Three formats, three captains.

So we have Strauss running the Tests, Cook captaining the 50 over rubbish, and Broad bossing the 20/20 boys.

Is it a good or bad thing to split the England captaincy like this? Have other countries done so?

I think my feeling is probably in favour, if only because of the sheer amount of cricket these days. There's no doubt in my mind that Strauss is the "real" England captain. If we played half the games, he'd captain the lot. But when we have a situation where he's needing to take a break just to stay mentally with it, then splitting the captaincy seems a sensible solution to me.

i disagree with 3 captians, also i disgree with the choice of 50 over and 20-20 captains

cricketfan90 wrote:i disagree with 3 captians, also i disgree with the choice of 50 over and 20-20 captains

Ok - why do you think we should have only one captain?

And who do you think should be the relevant captains, given that we have made the split? Cook I've no problem with - he's the vice captain for the Tests, anyway and I can't see an obviously better replacement. Broad is more of a surprise, but does perhaps suggest where the Board see his future?

I think having 3 different captains is a great idea puts less pressure on Strauss and lets him focus on test captaincy. What I do disagree with is the appointment of Cook as one-day captain, how can you have someone who hasn't played a one dayer for over a year made captain? Looks like England are just giving him the captaincy for a rehearsal when Strauss retires.

Liam_Main wrote:What I do disagree with is the appointment of Cook as one-day captain, how can you have someone who hasn't played a one dayer for over a year made captain? Looks like England are just giving him the captaincy for a rehearsal when Strauss retires.

I'd have said you're either a captain or you aren't. If Cook is a captain, let him captain. My problem with the 50 over format is that I think it is often very destructive of batting and bowling techniques and I'd prefer Cook didn't play the 50 over game at all. But if he is going to play it, then why not as captain? So what he hasn't played in over a year? Has he suddenly lost his captaining ability in that time?

Cowshot wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:What I do disagree with is the appointment of Cook as one-day captain, how can you have someone who hasn't played a one dayer for over a year made captain? Looks like England are just giving him the captaincy for a rehearsal when Strauss retires.

I'd have said you're either a captain or you aren't. If Cook is a captain, let him captain. My problem with the 50 over format is that I think it is often very destructive of batting and bowling techniques and I'd prefer Cook didn't play the 50 over game at all. But if he is going to play it, then why not as captain? So what he hasn't played in over a year? Has he suddenly lost his captaining ability in that time?

Cook shouldn't be able to jump straight back into the side as captain. He needs to prove himself as a good one-day batter nevermind anything else. IMO Bell or Broad would of been a suitable choice.

Hmm. I still have trouble thinking of Stuart Broad as more than about 16 yrs old. I thought he was being pushed on pretty hard to be captain of the 2020 lads. Or is he in fact cricket's Dorian Gray and there's a horrible copy of Wisden lurking in an attic somewhere...?

Bell might be a choice, but his place has only recently started to look secure and he strikes me as a rather diffident sort of bloke. What makes you think he'd be the right choice?

cowshot, i dont think we should have only one captain..

what i meant to say was i disagree with the choice of captains, not that we have 3.

i think kp, should skipper the 50 over side, and swann 20-20

Looking at the one day-side Bell seems the perfect choice. He's the most experienced bar KP who was never going to be made captain. His batting is also so improved these last few years. His place in the side is secured unlike Cook's was before he was made captain.

kp was good as captain before the controversy, he led us to win over south africa but sadly didnt last long

KP's on the verge of falling out the side nevermind being made captain.

the captaicny would hav helped him find form, it did last time, im not saying thats a good reason to give him the captiancy im just saying.

It seems to me that the Board are effectively creating a hierarchy of captaincy, and I rather like that. We are in effect training captains.

Is Swann a possible Test captain? Probably not, simply because I think he and Strauss are a similar age (I'll check this). Is Broad? I don't know, but the fact the ECB appointed him suggests they think he has captaincy potential, at the least.

Absolutely not kp. He has great qualities, but captaincy most emphatically isn't one of them, in my opinion. He's too edgy a personality.

I'm fairly sure he'll sort out his SLA issue.

It would be too much of a risk. Especially if he continued with his bad form.

i dont want swann as test captian mate but he would make a better 20-20 captain than broad, broad's temper could flare up at any moment

It would be too much of a risk. Especially if he continued with his bad form.

I just don't think he's captaincy material. He's a similar personality type to Sir Ian Botham, who was also a bad captain. (Prima Donnas. koff koff)

i dont want swann as test captian mate but he would make a better 20-20 captain than broad, broad's temper could flare up at any moment

I think you are right that Swann would be a better 2020 captain than Broad at this moment. But if I am right that th ECB are looking at at Broad as a possible Test captain in the future, is it not a good thing to give him experience in the simpler forms of the game first?

Regarding his temper: it often happens that the added responsibility of captaincy calms a person down. It worked with Hartley at Saints (Rugby Union), for example. No guarantees, of course, and if Broad cannot control his temper then he isn't a suitable captain and it's as well to find out early.

(Checked ages, and Swann is two years younger than Strauss, btw.)

cricketfan90 wrote:i dont want swann as test captian mate but he would make a better 20-20 captain than broad, broad's temper could flare up at any moment

Broad's temper just seems to flare up in tests,never seen it once in the shorter forms of the game.

He went 20 overs the other day wicketless and didn't flare up. Can you really see him getting angry when he's only be bowling 4 overs?

if a decision dont go his way or a few misfields then yes

I think when Strauss retires Cook will be Captain and Broad V-C all depending on how they do as captains now though.

cook will defo be captain next for tests, but after him, not sure

After Cook possibly RHB or Ben Stokes?

Too early to tell at the moment though.

na rhb no near where the side,and im not sure stokes will be captaincy material, but too early to say

I think the appointment of Broad suggests the ECB are thinking of him as Cook's successor.

u never no with the ECB lol

Cowshot wrote:I think the appointment of Broad suggests the ECB are thinking of him as Cook's successor.

Arn't Broad and Cook around the same age I would imagine they would retire at almost the same time.

i think broad is younger by about 2 years not sure

Yeah he is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Broad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Cook

I think my main concern with Broad at present is that he's a main bowler, looking to become a genuine all-rounder and now adding potential captaincy. That's an awful lot for one person.

I know old Alec Stewart did everything but drive the team bus, but not everyone is like that.

Cowshot wrote:I think my main concern with Broad at present is that he's a main bowler, looking to become a genuine all-rounder and now adding potential captaincy. That's an awful lot for one person.

I know old Alec Stewart did everything but drive the team bus, but not everyone is like that.

Broad will never become a genuine all-rounder, especially not in one-day cricket. In fact, in my T20 team, I have him batting at 11 because I think that Bresnan, Woakes, Shahzad and Swann are more likely to clear the boundary.

m@tt wrote:

Cowshot wrote:I think my main concern with Broad at present is that he's a main bowler, looking to become a genuine all-rounder and now adding potential captaincy. That's an awful lot for one person.

I know old Alec Stewart did everything but drive the team bus, but not everyone is like that.

Broad will never become a genuine all-rounder, especially not in one-day cricket. In fact, in my T20 team, I have him batting at 11 because I think that Bresnan, Woakes, Shahzad and Swann are more likely to clear the boundary.

I think all of them including Broad are likely to clear the boundary but for genuine batting ability my lower order would go like this.

8) Bresnan
9) Broad
10) Woakes
11) Shazhad

Do you really think Broads going to put himself 11 in his own side?

agree with that order liam

cricketfan90 wrote:agree with that order liam

It's rare when someone agrees with me

haha

He's got a Test Match hundred and his technique is better than any of those you name, in my opinion. Some of the others may have more sheer hitting power for the short form, but I think Broad is more likely to make a genuine Test no 6.

Teat no.7 Definitely for me, no.6 i'm not to sure on he was in poor form before that century. If he has a decent year and makes another century and a few 50s than yeah I think he's got a chance. Big year batting wise for Broad especially if he wants to become a genuine all-rounder.

Broad will never be a Test number 6.

Apart from his 169, where the opposition were cheating, he hadn't not gone pass 50 in 15 digs.

His batting is a bonus ala Warne.

Oh, he'd need to improve to be a 6. But I think he could. He's not just block and bash, he's got some real style. He LOOKS like a batsman when he bats.

I would agree.Think its too much for one captain to handle all 3 formats.

I would prefer 2 captains.One for the test and another specialist captain for T20 (and ODI)

I think he'll certainly be a test number 7.

Remember Freddie averaged almost the same to Broad at the same point of there careers.

Cowshot wrote:Oh, he'd need to improve to be a 6. But I think he could. He's not just block and bash, he's got some real style. He LOOKS like a batsman when he bats.

He needs to concentrate on his bowling, guys like Bresnan, Shahzad, Dernbach are all young and eager to take Broad's place.

Batting is a bonus unless he becomes very consistence and can do a job like Pollock used to do for SA at 7/8

Hello hokeye - sorry we've wandered a bit off topic at present and are discussing whether Broad could make a Test no 6.

Who would you have for the short form captain?

sonic : IF his bowling were to suffer, I agree - forget the batting.

But IF hw works on his batting and the potential I think is there really is there, then think what an asset to the team he'd be as a genuine all-rounder batting at six. We could take five bowlers, or four and bat down to about number 10!

Cowshot wrote:sonic : IF his bowling were to suffer, I agree - forget the batting.

But IF hw works on his batting and the potential I think is there really is there, then think what an asset to the team he'd be as a genuine all-rounder batting at six. We could take five bowlers, or four and bat down to about number 10!

For now Broad needs to focus on his bowling. He can't risk falling out the side by trying to hard at his batting.

Once he finds his form with ball than yeah his intentions could be turned to batting.

Cowshot wrote:sonic : IF his bowling were to suffer, I agree - forget the batting.

But IF hw works on his batting and the potential I think is there really is there, then think what an asset to the team he'd be as a genuine all-rounder batting at six. We could take five bowlers, or four and bat down to about number 10!

I personally think his bowling has suffered.

Broad is worried about the other guys trying to take his place and is eager to improve his batting to fend them off.

Broad was comfortably a better bowler than Tremlett, Bresnan, Woakes, Dernbach and Shahzah 12-18months ago, but they're all closing in on him now!

I'm not convinced by the idea of Broad as captain but am willing to be proved wrong. I'd prefer if he concentrated on bowling and batting which is plenty enough of a challenge with the talent that's around.

At risk of opening up previous debate again I think that KP should definitely not be captain - of any team, other than perhaps a beer match. I think he has wrong sort of personality for that. It would be a bonus if he rediscovered batting form - otherwise there is real possibility of dropping out the team (as others have pointed out). It is not as if we are short of possible replacements.

I don't think KP's mentally strong enough to lead a side even if he did regain his form.

If KP doesn't make a score in the 2nd test I think he'll be dropped with either Hildreth or Taylor coming in. England have gave him too many chances now.

He was bowling well in Aussie, then he got his side strain, he's just coming back and seemed to be getting into his stride during the last Test.

I think this is one of the areas the continuity Flower and Strauss have aimed for really pays - Broad is the man in possession, and he has to lose that spot. If he doesn't find form after the injury, I'm sure he WILL lose it. But he gets the chance to retain it, and knows that batting isn't going to save him NOW.

Also, if he is trying to improve his batting this Management is very likely to know and approve. They'll have some say in him going for it or not.

Corp, Liam: Yeah, agree with both points re KP (see my comment above).

chuckle. Did anyone see what Bopara said about not being picked? I gather he wasn't happy. Wonder if he's damaged his chances of selection if KP is dropped?

I doubt KP will be dropped. The selectors will really want an in-form KP for the Indians, and will give him every opportunity to find that form.

A good idea would be to send him to play domestic games at Surrey and try to regain his form. If he did then he would be nicely in touch going into the test series against India but if he didn't then it would give another player like Hildreth,Bopara who deserve a place in the side.

Cowshot wrote:Corp, Liam: Yeah, agree with both points re KP (see my comment above).

chuckle. Did anyone see what Bopara said about not being picked? I gather he wasn't happy. Wonder if he's damaged his chances of selection if KP is dropped?

I doubt KP will be dropped. The selectors will really want an in-form KP for the Indians, and will give him every opportunity to find that form.

Bopara has the mentality that the World is against him. He seems to forget that last time he played Test cricket he was found out and he mental strength was also found wanting.

He simply doesn't cut it at International level, same as Ramprakash