England captaincy and ODIs

[marc71178]

Still no centuaries for Vaughan in ODIs - and I'll be amazed if he gets one in this WC - it makes me think. Do England even consider one-day cricket when it comes to captaincy? Vaughan is not the first example of this - Nasser Hussain admits in his book he wasn't good at one-day cricket and Mike Atherton started the summer of 1993 out of the ODI team and ended it as captain!

Atherton was actually an extremely under-rated ODI batsman IMO...

 

[Prince EWS]

Is this is about the ODI captaincy... well, it is a fair point. Vaughan quite clearly isn't good enough to make the team as a batsman alone.. although neither are Strauss and Joyce and they still make it, and then we have Saj. The point is though, England really don't have many options that could win them an ODI.. if they dropped Vaughan, who would they pick? Joyce? Shah? Loye? All tried and failed. So England are basically selecting Vaughan as an allrounder - that is, as a captain who can bat a bit. It's believed his superior captaincy is more of an asset than the next best substandard one day batsman would be.. and if they are indeed going to pick someone like Shah, well they have a point I suppose. There's also the fact that seperate test and ODI captains could disrupt the team slightly.

Now, if anyone is actually suggesting Vaughan shouldn't be captain of the test team, however, they are mad. The day that the fact that a batsman can't make the ODI effects whether he is test captain is the day I die.

 

[silentstriker]

We'll both die together tbh. Sepuku might be painful, but we could go out in style.

 

[DCC_legend]

Strauss is good tactically, because of the job he does at Middlesex. However a KP/Flintoff style skipper, would show real passion an heart. We have no one who falls into both categories.

and all the other captains don't show this. KP and Freddie are good players and IMO wouldn't be good captains.

 

[Richard]

Atherton was actually an extremely under-rated ODI batsman IMO...

Well... not really.

A strike-rate of 55 or whatever it was is hardly outstanding.

 

[Perm]

Pietersen, Flintoff and Collingwood are all in with a shout of being made the ODI captain if the selectors do wish to drop Vaughan and Strauss, who quite clearly aren't good enough. All three of the names I mentioned at the start of my post are guarranteed of their position in the ODI side (injury withstanding) so they are all candidates for the captaincy. Personally I would like it being given to KP as I think an aggressive approach to the ODI cricket that England play would be a good idea, however I don't know if he has any credentials or tactical nous from previous captaincy experience.

 

[readie]

I think that with KP at the helm, England would actually have a punt. I don't think he would make the correct decision all the time but when he did make a mistake, it would be playing attacking cricket rather than being to cautious or defensive which has been the biggest captaincy problem England has had.

KP ego would allow him to captain the way he wanted and not the way which pleased the board the most. I think with KP at the helm, decisions such as Panesar for Giles, and dropping Jones last ashes would be made without beurocratic bull****e

 

[_Ed_]

I think Collingwood would be an excellent ODI captain. He's the kind of player who can lead by example with bat, ball and in the field and I have no doubt he'd be a strong tactical leader as well.

 

[Salamuddin]

I think Collingwood would be an excellent ODI captain. He's the kind of player who can lead by example with bat, ball and in the field and I have no doubt he'd be a strong tactical leader as well.

Yeah Colly's worth a punt for mine as captain...always had a high reagrd for him....excellent team man with a great work ethic.

Strauss and Vaughan don't deserve to be in the ODI side period.

 

[Ash_A55]

Yeah Colly's worth a punt for mine as captain...always had a high reagrd for him....excellent team man with a great work ethic.

Strauss and Vaughan don't deserve to be in the ODI side period.

Does Collingwood have the full respect of the players? whenever I see him, he seems to be rather quiet. Not the best quality for a skipper.

 

[Perm]

I think Collingwood would be an excellent ODI captain. He's the kind of player who can lead by example with bat, ball and in the field and I have no doubt he'd be a strong tactical leader as well.

Would be very different to KP being captain, that's for sure. I agree with the points you make about how he sets a good example in whatever discipline he is participating in and he is basically assured of a spot unless struck down by injury. Wouldn't be a bad idea to have a skipper who, while not the most talented, obviously leads by example and is very enthusiastic about what he does.

 

[Prince EWS]

Does Collingwood have the full respect of the players? whenever I see him, he seems to be rather quiet. Not the best quality for a skipper.

If there's one thing Collingwood would have, it'd be the respect of his peers, IMO.

 

[marc71178]

Well... not really.

A strike-rate of 55 or whatever it was is hardly outstanding.

59, with an average of over 35 and 2 tons and 12 fifties in 54 knocks.

Back in a time when the game was much more even between bat and ball.

Even better is his average at home - 21 innings he got 2 tons and 7 fifties in averaging 47.78 at a time when ODIs in England started when there was a bit of damp in the air...

 

[Perm]

If there's one thing Collingwood would have, it'd be the respect of his peers, IMO.

Indeed, it would be foolish of his team-mates not to respect him. He's not the most talented, but he's definately someone who never gives up.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Agree with Marc on the point about Atherton. People will look at his stats, and see that by and whole, they are poor compared to nowadays, and will assume that he is crap. He was actually a pretty decent opener that England could do with now.

 

[Richard]

59, with an average of over 35 and 2 tons and 12 fifties in 54 knocks.

Back in a time when the game was much more even between bat and ball.

Not really - ODIs are little different now to 1995 or 1997, other than the colour of the ball and clothing and various other cosmetic-effect things used or not used in England.

It's not like Atherton played in 1984.

 

[Richard]

Agree with Marc on the point about Atherton. People will look at his stats, and see that by and whole, they are poor compared to nowadays, and will assume that he is crap. He was actually a pretty decent opener that England could do with now.

I honestly don't know that we could. He'd be a better bet than Strauss or Vaughan, yes, but I can honestly see him being criticised heavily for failing to make use of the PowerPlays. While Atherton could and very occasionally did play shots, he didn't do so at all often.

 

[Richard]

I think that with KP at the helm, England would actually have a punt. I don't think he would make the correct decision all the time but when he did make a mistake, it would be playing attacking cricket rather than being to cautious or defensive which has been the biggest captaincy problem England has had.

KP ego would allow him to captain the way he wanted and not the way which pleased the board the most. I think with KP at the helm, decisions such as Panesar for Giles, and dropping Jones last ashes would be made without beurocratic bull****e

I doubt Pietersen being captain would have made the slightest mark on any of those, TBH.

 

[Richard]

Pietersen, Flintoff and Collingwood are all in with a shout of being made the ODI captain if the selectors do wish to drop Vaughan and Strauss, who quite clearly aren't good enough. All three of the names I mentioned at the start of my post are guarranteed of their position in the ODI side (injury withstanding) so they are all candidates for the captaincy. Personally I would like it being given to KP as I think an aggressive approach to the ODI cricket that England play would be a good idea, however I don't know if he has any credentials or tactical nous from previous captaincy experience.

Something that makes me laugh, really, is the assumption that Pietersen being captain would make the side more aggressive. Good a batsman as he is, he can't change the skills of any the other players in the side. Nor do we know what if any captaincy credentials he has - he might be aggressive, he might also be 100% clueless and try to place mid-ons and end-up placing square-legs (exaggeration, but you know what I mean).

And TBH, Pietersen doesn't strike me as "captaincy material". Having said that, of course, Hussain didn't strike many as such in 1996. And yet within a year he was vice-captain. The reality is that the only way to find-out would be to try, and that involves taking risks which you could potentially not take.

 

[marc71178]

Not really - ODIs are little different now to 1995 or 1997

Oh yes, I distinctly remember all the artificially small boundaries and other rules all in favour of the batsmen back in the mid-90s.

Hmm, wait a minute, they weren't a feature then, and run rates were all a lot lower.