.. I've been following the KP drama and build-up ever since England stepped on to Australian soil for the Ashes, December 2013. In hindsight, it feels pretty obvious that there were strong undercurrents at work even then. Personally, I feel very saddened by the way KP has been treated. He was always prime candidate for fall guy, only because he stuck out like a sore thumb in a sea of mostly colourless characters. KP questions deserve answers Reactions - 'KP found himself friendless'
This is so England. Can't handle a personality that deviates from their cookie cutter square box. I for one will not be watching England as closely as before.
+1 on that sentiment! There was Botham, then there was a bit of Freddie (and of course, "Sir" Geoffrey Boycott who was more of a character after he retired!) and now, we have... errrr... Ian Bell? Meanwhile, a look at KP's moments... http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013-14/content/gallery/689679.html And here's validation of his talent and presence from more appreciative sources: What makes KP a franchise-magnet
I read somewhere that KP was practically 'friendless' during England's catastrophic Ashes tour. Not terribly difficult then to imagine why the axe fell on him later!
^ Yeah, he was always parked at deep-fine leg or something like that. What I found particularly galling was that right through the series, he was not called on to bowl even one over. He used to be used earlier as a change or attempt at partnership-breaker, and you could sense at times watching him on the field, that he'd have loved to have a go. But he was almost shunned in this respect. Strange... The latest on the episode from David Hopps: Misreading of players' meeting caused downfall A interesting comment on the values and mentality that plagues the ENG team comes from a comment posted below this (above link) article, from a person called huntgra: "You convene/invite/lure me to a private players only meeting(comfortable environment). You ask me to give my honest opinion about the management of the team, which i did. A rat decided to divulge my remarks to management and i was admonished.Later I told that i am no longer apart of the team. There is something really unethical about this,the player who divulge the contents of the meeting should be exposed and reprimanded. Coach Flower you cannot have a united team with players spying on one another because this wont end with KP if you are that insecure. Captain Cook, you should be standing up for your players, right now you looking spineless,after all it was you who convened this meeting. KP has lost his ability to earn and nothing from you. Was this meeting convened to set him up?"
Ian Chappell weighs in on the KP sacking. Outspoken or insubordinate? Some excerpts: ...What I do know is that when selecting a cricket team, it's performing not conforming that counts. A selector only has to ask himself if a player can get him a hundred or take five wickets. ...A captain can't expect a player to be an individual expressing his talent on the field and then demand that off it he be subservient. Occasionally a captain has to live with the consequences of individuality, whether it be on the field or off it. ...The priority should be appointing the right captain. Then you worry about choosing the coach. If Pietersen was considered the best man to captain England, surely he deserved the right to have a say in who was coach? ...The England hierarchy makes a big thing of "team culture". Selectors can pick players of good character but team "culture" can't be manufactured, it has to evolve through strong leadership and natural friendships. Character only comes into selection when two players are even in ability. Otherwise, picking the best player is the wisest choice.
