Blame the captain

Time for the nation's favourite game: scapegoat-hunting. And after the mess at Headingley, when England barely competed for more than a session at a time, it is appropriate that the more hysterical sections of the media should go looking for someone to blame. Intriguingly, attention is turning less on the fair dinkum Aussie who was surprisingly selected out of nowhere (he did, after all, take twice the wickets of either Broad or Flintoff) and instead the ire is being poured on the captain.

Is Michael Vaughan still worth his place in the side as either batsman or captain? I'd venture a no to the former (as Pablo has pointed out in the comments to an earlier piece, his average is below 30 in the past 11 Tests) and a yes to the latter. Although I admire Andrew Strauss as a captain and think that he should have been in charge for the last Ashes, Vaughan does offer a certain invention and motivational inspiration more often than not.

On the flip side, his own coach seems to have turned on him. Peter Moores was quoted earlier as saying that it was Vaughan who decided that Darren Pattinson should play ahead of Chris Tremlett. Given that Moores is renowned for giving as much away in press conferences as a tub of curdled yoghurt, it is interesting that he should suddenly develop an opinion. Is all not well in the dressing room?

Should Vaughan survive until the winter, he will become England's most-capped captain, passing Michael Atherton's record. With due respect to our revered cricket correspondent, who won 13 of his 54 Tests as captain (he could only play with the cards he was dealt), I'd suggest that Vaughan (26 wins in 50 Tests) has been a far bigger success. He deserves a fully supported run through to the Ashes next summer. But what do you think?

And where else do England need to make changes for the third Test? Should Broad be recast as a No 6 all-rounder? Has Ian Bell reverted to type again? Is Tim Ambrose really better than Matt Prior (or the oft-forgotten James Foster)? Answers by the usual channels...

Online Surveys & Market Research

Comments

[Neil Turner]

It's all irrelevant.
Cricket here is an old boy's club. Selectors and captains choose from players they like. Form has nothing to do with it. If it did, why are players from the top of the averages not playing?

[Rob]

This would be my selection:

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan (C)
Pietersen
Bell/Key
Prior (wk)
Flintoff
Broad
Sidebottom
Harmison/Jones
Panesar

[Simon]

Rusty : 24 Jul : 02.21.50

"I can't help but wonder if the Ashes 2005 was the worst thing to ever happen to modern English cricket."

A bit like World Cup 1966 was for English football, you mean.

I suppose the answer lies in the effect success or failure has on the English psyche. You could argue that 2005 should have been the perfect springboard for England to be a world-class team for a number of years. God knows, they'd been focused and professional enough for 2-3 years before 2005, and it was this approach, coupled with the Australians not firing on all cylinders, that allowed the Ashes win to occur.

But did 2005 inspire them to move on to greater things? Did it hell. They'd won the beauty contest they'd all put in a few years of hard work and dedication to prepare for, so now too many of them became the Big I Ams, with nothing further to prove; nothing of any importance to work for.

Would an Australian or a South African or a New Zealander have been respected in their countries for doing this? Would any of them have even thought about doing it in the first place? I think they'd be more concerned about what comes next, rather than what's just gone.

[anon.]

In regards to the Simon Jones question, he was rested in the CC game against Middlesex - having recent played Glamorgan in the CC, a game in which he wasn't particularly noticable - and was also rested against Notts in the pro40. The decisions that have been made were purely precautionary, and the injuries he has suffered in the past have not affected his recent bowling - shown by his figures in the competition. To select him would by folly, particularly considering we have a winter tour in the subcontinent. Worcester aim to take Jones through to September, uninjured, and therefore it would seem a wiser decision to wait until next year before serious considerations are made about a recall.

In regards to Vaughan, he is undoubtedly a great player to watch, which may possibly be the reason for many supporting his position in the team. Personally I would bat him lower down. He is a rather proactive captain, and aging, hence there may be a possibility that he isn't in the best possible mental state to bat at 3. Whether the solution is to bring in a number 3 for a bowler, and knock Vaughan down, or shuffle the order is another matter.
Unfortunately there isn't a great deal of competition for the place. Collingwood had a decent innings in the pro40, which was then followed by an 8 in the same competition and a score of 2 in a T20, and suddenly everyone forgets he is averaging less than 10 in test matches this year. Let's not also forget that the vast majority have been played against a bowling attack which is undoubtedly inferior to the one we are facing now.

Another candidate, Shah, also failed to get the selector's attention with two scores of less than ten in the match against Worcester.

For Key, I cannot comment.

[dude]

1)Cook
2)Strauss
3)Key
4)Pieterson
5)Bell
6)Prior
7)Flintoff
8)Broard
9)Jones
10)Sidebottom
11)Monty
Vaughn is not scoring and Key is underrated and is the best batsman in county cricket now.
Proir at 6 as he is good enough with the bat with an average over 40 in test cricket with flintoff at 7 and broard at 8. plenty of runs
Jones for anderson as jones will get wickets were anderson fails and is handy with reverse swing

[Barbara Speakman]

Replace Vaughan with Collingwood

[Rusty]

You must admit, Peter McG, that it is so entertaining the way the Poms endlessly reveal their desperate envy of us, even resorting to a bit of Ponting-bashing when they can't think of what else to have a go at (see Will's comment).

But clutching at straws like the temperamentally-unfit Harmison (who may feel like it on the day - or he may not) shows how much they live still in the past. I surprised someone hasn't called for Trescothick? .... Oh, yes, they have!

I can't help but wonder if the Ashes 2005 was the worst thing to ever happen to modern English cricket. They just can't stick with having one unchanged team and working on it, nurturing it, building it and making it a cohesive unit.

They keep hoping for one-off glory days - Fred or Vaughny or Jonesy or Hoggy or Harmy - to save the day, rather than seriously addressing their current reality.

So, Roll on Ashes 2009!

[Peter McGuinness]

Great to see so many responses about a purely cricketing matter.

Here's some fundamental psychology to chew on. Although everyone suggesting that Figjam should play at #3 are perfectly correct, there is little prospect of it happening permanently. His galactic sense of entitlement would not allow it.

'No point risking the universe's best ever batsman against the new ball, with the crap openers we have'.

Of course this is bullsh*t. The best batsman should bat at 3. The perception of #3 as a defender rather than as an attacker has disrupted India over the years no end, and it will disrupt England for as long as Figgy shies away from the responsibility. The fall of the first wicket is an opportunity to set the tone of the innings for both teams. Hiding the best player is shrinking from the challenge.

Figgy would take the baby-wipes to his Three Lions ink job and stamp on a new Protea before he'd risk his beautiful average, one feels.

Can he change, deep down? England's long term fate depends on it.

[Josh]

Do you think Pietersen could learn to keep wicket? He sees the ball well enough...

Or maybe Flintoff should stop messing around with the bowling that's keeping him out of the side injured most of the time. We all know he can catch a bit.

Vaughan must stay captain as long as there's no other brilliant captain to replace him. He may be out of form as a batsman these days, but his captaincy is worth a couple of centuries over the course of a series, even compared to someone very good like Collingwood.

England have strength in bowlers; now they need to turn it into consistency. That means picking a squad of 6-8 bowlers and choosing between them depending on the match prospects. Let's not forget that this was a batting failure, though, rather than a bowling or captaincy failure - and just one of them, not a long string.

[Johnny]

Personally I don't see any viable alternatives as captain to Vaughan - I think they should start grooming cook for the role, but he's not ready yet.

The team for the last test was wrong - I think sending Ambrose in at 6 ahead of Fred was a concession that we only had 5 specialist batsman in the team and that we don't have any faith in Fred's batting anymore

Although the personnel are the same I think a better batting order would have been:

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pieterson
Bell
Flintoff
Broad
Ambrose
Anderson
Panesar
Pattinson

With a keeper at 8, and not as much focus on getting runs, we really ought to pick our best keeper i.e. not Ambrose

Sid can replace Patto once fit

[Rob HAYNE]

To each of the English selectors known for thou astuteness - please do NOT and I repeat, do NOT bring back Hoggard, Harmisson, Simon Jones. Gentlemen, it would just not be cricket for our Protea boys not to be dished up a nice doughy serving of pies; after all, Biff likes his helping well pastried! If you really have to tinker, how about asking Makhaya to perhaps swop allegiances or even Paul 'Big Turner' Harris. Now there's a good chap.

[gopal srinivas]

Patrick....It's incorrect to compare Atherton's Captaincy against Vaughan's..

All Vaughan's winnings are against minnows like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and new regrouping teams like the West Indies or New Zealand..

More over Atherton had a great Charisma...and gentlemanly too like the Old brigade of Compton , Bedser , Dexter ,etc...

The present team is a show -off only and hence poorer in the results .

I would not pay a penny to watch the present team and the person mainly responsible for this sorry state is its Captain

[Jim]

I'm somewhat dismayed to see so many people keen to drop Anderson. His performances so far this series (and indeed this summer) have been impeccable.

And does anyone know if Simon Jones is even fit at the moment? He isn't playing in Worcestershire's current county match.

Still, it's not all bad news. Big G is so confident of England winning that he thinks we only need ten players...

[Richard, Nottingham]

"Should Vaughhan relinquish the capataincy ? " is the wrong question.

The correct question is, should Michael Vaughan be dropped from the England team (& squad) ?. To which the correct answer is YES !!

As a batsman at 1/2/3/4 he simply isn't up to it. How many times do we have to witness it before the selectors realise it.

[baz]

I would play Broad at 4 or 5 and drop Vaughan down the order. There isn't a captain who could take his place in the England side, either in the side or out of the side, so I'd propose he does a Lara and Tendulkar and bats no 6. My 12 are:

Cook
(oh how I'd love to pick Trescothick!)Strauss
Bell (or Ramps if you want a truly left-field pick)
KP - although I think he should be given a hefty kick up the bum and told to start playing for England and not for KP!
Broad
Vaughan
Flintoff
Prior
Jones
Sidebottom
Harmison
Panesar

and to be honest I'd make Flintoff 12th man: he may not be quite fit enough yet but his presence in the dressing room is missed.

[Aussie Dave]

As an outsider from the other side of the world I've been intrigued by the over analysis of England's abysmal past test and a half. Even more amazing have been some of the suggested teams for the Third Test. Chris Broad at no.6? He has a first class average of 26 and a top score of 91 and people want to play him as a batsman? If you don't have a better batsman for no.6, it's time to start organising a tour of Zimbabwe because you won't beat anyone else. Here's an Aussie's commonsense guide to picking a test team. 1. Pick your best six batsmen. 2. Pick the wicket keeper who provides the best balance between keeping and batting. 3. Pick your best four bowlers (ideally three pacemen and a spinner but quality is more important than what they bowl). 4. If any of your bowlers can bat or any batsmen can bowl its a bonus and should be treated as such. They need to concentrate on the primary role (ie: choose Flintoff - if fit - as a bowler and let him bat at 7 or 8 where opposing teams will hate confronting such a handy batsman). 5. Choose your captain from the named 11. 6. When in doubt, keep it simple.

[Jonathan]

Vaughn's form has been an issue for some time. There can be no doubt about his ability as a captain. Here we now have an issue similar to that of the Mike Brearly era; MB had great talent around him that had big egos that he managed to a T. MV doesn't have the talent around him to support his poor run, thus leaving more vulnerable to this type of chatter.
I think the one plus MV has over MB is that he will hit form again, and on his day truly is a sublime batsman and a joy to watch!

[Dick Gill]

How about Strauss (capt.), Cook, Bell, pieterson, broad, prior, flintoff, sidebottom, anderson, harmison and Panesar.
Broad as batsman and half a bowler, Flintoff as bowler and half a batsman. I agree with Rob above about prior but he can sure bat.

[Big G]

1 Cook- Patience + Temprement
2 Vaughan- Put him on the spot and ask him to show his worth.
3 KP- Ditto. Stop showing off and knuckle down.
5. Bell
6. Prior (w/k)
7. Flintoff
8. Sidebottom
9. Jones
10. Hoggard
11. Panesar

[JAMIE]

The fact is that Vaughan is very out of form. He is moving his feet in an unorthodox way the moment he strikes the ball and he does not appear to be able to pick up the line of the ball when delivered by a tall quick. He needs time out in the middle which he will only get if he goes back to the county scene. He is a great captain and he will be needed back for the Ashes.

[Peter McGuinness]

My dear, long suffering Pommy mates,

It is morbidly fascinating for an Australian cricket lover to witness the pure torture England selectors insist on putting you unfortunate bastards through year after year after year.

You do realise Rob's team makes too much sense don't you? It's way, WAY too simplistic to pick your best players. No, no, no, nooooooo. The team for England must be selected craftily, using arcane criteria designed to befuddle the opposition with a sly slight of hand.

There are certain prerequisites of course. At least three non-Englishmen are mandatory. Specialist Number Three Batsmen in career-best form are strictly forbidden. All English #3's must be reluctant. The best batsman in England must not play at #3. Ever.

'Ability to Catch' is number 7 in the list of wicketkeeping priorities. 'Team Motivator' tops the list. 'Forward Defence' comes in at number 5 behind 'Loud Voice', 'Reverse Sweep' and 'Vaudevillian Facial Expressions'.

At least one fast bowler should be carrying a severe underlying leg or back injury. One change bowler must have a county bowling average of between 40.00 and 59.00. A left arm orthodox bowler must be selected irrespective of the ability to take wickets.

At least two, but preferable four players in the team should hate each other's guts.

A Captain may not be retained for more than 4 consecutive series. Captaincy and match-winning play are prohibited from manifesting themselves in the same personage.

And these rules are just the start. Bloody tough job, selecting the English cricket team. If it was as easy as selecting your best players, any mug could do it.

Got to keep it tricky you see. Keeps the opposition off guard.

Until this Test Match, I thought that the selection of Giles and Jones for Brisbane and Adelaide in '06 was the summit of stupidity. This game has proven that I still have much to learn about English cricket, despite my avid studentship.

One day, I truly hope these peculiar Pommy selection traditions are cast off once and for all. Say...sometime in 2010? Lovely.

[John Ross]

Give KP the job as Captain,continue to play Pattinson,get Rodney Marsh back as a selector,talk Alan Lamb & Tony Greig out of retirement,then leave no stone unturned in an effort to find anyone in the country that looks like an Australian,plays cricket like an Australian & to all intensive purposes is an Australian, so they can be selected in the England cricket team !

[mike moore]

I think Vaughan should remain in the England Test team as its leader until after the next Ashes series. Australians love England having a non-playing captain. Mike Moore, Hervey Bay, Queensland.

The way Pattinson's been treated has been a disgrace. From Gooch and Hussain with their Aussie chip firmly on shoulder to Vaughan talking about unity. Surely its his job to bring the team together when 1 new player enters. Talk of unity..how many keepers have they changed in the past 2 years?
or maybe he should look at his own and form and other batters as a reason they lost.
Pattinson was hung out to dry through no fault of his own, the english media should take a look in the mirror first.

[selector]

England do not need a new Captain they need some steel.
Pietersen needs to be at 3 with Vaughan at 4. Collingwood is a gritty player who is respected and rolls the sleeves up. Against NZ in the last test when needed he produced.
Simon Jones is the bowler England need just like Collingwood he is a player the opposition would prefer not to see.
Fintoff averages 32 with bat & ball after 68 tests, this does not make him the special player he is made out to be. He has one chance left and Stuart Broad is waiting.
Harmison and Jones are the best TEST bowlers in England, Anderson is average at best and Broad is a better long term prospect.

Cook
Strauss
Pietersen
Vaughan
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose
Sidebottom
Jones
Harmison
Panesaar
12th man: Stuart Broad