Daggers Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 I'm not a fan of the move. Let him get on with batting.
Alexikokopops Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 I'm not a fan of the move.Let him get on with batting. Ditto
Simi Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 I'm not a fan of the move.Let him get on with batting. Agreed. Not the move in my opinion, he's not got the self control to be more careful with his wicket. Even if he has, you'll take a lot out of him as a batter.
Daggers Posted 4 August 2008 Author Posted 4 August 2008 I really don't know who'd I'd like to have the job though - but I'd settle for anyone happy to bring Broad back into bowl.
andyh1884 Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 I'd have to say 'no', I don't think he's up to it & I'm not sure he's got the right mentality for leading the side. That said, it might instill a bit of discipline & sensibility in him so he won't do brainless things like his attempted 6 to bring up his century on Friday. Not exactly the mark of a team player when we were firmly in the shit. The problem is there isn't really anyone who I feel could do the job, I don't see Strauss being up to it, Collingwood's just quit as one-day captain as he couldn't hack that, and after that I wouldn't trust the rest of them to lead a church choir, let alone the england cricket team.
Asha Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 I said no.Problem is, who else could be captain? Flintoff
Sods Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Flintoff Ideally this would be the time for Flintoff to come in and take the captaincy if he had kept playing from the Ashes in the same sort of form. However he has done it before, pressure got to him. Didn't play anywhere near his potiential. Hes only just got back on the Cricket scene remember, let him get back to his best. Captaincy just isn't for him at that level unfortunately.
Daggers Posted 4 August 2008 Author Posted 4 August 2008 On top of anything else - the bloke is a bit of a cnut. You can be a good leader and disliked for the decisions you make but he is almost universally disliked for being so far up his arse it's stupid. I'm trying to think of people like that who've made good examples of being leaders but I can't recollect any.
Sods Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 On top of anything else - the bloke is a bit of a cnut. You can be a good leader and disliked for the decisions you make but he is almost universally disliked for being so far up his arse it's stupid. I'm trying to think of people like that who've made good examples of being leaders but I can't recollect any. True. This captaincy might work though as hes a cocky cnut, and it probably wont bother him.
surrifox Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 terrible decision. The selectors have tried to cover their own inadequacies and the failure of their selection policy by a populist choice. When this fails as it certainly will they should be fired en masse
Daggers Posted 4 August 2008 Author Posted 4 August 2008 a populist choice With who? I've yet to speak to anyone who doesn't rank it as an act of gross stupidity. If it pans out I am prepared to go on record that this was the most audacious move English cricket has been crying out for and that I was always in favour of it.
SamL Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 I've voted no. Personally, I think we should just let him carry on the way he's going. Sometimes he plays as an individual rather than for the team which isn't the attitude a captain should have. On the other hand, some would argue that's what makes him play at his best. I don't think he should change the way he plays just because he's our captain. I don't think KP should be captain, but I struggle to see who else could be. The 2 main candidates would've been Flintoff and Strauss who have done it before. Flintoff is only just coming back from injury and Strauss is struggling for runs at the moment.
The People's Hero Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Bad move. You can't force responsibility in to someone by giving them the captaincy. He bats for himself, not for the team and I see this as a bizarre, bizarre move. I'd have probably brought in Rob Key and given him the captaincy.
dandannieldanok Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 I voted yes, I think he's the best man for the job.
James. Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 That said, it might instill a bit of discipline & sensibility in him so he won't do brainless things like his attempted 6 to bring up his century on Friday. Not exactly the mark of a team player when we were firmly in the shit. Disclaimer: I don't know that much about cricket. I'm against him being captain because I don't want him to become all sensible and disciplined. I don't want him to change his game. I don't want him to not go for the 6 because it's not the mark of a team player. Scoring f**k all runs is worse than trying to show flair in reaching 100. And there's a lot of other batsmen who are doing a good job of scoring f**k all isn't there. He's not the right man to be captain because he's one of few British (err, kind of) sportsmen who actually isn't afraid to express himself, even if he does make mistakes. If giving him the captaincy is going to change that (I'm not sure if it will) then I'm against it. If it doesn't change him then I see no problem. Surely a captain's greatest influence is in the field anyway, not when he's at the stumps.
Corky Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 It is a mistake him being captain. I feel that his batting will suffer as a result, which will hinder the team. Strauss would have been my choice. The toss will be interesting on Friday, Pietersen and Smith
surrifox Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 With who? I've yet to speak to anyone who doesn't rank it as an act of gross stupidity. If it pans out I am prepared to go on record that this was the most audacious move English cricket has been crying out for and that I was always in favour of it. I believe that the selectors are so out of touch that they believe this will be a popular choice - the best batsman in the side therefore he will cover any inadequacies in his tactical approach by the power of his own performances- the policy has never worked in the past why expect it to do so now? He has no experience of captaincy beyond a few one day efforts- largely undistinguished - but will take on that mantle as well - it will be a long old summer in 2009 against the aussies if we get this wrong. I also distrust the way that the selectors and management keep such an anonymous profile- Fletcher wasn't perfect but he had some success and was at least prepared to face the cameras and give an account of himself now and again it looks as if the current lot are too embarrassed to do so
surrifox Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Bad move.You can't force responsibility in to someone by giving them the captaincy. He bats for himself, not for the team and I see this as a bizarre, bizarre move. I'd have probably brought in Rob Key and given him the captaincy. I believe he would do a good job and is , by all accounts a very personable bloke and not an egotist like Pietersen but it would be hard to bring in someone who has been out of team for a while as captain . I believe he is worth a shot at replacing MV in the no.3 slot but with their customary addled thinking the selectors have gone for Bopara who is undoubtedly a good prospect as a future international player but probably batting at aroud 6/7 - shoving him in at 3 will probably see him kicked into the wilderness if he fails.
Ric Flair Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 The only reasoning I can come up with as to why this will work is because Pietersen appears to be one of those characters who has so much self belief in himself and stops at nothing to try and succeed. Although he's got his critics, his sort of personality might be what England needs as a captain, but it equally could be exactly what we don't need as well if it affects his batting and the rest of the motley crew. There's not really any stand out alternatives to Kev, other than Key as TPH mentioned, but that would be like Fabio Capello giving Nigel Reo-Coker the England's armband and we're not a Nation who make innovative decisions like that (not that i'd give Reo-Coker or any Under 21 current captain... fook it, you get my drift). Strauss has been fairly crap in the past year or so and doesn't get picked in 1 day matches, Flintoff's brief spell as captain wasn't great, but then again that was under extremely difficult circumstances. It will be interesting to see what happens. I don't think Pietersen's reign will be a distaster, but he's got a lot to live up to as Vaughan, for all the disappointments England have had, was a very successful captain for us over the 5 years given the doldrums the team were in, in the 90's before he took over.
The People's Hero Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 I believe he would do a good job and is , by all accounts a very personable bloke and not an egotist like Pietersen but it would be hard to bring in someone who has been out of team for a while as captain . I believe he is worth a shot at replacing MV in the no.3 slot but with their customary addled thinking the selectors have gone for Bopara who is undoubtedly a good prospect as a future international player but probably batting at aroud 6/7 - shoving him in at 3 will probably see him kicked into the wilderness if he fails. Bopara is pretty useful with the ball. I'm glad he's had a call up. I think Bopara, Shah and Key should be in the squad.
lildave3 Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Not for me, although I have no idea who should be.
Ultra Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Robert Key's proved that he's not good enough to play in a Test side, let alone captain one.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.