Big Bash Buffett
I have to admit to being a bit conservative when it comes to my cricket—I still think that Test cricket is the pinnacle of the game. Of course, that doesn't stop me watching whatever cricket I can get my greedy eyeballs on, and I have to admit that I quite enjoyed what I saw of this year's Big Bash League.
My opinion that James Brayshaw shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a commentary box until he realises that cricket calls for a different skill set than footy (adding "-ey"—as in Warney—or "-o"—as in Watto—to every name doesn't make you Arlott, or even Atherton) remained unchanged, but there was some exceptional cricket on display. The final itself provided some unforgettable drama, and I found myself riveted by the TV, hoping that Brett Lee was going to write himself a fairy tale finish.
From the moment he roared into international cricket, terrifying batsmen with his incredible speed, Lee provided some of the great moments in Australia' recent cricket history. Watching him and Shoaib Akthar attempting to bowl faster than one another was certainly much more fun for the spectator than the batsmen who got caught up in their rivalry. And who could forget the 2005 Ashes series when Lee—along with Warne and Langer—was one of the few Aussie cricketers who could say they left everything on the field? The iconic image of Flintoff comforting Lee as he squatted disconsolately was echoed eerily by his pose after the missed runout that would have taken the BBL final into a Super Over. Lee was someone who played hard but played fair his whole career, and gave the impression of a thoroughly likeable and nice guy, and I am sure he has more triumphs than almost rans to remember in retirement.
Problem child
One truth that the BBL made abundantly clear to me is that England are fools for dropping Kevin Pietersen. He may not have been the best batsman in the series, but he was close, and—more importantly—he created a feeling of excitement and anticipation when he walked to the crease that no other player can match. It was fascinating watching him bat with Glen Maxwell. The "Big Show" down the other end from the "Real Show", the cricketer that Maxwell tries to be but isn't. Well he is not yet, anyway.
I have lost a lot of interest in watching England play since Pietersen was axed, and their vanilla one-day side and lack lustre performances in the tri-series didn't win me back. They don't seem to have anyone who could take a game by the scruff of the neck and turn it, and that's why I am predicting they will perform badly in the World Cup.
I think many Australians would be just as baffled as I am that Pietersen will be absent from cricket's biggest one day fixture, but I fear his loss will be even more keenly felt in the Test arena, where he played some of the greatest innings of the past 50 years. Unlike many players who gorged themselves on lesser teams and boosted their averages on mediocre bowling, Pietersen often looked bored against middling competition, only truly coming alive when facing the best. Whether it was the 2005 Australians or the 2012 South Africans, he refused to take a single step backwards. Yes, he could occasionally go out in truly inventive and unnecessary ways, but when he was on song he was the sort of batsman who empties bars. One moment he would play a switch-hit or some other outrageously unorthodox stroke, the next a textbook drive.
Pietersen also possessed an excellent defensive technique and the ability to build an innings. Some players wilt in the heat of the moment, but Pietersen was one of those rare players who seem to do better the more pressure that was piled on—just see his first tour of South Africa when the crowds were all over him in the ODIs, even as he piled on the runs. I have always felt you should pick the players the opposition least want to see walking out into the middle, and who would you be more worried by: Pietersen or James Taylor? Since Botham retired, England have only really had two players who Australia were genuinely intimidated by, who had a psychological edge that was worth runs or wickets before they lifted a bat or bowled a ball. One was Andrew Flintoff, the other was Pietersen, and neither of them were establishment types.
Obviously there were a number of factors that led to his axing, though the idea that he should be punished for England's poor performance in the last Ashes seems beyond the pale—he was hardly the worst offender. The major issue was his constant run-ins with the establishment, and many of them were his own fault. There was an irreparable breakdown in his relationship with captain Andrew Strauss and, more importantly, coach Andy Flower. He also had well reported issues with Stuart Board and Graeme Swann. But, this does raise the question, how important is that a player gets along with everyone else in the team?
Yes, cricket is a team sport, but if players are still performing does whether they actually get along really matter? We don't have to look far for an example of the value of sticking with a "difficult" player—here in Australia we are still searching for a replacement for one. It is a well-circulated rumour that Shane Warne and Adam Gilchrist weren't the best of friends, and Warne barely tolerated Ponting's captaincy. He most definitely didn't get along with his coach, John Buchanan, not even bothering to hide his contempt for the eccentric Queenslander's methods, saying (perhaps correctly) anyone could have coached that side. And, despite all this conflict and a number of larger than life personalities, that Australian side can lay a claim to being one of the greatest of all time.
A Failure of Leadership
I am not for moment suggesting that Pietersen is blameless, or that being a team player is not important—quite the contrary, I think putting the team first is a very underrated virtue in this day and age. There is no doubt that Pietersen has a massive ego, is self-absorbed and can be difficult to deal with. However, that is true of about 90% of professional athletes; you don't get to that level unless you have a driven personality. Some of the blame has to land on the management structure of the England setup. Why haven't they been able to manage him better? Even Pietersen's worst critics have never able to fault his work ethic, and other teams he has played with (and there are far too many now!) report a player completely willing—even delighted—to work with newer cricketers and pass on his knowledge, and do the team thing if he is made to feel wanted and special. Sounds familiar?
Seems a lot like Warne. Imagine if Cricket Australia had decided he wasn't worth the trouble! Part of leadership is realising that people have different needs and motivations, and finding a way to work with that for the benefit of the organisation. This is just as true in sport as in the workplace. The English Cricket Board pay their coaching staff a lot of money, and have a huge support staff, and if I was signing the cheques I would be asking how they couldn't find a way to manage such an important resource as Pietersen.
Of course, English cricket has always been distrustful of unconventional cricketers who don't fit the mould. Players like Gower and Botham found that out. There is a need for conformity that holds the ECB back, and they seem intent on a one size fits all approach of bashing round pegs into square holes. One suspects that Warne would never have gotten a game had he been an Englishman. I can also see an element of snobbery in their unwillingness to try and bring Pietersen back in the fold, he is too brash, to emotive—and too South African for their taste.
I am not a fan of mercenary sportsmen who have no loyalty to anything other than money and fly in and play, get paid and fly out. But Pietersen moved to England without a guaranteed spot, married an English woman, pays English taxes and resides permanently in England (no tax haven residencies for him). If he was anything but a sportsman we wouldn't think that way—if he were a London grocery shop owner who had immigrated and had made a new life there only for people to say he wasn't a real Englishman—well, there is a word for that and it isn't pretty. I have a feeling there are powerful people who would much rather see establishment man Alistair Cook (who seems a fine man and is a fine cricketer) end up England's leading run scorer than some jumped up parvenu, and who breathed a sigh of relief when Pietersen went into exile.
The sad thing is that it is cricket, and the spectator, paying the price. There is a real chance we will never see Pietersen in Test whites again, and that would be a shame for everyone who loves cricket, English or not. We can only hope he learns some humility and grace, and that the ECB decides that closing the door on one of Test Cricket's greatest talents needs a re-examination.
David Goodwin is the Editor of The Salvation Army's magazine, On Fire. He is a cricket tragic, running a cricket club and a cricket association, while attempting to hit sixes and bowl legspin as often as possible
David Goodwin's archive of articles may be viewed at http://www.pressserviceinternational.org/david-goodwin.html