Kevin Pietersen sacked by England

[Ian Dargie]

Pietersen was sacked because his behavior was deemed no longer tolerable. Anyone arguing that would have to be blind and deaf.

Again, no real reasons. What behaviour? What did he do?

Does it not strike you that you're making an argument completely unsupported by any specifics?

I'm not blind or deaf but I am waiting for a proper explanation. Surely that's the bare minimum given England have just sacked their best player.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Again, no real reasons. What behaviour? What did he do?

Does it not strike you that you're making an argument completely unsupported by any specifics?

I'm not blind or deaf but I am waiting for a proper explanation.

Why do you think he was sacked? Because he was perhaps their best performed batsman on the tour? He didn't do much worse than anyone else and he has a brilliant Test record.

He was sacked because he is a prat. That's hardly news

 

[Ian Dargie]

He was sacked because he is a prat. Everybody seems to know that but you

Again, what does that mean?

Your complete conviction in your casual assumptions, without any actual information, is jarring. You're so confident that you know that his behaviour was unacceptable. So tell us why. What do you actually know?

And, in the absence of actual reasons, is it adequate to sack someone for 'being a prat'?

Plenty of people thought Michael Clarke was a prat at various stages. Should he have been sacked?

 

[Dan Cooper]

Again, what does that mean?

You're so confident that you know that his behaviour was unacceptable. So tell us why. What do you actually know?

And, in the absence of actual reasons, is it adequate to sack someone for 'being a prat'?

It's not important what you or I know. People far closer to things and with far more authority have sacked Kevin Pietersen for non-batting average related issues. In short because he is not a team player and often behaves like a prat.

 

[Ian Dargie]

It's not important what you know or what I know.

Really? So how can you make an argument without knowing anything?

People far closer and with far more authority have sacked Kevin Pietersen for non-batting average related issues. In short because he is not a team player and often behaves like a prat.

All you are doing is reciting the line that they've fed people to justify their decision. It's bizarre.

They've sacked their best player for ambiguous reasons and declined to give any real explanation. And you're just like: "Well, that's good enough for me."

Imagine if Essendon sacked James Hird and simply declined to explain their decision. Would you be as incurious? Would you simply accept that "people far closer and with far more authority" had may the decision and that "it's not important what you know or I know"?

 

[Dan Cooper]

Pietersen was sacked for behavioral reasons. You can continue to live in denial if it helps you deal with the fact

 

[Ian Dargie]

Pietersen was sacked for behavioral reasons. You can continue to live in denial if it helps you deal with the fact

What denial? I've got no doubt he was sacked for what's referred to as 'behavioural issues'.

The question is whether, in the absence of specific reasons, such an ambiguous explanation should be allowed to fly.

And it's striking that people like you are willing to make these assertions without actually knowing anything.

You talk about behavioural issues. Ok, what did he do? If you don't know, how can you say one way or the other?

Do you not see the absurdity of you sitting here parroting the ECB line that he was sacked because of his 'behaviour' without being able to offer any more detail beyond that?

 

[Dan Cooper]

What denial? I've got no doubt he was sacked for what's referred to as 'behavioural issues'.

The question is whether, in the absence of specific reasons, such an ambiguous explanation should be allowed to fly.

And it's striking that people like you are willing to make these assertions without actually knowing anything.

You talk about behavioural issues. Ok, what did he do? If you don't know, how can you say one way or the other?

Do you not the absurdity of you sitting here parroting the ECB line that he was sacked because of his 'behaviour' without being able to offer any more detail beyond that?

Pietersen's sacking is old news. We all know it was for behavioral reasons and trying to pretend differently is a waste of time and energy. He's gone. It's over. Move on...

 

[Ian Dargie]

Pietersen's sacking is old news. We all know it was for behavioral reasons and trying to pretend differently is a waste of time and energy.

I'm just asking you what those 'behavioural reasons' were. If you have no idea, how can you comment on whether the decision was justified or not?

It's like saying he was sacked for 'something he said' without being able to articulate what that was.

Oh, his behaviour. We don't know what he did but it was his behaviour. That really clears it up.

 

[Dan Cooper]

We all know it was for behavioral reasons. He's gone. It's over. Move on...

 

[Ian Dargie]

We all know it was for behavioral reasons.

Again, what did he do? If you don't know, how can you say if the decision was justified or not?

His career is undoubtedly over. However, there's still plenty of time to point out how illogical your position is.

 

[The_Reaper]

We all know he was scapegoatted to keep the pressure off Cook.

 

[Ian Dargie]

We all know he was scapegoatted to keep the pressure off Cook.

Does that fall under 'behavioural reasons'?

 

[The_Reaper]

Does that fall under 'behavioural reasons'?

Probably not. But you'd be kidding if previous behavior didn't make them happy to scapegoat him.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Probably not. But you'd be kidding if previous behavior didn't make them happy to scapegoat him.

Of course. The question is whether the decision can be justified based on 'behavioural reasons'.

I don't see how anyone can claim it was a sound decision without knowing any specifics.

 

[The_Reaper]

Of course. The question is whether the decision was justified based on 'behavioural reasons'.

In my opinion it wasn't. It was shocking decision.

The Poms have cut of their right hand.

 

[western royboy]

We all know he was scapegoatted to keep the pressure off Cook.

Agreed - yet by perverse logic it has now turned the pressure up to 11

 

[MC Bad Genius]

The justification is that team unity is an incredibly important thing, something that is true in any workplace but most likely heightened in a team sport environment.

KP has a history of falling out with teammates/coaches, being arrogant and selfish and generally behaving like a prat. Is it that hard to imagine that his behaviour has made it too hard for others to work with him?

You can argue till your blue in the face that he is the best player in the current team (although I'd even call that into question), but that means bugger all if he is not the player that makes England the best team they can be. It's the age-old idea that a champion team will beat a team of champions.

The ECB have decided KP no longer makes England the best team they can be. It's definitely going to hurt them, but they felt it would've hurt them more to keep him.

What you or I or anyone else knows about the specifics makes absolutely no difference. So why keep haranguing people to give you them?

 

[Ian Dargie]

The justification is that team unity is an incredibly important thing, something that is true in any workplace but most likely heightened in a team sport environment.

KP has a history of falling out with teammates/coaches, being arrogant and selfish and generally behaving like a prat. Is it that hard to imagine that his behaviour has made it too hard for others to work with him?

Yet Stuart Broad wanted him for the T20 World Cup.

Or do we just ignore that because it doesn't fit the argument that Pietersen had to be sacked because he was an arrogant Saffa?

Simply saying "Pietersen is a prat" is not an explanation.

You can argue till your blue in the face that he is the best player in the current team (although I'd even call that into question), but that means bugger all if he is not the player that makes England the best team they can be. It's the age-old idea that a champion team will beat a team of champions.

Spare me the cliches.

The reality is that dropping Pietersen weakens England and, as yet, they haven't given any compelling reason for the decision. What did he do that made his position untenable?

What you or I or anyone else knows about the specifics makes absolutely no difference. So why keep haranguing people to give you them?

Because without some pretty compelling specifics, the decision to sack him makes no sense.

"Yeah, we just decided we didn't like him any more. So we sacked him."

 

[Dan Cooper]

According to Jonathon Agnew in a live interview tonight:

"Kevin Pietersen's contract doesn't expire until October. Until then a confidentiality clause applies to both sides."

So don't expect a blow by blow account until after October.

 

[the_interloper]

According to Jonathon Agnew in a live interview tonight:

"Kevin Pietersen's contract doesn't expire until October. Until then a confidentiality clause applies to both sides."

So don't expect a blow by blow account until after October.

I haven't bought too many books by cricketers from other countries, will be getting KPs though.

 

[Ian Dargie]

According to Jonathon Agnew in a live interview tonight:

"Kevin Pietersen's contract doesn't expire until October. Until then a confidentiality clause applies to both sides."

So don't expect a blow by blow account until after October.

Still plenty of leaks going on.

 

[Dan Cooper]

I haven't bought too many books by cricketers from other countries, will be getting KPs though.

A book from anyone who played for England in this series should make for interesting reading. I bet there's a few guys already putting pen to paper.

 

[the_interloper]

A book from anyone who played for England in this series should make for interesting reading. I bet there's a few guys already putting pen to paper.

A behind the scenes book on the whole tour would make great reading to be honest. I've seen some touring sides cop shellackings here over the years for sure, but never seen a side with such talent play with such little heart, and there was obviously a lot of disharmony going on, would be interesting to find out.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Lawyers on both sides are confident they can sign off on the remainder of his central contract – but the reasons for the split that has rocked English cricket look set to remain under wraps until the end of September, when that contract would have expired.

Pietersen’s management have already set in motion the bidding war for an expose of his tumultuous nine years as an England player.

It could be on the bookshelves by October and prove to be a Christmas bestseller, even if the contents might not please everyone at the ECB.

www.express.co.uk/sport/cricket/458415/ECB-expect-Kevin-Pietersen-is-ready-to-tell-his-story