Towards the end of last summer, as Surrey were dumped out of the NatWest T20 Blast semi-final by the Birmingham Bears, it looked like Kevin Pietersen would never play another match on English soil. A short while later, he was released by Surrey, and he soon signed deals in both the IPL and CPL franchise T20 tournaments. He was without a county, and looked set to turn his back on English cricket altogether.
He was booed at Edgbaston. His side-swipes against the ECB and some of his fellow cricketers had not endeared him to many, and his poor form, his public commitment to becoming a T20 bat-for-hire, as well as his apparent willingness to play up to the role of wounded exile, all combined to make him marginally less popular than Giles Clarke for that Edgbaston crowd. England had endured a difficult summer, but had just beaten India 3-1 in the Test series with a young, new team. KP had his supporters, but all the noise (literally) was being made by the other side.
At the start of this summer, things couldn’t look more different. After Pietersen enjoyed a personally successful Big Bash, England were humiliated so badly in the World Cup that they might have done a better job had Alastair Cook been in the team. Might. That is not to say that Pietersen should have been playing – he hadn’t played a competitive 50-over match in over a year, and you just can’t be sure of anything on T20 form alone. But it certainly left England fans, even those who find the man tiresome, casting a wistful eye in Pietersen’s direction.
In such a climate, incoming ECB Chairman Colin Graves has clearly opted for the common-sense approach to managing the England side, saying that if Pietersen is fit and in form, there is no reason he shouldn’t play for England again. Peter Moores, Alastair Cook and James Whitaker have appeared frosty to the idea, but team selection should be based on cricketing ability and no player should be omitted based on trumped-up charges of indiscipline.
A common rallying-cry of many England fans sceptical towards the possibility of a return for KP was that if he wanted to play for England (as he had stated in interviews), then he should be playing first-class county cricket in England and not T20s in St Lucia. When he was told he had no chance of playing for England again, he decided to make the most money he could from the last few years of his career by playing T20s. He was faced with the choice of making more money from six weeks of T20 in India than from a year of county cricket in England; which of us wouldn’t take a year’s salary for six weeks’ work in a warm country?
The instant he was told there might be a way back, though, he wanted out of the IPL. He gave up a deal worth £205,000 with the SunRisers Hyderabad to play for Surrey. In April, he will be playing a four-day County Championship match in Wales when he could be taking on the Kolkata Knight Riders in the IPL for much more money. Doubts about his commitment to playing for England are no longer tenable.
Whether or not England should select him is an entirely different matter. A Test return looks a long way off for Pietersen, with Ballance, Bell, Root and Ali all making centuries in last summer’s encounters with Sri Lanka and India. However, the one-day and T20 sides are definitely within Pietersen’s reach, if he can prove himself for Surrey this season. Cricketers of his talent don’t come along very often, and England would be wrong to overlook him if he’s in form.
There is a view that, due to his age and history of injuries, Pietersen will not make the 2019 World Cup, and that England should therefore look to build towards that tournament without him. Firstly, at 34 Pietersen might still have four years left in him. Secondly, the best way to rebuild is not to throw young cricketers into a failing team and give them lots of practice losing ODIs before 2019. It’s what they did for this tournament, and it didn’t work. Sam Billings, James Vince, and Jason Roy may well play an important role in England’s 2019 campaign; but they will need to learn their trade from experienced batsmen (like Pietersen), and get used to winning a few matches. Winning is a habit, and one that England’s ODI side desperately needs to acquire. If Pietersen is churning out runs for Surrey, it would be foolish not to have him in England colours once more.
Colin Graves is not ushering KP back into the side, not at all. All he has done is reverse the absurd decision to freeze England’s highest international run-scorer out of the national side. It is less of a backward step than righting a wrong turn. He has given England the option of picking an extremely talented player, and he has given that player the opportunity of proving himself again.
An interesting dimension to this debate, though, is the suggestion that Alastair Cook might resign in protest if Pietersen is brought back. Cook no longer holds sway over the ODI or T20 sides, so it would be a petty gesture to resign over his return to England duty in coloured kit. Also, if Alastair Cook was really given a straight choice between being Pietersen’s captain again or not being captain at all, he might relent on his threat after all. Considering that Cook averages 48 in Tests when Pietersen is playing and just 32 when he isn’t, perhaps he should even be in favour of the idea?
Colin Graves made the right call in leaving the door open for Pietersen; for one thing, county cricket fans will now be able to watch him in action, which can only be good for the flagging domestic game. All of the cards remain in the ECB’s hand: they are under no obligation to pick Pietersen whatsoever. But if the 2015 season sees KP rolling back the years, reeling off hundred after hundred in county cricket and then for England, it would take a particularly sour fan not to be excited.
