I love how people are questioning KP's position within the team. He scored 5 centuries in 2008, 2009 was a bit of a let down, only 1 century and 5 half centuries (inc a 97), still averaging 47.50 for the calendar year, and that includes having a serious lay-off through injury, which he's not long recovered from. Though 2009 was the first time since 2005 that he hasn't scored 1,000 runs in the year.
He may not quite be performing at his best. But that phrase is key, his best, remember who you are talking about. You talk of "best", but for silly dismissals you wouldn't need to put that in your comments. And surely the flip side of that is that he can average the same as the rest when "not at his best", surely that means he deserves more criticism than someone whose best is not nearly as able. ie the expectations should be higher
And if he were to play more sensibly early in his innings, and when well set, how good would he be?
Oh and his 81 in the 1st test played a massive part in us surviving the match.
And his stupid dismissal nearly played THE biggest part in us losing it. I'm not saying he should be dropped, but he needs a big kick up the a'rse and to play a bit more responsibly. His 0 & 6 could play a massive part in us losing this Test, the main point being if Bell scored 0 & 6 we'd be baying for blood, despite Bell scoring a match-winning contribution of 141 last Test.
With the amount of talent Pietersen has he should be averaging 55 if not more than 60, he's averaging 49. So while he may be an important player, he needs to do a bit more to win more matches and not bits and bobs scores that keep his average up and have little impact on the result. How many times has he thrown his wicket away? I think the aussies would drop him just to give him that wake up call.
Anyway, back to the match. England in deep doodoo, thanks to both openers getting in and then getting out. Cook has added two scores between 50 and 65 in this Test to go with his previous 13 and now hits his zone every sixth knock. I think he should be called Look rather than Cook, L being 50 in roman numerals and C being a hundred. Here's another player who maintains his good average and yet the team loses as much when he's in the side as it wins. Onions maintains his position with the worst average of any main bowler bar Ntini on either side, De Wet being the only other main bowler to have not taken more wickets than Onions. But then he epitomises England current bowlers, averaging over 30 and looking world class one match, Bangladesh class the next. Even Swann's wickets are now costing him 30 apiece, but these stats are telling :
Swann : 15 Tests, 67 wkts @ 30.22 (4.5 wkts/Test)
Sidebottom : 21 Tests, 77 wkts @ 27.70 (3.7 wkts/Test)
Hoggard : 67 Tests, 248 wkts @ 30.50 (3.7 wkts/Test)
Harmison : 63 Tests, 226 wkts @ 32.79 (3.6 wkts/Test)
Onions : 8 Tests, 28 wkts @ 31.04 (3.5 wkts/Test)
Anderson : 45 Tests, 156 wkts @ 34.10 (3.5 wkts/Test)
Panesar : 39 Tests, 126 wkts @ 34.37 (3.2 wkts/Test)
Broad : 25 Tests, 74 wkts @ 35.70 (3.0 wkts/Test)
Flintoff* : 79 Tests, 226 wkts @ 32.79 (2.9 wkts/Test)
Bresnan : 2 Tests, 3 wkts @ 32.33 (1.5 wkts/Test)
*Flintoff didn't always bowl that much, but he did bowl enough that his wkts/Test figure should be higher.
Only Swann is taking the four wickets a Test you might hope for or expect from a good bowler. 3.5 is good but not great, quite how Broad keeps his place I don't know. Must be on potential and batting, although he's scored only five 50s, two in his last 23 knocks, his average has dropped below 30 with the bat, and he simply doesn't contribute enough wickets consistently enough. With only four bowlers we need a bit more than a wildcard making up the quartet. He's won a few Tests with his bowling, but how often have we needed wickets and he's fired more blanks than anyone?
Oh and re the Flintoff stats earlier and him not taking 10 wickets in a Test, neither has Anderson nor Broad, BUT Panesar, Harmison, Sidebottom and Hoggard all have and they don't purport to be world class. They have, Flintoff hasn't. As far as I'm concerned that's a bare minimum requirement for any bowler supposedly world class, and while there may be the odd instance where a bowler doesn't play enough Tests it is highly unlikely given they'd be pretty regular picks if they were world class. Even a Bangla has a 10fer, three kiwis including Martin and the telling stat in there is also that no current west indian has a 10wi to their name. It's not an elite band, but top bowlers should manage at least one in their career. I mean even Kallis has 5wis to his name, that's nothing special.
