Because the personality involved is so controversial, there is a danger that the real story behind Kevin Pietersen’s retirement from one-day internationals and Twenty20 cricket will be missed. This is more serious than just another debate about the motives of England’s most dazzling batsman. The underlying truth is stark: there is going to be a lot more of this around the corner.
It has revealed nagging, unavoidable questions: how much power will national boards have over their players in the future and how will they control cricketers who are tempted by a freelance Twenty20 career?
One thing is clear. Money alone is unlikely to be the answer. When Indian entrepreneurs are prepared to lose vast sums for the privilege of owning a loss-making Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise, trying to compete with them on salaries is not a wise strategy. If you want to entice someone away from Twenty20, the chequebook is not the right tool.
Nor, sadly, can boards expect to appeal to a cricketer’s sense of national pride and patriotic duty. After all, three of England’s star players grew up playing cricket in other countries.
No, the ace card in the hand of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) when it comes to negotiating with players will become increasingly simple: success. Play for England and win. Play for England and belong to a great team. Play for England and achieve something enduring. Play for England and you will earn something that transcends mere cash in the bank. Sir Alex Ferguson, the Manchester United manager, has often pointed out that his strongest negotiating card with players and agents is not money, it is winning.
Advertisement
That raises the inevitable question: how do you create enduring success when your best players are constantly tempted to jump ship and follow the Indian rupee? Boards will conclude that the best protection against players calling their bluff is access to a conveyor belt of new talent. The best position from which to negotiate with a star player is not to need him too much, to have other options.
That is why the IPL and its spin-offs present a paradox to the ECB. When player power is at its peak, it sharpens the need to develop as many top players as possible. The more talent England can pick from, the easier they will find it to hold the line — as they have with Pietersen — about the conditions that are attached to playing for England.
Doubtless, Pietersen enjoys the IPL very much and will have a similar impact if he plays in the domestic Twenty20 leagues that are springing up around the world. But, in one respect, he may have miscalculated. In the Test against West Indies at Trent Bridge last week, I saw a team showing no sign of slackening their grip on world cricket. Well led, well coached and enviably grounded, England look as if they are just getting going.
If this England team become a dynasty that goes down in history as one of the true golden ages of English cricket, then missing out on the one-day and Twenty20 strands of that journey may hurt more than Pietersen imagines. Not many cricketers — even ones as good as Pietersen — have the pleasure of playing for a great team sitting at the top of a nation’s sporting culture.
For now, there is great sadness among England fans that one of the best batsmen to wear an England shirt looks to have played his last one-day international. In time, the fans may not be the only ones who look back on Pietersen’s premature retirement with regret.
Advertisement
• Ed Smith’s Luck — what it means and why it matters (Bloomsbury) is out now.