I was having a very interesting conversation with our club chairman the other day regarding the ECB and Pieterson fall out.
He came up with a very interesting point which I feel has a lot of truth behind it.
The fall out was pretty bad and a bit embarrassing for the ECB and normally are very strong on these things especially when he was captain.
His point was that he was brought back into the England set up quickly because there was a lot of pressure from the main sponsors for England and also Sky to get him back in as he is box office.
As I remember he was not picked for the India series and was possibly not going to playing in New Zealand either. So possibly the major sponsors got hold of the ECB and basically put a lot of pressure on them to bring him back ASAP.
The more I think about it the more I believe that this happened.
What do you think?
Always knew that major sponsors of clubs have a big say of what is going on with team affairs.
Best example was Ronaldo for Brazil when he had breathing problems before the World Cup final. Nike must have had a major role of him playing in the final because he did not look well....
Kevin Pieterson
posted on 29/7/13
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/7/13
Things like this will never be confirmed because it will show big business controls sport...
posted on 29/7/13
I was under the impression that Ronaldo had a panic attack before the 1998 final.
I was present in the Brasil stands for that match. It was so disappointing.
Anyway, if they ever revealed he had a panic attack, it would have been a public relations nightmare.
posted on 30/7/13
But in away, that is also equivalent to the demand of fans?
KP finally got selected because most public wanted him to?which obviously means broadcaster and sponsor wants.
End of the day, the ECB cant bypass public (which reflects on broadcaster n sponsor)?
Everyone happy at the end?
posted on 30/7/13
KP is a great player with an outstanding career record. He gets picked 'cos he has done so very well.
posted on 30/7/13
What broadcaster wants to show is what the public want to see?
If who public wants to see contradicts with selectors' policy then who should win, the public or selector?
posted on 30/7/13
That's called Afridi dilemma