I’m still unsure…

To those who follow this blog or my twitter page on a regular basis, you will be aware that I’m not a massive fan of KP. It started since textgate and if I’m honest, I never fully respected him post-reintegration.

However, the release of the autobiography has made me think. I’ve tried to look at all the evidence and have honestly tried to see if I was wrong – too harsh on Kevin.

To me, though, there are still too many questions I have not seen answered in order to for me to actually believe the story that Pietersen is portraying.

Firstly, KP Genius. You have spoken very well about the effect that the account had on you. And I believe it. The parody account was in poor taste and most importantly to the Twitter folk, not actually very funny. Yet your story still has issues. Why did you not name the architects of the account in your autobiography? Why have the three people you have named who ran the account (Anderson, Broad, Swann) different from the three people Alec Stewart named? Why have you blamed Anderson for the account, when he never actually followed it?

Secondly, textgate. Kevin has accepted he made a mistake here and has apologised. I do think this is the right move as the messages were an obvious issue of trust. He has fairly blamed the parody account for leading to segregation from the rest of the England players. Despite all of this, there are still a few grey areas in regards to the story. Why did you involve Andrew Strauss in your texts, despite him having no involvement in the parody account? Why are you unable to remember the content of the message, despite it being an important moment of your life?

So, I move onto Matt Prior. This is the biggest problem in my opinion. Matt Prior was very influential in the reintegration process for Kevin Pietersen yet on Sky Sports yesterday, Pietersen said “the public think he was influential”. He obviously thinks that Prior’s input was limited. He also makes reference to Matt Prior’s nickname – Cheese – as if this somehow influences his character, despite the fact there is evidence that Andrew Strauss and Stuart Broad to name a few, used it on a regular basis. Why do you think Prior had no involvement in the reintegration process? What was the issue with the nickname?

The technique of Kevin Pietersen came under much scrutiny throughout his career, probably a lot more than others. And Kevin has tried to give clarification on the issue – “I was in the team to destroy attacks in three hours. We had Bell, Cook, Trott and Strauss around me to support”. This is fine, however, the game at Perth (where the dismissal came under so much criticism) was not the time nor the place to do that. Game Situation is all important. The way I play is not an adequate response. What were you trying to gain by taking on long-on when England needed to bat out the day to survive? Were there instructions from the dressing room to play your natural game or was it just stupid?

Andy Flower in the eyes of many is one of England’s most successful ever coaches and it is a justifiable claim. During 2009-2012, this was one of England’s most successful ever period. To me, it is a real shame that the character of Andy Flower is being very sadly demonised. During the 2010-2011 Ashes, much was mentioned of England’s fantastic team spirit and in particular the environment that Flower had created. Would England have become World No.1 without Andy Flower?

Bullying is a very strong accusation and I’m sure that Kevin Pietersen will have some proof before he makes these allegations. However, on the whole issue, I feel he’s been very hypocritical. If a friend of KP’s bullies Matt Prior and Alistair Cook it is fine, when a friend of Stuart Broad bullies Kevin Pietersen it is unacceptable. Some say it is different because the England bowlers were providing information to the KPGenius account yet from the descriptions Piers Morgan has been giving throughout the summer about Cook and Prior, it is clear he has been given information from inside the dressing room. Furthermore, I, like everybody else, witnessed Graeme Swann’s Ashes Diaries and the Sprinkler and at the time, I commented that the reason they won the Ashes was due to the united team. Were there divisions during that team in the successful period? Is it OK for Matt Prior and Alistair Cook to have been so publicly bullied in the manner that they have? Why should everyone else be thick-skinned, when you yourself know of the effect that cyber bullying can have?

I will read the autobiography for the first time tomorrow and there may be the answers in that book. However, if not, I’d still like these questions to be answered. If there is a true explanation for all of them, it would probably convince me that KP is a victim – it concerns me that a lot of these questions are probably unanswerable. I’d like to think I’ve been fair with these questions and I haven’t made anything up. I honestly think these are holes in the KP story. I’ve tried not to be biased throughout all of my writing – the only reason why I haven’t done a similar piece for the ECB is because I struggle having to write more than 2000 words.

If anyone does feel they know any of these answers, feel free to comment below to enlighten my knowledge.

@voicefromstands

Women’s cricket – what’s next?

After the unbelievable reaction that my post yesterday got, like a true London bus, I’ve written another one after the five month absence. It’s not as controversial as issue as the KP one, but nevertheless it’s one that is very important to me.

The recent series against South Africa has raised many issues for me. It was brilliant to see the series televised the game on Sky yet some of the comments I saw on Twitter and other social media were highly disappointing.

At the start of 2014, the ECB announced a professional contract package for the women’s cricketers. It was a good move but still not enough. Then came the sponsorship deal with Kia Motors. This shows that quite clearly there is the demand for the women’s game yet there was still a disappointing turnout at Edgbaston for the final T20.

And this is not a problem that solely lies with cricket, spectator numbers for women’s sport are always low with the possible exception of tennis.

I don’t want to turn this blog into a rant against the ECB, it isn’t. As of 2013, there are 60,000 women playing cricket in the UK and this is something that should be applauded. But it doesn’t mean it is the end of the road.

To me, there is one obvious solution to this problem and it lies with free-to-air TV. Sky have been superb with their promotion of the women’s game but there will always be a problem if your audience is so limited.

The important aspect of growing women’s sport is promotion. The Olympics led to a huge rise in participation for sports which have never had so much exposure. This is the same issue with women’s cricket.

During the end of the game against South Africa, there were three moments that really stuck in my mind. A direct hit from Nat Sciver from the boundary rope, a sensational catch from Lydia Greenway the ball afterwards and Sarah Taylor enacting a run out in front of the stumps from a ball at her feet. All three were utterly sensational and in my opinion world class irrespective of gender. Yet there were viewed by a combined TV audience of 12.

Just imagine, if only the BBC would broadcast the game and people could really witness the incredible talents on display. Who is to say that this will not inspire a whole generation of girls to take up the sport. For a whole generation to be able to have their own heroes.

People need to realise that women’s sport has the potential to be as successful as the male equivalent and cricket is a better position than most sports in order to try and boost its popularity. All it needs now as that additional exposure as it is plain to see, the future is certainly bright.

Check out my twitter account @voicefromstands and be sure to comment.

Kevin Pietersen

Firstly, I’d like to state that I’m not writing this blog in order to confrontate or create arguments. I’m not accusing The Full Toss of lying or being factually incorrect and we have had discussions on Twitter about Kevin Pietersen without the need for direct abuse. Instead, like many cricket microbloggers, sport brings us together and the ability to discuss about it is one of its finest features. I’m not by any means at cricket writer (nor have any real intentions of being), just a fan of England cricket wanting to get his views across.

However, I’d nevertheless like to write an alternative view in order to get my opinion across in a more eloquent manner than the 140 characters on Twitter permits.

Firstly, the first series of cricket I ever watched was the 2004-05 series from England against South Africa. As I’m sure most of you are aware, in that series Kevin Pietersen hit three centuries at averaged 151 as he made his mark on the international scene.

Then came along the Ashes, I remember sitting at home watching in awe as Kevin Pietersen hit a phenomenal 158 in order to allow England to regain the Ashes. Ever since that day I was fixed and have watched more cricket than most of my friends would think was sane.

And I loved to watch it too. KP was my hero. I bought his autobiography and as a young 11 year old, I would practice the switch hit whenever possible in order to replicate my idol. He was supposedly invincible.

In 2007, I was at the England vs India game when after requesting an autograph from KP he simply ignored me and then after walking past the second time made a conscientious effort to ignore all of the kids queuing for a picture with an “England legend. “He’s always been arrogant” said another parent beside me and it was the first criticism of KP I had really ever heard. But it stuck.

Arrogance is a difficult concept. Some say it’s good to be confident, others say it’s possible to go too far. KP has always had the air of arrogance about him and his flashy character has had its critics. For some, it is a case of being able to manage his character and in that respect the ECB have failed miserably.

Nevertheless, if Jason Gallian, Mick Newell, Andrew Strauss, Giles Clarke, Peter Moores, Alistair Cook, Paul Downton, Ali Bacher Graeme Smith, Laurie Potter, Mike Bechet and Phil Russell have all managed to have some sort of dispute with KP (based on his autobiography Crossing The Boundary), my guess is that it cannot solely be that it is poor from the ECB. This is not just an anomaly.

One has to question whether KP has ever wondered whether he might be the issue and if a change in attitude is required?

I forgave KP for the captaincy debacle when it happened back in 2009, but my first frustration towards him started in the text gate scandal. Whether or not he did call Strauss a doos is irrelevant, the fact that it undermined the team is undeniable. Throughout the successful period between 2009-2012, many people praised the ECB for the way it created a successful winning environment. Team morale was one of the most important things and Matt Prior has mentioned in his own personal autobiography about the effect of a positive mental approach. However, here in KP was somebody who was willing to go against this basis. Who was willing to send a provocative message about his own captain.

Although dressing rooms may have egos, when they go onto the field, all of these egos are willing and dedicated towards the team. Happy dressing rooms ARE normally winning dressing rooms. The Australian team of the 90’s had plenty of large characters a la Warne etc. Nevertheless, you never hear any stories about how no one liked each other or anyone attempting to undermine the team.

Having played cricket myself, it is undeniable that others can affect your performance. I seen it in my own Sunday team where people don’t play as well because they are moaning about the opposition or annoying teammates. If KP had created that situation in the England dressing room (which APPEARS to be the reason why he was sacked), then that cannot be a good thing.

Whilst writing this blog, I’d just like to address one other argument that #TeamKP supporters make. That is the “way I play” argument. It was a topic that annoyed me, especially during the latter half of Pietersen’s England career.

Perth 2013 was a real low point for me, with Pietersen being caught on the boundary off Nathan Lyon as England are trying to survive and salvage a draw. The argument at the time was that we should not criticise Pietersen as this is the method that has brought him success.

I’m sorry, but has there ever been a more ludicrous claim? Pietersen could have easily knocked the ball down the ground for any easy single. It keeps the scoreboard ticking over and means that England can still bat out for a draw.

A player of Pietersen’s calibre should be able to adapt. Brian Lara was able to hit sixes better than many but he knew he had to play the game situation at all times.

KP has finished his England career with 8181 runs at an average of 47.26. These are undeniably highly impressive stats. However, I can’t help but wonder that if he had adapted to the game situation more often, would he have ended up with an average above 50 that someone with KP’s talent would merit. It would place him up with the greats.

The great cricket philosopher Phil Tufnell once said that “he’s not a great player, he’s a player of great innings”. I don’t think there’s been a truer word said about the KP situation.

Thank you very much for reading this post and before you comment, criticise or abuse, please read that first paragraph once more.

Follow @voicefromstands for more cricket related tweets