The Kevin Pietersen conundrum, like every good story, has three sides: the ECB’s version, Pietersen’s version and the truth. Last Word on Sports’ team of cricket writers decided to consolidate their views in one article for your reading pleasure.

Matthew Roller

There seem to be a couple of different lines of argument with regards to Pietersen’s non-selection. There are those that say he has been betrayed; England should pick the best, most exciting players, regardless of their attitude, and having done “everything asked of him” by Colin Graves, Pietersen can feel hard done by.

Some prefer to think that the blame lies with Andrew Strauss. Despite attempting to clarify his comments on Friday, the impression Graves gave the media and the paying public was that runs in county cricket would help Pietersen get back into the side, and, after his 355* vs Leicestershire, the only man seemingly stopping Pietersen returning to the fold was his old adversary Strauss.

There are also some people that question where he would fit into the Test team. It seems ludicrous that he could be excluded from a One Day side based on cricketing ability, but in the longer format of the game, where would he bat? England’s three, four, and five, Gary Ballance, Ian Bell and Joe Root, are all certainties for selection, and have been in excellent form since the start of 2014. Meanwhile, Pietersen’s Test average since 2012 is below 40, and his record towards the end of his career was not anywhere near as good as at the start.

Furthermore, the triple-century was his first big first-class score since 2013; he did not play red-ball cricket after January in 2014, and his first couple of outings for Surrey were not rewarded with many runs. It is also worth bearing in mind that Pietersen’s injury record had led some to question whether he was fit enough to play seventeen Tests in a year, are England are going to; after his injury during that innings, those worries seem vindicated.

It seems as though Pietersen has been treated poorly since the start of the year by the ECB, and that he really ought to be in consideration for a spot in the side. In One Day cricket, he is still a brutally effective performer, and his aggression would be a welcome addition to a side which has become rather timid in its mindset. However, it is difficult to see where he fits into the Test side, and his injuries are a cause for concern. The door should not have been closed by the ECB, but his non-selection for the New Zealand Tests at least was understandable.

Arlen Pettitt

Kevin Pietersen’s 355* was pure theatre. As is so often the case with Pietersen, it seemed reality was being scripted, moulded into a dramatic crescendo with the sound of the mercurial batsman’s Adidas-sponsored blade at its centre. To make a score of that magnitude, walk off the square at The Oval and into a meeting about his future with Andrew Strauss – so soon into his tenure at the ECB as ‘Director, England Cricket’, he probably hasn’t even taken delivery of his new business cards yet – was an incredible statement.

But Pietersen’s highest score in first class cricket, just two shy of a 116-year old Surrey record, wasn’t enough. The bridges have been burned so comprehensively that the foundations are still smouldering, and Strauss is in no mood to be the one to start the rebuilding job.

Strauss’s view was that the trust has gone – he said between Pietersen and the ECB, but for that, it’s safe enough to read that he meant himself. Trust is important in a team sport, and gossiping via text with the opposition isn’t necessarily a good way to go about keeping it – nor is a tell-all book, timed to meet the end of confidentiality agreements.

While in theory it is simple enough to say, “these are all professionals, Pietersen is a formidable talent, and they should find a way to work together”, but in practice the presence of so divisive a figure is unlikely to come out with more benefits than costs.

It is a shame that a man of Pietersen’s entertainment value is facing odds rapidly diminishing towards zero that he will ever play on the biggest stage again, but the door should have been closed long ago.

The indication Pietersen seems to have received from ECB chairman Colin Graves – that if he score big runs at county level, he might find himself back in the test side – was a mis-step; an unnecessary platitude to soften the batsman’s sacking.

Once a decision has been made, there’s no crime bigger in organisational management than to unmake it when the facts haven’t changed. The facts haven’t changed, Pietersen has always been disruptive, and he has always scored runs.

County cricket fans, and those of Surrey in particular, will be hoping that despite the dangling carrot of a test return having been dragged out of sight, Pietersen can maintain his early season form – even if it’s just to put the boot into Strauss and the ECB.

Ayelet Lushkov

It feels like we’ve been talking about the KP/ECB saga for a very long time. Personally, I’m fairly tired of it and just want to watch some cricket. So here are three separate but related thoughts, offered in the doomed hope of the end being nigh (the end of the saga, that is).

The KP narrative seems to acquire more moving parts with every new revelation. Thus precision is important, as there are many different aspects to this whole mess. Was KP mistreated by the ECB? Probably. Does English cricket need KP? Not as much as some are suggesting. Do the England team need him, and this summer in particular? Depends what is meant by ‘need.’ Would the England team benefit from a Kevin Pietersen recall? Depends what is meant by ‘benefit.’ Would that recall be worth the opportunity cost? Can anyone seriously claim to know?

Most of these issues should be kept separate from the question of how the ECB has handled the whole business, to which there is only one answer: deplorably.

355* is a magnificent score, and Pietersen certainly has the record to expect fair consideration on his merits. However, it is also only one score, and it is difficult to quantify how much it weighs against, say, publishing a tell-all memoir which ranges from condescending to outright crass against one’s team mates. KP’s talent makes him a desirable commodity, but does – and should it – excuse his petulant outbursts? More importantly, how to reconcile a genuine desire to return to the England fold with the seemingly willful dismissal of the idea that many people in the England camp would be genuinely hurt? Some might say that it is time for Cook et al. to (as they say in America) put on their big boy pants, but why should they? England will eventually have to find a way forward without Pietersen; since he seems to think little of his team-mates, why not start now?

As Lawrence Booth has noted, this was a good spring for former England batsmen. Hales, Robson, Compton, and Pietersen have all hit triple digits. Are there, then, broader questions to be asked about second chances and failures to launch? The KP affair obfuscates the ECB’s relationship to the county circuit, and even more so the fact that at least one of the following must hold: county attacks are woefully below international levels (which, given the lack of depth in English bowling, is alarming); or that the England set-up fails to productively manage the transition from empty stadiums to the pressured and highly scrutinized atmosphere of the international crowd.

No one comes out of this tale of court intrigue and revenge drama especially well. But for all its tiresome and unedifying moments, the plot as a whole provides as good an incentive to reflect on the larger questions surrounding English cricket as you’re likely to find. One fears, however, that the play may be let down by its easily distracted audience.

Ryan Jordan

Watching the latest KP episode play out in the media has been both entertaining and sad at the same time. It has been entertaining purely for entertainment’s sake, yet sad to see personalities dragging cricket through the mud yet again. What cannot be contested is the fact that Pietersen is an extraordinarily talented cricketer and his record across all formats of the game is proof of that. The fact that he is an individual that divides opinion and gets on the wrong side of authority too often is a fact of life as well.

His early years as a semi-professional cricketer were not overly inspiring, playing mostly as an off spin bowler for his regional team in South Africa, the Dolphins. It might come as a surprise that he batted at number nine. He was in and out of the franchise team and blamed Cricket South Africa’s racial quota system for this and remains a critic. The truth be told, he did not deliver the consistent performances that would have cemented his place in the team.

After a chat to England captain Michael Vaughan during the 1999 tour of South Africa, he moved to England to further his career. As his mother was born in England, he could claim an English passport. This is the first point where I question his thinking. After delivering in county cricket what he did not deliver in South Africa, the world was talking about him. Before England could even think of selecting him, Cricket South Africa contacted him to offer him a route to Test cricket. He declined out of hand.

Fast forward to the South African tour to England in 2012. We have all heard of SMS-gate. Pietersen sent text messages to South African Captain Graeme Smith which were disparaging towards his own captain, Andrew Strauss. The same Graeme Smith that he later described as “an absolute muppet”.

To follow this, he released his autobiography “Crossing the Boundary”, in which he did exactly that. Publicly commenting about your team members might be considered acceptable once your playing days are definitely a thing of the past, but not so during your playing days. Call it professional etiquette if you will, but it cannot be regarded as acceptable if you ever hope to have a professional working relationship with them going forward.

This whole issue has now become a public spat, with Pietersen, Graves and Strauss all making contradicting public comments. The likes of Dominic Cork have weighed in on this, with Cork calling Pietersen a “bad egg”. I was completely baffled by Strauss’ stance, stating that there was a serious trust issue and therefore Pietersen would not be considered for England selection. If this trust issue was so serious, how on earth could Pietersen then be offered an ODI consultancy position?

Whilst the paying public would love to see Kevin Pietersen plying his trade at the very top level again, he has burnt bridges just about everywhere and I believe he is as much to blame for his international exclusion as anybody else.

“Main Photo:”