Why is Salman Butt a choice for captain?

It's amusing to read news reports claiming Shoaib Malik and Salman Butt are the front runners to take over the captaincy mantle. I assume the decision, which will be taken real soon, will probably be with regards to both the test and ODI teams.

If it is truly for both squads, then its ridiculous because Salman Butt is not even in the bloody squad. On the other hand, Shoaib Malik has played less than 20 test matches. I just hope they're talking about the ODI team...

Though Butt being an option clearly proves that my opener rotation policy is in full effect at the PCB.

On the bright side, I'm glad Younis Khan is thinking about retiring from ODI's. Good riddance.

The PCB are a bunch of fools and will probably bungle this up. Anyway, at this crucial juncture in Pakistani cricket, being as its all a joke anyway, I'd like to raise my hand and officially announce my candidacy for the Pakistan team captain.

Well, if nothing else, would it be possible to scribble my name in between Imran Farhat and Taufeeq Umar when the next opener rotation round comes about?

Is Flintoff overrated as a batsman?

While watching England play these days in the World Cup, I can't help but feel that nothing much is going to happen whenever Flintoff comes into bat. To me, its the start of the English tail, which isn't exactly too great. Agreed, Flintoff is in a big slump as of late, but is he just simply overrated? Raza, who commented on my "Vaughan needs to go" post, is of the opinion that Flintoff is indeed overrated, so I wanted to check out his stats and see what's going on.

Here is Flintoff's run breakdown by year since he made his debut in 99.

Year	M	Inns	NO	50s	100s	HS	Runs	Avg
1999	9	6	0	1	0	50	100	16.67
2000	11	9	1	1	0	84	206	25.75
2001	8	6	1	0	0	46	144	28.8
2002	18	17	1	3	0	52	397	24.81
2003	20	20	6	6	0	*70	631	45.07
2004	14	13	2	2	3	123	633	57.55
2005	18	15	1	2	0	87	490	35
2006	7	7	0	0	0	41	102	14.57
2007	15	14	2	1	0	*72	330	27.5
Overall (9)	120	107	14	16	3	123	3033	32.61

His overall batting average falls from 32.61 to 30.81 if one removes the minnows. Here is his performance in ODI's by opponent.

Versus	M	Inns	NO	50s	100s	HS	Runs	Avg
Australia	21	19	1	1	0	87	519	28.83
India	21	20	1	4	0	99	580	30.53
New Zealand	11	11	1	1	1	106	277	27.7
Pakistan	14	14	2	3	0	84	443	36.92
South Africa	6	6	1	1	0	54	129	25.8
Sri Lanka	10	9	1	1	1	104	222	27.75
West Indies	11	9	1	1	1	123	295	36.88
Overall (13)	94	88	8	12	3	123	2465	30.81

It's pretty consistent and thus doesn't tell us much, but its important to put it up to indicate that its not the opponent that's the problem. What about batting position?

Position	Inns	NO	50s	100s	HS	Runs	Avg
Opening
No. 3	9	1	0	0	*42	143	17.88
No. 4	11	0	2	0	52	260	23.64
No. 5	40	8	9	3	123	1448	45.25
No. 6	34	3	3	0	84	808	26.06
No. 7	12	2	2	0	64	358	35.8
No. 8	1	0	0	0	16	16	16
No. 9
No. 10
No. 11
Overall	107	14	16	3	123	3033	32.61

Well, he currently bats after Collingwood at number 6, yet even this graph isn't too telling. It does show us, however, that he is uncomfortable against the new ball, which isn't exactly news either. As an aggressive stroke maker one would expect a hard seaming ball to disturb him. He has been tried at one-down with not much success.

So obviously he is in a slump in the past two years, and his confidance is shot, but he had an average of 35+ from 2003-2005, so I can't conclude that he is overrated. His average over 13 innings in 2004 was almost 58, including 3 centuries against New Zealand, West Indies and Sri Lanka. That's no fluke by any stretch of the imagination.

But his position in the lineup is what irks me most. He is no 4 down batsman, and England should get a proper middle order batsman and shift Flintoff down by 1 to 5-down. I wrote something similar a couple of weeks ago, asking for my reader's opinion. The Atheist suggested a change of approach, rather than a change in batting order. Its true, but a change of approach doesn't solve the problem of a weak late middle order. England aren't aggressive enough when they really need to grab the bull by the horns. Nixon and Flintoff just don't have the ability to last 10 overs. And KP can't be expected to do everything with regards to approach, can he? Homer, in my opinion, made more sense and suggested inserting Dalrymple up the order, as he is a grafter, and can buy England some time in the middle and save Flintoff for some big hitting at the end.

Thoughts?

Vaughan needs to go

If England wants to be competitive in the one day arena, then they really can't afford to bugger around with a useless contributor like Michael Vaughan. For a while, it was amusing that Vaughan was playing, more so as a captain, rather than a batsman, but how long can this facade go on?

It's pretty much expected from the opposition that England will be losing their openers pretty soon after they start batting. Vaughan has had a terrible World Cup as a batsman, and he hasn't done anything to extraordinary as captain either. I would let Ed Joyce play with Strauss at the top. At least Joyce has had some success in this WC, while Strauss is just out of form. As far as ODI's go, Vaughan has never really ever been in ODI form. In fact, his position in the ODI side has always been debated. He's a good test opener, but in ODI's, every person needs to contribute accordingly and England are feeling the brunt of losing wickets at the top of the order too fast. One can't expect the middle order to bail them out every time. On that note, Collingwood, Bell and KP are doing a great job, but is it fair to ask them to score 80% of the runs?

Sure, Strauss failed today, but Vaughan has failed in the last 6 games. Might as well bring Joyce back in and pull out Vaughan. At least England will get some runs out of it. If they desperately need captaincy, Vaughan can bring in the drinks and dictate field placings and what not from the sidelines. It's what is best for England...

England frustrate me. They had the game by the throat at 160/2 at the 30th over, and they let the friggin Australians go.