Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 29th April 2007, 13:51   #81
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 42,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by collingwood5 View Post
Geez, I gotta give you credit MF, thats a very creative way to remove Colly from the Test side, you deserve some credit for that
I've been waiting for that comment for a few days now.

I have no desire to remove Collingwood from the test team. I was trying to find a creative solution to the problem of having two captains. Problems in the past have occurred when both captains are in both teams which leads to divided loyalties and tension. I thought an answer might be to make sure neither captain plays in the other format. Far from choosing to drop Colly from the test team, I thought he was possibly the best candidate to become one-day captain. He would have the kudos of captaincy of a potential winning side to set against no longer being a test match player. However, this is just me looking for ideas. Many people have pointed out that it is unworkable and others have suggested different captains.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2007, 13:54   #82
collingwood5
World Class
 
collingwood5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): England, Victoria, Collingwood
Posts: 6,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
I've been waiting for that comment for a few days now.

I have no desire to remove Collingwood from the test team. I was trying to find a creative solution to the problem of having two captains. Problems in the past have occurred when both captains are in both teams which leads to divided loyalties and tension. I thought an answer might be to make sure neither captain plays in the other format. Far from choosing to drop Colly from the test team, I thought he was possibly the best candidate to become one-day captain. He would have the kudos of captaincy of a potential winning side to set against no longer being a test match player. However, this is just me looking for ideas. Many people have pointed out that it is unworkable and others have suggested different captains.
I couldnt let you down

I reckon Vaughan needs to be removed of the captaincy as his last good series was before he got the captaincy, not sure if that is a coincidence or not

To me Colly seems like the perfect Test captain in the middle order
__________________
Paul Collingwood- Our Cricketing God
Englands first and only World Champion Captain!!!!!!!
There has never been a better English limited overs player
collingwood5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2007, 21:05   #83
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 43
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
I'm trying to demonstrate that it's you who is missing the point. If you can't tell us who should be in the team and hence who should captain then why are you indulging in this debate at all? You need to solve the problem of who captains the side in the context of selections that include no obvious captain as well as those that do. If the side without a clear choice as captain causes huge problems with the captaincy then it's not that great a side is it?

I know it's not the best England ODI XI, by the way. It's a long way from being the worst though.
So your basic arguement is we dont know the best side, but thats ok so we can pick the captain first.

Fine, so you agree that if we know the best side that should be picked first and then the captain. i am glad we agree in principle.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2007, 21:11   #84
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
So your basic arguement is we dont know the best side, but thats ok so we can pick the captain first.
No, my basic argument was that you're having a bit of a laugh suggesting we pick the side and then you'll nominate the captain. I can pick what I think the best side is. The problem is that it depends on what I'm optimising for. I'm inclined to optimise for minimum disruption to the test side with a bit of a nod towards improving the ODI side. My side above was picked with that in mind and assuming that Tres won't be fit (he comes in ahead of Cook if he is).

Quote:
Fine, so you agree that if we know the best side that should be picked first and then the captain. i am glad we agree in principle.
Again you seem to have misinterpreted what I'm saying. I'm saying that having the captain in mind while selecting a side is part of picking the best side. I do think that the best ODI side doesn't include Vaughan, although I'm not as critical of him as many. To be more precise, I think that the best ODI XI players don't include Vaughan and neither does the best ODI XI. Still, I'd be inclined to select him in the ODI side after the WI test series as long as he looks good enough as batsman and captain to deserve to stay in the test side. Nobody has yet to nominate a way of dealing with the two captains problem that has persuaded me out of that view.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2007, 16:16   #85
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 43
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
No, my basic argument was that you're having a bit of a laugh suggesting we pick the side and then you'll nominate the captain. I can pick what I think the best side is. The problem is that it depends on what I'm optimising for. I'm inclined to optimise for minimum disruption to the test side with a bit of a nod towards improving the ODI side. My side above was picked with that in mind and assuming that Tres won't be fit (he comes in ahead of Cook if he is).



Again you seem to have misinterpreted what I'm saying. I'm saying that having the captain in mind while selecting a side is part of picking the best side. I do think that the best ODI side doesn't include Vaughan, although I'm not as critical of him as many. To be more precise, I think that the best ODI XI players don't include Vaughan and neither does the best ODI XI. Still, I'd be inclined to select him in the ODI side after the WI test series as long as he looks good enough as batsman and captain to deserve to stay in the test side. Nobody has yet to nominate a way of dealing with the two captains problem that has persuaded me out of that view.
Thanks for clearing up what you do actually mean.

Now it is so much easier to say you are wrong. However you put it, and whatever inflection you put on it what you really mean is MV is not in the one day team but you would still pick him as captain. In other words pick the captain and then the team.

Why cant you just say what you mean instead of dressing it up in meanlingless bull****?
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2007, 16:45   #86
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
Thanks for clearing up what you do actually mean.

Now it is so much easier to say you are wrong. However you put it, and whatever inflection you put on it what you really mean is MV is not in the one day team but you would still pick him as captain. In other words pick the captain and then the team.

Why cant you just say what you mean instead of dressing it up in meanlingless bull****?
Because my opinion on the matter appears to be far more sophisticated than you seem to be able to understand.

While you do have a very clear opinion on the matter of picking the team then the captain, unfortunately, clarity is not necessarily the same as tactical and strategic sense.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2007, 17:26   #87
cabinboy
Posting God
 
cabinboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,717
I see absolutely no good reason why one person who is captain in one form of cricket has to be captain in another form. After all, Vaughan is playing for Yorkshire today and he ain't captain (in fact, he isn't necessarily a certain pick).

Nobody has ever said Vaughan is a bad captain in test cricket, yet his one day record as a player is awful and as a captain is mediocre at best.

Those people who say the test and ODI captain should be one and the same never produce any evidence to support their conclusions, apart from they 'think it's a good idea'.
cabinboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2007, 18:01   #88
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 43
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Because my opinion on the matter appears to be far more sophisticated than you seem to be able to understand.

While you do have a very clear opinion on the matter of picking the team then the captain, unfortunately, clarity is not necessarily the same as tactical and strategic sense.

Thinking your opinion and arguement is sophisticated is a very different matter from it actually been so.

Its not that I dont understand, its that your opinion is muddled, unconvincing and confused.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2007, 18:03   #89
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinboy View Post
I see absolutely no good reason why one person who is captain in one form of cricket has to be captain in another form. After all, Vaughan is playing for Yorkshire today and he ain't captain (in fact, he isn't necessarily a certain pick).

Nobody has ever said Vaughan is a bad captain in test cricket, yet his one day record as a player is awful and as a captain is mediocre at best.

Those people who say the test and ODI captain should be one and the same never produce any evidence to support their conclusions, apart from they 'think it's a good idea'.
FFS, just written a long and involved reply to this that got swallowed up.

Vaughan isn't captain for Yorkshire because he's never there.

Captaincy is not as simple as turning up, telling the bowlers to bowl and moving fielders now and again. It involves input into some or all of selection; strategic direction; training; development of the side and its players; support and politics. Some captains do very little of this, some rather a lot. A good captain is not as simple an entity as the extension of pre match tactical discussions onto the field. Split captaincy would necessarily reduce the authority of the test captain by giving his players and his side to a colleague. Vaughan knows this well because Nasser Hussain's test captaincy was undermined as much by Vaughan taking charge of the ODI side as by the Zimbabwe debacle in the 2003 WC.

I'm not actually saying that I think Vaughan should definitely stay as captain in both forms of the game. It depends on what direction the selectors want to take the side in and also on how important they think Vaughan will be in developing England over the next few years. What I am saying is that it's not as simple as cutting through what ea09 would charmingly call the bull****.

On Australia, I can think of at least one instance where the best XI was not selected before the captain. Mark Taylor stayed in the side through a run of form that would have seen him dropped if he'd merely been an opening batsman.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2007, 18:11   #90
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
Thinking your opinion and arguement is sophisticated is a very different matter from it actually beeing so.
A distinction I grasp. Still, if you'd displayed any sign of understanding what I was saying rather than attempting to reduce it to a simple formula, I'd not have used such a high handed approach.

Quote:
Its not that I dont understand, its that your opinion is muddled, unconvincing and confused.
If you think that you obviously didn't understand. If you want to make that case, try arguing it rather than summarily dismissing what I say. Sorry but if you can't actually be bothered to engage with the points I make then I'm not going to show your posts a great deal of respect.

By the way, just to be extra irritating, I've corrected your English for you.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2007, 18:14   #91
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 43
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
FFS, just written a long and involved reply to this that got swallowed up.

Vaughan isn't captain for Yorkshire because he's never there.

Captaincy is not as simple as turning up, telling the bowlers to bowl and moving fielders now and again. It involves input into some or all of selection; strategic direction; training; development of the side and its players; support and politics. Some captains do very little of this, some rather a lot. A good captain is not as simple an entity as the extension of pre match tactical discussions onto the field. Split captaincy would necessarily reduce the authority of the test captain by giving his players and his side to a colleague. Vaughan knows this well because Nasser Hussain's test captaincy was undermined as much by Vaughan taking charge of the ODI side as by the Zimbabwe debacle in the 2003 WC.

I'm not actually saying that I think Vaughan should definitely stay as captain in both forms of the game. It depends on what direction the selectors want to take the side in and also on how important they think Vaughan will be in developing England over the next few years. What I am saying is that it's not as simple as cutting through what ea09 would charmingly call the bull****.

On Australia, I can think of at least one instance where the best XI was not selected before the captain. Mark Taylor stayed in the side through a run of form that would have seen him dropped if he'd merely been an opening batsman.
This is an often believed mistake. It is precisely because the Australian test captain is not picked before the team that MTs place was under threat. In reality rather than a severe drop in form he had two poor series, having played 21 test series at a very high standard. Had he not scored a century in the first test against England he very probably would have lost his place and Waugh got the captaincy then.

This episode in Aus test history rather backs up the point of pick the team then captain as the very fact he nearly lost his place then is not what would have happened in other Countries. I repeat he had two poor series and your memory is of a run of poor form that should have had him dropped earlier. A opening bat of his experience and quality would have had the time to return to form, just as he did.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2007, 18:16   #92
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 43
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
A distinction I grasp. Still, if you'd displayed any sign of understanding what I was saying rather than attempting to reduce it to a simple formula, I'd not have used such a high handed approach.



If you think that you obviously didn't understand. If you want to make that case, try arguing it rather than summarily dismissing what I say. Sorry but if you can't actually be bothered to engage with the points I make then I'm not going to show your posts a great deal of respect.

By the way, just to be extra irritating, I've corrected your English for you.
Thats ok, the arts dont interest me. Soft options never did......
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2007, 18:26   #93
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
This is an often believed mistake. It is precisely because the Australian test captain is not picked before the team that MTs place was under threat. In reality rather than a severe drop in form he had two poor series, having played 21 test series at a very high standard. Had he not scored a century in the first test against England he very probably would have lost his place and Waugh got the captaincy then.

This episode in Aus test history rather backs up the point of pick the team then captain as the very fact he nearly lost his place then is not what would have happened in other Countries. I repeat he had two poor series and your memory is of a run of poor form that should have had him dropped earlier. A opening bat of his experience and quality would have had the time to return to form, just as he did.
That is not an interpretation of events that is widely believed. Given the quality of the Australian batsmen in reserve, I think Taylor might well have been dropped for two very poor series without the captaincy keeping him in the side. You are also factually wrong, or at least indulging in some slight distortion. Taylor averaged under 40 for each of the 4 series preceeding the 1997 Ashes (and indeed did so in the 1997 Ashes too) and under 20 for the latter 2 of those 4 (a 5 and a 3 test series). You could make the case that he'd have stayed in that Aussie side anyway on past record and it's hard definitively to prove you wrong but he was certainly in dropping form and was for a sustained spell.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2007, 18:32   #94
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
Thats ok, the arts dont interest me. Soft options never did......
Let's hope IGHOLS isn't watching. He'll have things to say.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2007, 18:45   #95
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 43
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
That is not an interpretation of events that is widely believed. Given the quality of the Australian batsmen in reserve, I think Taylor might well have been dropped for two very poor series without the captaincy keeping him in the side. You are also factually wrong, or at least indulging in some slight distortion. Taylor averaged under 40 for each of the 4 series preceeding the 1997 Ashes (and indeed did so in the 1997 Ashes too) and under 20 for the latter 2 of those 4 (a 5 and a 3 test series). You could make the case that he'd have stayed in that Aussie side anyway on past record and it's hard definitively to prove you wrong but he was certainly in dropping form and was for a sustained spell.

Which was my point, wasnt it. THe interpretation of the events was skewed because of the Aussie belief in picking the team and then captain.

Reality:

Working back before the Ashes:

vs SA (3 tests): Average 16
vs WI (5 tests): Average 17
vs Ind (1 test): Average 32
ALL 96/97 (ie the Aussie Summer before travelling to England) ie HE HAD ONE POOR SEASON AND PEOPLE STILL CALLED FOR HIS HEAD

vs SL (3 tests): Average 40
vs Pak (3 tests): Average 68
ALL 95/96

So, to clarify, the 'interpretation of events widely believed' was incorrect. He was not in a huge slump in form before he scored a 100 in the first Ashes test. He had had one poor season. They still questioned his place in the team and had he not scored that century he would in all likelihood have lost it. This is the Aussie attitude and quite right. Pick the team and then the captain. Not the captain and protect him at all costs.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2007, 01:24   #96
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
Which was my point, wasnt it. THe interpretation of the events was skewed because of the Aussie belief in picking the team and then captain.

Reality:

Working back before the Ashes:

vs SA (3 tests): Average 16
vs WI (5 tests): Average 17
vs Ind (1 test): Average 32
ALL 96/97 (ie the Aussie Summer before travelling to England) ie HE HAD ONE POOR SEASON AND PEOPLE STILL CALLED FOR HIS HEAD

vs SL (3 tests): Average 40
vs Pak (3 tests): Average 68
ALL 95/96

So, to clarify, the 'interpretation of events widely believed' was incorrect. He was not in a huge slump in form before he scored a 100 in the first Ashes test. He had had one poor season. They still questioned his place in the team and had he not scored that century he would in all likelihood have lost it. This is the Aussie attitude and quite right. Pick the team and then the captain. Not the captain and protect him at all costs.
Rounding up. Four series averaging under 40 and two averaging under 20, the latter two comprising 8 tests. Not dropping form for an Australian batsman? Well you can continue to claim that it wasn't but you can hardly say that there wasn't a case for dropping him, had he been purely a batsman. Who cares if it was just one season? It was a long season of very poor form.

I don't see how the interpretation of events could have been skewed by the Aussie policy such that people suddenly thought that the policy had been ditched because otherwise he should have been dropped, without that supporting my point. Perhaps I'm just not following what you're saying up top there.

So you would have dropped Nasser Hussain during his form slump and never picked Mike Brearley to captain England, or at least dropped him shortly after he got the job? When would you have dropped Vaughan for poor test form or would you select him for the first test (middle finger allowing)? Only oddly, you seemed to be arguing that he'd do well in the World Cup not terribly long ago.

Last edited by Fatslogger : 4th May 2007 at 01:27.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2007, 08:10   #97
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Vaughan isn't captain for Yorkshire because he's never there.
He's never been there for two years as our test captain either but....
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2007, 10:04   #98
cabinboy
Posting God
 
cabinboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
FFS, just written a long and involved reply to this that got swallowed up.

Vaughan isn't captain for Yorkshire because he's never there.

Captaincy is not as simple as turning up, telling the bowlers to bowl and moving fielders now and again. It involves input into some or all of selection; strategic direction; training; development of the side and its players; support and politics. Some captains do very little of this, some rather a lot. A good captain is not as simple an entity as the extension of pre match tactical discussions onto the field. Split captaincy would necessarily reduce the authority of the test captain by giving his players and his side to a colleague. Vaughan knows this well because Nasser Hussain's test captaincy was undermined as much by Vaughan taking charge of the ODI side as by the Zimbabwe debacle in the 2003 WC.

I'm not actually saying that I think Vaughan should definitely stay as captain in both forms of the game. It depends on what direction the selectors want to take the side in and also on how important they think Vaughan will be in developing England over the next few years. What I am saying is that it's not as simple as cutting through what ea09 would charmingly call the bull****.

On Australia, I can think of at least one instance where the best XI was not selected before the captain. Mark Taylor stayed in the side through a run of form that would have seen him dropped if he'd merely been an opening batsman.
Interesting development by the PCB, where they are going the oppositie direction and stripping such powers from the captaincy. In particular:

"The selectors will now finalise the playing XI for a home series."

Zakir said the captain would now be consulted by the selectors on all matters but they would have the final say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...an/6620745.stm

I suspect that the Schofield report will pretty much drive England in this direction as well. Though early indications suggest rather than invest the powers in the selection commitee, they will vest them in a manager's portfolio.
cabinboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2007, 12:06   #99
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
Thats ok, the arts dont interest me. Soft options never did......
Have you any interest in cricket then or are you just talking rhubarb to try and offend FS? That's a soft option if ever there was...
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2007, 14:37   #100
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Have you any interest in cricket then or are you just talking rhubarb to try and offend FS? That's a soft option if ever there was...
I was marginally wound up but not at all by the comment about arts. While I did study English at A level I did it for a bit of a laugh really because my main focus was on reading fantasy novels and sleeping errr maths, biology and chemistry.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org