Clean bold

It's a fairly useful trait to have as a leader, but when Kevin Pietersen speaks, the world stops to listen. Take his preposterous declaration on Monday afternoon, for instance, when, on the strength of one dead-rubber victory against sated opponents, he announced that England have what it takes to beat Australia next summer.

Arguably there was only one captain on show that day who had any right to challenge the status quo so boldly, but Graeme Smith (himself no stranger to bombast) opted for a more cautious assessment of the challenge that awaits his side at the end of the year. Given a few years in the job, Pietersen too might one day look before he leaps, but for the moment that's not his way at all. Though he tempered his words with some belated caution, the context was quickly forgotten by the headline writers.

What was more remarkable than the words themselves, however, was the reaction they caused. Or rather, the lack of reaction, because aside from some ambivalent comments from Australia's coach, Tim Nielsen, there has been next to no riposte from down under. Granted, there are still 11 months to go until the first Test at Cardiff and, for the moment, all Aussie sporting attention is focussed on Beijing's Olympic swimming pool, but nevertheless, the crackle of static is clearly audible from 10,000 miles away.

Certainly, it would be unthinkable for such outrageous hubris to go unpunished had Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath still been involved in the Australian setup. Just ask Smith. On his last visit to Australia in 2005-06, he shot from the hip at every opportunity, and foolishly tried to drive a wedge between Warne and Ricky Ponting by claiming Warne was bitter about being overlooked for the captaincy. The Aussies closed ranks with cold precision, and South Africa were crushed 5-0 over six Tests, home and away.

Pietersen won't be unaware of that precedent, but nor, does it seem, will he care - and the fear and respect that such an attitude entails is all the more reason for him to carry on regardless. "He is hardly liked by the Australian cricket team - but that is because he is so good," wrote Justin Langer in his BBC column. "The less someone is liked by the Australians, the greater respect they are usually held in, and earned respect is worth all the gold in the world."

Pietersen has earned that respect, no question. His insanely brilliant 158 at The Oval in 2005 was the innings that set him up for life, in every sense of the word. It propelled him to fame while inuring him from criticism, and made possible the strokes of genius that have characterised his subsequent performances. England know they would have been sunk without his improvisatory brilliance on that final afternoon of the Ashes, and Australia know it too.

Which is why the notion of Pietersen leading England in their next assault on the Ashes is unquestionably unsettling to Australians. "I was amazed the selectors showed such gallant commitment to one of the most fearless, yet fearful, combatants currently playing international cricket," wrote Langer, while The Age offered up similar whistles of fair-dinkum admiration: "The appointment...was a calculated risk of the sort Australia was not willing to take with Shane Warne."

The clear consensus from down under is that England have picked the right man for the challenge, even if those closer to home are more concerned with how Pietersen will first cope with the arduous conditions of a tour to India. A two-Test drubbing in Ahmedabad and Mumbai, however, will prove almost as little as the one-Test victory that Pietersen has already presided over. The man himself knows the contest by which his tenure will be judged, and for once, to their credit, so too do the selectors.

If there was one thing that condemned England to humiliation in their last Ashes campaign, it was the leadership vacuum caused, first, by Michael Vaughan's absence, and then by the sketchy terms of Andrew Flintoff's appointment. If the rationale is to be believed, Flintoff was chosen primarily because he could be relied upon to get the best out of Steve Harmison, the one man who mattered more to England's prospects than any other. What happened next has hung over Harmison's career ever since.

Until, perhaps, now. Pietersen demanded Harmison in his maiden England team, he threw him the new ball for the first time in more than a year, then backed him publicly, privately and everywhere in between. His faith was rewarded with arguably the most joyful performance of Harmison's enigmatic career. While much of the improvement was put down to the 500-plus overs that he had spent this summer bowling for Durham, the man himself credited the performance on a far less tangible factor. The chance to get on with his job away from the glare of the spotlight.

Where is the spotlight going to be next July? On the one man in the England side who is best equipped to cope with it, that's where. Harmison will be happy with such a scenario, so too Andrew Flintoff, who can go back to being the best allrounder in the world, and leave the decision-making to a man with less on his plate.

And what of Ian Bell, a man for whom the tide of public opinion is beginning to turn a little ugly? Is it any coincidence that his finest performance of the summer, his 199 at Lord's, came at the precise moment that the entire ground was preoccupied with the emotions of Pietersen's maiden Test innings against his former countrymen? It may never be in Bell's nature to seize the day, but if his captain is on hand to seize it for him, there are few men better equipped to play Robin to Batman.

All of that, however, is for another day. In the meantime, there is a genuine world title bout to be looking forward to. Smith's South Africa, ranked No. 2 in the world, head for Australia in December, boasting a recent series record of seven wins and a draw. And yet, Pietersen's personal record against the men who would be kings is, like his attitude, 100% positive. It's little wonder Harmison is smiling again.