| Series | Countries | Live Scores | Fixtures | Results | News |
Features
|
Photos | Blogs | Statistics | Archive | Video & Audio | Games | Mobile | |||||||||||||||||||||
« Ashes decider | Is Ian Bell a better fit at No. 5? »
July 28, 2009Posted on 07/28/2009 in Ashes
How important is Pietersen to England's chances?
From Nick Broad, United Kingdom
 | ||
|
| ||
|
|
|
Australia rejoices and England frets as Kevin Pietersen, statistically the best batsman in the England side, undergoes Achilles surgery and misses the rest of the Ashes. However, is he really that important to England's prospects? Perhaps not, especially if we use the criteria of Test hundreds and the circumstances they were made in.
To my mind, Pietersen has played only one truly great innings - his 158 versus Australia at the Oval in 2005. There, under extreme pressure, with England's grip on the Ashes marginal, he took the Australian's apart like no other Englishman since Ian Botham in 1986-87.
Since then, there have been two innings against Sri Lanka in 2006, which were big and full of exciting and innovative shots, but only his 142 at Birmingham could be justified as being 'special' to one degree or another. His runs against Pakistan, Australia, and the West Indies in subsequent series were made on either on flat pitches or against poor attacks.
His hundreds against India were good, but unrewarded. However, Pietersen did nothing against Sri Lanka. Twice he came to England's rescue home and away against New Zealand, but again while these were crucial innings given the state of the matches, both were made against woefully inadequate attacks.
Since then, there have been three centuries against very good attacks (South Africa and India) and one against an average attack while waiting for a declaration. The record in those three games where he hit a century - one England win. That makes 16 hundreds. The win/draw/loss ratio for those hundreds is seven wins, eight draws and one loss.
There are four nineties, but of those, only two are noteworthy - 97 versus West Indies at Jamaica earlier this year and a 94 against South Africa at Birmingham in August 2008. They are noteworthy because they both ended with his wicket being given away to mediocre spinners and England losing the Test. England have lost three of the games where he scored nineties.
Therefore I would argue, Pietersen is a wonderfully talented batsman who puts bums on seats, he can take any attack apart given favourable conditions and circumstances, he has a great average and an exceptional conversion ratio. However, what he has not done consistently is carry the England team on his back and win games. Sleep easy England.
Posted by: Chinmay at July 28, 2009 1:08 PM
Hang on... England have lost only one game where Pietersen scored a century and you say he's not a big loss? Which current England batsman has consistently carried his team on his back anyway?
Posted by: Raman at July 28, 2009 1:57 PM
The bottom line is, a Pietersen hundred resulted in a win or a draw. Thats an extremely good record. Further, it can also be analyzed that some of the hundreds resulted in the draws which otherwise would have been lost. How many of the other English players can claim to have such a record?
Posted by: Alan at July 28, 2009 4:37 PM
what a ridiculous article.
so he's not "carried" the team? well so what? Using your impossibly flexible standards you could probably claim tendulkar wasn't very important to india.
It's generally seen as beyond the call of duty for a player to carry his team, they do refer to it as a "team" after all. Of course in cricket sometimes more often than not one player is the stand out contributor to a win, however here you've brought in the qualifier that the team must win the game. Being the best player in a loss or draw is not good enough. Also it must be a ton, or at least a 90, I suppose two half centuries aren't worth anything? Should they win, you've claimed the opposition must be of a certain quality and that the pitch must be of a certain difficulty.
how many of Lara's runs count using these standards? How many of tendulkars?
Does Pietersen win countless games for England on his todd? no of course not. Is he Englands best batsman? YES, and teams miss their best players.
Posted by: Joss at July 28, 2009 10:13 PM
Your figures surely prove just how valuable he truly is. Compare to Collingwood who I think has no wins to his name when he scores a hundred. Possibly only Strauss can compare to Pietersen's contribution. And that is besides the feeling he gives team and fans alike. He's world class talent who can put the fear of God into the other side. Can Shermanator do that? Can Key? Can Shah? No. So I won't be sleeping easy. As soon as the first wicket goes down, I'll be praying for no collapses.
Posted by: krishna sukhoo at July 29, 2009 11:34 AM
pietersen is bordering on great.can present english player fit that mould.
The Inbox will feature submissions from you with us playing gatekeeper as we do with the rest of the site. We will set no rules apart from ensuring a certain quality that you have come to associate with Cricinfo. You may write on the aspects of the game that you hold dear; about matters that rile you; about players, teams and trends; you may share your memories and views, and you may so do so in 100 words or 500. The only tip we will give you is to repeat a line from our style sheet: Brevity is not just the soul of wit, it is the heart of all writing.
- The myth of ‘bowling in the right areas’
- Cricket in a global village
- Why a Test Championship is flawed
- Test cricket in India - The way forward
- The parallel tales of two writer-cricketers
- Who is New Zealand's best after Hadlee?
- Building up to Boxing Day
- Sehwag and the circle of the seasons
- Bangladesh are going backwards
- Pakistan's welcome turnaround