPL.
>
>
>
> A lot of things don't add up, and one of them is Pietersen's whining
>
> about how much cricket he has to play. But he plays IPL, is in
>
> negotiations with teams for the BBL... then he turns around and says
>
> he has too much cricket too play and he doesn't see his kids growing
>
> up etc etc. Well if he said that to the IPL they're not going to say
>
> "play less IPL" are they? So why should the ECB (who would have rested
>
> him against the WI anyway if he hadn't ruled himself out of
>
> contention) be expected to make concessions when some of the KP's
>
> burden is nothing to do with them but signed up for by him.

I can only guess but I think KP wants to play less of the meaningless ODIs. I am not too sure if IPL falls under that category...IPL is serious business but unnecessary 7 match ODOs are a boor. Indian board handles this burden on their players with a degree of common sense such that these kinda things don't become unnecessary controversies

>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > He seems to have sent these texts in some childish
>
> >
>
> > > attempt to get even with certain members of the team
>
> >
>
> > > who he felt were following this parody of himself on
>
> >
>
> > > twitter set up by a friend of broads. this seems so
>
> >
>
> > > ridiculous that it surely could be resolved by a face
>
> >
>
> > > to face meeting between him and those involved.
>
> >
>
> > I am not too sure KP has done something wrong here. Every one of us has cribbed about our boss to our friends at some point. I am sure every cricketer has cribbed about their captain / coach to friends whether in the same team or opposition. Besides these are private texts / conversations. Why must ECB insist on KP making it public?
>
>
>
> They didn't, did they?. Last I read was the ECB wanted him to confirm
>
> or deny, to them, that he sent the messages, and if he did to say that
>
> they were or were not critical of his captain. They did not ask for
>
> the contents to be made public, and since they haven't seen them they
>
> have no way of knowing if anything KP makes available is the truth,
>
> the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Nor do we. SA won't get
>
> involved because they don't need the distraction.
>
>
>
> We know now that he did, and he describes them as "provocative".
>
>
>
> Strauss wants a chat with KP about the messages, but he wants to chat
>
> to KP in private and Strauss is not the type to air dirty linen in
>
> public.

Yeah they didn't ask KP to make public the contents but why ask him to apologize? Every professional complains about his boss to friends and these are private things. It is rather stupid of an employer to punish people for such things

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 16, 9:52 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I can only guess but I think KP wants to play less of the meaningless ODIs. I am not too sure if IPL falls under that category...IPL is serious business but unnecessary 7 match ODOs are a boor. Indian board handles this burden on their players with a degree of common sense such that these kinda things don't become unnecessary controversies

KP's employers, the ECB, have made it plain that they intend to
protect 50 over cricket, and so they require their players who wish to
play one form of limited overs cricket to make themselves available
for both.

Now why might that be?

One reason is that ODI rubbers tend to be good earners for boards and
for teams. If enough players do a KP and decide that they'll play T20s
but not ODIs then the ODI brand becomes devalued and the board's (and
ultimately the players) income is threatened.

Extrapolating that, the ICC has a world cup tournament that is built
around a 50 over contract. Now say it's time for the next world cup
but (to use examples, I'm not saying that any players have made such
demands or decisions) KP, Morgan and Broad are not available for
England; SRT, Sehwag and Dhoni have decided that they want to play 20
overs only and are not available for 50 over matches; Smith and Steyn
say "no thanks" for South Africa and so on. Now you start to get a
devalued CWC and sponsors and public become less keen to shell out the
usual amounts.

OK... so the boards can take care of that by picking those players
anyway because after a couple of seasons of swearing off ODIs they are
now keen to play on the biggest 50-over stage of all. But now what do
you say to the players who DID stick by the board and it's aims and
DID make themselves available for both matches and who filled the
breach whilst the stars, who said they wanted no part of ODIs, were
off doing whatever else they were doing suddenly decide they'd like
their places back?

I don't, BTW, think this is an English problem. With more leagues
coming on - Pietersen has been in contact with BBL franchises, and SA
are thought to be launching their own version of the IPL - we are
going to start seeing this scenario playing out more often.

So *IF* Pietersen wants to put IPL ahead of international fixtures,
and if more players make similar calls then they end up threatening
the income of their own boards and their team mates AND the ICC's show
piece tournament.

Plus it must be becoming both tedious and distracting for Strauss and
the ECB to have to spend time explaining what KP has done this week
and what they're going to do about it when they have important matches
to prepare for. Stuart Broad, who will be quite aware of how much the
next test match means to England, had to drive down to London, meet
with officials to assure them that he nothing to do with the Twitter
account that KP objected to and then draft a statement (which the ECB
would need to vet) and then issue that to the press.

It's the tail wagging the dog. It's doing nobody any good.

[John Hall]

In article
<e915860d-5072-4cb9...@p12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

Bob Dubery <mega...@gmail.com> writes:
>Stuart Broad, who will be quite aware of how much the
>next test match means to England, had to drive down to London, meet
>with officials to assure them that he nothing to do with the Twitter
>account that KP objected to and then draft a statement (which the ECB
>would need to vet) and then issue that to the press.

And currently Broad is the England T20 captain, which won't do KP's
chances of playing in the T20 World Cup, which he has said he wants to
do, any good.

[mike]

On 16 Aug, 10:04, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 9:52 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> now keen to play on the biggest 50-over stage of all. But now what do
> you say to the players who DID stick by the board and it's aims and
> DID make themselves available for both matches and who filled the
> breach whilst the stars, who said they wanted no part of ODIs, were
> off doing whatever else they were doing suddenly decide they'd like
> their places back?

yep its leading to an invidious situation. but isnt that what
happens with some of the weaker nations? eg Gayle.

>
> I don't, BTW, think this is an English problem. With more leagues
> coming on - Pietersen has been in contact with BBL franchises, and SA
> are thought to be launching their own version of the IPL - we are
> going to start seeing this scenario playing out more often.
>

this is what i was wondering. it seems the BCCI & NZ allow their
players to do just that. I assume other boards dont have
central contracts as strict as ECB.

> So *IF* Pietersen wants to put IPL ahead of international fixtures,
> and if more players make similar calls then they end up threatening
> the income of their own boards and their team mates AND the ICC's show
> piece tournament.

however it seems as if the IPL is not the force it was, and may be
declining: a flash in the pan?

>
> Plus it must be becoming both tedious and distracting for Strauss and
> the ECB to have to spend time explaining what KP has done this week
> and what they're going to do about it when they have important matches
> to prepare for. Stuart Broad, who will be quite aware of how much the
> next test match means to England, had to drive down to London, meet
> with officials to assure them that he nothing to do with the Twitter
> account that KP objected to and then draft a statement (which the ECB
> would need to vet) and then issue that to the press.
>
> It's the tail wagging the dog. It's doing nobody any good.

Well it certainly wont help england win the next test. Its a total
farce since
the last test: a soap opera for the media. Suddenly all this
resentment
and distrust has exploded onto the public stage. Not a pretty sight.

mike

[Vijay Sharma]

On Thursday, August 16, 2012 10:17:58 PM UTC+5:30, mike wrote:

> however it seems as if the IPL is not the force it was, and may be
>
> declining: a flash in the pan?

LOL! Seriously?

[Vijay Sharma]

I totally understand what you are saying and I do think it potentially may lead to a problem. However, it is not in the realm of unsolvable problems...just a bit of common sense will facilitate many solutions. How does BCCI manage to get their marquee players play all 3 formats (or 2 in case of Sachin) without any contractual issues?

In the meaningless 5 ODI series with SL that happened recently Sachin was given a break. Viru and Zak also took a break once the series was won and came back home. Probably even Dhoni would have taken a break had the selectors included one more wicket keeper in the squad.

You are imagining an extreme situation where there is anarchy and all players pull away from every side. It need not come to that if only the boards can manage things with a commons sense approach.

Mike feels the IPL is a flash in the pan. That is not true...it actually seems more like wishful thinking than anything to do with reality. IPL 5 was a major success. I think the IPL is here to stay and it would make sense for boards like WI and England to adjust their schedules by a week or two to allow their marquee players to participate in the IPL.

Of course this raises the question that other leagues will also need to be given this benefit. Fact is that all other leagues happen around a time that coincides with the main season of many Test playing countries unlike IPL which takes away hardly a couple of weeks of a maximum of 2 Test playing countries. Secondly the other leagues do not provide the kind of financial incentive that IPL does so from a player perspective IPL wins hands down.

I am not advocating that Test cricket be subdued for T20. Far from it. All I am saying is for the benefit of all, adjusting your schedules by 1 or 2 weeks to let the marquee players play the IPL is a common sense thing.

Coming back to KP, I think ECB can handle him better. Agreed he can be a twat and behave like a prima donna but other boards have managed the family-life-and-time-away-from-cricket of even bigger names with common sense. This fiasco is also giving credence to the argument that ECB is being unnecessarily tough with KP's needs because he is not "English enough" which may not be the truth although I wouldn't blame anyone for feeling so.

Something needs to give and hopefully it will coz KP is too good a player from the fans' perspective to be lost to this stupidity

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 16, 6:47 pm, mike <dmike...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16 Aug, 10:04, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> yep its leading to an invidious situation. but isnt that what
> happens with some of the weaker nations? eg Gayle.

Gayle has said he's available in all forms of the game. At the time he
and the WICB kissed and made up he would have had existing contracts,
so we'll have to see what happens there.

>
>
>
> > I don't, BTW, think this is an English problem. With more leagues
> > coming on - Pietersen has been in contact with BBL franchises, and SA
> > are thought to be launching their own version of the IPL - we are
> > going to start seeing this scenario playing out more often.
>
> this is what i was wondering. it seems the BCCI & NZ allow their
> players to do just that. I assume other boards dont have
> central contracts as strict as ECB.

NZ probably don't have the money. BCCI can hardly stop their players
from participating in IPL as they have a stake in that tournament and
it's scheduling and their own are dovetailed. But things may get
trickier for them in the future.

>
> > So *IF* Pietersen wants to put IPL ahead of international fixtures,
> > and if more players make similar calls then they end up threatening
> > the income of their own boards and their team mates AND the ICC's show
> > piece tournament.
>
> however it seems as if the IPL is not the force it was, and may be
> declining: a flash in the pan?

Maybe. But other leagues are on their way, so the probability of
clashes between a board and a player over availability remain.
<snip>

> Well it certainly wont help england win the next test. Its a total
> farce since
> the last test: a soap opera for the media. Suddenly all this
> resentment
> and distrust has exploded onto the public stage. Not a pretty sight.

KP's absence from the ODI side hasn't hurt England much.

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 17, 7:08 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Mike feels the IPL is a flash in the pan. That is not true...it actually seems more like wishful thinking than anything to do with reality. IPL 5 was a major success. I think the IPL is here to stay and it would make sense for boards like WI and England to adjust their schedules by a week or two to allow their marquee players to participate in the IPL.

Would that solve the problem? KP's gripe - or the gripe he stated in
public - is that he plays too much. Assuming that's his real concern,
a window period in which England do not schedule any internationals is
not going to reduce the amount of cricket he plays.

Besides, the ECB are entitled to take the view that charity begins at
home. With their current sponsorship and TV rights deals they have to
play a certain number of matches in a home season. Make a window for
IPL and you shorten the time period in which you can stage those
fixtures.

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 16, 6:47 pm, mike <dmike...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

> this is what i was wondering. it seems the BCCI & NZ allow their
> players to do just that. I assume other boards dont have
> central contracts as strict as ECB.

NZ have a deal with their players such that the players can play five
weeks of IPL per year. The franchise plays 10% of the player's salary
to the NZ board. CI reports that a NZ player in the IPL can make more
in those 5 weeks than the NZ board pay them in a year. Clearly with
that kind of pay imbalance NZ have got to try to find and
accommodation or just kiss their best players good bye.

This article
http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/story/567076.html
shows how many things come into play. NZ have a deal that allows their
players 5 weeks in IPL. In return they promise to do their best to
ensure that there is no clash between their international commitments
and that 5 week window - but they can't force other boards to play
along.

England and NZ are both constrained by the ICC FTP (both sides must
honour that) and the ECB has contractual obligations which place it
under constraints as to how often they must play at home in season and
when.

[Vijay Sharma]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 11:48:14 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> On Aug 17, 7:08 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mike feels the IPL is a flash in the pan. That is not true...it actually seems more like wishful thinking than anything to do with reality. IPL 5 was a major success. I think the IPL is here to stay and it would make sense for boards like WI and England to adjust their schedules by a week or two to allow their marquee players to participate in the IPL.
>
>
>
> Would that solve the problem? KP's gripe - or the gripe he stated in
>
> public - is that he plays too much. Assuming that's his real concern,
>
> a window period in which England do not schedule any internationals is
>
> not going to reduce the amount of cricket he plays.
>

"Too much" is relative. In KP's books (and I suspect any professional's including you and me) playing T20 for 6 weeks AND earning close to a couple million may not be "too much" when compared to say one month of meaningless ODIs.

As a professional I would love to have a job where I can make money doing something that I like (T20) for 6 weeks earning 10 times the amount I do when compared to something I don't (meaningless ODIs round the year).

>
>
> Besides, the ECB are entitled to take the view that charity begins at
>
> home. With their current sponsorship and TV rights deals they have to
>
> play a certain number of matches in a home season. Make a window for
>
> IPL and you shorten the time period in which you can stage those
>
> fixtures.

ECB are entitled to do whatever they want or believe is in the betterment of English cricket. However, I do not understand why they had to go and schedule 2 Tests with NZ at a time when they knew more than half the NZ team will be playing the IPL. Is it in the best interests of ECB to play a half decent NZ side? I don't know. Even if the schedule was decided years before, why can't the ECB allow KP to play the full IPL season knowing very well half the NZ team will be missing the first Test just like KP.

Besides if next year does not change ECB's itch to have a series right in the middle of May then pretty soon they will realize no one will be willing to tour them at that time except maybe Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

This fighting the tide just because the tide was created by someone else is just a function of egos. Not many boards stopped their players from playing county cricket in the past. Why can't the ECB adjust a bit for the sake of its players? In the meanwhile if the duration of IPL also can be reduced by a week or two then it will work out fine.

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 17, 11:58 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Friday, August 17, 2012 11:48:14 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 7:08 am, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Mike feels the IPL is a flash in the pan. That is not true...it actually seems more like wishful thinking than anything to do with reality. IPL 5 was a major success. I think the IPL is here to stay and it would make sense for boards like WI and England to adjust their schedules by a week or two to allow their marquee players to participate in the IPL.
>
> > Would that solve the problem? KP's gripe - or the gripe he stated in
>
> > public - is that he plays too much. Assuming that's his real concern,
>
> > a window period in which England do not schedule any internationals is
>
> > not going to reduce the amount of cricket he plays.
>
> "Too much" is relative. In KP's books (and I suspect any professional's including you and me) playing T20 for 6 weeks AND earning close to a couple million may not be "too much" when compared to say one month of meaningless ODIs.

Sure. But that's on the concerns he's voiced: too many games
(ironically England intended to rest him for the WI ODIs anyway). If
you try to fit in the same number of international fixtures AND leave
window for the IPL (which is what you suggested) then in no way does
that reduce the amount of cricket to be played.

Now I'm sure that KP is not so stupid that he hasn't done the maths
and figured out that he can make a couple of million in 6 weeks and
that's very attractive to him, but in public at least he's insisted
that it's not about money (which I, personally, don't believe).

Anyway, it's not the ECB's problem. They have to commit to a certain
number of home fixtures because of commercial deals that they have
done and because of the FTP. If KP thinks or says he has too much
cricket, why should THEY be the ones to concede when he's still happy
to go and subject his knackered body to the demands of the IPL?

I've said before that the BCCI are perfectly entitled to act as they
judge to be in their best interest. So is KP. So are the ECB. But
a) there is no way to satisfy the interests of all parties involved.
b) it is likely that at least one of the parties involved is not
actually lying but also not actually telling the whole truth.

>
> As a professional I would love to have a job where I can make money doing something that I like (T20) for 6 weeks earning 10 times the amount I do when compared to something I don't (meaningless ODIs round the year).

Sure. KP can do that if he wants. Nobody's stopping him.

>
>
>
> > Besides, the ECB are entitled to take the view that charity begins at
>
> > home. With their current sponsorship and TV rights deals they have to
>
> > play a certain number of matches in a home season. Make a window for
>
> > IPL and you shorten the time period in which you can stage those
>
> > fixtures.
>
> ECB are entitled to do whatever they want or believe is in the betterment of English cricket. However, I do not understand why they had to go and schedule 2 Tests with NZ at a time when they knew more than half the NZ team will be playing the IPL. Is it in the best interests of ECB to play a half decent NZ side? I don't know. Even if the schedule was decided years before, why can't the ECB allow KP to play the full IPL season knowing very well half the NZ team will be missing the first Test just like KP.

We don't know when the fixtures were agreed. We do know that the NZ
board tried to shift the fixtures so that they don't clash with the 5
week window they allow their players. But England wouldn't budge. As
their next home series, immediately after NZ, is an Ashes series -
thus will have 5 tests - this is not surprising.

Again it's a clash of interests. There is no way to satisfy entirely
the desires of the NZ players who have signed for IPL, the NZ board
and the ECB.

And, frankly, it's not the ECB's problem, just like it's not SA's
problem that England have decided to not pick their best player.

In fact implied in the ECB's stance about this tour and about KP is
that they are going to take every measure that they can to ensure that
they are at full strength. They understand that this doesn't fit with
the plans of Himself, but they are willing to play hardball on the
matter. Which, admittedly, is easier for them than for NZ because they
can offer better salaries to contracted players in the first place.

[Vijay Sharma]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 4:29:11 PM UTC+5:30, Bob Dubery wrote:
Bob, I think we are going in circles and I don't quite think we may come to a common ground on this issue. I maintain that the KP fiasco can be sorted out with a common sense approach by ECB instead of being uptight about the whole thing. Many boards handle such situations with a common sense approach and the most obvious example is that of BCCI's handling of Sachin.

I am not too sure whether you are of the view that ECB is doing the right thing rather you understand ECB's reasons for their stance. I understand ECB's reasons too but I definitely do not agree with it. I guess that is the subtle difference in both of ours takes on the KP fiasco.

KP is possibly the best batsman to play for England since Hutton and Barrington - that is going back almost half a century. Why waste such a talent and an obvious fan-puller for the sake of ego appeasements of the ECB big shots. It's a lose-lose for all concerned and although we fans lose nothing financially but we lose the opportunity to watch the best English bat for half a century play a few more years in a format that we all love so much - Test cricket.

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 17, 6:22 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>

> KP is possibly the best batsman to play for England since Hutton and Barrington - that is going back almost half a century. Why waste such a talent and an obvious fan-puller for the sake of ego appeasements of the ECB big shots.

POTENTIALLY. Now I know averages aren't everything, and certainly not
across eras, but look at KP against some contemporaries. KP averages 1
run more per innings than Cook. Now Cook is a fine player (who sees
more of the new ball than KP), but he's not being talked about as the
next Hutton. KP averages less than Smith (who also got to the 7000 run
mark quicker) and significantly less than Kallis.

So, yes, he can play knocks of the very highest quality, as he did at
Headingley, but he's not doing the business that often actually.

[John Hall]

In article
<189353eb-5452-4852...@ft6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Bob Dubery <mega...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Aug 16, 6:47�pm, mike <dmike...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 16 Aug, 10:04, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> yep its leading to an invidious situation. but isnt that what
>> happens with some of the weaker nations? eg Gayle.
>Gayle has said he's available in all forms of the game. At the time he
>and the WICB kissed and made up he would have had existing contracts,
>so we'll have to see what happens there.

<snip>

Yes, it appears that Gayle decided that he wanted to play in Tests after
all. At the time when he and the WIBC first fell out, a couple of years
ago, he seemed to think that Tests were of no consequence.

[Brian Lawrence]

On 17/08/2012 17:22, Vijay Sharma wrote:

> KP is possibly the best batsman to play for England since Hutton and Barrington -
> that is going back almost half a century.

On his day perhaps, but there have been an awful lot of days when he was
crap. Part of the problem is that he probably believes that and his
advisers and 'friends' keep telling him that.

I don't read/watch all of the media, but I did read an article which
said that there are zero players, ex-players or cricket writers who have
made any public statement in support of his position.

It's only my opinion, but I can't see Strauss, Cook or Broad wanting
him back in their England teams for some time, but maybe it depends on
what he actually tells them face to face. I think one recent 'apology'
was written & emailed by one of his PR people.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

[Vijay Sharma]

On Saturday, August 18, 2012 12:51:51 AM UTC+5:30, Brian Lawrence wrote:
> On 17/08/2012 17:22, Vijay Sharma wrote:
>
>
>
> > KP is possibly the best batsman to play for England since Hutton and Barrington -
>
> > that is going back almost half a century.
>
>
>
> On his day perhaps, but there have been an awful lot of days when he was
>
> crap.

My response to Bob puts his performance in perspective

[Vijay Sharma]

He has a decent average...around the 50 mark but his greatness is not just in the stats. It is based on the style of his play, his ability to dominate the opposition and win games almost single-handedly (I know its a team game and single-handedly needs to be understood in that context). In my cricket watching days since 1984/85, which is not much compared to you, I haven't seen a better English batsman.

An average around the 50 mark after 88 Tests necessarily means that he has been fairly consistent. 21 hundreds from 150 odd innings is a century every 7.5 innings which is fairly consistent. It is similar to Cook's (20 from 145). Even conversion rates of KP and Cook are in the same ballpark - KP's 100s:50s is 21:27 whereas Cook's is 20:29. Comparison to Kallis is not necessary because I have clearly stated that KP is the best English batsman not the best batsman across the world. The only guy who comes close to KP in the last 5 decades is Cook - you know at least a 100 innings and averaging around 50 with a century every 8-9 innings or less

Cook does not instill fear in the opposition ranks like KP does. Stats can act as a shortlisting criterion to pick great batsmen. But once you shortlist based on stats it is left to subjective criteria like style of play, value to the team, value in the opposition dressing room, etc that will determine who is a great batsmen and who is a very good batsman.

[Andrew B]

On 17/08/2012 20:50, Vijay Sharma wrote:

> The only guy who comes close to KP in the last 5 decades is Cook -
> you know at least a 100 innings and averaging around 50 with a century
> every 8-9 innings or less

England batsmen in the last 50 years with 2000+ runs, an average of 45+
and at least one century every 9 innings (not complete career for
Barrington & Cowdrey):

Ken Barrington : 4553 @ 63.23, 14x100 in 82 innings
Jonathan Trott : 2613 @ 50.25, 7x100 in 58 innings
Kevin Pietersen: 7076 @ 49.48, 21x100 in 151 innings
Alastair Cook : 6552 @ 48.17, 20x100 in 145 innings
Geoff Boycott : 8114 @ 47.72, 22x100 in 193 innings
Ian Bell : 5523 @ 47.20, 16x100 in 134 innings
Colin Cowdrey : 3986 @ 46.89, 12x100 in 96 innings
Dennis Amiss : 3612 @ 46.30, 11x100 in 88 innings

You could make a case for Pietersen being the best for
non-average-related reasons, but it's nonsense to say that "only Cook is
close to KP" in the figures you've cited.

[Bob Dubery]

On Aug 17, 9:50 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>

> He has a decent average...around the 50 mark but his greatness is not just in the stats. It is based on the style of his play, his ability to dominate the opposition and win games almost single-handedly (I know its a team game and single-handedly needs to be understood in that context). In my cricket watching days since 1984/85, which is not much compared to you, I haven't seen a better English batsman.

Oh, when he's good he's VERY good.But he's not setting the world on
fire often enough. Nobody talks about Smith and Cook being the next
Compton/Pollock/Hutton/whoever, but KP's record is slightly better
than Cook and every so slightly worse than Smith's. I'd agree that
neither Smith nor Cook could play the sort of knock that KP played at
Headingley, but KP isn't playing those knocks very often either.

[jzfredricks]

On Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:09:41 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
> Oh, when he's good he's VERY good.But he's not setting the world on
> fire often enough. Nobody talks about Smith and Cook being the next
> Compton/Pollock/Hutton/whoever, but KP's record is slightly better
> than Cook and every so slightly worse than Smith's. I'd agree that
> neither Smith nor Cook could play the sort of knock that KP played at
> Headingley, but KP isn't playing those knocks very often either.

A few points of average, here and there, don't make much difference.
I wonder if another way to look at things are MoM awards?

The MoM awards in the past 2 years;
KP 4
Broad 3
Cook 3
Trott 2
Bell 1
Bresnan 1
Tremlett 1

Thankfully they don't record GotM (Git of the Month).

[Vijay Sharma]

When I meant 5 decades I discounted the 60s - I already said KP is the best after Barrington. Cowdrey was a peer of Compton, May and Barrington. Ammiss, Trott, yet played 100 innings. Agree with Bell but I am not sure he really is in the class fo KP.

Besides the reason to bring stats in was to argue for KP's consistency w.r.t other English bats. He is as consistent as any of the above and has somethign more than any of the others - an X-factor that instills fear in the opposition.

I dunno much about Cowdrey but the rest of the bats there do not exactly instill fear in the opposition camp now, do they?

Greatness is beyond just numbers. That is were KP trumps all of the above (maybe Barrington excepted)

[John Hall]

In article <366d5901-60fc-4fdf...@googlegroups.com>,

Vijay Sharma <viz.nirva...@gmail.com> writes:
>He has a decent average...around the 50 mark but his greatness is
>not just in the stats. It is based on the style of his play, his ability to
>dominate the opposition and win games almost single-handedly (I
>know its a team game and single-handedly needs to be
>understood in that context). In my cricket watching days since
>1984/85, which is not much compared to you, I haven't seen a
>better English batsman.

I'd agree that there hasn't been a better one over that period. After
Gooch took over the England captaincy he would come closest. (His
average might not be as high as KP's, but there aren't so many top
quality fast bowlers around now as there were in Gooch's day and also
pitches now might on the whole be a bit better for batsmen.)

If you consider all post-war England batsmen, Hutton, Compton, May and
Barrington would come into consideration. Of those only Compton could
take an attack apart and transform a match as rapidly as KP.

All that said, I still think that England were right to drop him. It's
very sad.

[patt...@gmail.com]

I'd put in a word for Gower, not quite as good statistically but in my opinion he played in an era much more difficult for batsmen, better attacks and more difficult wickets.

Similar to KP in that he ran hot and cold and also had the ability to tear an attack apart, not as brutally as KP but certainly just as effectively. Gower also seemed to only play seriously against strong teams, still remember him murdering the Aussies in 85.

[Andrew B]

On 19/08/2012 13:47, patt...@gmail.com wrote:

> I'd put in a word for Gower, not quite as good statistically but in my opinion he played in an era much more difficult for batsmen, better attacks and more difficult wickets.
>
> Similar to KP in that he ran hot and cold and also had the ability to tear an attack apart, not as brutally as KP but certainly just as effectively. Gower also seemed to only play seriously against strong teams, still remember him murdering the Aussies in 85.

You could have picked a better example than that... the main Aussie
attack in 1985 was a promising 20-year-old (McDermott: 30@30), a
semi-fit Lawson (22@37), and two back-up bowlers who each had one good
innings: Holland (6@77) and O'Donnell (6@81). I doubt England faced a
weaker attack throughout the 80s: Gatting, Gower, Robinson and Gooch all
average over 50.

[patt...@gmail.com]

True, I should have worded it differently, I just meant it was particularly memorable for me because I stayed up to watch just about every minute broadcast and Gower looked supreme. Also, Gatt was just at the start of probably the best period of his career, we all know Gooch was a fine player and coming back from the ban, also at the time Robinson totally looked the goods, I guess until the Windies pummeled him.