Ashes Skipper

[flanflinger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...nd/4779293.stm

Now I don't want to look to far ahead, however the debate has been raised by Fletcher. Andrew will be skippering the team during the Ashes, but will it be Strauss or Flintoff?

Flintoff of course is our best player and led the team well in India, but has a tendency to over bowl himself, and it is no surprise that after a stint as skipper, he is now injured

Strauss, two hundreds and a series victory, but some say he lacks imagination...

So over to you, who should it be?

[greg]

Strauss.I don't like the workload Freddie has when he is captain and Strauss handles Panesar better than Freddie did.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Strauss, two hundreds and a series victory, but some say he lacks imagination...

He'll grow into the role. Having a good team around you makes you look a good captain, bowling changes and fielding changes work more often. Give Strauss a Freddie-inspired England and he'll look even better than he did on Tuesday.

The pressures of being captain evidently does not affect his batting either. This is a refreshing change. Appoint him Official Captain as far as I'm concerned. Even if Vaughan does ever get fit enough to play again I would not be clamouring for his immediate inclusion, he has many things to prove.

[Pete]

Strauss for me too. It's not good to keep changing captains all the time. We don't even know if Flintoff will be fit in time for the first Ashes test, and if he's NOT then does Flintoff come back half way through the series and reclaim the captaincy? (Assuming he might regain fitness if he doesn't make the start of the tour)

I think the time for Vaughan has passed. He keeps breaking down, doesn't even know if he will even play again, and yet he's still seen as the official captain. It's a ridiculous situation. Like NE, i'd give it to Strauss fulltime.

[Whips_off_the_bails]

It's a no-brainer for me. I haven't seen a single compelling argument in favour of Flintoff as captain, least of all Gus Fraser's article in The Independent, which more or less says Flintoff should be captain or he'd be a bit upset.

http://sport.independent.co.uk/crick...cle1217989.ece

. If Strauss were to say that he wanted to lead England in Australia - which he won't - he would run the risk of alienating his most important player. Flintoff is not the sort of man who sulks when he does not get his own way, but the last thing Strauss would want to do is create a potential communication barrier between himself and the man he most needs on his side. Therefore, despite Strauss' impressive performances against Pakistan, Flintoff remains the man who should lead England in Australia and to the 2007 World Cup. There is a danger that it all may prove too much for Flintoff, as Ian Botham found out in the Eighties, but it is a route England must travel down if they wish to avoid the risk of any cliques developing in their close-knit dressing room.

[Colourful Chaddi]

England are not going to find a captain which is in the same class as Vaughan, so who is the best after him, I believe its Struass instead of Freddie.

When Freddie captains England he overbowls himself and lack imagination as a captain in field placing and bowling changes. He also doesn't know how to use a spinner. He led the team well in India but in the Sri Lankan series he was terrible as captain, England lost the killer instint and looked lay back in their approach.

Struass has experiance as captain because he is captain of his county side Middlesex. We have seen England get their killer instint back with him in charge and he has led the team well without his talisman freddie. He also used Monty very well.

So Strauss to defend the Ashes this year.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

As others have said he'll grow into the role (he's done it at middlesex), and I think he was a bit dfensive because only supposed to be 1 test. Now while you want to win your only test you sure as hell dont want to lose it. It maybe down to him the fieldings much better (better than under vaughan too) so I'd give it him.

[Collyisamackem]

Strauss, plainly and simply we should not be messing around with the leadership of the team right before such a huge series. Stability and continuity have been a staple of the success of this England team and tinkering is foolhardy.

Originally Posted by greg

Strauss.I don't like the workload Freddie has when he is captain and Strauss handles Panesar better than Freddie did.

...and this too. Heartily seconded. Freddie can't bat, bowl and captain us to victory single-handedly, he'll explode if he tries.

[Occasional Fan]

Wow - unanimity this far down the thread! But honestly, for all the reasons stated above, I have to go with you guys: Strauss it is. (He's the incumbent now, and I wouldn't change that for Flintoff who has not even played for a while. I'm not even sure I would let Michael Vaughan take it back if he were playing in Australia given his long-term absence and consequent unknown form at the moment.)

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Waseem

When Freddie captains England he overbowls himself and lack imagination as a captain in field placing and bowling changes. He also doesn't know how to use a spinner. He led the team well in India but in the Sri Lankan series he was terrible as captain, England lost the killer instint and looked lay back in their approach.

Struass has experiance as captain because he is captain of his county side Middlesex. We have seen England get their killer instint back with him in charge and he has led the team well without his talisman freddie. He also used Monty very well.

Waseem, you've said just about everything I wanted to say! The only thing left for me to add is that Freddie should be able to focus on his batting and bowling, without the captaincy as well.