No snap judgement: it's time to talk about Kevin

Kevin Pietersen: superstar batsman

It is wrong to make snap judgements in Test cricket. A batsman may take days to craft a great innings, and then, in one ball he might throw his wicket away. A bowler might bowl an inspired session, taking wickets for fun, and then spend hours toiling fruitlessly the next day.

The temptation as commentators and as fans is to laud immediate achievement and to condemn instant failure. More often than not, our instincts to do this are misleading. Over the span of careers, we have dismissed Ian Bell for his lack of mental strength, only for him to come back stronger than ever, and looking an outstanding middle-order player. We have lauded Monty Panesar, only for the emergence of Graeme Swann to show the difference that a genuine top-class spinner can really make.

For England at present, there is plenty to be positive about. Along with Bell, Jonathan Trott and Alastair Cook have blossomed over the last twelve months. Andrew Strauss looks comfortable both at the top of the innings and as captain. Eoin Morgan is showing early promise in his Test career at number six. Against Sri Lanka this morning, wicket-keeper Matthew Prior notched up his fifth Test century.

In the bowling department, Stuart Broad and James Anderson are now considered the established leaders of the seam attack. In Chris Tremlett England have a third seamer, whose 6’8” frame alone makes him an imposing prospect. Steven Finn (playing in place of the injured Anderson today) is not quite as tall, or as established, but is a useful option, and that is the point – we have genuine options with the seam attack. In Swann, and since the retirements of Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan, England have perhaps the top spinner in the game.

But wait. I have missed someone out haven’t I? What about superstar batsman and formerly short-lived England captain Kevin Pietersen?

Since his emergence in 2005, Pietersen has been a magnet for media attention and this has never changed. He was lauded for his contribution to England’s 2005 Ashes victory. He very quickly became a star. At the time, this was a snap judgement. That is not to say that Kevin Pietersen is not a quality player to this day. He is.

Pietersen’s reputation is characterised by big-hitting centuries. He has made seventeen of them and twenty-one fifties in seventy-one matches. Alastair Cook, by comparison, has the same number of centuries and three more fifties in five fewer matches. Both have averages of just over 48. So Cook has a slightly better record than Pietersen. So what?

What rankles though is that he never seems to have developed, on or off the pitch. He is still the flamboyant flair player he always was, and he is still an outspoken media source. This is no snap judgement. It is a feeling which has been growing throughout years of watching Pietersen start to build an innings before carelessly throwing his wicket away.

If Kevin Pietersen is the most gifted batsman of this generation, the statistics suggest that he is not the most hard-working. To use the Cook comparison again, the young opener is a model of technique, temperament and professionalism. He has continually improved the more experienced he has become.

In 2010, Pietersen averaged just over 41 in tests. Cook averaged 58. In 2011’s three Tests so far, Pietersen averages just 13, with Cook averaging a huge 139. For those without encyclopaedic memories, you might think that Cook must have a not out inflating that statistic. He does not.

In the winter Ashes series, Pietersen’s double hundred in Adelaide was crucial to England’s series win, but it also served to mask a below par year for the South African born player, pushing his average up over the 40 mark and in to the realms of respectability. Remove this one innings and he is left with a 2010 record with no centuries and an average of just 31. Removing Cook’s top score of 235 not out from the First Test of the same series leaves him with four remaining hundreds, and an average of 50 for 2010.  The statistics make it possible to say that Cook’s double hundred was evidence of a good year, while Pietersen’s was an exception in a bad year.

Cook: control, technique and temperament

Widening the perspective, it is possible to argue that his 2010 form is typical of Pietersen as an international cricketer: he has reached the highest of heights with his talent, but he has steadfastly refused to adapt his style or curb his attacking instincts. He has refused to learn control and to develop his temperament. He has bought in to his own talent myth and because of this he has failed to develop in to the dominant, world-class batsman the nation had hoped he might become. Control, technique and temperament, not flair, are the hallmarks of every great batsman – Ricky Ponting, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and perhaps now Alastair Cook. They are the characteristics which exclude Pietersen from this category. He can play strokes of the same quality as the illustrious players I have just listed, but he can’t quell his instincts – his burning desire for glory - to leave the next ball when he should.

The retirement of Paul Collingwood from Test cricket has left England with another problem, and new questions about the balance of the side. Collingwood was the nominal fifth bowler, and the team’s best fielder. These roles will be missed more acutely than his batting – the inclusion of Morgan may actually improve England’s middle order.

After the first day of the first test against Sri Lanka last week, as England’s bowlers toiled between rain breaks, former England batsman Geoff Boycott lamented the decision to play only four bowlers, suggesting that the inclusion of Monty Panesar as a second spinner might have helped England eke out wickets in difficult conditions. On day five, as England skittled the tourists out for just 82, with only three fit bowlers and James Anderson watching on, such a suggestion seemed silly  - further evidence of the folly of making snap judgements in cricket.

Nevertheless, circumstances will arise where the bowlers have to dig deeper than they did on Monday, if England are to achieve their aim of being the number one Test side in world cricket. England will have to beat stronger opponents than this Sri Lanka side so recently relieved of the services of Muralitharan and Chaminda Vaas, their two best bowlers.

In the battle to balance the bowling and batting strength of a side, a Collingwood-type fifth bowler is the happy compromise we now lack. Ian Bell and Jonathan Trott do not look as comfortable as Collingwood did bowling a few key overs. Pietersen himself has the ability to bowl useful off-spin but he has never developed the consistency required for him to be anything other than an occasionally used ‘partnership-breaker’ weapon.

There is a clear and probably wise reluctance to promote Stuart Broad up the order, though he has shown himself to be a more than competent batsman. Perhaps the cautionary tale of Andrew Flintoff is behind this. Ultimately, the workload as star bowler, batsman, slip-fielder and sometime captain was too much of a burden for someone of even Flintoff’s immense heart to take. His career batting averages are not as good as he would have wanted. His spells as captain were a mixed bag of small triumphs and spectacular failures. His bowling was blighted by injury. Broad should be left to concentrate on his bowling. Batting at number eight, any contribution he makes is a bonus rather than an expectation, a joy rather than a burden.

The best answer, perhaps, is Ravi Bopara. The Essex batsman could lay claim to being an all-rounder in the same way as Collingwood could – he is a batsmen who is a more-than-useful medium-pacer.  The concerns about Bopara would be whether his batting is good enough to justify inclusion on its own merit and, if so, who would be dropped? With Morgan in the mix, the top six look set for the foreseeable future. 

Bopara - an all-round option

Would the selectors consider dropping Pietersen? Perhaps his recent failures suggest that the team could bear to lose him, purely to gain Bopara’s all-round contribution. Whether Bopara could bat in Pietersen’s spot at number four is another question. Number five Bell or number six Morgan could step up the order instead, but perhaps with the solidity of Bell and Morgan behind him Bopara would have the freedom to flourish. Even if he failed in that order, the team would have Bell, Morgan and Prior to follow. Perhaps it is better to blood Bopara at four than it would be at six, where he would be more exposed to having to take the lead role when batting with a bowler at the other end.

But would the selectors consider dropping Pietersen? Perhaps, if they would, they might discover a new balance and propel England to their coveted position at the top of the Test tree. Perhaps Bopara could become the new Collingwood. And, here’s a radical idea: if he did fail, perhaps we could simply recall Pietersen, and perhaps with the kick-up-the-arse of being dropped, he might by then have put a bit more thought in to developing himself in to the great batsman he should have become. Perhaps, if he cannot do that, the team do not need him at all.

Perhaps England do not need their superstar. Perhaps dropping him would send the right message to the mere mortals beneath him, the likes of Ravi Bopara. Work hard. Concentrate. Practice. Don't think you can just get by on your God-given talent.