No catastrophe, just a drip of poison killed Kevin Pietersen's career

IT was a slow loss of trust and faith from the leadership group and senior players which led to Kevin Pietersen's downfall.

THE most fundamental thing to understand about the downfall of Kevin Pietersen is not that there was one barnstorming moment that blew up and brought everything to a head, but rather a drip effect of a loss of trust and faith to the point where none of the leadership group, nor any of the senior players, felt that they could carry on with him in the team.

The hangover from the Andrew Strauss episode, during the South Africa series in 2012, should not be underestimated. It would be interesting to know how those who have argued that England has simply not managed a difficult individual very well, would have reacted had a player texted the opposition with inside information.

It was, by any stretch of the imagination, terrible behaviour within a team environment and the senior players have not forgotten it. It has underpinned everything since.

Mick Newell, Nottinghamshire director of cricket, who fell out with Pietersen during his time at Trent Bridge, said this at the time of the "textgate" saga: "He's England's best player, but I think it's a short-term fix and it'll blow up again. In terms of getting ready for the Ashes, England handled the texting saga pretty well. But somewhere down the line it will go wrong again. If England beat Australia they'll be OK and they'll get through the (return) Ashes in the winter. But in a year, I'm afraid, you can see it all kicking off again."

It came more quickly than he thought.

It has been, one imagines, incredibly frustrating for those people charged with making decisions for the benefit of the England team to have to, for legal reasons, sit and bite their lips as any amount of spin and misinformation is put into the public domain. It has resulted in an embarrassing PR muddle and mess for the ECB, as shown by the performance of national selector James Whitaker this week.

The Melbourne meeting, for example, was not a secret meeting of players without the management's knowledge, but a meeting that Andy Flower, then the team director, and others in the management group encouraged the players to have.

England was 4-0 down, facing a whitewash, and the management encouraged Alastair Cook to hold a players-only meeting at which they could address any concerns and find a way of taking something into the final Test in Sydney.

Pietersen had wanted to spend the day with his family and was not keen on the idea, but during it, he began to criticise Flower for his "headmasterly" approach. There was limited support for this; a couple of younger players and a fringe player spoke up in support.

Matt Prior, as vice-captain, wanted the team to address its own failings. Pietersen continued drip-feeding anti-Flower sentiments in. It was at this point that Prior, as has been written, said, in effect, f ... k the management, this is our team.

Taken out of context, those words can mean whatever you take them to mean. Everyone in that meeting - as Tim Bresnan tweeted recently - knows that Prior said them with a view to getting the players to focus on their own shortcomings, and the need to take ownership of the situation, rather than offloading blame on to those not present.

These are things that happen within every (losing) team. Pietersen's aim at Flower, when the team director was never more vulnerable, came on top of a culmination of issues over the years.

A brilliant piece by Peter Oborne, the chief political commentator of London's Daily Telegraph, this week aimed to place Pietersen in the context of the march of neo-liberals in the late 20th century and early part of this century. Oborne sees this as the victory of the individual, playing his part in a global sports entertainment industry, who is scornful of old-fashioned notions of national loyalty and other moral and social obligations that go with it.

It is worth quoting Oborne's response: "There is nothing disreputable about pulling together in a common cause, nor contemptible about showing public spirit or degrading about obeying orders."

Flower and Cook, and Strauss for that matter, are such men: honourable, full of integrity, and believe that playing for your country is about more than building brand value or a Twitter following.

It was sad to see the Prime Minister place himself on the wrong side of the line on Thursday.

This a fundamental clash of values and principles, which has manifested itself in a number of ways over the past few years. A gradual accretion, layer upon layer, whereby each little action has resulted in an erosion of trust and faith.

At almost 34, powers possibly declining and in a team who had fallen apart, Cook decided, with others, that it was time to move on. Those are the decisions they are paid to make.

THE TIMES