The omission of captain Andrew Strauss from England's provisional 30-man squad for the ICC World Twenty20 tournament in June was not a surprise. National selector Geoff Miller has said that Strauss accepts he is "not comfortable" in the super-short format of the game.
Like it or not though, Twenty20 cricket now makes up a substantial part of the cricket calendar, both in the form of internationals and in domestic competitions like the Indian Premier League. Is there any place in the game these days for an England captain who is "not comfortable" with the twenty-over game?
Twenty20 cricket is taking over. All the big money is in the IPL, and the ICC seems intent on fitting as many Twenty20 matches and tournaments into the calendar. The argument that having a different captain in the 50-over game to the Test arena causes problems, as neither can truly stamp his authority on the team, may well become increasingly relevant to the 20-over format as well.
The foundation of success, not just in cricket but in any sport, is continuity in selection. Since 1985, the very successful Australia have had four permanent captains- Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting- and although they have had some periods where the captain of the ODI team has been different to the Test captain, there has always been a sense that the next captain is being groomed.
England's history of captains in the same period is very different and it is commendable that England have now decided to choose Andrew Strauss as captain in both Tests and ODIs, rather than attempting to juggle two captains. It is true that the Twenty20 window in the cricket calendar offers Strauss some respite from the stressful job, and England are not alone in making huge changes to their sides for Twenty20 competitions.
However, Ricky Ponting, captain of Australia, skippers the side in all three forms of the game. There is absolutely no confusion as to who is the leader and when Michael Clarke is forced to deputise, Australia are something of a different team. Conversely, Graeme Smith, captain of South Africa and who captained in his country's first few Twenty20 games, has not skippered the side in the super-short format for the last 15 months and in that period South Africa have nearly knocked Australia off their perch as the number one Test nation.
So is it just a case of Ricky Ponting and MS Dhoni being suited to the Twenty20 game, while other Test and ODI captains are simply "not comfortable"? It is hard to believe that Mike Atherton or even Nasser Hussein would have been good Twenty20 players, so perhaps one should not make a big deal of who is Twenty20 captain.
It has been shown in cricket history that it is not essential for an international side to have the same captain for all forms of the game, but there is a strong case that the same figurehead and leader across the board can improve the chances of success. The question is, should Andrew Strauss, who is "better suited" to longer forms of the game, captain the England Twenty20 side, not necessarily on merit but for the greater good?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Other than the fact that he cant get it off the square you make some valid points.
ReplyDelete