There has been a lot of discussion about the England captaincy, with the usual focus on the form of the captain fuelling the fire. Michael Vaughan’s one-day form has been unimpressive, with an average of only 20-odd, his place in the batting line-up has been a free wicket for opponents. Does this mean we should sack him? Well, no, I don’t think so.
The Ayalac minions have busily worked out criteria that could provide a competency test of the England role.
Scores will be given, out of ten in the following fields:
- Performance in tests.
- Performances in ODIs. All three disciplines are taken into account.
- Tactical awareness. Comprising innovation and nouse.
- Authority/leadership skills.
- Media management: how they deal with the press (out of five).
- Insight: what they say to the press (out of five).
These are some names that have been suggested for the job – I’ve also thrown in Kevin Pieterson because I have, in mad moments, pondered such a possibility. Judging by these numbers, he might be one to watch, too.
Strangely, and despite the heavy performance weighting, Vaughan comes out on top. This happens to the outcome that out-going coach, Duncan Fletcher, also favours. And in the terms of achieving stability and continuity in a notoriously unsettled role, this might not be a bad thing.
I would also suggest that England, if they are to change a captain, to do so in both versions of the game. England tried the two captains route a while ago: Michael Atherton took charge of the test team and Adam Holioke led the one-day side. It was a disaster. No one knew what was going on, and created further instability in the squad.
So, with this in mind, and the results of my scientific survey, it’s probably best to stick with Vaughan for another year or so. He’s a pretty good bowler, too. Keep him as an all-rounder. Stick in at number seven. No problem!