Kevin Pietersen to be named Test AND One Day Captain

[Mendoza]

After suggesting it may happen, and getting mocked for saying so, it seems that Sky Sports News has been told that the ego that is Kevin Pietersen will be named England captain of both the test team and one day team

What do people think about that?

Is there a mirror big enough to fit the ego, and will his performances suffer as a result of the pressure of a South African being captain of England

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

That is a f***ing DISGRACE.

 

[Skaville]

He's more selfish than Leon Knight. Crazy (if true)

 

[Scoffers]

Good decision, you need something of an edge in character to succeed in my view. Vaughan was too nice, although tactically sound.

I think what is more important is what they do with the rest of the team, and how that balances out.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

The ONLY reasons in KP's favour:

He's our best player
If it transforms him like it did Beckham (granted, different sport) then we'll have one HELL of a player.
He's guaranteed a place in the teams anwa

BUT.
If it buggers his form with the bat then the team are F*CKED. Ashes next year, roll on the good old days of being buggered on home soil.
Tactically sound? Did you see that MENTAL shot the other day? The man is ego-driven - he's an individual, not really much of a team player. I can't really see him making key decisions in the field.

Silly. Should have made Bell captain and bought Key back.

 

[Silent Bob]

I don't see how he can be a bad choice as such, as there would seem to be few other options. Cook is the only one who is maybe a possibility, but he's young and still learning as a test player.

 

[Silent Bob]

BUT.
If it buggers his form with the bat then the team are F*CKED. Ashes next year, roll on the good old days of being buggered on home soil.
Tactically sound? Did you see that MENTAL shot the other day? The man is ego-driven - he's an individual, not really much of a team player. I can't really see him making key decisions in the field.

How can you say will being captain affect his form while also saying he is an ego monster? You can't really think both things, it doesn't make sense.

Also shot selection is not the same as tactics - tactics are field placements use of bowlers.

 

[dougdeep]

Why not? it's not as if we have many to choose from.

 

[Skaville]

I would have likes to have seen Bell, Key or Cook. The trouble is that every candidate has their flaws.

Vaughn was "too nice" - really? His "niceness" didn't prevent him being England's most successful captain ever.

 

[beorhthelm]

i may not know much about cricket, but there is a long history of good players turned to shit by being made England captain. too much distraction. I think a maverick such as Pietersen is the worst choice, doubt he has the tactical intelligence and will now play like shit every game.

 

[BensGrandad]

Awill his performances suffer as a result of the pressure of a South African being captain of England

I didnt stop the last SA - Tony Greig

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

How can you say will being captain affect his form while also saying he is an ego monster? You can't really think both things, it doesn't make sense.

Also shot selection is not the same as tactics - tactics are field placements use of bowlers.

It makes perfect sense - the captaincy is a distraction. He's FORCED to think about more than just himself, which could shoot US firmly in the foot.

Tactics are more than just field placements and use of bowlers. There's toss conditions to consider, batting orders and team 'tactics' if you like - e.g when to use a night-watchman/when to attack/when to defend. Shot selection comes into that - if Pietersen had been playing for the teams needs (pushing singles with the odd boundary, NOT getting out) rather than his needs (bring up 100 with a six, be Englands saviour) then we might have stood a better chance of getting something out of this test.

God, It would be nice if people didn't just disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing.

 

[Silent Bob]

i may not know much about cricket, but there is a long history of good players turned to shit by being made England captain.

But is there??

Vaughan turned to shit by being seriously injured and out of the game for many months (or at least that makes more sense than it being because he was captain - he was fine before that). Flintoff struggled with it but he was never the right choice or the right personality. Hussain, maybe. Who else?

 

[fatbadger]

Given how many tests he has now played, I still find it incredible that he rarely thinks of his team's match position when selecting his shots. He's a fantastic player, but without that maturity, he must not be made captain.

The problem, of course, is the lack of choice. Strauss would be my choice, but he is arguably a little conservative. Cook cannot be sure of a place in the team yet, although he is a very good thinker about the game and thus a future captain if he can hold down his place. Choosing Flintoff would be fine by me, and many others, but not by a lot of the blazers. So who else?

Glad to see Vaughan out. Get Broad in; batting him at no.7 means moving everybody else up the order (what is Flintoff doing at 7?), and it also means 5 strike bowlers (so neither Flintoff nor Panesar are over-used).

 

[Silent Bob]

Tactics are more than just field placements and use of bowlers. There's toss conditions to consider, batting orders and team 'tactics' if you like - e.g when to use a night-watchman/when to attack/when to defend. Shot selection comes into that - if Pietersen had been playing for the teams needs (pushing singles with the odd boundary, NOT getting out) rather than his needs (bring up 100 with a six, be Englands saviour) then we might have stood a better chance of getting something out of this test.

Any batsmen can play a poor/stupid shot though, I agree he went for glory, but not just out of ego, having seen the way he's played Harris throughout this series I think he did believe it was there to hit. And looking at his reaction he was as annoyed with himself as anyone, which suggests to me he will learn from it.

 

[Billy the Fish]

It could go either way this one. It will either make him a better player by making him think about the teams needs rather than his own, or it will be a disaster and the pressure will ruin his game like others before him.
I don't agree with the theory that he is tactically inept. Vaughan himself has said in the past that Pietersen is willing to chip in with suggestions during matches, that must count for something, and he did ok against the Kiwis. Also I think the 'ego' slurs are overblown, if you read interviews with him he always comes across really well. Personally I'm happy with the choice, but I would've been equally happy had they chosen Strauss. At the end of the day all the candidates have pros and cons and KP is as good a pick as any of the others.

 

[Tooting Gull]

While it's fair to say there is no flawless, stand-out candidate, I think appointing Pietersen would be, in the long run, a big mistake.

I would instantly put Pietersen in the same bracket as previous star players like Botham and Flintoff whose own incredible matchwinning abilities were undermined by handing them the captaincy. The Flintoff experiment was so painful in Australia, and so recent, I can't believe they're even thinking about it.

I don't see why they have to rush the decision and make it tomorrow. Personally I'd make Strauss the captain for the final Test, bring in Key at the Oval as a batsman, and if he gets runs make the decision between him and Strauss.

Key was unlucky to get dropped by England in the first place, and is doing a great job as Kent captain. I see him as a sort of Grizzly figure, only nine years younger and I think he'd have the character to be able to captain Pietersen - not easy.

Cook is too young, and while Strauss would be the safe choice he just doesn't seem quite the same player as a few years ago.

 

[dougdeep]

Still, whoever we pick, we'll still lose.

 

[beorhthelm]

But is there??

it was a while ago but there was a stat in the paper or on C4 (a while ago like i say) that showed the batting averages of captains nosediving once taking over, going back a long time.

i gather the real problem facing England is selectors and their politics and a general lack of forward planning in bringing players through or indeed identifying captains of the future. not much different to Football problems really, only a criket captain does far more than in Football, and picking the top scorer doesnt work as it just distracts them from what they are good at. it stikes me that it would be better to bring in a highly tactically aware but not necessarily great scoring captain rather than rely on picking a captain from the pool of best players, if you see what i mean.