TheJammyTurtle
U19 Cricketer
Just wanted to know what were people's thoughts on it?Think it's a bold move but one that could well work.Dont think he's half the **** he was 2 years ago.
I pretty much disagree with this entirely. Not so much because of any views I have of Warner, but because I just don't think it matters all the much who the VC is. Senior players beyond the captain taking on leadership roles is important in any team, but I've never really believed that officially appointing a VC really changes whether or not a player will do that much. If he's matured he'll become more of a leader whether he's VC or not.Think it's a bold move but one that could well work.
VC often gets called upon to captain...as you well know - this is a significant appointment. I would have preferred to see a bowler get the nod, bowlers make good vice captains as they have a different perspective on issues. Vice also gets included in "decisions" from time to time.I pretty much disagree with this entirely. Not so much because of any views I have of Warner, but because I just don't think it matters all the much who the VC is. Senior players beyond the captain taking on leadership roles is important in any team, but I've never really believed that officially appointing a VC really changes whether or not a player will do that much. If he's matured he'll become more of a leader whether he's VC or not.
if Smith twangs his hammy or pulls a calf the day before the first test of the summer it is a massive appointment.I pretty much disagree with this entirely. Not so much because of any views I have of Warner, but because I just don't think it matters all the much who the VC is. Senior players beyond the captain taking on leadership roles is important in any team, but I've never really believed that officially appointing a VC really changes whether or not a player will do that much. If he's matured he'll become more of a leader whether he's VC or not.
Agreed. PEWS is wrong. He isn't often wrong. In this case he is.if Smith twangs his hammy or pulls a calf the day before the first test of the summer it is a massive appointment.
The argument is good and works as well. Kohli needed to be thrust into responsibility to become a better and more mature cricketer, however I don't think that's the reason Australia made Warner VC. I think they made him VC for a very simple reason - they don't have anyone else and Warner is one of the very few players in the team who looks like he will play for a few years. If Rogers was 5 years younger, it would have been him, but he's not.Agreed. PEWS is wrong. He isn't often wrong. In this case he is.
The other issue I have with it is from an ethical perspective. It sends a very strong message about the type of team that Australia want to be. And I find that message to be surprising unless you look at it from GI Joe's perspective that this is a well thought appointment to transform the player into a more responsible one.
Wasn't Healy VC for a few years?Have we ever had an illiterate VC before? First time for everything..
Cricket is not a morality tale.Agreed. PEWS is wrong. He isn't often wrong. In this case he is.
The other issue I have with it is from an ethical perspective. It sends a very strong message about the type of team that Australia want to be. And I find that message to be surprising unless you look at it from GI Joe's perspective that this is a well thought appointment to transform the player into a more responsible one.
This. No one (apart from Warner) wants Warner as VC, there's just no one else. Still...if (huge if) Nevill can secure his position in the side maybe we'll never have the ignominy of Warner captaining Australia. Watson was bad enough.The argument is good and works as well. Kohli needed to be thrust into responsibility to become a better and more mature cricketer, however I don't think that's the reason Australia made Warner VC. I think they made him VC for a very simple reason - they don't have anyone else and Warner is one of the very few players in the team who looks like he will play for a few years. If Rogers was 5 years younger, it would have been him, but he's not.
It would be if I were in charge. In business we take morality into things all the time. All leadership appointments take ethical considerations into account in my workplace. Cricket ideally should be no different (if I were running Cricket Australia anyway).Cricket is not a morality tale.
Nah, Ponting became Test VC after the 03 World Cup IIRC.I don't think Ponting was. IIRC Gilchrist became Vice captain after Warne was sacked, Ponting jumped the queue when Waugh was pensioned off.
No, he got sacked after texting English nurses in 2000 IIRC.Was Warne VC just before the 2003 WC?