Alistair Cook's (woeful) captaincy

[Rayr27]

Evening all. Long time lurker, 1st time poster. Having sat through day 2 of the 4th Test with face well and truly palmed I feel I need to get this off my chest:

Alistair Cook is an abysmal captain.

Having watched pretty much all of this series so far I'm quite convinced that the reason the teams look so evenly matched (Aus even superioir in the last 2 games if I'm honest) is beacuse of the captaincy. Where Clarke is attacking, decisive and refuses to let the game drift Cook is unable to see beyond his mechanical devotion to England's all out pragmatism approach. His field placings and bowling changes today have nearly made me lose it. Chris Rogers had a deep backward square out from the point he reached around 12. Why? No one bowled anything short at him all day and the one pull he played missed the fielder by miles. Warner had a man out for his 1st ball! Lunacy. Not giving Broad a short leg when he asked for one at 12/2. Why? In fact, why was there not one in anyway? SL is not just a catching position, it stops a batsman playing outside the line to smother movement as Rogers was clearly doing early on. Why would you not have one in those conditions when you need wickets!?! This is really basic stuff. And don't even get me started on bowling Trott. What in god's name was that about?

This is just the lastest installment of a year long saga though. From being tricked into bowling 1st by McCullum's comments to the press in the 3rd Test in NZ to goign in to panic mode against SA at 89/8 because one of their tail hit a six! Not to mention his coup de grace in the CT final where he looked like a rabbit in the headlights and sat on the balcony after getting out exuding a look of sheer terror to every batsman who went past. Great leadership that! At OT, with Aus 430-7 and a bit of momentum gained, knowing they needed to get big runs quickly to have a chance of winning does he put some pressure on and make them take some risks? Don't be silly. Starc plays one slog off Swann and it's 5 men back on the fence and let them put on 97 in no time in 1s and 2s not even having to loft the ball or take chances.

Beyond the context of individual matches and series, England's stated aim is to be No.1 for a sustained period. This simply can't be done without being able to dominate teams, look at SA now, Aus in the 90s and 00s, WI in 70s/80s, relentless, attacking, intimidating teams. You need to create a psycholgical edge over teams so that when they're ahead of you they fear the backlash and when you're ahead they see no way back. That's how you maintain the upper hand even when you're not quite at your best. That doesn't happen by sitting back and waiting for a mistake.

I guess my final gripe is the fact that an entire commentary team made up pretty much exclusively of ex-England captians refuses to address this elephant in the room. Sadly I fear that won't change until the day comes when we lose th urn. Something does need to be said though.

Anyway, I do feel better now. If you made it to the end, thanks for your time!

 

[barmyarmy]

He's certainly a very negative captain with his field placing and pace when England bat. Yesterday England struggled with the bat thanks to tight fields; today Cook had 2 on the boundary very early (even when they were 4 down) and allowed 1s and 2s to be taken without difficulty.

I've accepted that he's a new captain and learning his trade (was never a county captain either) but it's a real concern how he goes about the job. The ECB missed a trick in not giving the gig to Swanny. I'm starting to think that he's an even worse captain that Flintoff was.

 

[angryangy]

He had that classic century paradox going on for Rogers; suddenly concerned about letting him get a hundred with singles, the game was quite tight for many overs. It's not that they never looked like getting him out, just that it was obviously the best way to exert pressure.

----------

I guess my final gripe is the fact that an entire commentary team made up pretty much exclusively of ex-England captians refuses to address this elephant in the room.

They do question the decisions. They talked at great length about short leg, how England would never have one first ball and how Cook doesn't put one in even when Broad asks for it.

I think they're just not going to say that it is outright terrible captaincy.

 

[Haarithan]

The ECB missed a trick in not giving the gig to Swanny.

Thank you. A million times this!

 

[MUFC1987]

Cook's just a carbon copy of Strauss. I think they're both very 'stats-driven' as Captains. By that I mean they'll analyse players a lot and if they score a lot of runs through a certain area, then a man will go on the boundary there, no matter what the match situation is. It's hard to tell whether it's a plan by Cook, or just what he's told to do by the management. I would totally agree though that he doesn't think outside the box and seems unable to adapt to conditions and the match situation.

I think we'd all love a more creative and inventive Captain, but I think it can also go wrong, that's why we tend to stick to the boring choice, rather than going with someone like Swann maybe.

 

[Rayr27]

They do question the decisions. They talked at great length about short leg, how England would never have one first ball and how Cook doesn't put one in even when Broad asks for it.

I think they're just not going to say that it is outright terrible captaincy.

That's a fair point actually Beefy did get on one about it. Had forgotten that. They did stop short of a direct criticism of Cook though.

With regards to the Strauss comments, he was never quite this bad, I don't recall him ever telling one of his strike bowlers where to go when asked for an extra catcher when the ball was jagging all over the shop. He also seemed to have the man management side of it down. Where I sense a lot of complacency in the team currently.

Agreed about Swann too. Broad or Prior wouldn't have been bad options either (though I suppose Broad was badly out of form when the decision was made). All 3 seem to have good attacking insincts. Though perhaps best not to give Broad the captain's say in the use of reviews...

 

[Dutch]

Opening myself up to a flame job here but I would have loved to have seen how KP would have developed as a captain had he been able to keep his big mouth shut at the right times.......we have certainly lost a lot of inventiveness and spontaneous decison making......there are gameplans but there is no plan b if the gameplan isnt working........

 

[barmyarmy]

I don't think of KP as a smart player; more of an ego one. It might have raised his game personally but not sure it would be right for the team (plus Swann, Anderson and Broad all loath him).

 

[Dutch]

I don't think of KP as a smart player; more of an ego one. It might have raised his game personally but not sure it would be right for the team (plus Swann, Anderson and Broad all loath him).

Agreed but i think we analyse things too much. I like Clarkes way of trying things out, mixing things up......Australia are groing stronger and stronger and we are just standing still.....they are adapting and we are just sticking to rigid gameplans.......plus the fact that the batsmen are not outting enough on the board for the bowling game plans to have enough time and chance to develop.......

 

[Owzat]

He's certainly a very negative captain with his field placing and pace when England bat. Yesterday England struggled with the bat thanks to tight fields; today Cook had 2 on the boundary very early (even when they were 4 down) and allowed 1s and 2s to be taken without difficulty.

I've accepted that he's a new captain and learning his trade (was never a county captain either) but it's a real concern how he goes about the job. The ECB missed a trick in not giving the gig to Swanny. I'm starting to think that he's an even worse captain that Flintoff was.

It's handed down captain to captain over the years. England look great and positive when things are going their way, but the measure of the side and captain equally are when the chips are down, and England tend to go on the defensive very very quickly.

I remember an ODI some years ago, the aussies needed seven an over back in the days when that was quite an ask, yet they cruised home without much trouble at all. Must have been the 2nd ODI in 1993 by the looks of it.

England set Australia 278 to win off 55 overs, yes folks, back then there were still 55 over matches outside of the World Cup. Boon was out at 95/3, I am almost 100% certain the required rate was very quickly 7+ per over, England had no answer. As I recall the 1s and 2s were there for the taking, only 36 of Border's 86no were in boundaries, only 32 of Waugh's 113 in boundaries, yet both scored at around 90 runs per hundred balls.

By the time Border came to the crease, the three men dismissed had scored only 61 runs between them and taken 1/3 of the balls to be bowled in doing so.

----------

Opening myself up to a flame job here but I would have loved to have seen how KP would have developed as a captain had he been able to keep his big mouth shut at the right times.......we have certainly lost a lot of inventiveness and spontaneous decison making......there are gameplans but there is no plan b if the gameplan isnt working........

I'm not a fan of making superstar players come primadonnas captain, for one I think their egos are quite big enough already TYVM. And secondly I'd want them to focus on their game, best example being the Ashes transformation of a certain ITB who had the series dedicated to him in honour of what he did after he was displaced from the captaincy.

I don't think Flintoff as captain worked, or indeed Pietersen. I don't blame Flintoff for the whitewash, I still back his decision to declare at 551/6, the aussies were 65/3 and but for a donkey drop by the donkey Giles, it would have been four down and well on the way to a win. As it was we still had a 1st innings lead, we didn't lose because of the declaration, we mainly lost because you don't get bowled out for 129 and not lose (many)

24.2 Hoggard to Ponting, 1 run, dropped! Short, pulled but Ponting didn't get over it and Giles, at deep square leg, spills one above his head, He got both hands to it but never really left the ground with his jump. As the crowd jeer, Giles hangs his head

Ponting was 35no at the time, only made another 107 runs. Still don't feel Flintoff was a good enough captain, but sometimes it doesn't matter what you do as captain.


I've liked openers as captains (Gooch, Taylor etc), if not openers then down the order stalwarts like Border and Clarke. Doesn't mean being one of the two makes a good captain. I think another problem with England's choices is they tend to be "grooming" players for captain rather than picking the best man for the job.

----------

Agreed but i think we analyse things too much. I like Clarkes way of trying things out, mixing things up......Australia are groing stronger and stronger and we are just standing still.....they are adapting and we are just sticking to rigid gameplans.......plus the fact that the batsmen are not outting enough on the board for the bowling game plans to have enough time and chance to develop.......

Arjuna Ranatunga was infamous for trying things, never letting the game drift. Sometimes you can let something drift, even keep a player who's done little and it pays off, but you don't win many games by not taking wickets and I doubt he liked the concept of "containment" which England are happy to resort to all too quickly.

 

[barmyarmy]

I definitely agree that England have had a long line of negative captains. Vaughan was just as bad.

 

[Chief]

I disagree with much of this. "Negative" ("Stoic"/"Unflappable"/"Rigid") has helped to put England 3rd in both Test and ODI rankings (with dalliances higher than that in the recent past.)

It DOES mean that we are a little lacking if the opponents play unexpectedly, but I think that overall the results under the sort of leadership we've had for the past 10 years is what has seen us take 3 Ashes Series back-to-back after being dominated over for so long and be one of the best sides in the world. Yes, we've had a good crop of players come through, but I think it plays to their strengths.

 

[dancingmongoose]

Cook just has no idea what to do when the opposition gets the upper hand.

 

[Chief]

Cook just has no idea what to do when the opposition gets the upper hand.

Oh I agree. My point is that, overall, so long as they don't, then the results speak for themselves.
Only the SA series last year (and that India ODI in the Champion's Trophy in particular) stand out as sides that have been able to take advantage of that.

 

[Rayr27]

I definitely agree that England have had a long line of negative captains. Vaughan was just as bad.

I'd dispure that. I think Vaughan was the most tactically astute captain England have had in the last 20 years (not that there's much competition). In 2005 he got most things spot on. Bowling changes at Edgbaston on the Saturday afternoon were soemthing to behold. (As was the decision to stick a short leg in to stop Ponting smothering the movement - take note Mr Cook!)

Sadly I do have to agree with Owzat that by the numbers captaincy does seem to be a very English thing. Having played a bit of club cricket it always seemed that anyone trying to be inventive as a captain was seen as 'taking it all a bit too seriously'. Plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that it's an attitude that is prevalent in a lot of county dressing rooms too. Have watched the likes of Clarke, McCullum and Dhoni turn games this summer with more than a little envy.