'I'll do it my way,' says Pietersen.God help us!
SUNDAY MORNING, following England’s defeat to South Africa in the Edgbaston test, the press was its usual fatuous self.
‘South Africa’s first series win in England for 43 years!’ they cried. All of them, because the newspapers and radio merely report each other. Well, they beat us 1-0 in 1965 and then apartheid meant a suspension of hostilities until 1994. That’s nearly 30 years we can ignore.
Since their release from the leper colony they’ve drawn a couple of series here and beaten us more often than no over there. So winning a series in England is hardly earth-shattering.
And how often do they come over here anyway? Every three years or so, I believe.
I don’t like all this talk about ‘series’ wins. These matches are not a series, they are a sequence. I don’t care that they’ve all got names now – this one was in aid of the ‘Basil D’Oliveira’ trophy.
My blood boiled when I heard even Jonathan Agnew, who surely should know better, declaring that the fourth test at the Oval was ‘dead’, ‘meaningless’. And yet, when it was suggested to him that therefore it was an opportunity for some experimentation, as a test match were akin to a football friendly, he immediately contradicted himself, saying it was a test match and only the best players should represent their country and the aim should be victory.
SUNDAY LUNCHTIME and Michael Vaughan, with tears in his eyes, was announcing his retirement. I was sad to see him go, although I had been questioning his ability to do the job.
It’s not that his form was poor, nor that we were losing matches. It’s the way we were losing them. Batsmen were throwing away their wicket; the bowling was loose and undemanding; the spirit in the field was often defeatist.
And it’s the captain who has to be held responsible for that. Vaughan’s trouble was his over-identification with his men, although he no doubt would call it loyalty. I recognise that his involvement in selection was limited, but I wonder how much he fought for greater ruthlessness over under-performers like Collingwood and Panesar.
KEVIN PIETERSEN, the radio announced, was immediately the favourite to succeed Vaughan. Frankly I’d been surprised when he was mentioned as a possibility, but to hear William Hill say that the book on him was closed was barely believable.
It’s not that he’s a South African, for all that he parades his English ‘patriotism’ on his biceps, that repels me. And the man is obviously not without talent. I can’t understand, though, the argument that being ‘the best player in the side’ is a qualification for captaincy. It didn’t work for Botham and Flintoff. Moreover, it can hardly be said that successful captains like Brearley and Illingworth held their position in the side on ability alone.
Another specious argument is the fact that he’s the only player guaranteed his place in all three forms of the game, and the selectors want one captain for all of them. Why?
I’ve heard that he has a good cricket brain. Where did I hear that? Oh yes, Kevin Pietersen said it.
No, he’s not suitable because he’s a self-serving prima donna, far more concerned with milking the applause of an ignorant crowd than helping his team win. That attempted six to get his century at Edgbaston was criminal arrogance, predicted by South Africa and punished accordingly. The tragedy is that it was a major contribution to England’s defeat.
But what else can I do but wish him well? He’s England captain and I want England to stop disappointing me. If he can grow up, temper aggression with caution, out-think the opposition and motivate his players, I’ll salute him.
In the meantime I comfort myself with the thought that he won’t over-identify with his men. I just worry that he won’t even know that they’re there.
‘South Africa’s first series win in England for 43 years!’ they cried. All of them, because the newspapers and radio merely report each other. Well, they beat us 1-0 in 1965 and then apartheid meant a suspension of hostilities until 1994. That’s nearly 30 years we can ignore.
Since their release from the leper colony they’ve drawn a couple of series here and beaten us more often than no over there. So winning a series in England is hardly earth-shattering.
And how often do they come over here anyway? Every three years or so, I believe.
I don’t like all this talk about ‘series’ wins. These matches are not a series, they are a sequence. I don’t care that they’ve all got names now – this one was in aid of the ‘Basil D’Oliveira’ trophy.
My blood boiled when I heard even Jonathan Agnew, who surely should know better, declaring that the fourth test at the Oval was ‘dead’, ‘meaningless’. And yet, when it was suggested to him that therefore it was an opportunity for some experimentation, as a test match were akin to a football friendly, he immediately contradicted himself, saying it was a test match and only the best players should represent their country and the aim should be victory.
SUNDAY LUNCHTIME and Michael Vaughan, with tears in his eyes, was announcing his retirement. I was sad to see him go, although I had been questioning his ability to do the job.
It’s not that his form was poor, nor that we were losing matches. It’s the way we were losing them. Batsmen were throwing away their wicket; the bowling was loose and undemanding; the spirit in the field was often defeatist.
And it’s the captain who has to be held responsible for that. Vaughan’s trouble was his over-identification with his men, although he no doubt would call it loyalty. I recognise that his involvement in selection was limited, but I wonder how much he fought for greater ruthlessness over under-performers like Collingwood and Panesar.
KEVIN PIETERSEN, the radio announced, was immediately the favourite to succeed Vaughan. Frankly I’d been surprised when he was mentioned as a possibility, but to hear William Hill say that the book on him was closed was barely believable.
It’s not that he’s a South African, for all that he parades his English ‘patriotism’ on his biceps, that repels me. And the man is obviously not without talent. I can’t understand, though, the argument that being ‘the best player in the side’ is a qualification for captaincy. It didn’t work for Botham and Flintoff. Moreover, it can hardly be said that successful captains like Brearley and Illingworth held their position in the side on ability alone.
Another specious argument is the fact that he’s the only player guaranteed his place in all three forms of the game, and the selectors want one captain for all of them. Why?
I’ve heard that he has a good cricket brain. Where did I hear that? Oh yes, Kevin Pietersen said it.
No, he’s not suitable because he’s a self-serving prima donna, far more concerned with milking the applause of an ignorant crowd than helping his team win. That attempted six to get his century at Edgbaston was criminal arrogance, predicted by South Africa and punished accordingly. The tragedy is that it was a major contribution to England’s defeat.
But what else can I do but wish him well? He’s England captain and I want England to stop disappointing me. If he can grow up, temper aggression with caution, out-think the opposition and motivate his players, I’ll salute him.
In the meantime I comfort myself with the thought that he won’t over-identify with his men. I just worry that he won’t even know that they’re there.
No comments:
Post a Comment