It seems a long time since Kevin Pietersen played That Shot in the third test against South Africa this summer. His subsequent promotion to captaincy produced such an upturn in the fortunes of the English team that, valid reasons for the poor South African performances notwithstanding, the
celui qui commande ended the international summer as something of a saviour. Whilst the challenges ahead remain stark, KP has certainly done all he can thus far to silence the doomsayers.
Yet at 5.30pm on the third day of the third test, a KP-led England team seemed a long way away. Looking to hit Paul Harris for six over long-on, KP was caught by De Villiers at mid-on. He was on 94, with England only 136 ahead and four wickets down in their second innings. The shot produced incredulous responses from several critics:
Agnew described it as an ‘irresponsible’ shot that must have ‘ruled him out of the [captaincy] reckoning’;
Paul Weaver called it ‘foolhardy’. Critics smitics.
The castigation of batsmen for playing one particular shot has long been a bugbear of mine, because the margin of error in test cricket is so narrow. I’m minded of elements of Tolstoy’s War & Peace; the successes and failures of empires are not driven by the actions of their leaders, but by myriad factors that influence the surrounding environment and the people therein. Such a theory can be applied to cricket: the ‘myriad factors’ – variable turn, bounce, swing that can result from identical balls from the bowler – can make the actions of the ‘leaders’ (batsmen) irrelevant, with the result that a ‘good ball’, one that does something a bit different, can take an edge and a wicket. Such balls look exceptional when a batsman plays a defensive shot. But when a batsman plays an aggressive shot, he will look irresponsible.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing that the batsman has no influence over his fate – unlike the 'leaders' in Tolstoy’s world, batsmen will succeed or fail predominantly on the basis of their shots. But when you look at an individual shot, the difference between a 'dominant well timed cut through point' and a 'loose shot outside of off-stump' could just be a function of the factors above.
The point is this: that batsmen should not be overly praised nor criticised on the basis of one shot. There is too much uncertainty, too much that can happen between the ball leaving the fingers and reaching the bat or stumps to warrant it. Batsmen must be appraised over the nature of their performances (which includes but doesn’t limit itself to an assessment of their stats) across a period of time that reduces the influence of these ‘myriad factors’ (since they affect all batsmen).
So, let’s get back to that Pietersen ball. Yes, it was the first ball from Harris from around the wicket. Yes, it was at a delicate stage of a game that Pietersen was taking away from South Africa. Yes, Smith had set a field for the shot and was preying on KP’s ego. But if he had made it and reached his century, as nine times out of ten he would have, can you imagine one person calling it an ‘irresponsible shot’? Or, as when Collingwood reached his century later that day with a six, hit over - yes you’ve guessed it – long on, would the terms ‘dominant’, ‘gutsy’, and ‘convincing’ have been used?
Get out when in the nineties playing the sort of aggressive shot that you’ve been nailing all day and you’re 'rash'; slow down and play cautiously – against you’re nature and better judgement – and you’re 'tightening up in the nervous nineties'. The line between success and failure in this manner is unfairly fine. KP was right to play that shot because he felt it was the shot to play.
Read more...
