In 2017 at least the pundits and the pollsters have got something right. Joe Root is the new England captain, which is no more surprising than Stephen Fry hosting the Baftas or Huw Edwards delivering the news. At last there is an outcome that is reassuring and predictable.
There are always some gloom-mongers out there pointing out that Root has seldom captained at first-class level—neither had Michael Vaughan or Nasser Hussain when they took on the England captaincy; that the country’s best batsman will be diminished by the responsibility—like Steve Smith, Kane Williamson and Virat Kohli? Or that he shaves too infrequently—he is only 26 but he has already played 53 Tests.
Root was the obvious choice, which can often be the best one. More strikingly, England have a new vice-captain in Ben Stokes. This was a bit of a surprise, though not to our own Ali Martin who signposted Stokes’ elevation at the weekend. This announcement is especially surprising for anyone leading a hermit-like existence for the past couple of years without access to Sky Sports 2.
Yes, this is the same Ben Stokes who was sent home prematurely from the England Lions tour of 2013, whose wrist lost an argument with a locker door in Barbados in 2014 and who has had the odd memorable spat on the cricket field—often with Marlon Samuels, an experience which is not, one should add, unique to the forthright Durham all-rounder.
Stokes has been identified as a leader and he has responded enthusiastically to additional responsibility, something which Paul Farbrace in his brief caretaker role instigated before Trevor Bayliss had put on his England floppy hat for the first time.
Like Ian Botham and Andrew Flintoff before him, Stokes craves to be taken seriously. And like that formidable pair he is a very serious cricketer.
He is also Bayliss’s kind of cricketer. England’s coach does not give much away when a microphone is thrust under his nose but he generally comes alive when Stokes is mentioned.
For example, when Bayliss was asked in the winter whether Stokes, being a pace bowler, might be part of the rotation system that was employed for the Tests in Bangladesh and India, he replied: “I doubt it very much. In any case, who is there here who is going to tell him?”
Stokes has become a massive personality in the England set-up on and off the field. He has acquired a gravitational pull over the rest of the squad. The assumption is that Bayliss would have been a strong supporter of him becoming vice-captain. Stokes’ elevation is a statement of intent.
England have a bright young captain of the next generation and there is no suggestion that the brave new world that Root represents is going to be tempered by the appointment of a cagier vice-captain—like Stuart Broad. Bayliss is happy for the next generation to take over so it is time to fasten seat belts.
However, the value of that statement of intent is minimal, which is one reason for avoiding making Stokes vice-captain. In fact what is the rush to appoint anyone just yet? It is unnecessary to do so when the side is about to play at home, though there always has to be a plan to cope with an unexpected absence.
It may be different on tour. The vice-captain overseas has been an automatic part of the cricket management there and, even more importantly, in another era he was entitled to a single room. Moreover being vice-captain is often not a great post to hold—try canvassing Ian Bell (Root’s predecessor in the job), Tom Watson (not the golfer) and Mike Pence (no idea) or, if he were still alive, Agnew (Spiro rather than Jonathan).
A careless appointment can cause headaches down the line. It can signal the succession plans, which was the case with Root, but it is surely too early to decide that Stokes is the heir apparent.
There is even the suggestion now that, if Root were indisposed early in his reign, then Broad might be summoned to lead the team in an emergency. If no vice-captain had been appointed, that might have been possible but now that option has disappeared. Once Stokes has been appointed it becomes preposterous for anyone else to be leading the side in Root’s absence. That is what vice-captains are for.
There is the long-term issue of whether Stokes becoming captain—and he must be alerted to that eventuality now—would be a good thing.
It is possible to be hugely influential and an undisputed leader within the team without holding any official post. Both Botham and Flintoff did that and it may be the memory of their experiences in charge that foster that bit of gloom-mongering.
Botham, though he has never been inclined to admit it, was neutered by the captaincy and in Australia in 2006-07 the position helped to drive an unusually lonely Flintoff to drink. Stokes can legitimately be bracketed with that pair now. Like them he may be a better cricketer when he is not shackled.
Such great all-rounders can be even more dangerous when given the freedom to play with a little irresponsibility, which is tricky for a captain or vice-captain. The rush to anoint Stokes finds no support here. He does not require any stripes to lead.