Is Kevin Pietersen a symptom or the cause of England's issues?

Poor KP. Legitimately. Love him or hate him, you have to sympathise with him in some way.

He’s arguably England’s greatest batsman of the modern generation and, despite all his best efforts, is labelled “mistrustful” and not allowed back in the middle of an unproven England batting order.

As a saga, this has captivated me. It’s very rare in a time where players spew politically correct platitudes through clenched teeth that you see a man speaking his mind. And he’s got a lot to say.

The question for me, though, has been whether Pietersen has been the cause of mediocre England performances and dressing room disputes, or is he a symptom of a hierarchy that possibly isn’t all that well-organised.

The hero-Pietersen first emerged in 2005. The mercurial talent with the two-tone ‘skunk’ haircut came into an experienced middle order, and played some electrifying innings that helped England regain the Ashes for the first time in almost 20 years.

Unusually tall for a batsman, Pietersen’s aggressive mindset captured not just English cricket fans, but fans around the world. Since then he has gone on to rack up over 13,000 runs in international cricket, and over 30 international centuries.

However, despite his obvious talents, Pietersen’s time in English cricket was not charmed in any way. The brash and often arrogant persona he displayed on-field appeared to ruffle feathers in the English team, and in 2012 he was embroiled in a texting saga with the South African Test side. At this time, Pietersen was accused of bad mouthing his English teammates to some of the South African side (South Africa being his native country).

Then came the 2013-14 Ashes series, which begot another famous 5-0 whitewash. Despite Pietersen being the team’s leading runscorer in the series, his disagreements with then-coach Andy Flower and other senior members of the England side led to his sacking as an England cricketer. Since this time, he has been fighting hard to get back into the English line-up, even forgoing part of a lucrative IPL contract this year to play county cricket in an effort to get runs on the board.

But, as we’ve found out in recent days, it has all been to no avail, with new cricket chief (and former captain) Andrew Strauss telling Pietersen that he was not going to be in contention for the English side.

Pietersen’s biggest crime has always been not being English. I’m not saying that he doesn’t consider himself English, or doesn’t take pride in playing under the navy blue of the England side – after all they were the ones who gave him a chance after he left South Africa for that very reason. But the one way that Pietersen is not English is that he doesn’t accept defeat. He plays to win, and if he loses he will do everything in his power to win next time.

In that way his reaction compared to that of the England set-up after the 2013-14 Ashes whitewash was completely different. Where he was no longer going to accept defeat or mediocrity, many of his colleagues all-but politely applauded the Australians for out-playing them. Where Australia’s Ashes loss at home in 2010-11 led to the Argus review and an in-depth look at the state of cricket in the country, there was no such reaction from the ECB with the calamitous defeat against an Australian side that they considered inferior to them before going into the series.

Yes, there was a coaching change and some questions asked, but there will be minimal personnel or mindset changes in the players who will line up for the first Ashes Test in England in the coming months. It’s this sort of attitude that has precipitated decades of mediocrity in English sport.

What a different story it would have been had Pietersen stayed as a South African, or even been an Australian. For either of these sides, a player like Pietersen would never have been dropped for “trust issues”, but instead rewarded for his runs. That’s not to say that his attitude problems would not have been brought into line, but just because you have a big personality doesn’t make you a bad team man.

Read these names in Australian and South African cricket over the last 10 years or so: Ricky Ponting, Graeme Smith, the Waugh twins, Dale Steyn, Matthew Hayden, Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Herschelle Gibbs. Each of these players had a big personality and often polarising effects on the media and fans alike. But their teams supported them and they each developed into some of the best cricketers their nation has seen.

This kind of support has not been provided to Pietersen by the England setup, and has likely been to the detriment of both parties. His autobiography – oh that book! – seems to suggest that, on the contrary, the England dressing room has been filled with cliques of senior players bullying others (Pietersen included) who refuse to conform with the norm; i.e copping defeat on the chin.

If any of this is true, which would not surprise me, you can only draw the conclusion that Pietersen is definitely a symptom of the current England malaise, and far from a cause.

But realistically, and this is an Australian saying this, England are mad not to pick him. He’s just come off the biggest score in his first-class career, and continues to say he would love nothing more than to play for England again. He has a good couple of years left in him, and could provide valuable experience in a still-green middle order.

Yet the ECB are isolating both their public, who want to see an entertainer like Pietersen play for them, and emerging players, who are being told that it is not your level of performance or skills that will see you picked.

One final thought: wouldn’t it be great to see KP throw caution to the wind and declare himself available to play for South Africa? And then get picked? That would show ’em.