Agree, it's unlikely that he would have been able to influence such a major decision by the selectors.I doubt Pietersen being captain would have made the slightest mark on any of those, TBH.
Of course he can't change the skills of the other players, but he can develop a much more aggressive attitude towards the cricket and opposition. You can see that Pietersen thrives against the best and this kind of attitude, if instilled into the other players, would make England a far better ODI team. He may not have the tactical nous to suceeed, that's why I mentioned it in one of my previous posts if memory serves. However, potentially if he did develop this sort of tactical ability then I could see him being quite a good captain, time will tell though.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.
Would Kevin Pietersen being captain make Ed Joyce score quicker? NoAgree, it's unlikely that he would have been able to influence such a major decision by the selectors.
Of course he can't change the skills of the other players, but he can develop a much more aggressive attitude towards the cricket and opposition. You can see that Pietersen thrives against the best and this kind of attitude, if instilled into the other players, would make England a far better ODI team. He may not have the tactical nous to suceeed, that's why I mentioned it in one of my previous posts if memory serves. However, potentially if he did develop this sort of tactical ability then I could see him being quite a good captain, time will tell though.
I was referring to general attitude on players, not in specific cases. Obviously he won't have that big of an impact on every single player, but with an aggressive personality and obvious leadership skills he can raise the spirits of a side IMO. He has certainly had an effect on Ian Bell in ODI cricket, especially Bell's decision to walk down the wicket to fast bowlers.Would Kevin Pietersen being captain make Ed Joyce score quicker? No
Did Micheal Vaughan as captain make Kevin Pietersen bat slower? No
The effect a captain has on a team is over rated, KP giving a team talk isn't going to make our players "More agressive" whatever that really means.
Disagree entirely, I think it's quite obvious that Pietersen has leadership potential. You can tell from the way he acts and the respect that his team-mates have for him.Yeah, Bowman sums-up my feelings quite well.
Honestly don't see Pietersen having the captaincy making us better. That doesn't mean it wouldn't - but if someone appointed him and it worked, they'd just have picked lucky IMO.
1) Bell's going down the wicket is bloody useless as he just blocks it all the time anywayI was referring to general attitude on players, not in specific cases. Obviously he won't have that big of an impact on every single player, but with an aggressive personality and obvious leadership skills he can raise the spirits of a side IMO. He has certainly had an effect on Ian Bell in ODI cricket, especially Bell's decision to walk down the wicket to fast bowlers.
Go on then.Run-rates were not a lot lower - there were many instances of 100 being scored in the first 15
Seriously, you are using the media as a way to back up your argument? Poor form.That respect being such that newspapers can still infer nonsense about him not being a ubiquitous "team player"?
Not saying it's effective, but the intent is quite clearly there. When Bell was dropped from England's test side he stated in the media that he was trying to become more aggressive, and Kevin Pietersen was helping him with that. I can't quote the exact line or anything, but they were words to that effect. I'm not trying to diefy Pietersen by any means, but I think he can have a positive effect on his team-mates if he were captain.1) Bell's going down the wicket is bloody useless as he just blocks it all the time anyway
2) How is it in anyway certain that Bell does that because of the KP? It baffles me how you've even made the link between Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell coming down the pitch, it's not as if KP invented walking down the wicket is it?
That is another problem, isn't it??? The grooming of future captains through FC cricket seems to be a lost practice now, thanks to the type of scheduling we are having in international cricket.In this day and age, yes.
Since 2000, the international schedule has been ridiculous.
I'm less than convinced by said inferred stuff, certainly. But it's certainly not impossible that there's something there, even if it's very probably exaggerated.Seriously, you are using the media as a way to back up your argument? Poor form.
Try reading this, written in 1996.Go on then.
Name some of these many occasions...
And the link.The use of pinch-hitters was one such method, much discussed and granted more significance than it merited, but it was certainly the case that the successful teams no longer looked to accrue the majority of their runs in the closing overs of their innings. Instead of settling for 60 or 70 runs from the initial 15 overs, when fielding restrictions applied, teams were now looking to pass the 100 mark. On the blissful batting pitches encountered here, it was seldom impossible. Sri Lanka, through their fearless openers, Sanath Jayasuriya - later to be named the Most Valued Player of the Tournament - and Romesh Kaluwitharana, were the trendsetters and, as the outcome proved, nobody did it better.