FIVE Live, whose endearing capacity to provide admirable sports coverage has established it as one of the newest sporting wonders of the BBC, had a field day this week.

As English cricket went into a head-spin at, of all places, The Brit Oval with the departures of both national skipper Kevin Pietersen and coach Peter Moores, the radio station revelled in firing off a litany of cricket terms.

Out, out, bounced, delivered, stumped – they were all there. But let this column add another one, silly point, or rather several silly points.

The first stems from the appointment by the England and Wales Cricket Board of Pietersen to the job of succeeding Michael Vaughan in the first place.

According to reports there had already been disagreement between Vaughan’s successor and the coach. This seemingly was not taken in to any calculations by the ECB, nor was evidence of previous brushes the volatile batsman had had with authority in his native South Africa and then in the English domestic county game along his pulse-racing path to becoming one of the world’s most enthralling and exciting batsmen.

Unashamedly, Pietersen has gone on record to say his motivation was to prove himself one of the best players in the game and that required a showman, stubborn and yet selfish streak that manifested itself whenever Pietersen went into bat.

Here was a man on a mission. He wanted runs, and more runs, all amassed in the flamboyant style that gave the swaggering batsman mega box-office appeal.

It is a concoction, however, that hardly fits in with the constriction of captaincy, especially in cricket, where skippers have to sometimes subsume their own freedom for the greater good of the team.

That’s not to doubt Pietersen’s desire to inspire England and ensure they got back to a winning track. No one could have been prouder than the South African when he was appointed England’s captain in the wake of the tearful exit of Yorkshire’s Vaughan.

It is a measure of Pietersen’s consummate conviction to take up the cudgels that rather than go into his shell, his batting prowess improved amid the responsibilities of captain rather than suffer a decline.

But is that also evidence of Pietersen’s single-handed determination to ensure he always succeeded first before then addressing the rest of the demands of leadership?

Unlike other sports where captaincy sometimes means little more than guessing correctly the toss of a coin, occasionally waving your arms about or shouting the loudest, the role in cricket is far more complex.

In a Test match there’s a full five days to ponder weather conditions, the strengths and weaknesses of team-mates and opposition, how the wicket will play and a myriad of strategies. It’s a different ball game to the usual bawl games of captaincy elsewhere. Given just those demands Pietersen did not seem ideal captain material.

Another silly point to mention in a whirlwind week is why was there a need to sack Moores?

If there was a power struggle and Pietersen’s presence was causing not just a division between himself and the coach but also unrest in the dressing-room, surely Moores’ position should have remained untouched once the skipper had gone.

The coach, according to ECB remit, is not responsible for team selection. He is there just to prepare the players for a particular match. If Moores was kept on then there would not be the quest now launched for a replacement ahead of the upcoming tour to the West Indies and the Ashes duel in the summer.

Finally, when the ECB at last appeared in the frame of Hugh Morris to make an official statement, why was the ECB allowed not to be questioned? Come on – the buck does not stop solely with the captain.

WHILE on the subject of captains, a fellow Liverpool supporter collared me hoping I would not touch on the festive fracas that is due to lead to a court appearance for Reds skipper Steven Gerrard later this month.

No can do. No matter what the provocation, if any, or the fact that football life in Merseyside is akin to a feeding frenzy in a four-be-two fishbowl, if Stevie G is found guilty then he deserves to pay the penalty and that’s not even taking into account his reported penchant for the yak-muzak of Phil Collins.