England Captaincy

Discussion in 'Sports, Adventure Training and Events' started by SCoy, Sep 12, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Obviously I realise that most of you have absolutely no interest in cricket. But for those of you who do, should Freddie have got the captaincy? I personally favour Strauss, since I think he will be more objective and has proven that captaincy does not affect his performance a la Hussain and Vaughan.
  2. Think you have to go with Freddie,he's everything the Aussies fear.To be honest if he had been fit enough I think we would have beat Pakistan in the one dayers as well.Strauss is good,very good,and comes across in interviews as a knowledgeable and astute captain.However FREDDIE ROCKS.Also being a bowler he has a better understanding of the bowlers needs during a hard test session.He will better recognise strengths and weaknesses in his bowlers and act accordingly.Our bowlers will win us the ashe's not the batters,and Freddie knows both trades,excellent choice for captain to retain the ashe's.
  3. Which is exactly why he shouldn't be skipper. When he skippered the side previously he had a tendacy to over use himself in the attack, you shouldn't have a frontline bowler as skipper. If he only bowled occasionally or focussed on his batting like Ronnie Irani then he should be captain.

    You've got to be able to skipper from ball-to-ball not over by over and IMHO you can't do that as a fast bowler.
  4. True about the bowling being the key - the batting looked ok this summer, though it was against an inferior attack.

    One of my fears with Freddie is that when the team is looking down the barrel, does he go on the attack, or try and play defensively? The Aussies like to domionate their opponents, hence why KP and Flintoff have had success against them in the past. If he now has to be 'responsible' (obviously he would not be expected to throw his wicket away, but could play his natural game) as captain, could that curtail his strokeplay?

    Agreed with the ball-by-ball captaincy, but on the otherhand, Flintoff would probably encourage his best mate Harmision more.
  5. Should have gone with Strauss. What the Australians fear is Flintoff's ability with bat and ball - not his captaincy.

    Whilst he did inspire a moral victory in the Indian series, his playing performances as captain are nothing like they should be. As a bowler, he can't be objective during his own overs and has too much to think about when England are in the field. Strauss, on the other hand isn't likely to be distracted by anything other than catching at 2nd slip.
  6. Should have been Strauss. Flintoff should go primarily as a batsman if he is to be captain and rarely bowl - as said before he does himself no favours by bowling himself into the ground.