* And yet was was England's highest run scorer in the series.To be fair he does seem like a cancer in the dressing room and he was woefully irresponsible in Australia.
I'm not sure that does anyone any good. We have this thirst for gossip on and seem to think we have the right to know everything goes on behind the scenes.Pathetic decision. They should give out a proper reasoning as to why he was discarded from the team and I think his contribution deserves a proper send off rather than a simple press conference.
One of the best batsmen in last fifteen years and a proper joy to watch.
Broad's demeanour is not right to be captain of England.They seem to be backing Cook all the way. Got rid of the coach, get rid of the other big personality in the dressing room. It's a big decision, he's hardly an inspiring captain and if he fails again then what will they do? Other than Bell, there's no experience left in the batting line-up and apart from Broad, no one left who can step-up to be a captain (Bell could, but he'd be as uninspiring as Cook is).
ECB should come out and explain their decision.
Agreed. But that leaves no alternative to Cook. Anderson and Bell don't come across as inspiring choices. Broad is the only one with some character, but I agree he should not be captain, especially not in Tests.Broad's demeanour is not right to be captain of England.
The texting of opposition players during the South Africa debacle is more than enough for me. I'm all for having a "talent" in there who is perhaps a bit difficult to handle, but how do you come back from that?I'd like to know what KP has done. Must be pretty bad if they've taken this step.
They've stuck through him when he texted opposition insulting his own captain, mocked James Taylor's ability, both of which seem like pretty good reasons to throw a player out of a team, regardless of how good he is.
Perhaps the case - but seems to have brought this on himself.http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/716471.html
A good article.
Too good a talent to be going around as a T20 mercenary.
Alleges who? The only thing we've heard (Swann) is thisAllegedly, Pietersen became unmanageable in Australia,
“People seem keen to create a rift between Kevin and the rest of the team. Among the more ludicrous stories was one claiming he did not go to the team’s Christmas lunch.
“I know he did – because I sat next to him. Since being reintegrated in 2012, his attitude has been great. He was England’s top run scorer in the Ashes and is one of the world’s best players, so why get rid of him?”
Obvious hindsight, if Cook didn't want him back 'textgate' gave enough of an excuse to jettison him. Anachronistic garbage.Cook, of course, had brought Pietersen in from the cold a year earlier. In another interview Cook said Pietersen was a rare talent and that 100 Tests was a very special achievement and to be applauded. The words were considered but not obviously warm. Perhaps Cook knew he had wrapped his arms around a time bomb.
More tosh. Swann's elbow will miraculously heal by Pietersen not being in the team?Some of the team really don't like Pietersen. A few do. Only the fresh faces will still be working it out. Without KP around, Graeme Swann might still be playing
Yes, absolutely fine. I agree with this (which lets be honest is just stolen from Boycott, but never mind) but the same could be argued for any of them. I don't think Nicholas would make the same argument if Bell was axed instead, who was equally guilty of playing frankly stupid shots, but also scored less runs. They all got themselves out all the time.With power comes responsibility and too often - in four of the five Tests, come to think of it - Pietersen perished without reference to the situation in which the team found itself. The nub of Downton's quote is the phrase: "We must start to rebuild, not only the team but the team ethic and philosophy."
This whole section is again tripe. Mark Ramprakash found test cricket too much, Yardy has suffered from depression. Botham loved a party. Boycott took a 3 year absence for similar reasons to Trott. And arguing the Greig/Packer incident occured because Greig was a South African is one of the biggest nonsenses I've ever heard.Certainly, there is something in not being "English" while playing for England. Pietersen is tired of the references to South Africa.
Yeah, where they actually related though or is this just a lazy statement?Having fallen foul of Nottinghamshire, he moved on from Hampshire too
Agreed, so why write a whole article base on them?Whispers and rumours are unpleasant and destructive.
Why is it bizarre?Yea. Completely agree with that. Bizarre that Cook is sitting in on the decision. He's simplistic and should not be captain.
I find the bizarre thing that Cook has seemingly come out of this unscathed. He was awful with the bat and an awful captain.Why is it bizarre?
He was never going to go and the captain having an input in team selection is normal procedure.
If some player sent a text message slagging off his team mates, I don't think any top manager would put him back in the team and he would be sold. He is a quality batsmen and there are alot of unanswered question but I don't agree with your reasoning. Its obvious something has occurred and the fans need to know what it is.So Pietersen is gone and apparently his attitude has caused his downfall.
Could you imagine if that sort of thinking was used as justification to sell on a player in football, on a wide spread level that is. There would be no one actually on the pitch, well that is a gross exaggeration but still.
To continue with this comparison, plenty of players in football are known for having a "bad attitude". Case in point, Van Persie, by all accounts he was the absolute worst at Arsenal in terms of attitude but well tolerated him and loved him because of his performances on the pitch. Nasri was the same, there was this story about how he refused to give up his seat on the team bus to a senior member of the French National Team but that wasn't our concern, he was "the next Robert Pires". Soon as those two got shown the door, every Arsenal fan starts berating their attitude and crying down the same players they once idolized a month ago, but that is human nature. He might be a delinquent (for lack of a better word in light of the rules) but he's our delinquent.
Why can't that same attitude be applied to Pietersen? Plenty of talented individuals get tolerated in terms of their attitude because of what they deliver on the field, movie set or business environment.
England already have to find a new test spinner, new number 3 batsman and Prior hasn't been pulling up any trees lately so may be a new wicket keeper. Why get rid of the best batsman in the team and senior pro during this period of rebuilding? Why go through all of this upheaval? The player that replaces him will have a world of pressure on his shoulders now as well.
If it was felt that his attitude was beginning to cost more than his value on the field (which is the line being thrown out) then it should have been worked out internally. If Swann and Trott were still there then may be I would feel differently about this but losing 3 high quality players like that in a short period of time is just too much change for me.
The new proposal.Protecting Test cricket
A Test Cricket Fund will be introduced to help ensure all of the Test playing teams will be able to sustain a home programme of Test cricket through to 2023. The fund will be available to all of the Test playing Members except the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Cricket Australia (CA) and the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB).
There was also confirmation that all Full Members will enter into a series of contractually binding bi-lateral agreements as a matter of urgency so that they can confirm a comprehensive schedule of matches in a Future Tours Programme that will now be extended to 2023.
Breaking the glass ceiling
Associate Members now have a clear pathway to playing Test cricket. The winner of the next ICC Intercontinental Cup will be entitled to take part in a play-off against the bottom-ranked Full Member and, if successful, obtain Test status. This complements the pathways that are already in place for any Member to be able to qualify for the major events in ODI and T20I cricket.
A certain and attractive package of ICC major events
The World Test Championship will be replaced with an ICC Champions Trophy in 2017 and 2021.
It proved impossible to come up with a format for a four-team finals event in Test cricket that fits the culture of Test cricket and preserves the integrity of the format.
The most recent ICC Champions Trophy event proved to be very popular with supporters around the world and the future events will build on this success. It’s also an event that any ICC Member (including the top Associate Members) can aspire to qualifying for by improving their performances in ODI cricket.
With the ICC Champions Trophy alongside the ICC Cricket World Cup and ICC World Twenty20 and the formats and venues already confirmed for all of these events the ICC has a really attractive package for 2015-23 to take to the market.
A new financial model for Full Members
Full Members will gain greater financial recognition based on the contribution they have made to the game, particularly in terms of finance, their ICC history and their on-field performances in the three formats.
This decision is the outcome of a negotiation between Members that has been required to provide long-term certainty of participation of all Members in both ICC events and bilateral series against other Members. Without that certainty, the rights for ICC events, which are to be taken to market this year, would have been significantly impacted and, by extension, so would the financial support that has driven the growth of cricket around the world.
The structure of the model will ensure that none of the Full Members will be worse off than they are at present and - if forecasts of revenue generation prove to be correct – all will be significantly better off. The agreement of the model has been an important part of a wider negotiation that will now provide long-term certainty of participation in ICC events by all of the Full Member teams.
Enhanced support for the leading Associate Members
Funds that will be directly distributed to Associate and Affiliate Members (AMs) will continue to grow, building on a dramatic increase in the previous cycle (2007-15) if revenue targets are achieved. There is also a commitment to continue to support tournaments for all of the AMs and a range of centralised services.
The planning process for the next cycle can now begin in earnest and, as part of this, there will be a review – in partnership with the AMs and their representatives – of the appropriate scope of services and tournaments and the suitability of the current scorecard distribution model of the funds.
N.Srinivasan from BCCI to Chair the ICC Board from mid-2014
The ICC Board will continue to be the primary decision-making body. From the start of July this year, the ICC Chairman will be N.Srinivasan from the BCCI.
A new Executive Committee will be formed to report into the Board. The initial Chair of this Executive Committee (ExCo) will be Wally Edwards from Cricket Australia while the Chair of the Finance and Commercial Affairs Committee (F&CA) will continue to be Giles Clarke from the ECB. These roles will be for an initial two year transitional period to 2016 only.
Once this transitional period is completed, the Chair of the ICC Board will be elected from within the ICC Board with all Full Member Directors entitled to stand for election.
BCCI, CA and ECB - will be represented on both sub-committees, along with two representatives of the other Full Members (who will be elected by the Board).
Several of these decisions still now need to be considered and adopted by the ICC’s Full Council. The relevant resolutions will now be drafted through the appropriate committees, including the Governance Committee and the Board before being submitted for approval to Full Council.
A set of proposals was initially developed by the respective Chairs of BCCI, CA and ECB – N.Srinivasan, Wally Edwards and Giles Clarke before being presented to a meeting of the Full Members on 9 January.
These proposals were then discussed, negotiated and modified at two subsequent ICC Board meetings. A resolution was put to a vote today and supported by the required majority of the ICC Board, including eight Full Members. Two of the Full Members – Pakistan Cricket Board and Sri Lanka Cricket - abstained in the vote as they felt they needed more time to discuss the amended resolution with their respective Boards.
ICC President Alan Isaac said: “The Board has made some significant decisions today which provide us with long-term certainty in relation to the future governance, competition and financial models of the ICC.
“This decision comes after extensive discussions between Members that I helped initiate and were given impetus through a position paper presented by the BCCI, Cricket Australia and ECB in early January.
“Since this time a set of resolutions have been drafted, negotiated and modified – based on a set of principles agreed by the ICC Board on 28 January – and finalized at the meeting today. There were eight Full Members who were in a position to support the resolution today and the two who abstained have pledged to further discuss the issues with an aim to reaching unanimous approval over the coming weeks.”
ICC Chief Executive David Richardson said: “We now have clear direction from the Board and it is our job to implement the approved resolution.”
The ICC Board consists of the chairman or president from each of the 10 Full Members plus three elected Associate Member representatives. Also present at ICC Board meetings is the ICC President, who chairs proceedings, the ICC Chief Executive and the ICC Vice-President.
__________________
