KP: The Autobiography October 11, 2014

A flawed character in a flawed system

The cricket book of the season brings many regrets about the rancour surrounding an incredible talent

There have been outspoken autobiographies in English cricket before. A generation ago, Geoffrey Boycott outlined the wrongs he felt he had suffered at the hands of Yorkshire and England. Even further back, in 1960, a few tart paragraphs from Jim Laker - scandalous for their time - caused his MCC honorary membership to be rescinded and instead brought him Life Membership of the Awkward Squad.

KP: The Autobiography takes the grievances and the settling of scores to a new level. Like it or loath it, it is a book of considerable significance, the aggrieved story of the most maverick, bloody-minded, exciting and ultimately tragic England player of his generation.

Even as publication day arrived, such had been the publicity generated that battle lines were already deeply entrenched, countless words written. KP: The Autobiography is not destined to change minds. It will be dismissed as self-obsessed bleating by his critics, presented as a courageous attack on cricketing conservatism by those who cherish the entertainment he has given them. This will be before most people have read it.

Is it the truth? As somebody remarked perspicaciously, "It is the truth as Kevin sees it." Nobody should question that. But it is a truth seen through a distorted lens.

Pietersen v the World (because that is how it reads, with suitable apologies to wife, child and Piers Morgan) is variously Man v Machine, Rebel v Conformist, Agitator v Compromiser, Freedom v Responsibility, Individual v Team, Instinct v Planning, Attack v Defence, Difference v Normality, New v Old , Sensitivity v Machismo (and what sensitivity!), Emotion v Logic, Perception v Judgement. Sometimes it is also about Right v Wrong, but mostly it is about English cricket's failure to control - and, yes, often to understand - the most individualistic, egotistical, inspirational, crowd-pleasing cricketer of his generation.

Whether Pietersen realises it or not, it is also about a failed relationship. Virtually every breakdown in Pietersen's career can be traced back to a disastrous and debilitating character clash with Andy Flower, known to most as the former England coach, now routinely referred to by Pietersen as the Mood Hoover. Flower, in Pietersen's terms is "contagiously sour, infectiously dour". Flower has rarely allowed himself to comment upon Pietersen, but if he felt inclined to retaliate there is reason to think that "supremely talented, self-obsessed brat" would not be far from the mark.

In his drive for marginal gains, Flower once encouraged psychometric testing of England's players and one of the discoveries was that Pietersen was an introvert; Flower did not need a psychometric test to know that about himself. But that is where their similarities surely ended. Flower is conventional, diligent, precise and rigid; Flower likes to plan and gives praise sparingly; Flower is a private man of great integrity who keeps his relationships on an even keel. Pietersen is the opposite. Pietersen is intensely emotional, lives for the moment, craves praise and dislikes criticism. By his own admission, he has no time for planning - he stares out of the window at team meetings and views coaches as largely redundant.

This aversion to critical thinking was so pronounced that he tells how he routinely avoided breakfast with Moores and Flower in case they deflated his mood. Moores' attempt to bring him into the fold by promoting him as captain after the departure of Michael Vaughan therefore failed almost as soon as it began. Batting liberates him and to capture that perfect state of mind he seeks truth in psychology and something called The Chimp Paradox, which basically tells him how talented he is. Pietersen and England's coaches never build a trusting relationship. Flower, it appears, quickly dislikes him.

When KP: The Autobiography does not push you into taking sides, it leads you into a contemplation of a flawed character. It is forthright, populist and written in such an agitated, self-justifying manner that even the brashest paragraphs cannot disguise the loneliness of the sporting maverick. There is an "I" in team he asserts, reminding us that cricket is an individual game in a team setting. And so there is. But there is a limit. He forever smacks of an individual refusing to accept the strictures of a team sport.

It is forthright, populist and written in such an agitated, self-justifying manner that even the brashest paragraphs cannot disguise the loneliness of the sporting maverick

Many will read all this and wonder how this madness was ever allowed to happen. It is as if those in authority repeatedly sense a virus in their midst only for their clunky anti-virus programs to warn that if they quarantine him several major programs will not function so effectively. Pietersen's very presence repeatedly lays bare the problems of a conservative, fastidious and unwieldy hierarchy in handling the assertive individualism more prevalent in the modern game. The moment England start losing, and Pietersen's form dips, they get shot of him.

Right from the outset, Pietersen identifies with Fred The Soldier, who "follows a different drummer". He says: "I don't set out to go against the flow… but I won't sit down and be told to bat this way or train this way without asking why." This assertion of self, often blind to the team ethic, does not go down well. Everybody who has raised a family can remember the "why?" phase. The first claim to individual freedom comes at two years old. Pietersen has it in abundance.

Some of his explanations of his behaviour are more convincing than others. His version of his fallout with Moores, a coach he found to be a "human triple espresso - so intense" is instructional. He insists that he never gave the England and Wales Cricket Board a Him Or Me ultimatum, just told them that his philosophy was so different from Moores that they could not work together. The ECB, fearing player power, sacked them both. It is a decision that smacks of convenience.

When Pietersen is not demeaning Flower, he is warring with the ECB, forever suspecting - often with good reason - a "world full of little agendas". When Andrew Strauss, who replaces him as captain, proves to be at ease in mollifying such a world, he thinks less of him because of it, suggesting that he is "playing the long game". His unabashed belief in the IPL is another fault line - he loves it, so English cricket does not love him. Here, more than anywhere, he is a victim of his time. As cricket changes, coming generations will see him, on the IPL at least, as unfairly brandished.

But he is not the only victim. Pietersen, who likes to play cricket in a happy frame of mind, sparked a debate in the days leading up to publication by complaining of a bullying culture in the England dressing room. His criticism struck a chord. But there have been few nastier pages in cricket literature than his own destruction of Matt Prior, a sequence where his ghost writer is allowed to go for the jugular - a task he accomplishes with considerable skill - without on the face of it too much justification.

As for fake Twitter accounts and Textgate, why the coaching staff did not bang heads together and sort both in 24 hours is a question that lingers. In English cricket, authority is too often invested in those away from the action. England players' involvement in KP Genius displays a crass failure to recognise that with his ego came sensitivity. For Pietersen's exchange of texts with friends in the South Africa side criticising his captain, Strauss, to be magnified into traitorous behaviour still seems to be an overreaction. The world has heard too much about both subjects. This book adds too many pages to the nonsense and it will be a reader with a healthy sense of perspective who skips the lot of them.

But it's batting that Pietersen is about - even if, reading this autobiography, it is easy to forget. Only when Pietersen gets a bat in his hand, is he truly liberated. "I'm a risk taker by nature," he says in response to those such as the Sacking Judge Paul Downton, who deemed him reckless, not accepting that without the risk he is vastly diminished.

Off the field, he is forever insecure; he jars with those he must live with in close proximity for 250 days a year. He can say he loves someone one day, hate them the next, and both responses feel equally true. He is a South African in England, a star player who needs his ego perpetually feeding, but who is not just excluded from the dressing-room clique but is mocked by it. When he asks for a break to see his wife and family, it is routinely refused. Others get their breaks: it is that IPL punishment thing again. Even his injuries - serious injuries - are disparaged by Flower. A fair and honest man, Flower's disenchantment with Pietersen begins to demean him.

KP: The Autobiography has briefly descended English cricket into chaos. It has no humour, only fleeting references to camaraderie, no praise for the talents of his team-mates, and precious little cricket analysis. But it is a legitimate work of propaganda (so much propaganda has been thrown in his direction, he had little choice but to reply in kind). For those of us not wedded to one side or the other, it leaves an immense sadness that so wonderful a talent has repeatedly exasperated, vexed and been disparaged and excluded.

Why did it have to be this way? Why was England's man management so unsuccessful? As those in charge of England cricket congratulate themselves on the prospect of simpler times ahead, they need to reflect on that question.

England cricket is hurting because of the arguments surrounding Pietersen: arguments that are often Machiavellian in high places, often rabid on social media, ultimately unbearable in the dressing room. But the chaos in England cricket will be transient. New heroes will come and one hopes the public will eventually learn to love the game in records numbers again. Disillusionment is evident and widespread. As Pietersen remarks, you cannot promote a game for the people without communicating with and respecting the people.

Saddest of all perhaps is Pietersen's imaginings that, even after a book as uncompromising as this, he might somehow play again for England. His naïve failure to understand that his challenge to the system has been so extreme that it will never be tolerated symbolises how gauche his self-obsession can make him. It's over and it was quite a ride.

But at a time when so many cricket autobiographies are cravenly dull, when player interviews are delivered as if by rote, and the governing body forever asserts its right to rule in near-secrecy, Pietersen's flawed and overwrought cri de coeur is a book that was better written. Somehow, in this imperfect, suspicious world, he summoned some of the finest innings in England history. We should all be grateful for that.

KP: The Autobiography
By Kevin Pietersen
324 pages, £20

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Madhusudhan on October 16, 2014, 3:21 GMT

    Wow! ***A flawed character in a flawed system*** title sums up the whole fiasco.

  • Dummy4 on October 15, 2014, 19:31 GMT

    @Nutcutlet - Not sure I understand your Afrikaans prism comment. Sure his father was Afrikaans speaking and his mom English. He went to English medium schools and lived in a town noted as "The Last Outpost Of the British Empire"

    Language has nothing to do with it. Perhaps nationality does. South Africans are different to English people but how does that explain Robin Smith, Chris Smith, Alan Lamb, Jonathan Trott etc. The SA team contains a few Afrikaners yet they dont seem to have any KPs.

    KP is KP. A genius. He made lots of mistakes but then again it does seem the environment didnt like the maverick. I am sure his book looks at things through his glasses just as Swann and some others see things through theirs

    I often wonder how Botham would have coped with the modern English cricket culture.

  • Dummy4 on October 15, 2014, 3:14 GMT

    The case of pieterson is not of a flawed player but it is because of a flawed english system.How can you after all allow a player of Andy flower's quality comment and command on a genius like KP.The fact that english cricket won those ashes and other highs were mainly due to the genius of pieterson and few others and not because of andy.s strategy.Anyhow the loss is for english cricket and not for KP as clearly seen in recent times.

  • Jacob on October 13, 2014, 16:55 GMT

    Two fine people - Andy Flower and KP.

    Andy symbolized discipline, dedication and grit while KP was the courageous and talented free mind who detested discipline and work.

    Both couldn't work work with each other.

    Both lost.

  • karthik on October 13, 2014, 10:19 GMT

    If england's mgmt. & its coach can have their ego then why not players ?

    If Playing IPL is hurting the ego of Eng. mgmt / coach / few other player.. then whatever KP does is absolutely right ... there is nothing to blame him.

    What a crappy attitude of Eng. towards IPL. ,they are more concerned about their prestige of getting paid by a sub-continent nation.

    Its the same crap that bothers them about a South African in their team.

    Eng. has to restructure itself to fix its ego before even thinking about someone else period

  • Mark on October 13, 2014, 9:47 GMT

    I'm a big KP fan. He should still be playing. While problems can occur in any team set up. Its a shame that whatever differences couldn't be ironed out. Cricket fans are denied a chance to see him again well before time on his career has run out. Well hope to hear him in the future as a commentator or cricket journalist. It could shed more light on his departure.

  • Satish on October 13, 2014, 7:57 GMT

    Isn't it obvious why it came about to be like this? The man who won you matches out there where it mattered was sacrificed for the man who wielded way too much power as Coach from the dressing room.

    English cricket became a society of Yes Men where any dissent at Flower's decisions was not tolerated. The only top player who was sacrificed after the 5-0 Ashes thumping was the one who spoke out against Flower. That he continues to be England's best player by a mile even now is irrelevant for Cook, Flower and ECB.

    Its also interesting how terrified English journos look in going after the ECB and demanding answers. Almost as if their entry into Lords and other venues will be banned if they do so.

    Pietersen was hung out to dry by everyone who mattered in English cricket. The coach, captain and administrators from the inside and the journalists from the outside.

  • ian on October 13, 2014, 7:02 GMT

    I've finished the book and my first thought is to flag up what a brilliant job David Walsh has done. It cannot have been easy for KP's ghost to put this all together; it's tested his objectivity and character-reading of his subject to the limit. KP, despite his addiction to Tweeting, is no gifted communicator. To communicate properly, the recipient of your communication must be clear on what it is that has been communicated. Much of KP's problem (it seems to me) is that his intended meaning is often lost, possibly because his English words automatically pass through an Afrikaans prism.What went in is not seen to be the same as what came out. DW has, however, made more of a case for KP than he could possibly have done on his own. With careful reading, the Walshisms can be picked out. A literal person like KP doesn't do imagery. The imagery brings some sparks of humour to this sad tale.I'd have liked DW's name to have been mentioned on the title page, but I suppose there wasn't room.

  • adeel on October 13, 2014, 4:33 GMT

    i must say i'm a bit perplexed on KP's outrage on Prior. we never heard of him and prior not getting along. i expected flower and ECB thrashing though.

    the bottom line is ECB is to blame for this. why you may ask astonishingly? well sacking KP the way they did without real reason, is the root of the problem behind this now.

    had they just let the dust settle, not select KP for a while. sort out the differences, change coach (every coach has a shelf life!). ECB may not have seen this day!

  • Perry on October 13, 2014, 2:19 GMT

    This is not . i.t is about English crickets constant failure to select and manage teams. Pietersen was the most competitive player for England in their 2005 and lAter heyday so what changed. Neither flower nor Moore's seem to come across as inspired or inspirational. That is the main problem.


  • No featured comments at the moment.