-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
It's Tough Being Me - The Kevin Pietersen Story
- Thread starter Spikey
- Start date
Furball
Evil Scotsman
What about smashing 186 at Mumbai or 150-odd in Galle to singlehandedly win Tests (ok, Cook assisted the Mumbai effort) - is that not a team man?
Smashing 158 at the Oval when the rest of the top order **** themselves to win the Ashes for the first time in 18 years. Selfish ****.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Yeah.. this clique about KP is almost as annoying as the one that says his team mates were just jealous of him and his genius...
YorksLanka
International Debutant
absolutely agree, compare the situation with Kohli for India, no one cares about his ****yness on the pitch becuase he is their best player so why is it any different for KP?
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nothing like a few bits of individual brilliance to underline how much of a team man someone is.
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Big difference is the fact that Kohli is 10 years younger and KP's best days are behind him.
As much as I love KP I can understand why they have got rid as he would be on borrowed time anyway just because of age and his performances have dropped off in recent times. The odd flash of brilliance but very little else.
YorksLanka
International Debutant
i can see your point, but wouldnt you agree those individual performances were to save the team and get the victory for the team ?
YorksLanka
International Debutant
Yes, i take that, but name me a player in the England team who is capable of taking his place..it would be different if there were three players form the lions that were scoring bucket loads of runs and being kept out by KP but i cant see that in this circumstance..imho, this was purely down to the fact that Cook and Giles cant manage him, coupled with jealousy by people who dont have a inch of his talent..
Last edited:
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Clearly they did. But pointing to good individual performances as evidence that someone is a good team player is so ridiculous. Largely the team aspect of cricket occurs behind the scenes. In the planning, in the lead up and in the aftermath of a match.
No ones suggesting Pietersen used to sabotage himself in order to 'get back at the team'. There's suggestions that he hasn't been willing to compromise the style of his play for his team, but that's different to just sabotaging yourself.
YorksLanka
International Debutant
if i played like him, i wouldnt change a thing either..and a lot of people would want me drug tested!!
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Funnily enough, I think most people believe that making runs is often in the interest of the team.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Isn't every good innings a feat of individual brilliance though?
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I think it's just really hard for us to say either way from the outside.
It's entirely possible that Pietersen, while a better batsman than whoever will replace him, really does make the team less likely to win with him in than out of it due to how he acts. I personally think it's probably unlikely, but you do have to do what's best for the team and we don't really know what goes on in that dressing room. If England are more likely to win series without him than with him then he shouldn't be playing. I think it was a case of him being deemed worth it when he was making a lot of runs, and now not so worth it when the team is struggling a bit and he's not making many.
Of course it's also possible that the hierarchy have just used the poor performances of the team as a perfect opportunity to get rid of him because they dislike him.
It's hard to say either way IMO. Fair enough to have an opinion, but the strong stances people seem to have on it confuse me. It's something we don't really know much about either way.
It's entirely possible that Pietersen, while a better batsman than whoever will replace him, really does make the team less likely to win with him in than out of it due to how he acts. I personally think it's probably unlikely, but you do have to do what's best for the team and we don't really know what goes on in that dressing room. If England are more likely to win series without him than with him then he shouldn't be playing. I think it was a case of him being deemed worth it when he was making a lot of runs, and now not so worth it when the team is struggling a bit and he's not making many.
Of course it's also possible that the hierarchy have just used the poor performances of the team as a perfect opportunity to get rid of him because they dislike him.
It's hard to say either way IMO. Fair enough to have an opinion, but the strong stances people seem to have on it confuse me. It's something we don't really know much about either way.
Last edited:
YorksLanka
International Debutant
no your right but my point was, that when someone is that talented, that should come first..for example, i personally dont like the attitude shown by Kohli HOWEVER i still think he is a fantaastic cricketer and plays some wonderful innings irrrespective of what my personal thoughts on him are...
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Something has to have happened in Australia that made Pietersen's position within the team untenable.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
I don't want to believe that because that's pathetic.