Kevin Pietersen is an enigma. Most enigmatic players are potential match-winners. There is a method in their madness. However, not everyone is able to channel his energies into the game alone.
Barring a few players such as Sachin Tendulkar who attract us to the sport with their consistent performances, others tend to pepper the sport with needless controversies.
Pietersen in many ways is England’s most successful batsman. There is no denying the 13,000 runs he has contributed to English cricket; and he is definitely capable of adding a few thousand more. However, sending childish text messages to the South African team about the English team and its captain exposed his loyalties.
Regardless of whether England wins or not, it can never be blamed for not playing the sport in its spirit. This is reflected in the fact that regardless of stature or standing of a player, heavy fines are levied in disciplinary issues. Pietersen, walking into such a cricketing culture with his shoot-from-the-hip attitude will always run into trouble.
In this ongoing Pietersen saga, majority felt that the new Director of Cricket Andrew Strauss ought to have handled the case with more maturity and tact. Besides the fact that Strauss was the captain when Pietersen shared those messages, his book too ripped apart Strauss who has every right to feel hurt.
However, an educated person like Strauss, who holds a BA degree from the University of Durham, to allow his personal biases affect his decision is disappointing.
Pietersen’s actions have been spread across time, establishing a reluctance on his part, to rectify his ways. Cricket is a team sport and trust is at the very heart of the game.
The problem is that when Pietersen performs he seems to develop a disregard for the norms of the team and the establishment; constantly attacking those he does not respect. Such a personality demands much of the captain’s energy and herein lies England’s problem.
Snow precedentIn the 1970-71 Ashes in Australia, John Snow wasn’t sharp with his bowling and fielding duties during a side game that England was playing before the first Test. According to his book Yorkshire and Back, captain Illingworth invited Snow to his room and warned him sternly. Snow for his part promptly destroyed the Australians and helped England win the Ashes. In the case of Pietersen, neither Strauss nor Cook has the stature of Illingworth to manage him.
It is also hard to believe that Strauss hadn’t discussed the Pietersen issue with Alastair Cook. Eventually, it is the captain who has to manage the players. After all, a few years ago, it was Cook who was responsible for getting Pietersen on the India tour. He toyed with Indian spinners on slow turning tracks to help England win the series.
Now, Cook, not confident of himself after getting excluded from the ODI team, must have been unsure of inviting the pressure of handling Pietersen that could potentially end his career. Having to deal with an imposing personality not only drains the energies of the leader but also leaves others with a sense of vacuum.
However, if England fails to win against New Zealand or the first Test against Australia who will it turn to? The supposedly ‘untrustworthy’ Pietersen cannot have regained that trust in a matter of weeks.
By discarding the selection issue of its most successful batsman with such finality, England seems to have pushed itself into a corner. For his part, Pietersen fails to demonstrate that he understands the team values of the sport, thereby keeping the tension on the rope high in this tug of war in English cricket.
