England v Pakistan, 2nd npower Test, Edgbaston, 2nd day August 7, 2010

Butt plays down dead-ball row

Cricinfo staff
40

Salman Butt played down the latest potential flashpoint between England and Pakistan as Kevin Pietersen apologised for his part in a controversial reprieve on the second afternoon at Edgbaston.

Pietersen, who top-scored with 80 but is still waiting for his first Test hundred since March 2009, was on 41 when he backed away as Mohammad Asif ran into bowl, indicating he wasn't ready to face the delivery. But, with Asif in delivery stride, the ball was let go and Pietersen, bizarrely, played a casual drive that lobbed gently into the air to Salman Butt at mid-off.

In an innings in which the tourists dropped six catches, Butt understandably appealed, but the South African umpire Marais Erasmus insisted he had already called dead ball and therefore Pietersen could not be given out.

"That's what I've been told by the umpire, that he called it before the actual shot was played so it becomes not out that way," Butt told reporters. "That's what the umpire told me. We had a point and we made it to him but that was the reply."

Pietersen, for his part, insisted he'd been distracted by his fellow batsman Jonathan Trott, who walked into his eyeline while backing up at the non-striker's end. "Trotty walked in from a widish mid-on position." Pietersen said. "He said he was swatting away flies or bees - there were a lot of them out there today - and he walked in at a brisk pace across the wicket.

"I thought he was going to walk straight across, so I pulled away. The umpire shouted dead ball, but the ball sort of followed me. Instinctively, I played at it - I probably shouldn't have, and I apologise if I caused any issues."

Law 23.3.b (v) states: "Either umpire shall call "dead ball" when he is satisfied that for an adequate reason the striker is not ready for the delivery of the ball and, if the ball is delivered, makes no attempt to play it." Having played his shot, Pietersen conceded he was fortunate not to have been given out on a technicality.

"They obviously appealed. But it was a dead ball call before - and if the shoe was on the other foot we would have got on with the game," he said. "I think everybody moved on pretty quickly."

"I think all the luck was with KP today," said Butt, with a smile, after falling for 0 in Pakistan's second innings. "It's only a one-ball game for us batsmen, and if you get a good one there's not much we can do. If we are lucky it might pass without edging, sometimes it doesn't carry."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Jaggadaaku on August 10, 2010, 0:21 GMT

    Zaeem Khan, You are absolutely right that anything can happen in cricket test. But my friend under the captain-ship of struggling batsman, every body can predict the result of last test match. After the end of first test the captain of Pakistan said to the press that "Danish needs more time to get in the form", well, Mr. Captain, you also need a way more time to get in the form than any body else in the team. Actually, the captain should become the role-model to his team. If captain isn't play well, he shouldn't expectations of well playing to others. And one more thing, if Kevin would have given out at that moment, some other batsmen would have step-up and become like Kevin.

  • on August 9, 2010, 16:39 GMT

    KP is no Good to make a fuss about, Pakistan should play better.

    Well, Salman Butt did the right thing when umpire did the wrong.

  • bobmartin on August 9, 2010, 11:36 GMT

    The Pietersen dead ball incident only adds to the generally poor standard of umpiring in this test. The umpire was clearly wrong in his interpretation of Law 23(v) which states the umpire shall call and signal dead ball if he is satisfied that for an adequate reason the striker is not ready for the delivery of the ball and," if the ball is delivered, makes no attempt to play it." The words within the inverted commas are the crucial ones in this instance. By playing the ball Pietersen negated the umpires call of dead ball.. This is confirmed by the notes accompanying Law 23 (v) in Tom Smith's excellent book New Cricket Umpiring and Scoring.. which in NOTE (V) on page 168 explains "If after having stepped back or signified that he is not ready to receive the delivery, the striker then attempts to play the ball, he negates his initial action and is deemed to have played the ball" Seems strightforward enough to me... Pietersen should have been given OUT !!

  • johntycodes on August 9, 2010, 6:24 GMT

    England reckon if the shoe was on the other foot they would have just got on with it just like when they block a man from running, knock him to the ground run him out out and send him on his way.

  • on August 8, 2010, 18:53 GMT

    @captain pedent.........so u think pakistan are goin 2 lose by a big margin??u were absolutely wrong!!!!!!!!! pakistan are playin wonderfully with a lead of 112 with one wicket left!!!! if dey can get dat lead up to 150 we have got a game on our hands!!! anything van happen in cricket!!!! u just cant predi t wat can happen!!! btw kevin was a really lucky man and if he would have been out den england would have fumbled and be all lut for 150 or 175!!!!!!!

  • on August 8, 2010, 16:16 GMT

    The issue is not that Peitersen was not given out, but it shows that, when Inzizmam-ul-haq have similar kind of incident, in those umpires minds, no matter what but he was wrong and he must be given out, and he was given out two times on similar kind of incidents by umpire's. it shows, that if Pakistani batsmen against any teams play this kind of stuff.its given out. thats bcoz he is pakistani, if its a player of any other team teamthen its not given out.its always against pakistani players.

  • The_Wog on August 8, 2010, 14:51 GMT

    This has happened heaps of times when I've umpired. The moment I've called "Dead..." that's it.

    It should be easy to prove from stump cam - if Marais really did yell out as everyone says, that will be obvious.

    Had he not called, Pietersen is probably out. But he did. Inzamam got one horrible decision from an ump that didn't know the Laws (or couldn't communicate with field umps) - different story. You were right then, and wrong now. It's not bias, just an idiotic decision.

    To the PAK fans asking "What if it had been a PAK batsman?" the nationality of the batsman is irrelevant. Or the fielding team - if AUS is fielding and there's a dead ball call, it's not out. With one exception - had an IND player been disadvantaged then it's still not out but then the umpire is replaced with Billy Bowden at BCCI's request for the next Test.

  • on August 8, 2010, 14:36 GMT

    @SC79: What's your point bud? This is a Test between England and Pakistan. The umpire is from South Africa, and hence is from a neutral country. I could be wrong, but I believe (at the very least) one of the two officiating on-field umpires must be neutral.

  • emarald on August 8, 2010, 13:32 GMT

    it was pietersen's ego that even when he pulled out, he played the shot..once he was looking below while batting,didnt see the bowler until he delivered the ball,still went to play the shot and the ball got the edge and run to third man boundary..what if he was out at the time??do you think he would accept that??the man has serious ego problem...

  • landl47 on August 8, 2010, 13:22 GMT

    nrms is right. A lot of people posting here don't understand that when the umpire called dead ball BEFORE the ball reached Pietersen, anything after that didn't matter. There's no issue for the third umpire to decide on. Having said that, Pietersen was silly to have played the ball. He knew he couldn't score from it. I guess it was a reflex action, but he needs to think a bit more about what he's doing.

  • Jaggadaaku on August 10, 2010, 0:21 GMT

    Zaeem Khan, You are absolutely right that anything can happen in cricket test. But my friend under the captain-ship of struggling batsman, every body can predict the result of last test match. After the end of first test the captain of Pakistan said to the press that "Danish needs more time to get in the form", well, Mr. Captain, you also need a way more time to get in the form than any body else in the team. Actually, the captain should become the role-model to his team. If captain isn't play well, he shouldn't expectations of well playing to others. And one more thing, if Kevin would have given out at that moment, some other batsmen would have step-up and become like Kevin.

  • on August 9, 2010, 16:39 GMT

    KP is no Good to make a fuss about, Pakistan should play better.

    Well, Salman Butt did the right thing when umpire did the wrong.

  • bobmartin on August 9, 2010, 11:36 GMT

    The Pietersen dead ball incident only adds to the generally poor standard of umpiring in this test. The umpire was clearly wrong in his interpretation of Law 23(v) which states the umpire shall call and signal dead ball if he is satisfied that for an adequate reason the striker is not ready for the delivery of the ball and," if the ball is delivered, makes no attempt to play it." The words within the inverted commas are the crucial ones in this instance. By playing the ball Pietersen negated the umpires call of dead ball.. This is confirmed by the notes accompanying Law 23 (v) in Tom Smith's excellent book New Cricket Umpiring and Scoring.. which in NOTE (V) on page 168 explains "If after having stepped back or signified that he is not ready to receive the delivery, the striker then attempts to play the ball, he negates his initial action and is deemed to have played the ball" Seems strightforward enough to me... Pietersen should have been given OUT !!

  • johntycodes on August 9, 2010, 6:24 GMT

    England reckon if the shoe was on the other foot they would have just got on with it just like when they block a man from running, knock him to the ground run him out out and send him on his way.

  • on August 8, 2010, 18:53 GMT

    @captain pedent.........so u think pakistan are goin 2 lose by a big margin??u were absolutely wrong!!!!!!!!! pakistan are playin wonderfully with a lead of 112 with one wicket left!!!! if dey can get dat lead up to 150 we have got a game on our hands!!! anything van happen in cricket!!!! u just cant predi t wat can happen!!! btw kevin was a really lucky man and if he would have been out den england would have fumbled and be all lut for 150 or 175!!!!!!!

  • on August 8, 2010, 16:16 GMT

    The issue is not that Peitersen was not given out, but it shows that, when Inzizmam-ul-haq have similar kind of incident, in those umpires minds, no matter what but he was wrong and he must be given out, and he was given out two times on similar kind of incidents by umpire's. it shows, that if Pakistani batsmen against any teams play this kind of stuff.its given out. thats bcoz he is pakistani, if its a player of any other team teamthen its not given out.its always against pakistani players.

  • The_Wog on August 8, 2010, 14:51 GMT

    This has happened heaps of times when I've umpired. The moment I've called "Dead..." that's it.

    It should be easy to prove from stump cam - if Marais really did yell out as everyone says, that will be obvious.

    Had he not called, Pietersen is probably out. But he did. Inzamam got one horrible decision from an ump that didn't know the Laws (or couldn't communicate with field umps) - different story. You were right then, and wrong now. It's not bias, just an idiotic decision.

    To the PAK fans asking "What if it had been a PAK batsman?" the nationality of the batsman is irrelevant. Or the fielding team - if AUS is fielding and there's a dead ball call, it's not out. With one exception - had an IND player been disadvantaged then it's still not out but then the umpire is replaced with Billy Bowden at BCCI's request for the next Test.

  • on August 8, 2010, 14:36 GMT

    @SC79: What's your point bud? This is a Test between England and Pakistan. The umpire is from South Africa, and hence is from a neutral country. I could be wrong, but I believe (at the very least) one of the two officiating on-field umpires must be neutral.

  • emarald on August 8, 2010, 13:32 GMT

    it was pietersen's ego that even when he pulled out, he played the shot..once he was looking below while batting,didnt see the bowler until he delivered the ball,still went to play the shot and the ball got the edge and run to third man boundary..what if he was out at the time??do you think he would accept that??the man has serious ego problem...

  • landl47 on August 8, 2010, 13:22 GMT

    nrms is right. A lot of people posting here don't understand that when the umpire called dead ball BEFORE the ball reached Pietersen, anything after that didn't matter. There's no issue for the third umpire to decide on. Having said that, Pietersen was silly to have played the ball. He knew he couldn't score from it. I guess it was a reflex action, but he needs to think a bit more about what he's doing.

  • Itchy on August 8, 2010, 12:08 GMT

    @SC79: Cheeky, but true! Should have had an Irish and Australian umpire then - what? Oh bugger!

  • SC79 on August 8, 2010, 11:51 GMT

    Thought Test umpires were meant to be from neutral countries? What's a South African doing officiating an England game then?

  • CaptainPedant on August 8, 2010, 11:42 GMT

    Well done Salman Butt for not making a song and dance about this - technically Pietersen should have left the ball alone but it's dead the instant the umpire calls it, and various butthurt Pakistani fans need to shut up and follow Butt's example. I've got a few pounds in my pocket that say Pakistan are still losing this Test by a margin that will make any "lucky" runs Pietersen got look irrelevant.

  • BlueEagle on August 8, 2010, 11:30 GMT

    KP, can you do us all a favour and just not hit the thing when backing away, like any sane and rational batsman would have done. Frankly, Pietersen's lucky he wasn't given out. Although, Eliya, there was no way he was playing the switch hit, for a start, he didn't switch

  • popcorn on August 8, 2010, 11:24 GMT

    Who is this umpire Marais Erasmus who does not know the Law? Why is he officiating then? Pietersen was out, and should have been given out.Haven't batsmen been given out for handling the ball? Marais Erasmus should be removed - even midway through this Test match.

  • silly_mid_on on August 8, 2010, 11:13 GMT

    Why have England got a tailender batting at number four anyway? Good luck in OZ KP!

  • mrcruizy on August 8, 2010, 11:03 GMT

    i have no issue whatsoever with what happened out there in the middle.. the umpire called it a dead ball and KP played on his inning as he should have..that's it for me. no fuss no big deal. end of story BUT i have this serious question and yes it bothers me very much when he said " and if the shoe was on the other foot we would have got on with the game ".. why oh why a batsman in center of controversy say such thing at all? and i ask the english out here in this forum, what if he was given out? what would have u said about all this? so didn we play nice n smooth and within the spirit of the game? no body knew what happened other than KP and the umpire. even the bowler didn know anything about whats going on so we had all the right in the world to apeal for that catch and ask question of the umpire as to why he has called it a dead-ball.. i strongly believe it has nothing to do with the shoe being on this foot or the other one. so KP should respect the opponent's call as well.

  • on August 8, 2010, 10:40 GMT

    I am from Pakistan and want to ask a question from all cricket guru if it was done by Pakistani Batsmen then whats the decision of umpire.the problem is that if petierson is not ready then why he put a bat on a ball?

  • richard-munir on August 8, 2010, 10:35 GMT

    The issue is not that Peitersen was not given out, but it shows that, when Inzizmam-ul-haq have similar kind of incident, in those umpires minds, no matter what but he was wrong and he must be given out, and he was given out two times on similar kind of incidents by umpire's. it shows, that if Pakistani batsmen against any teams play this kind of stuff, he must be given out to show the umpire's strength, that they are very strict, i wonder why we need third umpire, if the field umpire's not trying to consult them on these kind of matters. then it's better make a software of the third umpires duties and feed in the computer and connect it with the camera's, so no one think that, there is one more umpire sitting out who can make good decision. i wish the world see specially those who are umpires or judges with the same eye's to every one. we watch cricket almost every game and also have played to the very high level. if have third umpire and technology then please use all the times.

  • Chapelau on August 8, 2010, 10:32 GMT

    Hard to decipher Dr. Balwinder's comments but I agree that the authorities have long been biased "towards" asian cricket - why else would an illegal action be tolerated for 800 wickets when Kirtley's action is not? IF DR B. had played cricket to a serious level he would know that you "take the rough with the smooth" - as Salman says - for batsmen it is mostly a one ball game. Sometimes you get bad decisions, sometimes you are lucky but it will even out over time.

  • K.A.K on August 8, 2010, 9:56 GMT

    Poor umpiring decisions cause a lot of discomfort. Rules should change and match referee / third umpire should interfere without an appeal for all such incidences and review and correct umpiring mistakes there and then. There is no point to leave these issues unaddressed. It undermines the true spirit of the game.

  • Munkeymomo on August 8, 2010, 9:51 GMT

    @oracle80 That is bloody good point, well remembered. Mind you I still maintain that that was Afridi cheating but your point remains a very good one!

  • on August 8, 2010, 9:41 GMT

    As nrms said, part (v) is totally irrelevant in this case. I was somewhat annoyed that it wasn't possible to comment on the first article where CricInfo mentioned this. Even if he wasn't distracted by Trott, he would have presumably been distracted by the umpire's call of dead ball. This all said, Pietersen really needs to spend some time in the middle so that he can practice building an innings. Unfortunately he's burned his bridges at Hampshire.

  • AhmadSaleem on August 8, 2010, 9:31 GMT

    @oracle80 and Mahmud Hasan Tanvir Yup it happened in last t20 match I think

  • Sohaib_381 on August 8, 2010, 9:19 GMT

    that was really an immature act by kevin pieterson, and he should've been giving out according to the law, if you see the last clause of the rule, the batsman should leave the ball which he didnt, so he should've been given out. And to you all who say that salman butt should not argue on this, dude its his job, he's the captain and he has to do this, this is very unfair to Pakistan!

  • dr.balwinder on August 8, 2010, 8:39 GMT

    i think here peterson sports spirit was in question?? if he was not ready he must have left the ball??? its umpire decision favouring england??? its long history these umpires are biased towards asian countries...apart this pakistan cricket has to come out of dirty politics..with deadly bowling,,,and if comfortable batting line up pulled in,,,butt,farhat fantastic openers. ,younis,yousuf,shoaib formidable middle line up,kamran,ii think if this combination, they are brilliant team but these politicians follows one rule again by englishmen...divide and rule,,,apart this pakistan needs to come up...and play better cricket...

  • klobania on August 8, 2010, 7:26 GMT

    i dont remember umpires have shown any such liniency for paki batsmen or bowlers remember how inzi was given out while trying to getting away frm ball. i think it is purely untrue to call such dismissal as luck. it is more than a luck n only field umpires can justify that

  • nrms on August 8, 2010, 4:30 GMT

    To the guys at Cricinfo, did you read the whole of Law 23? If you'd gone on to clause (vi) of 23.3 you'd have read: "the striker is distracted by any noise or movement or in any other way while he is preparing to receive or receiving a delivery. This shall apply whether the source of the distraction is within the game or outside it. Note, however, the provisions of Law 42.4 (Deliberate attempt to distract the striker)." To me, clause (v) isn't relevant. From what I understand Pietersen *was* ready for the delivery of the ball (as written in clause (v)) *BUT* was then distracted, thus bringing clause (vi) in to play (I am giving Pietersen benefit of doubt here when he talks about Trott's actions). Hence the call of dead ball was correct, regardless of bowler action, and the ball is dead until it is back in play as per Law 23.4 and so Pietersen hit the ball while it was dead, so he cannot be out.

    Just my fourpence worth - allowing for inflation! :)

  • Himayun on August 8, 2010, 4:27 GMT

    After Pakistani Butts were kicked by Englishmen once again, there is a justification now for the poor showing of Pakistani batsmen. The main reason for Pakistan's defeats is they have no reliable batsman.

    The Big Butt and Small Butt can keep talking from both sides of their mouth, but one thing is for sure, they are not good cricketers. It is the failure of the most experienced bats in the team like the two openers, Akmal brothers, politician Shoaib Malik which is responsible for the team failure.

    Even if the umpire gives him out the lead would only be slightly less and with this performance of Pakistani batsmen, it would not make much difference. The law is the law, whether Pakistanis agree with it or not. If the umpire called a no ball or a dead ball then there would be no outs.

    Grow up and let your bats do the talking. Instead of mouthing off, Butt should have been ashamed of his own performance in both innings.

    Himayun Mirza, USA

  • on August 8, 2010, 4:10 GMT

    so does that mean that Pietersen will neva be OUT wen he plays a swith-hit??? He was clearly trying 2 play the switch-hit if u watch it though the ball followed him on the body so he couldnt play it... :(

  • avis1001 on August 8, 2010, 3:42 GMT

    Though KP is lucky here, I think Pakistan has to concentrate now on at least saving the match rather than discussing about the same with no out come in their favor.

  • clutch28 on August 8, 2010, 3:26 GMT

    Pietersen should've been given out. I'm an england supporter but the dead ball thing is just yet another reason that Pietersen's mind seems to be anywhere else but on his cricket. If that was anyone else they'd get chewed out at least or even dropped. maybe Pietersen needs to fight in order to maintain his survival with England?

  • oracle80 on August 8, 2010, 2:42 GMT

    @Patrick Clarke, it has happed already. KP has done this once before in another match when Afridi was bowling and he got a boundary- and he was awarded a boundary, so why not given out when he was out???

  • whyowhy on August 8, 2010, 2:40 GMT

    Ravi KP is not just lucky he is bloody lucky, he should have been given out and even the English dressing room would have been happy, absolutely stupid brainless acts like this can only bring his team and country into disrepute.Nothing but showmanship to up his IPL income. The sooner he is shown the door by the ECB the better. Poor Pakistan and a captain under immense pressure already has been made to look the culprit. Keep your chin up Salman, guts it out and your day will come.

  • on August 8, 2010, 2:26 GMT

    @Patrick there is big difference between 4 runs and 33 runs that he made afterwards.

  • on August 7, 2010, 23:50 GMT

    so is Salman trying to justify his out? How low will Salman Butt go? Mr. Butt your were out because you can't handle pressure.

  • on August 7, 2010, 23:31 GMT

    I am not a pakistani supporter but i will say that England is lucky all the time! pietrsen did same thing against pakistan one more time in past. When Shahid afridi was bowling pietersen was not ready he was standing for dead ball but lately he played a awkward shot and that was a boundary.Umpire gave it as a four but why he wasn't given out today??

  • RAVI_BOPARA on August 7, 2010, 22:58 GMT

    PEITERSEN IS REALLY LUCKY... HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN OUT BY THE 3rd UMPIRE. HE CLEARLY PLAYED THE SHOT AND THEN REALISED HE WAS IN TROUBLE WHEN HE GOT CAUGHT. WITH ALL THE TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE WITH REVIEW SYSTEMS AND PAKISTAN APPEALING AT THE DECISION SURELY THE UMPIRES HAVE GOT IT WRONG AS PEITERSEN WAS OUT!!! LUCK SURELY FAVOURED PEITERSEN, BUT YET STILL NO HUNDRED FOR HIM.. BUT HES A GREAT CRICKETER AND IT WONT BE LONG BEFORE HE GETS 100..

  • cricpolitics on August 7, 2010, 21:56 GMT

    I don't see any reason to create any controversy out of this incident. It's just part of the exciting game and the players went on to play without making any more fuss. Unless media tries to make it controversial there should not be any issues.

  • on August 7, 2010, 21:53 GMT

    It works both ways. If Pietersen had edged it and it went to the boundary, no runs would have been awarded. Its just a storm in a tea cup which should be forgotten except as one of those quirky curiousities that get mentioned as an aside from time to time.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on August 7, 2010, 21:53 GMT

    It works both ways. If Pietersen had edged it and it went to the boundary, no runs would have been awarded. Its just a storm in a tea cup which should be forgotten except as one of those quirky curiousities that get mentioned as an aside from time to time.

  • cricpolitics on August 7, 2010, 21:56 GMT

    I don't see any reason to create any controversy out of this incident. It's just part of the exciting game and the players went on to play without making any more fuss. Unless media tries to make it controversial there should not be any issues.

  • RAVI_BOPARA on August 7, 2010, 22:58 GMT

    PEITERSEN IS REALLY LUCKY... HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN OUT BY THE 3rd UMPIRE. HE CLEARLY PLAYED THE SHOT AND THEN REALISED HE WAS IN TROUBLE WHEN HE GOT CAUGHT. WITH ALL THE TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE WITH REVIEW SYSTEMS AND PAKISTAN APPEALING AT THE DECISION SURELY THE UMPIRES HAVE GOT IT WRONG AS PEITERSEN WAS OUT!!! LUCK SURELY FAVOURED PEITERSEN, BUT YET STILL NO HUNDRED FOR HIM.. BUT HES A GREAT CRICKETER AND IT WONT BE LONG BEFORE HE GETS 100..

  • on August 7, 2010, 23:31 GMT

    I am not a pakistani supporter but i will say that England is lucky all the time! pietrsen did same thing against pakistan one more time in past. When Shahid afridi was bowling pietersen was not ready he was standing for dead ball but lately he played a awkward shot and that was a boundary.Umpire gave it as a four but why he wasn't given out today??

  • on August 7, 2010, 23:50 GMT

    so is Salman trying to justify his out? How low will Salman Butt go? Mr. Butt your were out because you can't handle pressure.

  • on August 8, 2010, 2:26 GMT

    @Patrick there is big difference between 4 runs and 33 runs that he made afterwards.

  • whyowhy on August 8, 2010, 2:40 GMT

    Ravi KP is not just lucky he is bloody lucky, he should have been given out and even the English dressing room would have been happy, absolutely stupid brainless acts like this can only bring his team and country into disrepute.Nothing but showmanship to up his IPL income. The sooner he is shown the door by the ECB the better. Poor Pakistan and a captain under immense pressure already has been made to look the culprit. Keep your chin up Salman, guts it out and your day will come.

  • oracle80 on August 8, 2010, 2:42 GMT

    @Patrick Clarke, it has happed already. KP has done this once before in another match when Afridi was bowling and he got a boundary- and he was awarded a boundary, so why not given out when he was out???

  • clutch28 on August 8, 2010, 3:26 GMT

    Pietersen should've been given out. I'm an england supporter but the dead ball thing is just yet another reason that Pietersen's mind seems to be anywhere else but on his cricket. If that was anyone else they'd get chewed out at least or even dropped. maybe Pietersen needs to fight in order to maintain his survival with England?

  • avis1001 on August 8, 2010, 3:42 GMT

    Though KP is lucky here, I think Pakistan has to concentrate now on at least saving the match rather than discussing about the same with no out come in their favor.