When Alastair Cook was named as England's new One Day International captain at the start of this summer, there was a sense of a new beginning. Andrew Strauss was relieved of his duties after a disappointing run of results which began with the ODI series in Australia at the beginning of 2011 and continued into the World Cup in India, resulting in humiliating defeats at the hands of Ireland and Bangladesh, as well as a quarter-final mauling by Sri Lanka.
It was no surprise then that Strauss fell on his sword, given his age and the fact he won't be around for the next World Cup. But what was a surprise perhaps was that Cook, who until his appointment was nowhere near selection into the ODI side on merit, was suddenly promoted to captain. Had he been a regular in the side then fair enough, but Cook wasn't even considered for the World Cup squad.
Cook, like Strauss, is a superb Test batsman, arguably in the best form of his life, but by making him captain of the One Day set up, isn't the ECB basically accepting that they see One Day cricket as a feeder programme for the Test side? And if that is the case, can England really hope to compete when the top ODI sides like Sri Lanka and India come to town? Are England not devaluing the One Day format by using it to blood new players and captains for Test cricket?
Cook is undoubtedly a future Test captain, and what the selectors have done is give him the ODI gig to gain experience of captaining a side, which he wouldn't otherwise be able to acquire. He couldn’t captain Essex, for example, due to England commitments. Fair doos, but having a non-specialist ODI opener in the side, just because he is the next Test captain, hardly augments the ODI side. You wouldn't add Craig Kieswetter to the Test side just to give him international experience for an ODI World Cup, now would you.
I personally don't believe it would have been to the detriment of the Test side if the ODI captaincy had been given to an established member of the ODI side. What about giving it to someone like James Anderson, who has been England's best bowler for years and has always been involved in ODI cricket. It would have provided a different dynamic to have a bowler as captain, perhaps resulting in more aggressive field placings when England are bowling.
Another issue is that with both Cook and Jonathan Trott in the top three, England now have two specialist Test batsmen at the top of the innings. Both players are in fine fettle in Test cricket, while Trott showed in Australia and during the World Cup that he could succeed in One Day cricket too. But having both in the line-up really does put pressure on Cook's opening partner, currently Craig Kieswetter, and the number four, currently Kevin Pietersen, to accelerate the run-rate from the off.
Personally, I liked the idea of Pietersen opening in the World Cup. I thought it was an aggressive move that showed England's intent from the off. England certainly scored plenty of runs in their first few World Cup games, before Pietersen withdrew through injury, most notably during that remarkable draw against India in Bangalore.
Bell has also been mooted as a possible opener, and had Cook not been appointed captain, either Bell or Pietersen opening with Kieswetter would have been a strong opening pair. That would also have cemented Trott’s position as England’s anchor at three – the Warwickshire batsman has an average of 50 at a strike rate of 80 in ODI's, let’s not forget.
Of course there is no way Cook will be dropped now. He has been given the job, and should be afforded time to make his mark. England have mixed things up by having a different captain for all three formats of the game, it's just a shame they didn't do that with the best interests of each individual format in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment