King Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 The England batsman said he would like to succeed Michael Vaughan as one-day captain. More... Link to comment
Donny Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Phew! MV finally accepted he's a dud in ODIs and did the right thing. Colly is an ideal choice. Experienced, highly capable as a player who will lead by example and looks to have the mental calmness needed but with controlled aggression. Link to comment
Holysmoke Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 colly wud be a better choice than kp Link to comment
Cricketics Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 grant him the captaincy then.. mv o mv.. u finally did something rite and this might make english odi cricket look bit bright.. Link to comment
Lurker Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Does Collingwood lead in English county circuit? I am not quite sure he does. MV was groomed as a skipper and then given the leadership. Seems like the second string of English leaders do not have that credential. That said Colly seems like an ideal fit. He is one of the regulars in LOI team and commands respect for his game. Link to comment
Ram Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 This signifies the importance of Paul Collingwood in the english ODI team. I reckon the selectors write his name in the piece of paper first when they sit down to pick a squad for the ODI's... Link to comment
Predator_05 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 I thought Strauss would have been the ideal successor... Link to comment
Ram Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 I thought Strauss would have been the ideal successor... Strauss ? On what basis ? Does he have good record of captaincy with his county ? Link to comment
Predator_05 Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Strauss ? On what basis ? Does he have good record of captaincy with his county ? Who gives a damn if he does or if he doesn't ? Michael Vaughan had ZERO captaincy experience at county level (although he did captain ENG 'A' a few times) but he turned out to be a fine captain - England's best since Brearley. Strauss was captain for a season or two at Middlesex, but i don't know how he did. I was impressed by his captaincy in India (he stood in for two ODI's IIRC) and he was also in charge when ENG drew 2-2 with PAK. He did lose 0-5 to SL though...so that is a blemish on his record. ODI records aren't conclusive though.. His test record should take precedence - at least in my opinion. The fact that he hasn't lost a single test match (he has already captained in 4 or 5) goes out to show that he is capable of getting results with ENG and has the players respect. If a captain can successfully manage a team during a test series or two, than he is a good bet for the position. Link to comment
Ram Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Strauss , I dont think is even a regular in the ODI side... Link to comment
Predator_05 Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 You've thought wrong then...:kittykay: Link to comment
Ram Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Ok.. let me rephrase it then.. For someone who averages 31 in 78 matches and a pathetic 26 in the last 25 matches,I dont think Strauss should even be in the ODI team, let alone captain it.. Link to comment
Lurker Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Michael Vaughan had ZERO captaincy experience at county level (although he did captain ENG 'A' a few times) but he turned out to be a fine captain - England's best since Brearley. Correct me if I am wrong here Predz but did Vaughan captain Yorkshire before he became England skipper? Also was VC for a while to Nasser Hussain me thinks. xxx Link to comment
Predator_05 Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Ok.. let me rephrase it then.. For someone who averages 31 in 78 matches and a pathetic 26 in the last 25 matches,I dont think Strauss should even be in the ODI team, let alone captain it.. CONTEXT, yaar CONTEXT !! Sure, an average of 31 looks sh*t to you and me - people who are used to seeing our Indian batsmen, many of whom are averaging in the 40's. For England, it's not that bad. It's a pathetic average but he certainly wouldn't be out of place because England are a pathetic team. This is reflected by the fact that bar Pietersen - no one in England's XI averages over 35. Tresco does too, but i think he is as good as finished now so i won't count him. Lurker - Vaughan never captained Yorkshire. Not to my knowledge anyway...maybe he did 1 or two matches, but i don't know nor do i care. Link to comment
Ram Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Sure, an average of 31 looks sh*t to you and me - people who are used to seeing our Indian batsmen, many of whom are averaging in the 40's. For England, it's not that bad. I What do you mean ? This is not a case of the worst making the bad look good is it ? Pieterson averages way more than him. And Collinwood averages 44 in his last 25 matches ( which i think is a fair filter) If you are actually trying to justify Strauss' place in the team , i would say your arguement is based on weak foundations. BUT , if you are trying to suggest that Strauss is a good captain , with good tactical and man-management capabilties and will be able to rally the team around him better than others , i might probably buy that. Link to comment
Predator_05 Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 What do you mean ? This is not a case of the worst making the bad look good is it ? Pieterson averages way more than him. And Collinwood averages 44 in his last 25 matches ( which i think is a fair filter) If you are actually trying to justify Strauss' place in the team , i would say your arguement is based on weak foundations. BUT , if you are trying to suggest that Strauss is a good captain , with good tactical and man-management capabilties and will be able to rally the team around him better than others , i might probably buy that. I am not trying to justifying his place in the team. I am merely pointing out that no matter how bad his record may look, he will still play for England in ODI's. Why do you think Vaughan was able to captain England in ODI's for so long ? Link to comment
Ram Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 . Why do you think Vaughan was able to captain England in ODI's for so long ? well , that is my whole point. Niether Strauss nor Vaughan should have figured in the team for so long. But i do understand what you are saying. IF its a certainty that he is going to play in the odi's , then he can be appointed captain if he is proven to be better than others in that regard. Link to comment
yoda Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 You've thought wrong then...:kittykay: No, he is NOT a regular. He was warming the bench most of the world cup. Link to comment
The Outsider Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Strauss is not a regular in the ODI team but with Vaughan effectively calling quits to his ODI career he will become one. He has good leadership abilities based on what I saw against Pakistan and should have captained in the Ashes. Having said that, Collingwood is the kind of cricketer who can also make a very good captain. Link to comment
King Posted June 21, 2007 Author Share Posted June 21, 2007 Before anything a player needs to be first selected in the XI. Strauss has been played sparsely in ODIs and his test record as a batsman hasn't been great either over the last year or so. He has plenty to worry about his own batting at this point in time. Collingwood or KP with their performance command lot of respect and they are the right choice IMO. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now