Lack of Punishment for Andrew Strauss Over KP Comment Is No Surprise

Tim Collins@@TimDCollinsFeatured ColumnistJuly 10, 2014

LEEDS, ENGLAND - JUNE 24:  England captain Alastair Cook speaks with former captain Andrew Strauss ahead of day five of 2nd Investec Test match between England and Sri Lanka at Headingley Cricket Ground on June 24, 2014 in Leeds, England.  (Photo by Gareth Copley/Getty Images)
Gareth Copley/Getty Images

So you can call someone an "absolute c--t" on television nowadays and completely escape punishment, huh?

Well no, not exactly. But when it comes to English cricket, it just depends on who you are, ormore precisely—which side of the fence you sit on. 

If you're Andrew Strauss and you're talking about Kevin Pietersen, then your employer will clear you pretty quickly, as they have done.  

But why?

You see, modern cricket broadcasters work extremely closely with administrators and their boards, as explained in detail by Jarrod Kimber of ESPN Cricinfo. Like Channel Nine and Cricket Australia or Star TV and the BCCI, Sky and the ECB are tight-knit. 

In this public-image-obsessed era where maintaining the support of the populace is required at all costs, it's to be expected.

So what's the issue?

As Kimber outlines, there is no more powerful avenue in the game than television commentary for shaping public perception:

Television and radio commentators are our frontline. If you don't like ESPNcricinfo because of Walt Disney, or you find the Guardian's cricket coverage too bleeding-heart liberal, there is always another cricket website or newspaper for you to go to. With commentary we are stuck with what we have. At best we can choose between two options - radio or TV - or, in dire situations, the mute button. This makes TV by far the most powerful tool in cricket.

And that's precisely why boards such as the ECB work so closely with their broadcaster, understanding that wider opinion is heavily pinned to those iconic voices in the commentary box. 

LONDON, ENGLAND - JULY 05: Former England captain Andrew Strauss (L) commentates on the game during the MCC and Rest of the World match at Lord's Cricket Ground on July 5, 2014 in London, England.  (Photo by Ben Hoskins/Getty Images)
Ben Hoskins/Getty Images

So consider this: Had another commentator—say, Shane Warne—made the same remark about a player heavily involved with the current England administrationAlastair Cook, for examplewould Warne have enjoyed the same leniency from the ECB and Sky?

You can arrive at your own conclusion there. 

Tellingly, you only need to look back to the reaction from ECB chairman Giles Clarke to the Australian's criticism of Cook during the summer's first Test at Lord's to know that the England board doesn't want disapproving voices in Sky's box.

As reported by The Telegraph, Clarke even went to the broadcaster to express concerns regarding Warne's ongoing criticism:

We've discussed the matter with Sky. I've said that as a general principle we hope their commentators will be level and fair, and before every season we discuss that. Shane Warne was a great player but his opinion is of no relevance to us.

Of Clarke's words, none are more revealing than, "his opinion is of no relevance to us." Essentially, because Warne doesn't champion the ECB's cause, he's viewed as a hindrance to the board's seemingly apparent wish that Sky tows the governing body's line. 

ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA - DECEMBER 05:  Television commentators Shane Warne and Sir Ian Botham ahead of day one of the Second Ashes Test Match between Australia and England at Adelaide Oval on December 5, 2013 in Adelaide, Australia.  (Photo by Gareth Copley/
Gareth Copley/Getty Images

Strauss, however, is one of the most prominent identities supporting the ECB's stance on the axing of Pietersen.

Writing in his column for The Sunday Times (as relayed by the Daily Mail) following the announcement of the batsman's sacking, the former England captain said:

Without trust the team environment is stillborn. It is for this reason that Kevin Pietersen’s international career had to be brought to an end. 

The media have been searching for a smoking gun but they are looking for the wrong thing. The smoking gun is the total absence of trust. 

Old grievances came back to the surface. Past history weighed too heavily. Trust still did not exist.

Strauss' comments couldn't mirror the ECB's standpoint any more closely. In fact, if you weren't to know better, you could be excused for thinking those sentences were extracted from an ECB press release on the decision.

Thus, despite the unsavoury and unacceptable nature of Strauss' on-air blunder, it's not surprising that Sky has quickly declared the issue closed and scarcely a word has been uttered from the ECB.

Although an extreme extrapolation, the remark is in line with the board's position, and, therefore, isn't an issue for the broadcaster holding a contract with the board for the game's television rights. 

ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA - DECEMBER 09:  Former England captain Andrew Strauss speaks with England captain Alastair Cook after day five of Second Ashes Test Match between Australia and England at Adelaide Oval on December 9, 2013 in Adelaide, Australia.  (Phot
Gareth Copley/Getty Images

And it's not as though the possibility of the ECB's influence on broadcasters—or those aspiring to join cricket's tightest clique—hasn't been apparent before. 

Graeme Swann, one of the more personable and entertaining modern cricketers, seemed to reverse his opinion of Pietersen as a burgeoning media career became a possibility for the recently retired spinner, with the Daily Mail reporting that he'd been approached by Sky. While that has yet to come to fruition, Swann has begun to enjoy prominence with BBC Radio. 

With regard to Pietersen, initially the former England star expressed shock that the renegade batsman had been sacked from the national team's setup.

In his column titled "Axing KP left me baffled" in The Sun (subscription required) in February, Swann spoke extremely positively of Pietersen's reintegration into the England side.

While acknowledging his initial resistance to the batsman's recall, the former England spinner praised the way his teammate handled himself during the team's disastrous tour of Australia:

He made a huge effort to improve his attitude around the dressing room. I saw or heard no issues with him in Australia this winter, his approach was exceptional.

That’s why I was baffled on Tuesday when he was effectively sacked as an England player.

Swann's opinion reflected the sentiment expressed by both Michael Carberry and Chris Tremlett regarding Pietersen.

"It was a big surprise, because I don’t think anyone saw that coming," Carberry told The Guardian, while Tremlett added: "From what I saw Kevin did nothing wrong, in my opinion, but be honest about what was happening."

Did Carberry and Tremlett take that stance to vent frustration that their respective international futures were likely over? Or, did the pair simply speak freely, understanding that there'd be no further consequences from the ECB after already being discarded from the England side?

LONDON, ENGLAND - JULY 05:  Kevin Pietersen of Rest of the World walks off after being dismissed during the MCC and Rest of the World match at Lord's Cricket Ground on July 5, 2014 in London, England.  (Photo by Ben Hoskins/Getty Images)
Ben Hoskins/Getty Images

Unlike Carberry and Tremlett, however, it would certainly do Swann's new media career no favours—at least, it seems, in the ECB's thinking—to maintain his view on Pietersen's behaviour while England were in Australia. 

Whether by coincidence or not, he didn't.

Less than a month after penning his aforementioned column, the likeable off-spinner significantly altered his thoughts on the sacked batsman.

As relayed by The Telegraph, Swann said on BBC’s Test Match Special in late Febraury:

I’ve not heard of specific instances that took place on the last three weeks of the tour, when I wasn’t there, but little things are getting back to me. I was all for never having him back in the team after the Strauss affair [in 2012] but Cook and [Matt] Prior talked me round. Kevin is a world-class player but he does upset people wherever he goes.

That's a pretty substantial reversal to "I saw or heard no issues with him in Australia this winter." 

Swann's recent statement that Cook's detractors have an ulterior motive is also eerily similar to the noises emanating from the England camp.

LEEDS, ENGLAND - JUNE 20:  Former England cricketer Graeme Swann speaks with Test Match Special commentators Jonathan Agnew and Michael Vaughan ahead of day one of 2nd Investec Test match between England and Sri Lanka at Headingley Cricket Ground on June
Gareth Copley/Getty Images

The ECB, of course, doesn't enforce censorship over broadcasters, but it's no surprise that such a violent contradiction to the board's position on Pietersen is not in Swann's—or anyone else in the commentary box's—career interests. 

All of this only further explains why Strauss escaped punishment for his on-air expletive. Among Sky's commentators, none have been more publicly supportive of the ECB's termination of Pietersen's international career.

So while the English board, in their close relationship with Sky, have clearly demonstrated that it's unacceptable to criticise the batting form and tactical approach of England's captain (was Warne wrong?), it's completely tolerable for someone to be labelled an "absolute c--t" on television.

Well, provided it's aimed at the ECB's least favourite cricketer. 


The latest in the sports world, emailed daily.