The fuss this morning over the decision to dispense with Kevin Pieterson has baffled me. If we allow ourselves to just stick to the facts, it's hard to see what option they had but to sack him.
The recent Ashes tour has been analysed to death but certain basic facts stick out like a sore thumb. We didn't score enough runs and we didn't take enough wickets. The Australians had one bowler with sufficient speed to make the difference. Not one English batsman showed the technique or stomach to deal with that bowler. We need to accept that fact. What we don't have to accept though is our most senior batsman refusing to adapt his technique when the chips are so obviously down. That is exactly the time when the team need such a player to knuckle down and set the example.
Many people have refered to him being an individual or a maverick and that's all very well. There comes a time though where you have to remember your obligations to your fellow team members. That applies to any sport. Let's not forget that he will now go to IPL and earn shed loads of money in the only format of the game suited to his style. If he gets out to an irresponsible shot in IPL, nobody will even notice because that is the nature of T20 cricket. Test match cricket is a different kettle of fish.
I've read people comparing his record to people like Cowdrey, Hammond and Barrington. I almost fell off my chair laughing. He's nowhere near their standard. To start with, they all played their careers on uncovered wickets with a fraction of the padding protection worn today. They also played in an era when most sides fielded two spinners so had to have a solid technique to survive. All three of these players were noted for their ability to play the ball late and to keep it on the floor. They knew the golden rule of batting - you only get one chance and you can't make runs sitting in the pavilion. That is why Tendulkar became such a cult figure in India - there might have been better batsmen than him but few prized their wicket more! Pieterson may well have played over a hundred tests but he never learned that lesson. When he did encounter a top quality bowler last winter in Australia, his lack of progress showed. Had he sought to learn from his previous cavalier approach, he ought to have scored a minimum of 500 runs down under.
I salute the selectors for their decision because aside from anything else, it sends out the correct message to the team. The team! When you go out to bat, you do so for the team. We can't afford an "I'm alright Jack" approach from anybody and least of all from a senior player. As I say, if T20 is your thing, Pieterson is tailor made. For test matches though he is the sort of luxury which costs you dearly. Had he even attempted a modicum of contrition over some of those hideous dismissals, he might have given the selectors a tough decision. As it was, he did their job for them. England can now seek to regroup as a tight unit where the whole is more important than any individual - that has been the secret of all the best sides in test cricket history.
No comments:
Post a Comment