SA is doing fairly well – despite the ‘quotas’; which are officially no longer in place (but listen for the screams if we ever field a team with less than 3 previously disadvantaged players). It has been a finely judged path over the past 14 years – and there is a long way to go still.
The investment in cricket facilities & education inpreviously advantaged areas, clubs and schools is still vastly greater. I believe that until this is reasonably balanced the not-officially-imposed ‘quota’ system will (and probably should) remain.

What leaves a bitter taste in the mouth regarding KP is his vitriolic comments about the system in which he was raised – where he was enormously advantaged. SA Cricket would not have tolerated the ego of a KP, even if he had been good enough at the time to overcome the racial hurdle.

Chris—but surely it was unusual for football managers, no? (Shankly, Clough, and…?) If I’m wrong about this, I hope Matt Busby’s on our side too.

There are brilliant exceptions both to the politics (Mike Brearley, David Sheppard, bizarrely enough Brian Clough)

Erm, if there was one quality Brian Clough (a football manager with lots of experience in the lower divisions, in the seventies) had which was not in the least bit unusual, it was that he was a socialist.

A couple of points:

1. The person who took Pietersen’s place in the KZN team—Gulam Bodi—was very highly rated as a prospective SA player; hardly a token. Pietersen at that time had not matured into the batsman he has now become, nor was his international-level promise unambiguous. (There are lots of big hitters amongst SA teens, but the ability to whack a few sixes does not a test batsman make; cf. Afridi, Shahid) In short, preferring Bodi over Pietersen ten years ago was not a crazy decision on its merits, even if, with the benefit of hindsight, Pietersen is now obviously a superior cricketer. Other players have been far more harshly affected by the influence of quotas, notably Jacques Rudolph’s deselection from the test team in favour of Justin Ontong a while back. Pietersen just thought (probably correctly) that he could do better in England than in SA. Suggesting he was the one picking up the tab for years of racial injustice is a bit convenient. It’s this quickness to blame quotas as a justification to leave his country that Pietersen is typically criticised for, and not for the very suggestion that a white cricketer might have a valid grievance against the quota system.

2. Comparing Pietersen with Prince is not particularly helpful, since Prince was not selected above Pietersen. Nor would he have been if Pietersen had begun to play for SA in the way that he has played for England. Nevertheless, Prince is a fine player who averages over 45. He has only batted once against Zimbabwe (139*), and seven times against Bangladesh (2, 0, 10, 38, 2, 59*, 162*, averaging 54.6). The other 68 innings have seen good batting against England, Pakistan, India, and the Windies. So his average is hardly unusually inflated by batting against the minnows. Pietersen might be ranked 4 on the ICC list, but I can’t say I am particularly unhappy SA have been left to sort through the scraps with Smith, Amla, Kallis, De Villiers, Duminy, Prince, and whoever takes McKenzie’s place. There’s no doubt which dressing room is a better place to be.

1. The person who took Pietersen’s place in the KZN team—Gulam Bodi—was very highly rated as a prospective SA player; hardly a token. Pietersen at that time had not matured into the batsman he has now become, nor was his international-level promise unambiguous. (There are lots of big hitters amongst SA teens, but the ability to whack a few sixes does not a test batsman make; cf. Afridi, Shahid) In short, preferring Bodi over Pietersen ten years ago was not a crazy decision on its merits, even if, with the benefit of hindsight, Pietersen is now obviously a superior cricketer. Other players have been far more harshly affected by the influence of quotas, notably Jacques Rudolph’s deselection from the test team in favour of Justin Ontong a while back. Pietersen just thought (probably correctly) that he could do better in England than in SA. Suggesting he was the one picking up the tab for years of racial injustice is a bit convenient. It’s this quickness to blame quotas as a justification to leave his country that Pietersen is typically criticised for, and not for the very suggestion that a white cricketer might have a valid grievance against the quota system.

2. Comparing Pietersen with Prince is not particularly helpful, since Prince was not selected above Pietersen. Nor would he have been if Pietersen had begun to play for SA in the way that he has played for England. Nevertheless, Prince is a fine player who averages over 45. He has only batted once against Zimbabwe (139*), and seven times against Bangladesh (2, 0, 10, 38, 2, 59*, 162*, averaging 54.6). The other 68 innings have seen good batting against England, Pakistan, India, and the Windies. So his average is hardly unusually inflated by batting against the minnows. Pietersen might be ranked 4 on the ICC list, but I can’t say I am particularly unhappy SA have been left to sort through the scraps with Smith, Amla, Kallis, De Villiers, Duminy, Prince, and whoever takes McKenzie’s place. There’s no doubt which dressing room is a better place to be.

dsquared nails it: this is an unusual and noteworthy vein of immaturity in a 19-year-old that plenty of public high school sophomores can spot and identify as unusual and noteworthy (and do, vocally, in front of their teacher, from time to time).

Well yes he does. I remember being 19, and I distinctly remember being able to spot a whinging arsehole with a massive sense of privilege then. Furthermore, Pietersen does, actually (in his autobiography) do quite a bit of castigating British teenagers for whining and having an excessive sense of entitlement (apparently due to their not being beaten by their parents), so he is on my side of this issue, not yours.