The Pietersen principle

Let us begin this with an apology. Below are a number of words about Kevin Pietersen. Sorry.

If you've ever been systematically undermined in your job, you'll know the plan of attack. It's back to your desk, update the CV and get out of there as soon as. That's a little tricky in international cricket. You can't just swan off and go play for someone else (insert your own joke here about international eligibility rules). You're pretty much stuck. If Kevin Pietersen genuinely feels that he's unwelcome in the England environment, he has little option but to reject the Test contract that will be offered to him shortly and become the new Chris Gayle, the pre-reconciled Gayle, a bat for hire in the various t20 leagues around the world.

The question that arises, of course, is whether Pietersen has been systematically undermined or if he's now challenging David Icke as one of the great conspiracy theorists of the age. If Pietersen is really willing to end his England career over a spoof Twitter account, then he really needs to have a look back over his own public pronouncements and develop a bit of self-awareness. We'll stop short of asking for humility as that isn't a quality high on his list of traits and it's absence, in part, makes him the batsman he is, the swaggering, domineering beast who will dictate terms. If this is the end, then we have to hope there's something else at play rather than just the suggestion - strenuously denied - that one of his team-mates is behind the spoof.

If it's glory and adulation Pietersen desires - and he strikes us a man who likes to be told on a regular basis that he's great and how we can't possibly cope without him - then he'll find that without international cricket and the recognition that goes with it, he will struggle to find it playing in the Indian/Bangladesh/Sri Lankan/Zimbabwe Premier League.

If this is the end, England lose their most infuriating and brilliant batsman of this and (m)any other era. His 158 at The Oval in the Ashes of 2005 was as brutal as it comes. By contrast, his dismissal at Cardiff four years later, when he swept a non-spinning Nathan Hauritz off-break from a good two feet outside off to loop a catch up to short leg, was horrible. "That's the way I play", he implored afterwards. Well maybe it bloody well shouldn't be, playing such a low, low percentage shot when well set. Time and again, we'd hear the "That's the way I play" excuse, normally after holing out at long-on when trying to go from 95 to 100 in one shot. And yet that's also why he's endurably watchable, the pyrotechnics and ugly dismissals both making for great television. Without him, England become weaker - that's undeniable. But cricket's unique dichotomy between the team ethic and the individual nature of batsmanship has never been more starkly demonstrated by one person.

But it's worth remembering that the last time Pietersen threw a massive, flouncy strop led to his removal as captain, Peter Moores' dismissal as coach and the arrival of the Strauss/Flower dream team, successive Ashes series wins and the number one ranking. So it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Calling out Nick Knight

Kevin Pietersen was fined for saying the following on Twitter: "Can somebody PLEASE tell me how Nick Knight has worked his way into the commentary box for home Tests?? RIDICULOUS!!". This is, apparently, prejudicial to the interests of the ECB.

Yeah, whatever, but nobody can deny that Pietersen has a point. Knight has never expressed an actual opinion since his broadcast career began. He does a funny thing with his top lip before espousing his latest nugget of vapid, cliched nonsense which, once you've noticed it, is really annoying and impossible to avoid. So far, so bad, but the bigger problem lies beneath.

Sky's commentary team is a cosy coterie of former England captains, coaches and Nick Knight. Professional broadcasters are conspicuous by their absence. The same is true of Test Match Special where Henry Blofeld is the last of the classically-trained journalists to appear regularly. The same is true around the world where Tony Cozier and Harsha Bhogle are about the only professionals in a world where Laxman Sivaramakrishnan can find work in commentary. There's a fetishisation among broadcasters to go for the ex-pro regardless of any other concerns. This is almost unique in cricket, unlike other sports where a professional commentator will describe while an ex-pro adds colour and tactical insight. With the box full of ex-pros, you end up with neither.

The other element is something the ECB response to Pietersen's outburst hints at: the commercial concerns of the broadcaster. Heaven forbid someone with strident opinions be allowed to spout forth. There's a reason that it was only Michael Holding's entertaining rant directed at the WICB was the only real area of dissent on Sky's coverage allowed. The sponsors must be appeased. The same is true on the BBC; despite their lack of sponsors themselves, the ECB's must not be upset or in any way associated with negative coverage. Each of these two areas leads to anodyne, boring coverage, but the two together leads to anodyne, boring coverage brought to you by an anodyne, boring old boys club.

Knight is rubbish, but the bigger issues lie in the policy of recruitment and the lack of risk-taking engendered throughout the game. Pietersen will not be allowed near a commentary box until he has that element of outspokeness surgically removed.

And if any players want to sound off about commentators under the cloak of anonymity, do drop me a line on twitter

Open and shut case

Kevin Pietersen has gut knack and is off home from the World Cup early. This leaves England with a bit of a predicament. It's not as though the experiment of opening with Pietersen was a raging success, but at least it looked like giving us one opening partnership that will last a tournament. Instead, the English tradition of an unsettled pairing at the top of the order continues.

Eoin Morgan comes into the squad to replace Pietersen, but it's unthinkable that the impish Irish genius will go in first up. The recent attempt at making Matt Prior an opener failed - again - and can't be allowed to happen again. Luke Wright has opened for England in the past, but he's hardly likely to be taken off drinks-carrying duties in the foreseeable future as he's doing such a great job there. Instead, there's one other man that's done the job in the recent past and that's Ian Bell. He's done the job pretty well to boot and if the current trend of opening the bowling with spinners continues, he's unlikely to be flummoxed by it.

Pietersen's ability to add another spin option to the side will be missed and may prove a reprieve for Michael Yardy who has been throwing pies so far. Unless Ravi Bopara and Jonathan Trott can finagle a few overs of medium pacery between them, the Sussex skipper will presumably remain a feature of this side's make-up unless, in an Escape To Victory style, someone repeatedly slams Luke Wright's arm in a door so we can call up Adil Rashid.

Whichever way England go, Pietersen's departure will mean I'll have to find a new phrase to shout at the radio when England are playing now. Far too often in this tournament, I've found myself yelling "KP you fucking moron" as he finds new and interesting ways to get out to left-arm spin.

The Pietersen perplexity

In the latest Test match, against Bangladesh at Old Trafford, Kevin Pietersen again fell to what is fast developing as his nemesis, Shakib Al Hasan. Well set in the 60s, Shakib floated one up and Pietersen ran past, stumped while still a thrupenny bus ride up the wicket. If it was just Shakib, then it might not be so bad, but it's every left arm spinner that seems to have Pietersen in a tizzy. While there may be a technical explanation for his failings in this regard - I'm no coach and was similarly baffled by all left-arm bowlers during a less than glorious career - the more worrying aspect is his complete failure to apportion some blame on himself.

This all started in the 2009 Ashes series. At Cardiff, Pietersen attempted a ridiculous sweep off Nathan Hauritz which ballooned up, took the peak of his helmet and gave the close fielder an easy catch. The ball was three feet outside off. One run was about the best outcome such a high risk shot could have achieved, but it was brushed off as being "the way I play". So it is with his latest dismissal. There's a complete failure to take responsibility. On a relatively benign Manchester wicket, there was a big hundred in the offing. Pietersen is clearly the best batter England have and he could easily be the best - or at least close to - in the world if he cuts this nonsense out. Pre-meditated shots are fine, but if it suddenly becomes too risky, there must be a plan B. All the best have this in their locker. A Ricky Ponting may have lined up that shot against Hauritz, but would have pulled out when he saw how wide it was. A Sachin Tendulkar may have given Shakib the charge, but would have dropped the bat on it or stuck out a pad rather than go through with a wild hoik when it clearly wasn't there to be hit.

It's often said that a side's best batter plays at three. Pietersen has been steadfast in his refusal to go one up the order in the long form of the game. Perhaps this is as close as we'll ever get to an admission that he's still not mature enough to accept that responsibility.

An open letter to Kevin Pietersen

Dear Kevin,

Please, for the love of god, just stop talking. You demean us all.

Kind regards,

England.