England Cricket / Andrew Hughes / 07 January 2009 /

When England appointed a man who was unpopular in the dressing room and had no captaincy credentials, Andrew Hughes was one of the few dissenting voices. The right appointment must now be made - let's hope the ECB are reading.

I hate to say I told you so but....

Some of the doubts about the Pietersen captaincy were listed in this column before the India series. Now that it has ended, somewhat predictably, in tears, the logic by which he was appointed needs to be re-examined.

The ECB talked themselves into the ludicrous situation of only being able to consider players who were guaranteed of a place in all formats of the game for the foreseeable future. This inflexible stance, a distortion of the Australian model, left them with a shortlist of only two: Flintoff and Pietersen. They ended up picking a man with no captaincy experience or credentials who wasn't particularly popular in the dressing room and had a shaky relationship with the coach. And it didn't work. Well, who'd have thought! Certainly not mystic Geoff Miller.

At the time, the media were gushing in their praise. Much was made of Pietersen's energy, charisma and star quality, whilst his tactical shortcomings and complete lack of leadership experience were glossed over. But when the cheering died down and the honeymoon was over, he was on his own.

In India, he was all at sea in the one day series and appeared powerless to prevent the First Test in Chennai slipping from his grasp. Pietersen's no mug; he knew he needed help on the tactical side. Evidently he didn't feel he was getting it from Peter Moores and so he wanted to bring back the man who's leadership he so admired: Michael Vaughan. Perhaps buoyed by the good press he received for his role in getting the England team to go back to India after the Mumbai outrages, he felt able to pick a fight. Some in the media were jubilant; it was Pietersen flexing his muscles, Pietersen showing how strong he was.

But in fact, the spat over Michael Vaughan merely revealed how isolated Pietersen was. In going public on this issue, he showed a lack of awareness of his own position. He may have hoped for some sign of support from the England players. Though they were unlikely to come out and openly criticise the coach, there are ways and means of hinting support. But they didn't. Just as some of us pointed out last autumn, when he needed them, they weren't there for him.

It is hardly surprising. The likes of Ian Bell and Owais Shah were hardly going to be over the moon at the prospect of a Vaughan recall. By picking a fight on the wrong issue in the wrong way, Pietersen backed himself into a corner.

Peter Moores has been an underwhelming coach who hasn't really moved the team forwards. But he was right about Vaughan. The former captain has barely scored a run for months and there can be no justification for picking him on form. Perhaps it was a double bluff by Pietersen. By demanding Vaughan's selection, he was indicating how desperate he was for tactical guidance. But it felt more like a cry for help than an ultimatum. A learning curve in the job is expected, but the England captaincy is not a training course. It is Pietersen's unhappy fate to realise on the job that he was not up to it, much as Kevin Keegan did back in 2001.

The ECB need to get their next appointment right, lest we descend into a 1980s style farce. For one thing, they have to widen their focus and look beyond the two star players. Andrew Strauss is the obvious candidate. A calm, intelligent, astute cricketer, he has already shown himself a good England captain and arguably should already be in the job. He is currently [1.13] favourite to be captain for the First Test in the West Indies, and although it is a relatively immature market, he is unlikely to get much higher.

At longer odds, there has been some support for Flintoff who is currently around the [8.5] mark but I can't imagine the ECB will want to go down that road again so I'd expect that price to drift higher. If you like an outsider, you can back Michael Vaughan at around [40.0] or Alastair Cook at around [17.5]. But Vaughan would be a backward step and Cook is surely not ready. Everything points to Strauss.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: