The crown lies uneasy

The great advantage of never backing down for one instant is that it increases your chances of being proved right in the end. It might take days, weeks or sometimes years, but if you stick to your guns, and if, crucially, your faith in your own ability is not misplaced, then eventually the moment will come when you can say, without fear of contradiction, "I told you so". History is written by the victors for a very good reason.

This is how Kevin Pietersen envisaged his spat with Peter Moores panning out. The drama of his insurrection is in keeping with the flamboyance he brings to every facet of his cricket. Why lap Harbhajan Singh for a single when you can switch-hit him into the stands for six? Why suggest quietly that you don't see eye-to-eye with your coach, when you can yell it from the red-tops and force your paymasters to play by your rules? It is a dangerous game that Pietersen chooses to play, but one that he undertakes knowing, surely, he will be triumphant soon enough.

Except that, just as Pietersen has occasionally been guilty of playing one stroke too many, this time he may have offended more sensibilities than is prudent for a man handed the responsibility of leading one's country. Even those who do not quibble with the desired upshot of his actions baulk at the manner in which he has gone to war on Moores, an essentially decent man, if not the master tactician that Pietersen so clearly covets. The decision of the ECB board to address the issue now, rather than wait for Pietersen's return from holiday on Thursday, could prove to be hugely significant.

Suddenly, from a situation where Pietersen's every whim seemed destined to be accommodated, the prospect of a dual dismissal rises out of the chaos. Moores' situation is surely untenable - too many criticisms of his methods have been aired for him to retain any credibility in the role - but Pietersen, who last week seemed untouchable following his statesmanlike actions in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, now finds himself perched uncomfortably close to the exit as well.

What an irony that would be - from messiah to outcast in the space of five eventful months, and tipped from the hot seat not because of poor results or personal form but because of an old-fashioned breach of manners. When the row erupted earlier this week, Pietersen was reported to have demanded a summit meeting with the ECB's head honcho, Giles Clarke. It is highly unlikely that he would recognise the names, let alone the faces, of the officials who will really decide his fate - the likes of John Pickup and Brian Havill, two of the 12 members of the ECB board that met on Tuesday evening to consider his crimes against civilised discourse.

The board has previous experience of quashing radical notions. Back in July, their members were instrumental in the leaking of the plans for a nine-team city-based Twenty20 franchise that two of their number, Keith Bradshaw and David Stewart, had intended to present as a discussion document. Not long afterwards, a wholly unsatisfactory 20-team "EPL", featuring all 18 first-class counties, was rushed into existence. Pietersen may think he is the past master of self-interest, but when it comes to looking after No. 1, no one in the game has greater experience than the entrenched hierarchy of the ECB.

All of a sudden, the easy assumptions that the captain would get it all his own way seem faintly risible. The structure of English cricket has survived, virtually unaltered, for more than 100 years - did we honestly believe that a single opinionated interloper, no matter how outrageously talented, would be able to march in and demand root-and-branch reform after just three Tests at the helm? Moores is an ECB man through and through - their first fully-fledged "Grade Four" coach (no sniggering, KP), and a stalwart of Sussex since Pietersen was in nappies. Saving his job might be asking too much, but saving his dignity is most certainly not out of the question.

However, should the board decide that Pietersen needs to be stripped of the captaincy this week, it would be a rare example of the wrong decision being reached for the right reasons. His actions undoubtedly deserve censure, but whether English cricket can afford the censure is another matter entirely. The Ashes are now six months away, and when England last won them in 2005 (in Pietersen's maiden Test series, lest we forget) they imagined, fleetingly but not unrealistically, that they were on the brink of toppling the Aussies as the leading team in Test cricket.

Now, four years behind schedule, the end of Australia's hegemony has indeed arrived, but where are England? Not second in the world, not third, not even fourth. A stultifyingly ordinary fifth, having lost comprehensively to every team above them in the table, and beaten, often laboriously, those lying below. Not all of that is Moores' fault, clearly, but if being "ordinary" is England's current crime, then there's no question which of the two ringleaders deserves to be convicted.

This spat has been described as "avoidable", but that is invariably the way with confrontations. There is always an alternative, one which generally involves biting your tongue and accepting the continuation of the status quo. Or, in on-field terms, feigning a willingness to go toe to toe with one's opponents but in reality shirking the fight and surrendering meekly, as England have done in nine of their last ten Ashes encounters.

Pietersen espouses combat in everything he does, and you can bet that a team moulded in his unyielding image would be the most intimidating option imaginable for the vulnerable Australians. Those who fear that his hubristic approach would place far too much of a burden on his shoulders underestimate his uniquely singleminded attitude to the game. He's never had a Messerschmidt on his arse, to paraphrase Keith Miller's famous quote about pressure, but in purely sporting terms, Pietersen has dog-fought with the best of them, and this week's encounter is the closest he's ever come to a tail-spin.

In "live" Ashes Tests Pietersen's record is truly remarkable. In eight Tests from his debut at Lord's in 2005 to the day Australia reclaimed the urn at Perth in 2006-07, he racked up 871 runs at 62.21, pumping out the performances in defiance of all circumstance. Australians invariably target the captain, so the coming series was always going to be about him and "his" team, whether he poked his head out of the cockpit voluntarily or not.

But by the end of the week, it might not be his team any longer, and then where would that leave the hideous situation? By an awkward quirk of timing, Pietersen was all set to put pen to paper on his return from Africa this week, and finally get round to signing the ECB contract that has been held up by IPL wranglings since September. As things stand, he is still a free agent, but the franchises are hovering and Pietersen would stand to earn $1.5 million for two months' work if he shredded the paperwork and plied his trade as a freelancer in India throughout the months of April and May.

It's an option that's been touted all year long, but suddenly it looms as a distinct possibility. Would Pietersen walk out on England if the ECB whipped him into line? Could England possibly live without him with an Ashes series looming? His era as England captain always promised to be explosive, but this is getting ridiculous. We wait with interest to see which side gets to write the history of a tumultuous reign.