The Reintegration Thread

[blockerdave]

I'm not sure what to make of this read
Don't blame Andrew Strauss for Kevin Pietersen fiasco: His brave stand may have saved England from being torn in two | Daily Mail Online

Mod Edit: Please do not mass tag users.

really was a terrible article - as @cooks1st100 said, the idea that he faced difficult or hostile questioning isn't just bizarre, it's a flat out lie.

secondly, even if you agree with the decisions made, Strauss actually has no right to make those decisions. On the one hand he is saying he isn't a supremo, he won't have a dressing room/tracksuit role, and he wants to appoint a head coach, and then he sets all the parameters that coach will have to work under in terms of who his players are, who his current and future captains are, separation of test/limited overs sides etc. Strauss is trying to claim all the powers of a supremo, but none of the responsibility. it's hard to imagine these decisions doing anything other than limiting the field of people interested in the coaching position since they will have no control over decisions that they would reasonably expect to be within their remit.

 

[grkrama]

Stuart Broad: I'd have no issues sharing dressing room with Kevin Pietersen again - Telegraph

that leaves just cook and anderson ..for some reason i think anderson too wouldn't have much prob with KP playing ..

 

[War]

'No ultimatum' on Kevin Pietersen - Alastair Cook | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Ian Chappell: Is Alastair Cook next in line to bite the dust? | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Satan666]

No player is bigger than the team, the matter was handled very badly by all parties involved including Kevin despite some on this thread making him out to be an angel an innocent child, far from it he has sinned. Sometimes as leaders we need to make tough decisions for the longevity of the team, players will come and players will go but only foresight will carry the team forward, Judas.

 

[War]

Success changed England - Craig Kieswetter | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

So inadvertently without calling the names, Kieswetter has backed up a key claim made in KPs book

 

[War]

Kevin Pietersen: Andrew Strauss was right to drop me | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

@Spitfires2007 @IceAgeComing @blockerdave @barmyarmy @T.J.Hooker @StinkyBoHoon

Well at this stage I guess this is all KP can say publicly, thanks to AUS poor batting, ENG won one of the most strangest Ashes series in a long while. Because fact is outside of Root - AUS quicks even with Harris injured pretty much exposed majority of the top 7 & a scenario that many predicted could happen where players could be dropped (Ballance) due to technical faults being exposed was created for KP to be returned did occur.

 

[barmyarmy]

I saw the quote. He's trying to be conciliatory but he's wrong. England would have been much stronger with KP in the middle order and were very lucky to win the series

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

when it comes to KP being kicked out I stand by my original opinion.

I can't remember what it was but I'm pretty confident it was good.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

[Strauss] made his decision and it's turned out absolutely fine. Absolutely it seems to be the right decision at the moment.

It's just an admission of the obvious fact that England won without him, and so by definition the decision to exclude him didn't cost them the series.

But the question of whether we needed KP to win a series where the Aussies played some incredibly woeful cricket is a very different question from whether England's best side has KP in it, which is arguably the question the selectors should actually have been trying to answer. There's a practical argument that unless they needed KP to win the series that blooding younger players was a more forward looking policy, but as they included Bell, who is at a similar stage of his career and who has been mostly batting like a lemon for ages, that doesn't seem especially persuasive.

It seems a fair guess that KP might have been a more effective pick than Bell or Ballance, and if that's true then technically the selectors must have been wrong to exclude him.

 

[War]

It's just an admission of the obvious fact that England won without him, and so by definition the decision to exclude him didn't cost them the series.

But the question of whether we needed KP to win a series where the Aussies played some incredibly woeful cricket is a very different question from whether England's best side has KP in it, which is arguably the question the selectors should actually have been trying to answer. There's a practical argument that unless they needed KP to win the series that blooding younger players was a more forward looking policy, but as they included Bell, who is at a similar stage of his career and who has been mostly batting like a lemon for ages, that doesn't seem especially persuasive.

It seems a fair guess that KP might have been a more effective pick than Bell or Ballance, and if that's true then technically the selectors must have been wrong to exclude him.

Basically, he obviously and disappointing won't come back now even if Bell fails since James Taylor is already being prepped to come in.

What ENG did to KP as Piers Morgan said will always remain "one of the most gutless, vindictive things I've seen in English sport".

 

[War]

Interesting BBC interview with KP yesterday - BBC Radio 5 live - 5 live Sport Specials, Kevin Pietersen on Cricket

 

[War]

Kevin Pietersen: England have never told me why I was axed - Telegraph

 

[War]

Interviews : England news | 'England stuffy nosed over KP' - Viv Richards | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo