Something About Lightbulbs

As in how many England cricket captains does it take to change one?

Three apparently. Not content with doing what most other nations seem to do and have one, maybe two if you're a bit dysfunctional like Pakistan, captains covering all forms of the game, England have once again blazed a new trail (or plumbed a new depth depending on your outlook) and reshuffled their cards, appointing one captain for each form of the game. Incumbant Andrew Strauss retains his Test captaincy and is replaced by Alastair Cook in the ODI form of the game, having turned his back on the 50-over format after the recent World Cup. Young Stuart Broad gets the nod at T20 level, taking over from Paul Collingwood, who has become old and rubbish. Does this really make sense?

In a word, no. For a number of reasons. First of all - the nucleus of the squad is the same across all formats and does not chop and change as radically as other countries. Kevin Pietersen, Graeme Swann, James Anderson, Ian Bell, Matt Prior, Broad and maybe even Eoin Morgan now can be expected to play a role in all three teams. Jonathan Trott will play Tests and ODIs, Ravi Bopara both limited forms. If these guys are continually playing international cricket, it becomes very erratic when you are chopping and changing leader depending on the format of the game. If you are going to have continuity within the squad, surely it is better to have continuity in leadership as well - if you dilute the authority of one person down to three, surely that authority becomes somewhat lessened.

Then there is the choice of the captains themselves. Strauss' position cannot be called into question by any means - he has been a great success along with Andy Flower at the helm in the last two years, an Ashes triumph being the high point of all that hard work. And, despite some very decent form through the World Cup, if he wants to retire from ODI cricket to prolong his Test career, that's fine with me also. Test cricket is the pinnacle of the game and it is good to see one of it's finer players currently regarding it as such. Strauss is getting on a bit now and needs to cut down on his workload if he is to keep performing, so his retirement makes a lot of sense. Having Alastair Cook as his heir apparent in the Test match arena does so too - he was obviously outstanding in the Ashes and looked like a man on top of his game at the highest level. But is he the man for the ODI side? He led the side in Tests and ODIs in Bangladesh last winter and did OK, winning all the games and scoring runs, but looking a little unimaginative in the field when the likes of Tamim Iqbal chose to attack. Does he score quickly enough in ODI cricket? On current evidence, yes, although quick runs for Essex against the likes of Notts and the Unicorns don't necessarily translate to the international arena! Mind you, he will play a similar role to the man he is replacing up at the top of the order (Strauss) and will need a pinch hitter like Craig Kieswetter up there with him to get the side off to a flier in this modern age of powerplays and short boundaries.

A batting lineup can be built around Cook. But if there is uncertainty over his place in the side (and there inevitably will be), can you justify giving him the captaincy, whereby those around him may not believe he is the best player for his role and therefore not the best man to lead. It's a concern that I hold, but only time will tell to see if the players think similarly.

Finally there is Broad. A man with a temper and yet a man entrusted with the job of leading his country in the shortest form of the game, where there is little time to think and a cool head is required, so quickly can the tide turn. He is only 24 and has no experience of captaincy. Why now? I can see the reasoning, even if I don't agree with it. At the end of the day, despite being current world champions, England still view T20 as a bit of fun, less serious and with less riding on it than the longer forms of the game. Therefore it is the perfect arena for a man to learn the art of captaincy, so he can step up to the more serious roles when he is ready for them. In short, Broad may just be the man to lead his side in all forms in the future. But then he is only two years younger than Cook, who is infinitely more experienced in a captaincy capacity and who is probably more assured of his place in the Test arena. My only conclusion can be that Broad has been given the responsibility to "calm himself down" and to allow him to mature more quickly, so that when the scrutiny under which Cook finds himself in ODIs eventually becomes too much, Broad is readymade to take over. Cook can then concentrate on the Test job once Strauss packs it in. Simple enough when you think about it, but these things really ought not to have to be thought about quite so much.

My solution? Give Broad a bit more time to grow up and give Kevin Pietersen the job for all limited overs cricket. But that's just a whole new can of worms!
RM