The Pietersen Philosophy

Real progress and the Kevin Pietersen way

There's a fantastic article on Kevin Pietersen in the first issue of The Nightwatchman, by Tom Holland. Now, Pietersen's far from ordinary. He's among the top five, certainly the top ten in the world at what he does. But it's the early paragraphs of the article that are interesting in wider terms, and they set out why Pietersen has appeared to be a troubled, and a trouble, player.

Pietersen's irrelevancies

Holland writes that there are two traditional ways of dealing with cricket's powers that be: (a) tug the forelock, kowtow, and get on with playing the game on the field, keep your thoughts and ideas to yourself; or: (b) rebel. Say what you think and don't hesitate to give them a hard time if you think they deserve it.

Pietersen does neither, because, to him, they're just irrelevant. Powers that be being powers that be, they would rather have a rebel than someone who does what they need to do and brings home to them that, with or without them, the world goes on. They'd rather deal with a rebel than with someone who recognises them for the irrelevance they are.

The same with race and colour. Pietersen's South African, playing for England, in an era that still saw South Africa picking players on a political quota basis rather than on ability and form. Politically naeve, maybe, and certainly so for someone otherwise so PR savvy, Pietersen sees race, colour, religion, and all the rest of that BS for the irrelevance it is. Or, rather, he fails to see it. He just gets on with playing his game and recognises none of the artificial distinctions beloved equally by the tories, UKIP and the rest of the right-wing nutters, and the looney left huggy happy clappy social worker types on the left.

The way forward

Social progress, and political improvement won't happen until Pietersen's Way is adopted, and it won't happen here for a long time, unless something revolutionary happens, or some rebels put something in the water.

There needs to be a general recognition that forelock tugging has to become a thing of the past. Knowing your place isn't desirable. Being run by and for a bunch of toffee-nosed public school cartels has to stop, unless everyone's happy to be some sort of waged slave of the corporations, and the dodgy politicians looking after themselves and their banker mates. There's still a lot of sharp intakes of breath at the Russell Brand “why vote?” approach, but, when the same old same old results whoever wins, what is the point? Unless and until there's some real viable alternatives determined to change things, why waste the time?

Race, colour, ethnicity, whatever, will always be an issue until the politically motivated shut up, and let the sports world (players, not 'supporters') set the agenda.

We've got a prime minister, looking over his shoulder at losing votes to UKIP, giving speeches reminiscent of the Rivers of Blood hate-rant. Way to get the existing eastern europeans on your side, you comb-over berk. Makes you feel really welcome and happy to be forking out a fortune in taxes every year for you to play about with.

There's the good-hearted, but equally negative social worker types who want to pile on the baggage of history and impose quotas and targets instead of chasing the only real way forward:

1. Treat everyone the same, in terms of opportunity to maximise their potential.

2. Let nature take its course.

Equality means just that, and you get that by education and opportunity, then let the best man or woman win.

The Pietersen Way: recognise the irrelevancies and the rest will take care of itself, naturally, and rather more quickly then with continued interference, by the powers that be.