The ECB realized KP’s book was coming for quite some time. It was there, prowling behind the scenes like a disturbed savage, all through the whole summer. They probably realized it could be dangerous so why, given they had a long time to plan, has their reaction been so ungainly? Whether you love Kevin Pietersen or abhor him – and as somebody who routinely ripped his hair out watching KP discard his wicket (evidently it’s the main source of sparseness among Britain cricket fans) I’m some place in the center – I accept the ECB’s ineffective reaction has hitherto justified KP’s situation.
The dossier wasn’t really dodgy as devious
It read like a post-justified sodden stunt brimming with meticulousness. Furthermore, a considerable lot of its cases are just false: KP didn’t break convention and degenerate a youthful player in Adelaide; he went clubbing with Stuart Wide. When we know a portion of the allegations are false, how might we trust any of them? In any case, haven’t arrived to discuss Pietersen. Shock! What I might want to discuss is the connection between Paul Downton and Andy Blossom, and what ongoing occasions uncover around two of the most influential men in English cricket.
Now and again in sport one man expands than his bosses. Had the Glazers sacked Sir Alex Ferguson when they purchased Man UT, there could have been transformation in the roads of Trafford (or should that be Cornwall?). The Glazers knew this. The enormous man was, in every way that really matters, unaskable. Just a man like Fergie might have exiled hotshots like Beckham, Keane and Van Nistelrooy so definitely. I’m doing whatever it takes not to draw careful equals here. Kevin Pietersen isn’t David Beckham. Andy Bloom isn’t Ferguson, and cricket surely isn’t football. Notwithstanding, there are similitudes.
Blossom was unaskable at the hour of the Remains
He was (and stays) an essentially greater fish than Downton. That is Paul Downton, a man who had been ‘outside cricket’ (I love that term, don’t you?), for a very long time, and was essentially on his initial experience at work when he showed up in Sydney. In these conditions, Downton was never practically going to sack Bloom. He really wanted Blossom to raise him to an acceptable level: having working in the City for yonks, Downton was new to the changing area culture. He was simply feeling his direction. Downton was not areas of strength for the, ECB overseeing chief Britain required at that point.
One contemplates whether an alternate overseeing chief, one who had stayed near the game and knew the players – somebody who understood what current changing areas were like – would have gone with the right choice and sacked Bloom, and maybe eliminated Cook as skipper as well. All things being equal, a distant Downton showed up in Sydney (subsequent to missing an enormous piece of the MCG test) and frantically looked for a preparation. Clearly the preparation came from the most un-reasonable individual: the mentor with a personal stake whose group were in decline and whose strategies were old.
When the Cinders had been given up and the changing area was in unrest
The most influential man in Britain cricket was Andy Blossom. He had the ear of the essential chief who, in cricketing terms, was a pigmy by correlation: Downton’s cricketing CV was nothing contrasted with Blossom – the one who challenged Robert Mugabe and found the middle value of fifty for modest Zimbabwe. Lamentable for English cricket Bloom told Downton, as numerous in his position would, that Britain’s concerns were not his issue. All things considered, he’d proactively concluded that his strategies – bowl dry and trust that the batsmen will commit an error – were still best for the group, despite the fact that they hadn’t functioned admirably since the radiant success in India.
Bloom was in this manner trying to claim ignorance and, as an outcome, when he addressed the inexperienced supervisor chief about Britain’s hardships, Downton normally fostered a wrong comprehension of Britain’s concerns. Downton didn’t scrutinize Blossom’s judgment since Bloom was the current most senior worker. He requested a couple from Blossom’s nearest compatriots (Cook, Earlier and so on), however he neglected to understand the self-evident: obviously, they planned to back their mentor. The last skipper who reprimanded their quick chief, back in January 2009, was sacked.
Thus it happened that Downton advanced the mentor, held the commander, and fired the star batsman who, as per Michael Vaughan – somebody who knew KP and was nearer to the changing area – ought to have been given greater obligation and made bad habit chief. At the ongoing time, as the proof arises and the falsehoods are steadily uncovered, the choice to exclude Pietersen and make him a substitute for the Remains calamity looks off-base. It appears to be unjustifiable and was not in view of a precise evaluation of occasions. Was Downton accordingly tempted by Bloom power? Make up your own psyche.