Cummins: captaincy chat a moot point

if Cummins were made captain, what it may do is reduce his overall workload so he can remain longer in the game and reduce the risk of injury. He'd be captain of the Test side, so obviously would play all of those, but might only be trotted out for ODIs & T20's for World Cup years. He could still play IPL, but would primarily play Tests

Paul I think my point was that the powers that be have tended not to be keen on having bowlers for captains, especially quicks. Nevertheless, given the alternatives, at the moment I wouldn’t be averse to trying Cummins - it might be one of those rare situations calling for it. Head is the only other option in the current team other than Smith, and has captaincy experience, but isn’t a certain starter as you say. I’d be a little concerned about how it affected Cummins bowling, but who knows.

people might take that view Dave, but the powers that be who decide captaincy around the world don't. They look for the guy they consider to be the best choice. It makes no sense to me to limit who could be captain to 6 blokes tops. I've been told clearly in some posts that keepers couldn't/shouldn't and if the side has 4 bowlers, that only leaves 6 options. In the current Australian lineup, that also excludes Davie (banned for life), Burns (struggling to keep his spot), Smith (still on the nose), Labuschagne, (still learning his trade), Head (?) and Wade ( last series against the Kiwis was dead ordinary and still averages only 33 in Tests). By my reckoning, this leaves us with maybe one option and he's iffy as well.

Hmm, I’d be surprised if a fair few people in other countries didn’t take the same view, especially towards fast bowlers, given there have been so few captains among the quicks. Vettori the only Kiwi bowler of note to captain, Shaun Pollock the only South African in the last 100 years, and he was fired as captain. Windies have had Walsh and Holder, though all-rounders like Holder might be a bit different. Kapil Dev the Indian exception, leading mostly by example, though they have gone for spinners like Bedi and Kumble. Willis and Illingworth the only out and out bowling captains for England in the professional era; Botham and Flintoff both all-rounders and both flops. Only highly rated bowler-captains post WWII - Benaud and Illingworth for overall captaincy, Kapil and Holder for leadership if not tactical skills?

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue, Rowdy. :happy: :happy:

Mitigating circumstance with Greg telling Trevor to do that. Was it about the same time Greg starting a duck farm? He clearly lost it with that. With the sandpaper it was the case of a weak captain meekly not leading the team from what was dark forces being operated within. And Bodyline couldn’t’ve operated without the clear cooperation of the bowlers. —- My point is that the wicky and the bowlers have too much specific responsibilities in the field. Batsmen basically just have the general responsibility of fielding. Dev and Akram had issues at times that batsmen never faced. —- I’m not against a Batsman captain bringing him/herself on a la Border. Who l think did not trust spinners so much that he doubted his own acumen as a bowler. —- Picking a bowler as captain is fraught. I’m not discounting their capacity just the logistics

Great points Paul! :thumbup:

Sorry Rowdy, I don't recall guys like Kapil Dav, Imram Khan Wasim Akram, etc under of over bowling themselves. George Giffen did that in the 1890's, but the bowling plans these days are worked out pretty well and the coach has plenty of say in who bowls when. I also think it's a conspiracy! You hear stories told about how dumb bowlers are in general and fast bowlers in particular, but these are all told by batsmen! Batsman not only suffer form lapses, they suffer brain lapses when it comes to captaincy. It wasn't a bowler who came up with under arm bowling, it wasn't a bowler who came up with Bodyline and it certainly wasn't a bowler who came up with Sandpapergate! :stoked: :stoked:

Gee Dunger B, that's a lot of pressure on the keeper. He has to be on for the whole game. And l disagree with Paul. The most important aspect of captaincy is when fielding. Yes, off-park issues, man-management & batting you've got a deal with for sure. But having people on-side, understanding your tactics, accepting your imprimatur, psyching the bowler and psyching-out the batsmen are the coal-face.

But there have been so many more batsmen that have done it better. A major problem for bowlers is over or, usually, under bowling themselves. Or suffering form lapses like Botham; I think.

The current arrangements have seen him become the number 1 bowler in the world. Why on earth would we want to do anything to change that?

Steve Smith would be the best candidate, but for obvious reasons the CA administrators would probably be reluctant to reinstall him as Test Captain.

I think most people forget that more than 50% of a captains job occurs off the field, not on it. Sure bowlers and keepers have to focus on the park,but they have 10 other blokes who can help them out,if push comes to shove. Off the field though,they become just another player, so should be able to perform captains duties the same as a batsman who's made captain. I'd be more than happy to agree captaincy is not a job for bowlers or keepers except that there have been so many who've made a good fist of it, including Paine who's the best bloke for the job right now.

It's funny though, that basically the only nation that runs this line against bowlers being captains is Australia! Even the Poms don't have an issue with it. :happy:

Let's not try cook the roast in 45 mins. The General won't believe me saying thus but let Paine's time run it's course. The choice is not necessarily as Stark as giving someone their Head because it should be Cummin sooner than you think.

I also believe selectors are loathe to choose bowlers due to the likelihood of more regularly missing thru injury. That is hard for a bowler to gain a foothold in a consistent message and a viable vice captain having to chop and change. That's compounded by age; as experience makes a better captain, a bowler struggles with more niggles, demanding more time.

I hope the public doesn't take this talk - including Clarke pushing for Cummins - too seriously. There's more likely candidates with Head or Smith.

I've got nothing against keepers being captains Paul. Actually, I reckon it's ideal because they get the best look at what the bowlers are doing, how the pitch is behaving and how the oppo batsmen are handling it all. The best captain I ever played under was a keeper so that might have biased my thinking a little but I still reckon there are good reasons for the wicky/captain combo.

True Paul, but I think the argument against bowlers is pretty compelling. A keeper needs to be keeping his eye on the field and the tactical side of things most of the time. A bowler needs to rest between overs or between spells, especially pace bowlers. Even a spinner between overs needs to be thinking more about his own bowling for the next over rather than current field placings and broader tactics - though one with a secure place in the team, like Benaud, might be Ok.

CA really want Cummins because he projects exactly the sort of image they want. It would be a genuinely poor decision as far as on field performance goes though. Smith is the only candidate.