Kevin Pietersen - would you pick him ?

[fundy]

Interesting to read that the batsman with the highest average in the last 10 winning England teams is not KP but Ian Bell which rather puts into perspective the claim that it is KP who wins games for England.

In any event most would accept that in Test Matches it is the bowlers rather than the batsmen that win the games.

That must be the biggest proof that you can make stats do pretty much anything you want them to do. Bar the last 2 years I think Bell had 1 decent inns in a winning match in test cricket and very very rarely gets big runs unless someone else does before him

 

[Papas1982]

That must be the biggest proof that you can make stats do pretty much anything you want them to do. Bar the last 2 years I think Bell had 1 decent inns in a winning match in test cricket and very very rarely gets big runs unless someone else does before him

Last ashes home season bell was immense. Kp has undoubtably had the better career of the two. But his runs of late have not been as key, and yet his wicket is still a big Phillip for the bowling team.

 

[fundy]

Last ashes home season bell was immense. Kp has undoubtably had the better career of the two. But his runs of late have not been as key, and yet his wicket is still a big Phillip for the bowling team.

which is clearly why MM picked just the last 10 winning gamnes. Why not the winning games since they made their debut then in those winning games see who had made the key contributions

yes Bell had a decent summer but was as culpable if not more so than most with the way he batted in the winter having had such a great summer

 

[Papas1982]

which is clearly why MM picked just the last 10 winning gamnes. Why not the winning games since they made their debut then in those winning games see who had made the key contributions

yes Bell had a decent summer but was as culpable if not more so than most with the way he batted in the winter having had such a great summer

i think ink he was trying to show that in recent times, bell has been more important. Kip is still the big draw, but maybe we as fans are more remembering the player he was, not currently is. Happens to most players in all sports eventually.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

which is clearly why MM picked just the last 10 winning gamnes. Why not the winning games since they made their debut then in those winning games see who had made the key contributions

yes Bell had a decent summer but was as culpable if not more so than most with the way he batted in the winter having had such a great summer

I am not interested in a Bell v. KP debate as that is not my point. I would never question KP's long term record being better than Bell. There was not an established player who emerged from the Ashes Tour with his reputation enhanced and I include Bell in that although to hint that he was perhaps more culpable than most suggests a certain "one-eyedness" to your stance.

In an earlier post I referred to KP's failing (by his standards) form in the last couple of years and suggested that may have contributed to the ECB's decision although subsequent revelations and statements indicate this may not have been the case.

 

[Scouser]

Interesting to read that the batsman with the highest average in the last 10 winning England teams is not KP but Ian Bell which rather puts into perspective the claim that it is KP who wins games for England.

In any event most would accept that in Test Matches it is the bowlers rather than the batsmen that win the games.

I wouldn't agree... .. If u don't have runs then the bowlers can't defend it

 

[Papas1982]

I wouldn't agree... .. If u don't have runs then the bowlers can't defend it

The simple fact is, without taking 20 wickets you can't win a match, so whilst I agree that it's a bit far fetched to suggest that batting is irrelevant. The statement is true.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I wouldn't agree... .. If u don't have runs then the bowlers can't defend it

Defending a total is about not losing. To win a Test in the vast majority of cases you have to take 20 wickets.

 

[Scouser]

The simple fact is, without taking 20 wickets you can't win a match, so whilst I agree that it's a bit far fetched to suggest that batting is irrelevant. The statement is true.

So the side batting first declares in first innings bowled out cheaply in second... Loses 15 wickets in total and the oppo chase the runs and doesn't win?

 

[Scouser]

Defending a total is about not losing. To win a Test in the vast majority of cases you have to take 20 wickets.

You can successfully defend a total... And I accept in a lot of cases you need the 20 wickets that is a different statement

 

[Deleted member 18588]

So the side batting first declares in first innings bowled out cheaply in second... Loses 15 wickets in total and the oppo chase the runs and doesn't win?

And that happens how often?

 

[Scouser]

And that happens how often?

As my statement above your comment was slightly different

 

[Papas1982]

So the side batting first declares in first innings bowled out cheaply in second... Loses 15 wickets in total and the oppo chase the runs and doesn't win?[/

true, that does occur, and as I said it's not a sure fire rule. But generally teams are bowled out twice to lose. So, I accept your point, but believe you're using it to try and make a point that is mute.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

As my statement above your comment was slightly different

I think we are agreed that to win Tests a side needs to post decent totals (in a reasonable time) and also needs to (usually) take 20 wickets.

 

[Scouser]

I think we are agreed that to win Tests a side needs to post decent totals (in a reasonable time) and also needs to (usually) take 20 wickets.

Total agreement

 

[fundy]

I am not interested in a Bell v. KP debate as that is not my point. I would never question KP's long term record being better than Bell. There was not an established player who emerged from the Ashes Tour with his reputation enhanced and I include Bell in that although to hint that he was perhaps more culpable than most suggests a certain "one-eyedness" to your stance.

In an earlier post I referred to KP's failing (by his standards) form in the last couple of years and suggested that may have contributed to the ECB's decision although subsequent revelations and statements indicate this may not have been the case.

If a Bell v KP debate wasnt your point why put up Bell v KP stats? I said that Bell was possibly more culpable than some and as the supposed form batsman going in, batting lower in the order, yes I think some of his dismissals made him slightly more culpable (though lets be honest only Stokes emerged with an enhanced reputation), I also think you could say the same for Cook and KP too (based mainly on their seniority and supposed form).

As for being one eyed, well you're entitled to your opinion lol

 

[Scouser]

So the side batting first declares in first innings bowled out cheaply in second... Loses 15 wickets in total and the oppo chase the runs and doesn't win?[/

true, that does occur, and as I said it's not a sure fire rule. But generally teams are bowled out twice to lose. So, I accept your point, but believe you're using it to try and make a point that is mute.

I believe that both batsman and bowlers are needed to win a Test match.....

In other forms the bowlers or the batsman can Contribute and make a bigger impact given the shorter format.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

If a Bell v KP debate wasnt your point why put up Bell v KP stats? I said that Bell was possibly more culpable than some and as the supposed form batsman going in, batting lower in the order, yes I think some of his dismissals made him slightly more culpable (though lets be honest only Stokes emerged with an enhanced reputation), I also think you could say the same for Cook and KP too (based mainly on their seniority and supposed form).

As for being one eyed, well you're entitled to your opinion lol

My point related to one I made previously that KP's supporters such as Piers Morgan & D Gough often mention the part played by KP in successful matches but are reluctant to accept his equal part in defeats.

With regard to nature of dismissals in the recent debacle neither Pietersen or Bell have a "clean record".

 

[HomerJSimpson]

As I thought, he's signed with Surrey. Happy days, especially if he plays some four day games too.

 

[Captainron]

Kevin is not interested in whether or not people like him. He just wants to win. Been that way since the day I met him. He is actually a very pleasant guy and one of the most talented and iconic sportspeople of our generation. I would pick him every single day of the week. Damn and blast the buffoons at the ECB!