While the cleanup act continues surrounding the mess made by the English Cricket Board (ECB) in the handling of Kevin Pietersen’s sacking, one thing has become glaringly obvious for the power brokers at ECB headquarters. Something must change.
Arguably England’s greatest ever batsman was discarded without so much as a ‘thanks for the memories’.
A cricket dressing room will never be composed of 11 players that are conformists and yes men. Pietersen openly admits in his autobiography that he won’t “march in step” if he doesn’t feel it is right, and nor should he.
Cricket is a game of 11 individuals pulling together for the good of a team. A mercurial and once-in-a-generation talent like Pietersen is good for any team. He brings some extra challenges into the dressing room, but the way in which they were handled shows just how inept the ECB can be.
Where the ECB and England coaching hierarchy have failed is in their complete lack of basic man management, which for a professional body is nothing short of a shambles. This is a country with world renowned man managers like Sir Alex Ferguson, who handled characters with bigger egos than Pietersen and still became the most successful boss in British football history. Serious inquiries are needed to make sure this kind of mistake doesn’t happen again.
Pietersen has a big ego, there is no escaping that. But a by-product of this is a fanatical drive to dispatch opposition bowlers to all parts of the field, and his one mindedness in knowing what he needs to do to prepare to play. So if he wanted to sit out a meaningless warm-up game in favour of relaxing his body and mind, why wasn’t he allowed to?
Perhaps most crucially of all, why was he constantly held at arm’s length by head coach Andy Flower, a man and coach he should be able to confide in and be supported by, not treated like a pariah?
For a player with a proven track record in big games, surely it was not beyond the realms of possibility for the ECB and coaching staff to allow Pietersen the measures he felt appropriate for getting the best out of himself. An extra few days with his family or an extra day off from the intense pressure of international cricket are not unreasonable to ensure the happiness of your greatest player.
Under the argument of team unity and cohesion he was ostracised and sacrificed so English cricket could move in a new direction and look towards the future. A future that looks all the less exciting without their brightest star.
ChrisB
Guest
Averages mean very little. He's a march winner. Cook, while an essential batsman, isn't. Ideally you have both kinds of players. He's a tool but was handled awfully. To quote the early career averages of Root and Ballance is also hardly relevant. When they've had years facing attacks like ours and the Saffirs, then it might be a relevant comparison
Monday's Expert
Guest
"Michael Vaughan - It's just very sad" "I just find everything that I am reading and hearing very sad," said Vaughan in his Telegraph column. "There has been so much fallout over the last year involving Kevin Pietersen and the England dressing room, and I cannot understand why it was not managed better. "People will say, 'Oh, it’s all about Kevin.' Yes, of course it is. But ask any great sportsman and he will tell you: 'It’s all about me.' That’s what makes them great. "I have said for a long time that Kevin is one of the easiest players that I managed. It is important to speak honestly to him – to give him direction, freedom, and confidence to express his talents. If you did that, I felt he was always behind you."
Vistro
Guest
but FTR ,KP was the X-factor player in England because he was a price wicket in the opposition, currently X-factor players which can cause serious damage if you don't get them early on, in their respective teams are. AB DE Villiers -SA Virat Kohli -Ind David Warner-Aus Sangakarra-SL
FTR
Guest
Nonsense. Pietersen himself states in the book that a team needs to be happy to win. Pietersen, clearly, was making a lot of people unhappy. These guys spend 250 days a year in each other's company. If one of their number is a prize berk, they simply won't succeed. Every coach and every captain has the right to set a team's culture - if one person doesn't want to conform, that's his problem, not theirs. It's not as if Pietersen was averaging ten runs more than everybody else. His average was largely the same as Cook's, Trott's and Bell's. (KP 47.28; Trott 46.45, Cook 46.02, Bell 45.00). The guys who replaced Pietersen are averaging far more than he did - Ballance 61 and Root 50. If one guy performs scarcely any better than his team-mates, but causes twice as much trouble, why on earth would you keep him on?
Silver Sovereign
Guest
good article mr prime minister, sir!