Pietersen v ECB - not a zero sum game

Kevin Pietersen has been thrown out of the England test team after reportedly refusing to confirm that the content of text messages he sent South African cricketers was not derogatory to Andrew Strauss or Andy Flower. And, despite much speculation that his value as a cricketer and batsman would far exceed the differences he has had with the ECB, he has been dropped from England's World T20 squad - it was probably to be expected following his omission from England's World T20 "long list", but it still came as a surprise. England are, effectively, seeking to defend their World T20 title without the Player of the Tournament of the last edition, and one of the biggest draws of the IPL - though it might not be mere idle speculation that the latter helped contribute to the current situation.

This latest news is yet another chapter in an often stormy relationship that Pietersen has had with the ECB. Starting with his difficult stint as captain, his twitter rant over being dropped from England's T20 squad and the recent rap on the knuckles for his criticism of Nick Knight, Pietersen has been in the midst of most of the recent controversy in English cricket - only pausing briefly to cede ground to his old teammate, Andrew Flintoff, for an alcohol-fuelled rant regarding Michael Atherton.

While the flap over Pietersen's latest run-in with the ECB is likely to blow over - England's hasty loss of the No.1 standing in Tests to South Africa, the upcoming England contracts process, and the World T20 seem to have enough news value to push Pietersen off the news pages for now - it leaves the average cricket fan with a sense of wonder at how the key people in cricket - players, coaches, boards - stubbornly refuse to learn from the lessons of cricketing history, whether past or recent.

As recently as last month, West Indies cricket welcomed Chris Gayle back to the fold after what seemed like at eternity - but which really lasted around 18 months of international cricket, two editions of the IPL, and one each of the Bangladesh Premier League and the Big Bash League. Gayle spent that time as a T20 specialist, regaling audiences the world over with some truly enjoyable T20 batting - and probably yearning, at the same time, for the adulation that would have been his as a member of the West Indies team. West Indies cricket congratulated itself for being firm in the face of such insubordination - and proceeded to try out a number of cricketers to replace Gayle, with generally little success. The protracted process leading to the eventual patch up left neither side looking good. If there was a lesson in it for cricket as a whole, then the ECB and Pietersen showed that they had not bothered learning from it - a bit like this Dilbert cartoon.

Pietersen's case might well avoid traversing the same path - but, for the present, the parallels are disturbing in their familiarity. Talismanic world-class cricketer, game changer, hugely popular - all these descriptions apply to Pietersen just as easily as they do to Gayle. As does the manner of his ejection.  With his exclusion from the World T20 squad, the possibility of the latest episode in the Pietersen-ECB imbroglio becoming an extended slow motion movie looms large.

Pietersen's case - and that of Gayle before him - also brings into focus the whole question of what matters in cricket. The famous - or notorious, depending on how one sees it - WG Grace is supposed to have once refused to go after being given out by the umpire arguing that people turned up to watch him play, and not to watch the umpire giving him out. Pietersen's recent "I love playing for England and people love watching me play" has shades of that.

There have been a number of articles in the aftermath of the Pietersen-ECB falling out, which have argued that the game of cricket is bigger than the people who play it, and hence Pietersen has no real reason to expect to be treated differently from any other cricketer. There is truth to that - cricket is a team game and no one, not even the likes of Bradman, Tendulkar or Warne, is ever going to be bigger than the game itself. But repeating a truism is hardly the most effective way to address the current mess.

From an outsider's viewpoint it is almost impossible to say what has led to the current  impasse. But the conclusion that the intransigence of all parties is contributing in some way to making resolution that much tougher is inescapable.

Pietersen is by far one the biggest “impact” cricketers England has. His importance to England has been demonstrated several times in the past - whether in the final test of the 2005 Ashes, or the World T20 win, or in his much-lauded innings in what might well turn out to be his last Test for England for a while. On its part the ECB would probably have done better to take note of the concerns of such a key member of the squad. Whether it could have been done without causing a rebellion in the ranks is a matter of conjecture, if not certainty, but it is debatable if such unhappiness would have caused the England cricket team to fall apart - especially after Hugh Morris has so publicly declared unity as being the central theme of the team that Strauss and Flower lead.

For his part, Pietersen would probably do well to take a look at how far greater cricketers have played the game. The likes of Tendulkar, Lara and Warne not only had outstanding career records but also did not carry the baggage of the periodic dust-up which seems a necessary part of the Pietersen-ECB relationship - this despite the fact that the testy relationship Lara shared with WICB came closest to that which Pietersen and the ECB seem to have. Similarly, Warne made no secret of his disregard for John Buchanan. This behaviour has lessons for both the ECB and Pietersen - given that Pietersen is a professional, and the ECB one of the leading cricket boards in the world, it should be possible for both parties to retain a relationship - despite disagreements and dissent - which is for the good for their common cricket interests without needing to rush off to the Press or Youtube or committee meeting rooms at the slightest hint of disagreement.

Pietersen claims that his private discussions with the ECB were finding their way into the open through the media. Such claims are not unusual - Pietersen is neither the first sportsman to make this claim, and he is unlikely to be the last. What is unusual, and possibly disturbing for those that follow and support English cricket, is that there does not seem to be any record of either the ECB or the England team management offering even a token denial, leave alone a vehement one, to counter Pietersen's claim. If that silence amounts to an admission of guilt, Pietersen would appear to have valid reasons to feel aggrieved at the treatment being meted out to him by the ECB.

As Jarrod Kimber argues in this well-written piece disagreement is a given in any workplace - and if the England cricket team were to be considered  a workplace, then  the ECB and the key players in this drama - Pietersen, Flower, Strauss - have a collective responsibility to resolve this jointly.  

Pietersen's absence from the England team might lessen the pressure on their opposition - and Dale Steyn has said as much. He may not even be irreplaceable, though it is doubtful if England will find it just as easy to find a comparable impact player. 

In the final analysis though, England cricket will have to go on - there is still lots of cricket to be played, there are still challenges to be overcome, and there will always be cricketers who will want to play for England and will be good enough to play. But for a marquee player like Pietersen and leading cricket board like the ECB to let things end this way would be tragic for cricket as a sport - and coming not long after the nightmare which was the Stanford saga, it would call into question the managerial abilities of those who run the ECB. It is difficult to see winners in this entire saga which does not need to be the zero sum game it currently appears to be.

Celebrate South Africa’s rise, not England’s decline

The Number One spot in Test match cricket is now South Africa's.

Chasing 346 to win the Test and retain the No.1 ranking, England's spirited fightback would have given Graeme Smith some cause for anxiety. It was however not enough as up against one of the better bowling attacks in the world, consisting of two of the most lethal new ball bowlers in the business, a rookie with a fabulous Test bowling career so far and a veteran who seems to go on and on – with a leg spinner with promise South Africa took the third and final test to seal a supremely dominant 2-0 series win.

South Africa's climb to the top spot in the Test rankings is a well-earned accolade for the seemingly perpetual almost-there team of world cricket.

It will also means that they have overcome their hoodoo of taking the early lead in a series only to let it slip as the series progressed, something that India have benefited from, both home and away, and which helped India retain the No.1 ranking in Test cricket. For South Africa to do so and reach the top of Test cricket in the same series must surely be a sweet moment, for the devils it banishes.

It is a worthwhile achievement for a team, which nowadays looks like it is caught in a time warp of the nice kind – one where its best players from the not-too-distant past have come together with yet another top class group to produce impressive results. Gary Kirsten, whose impressive record as coach – first of a World Cup winning Indian team which was also No.1 in Tests, and now South Africa’s rise to No.1 – tends to overshadow his terrific batting record, works alongside former teammate Allan Donald, who is the bowling coach. Combine the Kirsten-Donald duo with the likes of Smith, Kallis, Steyn, Amla, Morkel and the rest, and you have a South African team which boasts of its best talent of the last two decades. All it probably needs is Jonty Rhodes as fielding coach!

For South Africa, this success comes after some agonising disappointments. Their infamous collapse against New Zealand in the World Cup quarterfinals was an indication of the baffling frailties of one of the strongest teams in world cricket, especially when it comes to the big stage. Now, however, it appears that South Africa have put that behind them to become the truly world leading team they have always been expected to be. South Africa are deserving No.1 in Test cricket.

Since the end of Australian cricket’s golden era, after the 2007 Ashes, rarely has any team looked like dominating world cricket as thoroughly and for as long – South Africa might be the team that comes closest. They have slowly but steadily built a world-class team which has now shown its ability to play in all conditions and turn around any situation.

Their batting has been built around the solidity of Smith, Amla and Kallis while De Villiers has been the flamboyant stroke-player. It says a lot about the strength of this team that a batsman as explosive as AB De Villiers has really not had much to do this series. That batting quality has been complemented by a potent bowling attack led by the redoubtable Dale Steyn, whose bowling pedigree promises to elevate him to all-time greatness by the time he retires. Steyn has displayed tremendous adaptability in all parts of the world and rarely does it look like the conditions affect him - whether Test cricket or the IPL. Every spell seems to be something special and there is a certainty that he will make things happen. That he does all this not only at tremendous speeds but also with marvellous control puts him on par with the legends of fast bowling. Morkel might look the scatter-gun who could get it right but who could get it very wrong too. However, the disconcerting bounce that he gets is enough to unsettle even the best and he seems to be thriving in an atmosphere where he is given the freedom to be an impact bowler. It would be too simplistic to say that the presence of such high quality bowlers makes it easier for a newcomer like Philander. Philander's bowling in the second innings at Lord's coupled with an average of 6 wickets per match is ample proof that his is a very special talent. He still has not visited the subcontinent where lower and slower wickets might not give him as much to work with but his accuracy is impressive and that could be his biggest asset when playing on wickets less suited to fast bowling. South Africa have had less success with their spinning options - the transition from the attritional Paul Harris to the leg spin of Imran Tahir has not yielded the best results, and it probably reflects South Africa's ambivalent approach to their spin bowling line-up.

No team can get results without the right leadership, and it is a role that Graeme Smith performs well. Smith sometimes comes across as a stubborn captain unwilling to deviate from a set script, and as that World Cup match against New Zealand and the defeat to Australia in the two-test series showed, that approach has hurt South Africa at times. However, like all good things he has matured with age and his captaincy calls have been brave and also intelligent as he shown in this series - getting Philander to open the bowling, for instance. Being an opener he has been able to set the tone for his team and the contrast was stark between a confident Smith and an unsure Strauss. South Africa have also shown adaptability as a team - the decision to go with AB de Villiers' part-time wicket keeping skills when faced with Boucher's withdrawal after that sickening eye injury was brave, and has worked well.

And what of England? For cricket fans who have watched England over the years, it has been a story of a team that has often had its share of talented cricketers, professionals who play cricket for a living and who have always been a formidable opponent. That changed during the ‘80s and the ‘90s as England went through a sustained slump with not too many positive results – the one high point was a World Cup final, which they lost to Pakistan. Since those dark days, a number of people have contributed to the revival of England’s Test and ODI fortunes and those efforts culminated in in their ascent to No.1 in both forms of the game, though a World Cup title continues to elude them.

But, to trot out an oft-worn cliché, England have, as the No.1 Test team, struggled to look the part. Maybe it has to do with unease which comes with wearing the crown, maybe the recent Pietersen-ECB spat is symptomatic of the underlying problems which success helped gloss over, or maybe the sustained pressure of performing at a level required to stay No.1 is telling.

Whatever it may be, England’s showing since becoming No.1 has been underwhelming. Now that they have surrendered that ranking a sustained period of analysis – some critical, some honest, some over-the-top – will follow. For, of all the teams that are capable of such public bemoaning of poor results, England comes second only to India.

There will also be no dearth of cricket fans who are waiting with their most withering, most sarcastic remarks to celebrate the fall of England from No.1. In a form of one upmanship that has become a regular feature of world cricket writing, commenting, blogging and tweeting, India’s fans are waiting for pay back – not for the loss of the No.1 ranking in Test cricket, but for an opportunity to give back the criticism that followed India's own loss of the No.1 ranking.

Parallels will be drawn between how long India took to lose the ranking, how England have fared away in the time since they got there, and the inevitable comments about England being home wicket bullies (or as Mark Nicholas called it, a “fortress”) will follow.

There will be much laughing at England’s expense – and even if the England team deserve it or not, the collection of press, fans and others who have celebrated England’s success at India’s expense will have earned their team this derision. But while that might indeed be payback, there is something fundamentally wrong with that approach.

For, the passing of the crown from England to South Africa is to the latter’s credit – it is not merely about England’s failings. South Africa have got to the pinnacle the hard way – by playing consistently good cricket against their opposition, and to succumb to the temptation of gloating over England’s misery would be to do South Africa a disservice. And so, it would be better to celebrate South Africa's ascent to the top of the rankings than take joy in England’s misery. It is not about being noble – it is what the Spirit Of Cricket stands for.

As for South Africa’s success, they will realize, as England have already probably done, and India before them, that staying No.1 is as much a challenge as getting there.

Test cricket is in for interesting times. At present, South Africa and England look like the deserving leaders. Behind them, Australia and India are both grappling with the problems of transition, and doing so inconsistently. Pakistan continue to blow hot and blow cold, while Sri Lanka’s quest for replicating their home success in foreign climes remains their biggest challenge yet – much more so, in fact, than most other teams. West Indies and New Zealand are rebuilding, a process which the former seem to be doing a bit better, if the last series between them is any indication. Bangladesh know that as the clamour for a Test place for Ireland grows, they need to make the transition from being a threat to a winning team.

But whatever the long-term outcome of this joust for top place, South Africa deserve the congratulations that will come their way having arrived at the summit. Any other way of looking at it would not be fair to them.