KP commits to england in all forms of cricket

d13,

If you own a business in a very competitive industry, and I work for you, and you are informed(rightly or wrongly) that I have badmouthed you and/or members of your management team to staff at your main competitor at a critical time, would this not concern you at all?

I don't even have to say it. 

well, i'm going with occam's razor here d13phne

KP has said he desperately wants to play
ECB ask him to provide evidence of messages sent to south africans.
south africans confirm messages were sent.
kp not forthcoming with the information that will allow him to participate; something which he is desperate to do.

Happens all the time

If the chap was my most valuable employee I would try to settle matters behind the scenes

not make a public show of him and sack him.

egos need to be managed.  KP is no different.

ergo, revealing contents of messages would be more damaging than not.

d13
If the chap was my most valuable employee I would try to settle matters behind the scenes

not make a public show of him and sack him.

Exactly how would you go about achieving all that if you came to a considered conclusion that the chap was possibly acting in a manner prejudicial to your(or your business or team's) best interests, and he failed to satisfy a reasonably put request to confirm that this was not the case?

very interesting that this is one of Broad's best mates who was behind the twitter, and there were details on the twitter account that must have come from inside the dressing room. is this not as much of an issue as KP texting the opposition? (if that even happened at all)

It reminds me of the Botham days....Kp like Botham is the best player on the team, tells the captain what he wants to do ..open the batting, bowl  a bit more etc..KP got the results so he can turn round and say what he likes...captain is now in a weaker position..management dont like it..backs captain and so player has to go.  IMO..they should have stuck it out for one more match, wrap KP up in cotton wool until Lords and then after the game let it come out...now there are no winners apart from the Saffers..a poor reult from where I am sitting.

Notts connection (see cricinfo) a sinister new development. Hales, a massive beneficiary from Pietersen absence, apparently first follower of the infamous parody twitter account, set up by a guy who shares a house with 2 Notts players. Yet Swann has nowt do with it we are led to believe?

England's had two outstanding batsmen in the last decade, and now Pietersen is joining Trescothick in the wilderness. All those expensive suits on the ECB can't find a way of accommodating KP in the same way they couldn't find a way of accommodating Tres.

What really annoys me is the way those suits same bask in the glory of England's recent successes as being due to their "Plan". As though figures of fun such as Geoff Miller and Ashley Giles have been anything more than lucky enough to be in charge of a number of very good England cricketers at just the right time.

i still think there's far too much discussion away from the singular reason the ecb has provided for his not being selected.

it would appear as though broad has been asked to explain himself this afternoon and responded directly to the ecb's request with the press release.

i don't quite understand why Kevin has been unable to do the same.

despite agreeing with your comments about the management taking credit for their very good luck, those expensive suits did appear to find a way of bringing KP back into the side but KP chose not to comply.

indeed they made an absolute pig's ear of the kp/moores fall out too but got lucky with andy flower. then you have stanford. how heads didn't roll over that debacle beggars belief

Media statement on behalf of Stuart Broad

14 August 2012
Email this page
Ecb Logo Gutter Icon 135x160

The ECB today issued the following statement on behalf of Stuart Broad in relation to the setting up of a fake Twitter account for Kevin Pietersen by a member of the public.

Broad said: “Following last night’s statement by Mr Richard Bailey that he was responsible for creating a fake Twitter account in Kevin Pietersen’s name, I would like to confirm that I had no involvement in this whatsoever.

“I met with the Managing Director - England Cricket, Hugh Morris this morning and assured him that I did not play any role in the creation of this account or provide Mr Bailey with any information regarding Kevin Pietersen or the England team.

“As has been widely reported Mr Bailey is a friend of mine, but we had no conversations regarding this issue at all and I am pleased that he has now decided to close the fake account down. “

ECB Managing Director Hugh Morris added: “Having discussed this matter with Stuart, I am fully satisfied that he acted in a professional manner at all times and did not breach any confidences regarding fellow England players.

“ECB also accepts the apology Mr Bailey offered last night to the England team via his Twitter account and his reassurances that no professional cricketers were involved in the creation of this site.”

ECB to Broad - 'Have you said anything to your friend about England players?' - 'No.' Fair enough. 

ECB to KP - 'We've heard you sent derogatory texts to SA players. Show us what they said'

I know KP can be arrogant and stubborn, but he has done nothing wrong on this episode, whereas Broad clearly has. When will the bigwigs at the ECB just holp there hands up and admit they are a sorry shower of sh1te?

how do you know kp has done nothing wrong and broad clearly has?

Broad cannot defintively disprove his guilt but has attempted to; KP can and has not

Why should KP show text messages he has sent privately to his peers? If I text my workmates or people in the same industry but another company about how useless my bosses are, then that is between me and those who I send the messages. If my boss didn't want to be referred to as rubbish, useless, inept or whatever then they should pull their socks up and do their job better.

firstly, they aren't "his peers". that's the whole point. his peers are the centrally contracted members of the england test cricket team.

the people he sent the texts to are the opposition. who we are currently playing in a massive test series.

secondly, they are not private. whether they were intended to be or not, is neither here nor there. their existence is now known by anyone who has taken an interest.

as i said, it tricky if he did it to has team, but manageable. it's deserving of a stern reprimand if he did it in the press. it is unacceptable to do so with the opposition.

if you did it in the army, you'd be up for treason. if you did in politics you'd be permanently ejected from your party.

and it is that precise element of perceived betrayal that appears to be so damaging.

It's just text messages to people he plays cricket against. Why people want to make a big song and dance about it talking pap about it being a betrayal or treason need to grow a pair, man up and stop acting like kids..

yes totally agree. texts have been taken out of context and blown way out of proportion.

Texts are a red herring.  I doubt Strauss gives a sh1t what Pietersen thinks of him so long as he turns up and performs for the team.  The issue is clearly between ECB and Pietersen.

All pretty pathetic.

Re Broad statement, and as someone famously said long ago in another infamous saga 'Well he would say that wouldn't he?'

Cubanpete 14 Aug 12 19:27 
It's just text messages to people he plays cricket against. Why people want to make a big song and dance about it talking pap about it being a betrayal or treason need to grow a pair, man up and stop acting like kids..


i don't entirely disagree with running it like that.

but that's evidently not how the team is run. and how it's run is something they've thought about and decided upon and everyone team member is aware of. and they're not going to change that in light of what KP has done. so he needs to comply with what he's been asked to do.

he may not agree with that, you may not either, but he's been asked to do something by his employer as a condition of his future employment. and he's decided not to. i don't see how the blame lies with the ecb.

.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/577393.html


Pietersen apologises to the ECB

David Hopps and George Dobell

August 14, 2012
Be the first to comment | Login via | Text size: A | A
    Kevin Pietersen fell to the second ball of day four, England v South Africa, 2nd Investec Test, Headingley, 4th day, August 5, 2012
Has Kevin Pietersen been able to save his England career? © AFP
Enlarge
Related Links
Players/Officials: Kevin Pietersen
Teams: England

Kevin Pietersen has apologised to the ECB over the derogatory text messages that he sent about members of the England dressing room to South Africa players in a last-ditch attempt to gain forgiveness and be selected for World Twenty20 in Sri Lanka.

Pietersen and his representatives were waiting on Tuesday evening for the ECB to respond to his gesture with Saturday's deadline for naming England's World Twenty20 party looming ever closer.

The apology presumably constituted an admission of guilt and as such leaves him at risk of a heavy fine, a suspension or both. If England's managing director, Hugh Morris, continues to pursue a hard line it could automatically rule him out of a tournament in which he desperately wants to take part in.

The ECB would make no official comment on Wednesday night, perhaps recognising that leaks in the past have been unhelpful in the reconciliation process.

ESPNcricinfo understands a decision, nevertheless, is expected on Wednesday, at which point extensive statements from both sides can be anticipated. There was a growing sense at Lord's of the need to settle the issue before the final Test against South Africa at Lord's which begins on Thursday. England, 1-0 down in the series, need to win the Test to retain their status as the No 1 Test side in the world.

The ECB have failed to make Pietersen available for Surrey in their vital relegation championship match against Middlesex, at the Oval, beginning on Wednesday, as both parties recognised that it would be in appropriate as confidential negotiations were reaching a delicate stage.

The decision for the ECB was when to replace punishment with rehabilitation. In another development in the Pietersen soap opera, Stuart Broad issued a statement denying any part in the creation of a parody Twitter account that so infuriated Pietersen and led him to suspect that his England team-mates were secretly deriding him.

Broad, the England Twenty20 International captain, and Alex Hales, who took Pietersen's place at the top of the order in England's T20 side, were both alleged to have been involved in the account by Pietersen's friend, the chatshow host Piers Morgan.

The real creator of the parody account, Richard Bailey, came forward on Monday and not only apologised for the trouble he had caused, but clarified that he had worked alone. While Bailey is a friend of Broad and Hales, all parties insist that no professional players were in any way involved either in setting up the account or supplying information.

"Following last night's statement by Mr Richard Bailey that he was responsible for creating a parody Twitter account in Kevin Pietersen's name, I would like to confirm that I had no involvement in this whatsoever," Broad said

"I met with the Managing Director, England Cricket, Hugh Morris this morning and assured him that I did not play any role in the creation of this account or provide Mr Bailey with any information regarding Kevin Pietersen or the England team.

"As has been widely reported Mr Bailey is a friend of mine, but we had no conversations regarding this issue at all and I am pleased that he has now decided to close the parody account down."

Broad's words echo the results of an ESPNcricinfo investigations last week that identified the creator of the parody account, but found no evidence that any England player had been actively involved in it at any stage. That information was communicated to senior officials of the ECB.

Morris added: "Having discussed this matter with Stuart, I am fully satisfied that he acted in a professional manner at all times and did not breach any confidences regarding fellow England players.

"ECB also accepts the apology Mr Bailey offered last night to the England team via his Twitter account and his re-assurances that no professional cricketers were involved in the creation of this site."

David Hopps is UK editor of ESPNcricinfo and George Dobell is senior correspondent

© ESPN EMEA Ltd.

In response to something raised earlier in this thread, Team Eradicate has just checked the England performances with and without Pietersen since his debuts in different formats. 

Tests
He has missed only 3 tests since his debut, all in the 2009 Ashes against Australia.  Without him, England drew at Edgbaston, were soundly beaten at Leeds, and won comfortably at The Oval.  It would be difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from that, but it does show the team was capable of winning a big test match without Pietersen.  There were also several mitigating circumstances in the match lost at Leeds beside Pietersen's absence.  Flintoff missed, Prior had a back spasm just before the match, this threw England into turmoil.  But you could not say based on that that there was a noticeable drop in team performance without Pietersen.

ODI's
Since Pietersen's debut, and excluding wins against minnows, England have won 64 and lost 83 ODI's overall.

With Pietersen, England have won 40 matches, and lost 61. 

So without Pietersen, by this criteria, England have won 23 and lost 22. 

Those figures suggest he is not only not missed, but the team performs better without Pietersen in this format. 

Without Pietersen the winning percentage is 51%, without him it drops appreciably to 39%.

Team Eradicate did not dig deeper to see if the opposition were stronger on average when he played, maybe if someone thinks Pietersen is of value to the England team they might care to do that.  Team Eradicate does not believe there is any noticeable positive influence on the team's results when Pietersen plays.  If you had some way of trading him in a market place, you would moneyball him the heck off your list, especially in this format.

T20
England have won 21, lost 19 of these.

When Pietersen has played, they have won 17, lost 17.  50% win ratio.

So without Pietersen, win 4, lose 2.  66% win ratio.


Anyone claiming Pietersen has a positive influence on England's results would need to explain why they win more often with him out of the team than in it, because over the course of his career, that is precisely what has happened.

Pietersen, now you have really been Eradicated, moneyball style. 

Broad the blue eyed boy, and favoured son of English cricket.

Whether he is abusing umpires, stamping on the ball, sledging opponents or parodying team mates, Broad always gets away with his bad behaviour! On the day the account was created there are plenty of photos to prove he was with the creator. and he even tweeted that Richard Bailey was a "genius". Whats that if not a wink to the KP Genius account?

If KP did criticise Strauss he has a point.

Can't score runs and cannot captain.  Shouldn't be in the team.

that said is it really the ECB's business how each person uses their phone?  They are on dangerous ground here.

There's a lot of uncomfortable information coming out about that Twitter account Villareally. Some tech nerds are claiming Broad and Swann started following that now defunct Twitter account very early upon its creation, days before the first tweet was sent. I'm not sure how these tech nerds are establishing this so-called fact, but if it's true it doesn't look pretty.

keep him out of the team forever

I think the ECB/Flower/Morris were basically correct in dropping KP, but I want to see him back in the team.  Watched today's press conference and don't like the sound of Strauss' tone.  He seems really, really p1ssed off.  The vibes of the other players in recent days suggests the rift is pretty wide - anyone who thinks this is just about a few text messages look much mistaken.

well if they want him out permanently just say so and do it. why all this tap dancing around the situation and using a ludicrous reason to leave him out for tomorrow ?

Got to feel that if 5 or 6 players in the England test team had multi million IPL contracts this whole scenario would have played out completely differently.  Clearly KP is his own worst enemy with his prima donna tendancies but i'll be amazed if he hasnt been isolated just as much by the green eyed monster lurking in the dressing room.

KP has acted like a total cretin over the last few weeks from his one day retirement to his IPL demands, from his tv interviews to his text messages.  I think they had every justification leaving him out for this test, I just hope they can find a way back for him.  I agree with crookedarm that some of his teammates appear to have behaved pretty poorly themselves and hope they grow up a bit as well.

mafeking
Date Joined:     24 Sep 02
Add contact | Send message
15 Aug 12 13:16 Joined: 24 Sep 02 | Topic/replies: 10,408 | Blogger: mafeking's blog
well if they want him out permanently just say so and do it. why all this tap dancing around the situation and using a ludicrous reason to leave him out for tomorrow ?

Exactly.

i still wonder why Swann was dropped as it wasn't cricketing reasons

changing room bust up?

Very possibly - it seemed such a strange decision by England, totally against their longstanding selection policy.

Eradicate,

Thanks for those stats. Its is as I suspected the guy has a negative influence on the team. Without him there other people get the chance to come out of the woodwork and play better. I dont think he should have ever been selected again since he lost the captain role.

England wouldn't still be clinging to their number one status if Pietersen had missed the second test. They would be 2-0 down already. And if I wasn't heavy on the draw, I'd be cheering the Saffers every inch of the way to smash the traitors who stabbed KP in the back. There's bound to plenty of opportunity for me to move my book around though.

Swann certainly has plenty to say for himself for someone so average. He might be the best spin bowler in England, but that's like a morbidly obese person at a Weight Watchers meeting boasting they are the slimmest around.

And after cheering Broad's wickets in the second test, I'm now going to joy in him getting carted around the ground for what I hope will be a wicketless century.

You are welcome Insider Trader.

I would think a lot of people who make claims such as "Pietersen is a match winner," "Pietersen is England's only top class player" and the like would be surprised at those statistics. 

It would be good if some of the Pietersen apologists like Rock Monkey and Max and Paddy got on here and explained to us why England appear to achieve better results without him in the team. 

And I am interested in the opinions of people as to what should be done with these players who appear to be high achievers by traditional measures, yet seem to cause their team to underperform.  Should they be dropped, remodelled, or allowed to carry on as they have been going? 

Our view at Eradicate House is that all relevant factors should be taken into account in team selection.  Form, ability, future planning, attitude, effort, team ethic, team balance, opposition, all these things should be considered and weighed.  But the effect a player has on team results should be monitored and taken into consideration, and to a much greater extent than is apparently the case most of the time in cricket. 

We think the right thing has been done here, but in the wrong year, coming about 7 years too late.

problem with statistics though is you can manipulate them to your story.  Ultimately, KP is all about excitement and getting more people watching cricket.  He mightn't be as good as most think he is on average but he's your consummate entertainer.

If you believe that Nigel, then you might be so kind as to un-manipulate the statistics for us so that we have the correct picture. 

For as unclear as statistics can be without sensible interpretation, people's unsupported perceptions are never going to as persuasive as a fair analysis of hard facts. 

If you think the with and without Pietersen figures above give an incorrect picture of his worth, explain why....

EnvyMyGreen
15 Aug 12 16:55
Joined:
03 Aug 12
| Topic/replies: 687 | Blogger: EnvyMyGreen's blog
England wouldn't still be clinging to their number one status if Pietersen had missed the second test. They would be 2-0 down already.

...

Why? Are you saying if he wasnt there someone else wouldnt have scored like they have in countless matches KP has failed in? Take him out of the dressing room and everyone else might do better.

Erad - I have wildly better things to do with my time however I'm 100% certain I could produce stats to show anything I wanted to.

Nigel - I am sorry to inform you that you nothing better to do with your time than analyse data.  What in the world could be better than that?

Crazy people on here.

"Why? Are you saying if he wasnt there someone else wouldnt have scored like they have in countless matches KP has failed in? Take him out of the dressing room and everyone else might do better."

They get their chance to prove that starting tomorrow. And several of them have certainly been talking a good game since KP was dropped. I for one have the popcorn ready and look forward to being thoroughly entertained.

I am not a "KP apologist". I just think he's the best player in the England team.

The only England batsman in the last 40 years with a better average than Pietersen is Jonathan Trott, and he's going through a pretty lean run at the moment. Pietersen is one century away from equalling the record for the most hundreds by an England batsman. He has scored three double hundreds - more than any England batsman except Hammond and Hutton.

As for claiming that England do better without him, you are referring to ODI (and possibly T20) results. With Pietersen in the team, England have won the Ashes for the first time in 16 years; they have won the Ashes in Australia for the first time in 24 years; and they have become the best Test team in the world. They would not have done all that with Graham Thorpe (in 2005) or Ravi Bopara (in 2010 and 2011) in the side in place of Pietersen.

And if some players were to perform better when Pietersen was not in the team, then they should ask themselves why they don't produce the same sort of displays all the time. Pietersen cannot be blamed for their apparent weaknesses!

Here's an interesting stat for you: Andrew Strauss has won two man of the match awards in 99 Tests, and none since 2004. Pietersen has won nine awards in 88 Tests. He is a proven match-winner, and no matter what happens over the next few days at Lord's, England are a worse team without him.

that's a pretty amazing stat about strauss and MOM awards considering how batsman skewed they generally are

and england would have won probably half the matches he's played

They would not have done all that with Graham Thorpe (in 2005) or Ravi Bopara (in 2010 and 2011) in the side in place of Pietersen.


i don't agree.

in fact, i'm sorry but that's total, unmitigated crap.

2011:

Brisbane, 36 in a draw
Adelaide: a brilliant double ton, but our bowlers won the match by restricting them on a very easy deck.
Perth: duck and 3
Melbourne: Anderson and Trott skittling them for under a hundred won us the match
Sydney: Bowlers again with Cook, Bell and Prior getting the runs.

so, one double ton in a declared innings. not even close to being a decisive factor in the series

2009:

Cardiff: 8 in the second innings
Lord's: nothing remarkable. Bowlers won it with Strauss' big ton in the 1st innings.
Edgbaston: absent
Leeds: absent
Oval: absent

contributed practically nothing to the series victory.

2006/7

We were flayed by the convicts. Maybe if i'd been batting instead of him, you'd have got on the golf course a day earlier once or twice.

2005

Lord's: Couple of feisty 50s, but we still got rooted.
Edgbaston: a good 70 in the 1st, but nothing standout, was an all round effort, with trescothick and flintoff the pivotal performers.
Old Trafford: Vaughan, Jones, Strauss and Flintoff being the architects of just missing out on the win.
Trent Bridge: nothing special, Jones and Flintoff the bigger performers.
Oval: Finally a contender for helping us draw a match which we might have lost. but i'm not going to argue that it's unequivocal. It's by no means absurd to suggest that shagger, who played warne exceptionally well throughout his career, could have bedded down for long enough



KP is very very good but he's not the facking messiah everyone is making him out to be. our bowlers have won us far more test matches than he has.

the double in adelaide and especially the pace at which he scored it was vital. it absolutely pished down for the rest of the day about an hour after england won. who knows what would have happened if they'd escaped with a draw ?

our bowling them out after they'd won the toss and chose to bat in under a day was just as vital.

swann was vital on the last day.

i'll agree though, in particular, the second hundred in his double was just as important.

no arguments there. bowling a side out for 250 first up in adelaide is like bowling a side out for 150 on most grounds. 450 is an absolute bare minimum first dig

I owe you an apology here Max and Paddy.  I should never have described you as an apologist for Pietersen.

Cheerleader in chief would be a fairer description. 

You seem to use several aspects of a batsman's career to judge his worth. 

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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.

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.

DStyle - I've been a sports journalist for 15 years and I have never been as economical with the facts as you have been there! You have ignored:

:: His brilliant 142 (out of a total of 295) against Sri Lanka - featuring the switch-hit for six over cover off Murali
:: His 134 (out of a second innings total of 282) which would have set up a Lord's win over India in 2007 if the weather hadn't intervened
:: His 202 not out in 474-8 dec. (no one else made more than 71) which put England in charge of last year's Lord's Test against India
:: His incredible 151 (at a strike rate of 91) in Colombo in March which was the decisive factor in England avoiding the embarrassment of five Test defeats in a row in the winter

There are plenty more important Pietersen innings which I won't mention, as four examples should be enough.

Time and again, Pietersen has delivered for England. And it's not just the volume of runs that Pietersen has scored for England, but the manner of them. Apart from Botham and possibly Flintoff on a very good day, which other England batsman of recent vintage would have batted like KP did at Headingley?

Incidentally, please tell me how the hell you can dismiss an Ashes innings of 227 as "one double ton in a declared innings"!!!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.....

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!

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 .

not sure if above sounds right, but im sure you know what im saying, i think

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

I think I'll survive

It's ok in the "Eradicate thinks i am an idiot club" Rockmonkey

It is the place to be imo

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)

  ...i liked joe

Yeah it's a shame the big fella isn't posting anymore - last summers whitewash of the 'demigods' finished him off.

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.

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

Careful frog,  you might be dismissed as some kind of moneyball breakthrough thinking conspiracy theorist.

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.

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....

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.

Telling them how to bowl to KP perhaps?

149 off 214 balls next time he met them in public.

keep him out of the side forever

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?

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. 

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.

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.

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?

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..

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

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.

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.

Really? That's a disgrace! What a w@nker!

RockMonkey
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

From where do you get that I have taken that leap?  I can't even recall what I wrote, but I doubt it indicated I had made that leap.

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?

What does the nationality and age of a person who posts here matter?  Are you suggesting that Berto and I know each other, or that we are the same person, or what?  Apologies if I am missing something, I find this part of your post strange in the extreme.

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.

From whom?  We are all waiting for that.  Are you incapable of stating a case based on a hypothetically understanding?  The texts either contained something treasonous or they didn't.  It is available to you to take a different position based on each scenario.

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?

Would you not think that if the texts contained nothing damaging, Pietersen might have shown them willingly to the ECB, or at least explained what was in them?


Probably best to ignore that I would say (from the Mirror btw) as it doesn't quite fit in with the narrative.

I am happy to consider what you write and respond to it, despite you having a differing view on certain aspects from my own.  Wouldn't it defeat the purpose of being active on a public forum to do anything else?

*hypothetical understanding....

I think we are going to need a bigger boat!

Among the bollox in the 20 Aug 10.28 diatribe we have Eradicate linking Pietersen with being a crook, unless the line 'Would he have been corruptible', has some other meaning?

It is one thing clogging the forum up with the sh1te Eradicate does but at least have the bottle to stand by what you say.
I am more than happy to stand by everything I have said on the thread thus far if Eradicate has any points to make about those comments.
I don't think I'll get involved though in discussing questions regarding whatever wild scenario the poor lad's imagination next dreams up

Where else can this lead?  Should the ECB sue for breach of contract[b] 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? [/b]

That is what I posted on the matter.

How do you get from somebody asking questions that they presume to know the answer? 

You appear to think you know what I believe better than I do.  That is pretty foolish, or deceitful.