England end KP's international career.

[D/L]

Utter nonsense that will not even come close to appeasing the fans that pay the ECB's wages.

Some of them, perhaps. Many though will understand the need to observe contractual agreements and think that the ECB's mention of trust, however unexpanded and briefly mentioned, is explanation enough.

[sussexpob]

the ECB's mention of trust, however unexpanded and briefly mentioned, is explanation enough.

Indeed.....Leaks to the press, book releases slagging of the character to players in your team, and players going behind each others back to tell the coach about remarks made in confidence are not considered a breach of trust, but remarks made AFTER you are sacked to defend yourself are considered a breach of trust.... Makes perfect sense to me

I MOST enjoyed the part about Cook, Prior and Flower retaining the universal confidence in the England Squad and setup.....

Prior - Dropped
Flower - Unemployed
Cook - Is thought in such high standing that it was required to remove elements of the team that disagreed with him even if they are better players, and to be fair, has retained about as much confidence in his captaincy as most post people would have in OJ Simpson babysitting for them.

[westoelad]

Just don't understand what all the furore is about- a player has been dropped and a clear explanation given within the limits of the legal restraints of a confidentiality agreement. Why can't this be accepted and we move on to allow England to progress.

[D/L]

the ECB's mention of trust, however unexpanded and briefly mentioned, is explanation enough.

Indeed.....Leaks to the press, book releases slagging of the character to players in your team, and players going behind each others back to tell the coach about remarks made in confidence are not considered a breach of trust, but remarks made AFTER you are sacked to defend yourself are considered a breach of trust.... Makes perfect sense to me... .

I'm not aware of any remarks made by Pietersen, or attributed to him by any of his "friends", after he was sacked.

It is the texts (perhaps there were other things too and, with Pietersen, how could one be certain that there weren't?) that can be fairly considered a gross breach of trust and which should have resulted in his summary dismissal then.

[D/L]

Just don't understand what all the furore is about- a player has been dropped and a clear explanation given within the limits of the legal restraints of a confidentiality agreement. Why can't this be accepted and we move on to allow England to progress.

Indeed, wl.

[sussexpob]

It is the texts (perhaps there were other things too and, with Pietersen, how could one be certain that there weren't?) that can be fairly considered a gross breach of trust and which should have resulted in his summary dismissal then.

He has lost the trust of a resigned captain, sacked coach, and half a dropped squad?

[sussexpob]

I'm not aware of any remarks made by Pietersen, or attributed to him by any of his "friends", after he was sacked.

Well the ECB did go out their way to suggest that Piers Morgan being leaked KP's side of the argument was a breach of trust.... so they sacked him and provided one of their reasons for sacking him as subsequently an issue that was created after they sacked him.

Recent Skypoll suggests 82% of people disagree with this, I think the cricinfo one was near 80%.... seems the vast majority of people are not buying this pathetic crap as a reason.

[D/L]

It is the texts (perhaps there were other things too and, with Pietersen, how could one be certain that there weren't?) that can be fairly considered a gross breach of trust and which should have resulted in his summary dismissal then.

He has lost the trust of a resigned captain, sacked coach, and half a dropped squad?

The likelihood of his not being trusted by any new players and officials would probably also have been considered.

[D/L]

I'm not aware of any remarks made by Pietersen, or attributed to him by any of his "friends", after he was sacked.

Well the ECB did go out their way to suggest that Piers Morgan being leaked KP's side of the argument was a breach of trust.... so they sacked him and provided one of their reasons for sacking him as subsequently an issue that was created after they sacked him.

Recent Skypoll suggests 82% of people disagree with this, I think the cricinfo one was near 80%.... seems the vast majority of people are not buying this pathetic crap as a reason.

So what? People are always more vociferous in protest than in support. As previously mentioned, about 70% of about 150 people at a cricket lovers' meeting voted that the decision was good for English cricket.

On the issues front, it seems there were already more than enough before his sacking.

[mikesiva]

I see Strauss's article in the Sunday Times is being quoted all over the place, but they missed out this interesting little snippet....

"Pietersen wanted to be released to play a fuller part in the IPL, a tournament almost designed for his unique talents. The ECB, mindful of setting a precedent, resisted. Pietersen wanted to retire from ODi cricket, a format for which he had little affection, and commit only to Twenty20 outside the Test arena. The ECB, which made clear the players could not pick and choose on limited overs, called his bluff."

Well, IMHO, as long as the ECB continues to maintain that intransigent stance against participation in the IPL, then Pietersen won't be the last....

[D/L]

...Well, IMHO, as long as the ECB continues to maintain that intransigent stance against participation in the IPL, then Pietersen won't be the last....

Many England supporters will understand the ECB's opposition to releasing test players for a domestic Twenty20 tournament just before a test series over here and ruining their preparation for serious cricket. On this issue, the ECB are not being intransigent but merely sensible.

The younger England test players, as we have already seen, seem to find no problem resisting the lure of the IPL. If those approaching the end of their test careers want to go, then as long as they accept it may mean the end of it, let them.

[Alviro Patterson]

I see Strauss's article in the Sunday Times is being quoted all over the place, but they missed out this interesting little snippet....

"Pietersen wanted to be released to play a fuller part in the IPL, a tournament almost designed for his unique talents. The ECB, mindful of setting a precedent, resisted. Pietersen wanted to retire from ODi cricket, a format for which he had little affection, and commit only to Twenty20 outside the Test arena. The ECB, which made clear the players could not pick and choose on limited overs, called his bluff."

Well, IMHO, as long as the ECB continues to maintain that intransigent stance against participation in the IPL, then Pietersen won't be the last....

For a start there are very few England qualified players of international quality who can play all three forms of cricket equally effectively. Also counties are very reluctant to let their top players play IPL cricket when a whole IPL campaign takes up almost half a County Cricket season, are they intransigent?


Well done to the ECB for reaffriming their stance, it seems that the show pony has never learned his lessons from last time.

[Making_Splinters]

The ECBs "stance" has been completely piontless. Most English International cricketers have tried to get into the IPL despite the ECBs stance. Even this year, Bell is trying to get a contract.

The whole bluster from the ECB has been hollow from the start.

[Durhamfootman]

Well the ECB did go out their way to suggest that Piers Morgan being leaked KP's side of the argument was a breach of trust.... so they sacked him and provided one of their reasons for sacking him as subsequently an issue that was created after they sacked him.

Recent Skypoll suggests 82% of people disagree with this, I think the cricinfo one was near 80%.... seems the vast majority of people are not buying this pathetic crap as a reason.

Piers Morgan = Mike Selvey

I can't see a difference, but then I am very dim

[D/L]

The ECBs "stance" has been completely piontless. Most English International cricketers have tried to get into the IPL despite the ECBs stance. Even this year, Bell is trying to get a contract.

The whole bluster from the ECB has been hollow from the start.

England players in IPL auction: Ian Bell (Warks), Ravi Bopara (Essex), Jade Dernbach (Surrey), Alex Hales (Notts), Craig Kieswetter (Somerset), Azhar Mahmood, Dimitri Mascarenhas, Eoin Morgan (Middx), Samit Patel (Notts), Kevin Pietersen (Surrey), Luke Wright (Sussex)

Only one serious test contender there and Bell has the same agent as Pietersen. Perhaps he didn't have the nous not to go along with it.

There has been no bluster at all. On this, the ECB seem to be serious.