Here's Wishing Good Luck To Kevin Pietersen's Team England

Initially, I was skeptical. I had a light-hearted discussion in the lab Monday afternoon with someone over Kevin Pietersen's promotion to captain. When asked what qualities Pietersen has, I flippantly said "he likes to shout louder than anyone else" owing to his massive ego and confrontational streak. The flat-batted reply was "well, on that basis we should appoint Brian Blessed". The advantages to such an appointment are quite obvious; he can be a fierce individual, the dressing room would be awash with funny banter, he would probably be an expert sledger and would have the most impressive facial hair arrangement of any English cricketer since WG Grace. The disadvantages are equally clear though; whilst his ample frame would probably stop a number of runs purely because of the volume he takes up in field, he is unlikely to be that mobile in the field, he can't bat, he can't bowl and it is unclear exactly how Andrew Strauss at slip would take to Blessed's bellowing cry of "CATCH IT!" when a bowler finds the edge. 

Over the past few days however, my mind has changed. I'll explain why in a moment, but first I'd like to pay some attention to Andrew Strauss. For my money, he was probably the safest option as the Test captain. A few years ago it appeared as though he was being groomed as Vaughan's replacement, and rightly so. Here's a reminder of why. After 12 tests - 3 against New Zealand (at home), 4 against the West Indies (at home) and 5 against South Africa (away) - he scored 1246 runs at an average of 56.64. In South Africa against the likes of Pollock, Nel, Ntini, Hall and Steyn, he scored 656 runs from 10 innings at an average of nearly 73, with three hundreds and 1 fifty. Against Pakistan in 2006, he averaged 63.42 from 7 inings with 2 hundreds and 1 fifty. For this series he was captain, winning three out of four tests. (The fourth test has recently been changed from an England win via forfeiture to a draw, but like many other statisticians, I cannot accept that.) After that series, I make his career average to be 46.38 which isn't shabby in the slightest. However, after that series, two significant things happened which has apparently decimated his confidence. First, and probably most importantly, he was dropped as captain and replaced by Andrew Flintoff for the Ashes series. At the time I said it was the wrong decision, with the 5-0 series drubbing demonstrating quite clearly that Flintoff was not the man to lead the team. The effect this apparent lack of faith the selectors had in Strauss's ability, even leading England to a comprehensive series win over Pakistan, would probably have been monumental. Secondly, Australia found and cruelly exploited a weakness Strauss had outside his off stump.

In the space of one series, the selectors short sightedness and Australia's ruthlessness crushed Strauss's confidence. The final ignominy was being dropped prior to England's 2007 winter tour to Sri Lanka. Such a swift fall from grace - from England's golden boy to a discarded husk in the space of 12 months - would have hurt even the most battle hardened warrior and may well still hurt Strauss to this day. So instead of closing in on him whilst sharpening cutlasses, it may be better - both for him and the England team - if we gave the man some support and allowed him a little more time to find his game. 

On the subject of the captaincy however, Strauss isn't in the limited overs teams and Cook isn't an established member. As the selectors want one player to captain all three England XIs, and as Collingwood has decided he doesn't want to captain England, this was only ever a one horse race. At first, I was apprehensive about Pietersen taking the captaincy, but upon considering the situation carefully and reading various opinions in the press, my mind has changed somewhat. Pietersen's self assurance and in-built competitiveness can only be good for a team which has of late appeared tired, lacking in self belief and ruthlessness. His aggressiveness is possibly what we need to wake England up from the malaise that has engulfed them. But perhaps most importantly, he isn't so "matey" with the team that he will find it impossible to give the players the kick in the behind they sometimes need. I am not trying to imply that Pietersen doesn't get on with his team mates, but as an illustration of my point, Pietersen was nowhere near the "Fredalo" incident that sunk England's World Cup campaign last year. The ability to stay aloof whilst appearing human and on a level is an important man management skill to have, a skill Vaughan had in spades during his first 2 years in the job. Moreover, a matey-ness with the team is possibly what did for Flintoff, especially, for instance, when it came to geeing up his good friend Steve Harmison. 

Pietersen is also the star batsmen in the side and commands respect from players for his ability. After Vaughan's resignation Graeme Smith, South Africa's captain, said that the hardest part of being captain is telling the rank and file they're not performing well enough when you yourself are in terrible form. Pietersen currently averages over 51 and has clearly demonstrated his talent with the bat. 

However, Pietersen's greatest attribute - his self assurance - may also be his undoing. His rash shot whilst on 94 at Edgbaston turned the tide of the match. Will Pietersen be more circumspect in his shot selection, putting the match result above his own quest for personal glory? Does he have the ability to swallow his pride and score ugly runs when they are needed? Only time will tell what sort of changes - if any - Pietersen will make to his own game. In the meantime, tomorrow sees the start of the Oval Test and marks a new dawn in the history of English cricket, a dawn I now await with excited trepidation.  Here's hoping Team England get off to a good start and after the dawn, Pietersen et al. aren't found wilting in the searing midday sun.