England vs New Zealand: Alastair Cook enters captaincy's last-summer saloon

One of the less edifying traditions of Ashes series in England is for their captain, if England are beaten, to take his bat as if it were a Samurai sword and fall upon it. Either that or he is stabbed in the back by the selectors.

As England have won the past three Ashes series at home since 2005, this tradition may have been forgotten, but it was the fate of David Gower in 1989, and Graham Gooch in 1993, and Mike Atherton wished he had resigned after the 1997 Ashes rather than stay on for another series. With Australia’s fast bowling overwhelmingly superior, come August the custom might be revived.

• Geoffrey Boycott: England are poor on the field and a shambles off it

To survive any longer as captain, Cook’s summer has to resemble the first half of his reign, not the second. He was 7-1 up in Tests after his first four series. In his past four he is 8-4 down, and England enter the first Test against New Zealand at Lord’s tomorrow in fifth place in the Test rankings, which is commendable only by comparison with their One-Day International ranking of sixth and their Twenty20 ranking of eighth.

Going into this international summer, Cook had the right to expect stability and continuity on the part of the England and Wales Cricket Board, but it is impossible to imagine how Kevin Pietersen could have been mishandled more. It is safe to say that a month ago the majority of cricket followers were against him. But after doing what was apparently asked of him on the field, Pietersen has been made a martyr and the majority probably sympathises.

Until England win the Ashes, and the World Cup of 2019, and the World T20 finals in Bangladesh next March, people will be able to argue that England teams would be stronger with Pietersen. It is a cloud that will never go away, and will turn to rain every time England lose, until he retires.

If Pietersen had argued his case in front of an ECB executive board composed of seven “great and good”, all reasonable people could have accepted their decision, even if they did not agree with it. Instead, the ban has been imposed by one or two people – whether last year or under the new regime – so Pietersen’s supporters can argue it was based on personal prejudice. Justice has not been seen to be done.