Pietersen: Right Decision, Wrong Timing?

Kevin Pietersen is box office entertainment. From the moment he strolled into the ODI series against South Africa back in early 2005, Pietersen has demanded attention. Be it on the field, his immense natural talent and audaciousness of shots has undoubtedly broadened the appeal of world cricket, or off the field, his resignation from the England captaincy in 2008 was just one example of some poor misjudgements, he is unrivalled entertainment. That England will no longer be able to exercise his talent in the shorter format of the game is undoubtedly hugely disappointing. Hugh Morris, CEO of the ECB, admitted as much today. Pietersen retires having scored 4184 runs at an average of nearly 42 in ODI cricket. These stats are impressive enough, but when added to his strike rate, which at over 86 dwarfs his fellow top order partners (Ian Bell’s is 73, Eoin Morgan’s is 83), the importance of Pietersen becomes clear.

 End of an Era: Pietersen will no longer be seen appearing in England's ODI kit. Photo: A.Joe

It seems clear that Pietersen stated a desire to continue to play International T20 cricket, while giving up on the 50 over format; this proposal was rebuffed by the England Management though who have a policy of players appearing in both limited overs formats or none. The ECB’s stand is not without reason – travel and preparation is expensive and having players picking and choosing competitions at the end of test series is one sure fire way of disrupting the set up and removing the continuity between the sides which has been so important to England’s success in 

recent years. But one cannot help feeling a little frustrated that Pietersen has chosen this moment to call time on his one day career, especially when England’s defence of the Twenty20 World Cup in Sri Lanka is just 4 months away. Pietersen’s handling of the situation has perhaps been poor; certainly there seems little reason why he could not have waited until after the T20 World Cup to make a decision. It is especially frustrating given Pietersen seemed to rediscover his ODI form this winter and stated only as recently as February that he was focusing on the World Cup of 2015.

There are legitimate reasons why calling a time on his one-day career is not quite as selfish as some have made out though. He may still seem young and fresh, but Pietersen is approaching 32 and with the demands of international cricket as they are (this was well documented in the last post), he is perhaps right to consider a move to prolong his Test career. Pietersen also has a young family, and he wouldn’t be the first man to feel the need to be more selective over his commitments as a result.

Until we see what Pietersen plans to do with his new expanse of time, it is hard to make a conclusive judgement on his decision. If he merely spends his time maximising his commercial interests by playing Big Bash and IPL cricket, further criticism will ensue. But he may use the opportunity to properly recuperate from the game, and he could become a box office hit at The Oval if he turns out for Surrey in this year’s T20 competition. Time will surely tell. Regardless, Pietersen has no end of options, and first impressions point to it being more England’s loss than Pietersen’s. Nevertheless, it is a shame Pietersen could not have waited until October; defending the T20 World Cup would have been an excellent point to bow out. Instead, he has divided opinion once again, and sadly it is not his cricket, but his off the field decision making which is set to do the talking.

Why England are not wrong to consider resting their 'Fab Four'

Imagine the situation: England, 1-1 going into the final test match against South Africa this summer, lose one of Jimmy Anderson or Stuart Broad to injury. Debate rages – should they replace them with the in-form Graham Onions, or the heir-apparent Steven Finn, who has been patiently (or increasingly impatiently) waiting in the wings for the last 18 months. Neither has played test cricket for some time, and both have had their involvement in county cricket curtailed by being a non-playing part of the test squad for much of the summer. Several commentators suggest both may have to be accommodated, with Matthew Prior moving up to number 6. However this option only gains validity because of fears of the reliability of the bowling replacement. Perhaps England thus need an additional, fifth, bowler to account for the net loss of one of their opening duo?

The above is not an overtly unlikely situation either. Broad has suffered a number of injury problems over his short career, most significantly missing the final three tests of the last Ashes series with a stomach strain, while Anderson has had his niggles in the past too.

One of Anderson (L) or Broad (R) may be rested at Edgbaston Photo: M. Hutchings.

A number of journalists – predominantly ex-players – have suggested it would be wrong for England to rest players for the third test against West Indies next week. First, because it disrespects the opposition and test cricket. Second, because they should be playing to win every test match. There is truth in what they say – too many international test-match teams have been decimated by the IPL recently for example. But they take a short-sighted view. England are not planning to rest players because they have played too much IPL cricket; neither has played it. They are considering resting Broad or Anderson because both play a major role for England in all three formats of the game. By resting them, they are not lessening the importance of the third test, but merely recognising its relative importance compared to the first test against South Africa. Let us be honest, we would rather have both fit and firing for South Africa than risk overworking them in a redundant test against the West Indies now, especially with a full and competitive one day series to follow. England are still very much playing to win every test match; they are just taking a long-term view to it – in effect saying that in order to win test matches later in the summer, they might have to rest one or two players now.

Bob Willis was astonished that Broad or Anderson might need resting in his review of the test on Monday. He is correct to point out that England have a nine-day break before the next test (they need it – the pair got through 214 overs between them over the last 10 days of cricket), and that should provide some recovery time. But international cricket has changed since the 1970s and 80s; England’s schedule is hectic over the next six months. They follow the third test with three ODIs and one T20 against the West Indies, a further 5 ODIs against Australia, finish the summer with 3 test matches, 5 ODIs and 3 T20’s against South Africa and then fly immediately to Sri Lanka to defend the T20 World Cup. This is then followed by a tough tour of India between November and January. That is a potential of 77 days of international cricket by mid January alone. The demands of the fast bowler are also different. International cricket is dominated by hard, covered wickets, while fast outfields, big bats and shorter boundaries have weighted the game in the batsman’s favour. Aside from that, neither Broad nor Anderson can be considered typical fast bowlers; both are exceptional fielders, Anderson particularly so, but both regularly throw themselves to the ground in pursuit of saving runs. The workload on these fast bowlers is thus harsher; the days of languishing down at long leg are gone – Jonathan Trott fields there for England!

It is right to question whether resting England’s fast bowlers is the best course of action. Both Broad and Anderson will be anxious to play at Edgbaston, a ground which is renowned for helping swing bowling. Yet it is for the long-term aim of winning test matches that a change may be the best option. It is pointed that Keymar Roach has recently gone home, not because he was unfit to bowl, but because he had a niggling injury and, in the words of physio CJ Clark, the management were anxious to “prevent the onset of more serious injury”.

The decision to rest skipper Andrew Strauss from England’s tour of Bangladesh a few years back was derided and criticised for similar reasons. Hindsight proved the England management correct. If England succeed later in the summer, and manage to take an in-form and healthy squad to the sub-continent in the winter, they will be proven correct once again.