Kevin Pietersen and the rather large void he leaves

Much has been said of Kevin Pietersen ever since he was ruled out of the remaining three Ashes Tests and it seems those that constantly have it in for him are maximising the opportunity to stick the knife in regarding his form.

But, for someone who was apparently batting with all the fluency and cohesion of a blind man with no hands, it's not as if he wasn't scoring runs. Though so clearly hampered by his Achilles injury, KP still accrued 152 runs in four innings this series, at a pretty reasonable average of 38. Lest anyone forget that (brainless dismissal aside) it was his 69 that initially rescued England's first innings at Cardiff and even though he was clearly below his best at Lord's, he still churned out scores of 32 and 44 - hardly embarrassing.

KP's problem is that he sets such staggeringly high standards. Quite simply the most talented English batsman in eons, he walks to the wicket with a sky-scraping level of expectation on his shoulders. It's not necessarily a bad thing; it's likely that his status as England's best player has time and again motivated him to keep producing such vital innings.

But a few scores below fifty and suddenly the knives came out in full force.

Alistair Cook had a similar situation last year, when he was scoring fifties by the bucket load but couldn't buy a century - yet he was declared by the powers that be in the media to be 'out of form'. For the purposes of consistency, I'll say the same thing now that I said then: If these are the scores Pietersen makes when out of form then we should be eternally grateful when things are going better.

The void Pietersen leaves in the England line-up is worryingly vast. Whether he was playing badly or not, the absence of his name on the team sheet is eerily ominous. KP hasn't missed a Test since his debut, ironically, at Lords against Australia in 2005 and whoever is drafted to take his place the batting now looks thin. Pietersen's value was so enormous that in a team where the wicket keeper unusually bats at number six, the middle order still looked firmly resolute. With all due respect to the likely replacement Ian Bell, who on his day is an outstanding batsman, he won't fill fans with confidence in the way that only Pietersen does.

Still, it's best not to wallow or make too big a deal about it. The tourists are taking a different approach, however.

They've already decided to launch a feeble media campaign about their take on the loss of England's best batsman. Aussie bowler Peter Siddle, in his blog for The Wisden Cricketer, has made it clear that Australia couldn't be happier that KP is a goner and also that Bell will likely be taking his place.

"It looks like Ian Bell is going to replace him. He played against us for the
Lions and we assumed that if anything went wrong batting-wise he would be the
man to come in. He hasn’t had a lot of success against us in the past, and it
was pleasing that we were able to continue that by getting him out first-ball at
Worcester. When you take out a bloke that averages 50 in Test cricket for a
bloke that struggles against you it always makes you happier."

Yes Peter, he hasn't had a lot of success against you. And by 'you', I mean Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Brett Lee. Best get him out at least once before shouting your mouth off. I'm nursing a rapid dislike for Siddle. I'm all for a bit of aggression and bravado on the pitch but Siddle is an international rookie and has about as much Test experience as I do (okay, maybe a game or two more). Might be time to earn a bit of respect for his bowling rather than his on and off field talking.

Still, Australia are naturally going to be privately buoyed that they won't have to bowl at Pietersen anymore. But gone are the days when they would publicly state their desire to play against an opposition's best player. When Andrew Flintoff was racing to be fit for the 2006/07 Ashes, a plethora of quotes came out from the team saying how desperate they were for Flintoff to take part so they could face the best possible challenge.

I suppose when you start losing your way it puts a different slant on things. It's all well and good trying to appear noble and sporting when you're in a period of sporting impregnability - not 1-0 down in a series you should be cruising. Say what you like about the decline of Australian cricket of late and whether they're still the best side in the world or not; their aura of invincibility both on and off the pitch is disappearing quicker than a Mitchell Johnson wide down the leg side.

So on to Edgbaston, a ground where England normally do the business. If omens from the past are of any use, then they can call upon that victory over the Aussies in '05. England are 1-0 to the good and are playing some effective, if inconsistent, cricket. They should head into the game relishing the chance to exploit some more Australian failings father than fearing the occasion. They should not focus on the loss of Pietersen no matter how much it may affect them.

I wrote previously that England could not win the Ashes without Pietersen in improved form. They're now going to have to find a way to win without him completely. It looks a tall order but the Ashes stirs something unique in English cricketers and I wouldn't write them off completely.