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. 

Go directly to Xavier Doherty. Do not pass "Go".

Xavier Doherty, meet the ECB. ECB, Xavier Doherty.

Although it has recently emerged that personal factors unsurprisingly played a large role in the termination of Kevin Pietersen’s England career, the decision was spun initially as the beginning of a lineup rejuvenation and the implementation of a succession plan to counteract a possible bottoming out occurring upon the retirement of the team’s best players.

We shall say nothing on the fact that those best players still patently include Kevin Pietersen.

However, the idea of gradual squad refreshment is not a new one. One only has to look at the recent Ashes victors to see their forlorn attempts at prolonging their glory era. While it didn’t include forcible retirements (though Damien Martyn may feel otherwise) it was planned meticulously: the new generation - Phil Hughes, Callum Ferguson, Moises Henriques, Ben Hilfenhaus and Dan Cullen – could be ushered in by more established “bridging” players like Clarke, Watson, Siddle and Mike Hussey.

But it didn’t work – none of it. Including the Argus Report. In fact, of that next crop of Australian world-beaters only Phil Hughes has achieved anything of substance at Test level. That was during his first two Tests, now five years and three “technique spells” ago and has resulted in him becoming the most overanalyzed Australian cricketer since Matthew Elliott. The consistency and trust beget by success disintegrated as players failed to perform or started looking not at the ball but over their shoulder.

With the sacking of Pietersen, still the Englishman with the most Test credibility, formerly-well-performed English stalwarts may likewise begin to question their job security.

(Creative commons)

The reason the antipodean succession plan failed was simple. The lone duty of a selector should be to choose the set of players best equipped to represent their country at any particular time. For Australia from 2007-08 through 2013, that was never Beau Casson, nor was it ever Xavier Doherty, Glenn Maxwell, Michael Beer, Ashton Agar, John Hastings or (damn it) Cameron White. The Australian selectors – guided by a board expecting adventure, excitement and really wild things dynamism, marketability and breathing space – simply awarded Test caps without a blueprint detailing how piece X was to insert into piece Y.

The selection committee, along with former coach Mickey Arthur obeyed every male stereotype and refused to look at the accompanying photocopied instruction manual, resulting in ill-advised adventures with poorly-equipped players and constant hoping for a saviour – rather than expecting player growth and, subsequently, improved performance.

Paul Downton and the ECB have a plan, broadly speaking – to rebuild a “unified” squad behind Alastair Cook. How they’re going to enact that plan without evident quality or even perhaps – with Eoin Morgan the favourite to succeed Pietersen – players able to play a role this utopia (c.f. Rogers, Chris and Lyon, Nathan).

Revolutions start in one of two ways. The first utilizes adrenaline-fuelled changes that address a change that is (sometimes) needed. The reverse is the enaction of a well-formulated plan that also includes details as to new administration methods. Neither is necessarily wrong, but as our American brethren might attest, the second method produces superior results. Given the speed with which Kevin Pietersen was summarily pink-slipped, serious doubts linger as to the nature of the ECB’s decision making process.

English fans should hope Downton is as cogent a decision-maker as his reputation trumpets. Otherwise, this way Xavier Doherty lies.

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. 

2013 Ashes draft, part 1: The elite

In yesterday's post, Dave Siddall (of World Cricket Watch) and introduced our first ever Ashes draft. Today, we break down picks 1 - 4.

Selection 1

Matt - there’s only one person I want with the no. 1 pick in the draft: England captain Alastair Cook.  The young skipper has an excellent record against the Old Enemy, averaging 50.36 in fifteen Tests and 69.00 as captain.  Subtract his forlorn 2006-07 campaign in Australia (against a re-ascendent McGrath, Warne and Stuart Clark) and the average races up to 98.8.  Despite the presence of Joe Root and perhaps now Chris Rogers, he is set to be the standout opener of the series.  

Dave - After Matt won the coin toss (I’m trusting him on this one), I’m pretty happy that I still have the best bowler in the series to pick. Old clichés of needing to take 20 wickets to win a test aside, James Anderson is England’s most consistent performer and his jedi-like control of swing should expose just how loose Australia’s top order can be outside off stump.

Selection 2

Matt - To see Anderson selected is a bit of a blow - I had him ranked as my second overall pick, especially given that one or more of David Warner, Phil Hughes or Usman Khawaja seems likely to play in at least the first few Tests.  With him gone, I moved onto the second-best natural run-scorer in the series, Jonathan Trott (average 86.42 against Australian attacks far superior to this one).

Dave - The greatest wicket-keeper batsman to ever represent England, Matt Prior provides quick runs to set up Test victories and a solid defence to snatch draws from the jaws of defeat (England’s recent tour of New Zealand being the most notable example). His impeccable glove-work is superior to both Haddin and Wade.

Selection 3

Matt - Matt Prior, Dave?  Wow, you really didn’t want to be stuck with Brad Haddin.  That, I can understand, but … this early?  With KP, Pattinson and well, everyone, left on the board?  This means I’m set up for my fourth overall pick, Pietersen.  With the three best fit batsmen in my lineup, this means that my esteemed colleague is likely to see Phil Hughes propping up his order … on English pitches, I’m fine with that.

Dave - My 3rd pick may seem way leftfield but the idealist in me wants Australia to be aggressive and James Pattinson is their deadliest bowler. Few of England’s batsmen have faced Pattinson and the raw aggression could give Australia an early blow that would ignite the Ashes. 40 wickets in 10 matches at an average of 23 is not far off Philanderesque.

Selection 4

Matt - Where do I go now?  This is the first real poser for me so far - I’ve got three of my first four selections with which I’m of course very happy, but now the choice comes down to the Australian captain - who on talent goes at number 2, but for his (very) dodgy back - or a bowler.  I with the only real “sure thing” fast man gone, the safest next bet is Victorian cult figure Peter Siddle, who should feature in all five Tests.  If he plays, he gets poles.

Dave - A metrosexual run machine with a dodgy back, Michael Clarke’s appetite for runs since becoming Australia’s captain has been insatiable. Rumour has it he’s not as inspirational in the dressing room than when batting in the middle. Perhaps Darren Lehman’s appointment can galvanise the squad and Clarke can focus on amassing runs.

World Cup Predictions: Ace in the Hole

With our penultimate World Cup Predictions, Matt, Subash and Dave examine who's the player flying under the radar ... the perennial Ace in the Hole.

Part 1: Leading Wicket Taker
Part 2: Leading Runscorer
Part 3: Surprise packet
Part 4: MVP
Part 5: Dream Team


Matt Wood

Kevin Pietersen. Oh, sorry, you said ace-in-the-hole. There isn’t a lot of publicity over a few guys who could shape the tournament. South Africa, while not having a spinner, do boast one of the short form’s great slow bowlers in Johan Botha, who should be nicknamed “Immodium” for his ability to restrict runs. His defensive mindset and shrewd field placements have allowed him to open the bowling in occasional T20s. Of the three, he’s most likely to be the trump which has the greatest effect in the tournament’s latter stages. The other two can be solid but may not be game-changers: New Zealand’s Tim Southee is still very young, but he bowls real swing and could help New Zealand back from the brink of world patsydom. The climate, especially at night, will suit him. Tim Bresnan is another who should be suited by the swing-conducive climes of India and has displayed his ability by taking truckloads of wickets in Australia on pitches unsuited to bowling of his style. He has the game to really break some of the best top-orders in the world.

Posted 17th February: One player who's escaped a lot of attention is William Porterfield, who opens the batting for Ireland. He's scored heaps of runs and of the minnows, he seems most likely to be a "breakout" candidate.

More well-known players from the affiliate nations out to impress include the Netherlands' Ryan ten Doeschate, Rizwan Cheema of Canada, Elton Chigumbura & Tatienda Taibu of Zimbabwe.

===============================================================

Subash Jayaraman

A man whose career is at crossroads and a solid tournament would resurrect his seemingly sliding career – Yuvraj Singh. There has been a mountain of questions regards to fitness, mental focus and attitude towards his cricket. This would be biggest platform for him to respond to his doubters. Play a few match winning innings and bowl his left arm spin that is tailor made for the slower pitches of India, he will regain the confidence that is sorely needed for this gifted cricketer.

===============================================================

David Siddall

The ‘Ace in the Hole’ refers to the break-out player of the tournament, the player that no one is talking about but will star in the event. The issue with the selecting the Ace is that cricket has become so globalized and so ubiquitous that it is hard for a modern day player to just slip under the radar or for a young star to rise so prominently and not get noticed. Because of this, my ace in the hole is coming from way left field.

He’s a forgotten man in world cricket. He probably won’t even start for his country. But not too long ago he became the quickest man ever to reach the 50 ODI wickets mark in 19 matches at a staggering average of around 10. Back then he was a mystery spinner who mesmerized with his mix of offies, googlies, leg-breaks and carom balls. Bowling wicket to wicket, constantly attacking the stumps he claimed a disproportionate amount of lbws compared to your average bowler. But that was 2008 and he appears to have been figured out since with batsmen getting to know his variations and playing him more like a medium pacer. He still takes wickets but they are thinner on the ground.

Whether Ajantha Mendis can rekindle the form he showed when he burst onto the scene is completely up in the air. Whether he can even find his way into Sri Lanka’s starting lineup is also less obvious. Whether there is space for two spinners in the side is open to debate. Murali is number 1 and Dilshan does a good job as a part time spin option. Mendis also has competition from the slow left-armer Rangana Herath in that department. If Mendis does get his berth in the side who knows what might happen? This writer enjoyed his passage into the history books in 2008 and wanted to see plenty more of him but is still waiting for his wish. Maybe Ajantha Mendis can be a great addition to the few attacking spinners left in the limited overs game…

===============================================================

Kevin Pietersen simply tells us what we already know

The recent furore about Kevin Pietersen tweeting his disgust at being dropped for the oncoming One-day series says nothing more about Pietersen than what we already knew. What it does raise, however, is the burgeoning issue of appropriate use of social networking sites by cricketers, Twitter foremost among them.

The ECB has recently made moves to ban players from using the microblogging site, a move for control by a board unable to micromanage its playing staff as in days past. At the front of their minds must be the abusive tweet sent to a fan by paceman Tim Bresnan as well as Pietersen's outraged update at being “rested”. Gone are the days of a simple five-minute radio interview at the end of a day's play, now replaced by 24/7 access to the dressing room, long the most private area of any team's domain. To that extent, several leagues have legislated to stop players tweeting during matches or about in-game incidents.

This northern summer, KP's form has been patchy at best and he has stagnated as a batsman since the Moores crisis of early 2009. His batting, once powerful and expressive enough to command a place in any world cricket side, has reached the point where he's now convinced – like Matthew Hayden in his career twilight – that domination of a bowling attack comes down only to an aggressive state of mind rather than the combination of footwork, attitude and hard graft.

Of course Pietersen's antics shouldn't come as a surprise. He has ample experience at dealing with traditional media sources and must have known his Twitterrage would be reported yet still posted the message. This adds proof to the theory that most professional athletes react differently to disappointment than the rest of us. As an exceedingly small group, they are feted and praised beyond all recognition simply for their hand-eye co-ordination and as a result a healthy world-view is hard to maintain. These abilities are so desired that the media and fans have created this elite status where a blind eye can be turned consciously to an athlete's self-obsession, all because it's in everyone's best interest to see that athlete perform at their best.

If KP's Twitterburst came from a normal person it would be seen as immature. But we can't judge him in those terms because he's not a normal person. At least he doesn't consider himself normal because he's been told that's he's special by everyone since age twelve. One only has to see his posture at the crease to gain insight into how Pietersen views himself. Like anyone who is told something repetitively, Kevin has come to believe that he is special and that special people get what they want, whether that be a spot in the team, superior treatment in restaurants or a chance to voice their opinion, no matter how alternative, misguided or clinically insane.

Making (and recovering from) mistakes combined with good old-fashioned repetition forms the bedrock of learning. When it comes to cricket, Pietersen's talent has helped him make fewer mistakes than the norm. With a lack of negative reinforcement and only repetition – which in itself breeds obsession – from which to learn, could this be a key source of his skewed perspective? With a minimum of negative reinforcement, how could any of us have a well-adjusted world view?

How any player chooses to express himself is very much up to the individual. The proliferation of athletes regurgitating only cliche and optimism means it's safe to expect only platitudes from the age-old combination of player and microphone. Adding fuel to the fire is very rare now – especially since the retirement of noted agitators McGrath and Warne – but whenever a player steps out of line via Twitter he should as accountable for his words as he would be in any other public forum. Rather than a flat-ban, applying the simple “Would you say that to a microphone”? technique may be the best option. Social networking tools should be treated exactly the same as any other media outlet with anything published on these sites regarded as a public statement – vent, post, or blog at the player's own risk like the rest of us – and if an employer can catch a truant employee via a facebook update then the same rules must apply to athletes.

The ECB shouldn't, and probably legally can't, stop their cricketers from using these sites. Of pro athletes, the number of damaging tweets as a percentage of overall tweet numbers must be microscopic and rarely are any tweets revelatory. I mean, how often do you expect to hear a startling disclosure about anything in 140 characters or less? And combined with the unflappable boredom that makes up the current crop of world cricketers this issue suddenly becomes irrelevant. The domain of the pro athlete is no longer only the arena and has stretched into cyberspace: Twitter is an egotist's (and their agent's) wet dream because it allows everyone in the world free and unfettered access to “the brand”, in this case the most damaging batsman in World Cricket today.