The firing of a critic
A major topic of debate in England at the moment is the action of the England Cricket Board in firing their best batsman, Kevin Pietersen. As one writer wrote:
"For the ECB to take the astonishing step of removing England’s finest player, without citing a shred of supporting evidence for any sackable offence, is as arrogant as it is absurd. Downton’s shambling statement – “the time is right not only to rebuild the team but also team ethic and philosophy” – is one even The Thick Of It scriptwriters would have struggled to contrive."
Paul Downton is the managing director of the ECB
What appears to have sealed Pietersen's fate was his criticism of the England team's coach while they were playing their disastrous recent series in Australia. In a rational world, a losing team SHOULD be critical of their direction. But serious criticism was in fact seen as disruptive.
One thing mostly going unmentioned is that Pietersen is South African. The England team these days would be nothing without its frequent recourse to South African players so maybe a bit of resentment of that is coming out. South African whites are keen to play for England as "affirmative action" discriminates against them in their homeland.
1 comment:
In a rational world, a losing team SHOULD be critical of their direction. But serious criticism was in fact seen as disruptive.
If you read the articles on what Pietersen was doing, it seems his comments were not serious but part of a plan to simply be disruptive. When players met to talk about being responsible for their own actions, Pietersen said that it was the manager's fault.
When a player on a team becomes a distraction to that team, or when they start to fracture the team more, they are not worth keeping around.
Yeah, Pietersen may be the best player on the team, but if you are losing with a person who won't play for the team, maybe it is time to get someone who will play for the team and not their own selfish interests.
Post a Comment