Cook not Pietersen - Inbox at Cricinfo

The another strong candidate is Andrew Strauss, he has won a series, has respect and is playing very good cricket. He must be slightly confused as to how he is not on top of the pecking order, considering he was covering Vaughan in the last test at certain times.

The selectors have mis-managed this team with some daft selections. Dropping Collingwood for a game due to form was sensible, so he went back to his county, played a couple of limited over matches and failed. So there was no basis for him to be re-instated to the test team, not a very good message being sent out to players in waiting (Bopra, Shah etc.). The selectors got lucky with his second innings hundred, very lucky. Stuart Broad was told he was tired and that he needed a break (he wasn't, he was dropped), so he goes back to his county and was bowling quick, getting wickets with no signs of fatigue.

If you're good enough, you're old enough. Ryan Sidebottom is injured, so why play him? England cannot continue to carry Monty Panesar, a good bowler but terrible batsman and fielder. On a wicket that was supposed to of "aided" him as the match progressed, he returned with the match figures of 40-3-116-2 (ave 58 rpw!), scored 1 run and dropped catches. Sorry but he should be "rested" and Rashid from Yorkshire given a go at The Oval for the experience. My Oval test team should be: Cook (C), Strauss, Bell, Pietersen, Bopra, Collingwood, Flintoff, Foster (WK), Rashid, Broad, Anderson.

i agree,
just becasue someone is a good player it doesn't mean that they are a good captain. with the responsibility of captain comes respect, and responsibility. reswponsibility that is, to effectively 'people-manage' the team and NOT to let your ego or personal goals before your team.
perhaps peitersen will struggle with this; or maybe it will turn him around into one of englands most able adn influential captains, it is however an extremely risky option, with Cook as dual aptain being safer, or Strauss as test captain adn pietersen as ODI captain.

I agree, I think peitersen is an outstanding player but he thinks to much of him self and i can see him making dangerous and risky decisions in the future. He does have the respect of the other players, and He may turn out to be a very good captain, but so does strauss and cook who I think would have been a better decision.

I cannot agree on Panesar, and I think the post is quite typical of the knee-jerk reaction of fans and media like to single performances, rather than taking a longer-term view. The team is not 'carrying' Monty Panesar, who already as 8 5-wicket hauls in Tests, in only 56 innings bowled. He won't always take wickets - but his ability to take wickets on helpful pitches surely cannot be questioned given his record at Old Trafford.

His fielding has improved, but his batting has disappointed. He looks like a player who should be able to chip in with 10 or 15 runs, but his shot execution remains poor.

England are not carrying Panesar. At his current rate he will be in the Top 10 England wicket-takers of all time before he is 30.

Calls for Rashid are premature, and he hasn't had the impact with the ball over the last two years that we hoped for (admittedly having suffered injury). He will be a big asset for England, no doubt, but not yet.

The England selectors picked Kevin Pietersen as he is a permanent fixture in all three teams. They also did this so he could gain some more responsibility with his batting. Yes in the long term Alistair Cook will be England captain but he is still very young and his batting is good but not outstanding so thrusting the captaincy on him would most likely bring his batting down.

"Andrew Strauss... is playing very good cricket"

Surely you're joking? Have you watched any cricket in the last couple of years? Strauss couldn't be captain because he is one of the players whose place is under threat due to constant under-achievement.