Kevin Pietersen, Bradley Wiggins and the issue of trust

Kevin Pietersen was sacked by England earlier this year

An examination of the non-selections of Kevin Pietersen and Bradley Wiggins, and why the issue of trust lies at the heart of it.

Aside from enjoying both watching and participating in as many cricketing and cycling related activities as is humanly possible, it wasn’t until a few weeks ago that the striking similarities between the two sports became apparent to me. Indeed both sports possess significant team elements while also relying on individual performances and battles in a way that rugby, football, and many other mainstream sports do not.

Cricket is perhaps as close as one can get to an individual sport whilst still remaining within the parameters of a team sport, while cycling is perhaps as close as one gets to a team sport whilst still being seen by the masses as an individual sport. Indeed, perhaps the only major perceptual difference between the two is that the cycling record books are dominated by great individuals – Eddie Mercx, Greg Lemond, Miguel Indurain, while the cricketing results are shaped by teams. Even so, this distinction is arguably blurred – great cricketers are perhaps more memorable than great sides.

The recent weeks has seen a further point of parallel between the two sports. In many respects, the current plight of multiple Olympic Gold Medal and 2012 Tour de France winner Bradley Wiggins, bears many similarities to that of multiple Ashes winner Kevin Pietersen. Wiggins, by his own admission, has been left out of Team Sky’s Tour de France team. This is in spite of having won the Tour of California last month, and seeming in excellent shape ahead of the Tour, beginning next month in Yorkshire.

Pietersen, meanwhile, has been unceremoniously dumped by England, despite top scoring for his adopted nation in the Ashes and being statistically the best, and undoubtedly the most dangerous batsman in English cricket. Except he’s barely in English cricket anymore. His split with the ECB means the only way England fans get to see the audacity of his play, is on occasional Friday nights at The Oval for Surrey. That is undoubtedly a great shame.

As it is that the hundreds of thousands of fans who will descend upon the Yorkshire hills in early July, will not get to see Bradley Wiggins ascending the climbs of the Dales at the front of the Team Sky train. As great as the accomplishments of Alastair Cook and Chris Froome may be, they will never garner the attention, popularity and fascination that Pietersen and Wiggins attract. All four are clearly stars. But regardless of whose performances shine brighter, the spotlight never seems to shift away from the two men whose bosses have tried to confine them to the shade over recent weeks.

Alastair Cook and the hierarchy at the ECB clearly feel, rightly or wrongly, that they cannot trust KP. They feel he is a disruptive influence on the team environment, and moreover, they feel that this is to such an extent that they are better off their best batsman. That is telling and should not be ignored. Meanwhile, it seems Dave Brailsford has decided that given the tumultuous time the pair endured in 2012, where Froome was on the point of staging a mutiny and dumping Wiggins mid way through the final climb of a stage, it would be unwise to have the pair in the same team this time round. Froome’s recently published autobiography merely serves to further the view that there is an inherent dislike and lack of trust shared between the two of them.

The question is, what is the answer to all of this? Wiggins made it abundantly clear following California that he would be prepared to ride in the tour, not as a number two to Froome, but in support of him as a ‘domestique’. Pietersen meanwhile has stressed since his sacking that he never gave anything less than one hundred per cent to England and would still dearly love to be involved in England. Neither claim do I doubt.

The problem is one of actions and not words. It is impossible not to be a fan of the way Pietersen plays the game – it is instinctive, exciting and inspiring. Given a choice, most people would rather watch Pietersen bat than Alistair Cook. It is also hard not to be a fan of Wiggins – he is arguably the smoothest peddler in the peleton, while his inherent desire to speak his mind in interviews ensures he stands out as a character in a sporting world that is often dominated by ‘coach speak’ and meaningless responses. Yet despite this, both Pietersen and Wiggins have developed a reputation of being ‘difficult’ characters to be around.

While the reasons behind Pietersen’s sacking seem to be based his general attitude and conduct than one particular incident – it is joked that ‘whistling too loudly’ was cited as an explanation behind is P45 – his past is suggestive that controversy is never far away. He left both Nottinghamshire and Hampshire under a cloud of acrimony and issued a ‘him or me’ ultimatum to the Board over Peter Moores.

Meanwhile, his behaviour in the summer of 2012, which included sending ‘provocative’ texts to the opposition about his captain, and attempting to blackmail the England management through a series of bizarre interviews and press conference which culminated in his short-lived ‘retirement’ from ODIs, suggest that his sacking is not simply the result of an England management who simply ‘decided’ to be done with him.

This leads us to another issue though. If it is indeed the case that there was no real justifiable incident which caused Pietersen’s sacking this winter, is it not both unfair and unjustifiable to sack him based on past misdemeanours? Perhaps. If people were punished for every single past wrong in life, the world would be a very bitter, backstabbing place. Kevin Pietersen might feel this is a fair description of the England management.

Then again, perhaps citing past behaviour and misdemeanours led to such a position where there was such distrust between the parties. Perhaps the Cook of 2014 regretted the generous decision of the Cook of 2012, which allowed Pietersen back into the fold. Perhaps he felt that, two years on, Pietersen wasn’t worth the trouble he had, and might potentially cause; that the issues of 2012 were not simply confined to that summer, but were part of a wider problem.

Simply sighting ‘poor management’ on behalf of the ECB is not sufficient to explain the events of the last few months. Good management may solve problems in some cases, but in others it may not. Take, for instance, a marriage as a point of comparison – another relationship which, as already stated, relies on a backbone of trust.

Are there marriages which might be destroyed as a result of ‘provocative’ texts sent by one party? Almost certainly, yes. Does marriage counselling (arguably a form of management) always provide a successful solution? No! Might an issue be resolved initially, but then the underlying issues of mistrust between the parties cause a break up at a later date, even if there was no subsequent misdemeanour? Yes! And that is perhaps the most important point.

Indeed, this point may draw criticism from those who argue that a marriage can never be compared to a working relationship such as the one outlined. But in many respects, trust is even more important in professional sport. The scheduling of international cricket these days means that most of the players will spend more time with their team mates than they do with their partners or wives. Moreover, they are doing so in an incredibly intense, high-pressured environment. It perhaps took time to realise that despite the apparently successful ‘reintegration’ following 2012, the England management could not fully trust Pietersen after all.

The same might be argued for Wiggins and Froome. If Froome cannot entirely trust Wiggins, are the team not justified in selecting another rider who, while not being able to offer quite the allround ability Wiggins can, offers less chance of a catastrophic break up in team relations which Wiggins’ presence might?! The issue in this case is made simpler by the fact that Froome is at the peak of his powers and arguably does not need Wiggins at all, while the England cricket team are not in such a position of strength, and are thus more in need of a talent like Pietersen. Arguably Froome, who dominated the tour last year, has earned the right to have a team built in his name this summer. Then again, there is a certain irony that Wiggins was not afforded that luxury last year, despite having stormed to victory in 2012.

Bradley Wiggins

Ultimately, selectors are appointed to select. They are, very often, far more qualified than we are, and have access to the type of privileged information journalists and the general public do not. Paul Downton and his team at the ECB, along with Dave Brailsford and his team at Sky must therefore be trusted. If every selection or non-selection in professional sport were questioned in the way these issues have been, the result would lead to a grossly disproportionate focus on the politics and not the sport itself. Think of the number of athletes competing in London in 2012. Think of the number of marginal calls in terms of selection that were made. Many of these decisions have to be subjective. If you employ people to fulfil a certain role, they ought to be trusted to do that role.

The result of all this is a somewhat sad situation, as is the case with any break-up or divorce. It will ensure that English cricket fans are deprived of seeing Pietersen, while cycling fans won’t get to witness its country’s greatest all-round cyclist when the tour comes rolls through the country next month. The inevitable consequence is a sad one for the individuals involved too – Wiggins will almost certainly leave Team Sky, it is mooted for rival team Orica Greenedge, while Pietersen will effectively become just another T20 mercenary.

Yet it would be foolish for all concerned to simply suggest ‘better management’ is the answer to all of these problems. Team environments are complex places, full of egos and issues which it is impossible as an outsider to fully understand. In time, all will undoubtedly become clearer, but in the case of the Pietersen scenario, the very fact that both sides have been only too keen to leak disparaging claims about the other, along with the fact that a confidentiality agreement is needed in the first place is telling. What lies at the heart of the matter is a lack of trust. Bradley Wiggins will not line up in the tour, and Kevin Pietersen will not stride out in a test match this summer, not because they are not good enough to, but because their respective team leaders do not trust them to give their all.

Isaac Watts once said: ‘Learning to trust is one of life’s most difficult tasks’. Arguably you cannot learn to trust someone at all. They have to earn your trust. If both Alastair Cook and Chris Froome feel that the past actions of their (past) team mates means it will be impossible to trust them, it should help us to understand them and their decisions, even if we feel our trust in them as leaders has diminished as a consequence.