Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

As far as I am concerned, when a captain hints he doesnt want the job anymore, then you sack him. I thought that it was pretty unproffesional of Cook to infer he was leaving at the end of the last test. He dont want it, sack him. Simple

Not so much that he has to go, but why is he still there? I can't say he should never have got the job, but certainly, having been exposed, he should have been replaced, at least after the 2013-14 Ashes. I don't even say he should go based on results, even though they have been generally below par (only the wins in India and SA really stand out as being better than you'd expect. The 5-0 Ashes implosion, the loss at home to SL, the draws in WI and BD were failures which are hard to ignore.

Maybe he does the part of the job well that can't be seen, and he may well be a legend to the younger players. But his work on the field is neurotic and repetitively fearful. I wonder at how well he can communicate with his team, when in front of the media he struggles to express an idea and can't shape words into a thought. He often blames his colleagues when his own input is lacking. He reacts badly and defensively to criticism. He doesn't demand high standards of conduct from his team, and can't manage them to bowl overs to schedule. His body language is depressing and uninspiring. He has no charisma. His was a defensive, obstinate, misguided, possibly deluded response to the reality of England's ODI slump under his leadership.

I also draw attention to the way he seemed happy to convey the thoughts of Peter Moores into a plan on the pitch without demur. The equivalent of escorting the ball to the boundary. That's when England really needed a competent captain, because they needed a focus of leadership and strategy that wasn't going to come from the coach. But Cook looked hopeless under Moores, and his immediate improvement under Bayliss a marker of how he wasn't able to help when really needed.

There's more, but I don't want to write a post of intimidating length, so I'll leave it there for now. It's been a long time since I've had enough.

I accept he's also been made to look bad by those around him. Others have to take responsibility. Probably Whitaker. And certainly Flower.

Arthur drops the mic and leaves....

Nothing further to add, I think Arthur covered quite a lot of my view.

I think the problem here is that a lot of us, myself included, have a very negative opinion of Cook, be it the handling of the KP affair to his smug comments after the World Cup, he's given us plenty of ammunition to have a genuine reason not to like the guy.

As, Arthur points out, there have been plenty of points during his Captaincy where he should have stepped aside, again leading to the impression that he should do so now.

As far as I see it though, there's no real argument for him to step aside now, if you just look at the current context, or indeed, any real reason to suggest the team would do any better without him at the helm.

I'd far rather that he passes on a side that has some of the current issues fixed rather than handing over a decent side with big holes in it.

But if the captain is one of the holes...

I don't see how anyone can argue that Cook is even close to the biggest problem in the England side. I've never been for change for changes sake, and I've called for Cook's head many times in the past.

The reason I'm not doing this time round is simply because it smacks of scapegoating. Cook is not to blame for England's persistent issue with finding a spinner, he's not to blame for the poor squad selection, he's not to blame for the issues in the domestic game, he's not to blame for the fact our batsmen struggle to bat time, he's not to blame for the struggles to replace Strauss or find a middle order bat, he's not to blame for the fact that our batsmen can't bat against spin.

So how the hell would replacing him have changed the series outcome in India? How would it change the the long term issues this side has had in replacing key personnel? Sure throw Root in, he'd have the same problems that are out of his control and once the honey moon period wore off he'd be in the same situation and we'd be a World class opener down.

A captain is only as good as his team, that's were the issue that need fixing are long before we take pops at Cook for not being an aggressive funky captain. You could throw any captain in the history of the game into this side and they would have not won this series. I dislike Cook on many levels but I'm not blinded into thinking he is the problem here by that fact.

I can imagine a captain not allowing India's innings to develop after good starts for England. How often did Rashid not have a short leg for his googly and, over a partnership, an edge went through there while Cook manned the boundaries? I think Cook is a drag on his side. Yes, India is a hard place to tour, and they have a fine team. But that isn't a reason to just accept your underdog status and march to defeat. It's a reason to get your preparation as spot on as you can, and that starts with the coach and the captain.

The greater the task, the greater the need to prepare well for it. Cook's onfield use of his resources has always been questionable. I don't have any problem with the idea that England would have been more competent on the field with a better captain. Of course they would. Both in terms of getting the best out of the players and getting them to work with a plan.

Ever since we decided that the captain perhaps wasn't the general we thought he might be, back in the era of Brearley,etc, we seem to want to think that he has little influence. But he does. It matters.

Then begins the problem of discovering if there is an adequate replacement. But the solution to the problem of the lack of a good skipper isn't solved by sticking with a bad one. This should have happened years ago. Somehow a pessimism has taken hold that the honour destroys anyone it settles upon. But that's not the case. That just an anxiety brought about by pessimism or fear.

No one is claiming Cook is the only problem or that he should go simply because of the results this winter. He should go because because he's a poor captain who should have gone a long time ago. I can't remember any captain that has had his position publicly questioned as often as Cook has, who was so personally obdurate and well protected by the ECB than this man. He has hung on to this job despite his failings, as if he was the bosses son in a family business.

Its always been an argument I am less than sympathetic to when someone says "but what are the alternatives". In short, the alternatives might represent a risk, but when a team is performing badly its a risk you need to take. You either accept the obvious limitations of a system and understand you build towards a forever broken future, or you make a change and hope you find a system that has a better capacity to grow. Sticking with what you have is not a cause of action you take simply because you accept its difficult to find something better. You have to at least strive to be better.... I accept other people have a different ethos, it comes down to what type of person you are, so arguing on here about it is not going to change peoples opinion. From a personal level Id rather fail miserably striving to make a difference.

Id like to see the purge of all the deadwood in the management. Like Bayliss have a year where he isnt having Flower breathing on his neck, where he gets to pick his own leader for the team, and where the so far worthless appointment of Andrew Strauss is reversed.

sussexpob wrote:Its always been an argument I am less than sympathetic to when someone says "but what are the alternatives". In short, the alternatives might represent a risk, but when a team is performing badly its a risk you need to take. You either accept the obvious limitations of a system and understand you build towards a forever broken future, or you make a change and hope you find a system that has a better capacity to grow. Sticking with what you have is not a cause of action you take simply because you accept its difficult to find something better. You have to at least strive to be better.... I accept other people have a different ethos, it comes down to what type of person you are, so arguing on here about it is not going to change peoples opinion. From a personal level Id rather fail miserably striving to make a difference.

Id like to see the purge of all the deadwood in the management. Like Bayliss have a year where he isnt having Flower breathing on his neck, where he gets to pick his own leader for the team, and where the so far worthless appointment of Andrew Strauss is reversed.

couldn't agree more

i hate this attitude that we stick with guys doing a mediocre job whether it be cook as captain or certain players i could mention because we are scared that a potential replacement might do worse. yes they might, but by doing nothing you are never going to improve.

I don't think anyone is saying there aren't alternatives, well the plural might be slightly wrong, or that Cook is a particularly great captain. The point I'm trying to make is, that Cook is not the reason England have been having issues. Switching him with anyone else is a case of deck chairs on the Titanic.

Captains don't win matches, batsmen, fielders and bowlers do that.

Making_Splinters wrote:I don't think anyone is saying there aren't alternatives, well the plural might be slightly wrong, or that Cook is a particularly great captain. The point I'm trying to make is, that Cook is not the reason England have been having issues. Switching him with anyone else is a case of deck chairs on the Titanic.

Captains don't win matches, batsmen, fielders and bowlers do that.

What do you think goes through the mind of bowlers like Stokes, Woakes, Ball who often bowl without a slip and see an edge fly through that vacant area. A captains decisions must influence the moral of his team. No captain I can remember has bowled a pace man without a slip the way Cook frequently does. A captain can't greatly influence a batsman's run scoring but the way he sets his field and handles his bowlers is very important. A bowlers international career can be affected.

Id agree Hope, I think with Cook he has particular failings with setting aggressive fields to new batsman or lower order players. I was watching shaking my head this winter, because at times he was letting number 8-11 come in with one slip and no gully, and a couple of times batsman flashed early and got away with it. You have to attack lower order players doubly, and you have to let a new batsman know that any mistake will be taken before he reaches 15 and gets set, but with Cook a batsman can make mistakes in certain areas.