The role of luck

Personally, I'm gutted that Vaughan has been forced into resigning the captaincy (I just don't believe that he would have gone before the end of the SA series of his own accord). As some observers had noted after the 2nd Test, the lack of support from Moores for Vaughan meant that his days were numbered unless he scored a stack of runs. Since he's come back from his knee injury he's averaged 36.25. Remember that as an undoubtedly class player too, he would have come good in his next innings or two and that average would probably have bounced back to 40ish. Now think of the number of runs per innings that he saves with his captaincy - I'll leave that for you to assess against his nearest competitor for the job - and then work out his value to the team.

I don't agree with the title of the article on Cricinfo - a captain cut short of greatness. This isn't Viv Richards or Clive Lloyd with a devastating bunch of quick bowlers, Steve Waugh or Ricky Ponting with Shane Warne, Adam Gilchrist and Glenn McGrath to turn to. This is someone who, with a very ordinary bunch of players, managed to win close games through his tactics. Remember the Edgbaston Test in the 2005 Ashes - many questioned Vaughan's tactics of using sweepers in the final wicket partnership but he wanted to make the Aussies face as many balls as possible to win. That came off through a piece of good fortune, given that the last wicket was a wrong decision. But as an example of how his tactics have won crucial games for England it stands out - he is a great captain given the results he got from a team that lacked much individual greatness.

But Vaughan's luck ran out. There is no doubt that Smith was out at least once during his match winning innings at Edgbaston, and Vaughan managed to pick out Amla with unerring accuracy to get out in the 2nd innings. Amla took the chance well, but no-one who watched Vaughan get to 17 fluently would have made a significant bet against him scoring a century if that chance had been dropped.....or if he hadn't middled it perfectly and it had evaded the fielder - he looked class as he always does. At the Oval he would surely have scored runs on a batsman friendly track.

As it is he's been forced out to deflect criticism from others. And Collingwood has mysteriously decided to resign at the same time - quite a remarkable coincidence. England's competitors for the number 2 Test playing nation must be ecstatic - they now know that England will take time to rebuild and the Aussies know for sure that the 2009 Ashes is theirs. It was going to be hard enough before for England, now it is impossible. So congratulations to those behind the scenes responsible for 2 England resignations on one day and the appointment of someone to captain all 3 forms of the game. Given the incredibly different nature of Twenty20 to Tests, that inspired decision to unify the captaincy only leaves 2 candidates (or 3 if you count Key) - Flintoff and Pietersen. And we've seen first-hand how tactically inept Flintoff is compared to Vaughan - you just have to look at how the two of them use Panesar.

So Pietersen it is, as the last man standing. Not because he's shown the slightest bit of Test captaincy credentials, or because he's a respected tactician, but because he's the only man who plays in all 3 forms of international cricket who hasn't blotted his copy book through some very ordinary previous captaincy. Pietersen will have to hope that his luck is in if he is to be successful, and that's just to avoid the knives in his back if he loses a few games.