The Kevin Pietersen Conundrum: Villain or Victim?

Kevin Pietersen’s explosive memoir has caused a furore in cricketing circles

All it takes is a word, a phrase, an unfortunate incident, a secret meeting, and boom – there goes your career as one of the key members of an international cricket team. Then how do you choose to respond – through the hard way, by perfecting your skills, or rant about how unfair everything is?

Patience is not Kevin Pietersen’s strongest suit. It is quite evident from the rather sensational – I’m using the term very loosely – content in his recently-released autobiography. The resulting furore over some of the claims penned down by the former England skipper was as expected as finding camels running on arid, sweltering desert land. A hundred shades of grey are woven around the tome he has conceived, and yet it is highly difficult to understand some of the logic behind the emotionally-charged nature of the contents.

All I could see was nothing more than the rawness of his pain in some of the excerpts I read online. The bare mention of cliques and bullying is enough to drive me up the wall – having had personal experience with this before – and to see it replicated on the international stage is jolting, but not unsurprising.

Yet – how does one answer the question of whether KP has portrayed himself as a victim? For quite a large majority, he is still the quintessential Bad Boy of England cricket, a washed-up discard who hasn’t taken kindly to being dumped from the national squad nearly ten months ago. Some of the headers below might shed some light on this fact:

Maverick’s Curse

In a side that prides itself on tradition, history, and the orthodox style of play, the South Africa-born Pietersen was a strict non-conformist. The Australians, prior to the 2005 Ashes, gave him all sorts of unflattering nicknames. He also took the reverse sweep a bit further, developing the switch-hit from years of hockey practice as a child (according to his memoir). Never a stickler for too much rules and widely portrayed as cocky and confident, Kevin usually let his bat do the talking; although, as he went about establishing himself as a premier batsman, his maverick nature was often in focus.

It doesn’t sit well with those who are in positions of power. Tyranny often manifests itself in such situations. If a team doesn’t quite perform to expectations, the ones that fare miserably are discarded without a second thought.

And the mavericks are prime examples of such unnecessary purges. In the echelons of power, there is just no remorse – only ruthlessness. Perhaps KP can be considered a victim from this perspective.

Of Bullying and the Cheese Clique

If there are any serious ramifications from what has been the central idea of some of the more controversial character of the book, it is the reference to cliques and the act of bullying. Anyone in their right minds would actually take such allegations seriously. I know I would – given my previous experience with this.

Fielding is a very vital department of the game, but at the highest level, it is the make-or-break aspect for international squads. It is fairly understandable how a bowler feels when catches are dropped or when ‘free’ boundaries are conceded. The reactions are to be expected in such cases.

But calling the quartet of Matt Prior (at whom KP has directed his most ferocious jibes), Stuart Broad, James Anderson and the recently-retired Graeme Swann the Cheese Clique reeks of immaturity. In addition, severe reprimands for poor fielding, with three of the four aforementioned players demanding an apology or proceeding to mercilessly taunt the hapless fieldsman, is just unbelievable. Because with age and experience comes a level of maturity that, at some point, will certainly not condone bullying of any degree.

I think KP might need to re-think this one; painting former teammates in such a negative light is conduct unbecoming of a highly-decorated batsman.

Mood Hoover Sour Flower

Coaches are known to be tough taskmasters. Former Zimbabwean stalwart Andy Flower was no different. He was assigned the task of helping the then embattled Lions to return to winning ways. In many ways, he did succeed.

But coaches are also supposed to adapt to change. They have the onerous task of managing the varied personalities in an international side, and if that side includes mercurial ones like KP, then the job becomes very difficult indeed. So Andy did what he could do – he laid down the law before the veteran batsman: get the focus back, or you’re gone.

Being the emotionally-charged personality that he is, Kevin responded with disbelief and anger. He also felt that Flower deliberately allowed the Clique to dominate team meetings, and was very dour in his methods. To put it simply, Andy couldn’t lead, and Pietersen couldn’t follow. The end result was there for all to see.

Summary

The fiery John McEnroe once said that in the world of sport, if you have to stay at the top, you need to have ego to go out there and do it. There’s no better example than Kevin Pietersen. I’d consider him a hero for standing up to bullying (if his claims are indeed true), but equally, he should take a major portion of the blame for letting off-field drama affect his on-field performances.

Also, the focus of his autobiography should have been on his game and how he personally felt after achieving so much instead of using it as a means to pour vitriol on the ones he didn’t like.

As for whether he is a villain or a victim by doing so, I would say that he’s a combination of both. Because in the end, it is he who is suffering.