Cricket
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 204 comments are related to the topic:
KP commits to england in all forms of cricket
KP commits to england in all forms of cricket
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 204
|
By:
Here is a stat for you Max and.
Excluding wins against minnows, Strauss has a tests won to tests lost ratio of 1.68. Not exactly up with the 6.0+ of Gilchrist, but fairly respectable all the same. Pietersen's equivalent? 1.32. For the record, we know Pietersen's ODI winning % is 39. Strauss also has a winning ODI % of 39. And Strauss is hand picked by none other than you. There will be many current England players with better win %'s in test cricket than Pietersen. If this bloke is such a match winner, why is it not coming out in these comparisons? |
|
By:
M&P. my apologies - i thought you were referring exclusively to his ashes performances, the preceding sentences certainly allude to it (i assumed the 2010 for bopara was a typo).
i'm not arguing that he isn't very good, but he is not the sole architect of england's success; he has provided many performances which contributed to england winning matches, and once or twice performances which exclusively governed the outcome. but other players have done the same, albeit perhaps not with the same frequency, but he is not the sole match winner. and i admitted my slight exaggeration on the double ton, but as i said it was but one of three main performances which forged the victory. |
|
By:
Eradicate 16 Aug 12 00:21
First, his batting average. Or more correctly, the amount of runs he has scored per dismissal over his whole career. By this criteria you have Trott ahead of him. That would seem a fairly crude and antiquated way way to measure a player's worth to me. The average itself tells you nothing of when the runs have been scored and the effect on results. A batsman's average does not tell the whole story, but it's usually a pretty good guide. For instance, I know very little about Graeme Pollock, but a batsman who averages almost 61 after 23 Tests must be pretty handy. Ditto, a batsman who averages almost 50 after 88 Tests. In 200 years, someone will see that Mark Ramprakash averaged 27 from 52 Tests and think, "He wasn't a very good Test batsman." Ramprakash played some important Test innings, but ultimately he was not a very good Test batsman. As I said, the average is usually a pretty good guide. Then you move on to centuries scored. Why should this be of any significance? It certainly should not be of greater significance for instance than scores under 10, of which Pietersen has 36 from 151 test innings. So about once every four innings he is dismissed under 10. Whereas sometimes the value of a century in relation to the outcome of a match can be questionable, dismissals under 10 would almost always be significant. What do you mean, "Why should this (centuries scored) be of any significance"? While a striker in football is not solely judged on his goals and a winger in rugby isn't just there to score tries, it's a pretty important part of their roles. The same goes for batsmen and centuries. You're not 100% wrong. To transfer your point to football, a goal in a 1-0 win over the champions is indeed more important than two goals in a 6-0 win over a poor team. And yes, a crucial 50 in a low-scoring Test or a five-hour occupation of the crease to save a match is more of an achievement than 150 against Bangladesh. But scoring centuries is what batsmen are there to do, and Pietersen is pretty good at that. Incidentally, I would also say your claims about Centuries v Scores under 10 are wrong, but it's too late to get too involved in that. Then you quote double centuries. Pietersen's first came against WI at Leeds. Had he not made a single run in that match the result would unarguably have been precisely the same, so it has no significance in relation to the match result. His second, against Australia in Adelaide was significant in influencing the result, but not moreso than the contributions of Anderson, Cook, and Swan in the same match. His third, at Lord's v India, was again very significant, but hardly more so than the contributions of Broad and Prior in the same fixture. Pietersen has been dismissed 18 times for 2 or less in test cricket by the way. Would Swann have been able to bowl 41 overs and take five wickets at Adelaide if Pietersen hadn't made 227 at a strike rate of 73? I doubt it. As has already been said on this fred, the Adelaide Oval was under water about two hours after England won that game on the fifth morning. And Pietersen's 202 not out set up the victory over India last year. Yes, Broad took seven wickets and Prior made 71 and 103 not out, but Pietersen's contribution was decisive. Then you list the team achievements with Pietersen in the team. Chief amongst these is England winning the Ashes in 2005 and 2010/11. Yet they also effectively won the Ashes in 2009 without him, and lost an Ashes series 5-0 with him in the team. So how do the team achievements you quote count toward establishing the team performs better with him than without him? Ultimately, England won the Ashes in 2009 because they won an important toss at the Oval and Australia didn't play a spinner on a turning pitch. And if we're apportioning blame for the 5-0 defeat in Australia in 2006/07, Pietersen's name should be well down the list: he made 92 at Brisbane, 158 at Adelaide, and 70 (out slogging when we were nine wickets down) and 60 not out at Perth. In fact, his biggest failing over there was his alleged refusal to bat at No4 - meaning that too often he was left to bat with the tail. But that's another story. Then you mention man of the match awards. It stands to reason that a performer like Pietersen will win a lot of Man of the Match awards, because he catches the eye with his best performances, but does not get any penalty towards earning these awards for his very high frequency of low scores, most of which are as damaging to his team as his big scores are useful. Oh my God! How dare Pietersen "catch the eye" with his three double hundreds, 20+ centuries and many other decisive innings. Shame on him. Shame. On. Him. If Pietersen is a proven match winner,(I cannot be sure exactly what you mean by that - a person who is responsible for winning a single test from 500 could be said to be a proven match winner) where are all these matches he has won? And does the same hold for him in ODI cricket, is he a proven match winner there as well? Team Eradicate does not think so. I don't think anyone can win a match on their own (even Botham, after taking five first-innings wickets and scoring 149 not out, needed Willis to finish off the job at Headingley in 1981), but I've referred to a number of matches where Pietersen has had a massive impact on the result. As for ODIs, I have only written about Test cricket on here. |
|
By:
DStyle - I have never said Pietersen is "the sole architect of england's success" or "the sole match winner". But he is our best batsman, our most dangerous batsman and the player who our opponents fear more than any other (those points can be inter-changeable).
He was a crucial member of an England team that rose to No1 in the Test rankings. I genuinely don't think we would have reached that position without him. And even if we had become the best without him, I believe England with Pietersen are a better team than England with Thorpe, Bopara, Bairstow or anyone else. |
|
By:
of course he is. it's laughable to suggest england would be as good with any of the likely replacements for him in the side as some posters seem to be saying.
which other batsman in world cricket will take the game away from the opposition as quickly as he can ? sehwag is another but there's very few |
|
By:
And if we're apportioning blame for the 5-0 defeat in Australia in 2006/07, Pietersen's name should be well down the list: he made 92 at Brisbane, 158 at Adelaide, and 70 (out slogging when we were nine wickets down) and 60 not out at Perth. In fact, his biggest failing over there was his alleged refusal to bat at No4 - meaning that too often he was left to bat with the tail. But that's another story.
I cannot have this. The tour was going down the pan. Lost all five tests with KP in the side. Lost the first ODI in Melbourne with KP in the side. Then KP gets injured and England cruise to victory to win the finals 2-0 against Australia. Have to laugh at people thinking KP is a god for his 10 mom awards and saying its a problem Straus has very few. Straus (and Flower) are the reason we are number 1 in the world. Not the likes of the glamour players like KP and Flintoff. The glamour players are capable of mom moments but all too often they drag the whole team down at the worst times. |
|
By:
There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Seriously loving the stats guys BUT.....even England Management are saying he is being left out for non-cricketing reasons. Even Strauss said he is one of the world's best. So surely enough said, "lets tackle the issue".
Why did ECB become so effective on Pietersen compared to Swanny's book. Why do ECB overlook the evidence that the Nottinghamshire axis, Hales, Swann and Broad, are majorly involved with this twitter account. They simply accepted Broad's view, and moved on. Yet they don't with Pietersen. It is double standards. I feel that part of this MUST be down to green eyed monsters, not just within changing room either. The ECB appear ineffective in the slide in popularity of 20-20 cricket domestically and cannot compete with IPL all star line ups. Pietersen was player of the tournament when England won 20-20 World Cup. That is enough of a stat in itself. Whilst we focus on stats, I am amazed that Broad is 20-20 international captain. Slapped about at an economy rate of 7.30, best wicket haul of just 3. 41 wickets from 34 innings. Just 44 runs from 14 innings, a best of 10 not out, and an average of 5.50. He also shows a lack of composure when being slapped about. When Broad was dropped, he "re-invented" himself as a lower order batsmen **** all rounder. His 20-20 innings are dreadful. Makes Mike Brearley look an inspired choice. Perhaps if Pietersen had gone to public school..... |
|
By:
Good post Villareally (except the last bit about public school which is cheap and irrelevant).
It's easy to say now that KP has been singled out and Swann, Broad etc have made mistakes and been unpunished. However, this has been growing problem for a whole with KP. It's not an isolated incident like Swann's book. If I was an England player, I wouldn't be very happy that a team member wanted to sit out some less glamorous test matches (having already tried to pick and choose matches in limited overs) so he could go and earn an extra million in IPL and the expect to stroll back into the team for The Ashes. I would certainly question his commitment to forthe team. I would then be even more p1ssed off when that same player conducted an appalling interview saying there were 'issues in the dressing room' in the middle of a crucial series with SA where the world number 1 status is at stake. Especially when things haven't gone well in the series and you expect the team to pull together not tear apart. So the texts to opposition players during a vital test are the straw that broke the camels back. The problem is KPs pattern of behaviour over recent months and his commitment to the team. Forget for a moment he's a magnificent player. That behaviour, imo, justifies his non-selection for this test match. He's brought these problems on himself with the mistakes he's made. I'm not saying others are blameless and I'm amazed players like Anderson, Swann and Bresnan have been allowed to publicly criticise KP this week - it just deepens the rift. I just hope they can give it a week or two to let the dust settle, realise England are much stronger with KP and that he needs to apologise, but not grovel, for his mistakes, and Broad, Swann etc need to be warned and told to grow up. I actually think KP is a decent guy beneath his brash exterior. He's over stepped the line this time and needed to be brought into line but I really, really hope they don't force him out. Sorry for the long post, didn't think it would so long when I started it! |
|
By:
has pietersen lost more tests for eng by reckless batting than won with great batting. many a time when england need to stay in and bat for a draw, not solely blaming him , but as the top batsman shouldnt he be much more focused in difficult situations, rather than these cameo inngs .
|
|
By:
not sure if above sounds right, but im sure you know what im saying, i think
 |
|
By:
Take a look at Pietersen's replacement...would you rather have Bairstow or Peitersen in the team...How can anyone say Eng will be better off without him.
The conflict began earlier in the year when KP had his multi million IPL contract and the others didnt. The only other player to get something was Morgan and where is he now?? |
|
By:
Thread has veered slightly off topics, helped along by Eradicate and his bumper book of irrelevant stats
 To stick to cricketing issues first Pietersen has been, is now & hopefully will be in the future, England's best batsman in all forms of cricket. For anyone to dispute that they must be a total nincompoop. I would go further and say he is the best batsman EVER to play for England. The stick he gets in this country is astounding, an Aussie who performed like he does would be treated like an absolute hero Down Under. Even in the press he doesn't get the recognition he deserves, largely due to jealousy from envious ex-players turned-scribes, in comparison to, for example, how the Aussie commentators viewed him on the last Ashes tour as almost a second coming of Viv Richards. To return to 'textgate' does anyone yet know a) what was in them-rumours of derogotary comments about Strauss & Flower seemed to be news to Smith at yesterday's press conference & b) how the fact of their existence & supposed content came into the public domain? Double standards are everywhere in the whole affair, from Strauss (& Anderson) being allowed to miss Bangladesh tour to Collingwood being rested for a series following a full IPL campaign, to the glib acceptance of the truth of Broad's statement, which stretches credibility. Some good points have already been made about jealousy from within a dressing room conspicuously lacking IPL (which is a total load of sh!te comp I may add) contracts, despite their best efforts to secure them & it is hard not to believe a self-publicising pr!ck like Swann (also under suspicion about the infamous Twitter account, which was very funny BTW) does not take well to not being the centre of attention in a team. His comments about 10 pulling in one direction and one in another may have carried more weight if the one had not scored 149 & took 4 wickets! Mark Butcher best summed it up during the week when he said, in amazed tones, that the whole situation is 'absolutely ridiculous' and not one party involved-Pietersen, Broad, Swann, & most of all the ECB-has emerged with any credit, apart from Strauss who dealt with yesterday's press conference in tremendous style I thought. |
|
By:
Good post that rockmonkey
I find this whole debacle amazing tbh. KP has literally been hung out to dry by the ECB. Not sure who is behind it but I reckon the England dressing room reckon they will be better off without him. I guess we will find out soon. |
|
By:
Max and P,
You will note I asked why centuries scored should be of any significance. It is unarguable that frequency of high scores is a very relevant consideration when judging a batsman's worth. But why use the extremely blunt instrument of gross scores over exactly 100? Making exactly that score does not in any way advance your team's winning chances in any way that making 99, or 101 or some other higher than average score might not achieve. It is a virtually pointless way to measure a batsman's worth, and I am surprised the cricket world generally attributs any significance whatsoever to it. I think you understand that my argument is not that Pietersen's innings have not contributed significantly to the England team over the course of his career. But the same can be said of at least Prior, Bell, Cook, Trott, Anderson, Broad, and Swan of the current England team. Bell, Cook and Trott all have similar or better batting averages, and the former two have more peak batting years to come and came to test cricket when younger and less mature than Pietersen. Not sure less mature is the right term actually... Prior, Broad and Swann have all contributed meaningful runs at similar or higher strike rates. Sure, Pietersen at his swashbuckling best provides a point of difference for the England top four with his faster scoring, but it wrong to suggest he is the only one in the team who can play these innings. Prior often does much the same thing. As does the lower order taken as a whole. It is not enough to list the things Pietersen has done that other players have not done if you wish to establish he is their best and most effective player in terms of team results. You need to look at the totality of his contributions. When Pietersen missed a straight ball from square leg and was bowled by Morkel in the 2nd innings at The Oval, I found myself wondering how many competent top order batsmen in world cricket might be dismissed that way in those circumstances. How might a Bopara or a Thorpe have played that delivery? In my mind, it is unproven that England performs better with Pietersen in the team. In fact we can see in ODI cricket, they appear to perform worse with him in the team, despite him holding an even greater superiority over his alternatives in terms of batting average and strike rate than he does in test cricket. So now we will hopefully get to see over time how the test team performs without him. On the question of batting averages, I might agree that a batsman's average is something of a guide to his relative ability, though not an extremely reliable one. But measuring a player's ability on one hand, and his effect upon team results on the other, are two entirely different concepts. The trouble is one is easy to measure and it is the less important one. What we need in cricket are much better statistical measures than batting average, centuries scored, and strike rate. These measures can be quite deceptive even if all players make team results their ultimate aim at all times. But when players set out to bolster these statistics even at the expense of the team's interests, well it is then easy to see how they can be very unreliable guides to a player's worth. |
|
By:
Rock Monkey - your real name is not Bryan Pietersen by any chance?
Why don't you give us some pronouncements on the well established trend that England seem to perform as well or better without Pietersen in the team... I am not sure anyone on this thread has actually written anything to suggest they do not think Pietersen is England's best batsman in all forms of the game. So I am not sure who you are attributing that to. I would be interested to know how you measure a player's worth though. What mechanism do you use? The crux of my argument is that England perform as well or better without him, for whatever reason. So there is no certain reason to presume they will perform worse without him now, though it must be conceded he is being replaced by a very inexperienced player who does not look equipped to play against this opposition in this format right now. |
|
By:
It's a ridiculous stat to be clinging to anyway, Eradicate. Apparently Arsenal won a higher number of points per game when Patrick Vieira was out of the side through injury than when he was fit to play.
Stats can sometimes be what you want to make of them. We all know if Pieterson could just engage his brain before his mouth he would be the first name down on the team sheet and would still be captain. |
|
By:
Pixie has said it as well as I could about Eradicate & his stats-they are nonsense, no matter how he may like to dress them up as some sort of 'Moneyball' style breakthrough.
|
|
By:
Mr Monkey, with all due respect you are either an idiot, or being strategically dumb in an effort to discredit me.
My moneyball comment was based in humour. I have not seriously claimed to make any breakthrough. I would readily agree that comparing a team's performance with and without a player does not give a precise measure of the player's value, for all sorts of obvious reasons. But it can indicate where a player is not as indispensable as some might think. Somebody on the thread asked for the stats so I provided them. If the picture they paint doesn't suit your narrow view of the world, you are naturally free to accept or dismiss at your whim. It is right that each person should thrive or flounder according to their own decisions. On a more serious note, I do believe that much better statistical measures of performance are required in cricket, because career batting average, centuries scored etc are extremely imprecise ways of measuring a player's worth. If you like, moneyball style thinking is what is required. Perhaps you can offer some advance on the traditional measures of a player's worth as a cricketer.... Mr Monkey, you have also now been Eradicated.  |
|
By:
I think I'll survive
|
|
By:
It's ok in the "Eradicate thinks i am an idiot club" Rockmonkey
It is the place to be imo |
|
By:
i love the fact that BJ said KP would not be part of the eng set up in 5 yrs time (around 2006 i think) .. LOL the big fella finally got summit right (nearly)
 |
|
By:
...i liked joe  |
|
By:
Yeah it's a shame the big fella isn't posting anymore - last summers whitewash of the 'demigods' finished him off.
|
|
By:
This thread is a great read, proper thoughtful test cricket talk, congratulations to all involved. I suspect people are digging their heels in on one Side or other of the kp debate, when underneath it all you probably almost agree. I think kp is our best batsman and an absolute legend in the way he has changed games ( having batted at nine as an off spinner in south Africa) but team disharmony is an unquantifiable factor, and there is a precedent for teams performing better having left out their, apparently, best player.
|
|
By:
This article might help some understand why England perform worse with KP in the side despite him being statistically their best player:
Why all-star teams fail: Strategies to get everyone to play together Gregg Gregory Tags: talent management Look no further than the USA basketball team during the world championships in 2006. With a super successful coaching staff and a team full of National Basketball Association stars (12 to be exact), they finished third in the world games, losing to Greece … a team with not one NBA player. Sports reporters from around the country wrote headlines like, “Show me a team of misfits playing like ‘a team’ and they can beat superstars any day.” Failing all-star teams aren’t just a sports theme; they have been a challenge facing businesses for years. Companies want a superstar leadership team and end up tumbling. Look at Enron … superstars from the top down, and what happened there? Generally speaking, someone is selected to an all-star team because of the talents displayed in the “work” environment. This can be a sports field, a sales industry or a manufacturing environment. In theory, all-star teams should be ultra-successful. So, why do many fail? 1. The organization has not built a culture of trust and respect All-star teams are usually built from stellar performers, with enormous egos, which may translate into a lack of trust. Superstars like the limelight; while they may not distrust someone, they may not easily trust others or be trusted themselves. Without trust and respect, the team lacks a solid foundation. So, as an all-star team leader, how is this countered? Building trust is easy – not necessarily simple, but relatively easy. Some people are more trusting than others, and some hold back because of previous experiences. Regardless, the most effective ways to build trust are: - Say what you mean and mean what you say - Always speak and act with integrity - Be consistent between word and deed - Stay out of the gossip and rumor mills Once trust and respect are developed, teams members are able to focus on the overall mission without worrying about a backstabbing teammate. If trust is breached, it becomes more difficult but not impossible to rebuild the next time. 2. Failing to create the chemistry necessary to succeed In the movie “Miracle”, U.S. Olympic team coach Herb Brooks (played by actor Kurt Russell) says, “I am not looking for the best players. I am looking for the right players.” This is critical to understand when it comes to an all-star team’s success. Whether in sports or business, an all-star team must have the right players in the right positions. If not, a team may pursue a common goal, but when the players are not complementing each other’s skills and mind-sets, disaster will strike the core of the team. How is the chemistry of your team? The more you know about team members professionally and personally allows the team to gel much more quickly and effectively. Remember, the best players aren’t always the right ones. Team chemistry allows for trust and respect while all members continue to focus on accomplishing their individual and team productivity goals. 3. Lack of mutual accountability It is one thing for the management to hold everyone accountable – they should – and it is even better when members hold each other accountable. Some of the best teams are those whose leaders are only a resource in the event of a problem. Team members take care of the basic problems as they arise by holding each other 110 percent accountable. As an example, the Hillstone Restaurant Group – which owns several restaurants including Houston’s, Gulf Stream and Bandera – follows this strategy to a tee. Each server has immediate responsibility for his/her tables, as well as assisting other servers in getting the food out, tables bussed and checks paid. In most restaurants of this nature, the servers pool their tips at the end of the shift; however, here they hold each other accountable and do not share in a tip pool. This concept raises the level of service throughout. Other organizations have accomplished this result by having customers and other departments complete a satisfaction survey that involves not just one person, but the entire team … and everything from bonuses, performance evaluations and increased pay depends on the team’s survey result. Everyone is held accountable, resulting in a win-win. 4. Poor team language Communication is the root of most problems, and ineffective teamwork is no different. While traditional communication between two people is vital, ineffective internal communication in a team setting will result in disaster. The first sign of an internal breakdown is “me”-centered language, which is not healthy to accomplish the ultimate goal. Often this occurs in the subconscious mind and is never noticed. In the workplace the language typically sounds like, “I think it should have been done this way”, or maybe, “I just don’t get it.” One of the biggest offenders is the phrase “It’s not my job.” These are all “me” statements because they revolve around one person rather than the team. Every team goes through a development process. In the beginning, each member is about his or her individual performance, and as the team matriculates, it becomes more about the whole of the team. Moving on As a team begins to trust and respect each other, the process moves more smoothly. A successful leader focuses on the communication of “we” and not individual success or failure. Once the mind begins to process the difference in internal language, the external language follows suit. In a team environment, it’s what went right or wrong, not who succeeded or who caused the mishap. When a team performs at peak levels, everyone feels as though they were an integral part of something successful. Success allows the team to experience more focus, cooperation, productivity and impact throughout the entire organization, as well as to their customers and vendors. Teamwork is not about getting along with everyone because, let’s face it, that will never happen. If we understand another person’s behaviors, and adapt ours to a more team-centered approach, we can become better producers. That is the little secret of playing nice in the sandbox. http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/11603/why-all-star-teams-fail-strategies-to-get-everyone-to-play-toger |
|
By:
Careful frog, you might be dismissed as some kind of moneyball breakthrough thinking conspiracy theorist.
|
|
By:
Strauss and Flower have always focused on the importance of the team and the team all working together. They really tried hard to bring KP back in after each bust up but KP keeps on doing textbook anti-team things. If he really has texted the opposition about Strauss and Flower surely for the sake of the team KP had to be kicked out. I just hope the selectors hold their nerve today.
|
|
By:
Would be interested in the views of M & P and the RMonkey on the latest reports regarding the content of Pietersen's texts.
Would you play someone who has texted these things to the opposition? Is it basically high treason to text to the opposition clues on how to bowl to one of your teammates? Where else can this lead? Should the ECB sue for breach of contract if these reports are right? Does it show Pietersen to have no interest whatsoever in the welfare of his team? Where else might that lead? Would he have been corruptible? If these reports are correct, and that is what is suspected, I am shocked Surrey have taken Pietersen. I am less surprised if the IPL franchises carry on with a player who is suspected to act against his team's interests.... |
|
By:
We now know exactly what Strauss meant pre-test when he kept using the word 'trust'. He can probably accept being personally insulted, but they obviously believe KP has passed on information/tips to assist the opposition. Seems they've given KP to chance to refute that, he hasn't so I can see where Strauss / Flower are coming from. Quite incredible from KP, if true.
And if the reports are accurate, just imagine what he was telling them privately whilst socialising after the first test. |
|
By:
Telling them how to bowl to KP perhaps?
149 off 214 balls next time he met them in public. |
|
By:
keep him out of the side forever
|
|
By:
The Pietersen ****squad conspicuous by their absence from this thread now.
Come on chaps, if these reports about the content of the texts are true, is he in your side or out? |
|
By:
Dear oh dear.
Poor show by the Pietersen q ueersquad. If you now feel you were wrong to support this player's inclusion in the team, it would be jolly decent of you to come on the thread and say so, old chaps. But it does look as though Max&P and R. Monkey in particular, have been ERADICATED. |
|
By:
I don't think they'll be back!
Strangely I haven't heard Goughie laying into the ECB for their treatment of KP on talksport in the past few days. I knew they were mates (remember seeing them out together in Leeds having a 'lemonade' before an ODI against Bangladesh), but I didn't realise he was KPs best man until I read it yesterday. |
|
By:
I'm back
Where have I said on here that Pietersen is blameless? Where have I said that he has behaved well? I have only listed God knows how many reasons that show he is England's best player. Come on: some div claimed Bell is a better player than Pietersen! Seriously. No one comes out of this whole affair well - not Pietersen, Broad, the ECB or anyone else. Even Strauss or Flower, who have conducted themselves with dignity when asked about Pietersen, should not have allowed it to come to this. |
|
By:
Damn, I thought you had been ERADICATED Max & P.
I could respond by saying where did I say you said Pietersen was blameless? But let us not descend into who said what to who. Would you pick Pietersen if you believed that the reports of the content of his texts to be true? I must admit, even if I rated a player the best ever, that treason would rule him out of contention for me, forever. I think this player is generally overrated, so I am interested in the views of the people who think he is first picked on the team sheet. What say you Max, do you select him, or not? |
|
By:
There will always be 11 players representing England.
KP's fall from grace gave Bairstow an opportunity to make the trip to India, NZ and the Ashes series next year. He scored 150 runs in the most difficult circumstances. A career at the top beckons thanks to KP's texting. Every cloud.. |
|
By:
I must have missed the development that makes Eradicate's hand-picked stats any less nonsensical or irrelevant. I liked the leap he has since made into Pietersen being on the take though-I imagine the thought of such made him verily froth at the mouth
Kweer squad was a good one too, inasmuch as it helps pin down his nationality and age I also wonder if it was a touching ceremony when he & berto signed up to the forum together, hand in hand perhaps? I am still waiting for an answer to my question about a) what is in the texts and b) how they got in the public domain. Everything else I have said on this thread I happily stand by, which I doubt all can in the light of yesterday's revelations that, despite earlier reports, the texts contained no details of how to bowl to Strauss and praised several England players? Probably best to ignore that I would say (from the Mirror btw) as it doesn't quite fit in with the narrative |
|
By:
The Mirror story was hardly a revelation! It simply asserted the texts didn't advise the South Africans how to get him out. No evidence. No suggestion of a reliable source. Just conjecture.
|
|
By:
I see KPs still doesnt intend to keep a low profile. He's apparently been signed up by ESPN to do some punditry/commentary at World 2020. Bet Flower is impressed by that.
|