As Pietersen is exiled from England again, the ECB must take blame for messy saga

On the day Kevin Pietersen is again told he has no future with the England team, Osman Samiuddin explains why the messiness of this ongoing saga has been caused by the ECB.

Kevin Pietersen leaves the field after scoring an unbeaten 355 for Surrey. The evening before, Pietersen was told he would not be part of England's future plans. Dan Mullan / Getty

At the end of the last Ashes, English cricket came upon a dilemma. At its core, and as far as dilemmas go, it was a fairly simple one. It was not, for example, a tricky decision about refusing to travel to another country for political reasons.

It was not, for instance, such a momentous one as selling cricket rights to a non-terrestrial broadcaster and risk accelerating a drift away from a vast public. And it was definitely not about having to decide whether or not to jump into an agreement with a businessman promising lots of money, but maybe of dubious authenticity himself.

Nope, it was not as complicated or huge as any of these. All the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) had to do was choose a future with Kevin Pietersen or one without Kevin Pietersen. OK, so it was not a straightforward decision, especially given the stature of Pietersen the player and the nature of Pietersen the man. But then, as now, reasonable, rational arguments could be made for either choice.

Pietersen was 33 at the time, maybe unhappy within the side and, though not looking permanently out for form, his batting felt weighed down (averaging 33 in his previous 12 Tests, with just a single hundred). If the choice was to move on, it was a good opportunity to do so.

RELATED:

On the other hand, his form did not feel terminal. His form could return, especially if his knee problems were resolved and a new management was in play. As well as the benefits of his batting, England could build on his impact around younger batsmen.

Ultimately though, it was not so much about the decision the ECB made as the apocalyptic mess they created in making that decision. That was highlighted once again by the events of Monday and Tuesday which led to Pietersen being told — again — that he has no future with England.

To take in the full ridiculousness of what has happened, recap. First, the incoming board chairman Colin Graves suggested in March that, in fact, the door was not shut on a Pietersen return. Play some county cricket, score some runs and maybe.

That very evening the board contradicted those sentiments, insisting nothing had changed. Nevertheless Pietersen gave up an IPL contract, signed up with Surrey and tried his hand. Then, on the day he did score those runs — big runs as it turns out — for Surrey, he was summoned to a meeting with the new director of the England team, Andrew Strauss. There he was told that there is no place for him in the England side, that there are ‘trust issues’ and yet offered an advisory role to the England ODI side.

Why open the door back to him in the first place? Why call him for a meeting to tell him specifically that he does not have a short-term future but that a return in the more distant future is not to be ruled out? Why on earth, when there are issues of trust, offer him an advisory role within the England set-up?

Why just not select him after the Ashes and then continue to not select him, instead of making it an ideological statement of some kind and trying to be definitive about it? Why go through it again?

The truth is the ECB have not been able to move on from Pietersen. Not at the level of the individual, which is why, presumably, there was a meeting in the first place. They remain obsessed by him and by their handling — or not — of him.

They have not been able to move beyond him at any holistic level either. The England side is still where they were after the Ashes: starting afresh, hugely unpopular and disconnected, looking for a new coach, dithering over Pietersen. Alastair Cook has not moved on. The team has not moved on, though maybe that middle order is not so easy to disrupt.

The handling of Pietersen has been an absolute indictment of the ECB as an administration, yet another that should ensure it finds a place in any mention of what are commonly thought to be the game’s most toxic boards.

At least Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and the West Indies have the excuse of being financially bereft or interfered with to great degree by governments. The ECB? They are exemplary proof that money does not buy good sense.

Follow us on Twitter @NatSportUAE