I don't buy that. No smoke without fire on this one. The story makes perfect sense given what we know about the setup.
I think there are differences in the England camp, there are in any set up with people of different characters and natures, there are in my office where one person spends way too much time chatting.
And they're not such a hard worker the rest of the time that I'd say "no, don't get shot of them"
Specifically about the KP situation, I don't doubt his ego is always going to cause problems . But I do agree the Lebanna re the media trying to make a story, there may be problems there but the media are definitely trying to make it a story whether it is a key problem or not.
BBC Sport - Kevin Pietersen: England captain Alastair Cook fails to back batsman
BBC said:
Kevin Pietersen: England captain Alastair Cook fails to back batsman
Captain Alastair Cook has refused to give Kevin Pietersen any guarantees about his England future.
I agree with Cook, why should he guarantee one player uber alles?!?!? West Brom have just appointed Mel, there's a link where the BBC suggest "Baggies reject Mel as hunt goes on" which is completely different to what the article says, it's a spin, making it out to be more sensational than it was. They couldn't originally agree terms
There's no reason to suspect Pietersen will go so arguably this thread is as bad as the media, coaches can get sacked for poor results, but as a team effort then there's no reason Pietersen should go ahead of others, he was top runscorer in the series.
What caused the major problem in the series was lack of runs, Cook, Bell and Pietersen the experienced hands making 775 runs between them at an average of 26.72 with seven fifties in those 29 innings but none higher than 72no.
The rest of the batting, less experienced or simply not as central for various reasons - Carberry, Trott, Prior, Bairstow, Root, and Ballance - made 673 runs @ 21.71, Stokes did ok but the rest of the batting really didn't. That's barely enough runs (1448) to fill 2-3 decent Test efforts if you consider 550-600 a decent cumulative figure for one Test.
Add to that the key bowlers averaging 44 (Anderson), 80 (Swann), 41 (Bresnan) and only one decent average of 28 (Broad) standing alone in trying to make up for the lack of runs being scored.
Feeble efforts all round, but the focus of the media had to be political, KP vs those in charge, nothing original, nothing clever, same old lame old
----------
Oh I do think that Broad is a good team player, I was just referring to his high belief that every appeal not given should be reviewed!
The mistake they made with the review system was giving it to the players, they then had to limit it or they might as well review everything.
It should be with the umpires, to review every wicket given out and any they aren't sure about given not out - whether there's a thin nick, close LBWs, that kind of thing.
The inherent part of the problem, and the pressing need for a system of some sort, was trial by TV. It's the same with football, bad decisions exposed by camera angles, slow motion, and all the things the officials don't have.
The key question was always going to be how to keep it to a minimum use so as to avoid excess delays. One answer would be review more at the umpire's call, but if there's no reason to believe it is a bad decision after 1-2 REPLAYS, or after a fixed time limit, then play on.
Of course TV could help by limiting the amount of times they replay decisions, especially in football. I saw a replay (highlights programme) so many times I was left wondering why they were flogging it to death. They weren't going to change the decision, once it had been confirmed if it was good or bad they should have discussed, not continued replaying it.
In the old days umpires were respected because no one was trying to prove they got decisions wrong. Players accepted the decisions, now it is controversial because TV exposes mistakes and even worse because players have limited reviews in which to try and expose mistakes, and worse still because the reviews are used to only reverse decisions which aren't close, even though at the cost of a review, they should decide if it was hitting, in line or whatever, not "umpires call".
That costs them a review, leaves a bitter taste in the mouth because dorkeye shows it hitting the stumps and you know had the umpire called it the other way then the decision would have been the opposite and how the f* can it be out and not out on the same delivery?!?!?!?
