All hail the mavericks - for sport can be dull without them

The furore surrounding the publication this week of cricketer Kevin Pietersen’s autobiography is testament to the power of the exceptionally gifted but slightly bonkers sportsman to fascinate and infuriate.

It is a reminder too, that with very few exceptions — so few in fact, that I can’t think of one at the moment — sporting teams seeking to integrate such characters will inevitably have to deal, probably more than once, with controversy.

At his beguiling, magical best with bat in hand, Pietersen had — still has — the power to tear the gasps from the mouths of cricket fans with his audacity, his willingness to improvise combined with perfect timing.

His has been a talent worth nurturing, his eccentricities and narcissism worth enduring, for the sheer thrill he brings to his sport, for the momentum he can deliver to his team, for the fear he spreads among opponents.

My dictionary defines a maverick as “an unorthodox or independent-minded person”.

Pietersen is certainly that, but thankfully, has talent to match

The anticipation of his arrival in the England team in 2005 was fuelled by his exploits as a prodigious talent for Nottinghamshire, though by the time he burst into the wider public consciousness in that year’s Ashes series, he had already begun to gather metaphorical baggage that has since grown into a collection capable of filling the holds of several Jumbo jets.

His former captain at Nottinghamshire, Jason Gallian, was so incensed by Pietersen’s announcement to leave in 2004, he allegedly broke his errant batsman’s bat and dispatched his kit over the Trent Bridge balcony.

Without an Ashes series win for 18 years, England’s progress toward victory in that gripping series captivated the public and cricket purists alike.

After many twists and turns, it came down to the fifth and final Test at The Oval where, to put it mildly, England were under the cosh for most of the match.

Needing a draw to retain the Ashes, Australia scented blood. Enter Pietersen, who went on to score a majestic 158 on the final day, his every boundary gradually building England an unassailable second innings lead.

I remember watching that innings intermittently in the office, and being struck by how Pietersen did not let the gravity of the situation get to him, remaining calm as Australia missed chances to get his wicket.

Looking back at that effort, it came as part of an England in the best sense of the word. All of its members contributed hugely to that success, no-one was carried by their team-mates.

That spirit has of course, unravelled in the past few years, and particularly the past 12 months, and Pietersen has been in the eye of the storm.

In the intervening nine years, he has done what mavericks do — entertained, enthralled and incensed in equal measure.

There is a sense that a premature end to his international career was inevitable, but also a feeling that his singularities might have been managed better.

Whatever one’s view about Pietersen, however, one thing is indisputable: the England cricket team is a far duller, less exciting beast without him.

The most damning description of any sporting team is that it is functional. Sadly, the post-Pietersen England cricket team, even in victory, is functional.

The impression is that its members and its management are quite happy about that, but it needs that maverick touch to spark the greater collective imagination again.

l THE UK Independence Party (Ukip) victory in the Clacton by-election — and its near-miss in the Labour stronghold of Heywood and Middleton will add some much-needed spice and focus to politics during the run-up to next May’s general election.

If nothing else, it ought to force the so-called major political parties to acknowledge the presence of two sizeable elephants in the corners of their rooms.

These elephants are related. The first is that Ukip has to taken seriously by both the Conservative and Labour parties, and the second is that these parties must acknowledge, whether they like it or not, that immigration and the European Union are issues of concern for the electorate.

Whatever one’s views on these issues, it is frustrating to see the Conservatives and Labour in particular tiptoeing around.

The issues are in plain sight but they are ignoring them, and that is unlikely to result in bliss.

* THE UK Independence Party's victory in the Clacton by-election - and its near-miss in the Labour stronghold of Heywood and Middleton will hopefully add some much-needed spice and focus to politics during the run-up to next May's General Election.

If nothing else, it ought to force the so-called major political parties to acknowledge the presence of two sizeable elephants in the corners of their respective meeting rooms.

These elephants are related. The first is that UKIP has to taken seriously as a potential spanner in their election works by both the Conservative and Labour parties, and the second is that these parties must acknowledge, whether they like it or not, that immigration and the European Union are issues that concern a large section of voters.

I suspect that whatever one's views on these issues, it is incredibly frustrating to see the Conservatives and particularly the Labour party tiptoeing around the 'i' and the'EU' words as one might a drunk on the street.

There they are, in plain sight, but everyone is ignoring them, and in just shy of seven months' time, that ignorance is unlikely to result in bliss.