Kevin Pietersen cut adrift after loyalty stretched beyond limit

"TEAM spirit," Steve Archibald, the former Tottenham Hotspur striker, said, "is an illusion glimpsed in the aftermath of victory".

"TEAM spirit," Steve Archibald, the former Tottenham Hotspur striker, famously said, "is an illusion glimpsed in the aftermath of victory". There were no victories for England on the Australian tour, and not much team spirit either by the looks of things, but it is precisely because key figures within the England team do not believe in Archibald's line that they have bid farewell to Kevin Pietersen.

For right or wrong, Alastair Cook believes in team spirit, in values and ethics, and he doesn't feel that England can regain what has been lost with Pietersen in the dressing room. Clarity is what was called for, and clarity is what we have got, and those who complain about the outcome cannot have it all ways: the call was for Cook to take more control and to be more decisive after a disastrous tour of Australia. With a little help from his friends, he has done that.

There was just a chance that Ashley Giles, facing a six-week job audition, could have argued Pietersen's case, but that he did not represents a statement of long-term team-building intent from him, given that Pietersen would undoubtedly be a valuable asset in the World Twenty20. It is also an indication of just how disillusioned England's coaching and management staff have become with Pietersen, given that Giles would want the strongest team on the park to make a case for him.

To lose the support of Cook is an achievement in itself. Cook is the most mild-mannered, easygoing and forgiving of men. He was the most influential voice in bringing Pietersen back into the fold, after the "text-gate" saga in 2012 that eventually led to Andrew Strauss's retirement. It was a decision that paid immediate dividends in India later that year, but things soured during the horrific Ashes tour just completed.

Quite what went on during the Australia tour has been a matter of much conjecture. The difficulties, put bluntly, are this: the dressing room code of honour prevents team members or management from speaking honestly about events that happen away from prying eyes. Ironically, it is this omerta, the loyalty of teammates, that has protected Pietersen time and again. Even Strauss, in his autobiography after retirement, was unwilling to write completely openly about what happened during 2012, nor has he since. It is a reluctance that will, no doubt, prevent Andy Flower from speaking his mind in due course. Whether Pietersen holds his tongue remains to be seen.

Loyalties to teammates and dressing rooms run deep, especially when it is felt that this code of conduct has been at the heart of much of the success enjoyed by the team in the run-up to scaling the Test-match summit in the summer of 2011. Pietersen has been protected, to the consternation of senior players and management, against accusations that they have been unable or unwilling to manage a difficult customer. They would say they have being doing that for a decade and a hundred Tests and more.

This uncertainty, of course, makes life difficult for journalists. Writing and talking about Pietersen the batsman, open to view, has been one of the joys of the past decade. Never dull, always compelling in success and failure, he has provided a rich seam for observers of sport and the human condition. He has played some of the greatest innings played by England batsmen, and some of the dumbest shots.

Writing and talking about Pietersen the person, behind closed doors and out of view, has been one of the most frustrating aspects of the past decade. Why? Because clearly there is a disconnect between the Pietersen that I have come across from time to time, in a purely professional capacity, where I have found him to be polite, courteous, engaging and hard-working, and the pain in the backside evidenced by the trail of destruction he has left behind virtually everywhere he has been.

Bridging this gap between impression and reality, there has been little hard evidence because of the loyalty of his teammates and management. Of course, there has been some evidence in the past, primarily in his role during Strauss's slide into retirement, but since then precious little. Rumour, whisper, innuendo, yes; hard evidence, no.

Partly, this also reflects on the present malaise between cricketers and the media: cricketers do not trust journalists to write a story about Pietersen without resorting to spin and hysteria, therefore they say nothing. By saying nothing, journalists resort to suggestion, guesswork and occasionally hysteria, and so the cycle feeds on itself. Accuracy and truth are the casualties.

What appears to be clear right now is that the relationship between Pietersen and the most influential England players and management has broken down. There appear to have been instances in Australia where Pietersen has undermined senior players in leadership roles, and this so soon after his betrayal of Strauss to opponents.

It is thought that Pietersen has made it impossible for the new leadership team to think that they can move forward, instilling new-found pride in playing for England, with him still around, such has been his behaviour this winter.

None of the detail of this is likely to come out any time soon for reasons already stated.

There is the added complication that, should details emerge, it would be like opening a hornets' nest, with arguments raging back and forth about the exact nature and scale of the Pietersen problem. No doubt there would be employment lawyers to engage, too.

In the flimflammery of the ECB's bland press statement there is the risk of a public backlash, of course.

Pietersen divides opinion, but there is a sizeable constituency within the English cricketing public that admires him for his achievements and his brilliant batting.

Pietersen has, of course, been a magnificent player, one of the best that England has ever produced.

He has been a survivor, too, his brilliance being the moorings that have steadfastly tied him to the England dressing room through thick and thin.

But those moorings have been broken now and, great player though he is, or was, he has been cut adrift. In some ways, it has always been a lonely raft he has charted.

THE TIMES