Sport - Cricket

Kevin Pietersen failed to act responsibly

— Photo: PTI

GETTING IT WRONG: Though the changes demanded by Kevin Pietersen had some merit, his approach was tactless.

Kevin Pietersen has let down his adopted country. Given the honour of captaining the England cricket team he failed to mature or act responsibly.

Instead, he tried to impose his will, using his power as a match-winning batsman and appointed leader to sack a lacklustre coach and install his own staff.

Apparently he wanted to appoint Shane Warne, a friend and colleague at Hampshire and a man blessed with the golden touch he seeks.

Besides, Pietersen advocated signing Darren Berry and Jeremy Snape, the advisors Warne had taken along with him to the Rajasthan Royals as part of the package.

None of these ideas is bad. Doubtless Pietersen was impressed by the leg-spinner’s bold and popular captaincy at Hampshire and by the Royals’ audacious and merry victory in the first IPL season.

Pietersen has always sought to surround himself with success. After all, he went to England and moved to Hampshire for that reason, and chose Clive Rice, Warne and Ian Botham as his mentors.

His ruthlessness sat beside the sense of destiny and insecurity so often detected in these superficially daredevil types. To him success is a state of mind.

Doubtless he felt that England was doomed to a long spell of mediocrity unless attitudes changed off the field. He might be right about that.

Peter Moores was a hard working fellow but seemed to lack the spark needed to reach beyond competence. Players have been coasting along and the results have been predictably poor.

England won the Ashes in 2005 partly because the team had been taken over by two Africans — Duncan Fletcher and Pietersen — both raised in a confronting culture. Accordingly, England played an uncompromising game. Players reached deeper into themselves, and even Steve Harmison and Andrew Flintoff roared like lions.

Of course, the Australian bowling coach helped and the team was also astutely led. But it was Pietersen who produced the decisive innings at The Oval.

The changes demanded now by Pietersen had merit. But his approach was arrogant and tactless.

He seemed to think he could hold English cricket to ransom. It was never going to work. It is not possible to achieve anything significant from a game park in Africa.

If he cared that much about his team and his tenure then he should have been putting his case back in London. To that end he should have formed cogent arguments and presented facts and figures not a fait accompli.

After all, the team was about to fly to the West Indies. Moreover, the next Ashes campaign is six months away. It was hardly a time for brinkmanship.

In any case, Pietersen was not arguing from a position of strength. Although his captaincy began well with impressive victories over South Africa, it had subsequently lost momentum. He had come to resemble Botham not Warne.

Nothing was ever his fault. After the Mumbai blasts he took the team back to India but could not defend 387 on the final day in Chennai. Far from attacking, he spread his field and waited for mistakes. Afterwards he complained about a lack of tactical guidance.

Captains are supposed to think for themselves. Presumably, like Botham, he intends to “write” about 15 autobiographies, all of them delusional. His inability to accept failure told of profound insecurity in office. No wonder he wanted to send for Warne.

Pietersen’s resignation leaves English cricket in turmoil. It also raises another issue. At present, a nation’s cricketing strength depends on its ability to survive the disturbances created by the Indian cricket leagues.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu