Vaughan resigns as England captain... so does Collingwood

[GIMH]

Poor Colly, pushed out in favour of a unified captaincy. Should have picked whoever they felt was Vaughan's natural successor for the Test Captaincy to take the ODI gig last year, thus preventing this shenanigans.

Must say I am in favour of unified captaincy though, just makes sense really. Will go into more detail if anyone wants me to.

 

[PavlovsDog]

Poor Colly, pushed out in favour of a unified captaincy. Should have picked whoever they felt was Vaughan's natural successor for the Test Captaincy to take the ODI gig last year, thus preventing this shenanigans.

Must say I am in favour of unified captaincy though, just makes sense really. Will go into more detail if anyone wants me to.

Go on then.......

I honestly don't see it makes a massive difference really, I'm just as happy having one unified skipper as I am having two.

 

[GIMH]

Let's say Colly is ODI skipper, and KP Test skipper. It sends all the wrong signals that in one form one is the leader, but then in the other form he must follow rank and do what the other guy says. It's like if I get to be my boss's boss on Thursday & Friday. And the players that play in both teams, they won't know who to go to.

 

[four_or_six]

Assuming the captain has to be a current player, and I'm also assuming he's going to be captain for all three formats, let's look at the options of players who played in the last match in each form:

Pietersen
Bell
Ambrose
Anderson
and I'll add in Cook and Flintoff as they were missing from the T20 and the T20/ODI through injury.

Taking away Ambrose (surely not?!), Anderson (highly unlikely) and Flintoff (again unlikely, still feeling his way back after injury)... that gives us a straight choice between Cook, Bell and Pietersen. I'd be happy with any of those, but I'd be unhappy if it was a captain from elsewhere.

 

[Richard]

Let's say Colly is ODI skipper, and KP Test skipper. It sends all the wrong signals that in one form one is the leader, but then in the other form he must follow rank and do what the other guy says. It's like if I get to be my boss's boss on Thursday & Friday. And the players that play in both teams, they won't know who to go to.

I think there's unneccessary stigma attached to captaincy. All a captain should be is the man who sets the fields and makes the bowling changes.

But for the recent ridiculous Twenty20 cash disproportion, I'm always in favour of the best Test players making no impact on the best ODI players, and vice-versa. However, as pointed-out by Kev, there is the problem arising from the Stanford paydays. It just doesn't make any sense to have the Test captain not being the T2I captain (and certainly I can't believe the ODI captain would be different from these).

 

[GIMH]

You need the captain to be your leader, it is of course important that players need to know who their leader is.

Of course, the T20 stuff is important, the captain should really be the highest earner, though I suspect Pietersen & Flintoff are the highest earners regardless because they are famous faces

 

[Hoole Seal]

Evening chaps, couldn't be arsed reading the whole thread, but here's my square cut for what its worth.

Great shame about Vaughan, tremendous captain and leader of the side, and an extremely hard act to follow. One consolation would be if he can find his batting form from five years ago, he would be a valuable asset come next years Ashes.

It does look like they're going to pick a captain for all forms of the game, which makes sense. That really only leaves Collingwood and Pietersen, and with Colly stepping down to concentrate on his batting (?) it looks like a one horse race. Strauss would have been the next shrewd choice, to allow KP the freedom to carry on his batting, but he was only involved in the one day squad against New Zealand to provide cover for the injured Cook, so doesn't look likely unless there's a major about face.

As for the Indian League, if KP is made captain, the game is changing in this country and with the riches to be had in the Stanford Cup in the West Indies for the England team, the ECB will make sure there's no defections in that respect (you'd hope).

Anyway, raise a glass for Michael Vaughan, not bad for a lanky Lancastrian!

 

[GIMH]

I have been giving this some thought over the last two hours. It seems certain that Pietersen will get it, which means Strauss will probably never get to do the job. This is a shame in many ways, in 2005 he was widely thought to be a shoo-in for whenever Vaughan stepped down. How different things could have been for him had the captaincy not ping-ponged between he and Flintoff in 2006. I truly believe he would have scored more runs down under without the morale-crushing blow of losing the captaincy in spite of the greater sense it made for him to do the job.

Now what is my point? Well Australia seem to be grooming Michael Clarke for the job. When Ponting goes he will take over, and is picking up experience here and there. Should Pietersen, as is expected, take the job tomorrow, I would like to see Alastair Cook named his vice-captain, rather than Strauss assume the role in an unofficial capacity. Cook can then spend the next 4-5 years being groomed for the role in the same way Clarke is, and there will be no need for debate when Pietersen retires or steps down.

This is assuming KP does a good job though, as of course if he has 1-2 poor years as skipper it may well be too soon for Cook and Strauss could possibly be the best man for the job at that point on a short-term basis. Australia are afforded the luxury of being able to do this with Clarke through Ponting's success as captain.

I accept that my thinking is far from perfect but I would like to see more logical progression in future.

 

[PavlovsDog]

I have been giving this some thought over the last two hours. It seems certain that Pietersen will get it, which means Strauss will probably never get to do the job. This is a shame in many ways, in 2005 he was widely thought to be a shoo-in for whenever Vaughan stepped down. How different things could have been for him had the captaincy not ping-ponged between he and Flintoff in 2006. I truly believe he would have scored more runs down under without the morale-crushing blow of losing the captaincy in spite of the greater sense it made for him to do the job.

Now what is my point? Well Australia seem to be grooming Michael Clarke for the job. When Ponting goes he will take over, and is picking up experience here and there. Should Pietersen, as is expected, take the job tomorrow, I would like to see Alastair Cook named his vice-captain, rather than Strauss assume the role in an unofficial capacity. Cook can then spend the next 4-5 years being groomed for the role in the same way Clarke is, and there will be no need for debate when Pietersen retires or steps down.

This is assuming KP does a good job though, as of course if he has 1-2 poor years as skipper it may well be too soon for Cook and Strauss could possibly be the best man for the job at that point on a short-term basis. Australia are afforded the luxury of being able to do this with Clarke through Ponting's success as captain.

I accept that my thinking is far from perfect but I would like to see more logical progression in future.

Very good post. In fact at some point earlier today, I even contemplated the theory that we should give Cook the skipper's job right now, but on reflection, this seems a better bet long term.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I have been giving this some thought over the last two hours. It seems certain that Pietersen will get it, which means Strauss will probably never get to do the job. This is a shame in many ways, in 2005 he was widely thought to be a shoo-in for whenever Vaughan stepped down. How different things could have been for him had the captaincy not ping-ponged between he and Flintoff in 2006. I truly believe he would have scored more runs down under without the morale-crushing blow of losing the captaincy in spite of the greater sense it made for him to do the job.

Now what is my point? Well Australia seem to be grooming Michael Clarke for the job. When Ponting goes he will take over, and is picking up experience here and there. Should Pietersen, as is expected, take the job tomorrow, I would like to see Alastair Cook named his vice-captain, rather than Strauss assume the role in an unofficial capacity. Cook can then spend the next 4-5 years being groomed for the role in the same way Clarke is, and there will be no need for debate when Pietersen retires or steps down.

This is assuming KP does a good job though, as of course if he has 1-2 poor years as skipper it may well be too soon for Cook and Strauss could possibly be the best man for the job at that point on a short-term basis. Australia are afforded the luxury of being able to do this with Clarke through Ponting's success as captain.

I accept that my thinking is far from perfect but I would like to see more logical progression in future.

We've got an appalling one-day team, no chance of winning in India and even less chance of winning The Ashes..........could be a short tenure.

 

[GIMH]

Depends whether they want long-term or short-term success. Things have been changed a fair bit recently so it would be unfair on anybody to expect short-term success...this is England though so...

 

[Richard]

I think everyone wants both short-term and long-term success (certainly hope so anyway) but to expect it would be highly optimistic.

 

[fredfertang]

The point has been made before that yesterday at 171-5 England were nearly there and indeed had the correct umpiring decisions been made the fact that the bowlers didn’t perform as they could wouldn’t have mattered and an absorbing series would be 1-1 – so errors were made but that’s no basis for a crisis.

But what have we got now – a crisis of cataclysmic proportions that there is no way out of because, as this thread amply demonstrates, there is no satisfactory candidate for the captaincy except the one who has just walked away – the support (or rather lack of it) that he has been given is the problem not him.

This is all so unnecessary and divisive – there really is a malaise about the English game at the moment – the headless chickens have come home to roost

 

[GIMH]

Yeah of course that's what I want, but you have got to give whoever you pick as skipper time to settle in and start doing things their way. Put it this way, whether it's Kevin Pietersen or Darren Pattinson who is made skipper tomorrow, the only excuse for getting rid of them after a short time would be if it was blatantly obvious that they weren't up to it. Only one captain has even avoided defeat (or at least won a Test, not sure if there might have been a 0-0 at some point) in India in the last 25 years (Fred, in case you didn't know ) so let's not expect too much in that series. We should probably win in the Windies but the Ashes next year, at this point, are a write-off for mine.

 

[Richard]

Only one captain has even avoided defeat (or at least won a Test, not sure if there might have been a 0-0 at some point) in India in the last 25 years (Fred, in case you didn't know ) so let's not expect too much in that series.

Oi! I'm not that old yet!

It was 23 years FTR. Between the series in '84/85, captained by David Gower FTR, and said '05/06 series, England lost 3-0 (1992/93) and 1-0 (2001/02). But with a better last-day performance and the facility to make-up lost time, they could conceivably have won the latter 2-1. India played shockingly poorly to lose at Mumbai in '05/06, splendid as Flintoff's performance in that match was.

Dravid fielding first smacked of complacency, and India's catching was diabolical. There was the infamous to-Udal capitulation on the final day that received so much attention, but that was immaterial as the game was already gone by then.

 

[four_or_six]

I accept that my thinking is far from perfect but I would like to see more logical progression in future.

Totally awta. I presume we haven't had an official vice-captain for a good reason, but I have no idea what the reason was.

 

[tooextracool]

Have to say that I am really surprised to hear about this and I really do feel for Vaughan. Guess England captains have a history of ending on a low. He still is the best leader in England at the moment and its unfortunate, but it was just a matter of time. As long as England were winning they could carry him as they did with Hussain in 2000/01, but once the runs started to dry up, a sinking ship was always likely to toss its anchor at the start.

I think he was definetly pushed, seems especially ironic that Collingwood and Vaughan would resign on the same day unless they both knew it was coming anyways. Personally, I think at this point it might have been better to give the captaincy in both forms to Collingwood but his resignation means that it has to be Pietersens. No point even talking about Strauss, because it isnt going to happen.

 

[Nibbles]

So i havnt read through the rest of this post but, who do people think should take over from Vaughan?

Personally, im off the opinion it SHOULDNT be Pietersen. Infact, if im quite honest if i was a selector for the test team id be reluctant to pick him (but thats a different issue). Cook i think would be my pick, or possibly Strauss if Cook doesnt feel up to it!

Cook has the advantage of being young (22 or 23, cant remember exactly!), an almost guaranteed pick for the squad, playing resonably well etc etc. But then i dont think he's played captain much for county (may be wrong!).

For the one day squad, KP may be an option!

Thoughts?

P.S. A salute to Michael Vaughan, he's been a legend and i hope he comes back to the England squad soon!

 

[Woodster]

I strongly expect KP to get the nod for both forms of the game, and do not particularly see that as a bad appointment. His style of captaincy is yet to be seen, but I hope it is similar to his style of batting, in the attacking sense and willing to do things a little different.

I can understand people suggesting it may negotiate his standing as one of the worlds finest batsmen, but I'm sure that needn't be the case, in fact the extra responsibility may take his game to another level, providing he does not sacrifice his attacking intent.

I'm not personally sold on the idea of Strauss taking over as I don't believe his place in the side is secure enough, nor do I think Cook has the requisite knowledge at this stage of his development, and maintaining his reputation as a potential top class Test player should be his sole concentration at this point.

 

[tooextracool]

Well, it'd depend. Purely on captaincy, I doubt he'd have made much difference, but who knows, he might have scored more runs than Cook, Collingwood or whoever he ended-up replacing.

Cant believe he will never get to play in a country where his last score is 183. Oh well, guess even if he stayed on he wouldnt get to do that.