Cricket: Pietersen Must Learn the Virtue of Patience

The man of the match might easily have lost England the match. The afterglow of victory is often the most opportune time to be hypercritical. So it requires pointing out that should Sri Lanka have eked out another 100 runs in their second innings, sufficient for Muttiah Muralitharan to suffocate England - rather than just quicken their pulse as he did in taking four wickets yesterday - then Kevin Pietersen might have been a guilty man. Guilty of playing an outlandish reverse sweep for six which preceded the late-order collapse in England's first innings and might have turned the game. Because when such batting calamities occur, the batsman who has scored a hundred sometimes merits more censure than the one who makes naught.

Harsh? Pietersen knows it himself. "It was naughty. I don't think I'll play that again," he said after his stunning 142 and the maximum hit which has filled acres rather than column inches since. It might have been the most audacious shot ever seen in a Test match in England, as Mike Atherton opined yesterday, but just what was Pietersen thinking of? Why did he need to play that shot?

Muralitharan had run out of ideas and Pietersen had just walloped him for three contemptuous off-side boundaries. England were leading by 143 with five wickets in hand when Pietersen determined to swap grip and stance to become a left-hander, swatting a low full toss from Muralitharan into the Hollies Stand for six. How is that permitted anyway? If a right-arm bowler wants to bowl left-arm he has to inform the umpire of his intentions. The ball was already leaving Muralitharan's hand by the time Pietersen announced his. That cannot be fair.

Yesterday Pietersen attempted a more orthodox reverse sweep with left leg forward and hands unchanged but that was justified - as well as less risky - because Muralitharan had left him a large gap with only extra-cover and mid-off saving one on the off side. Sadly it produced no run.

With his shot on Friday Pietersen crossed the line. In that moment the adrenalin-rush upon which his every innings survives - continually flexing his knees, pulling at his shirt and practising shots on the move when off strike - became too much. The flamboyance and bravado which we so cherish now became recklessness. He left the heady mountain path upon which his best innings are crafted and strayed towards the edge of the precipice. Two balls later he was gone. Down the cliff.

What he forgot was that it was his responsibility to ensure England led by enough not to need to bat again. He forgot that his mastery of Muralitharan could not be replicated, probably not by anyone in world cricket at present, but certainly not by England's late order, lacking in time at the crease. Leaving his team-mates exposed to Muralitharan's wiles on a tricky pitch, he was the first of five batsmen to fall for five runs. It was rather similar to a one-day match where, in a run chase, a batsman scores a fine hundred but is out with, say, 40 runs required and only four wickets in hand. If the side loses in that example, too often it is the tail- enders who cop the flak. Rather it should be the centurion.

Pietersen will know this and, if not, there will doubtless be a gentle reminder from Duncan Fletcher who, thinking in terms of responsibility, will have been mightily impressed by Alastair Cook's 34 not out yesterday. It should not be underestimated how crucial a part of a young batsman's development it is to be present at the moment of victory, and the calmness with which Cook guided England to their target may have some influence on their one-day selections, regardless of Michael Vaughan's fitness.

Forget that Cook has actually played very little one-day cricket. Essex permitted him only five National League matches last season in the belief that it was best to preserve his tight technique for the longer game, but it is a moot point whether that was wise or not. There is already evidence this season that he can adapt his game and maybe take it to previously unconsidered levels. Playing in a 10-over rain-reduced C&G Trophy match he hammered 46 off 23 balls. It was not slogging but cultured hitting, driving powerfully through extra-cover but also, most importantly, pulling viciously when the bowlers tried to counteract by dropping short.

Yesterday demonstrated something of a "finisher" quality about him. Pietersen could not manage that, although it is always hard to follow up a headliner innings immediately. More's the reason to have made it count first time around. Call it churlish if you want, but it is a measure of Pietersen's sublime class that we should be beseeching him to make sure 158 is not his Test best for much longer. He is already very, very good. Then, he might be great.