Too often institutions take it upon themselves to cut an individual down to size because they percieve some kind of threat to their existence and their authority from that individual. "We can't have this sort of thing", "You can't go about doing this sort of thing". What they're saying is, that we're going to keep doing this our way, and how dare you put something forward which we didn't already think of!
Typically, these institutional assaults find loyal allies in the press, who readily take up such vague entities as "senior players" or "the team" (not to be confused with the simple group of 11 individuals who are members of a team) or "officials", and invest in them a great deal of authority. "Senior players" were divided about Pietersen's performance as captain. When something like this is said, there's a certain smugness on the part of the reporter - I know more than im telling you, and I can't tell you the specifics, but trust me on this. Even former players are not exempt from this kind of thing. You would think that they of all people would be especially mindful of the individual's position vis a vis the institution, but consider this report from Angus Fraser, the former England fast bowler.
Watching Kevin Pietersen, England's recently resigned captain, meet, greet and interact with likes of Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison and the other team-mates who failed to give him the support he thought they should is a must-see event.The uber-narrative of the recent events is that Pietersen didn't get along with Moores, and felt that Moores was holding England back. Pietersen, true to form, decided to do something about it and spoke to the ECB about Moores. The ECB "researched" the matter, and found that many senior players didn't share Pietersen's reservations about Moores. Furthermore, Pietersen's own reputation amongst his teammates was lukewarm. As a result, Pietersen "jumped before he was pushed" and resigned from the captaincy, while Moores was sacked because his position had become untenable. What complicated matters in this case was that the ECB had given Moores the authority to select the captain after Vaughan and Collingwood quit the job.
This account of the situation has just been smashed to smithereens, for Kevin Pietersen has just pointed out that he was told that he had resigned! Furthermore, his understanding when he was told he had resigned (a little bit like Russian Generals committing "suicide" on having failed Stalin in World War II), was that Moores had been retained. Pietersen revealed that not only had he not resigned (as per the correct usage of that word in the language), but that Flintoff, Collingwood, Harmison and Andrew Strauss all told him that he shouldn't resign. So while the ECB may be right about the team's view of Moores, they've been completely exposed about their claim that the players didn't support Pietersen. The man they have now appointed captain himself supported Pietersen!
Meanwhile, all we hear is the media going to town about Pietersen's ego, and how that was getting in the way of his relationship with his teammates. This is easy to do. Pietersen is an easy target, and the charge is easily made about him. But it is also the lazy thing to do. It seems clear that the ECB has dug a fairly deep hole for itself in this matter, now that their claim about Pietersen's lack of support from his teammates has been exposed as being untrue. Further, the very fact that they chose to reveal this alleged finding publicly ought to raise serious questions about their conduct.
But institutions such as the ECB are elusive targets, villainywise. And so, we will continue to hear about team unity and how the England dressing room will be divided into factions. What we won't ever find out is who in the ECB made the absolutely unforgivable lapse of undermining the Captain of England by putting it out that he didnot have the backing of his team.
In this, the ECB could learn a thing or two from BCCI, an organization which is ceaselessly vilified for being unprofessional in the way it does business and clumsy in its communications with the public. In the aftermath of India's all too brief 2007 World Cup campaign, the BCCI made plenty of noises, but never did they undermine either Rahul Dravid or any of his teammates.
If England do underperform in the coming months (and in the 2009 Ashes), it will not be because the players don't get along with each other on account of Pietersen's actions. It will be because the players would have lost confidence in the ECB, for it has shown no compunction in throw one of them under bus, mainly for speaking his mind. And lets keep in mind that for all their talk of insubordination and the observation that Pietersen issued ultimatums while on holiday in South Africa (why that is relevant is beyond me), Pietersen actually did the responsible thing and presented his case privately to the board, and did not make it publicly.
This whole case reeks of significant abuses of its position by the ECB. But of course, Pietersen's ego is a story made for the press. So the ECB is likely to get away with this. And Andrew Strauss is going to end up in the West Indies as the most sheepish captain in modern day cricket. Whats more, he has been assigned to captain the limited overs side - a side in which he has not merited a batting spot since England's Super Eight's World Cup game in Barbados on April 21 2007 - a game in which Straus made 7, and Kevin Pietersen made 100(91) to lead England to a 1 wicket win chasing 300 against the West Indies.
If that doesn't indicate mixed up priorities on the part of the ECB, i don't know what does.