The Durham all-rounder is a decent cricketer who has made the most of his talent. But captaincy material he is not. Have the selectors lost the plot? Now don't get me wrong, I admire Paul Collingwood greatly. Here is a cricketer who has made the most of average ability to rise to the very top of the game. Two years ago, if you would have said the Durham all-rounder would be cracking a double century Down Under in an Ashes series, I would have had the men in white coats round (and I am not talking about Billy Bowden, either). So it was no surprise that Collingwood had a good Test series with the bat against the West Indies, but it was a complete surprise that he has been named captain of the one-day squad for the forthcoming matches against India and the Windies. Certainly, for continuity's sake, Michael Vaughan should have held onto the ODI leadership, but after a poor showing in the World Cup, he has decided to step down (although has made himself available to play). But Collingwood as a replacement? It seems ludicrous to give the job to an untested player when there are other options. I feel sorry for Andrew Strauss. The Middlesex opener is a safe pair of hands (at slip as well). He has captained the ODI squad with some success and understands the nuances of leadership. Apparently Kevin Pietersen was also invited but turned the offer down, I think rightly. Being a captain is a position in itself and two of the best captains in England's history., Ray Illingworth and Mike Brearley, made the role into a specialised form of the game with excellent results. Had KP taken the job, then his batting form could well have dipped - something England cannot afford. So imagine how Collingwood feels. Not even first or second choice, he is thrust into the role almost by default. And although India and the Windies are not the most formidable opponents, you can bet that they will be out to test his nerves, especially in the pressure cauldron of the death overs. It's hard to fathom why England, playing relatively well in Tests (Ashes debacle aside), are struggling in limited-overs cricket. We have a very strong domestic form of the game, we play on a range of wickets and in different conditions. So what is the problem? It might just be that skills are not transferable between codes. After all, look at how Union and League rugby players have struggled when they switch. The likes of Vaughan, Monty Panesar, Steve Harmison and Alistair Cook have their cricketing bodies finely tuned to the Test arena. One-day cricket is literally a different ball game. I know the Aussies have a similar squad for both forms, although it did take Andrew Symonds some time to adjust to Test cricket, but they are on a different cricket planet Down Under. My view is that we should take the positives of playing so much domestic OD cricket here and use them to our advantage. Players like Chris Adams, wicketkeeper Paul Nixon, Anthony McGrath and Alistair Brown are specialists in the one-day version, and have had enormous success. So why not play them? They understand the tempo, the nuances and structure of the game well. I wish Collingwood well, but fear the worst for this likeable player who is too nice to say no a job which could be the unmaking of him. Let's hope I am proved wrong.
