Where would England be without Pietersen..?

Question

I have just read that:

In the 27 occasions when Kevin Pietersen has scored 20 or less in ODI's, England have won just 7 times

BUT

In the 13 occasions that Pietersen has been not-out in his ODI career England have won 11 times.

If Pietersen had never became an England player, what would be the state of English cricket now? Would we be as poor as the West Indies are? What can be done to stop us relying on KP in every ODI innings we play?

Answer 1

i agree. Kevin is an awesome player, a little inconsistent he might be, but he is amazing.

england team, i don't think COMPLETELY relies on him. there are other pretty good players too. yes england might have been weak if he weren't here, but not as weak as the windies.

well you can't just STOP relying on a player, but well the team should just play together as a TEAM.

Answer 2

apparently down the gurgler

Answer 3

Cricket is as it stands not pertaining to individual performance.  It is team effort.  England may find better player too as it did in the past

Answer 4

i think they lack mental toughens .to go that little bit more .like they did against the Aussies. they need to have  little bit more aggression and of course.. jelly babies lol

.

Answer 5

I see, interesting observation Kookee. O tempora !!

By the way, I plan to use this profile with the sports cap for answering sports related questions. My original account will be for pursuing more serious cultural activities.

Rehman

Answer 6

You're right, Pietersen has saved Englands bacon on many occassions and we rely on his success way too much. The guy obviously can’t deliver a match winning performance every match, he's only human, so we need other players to sort themselves out and become more consistent. For instance, Ian Bell. Gosh I do love the guy but he’s so frustrating. He has the talent to be one of the worlds greatest yet he foolishly keeps throwing his wicket away when he looks to be set for a good innings. Despite all this though, he’s always up there with the leading run scorers in series so just imagine how devastating he could be when consitently producing his best! Have you noticed how I manage to bring Bell into every answer I give? lol

Now it's easy to say that without KP, England would be rubbish. But perhaps maybe… just maybe it would be the other way round? Stick with me here. Without having Pietersen in the line up all of our other players would have to stand up and be counted more often than not. They don’t have that comfort of “oh its alright, we still have Pietersen to make up the runs”. Without KP they would feel the extra demands of scoring high, knowing that we don’t have a world class player to do it for them. Inconsistency might become a thing of the past because players will feel the pressure to perform more than they do now. Due to all of this England may further work together as a team instead of being dependent on a single player and we could possibly end up with several great batsmen instead of just the one. Or is that just my positive thinking?  :)

EDIT

"Bell is talented and occasionally gets a good opening score but he is one of the most lazy cricketers around and always looks like he can never be bothered" - Sarah I'm sorry but you just crossed the line! Ian Bell is not lazy at all. The main problem he has is his mental attitude, I will agree, but that isn't down to him not being bothered at all. It's because he keeps getting shuffled up and down the order and doesn't know where he's meant to be playing. This surely messes with his mind so I'm not surprised he is weak mentally.

Another reason is he is always pressured for his place in the team by the media. He made a century in the last Test match in New Zealand, yet because he failed to score runs in the following match, people were calling for his head. It's unfair the amount of criticism he recieves and because of this pressure, he isn't able to perform at his best. People need to stop questioning his place in the team and maybe then he will relax and become more consitent.

As I mentioned earlier, despite his lack of converting starts into scores, he still always comes out of a series as one of the leading run scorers and is clearly one of Englands best batsmen. So unless everybody else "can't be bothered" with their batting, I don't think you really have a case.

Answer 7

I was going to give a statistical analysis of all KP's ODI innings, showing his average when England win and lose, and break it down into further segments, but I really can't be bothered now.

Suffice to say that when England win KP averages 74.06, when they lose his average dips to a still fairly respectable36.76

Sarah N and Kinney seem to have had a fairly ding-dong battle on here in regard to Ian Bell. I feel they both make some excellent points.

England do rely on KP to bail them out. Although he may think he is Superman, he is not. The rest of the batting needs to stand up and be counted.

Pietersen and Collingwood are the only reliable run scorers. Bell is too slow scoring for the modern ODI game, as is Cook. The way England's top order bats reminds me of how they used to play in the 1980's! Get a solid start, and then have a go in the last ten overs seems to be the battle plan!

Since 1992 England have been limping badly in ODI cricket. All sorts of things have been tried: pinch hitters, one day specialists, moving people up and down the order. Nothing seems to work.

At some stage, the ECB needs to address this. They need to set out a blueprint for the future of limited overs cricket in England, and stop treating it as a sideshow. This was actually said as far back as 1996, when the only teams England beat in the World Cup were non-Test playing nations. Sri Lanka won the World Cup that year because they took the game seriously. In England it is merely seen as a way of making money. We need to view ODI cricket the same way as we view Test cricket. Stop playing it in May, with the seam moving around all over (how are you supposed to pinch hit then?), and also stop playing limited overs games as an add-on at the end of Championship matches.

We need a proper, 50 overs, limited overs tournament in England, that provides real experience and competition.

We also need to start playing in more 50 over international tournaments. The reason India, Australia, Sri Lanka and Pakistan are so good is that they play more games!

As for stopping us relying on KP: in the short term, that's not going to happen. Perhaps we need a few more renegade South Africans.

Answer 8

haha ya man i always wonder that to myself.

Answer 9

There is a noticeable deterioration in the test match cricket standards of West Indies, Pakistan, Bangladesh and England.

Minor deterioration is there in respect of New Zealand, India and Australia.

The standards of test match cricket in South Africa and Sri Lanka are ascending.

Pietersen came from South Africa wherein cricket level is increasing. If Pietersen is not there, phew ! There is not much difference between England and West Indies.

Even in the case of ODI cricket, we find that the level has come down in the case of Bermuda, South Africa, West Indies, ireland, Bangladesh, England, Pakistan and Netherlands. Australia has not seen any change, being the number one team. Teams which showed improvement are: Sri Lanka, Canada, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Scotland, India and Kenya (maximum).

English cricket pundits will have to ponder over the state of affairs. Players have to work hard.

Answer 10

England will bounce back and a new star or more will come up in no time.No one is indispensable.

Answer 11

With Kevin they would be lower than New Zealand in the Test rankings.

Answer 12

England needs a complete revamp as far as its OD team goes.  They desperately need to unearth new players who have the zeal to play aggressive cricket.  Right now, they have KP but really, nobody else can be considered a good OD player.  They are missing Tresco very much.

They do not have any major batter with a strike rate over 85 - this kind of firepower is present in top OD teams like Australia, SA, India, and Sri Lanka.  Forget 85 - do they have batters who strike at 80? I am talking except pietersen of course.

Pietersen should not be made captain - he should be given another ounce of responsibity especially when hes carrying the batting all by himself.

The england board needs to play more ODI cricket other than bilateral tournaments. They need to tour more often for OD tournaments and invite other teams for the same. They need to give an opportunity to young players, who show promise. And I mean guys who are 20-22.

Answer 13

Before Pietersen England were a team full of nudgers and grinders, it seemed impossible that they could score fast enough to ever reach 230-250+  scores.

Now with him in the order and Flintoff, they have big hitting, unfortunately Freddy's injured and Piertersens form has been indifferent of late.

Bell, Collingwood and Cook need to pick up the place and not play for their averages.

New Zealand win games because they don't mind getting out "hitting" instead of trying to maintain a 40+ average.

Oram, Taylor and Maccullum play for the team, though it helps having a longer batting line up.

If Anderson and Sidebottom could bat a bit better , Colly and Bell might have more freedom.

Answer 14

Same place it is now, in the doldrums.

Answer 15

in the $hita

Answer 16

Before it was Flintoff who England counted on and now its Pietersen.

It does look like England rely alot on Pietersen , seeing the stats youve put up it looks like England dont have enough depth in their batting to try and carry the team. So we have Pietersen who plays well and England win not the others and it is the batting England have been having a problem recently.

The big IF. If Pietersen werent an England player or didnt play for England for sure things would have been different but not sure if it would be for better or for worse, meaning if Pietersen didnt play for England , there might have been a first class cricketer in his place at this stage and he may have been better or he may have worse or maybe even the same sort as Pietersen himself.

But i dont think wed be as bad as the Windies, simply because our bowling attack is doing well and always has even if England have lost by the lack of wickets taken the young guys try their hardest and sometimes just dont have the batting to back them up. Which comes again to the Pietersen issue , that if he doesnt bat to well then the bowlers dont have much of a back up.

Overall Englands batsmen have got to try and come out of Pietersens shadow and do well for the team and make a big name for themselves, if you ask a little kid to name a person in the England team , their answer is Pietersen, they dont really know who Bell or Cook or even Collingwood are , which is a real shame seeing as Colly is the odi captain.

Englands batsmen have got to be more consistent and not rely on Pietersen!

Answer 17

Yeah, I read that today in the Sunday Mirror as well.

It's an interesting statistic and shows the over reliance by England on one player to win them games. You just can't do that in international cricket, it's never productive to do so. The team have gotten into a habit of believing that if they fail KP will bail them out. But this just puts more pressure on him which means he can't play his natural game because there is then no-one else to back him up if he fails. It's an endless cycle of myopia and a highly counterproductive way to play cricket.

And as PH has already stated. The batting line up aren't exactly run machines. Bopara and Shah show promise but never push on to the big scores that win matches. Ambrose is beyond useless (he scored about 10 runs in 5 innings) and his position should now be under review. As should who opens the innings, as I don't think England have found what works for them yet.  Bell is talented and occasionally gets a good opening score but he is one of the most lazy cricketers around and always looks like he can never be bothered, he lacks concentration so he gets out playing loose shots. And I'm still not convinced Cook should play one day cricket, he has a very old fashioned way of playing and his style is very effective in Test cricket but in one day cricket he sometimes looks uncomfortable. England also over rely on their tail-enders to shore up the innings, Broad will make a superb all-rounder in a few years but he shouldn't be relied upon to get 40s and 50s all the time.

But who would you replace these players with? The county’s have a few promising players but there isn’t really anyone who stands out (at least not in my mind and there aren’t many that I can think of who haven’t already been given a go in the England team).

This all may seem a little harsh but England simply aren’t good enough at one-day cricket to compete for major trophies. Just when you think they’re making small strides in improvement they set themselves back with poor performances. It’s one step forward, three steps back.

Edit (for Kinney):

Well as I don’t want to get into an argument I’ll forgive the “crossed the line” comment (it makes like you’re telling me off for being petulant, when I‘m merely expressing an opinion).

Anyway, I think we’re going to have to disagree over Bell. There is no denying that he is very talented and it is a reasonable argument  to say that his movement within the line up is problematic as it doesn’t allow him to get settled and he possibly isn’t given enough time to adapt to what he’s supposed to be doing with the role he’s been given. The England management team is at fault there rather than Bell. But it’s not like the positions he’s given are foreign to him, he’s had experience of batting higher up the order at number 3 or lower down at around number 6 and has had ample opportunities to cement both positions (he’s played quite a few Tests after all).

And to be fair, although I said he was a lazy cricketer, I only said that he looks like he can’t be bothered, not that he actually wasn’t, this is just my opinion.

But it seems to me that he only ever seems to score big when his place in the team is being questioned or is under threat, for example in the last 6 Test matches against NZ he has only scored more than 50 twice (54* and 110 respectively. In seven other innings he scored 25 or under, in one he scored 41 and in the other two he didn’t bat) and on both of those occasions questions were being asked of him (and before someone posts Bells entire batting statistics, I will concede that this form is a recent phenomenon that only started late last year). And in all the recent ODIs against NZ he's only scored more than 50 once. He gets the beginnings of a good score but rarely pushes on (he actually has a rather poor conversion rate), he has poor concentration and gets out playing loose and poorly thought out shots. Now only he can explain why this is the case but it is glaringly apparent that he doesn’t make the best of his abilities (which is a shame as he can be a good player).

But I think it is beyond ludicrous to blame the pressure from the media or other sources for this. He’s a sportsman in the public eye and under the scrutiny of the public and the media and is bound to be criticized by all and sundry, but you know what, so are all sportsmen and you don’t see them participating in the way they’re portrayed (okay, some do, but that‘s another conversation). If his poor form is down to listening to what the media are saying then he needs to grow a thicker skin. And he should learn to not only live with that pressure but deal with it effectively. If he can’t handle that pressure then what is he doing in professional sport?

If this continues into the games against SA them I don’t justifiably see how he can keep his place. I think Bell (and Collingwood for that matter) would benefit from getting away from the national team for a while and taking the time away to regroup and gain some form (like Strauss did). It would revitalise his career and do him the world of good in the long run.

But all this is just my opinion and is not at all intended as fact, so take it as you will. :-)

Answer 18

I think England has never been exceptional since 1992 of course in 2001 and 2005 they won two important series but they never could sustain it for long.

England IMO does not scare most opposition,Darren Gough and Hamison are the only two bowlers that had genuine match winning abilities.Flintoff is an awesome bowler but you don't expect him to take wickets every over.

Monty Panesar or Ahley Giles are competent spinners, nothing special.England lack a couple of real good bowlers that could win a match by themselves.The cause of the problem I think is that the media hype over a single performance by a player, this turns them into instant celebrities and they lose focus on their cricket.

Collingwood,Bopara and Shah are made to look like exceptional batters but they are merely average.

KP and Cook are the only batters to average close to 50.I just think England team these days have more hype than cricket abilities and those abilities are hindered because of the media attention they get.

KP is the only class player in the side,Bell is an awesome cricketer but he reminds me of Gower a lil bit.I hope he doesn't give away his wicket cheaply in the future.A.Cook is a real good player and has a good future but it doesn't look like he has the ability to win matches by himself.I think England as a team would have done better without KP cause then the rest of the team would not rely on him to bail them out.Now it looks like KP show if he plays well you win and if not you lose.Not good in a team.

My Opinion Only

Answer 19

Quite simply Kookee you cant make a Silk purse out of a Sows ear.It pains me immensely as a proud Englishman to say that we are simply not good enough at the moment and even with KP on form you look down the batting card and wonder where the runs will come from.  Its hard to see the succession plan as well, we don't seem to have a lot coming through, which makes the future look just as bleak.

PS Why does the tubby Chinese bird in Big Brother keep talking about you?

You have obviously made a big impact on her !!!!lol

Answer 20

Without Pietersen England Would Surely in Dumping Zone...

How About a Dust Bin??

Answer 21

With out him they are chokers.

Answer 22

A gud Q, but we will never know the answer.