We need to be clear from the outset that the England and Wales Cricket Board stance, which prevents Kevin Pietersen from pursuing his chosen path of Test and T20 to the exclusion of ODI cricket is not some restrictive practice policy or restraint of trade drawn up specifically to nullify the ambitions of its most preposterously talented batsman. When Pietersen signed his central contract, he did so in the knowledge there was a clause that specified that with regard to limited-overs cricket it was all or nothing. As recently as February, in fact, he acknowledged as much by stating his commitment to playing through to the 2015 World Cup, and, contrarian as he can be, that sounded pretty unequivocal.

Now, though, he wants to change the rules. Gauche he may be at times (most recently his enthusiastic but thoughtless tweets about Delhi Daredevils sent at a time he was sitting in the Surrey dressing room with the team struggling in a match did not go down well, apparently), but Pietersen knows the market. Although it was curtailed, he enjoyed a successful series in the Indian Premier League, having placed himself in the shop window at Eden Gardens in November. Now there are T20 leagues springing up worldwide.

Should he renew his England contract in September, on a Test-only basis (and it is by no means a given that he will), then there is no reason to suppose he will play any more IPL next year than he did this, when there are Tests against New Zealand in this country in May. Andy Flower would require him to be back and playing county cricket for Surrey in preparation. But in opting out of England's ODI tour to India in January, and the limited-overs part of the New Zealand tour that follows on, as well as being opted out of the T20 match that rounds off the Test tour of India before Christmas, he is freeing himself for Australia's Big Bash and maybe any of the new leagues that will pay top dollar for a fellow of his capabilities.

Perhaps he has even sent a return of the famous $$$ text he received from his pal Chris Gayle after the first IPL auction, whom he will now likely follow around the globe. He has cited the increasing stress on his body with the demands of modern international cricket. He has had his share of injuries, not least the serious achilles damage that required surgery and lengthy rehab, but still anyone might see this as a smokescreen: KP has made a commercial decision, which, let's be honest, is to his advantage and England's loss.

So why are the ECB appearing to be inflexible in the matter? Why do they not just accommodate his wishes and at least gain some benefit? After all, he is a fundamental part of their drive to retain the World T20 in Sri Lanka in September. Well, there has been conflict between him and the board for a while. He believes he was unfairly carved up when he lost the England captaincy (would this situation be arising, incidentally, if he still had the role?), and has fallen foul of the Twitter regulations on more than one occasion, culminating in a hefty fine only days ago after an attack on Sky's Nick Knight.

It would also be fair to say that his relationship with Flower has not been close, since the director of England cricket was batting coach under, and a supporter of, Peter Moores. Pietersen, as the new captain, lobbied to have Moores removed. To the credit of Pietersen and Flower, they developed a professional relationship, but it has rarely been other than tense. Ultimately, you do not mess with Andy Flower.

It is Flower and Hugh Morris, ECB managing director of England cricket, who can see the danger to the future development of the side, particular the limited-over side of things, from a player who is seen to cherry-pick. If Pietersen is allowed to do so, then, hypothetically, Eoin Morgan might feel so inclined. And Stuart Broad. And so on. It would be hard to turn them down, hence the insistence that the development of the two limited-overs formats are inextricably linked. In short, the ECB is protecting its assets in which they have invested heavily. It is also worth noting that Pietersen is surely in breach of his contract and in this regard you could say that the ECB has been lenient in going as far as it has.

In any case, life will move on without Pietersen, just as it did without Andrew Flintoff, another whose professional life, were it not for the serious injury that cut short his playing career, might have headed off down a similar path towards freelancing. It represents a setback, but that happens when injuries occur too. You get on with it.

And what of Pietersen? Will Surrey find him turning up for CB40 matches while England play? Will he find that the world of international cricket in all its forms moves on quickly? Of course England see him as a cornerstone of their defence of the Ashes in 2013, but right now they would not be putting the mortage on it. On the other hand, nor would you place it on him not appearing at the top of the order when England begin their World Cup campaign in Australia. He really is that contrary. But the initiative would have to come from him.