For instance, he could have been as confounded by his firing as we were. Second, he could well be undeniably less inspired by these subjects than us. For researchers of Pietersen, the texts are the authoritative secret of his vocation. In any case, for Pietersen himself, since he’s constantly known the substance of those messages, they are absolutely mysterious, and in this manner tremendously less fascinating. Anything that Pietersen says or doesn’t say, one thing’s without a doubt – he can’t win. Actually most media assessment formers have a visually impaired contempt of Pietersen. They will wind his words to serve their own plan.

When he owns up to botches his foes will say see no real surprises there

At the point when he denies claims against him, they will say he’s lying. At the point when he directs out that others were additionally toward fault, they will blame him for sharpness, perniciousness, and poisonousness. At the point when he skirts around a subject (maybe to safeguard others) they say his quiet demonstrates culpability. There is just a single Kevin Pietersen. He has no powerful partners and is horrendously dwarfed. Gone against him, pikes fixed and rifle-sights prepared, are the massed positions of the ECB and its thoughtful press. He will be blown to bits.

Many driving cricket columnists respond poignantly to the possibility that they are one-sided towards the ECB and against Pietersen and they cheerfully print horse crap took care of to them by Ruler’s. They are either in a condition of refusal or need mindfulness. Do they truly accept Petersen’s book will get a fair press? That they will move toward it with receptive outlooks? John Etheridge, the Sun journalist, merits a lot of credit for entering the conflict on our remark sheets the week before.

Be that as it may, I found it hard to acknowledge all that he said. John rejected that the ECB hole to writers. He additionally appeared to deny an in-constructed enemy of Pietersen plan. However at that point he demonstrated the specific inverse: When you say the PCA address each and every other player including obviously Cook, would you say you are inferring that Cook was straightforwardly involved or even present at any gatherings?

Cook was at the gathering when Pietersen was informed he was being sacked

Whitaker and Downton were additionally there. This is the ‘skipper weasel – he took a gander at the ground and said nothing’ meeting as depicted by Docks Morgan. The counter form is that Pietersen frilled out following four minutes before Cook got an opportunity to talk. This a normal illustration of the silly sort of jeers focused on Pietersen. As though the main sensible thing to do in the wake of being sacked was stay nearby for a talk. What was Pietersen expected to do – take Cook out for a 16 ounces? Also, on the off chance that the ECB don’t spill, as Etheridge contended, then, at that point, how – as Downton, Cook, and Whitaker are all ECB workers, and there was no other person in the room – did that data come to the journo sphere?

The manner in which the ECB-media-Pietersen framework capabilities is additionally essential to one last component of the life account’s drop out. How might the actual board answer the book’s disclosures? As Paul Downton has currently two times said that “there is no conclusive evidence”, and that Pietersen was terminated “for cricketing reasons”, including separation and “lack of engagement”, what explicit claims might they at any point make which will not go against their current lines?

I just expectation – pointlessly, maybe – that the ECB places its side of the story in a forthright and straightforward manner, through interviews or a question and answer session. That’s what the apprehension is, all things being equal, they will guilefully, and namelessly, dribble feed poison. Assuming that we read a huge number as per “there is an inclination inside the ECB that Pietersen… “, we will all sadness.