On Pietersen, again.

"Relationships don't work the way they do on television and in the movies. Will they, won't they, and then they finally do and they're happy forever. Gimme a break. Nine out of ten of 'em end because they weren't right for each other to begin with and half the ones that get married get divorced anyway and I'm telling you right now through all this stuff I have not become a cynic - I haven't ... Bottom line, couples who are truly right for each other wade through the same crap as everybody else but the big difference is they don't let it take them down. One of those two people will stand up and fight for that relationship every time".

I used to really like Scrubs, back when it was as about an accurate representation of a hospital as has ever been shown regularly on US television. (And when the writing/overarching plots didn't stink, so, if you're counting that's about to the end of Season 3). While being funny in many different ways, it also had the uncanny ability to drop truth bombs like a veritaserum-charged cluster weapon. The quote above from Dr. Cox is one of my favourites.

Ten years ago, Kevin Pietersen and the England and Wales Cricket Board decided to commit to one another in a very real - and legally binding - sense. Ten years' shared property and escalating spats over which account pays which bill dutifully followed. When each party could complain to their mates about the other no longer, we all got to experience thee long-expected divorce, one in which the ECB retained sole custody of Alastair Cook and Pietersen kept the loyal-but-crazy family terrier.

Both went into this star-cross'd tryst expecting the other to mellow in response to their charms. Neither ever truly appreciated just how far apart they were on some - or indeed most - issues.

The pair fell out once and for all because they just weren't right for each other in the first place. Pietersen was always too outgoing/free-spirited/much of a wanker for a cricket board renowned for conservatism, uniformity and unleashing Chris Tavare on the world. As much as they may have spooned in public early on, their romance was almost certainly due to end poorly: the ECB wished Pietersen would curtail his silvertail tendencies, while the player just wanted his hem-hawing spouse to get off his back and let him be the man they fell in love with. 

Thirteen or so years after Dr. Cox indirectly predicted it, when each side felt they had compromised enough, neither was willing to take the first step towards reconciliation and risk losing face.

Love disappeared long ago, probably when each side realised they couldn't change the other enough to tolerate coexistence; nor was it worth anyone's time trying. Pietersen and England weren't right for each other in the first place, but mutual success made them (temporarily) brush aside most major concerns until there was simply too much detritus surrounding them.

The ECB will move on, and likely marry someone not quite so ostentatious, less of a good-time guy - but still someone who might have the talent to average 40 or 45 at Test level. Like his buddy Shane Warne, Pietersen will be seen with every flash young thing able to provide him with an ego boost and a quick cheque, starting with the Delhi Daredevils and the Melbourne Stars. 

The accounts are separate and the kids are starting to get to know Mum's new "friend", Gary. But the offspring of this flawed marriage won't ever forget the good times. 

On Kevin Pietersen

The Kevin Pietersen era appears to have lasted only nine years. In that time, England has witnessed some the most successful and entertaining cricket in its history and the team is far less vital for his absence.

It was announced yesterday that Pietersen would not tour the West Indies with England later this month, nor would he be considered for the upcoming World Twenty20 Championships. It is acknowledged that this decision – taken by the England and Wales Cricket Board Managing Director Paul Downton after consulting with coach dauphin Ashley Giles, Alistair Cook and selector James Whitaker – will end Pietersen’s representative career.

The decision comes only a week after former coach and chief Pietersen antagonist Andy Flower resigned from his position, ostensibly in the wake of an “it’s him or me” ultimatum delivered to the ECB. Pietersen’s presence had been so disruptive that the coach no longer felt his remarkable talent was worth the man-hours spent harnessing it; despite public pronouncements to the opposite, it appears Cook and Giles feel similarly.

Jonathon Agnew wrote yesterday that KP is the archetypal bad breaker-upper: when turning to his past cricketing relationships, he surveys only bleak, charred soil. He is unquestionably an opinionated, headstrong player whose demise can be traced as far back as the retirement of Michael Vaughan as England captain and his subsequent star-cross’d succession.

Many things about this situation are most curious. Firstly, despite some truly awful dismissals, Pietersen was still the most formidable English bat during his last Tests and appeared to be making efforts not to rock the boat – any more than it already was upturned by Mitchell Johnson, anyway. Despite comments to the effect of “starting the rebuilding process”, we still don’t know exactly the nature of skeletons residing in his cricket coffin.

That rebuilding should start with Pietersen is also questionable. While pruning overladen branches to produce new growth is a gardening staple, one must be sure that the new growth is able to supply the demand. While the burden placed upon Simon Borthwick, Joe Root, Gary Ballance et al has been great, only Ben Stokes has genuinely taken his England opportunities. Summer opponents Australia know from hard experience how little succession planning can actually mean and, as Peter Miller pointed out in the most recent Geek and Wilde podcast, withdrawing one further bat from England’s rapidly vacating middle order flies in the face of addition-by-subtraction.

It is thought that while Pietersen failed “management”, he was in turn failed by them.  Perhaps this is why, like so many cricket personnel decisions now, resolution to this interminability was made by an executive rather than a coach (read: middle-manager). Those in power had tolerated management’s folly for too long not to act.

Despite the unremitting nature of the situation, that the ECB saw fit to arbitrarily enforce retirement on a player without a coach in place – that is, sans architect and implementer of the team’s vision – belies a lack of faith in their managers. Reasoning that life will be simpler and more profitable with new man and a clean slate is understandable in the circumstances, but also somewhat flawed.

Experience suggests that the right coach could achieve great things with Kevin Pietersen pumping out runs like a middle-order howitzer. With Giles apparently complicit in yesterday’s action, it would appear the likely new coach views the construction of a productive relationship as impossible even before an attempt has been made.

After five years’ frustration, management’s only recourse was to shuffle the problem upwards to the executives. In such situations, decision-makers are liable to make black-and-white choices promoting organizational efficiency. It is common sense that rehabilitation lacking buy-in from either side is almost certain to fail; when faced with persistent symptoms, the ECB opted for a surgical panacea rather than a tricksy rehab under the guidance of therapists in whom they may lack absolute belief.

While clean slates may offer unlimited possibilities, they also engender powerful vacuums. The hole at number four will be exceedingly tough to fill.