The facts show he was terribly ineffective in the six Tests of their last 12 that England ought to have won
Andy Zaltzman14-May-2015The latest twist in the unedifying Kevin Pietersen saga has been amply covered in these virtual pages and elsewhere, so the Confectionery Stall will limit itself to a few brief additions to the Vesuvius of befuddlement, opprobrium, cryptic accusations and rancour that has spewed over the Pompeii of English cricket.Firstly, it is hard to envisage how the ECB could have handled the Pietersen re-sacking more incompetently, other than by imagining them handling the original Pietersen sacking and turning the volume up slightly. Perhaps they could have drawn the saga out a little longer, picked Pietersen for the first Test, and then, just as he walked onto the Lord’s outfield to resume his engrossing, undulating international career, released a trapdoor in the outfield to send the opinion-splitting batsman plummeting into a secret tiger pit deep underneath St John’s Wood. Although even that would at least have had clarity and finality. As it is, he has had career doors firmly slammed and very slightly opened in his face this week.Secondly, it is a fact universally acknowledged that when you are being slagged off by Kumar Sangakkara, you are doing something wrong.Thirdly, everything about this unedifying, elongated shemozzle – and its various related sub-shemozzles; in particular the rankly incompetent defenestration of Peter Moores – has become ridiculously exaggerated. The hyperbole culminated in Pietersen’s absurdly large innings of 355 not out for Surrey against Leicestershire, which began as a partially relevant success against county cricket’s rubbishest team and ended as a monumental granite middle finger aimed firmly and directly towards the ECB and its serial failures of management, message and manners.Fourthly, Colin Graves’ apparent olive branch was an administrative blooper of remarkable bloopiness. It seems that the ECB would not have had to move the goalposts had Graves not unilaterally put up those goalposts. Andrew Strauss was last seen dismantling the goalposts, taking them to a disused quarry, dousing them in kerosene, and fumbling in his pockets for a lighter.
It is not inconceivable that, by late July, Strauss will once again be describing KP as a Cricketer of Unbelievable Natural Talent, as he did last summer in the commentary box, albeit in the form of an acronym
As any good botanist will tell you, however, goalposts have a tendency to grow back. If England lose to New Zealand, and Ian Bell in particular fails to score runs, or Cook’s long-standing weakness against the swinging ball is exposed again, something that looks suspiciously like two vertical posts and a crossbar will begin to appear again.It is not entirely inconceivable that, by late July, Strauss will once again be describing Pietersen as a Cricketer of Unbelievable Natural Talent, as he did last summer in the commentary box, albeit in the form of an acronym.It is almost inconceivable, but not entirely inconceivable. It will help if Pietersen does not publish any more autobiographies. As it would have helped previously.Fifthly, quota systems are a recipe for disagreement. English cricket’s new quotas are clearly causing ructions: no players with a long record of what might be called “dressing-room malfunctions”; no players who have scored more than 350 in a Championship match (there goes Neil Fairbrother’s lingering hopes of a recall); no Kevin Pietersens; and no more than two batsmen in the team at any one time who have over 100 Tests’ experience but have been averaging in the low 30s over a prolonged period (Bell and Alastair Cook are the men in possession of these two slots, so Pietersen will have to wait his turn).Sixthly, beware “throwing around statistics”. Pietersen averaged 33.3 in 14 Tests after his Mumbai masterpiece in late 2012. Cook also averages 33.3, in 20 matches since the start of the 2013 Ashes. Bell averages 32.9 in 15 Tests since the beginning of the 2013-14 series in Australia. Some statistics are boomerangs.Seventhly, we still do not know the full story (one of the ECB’s many mistakes, as they have handled the whole process as delicately as a plate at a very enthusiastic Greek wedding). Perhaps relationships were so irreparably damaged that wilfully jettisoning a potentially series-shaping player was the only viable course of action. Perhaps they had to weigh Pietersen on one end of the seesaw against Cook, Anderson and Broad on the other.There seemed to be a far neater solution – recall Pietersen initially to the limited-overs teams, enabling him to “rebuild trust” (a) under a different captain, and (b) playing alongside few if any of those with whom he has clashed. He could have taken his “advisory role” in the 50-overs team (as was weirdly offered like a complimentary ice-cream with a £500 punch in the face), while also proving whether or not he can still perform in international cricket and function as part of an England team without everything falling to pieces or the world ending. He could have helped to develop and educate the young, aggressive batsmen eager to learn from his unorthodox, calculating brilliance, and shape a hopefully brighter ODI and T20I future. This was an opportunity missed, in a long and sorry tale of errors, obfuscations and discourtesies of which no one can be even slightly proud. England do not absolutely need him in the Test team now, with Gary Ballance and Joe Root scoring heavily and Bell still just in credit. But they might need him, or want him, soon.”… And in my next move to disrupt the team while not even in it, I’ll let the sun reflect off my beer bottle and blind them just as Ishant runs in”•Getty Images● The last player to score a triple-century in a first-class match in England was Sam Agarwal, the Indian student who made 313 not out for Oxford University against Cambridge in the 2013 Varsity match at Fenner’s. He is, unquestionably, not quite as well-known as Pietersen, nor is he likely ever to outdo the former England player in terms of international runs, career earnings, or stroppiness of autobiography, but they may be statistically joined together eternally in the cricketing history books.Agarwal has never played first-class cricket again since the match in which he scored his triple-hundred. Pietersen, now injured and angry after his staggering innings at The Oval, may well follow suit, without the golden carrot of Test cricket as motivation.That said, a scenario in which England lose to New Zealand, fall behind in the Ashes, and have to reassess the situation is far from outlandish. Pietersen had appeared a faded force in Tests, but such appearances can deceive with the fluctuations of form and fitness. Brian Lara, a player with whom Pietersen shares a similar blend of eye-melting virtuosity and periods of technical vulnerability, emerged from a slump to play some of his finest cricket in his mid-30s.● What is “trust” in a team sport? If it is partly concerned with being able to rely on your team-mates to produce their best when matches and series are at their decisive moments, then England do not seem to be swimming around in an excess of it at the moment.As I wrote last week, in their last 12 Tests, England have not won on six occasions when they had a “winning position”, or at least dominance, in the match.1. v Australia, Melbourne, December 2013, lost by eight wickets
England have Australia 164 for 9 in the first innings, 91 behind. A last-wicket stand of 40 reduces England’s first-innings lead to 51. When Cook and Michael Carberry add 65, the score is, effectively, 116 for 0, which becomes 137 for 1. Then normal mayhem resumes. Nine wickets fall for 93, and Australia cruise to the 231-run victory target with eight wickets in hand and almost embarrassing ease.2. v Sri Lanka, Lord’s, June 2014, match drawn with Sri Lanka’s last-wicket pair at the crease
England take a first-innings lead of 122, then wobble in the second innings, before Ballance, Chris Jordan and Stuart Broad take England to impregnability and beyond. They declare to set Sri Lanka a stupidly out-of-reach target of 390 on the final day. England almost force a result on a flat pitch, but Sri Lanka finish nine wickets down (and only 189 runs short) amid scenes of borderline chaos. England are left ruing a cautious declaration, and their own inanely slow over rate earlier in the match, which needlessly cost them several potentially match-winning overs.
Some players might have been thinking about Pietersen when they spooned short balls from Ishant straight up in the air at Lord’s, but impossible to tell without access to Hawk-Eye’s non-existent Mind Reader facility
3. v Sri Lanka, Leeds, June 2014, lost by 100 runs with one ball remaining
England lead by 108 after the first innings, then have Sri Lanka 277 for 7 – effectively 169 for 7. Rangana Herath (batting average 5.2 in his previous 18 Tests) scores 48, adding 149 with the majestic Angelo Mathews, as England go collectively wonky in the field. Chasing 350 to win, they collapse, then recover doggedly, leaving Moeen Ali and James Anderson 122 balls to survive to snatch a draw: 120 of those balls go well; the 121st goes badly.4. v India, Lord’s, July 2014, lost by 95 runs
Another first-innings lead (albeit a slender one of 24 runs), despite allowing the opposition tail off the hook yet again – India’s last three wickets add 150. In the second innings, India are struggling again at 235 for 7 when Ravindra Jadeja and Bhuvneshwar Kumar shatter England’s control with a rapid stand of 99. Victory is still possible for England at 173 for 4, chasing 319. They lose five (five) wickets to short balls by Ishant Sharma (Ishant Sharma) (five wickets to short balls by Ishant Sharma) (just to clarify).5. v West Indies, Antigua, April 2015, match drawn
When Shivnarine Chanderpaul falls on the fifth morning, England have 62 overs to take the last five West Indian wickets; then 51 overs to take the last four after Jermaine Blackwood goes momentarily berserk. In the face of some high-quality rearguard, they take just under 26% of those four wickets.6. v West Indies, Barbados, April 2015, lost by five wickets
England take a lead of 68, then lose 5 for 39 (to go with a collapse of 5 for 24 at the end of their first innings). A victory target of 192 still looks tricky for West Indies, especially when Chanderpaul falls limply to make it 80 for 4. England take only one more token wicket, and lose with two days to spare.