Well, you leave the country for a couple of days* and come back to three new captains. Well, that's the line in the paper away, although one of them doesn't look that new to me. New to not having two jobs, I suppose.
So, at risk of banging on about old news, here's something about the situation that doesn't seem to have been analysed to death: it's the only obvious response to the future that is rushing towards us. It may have been a decision forced by circumstance, but it is one that acknowledges the increasing improbability of one captain being able to fulfill the role format-in, format-out, year-in, year-out without becoming a basket case after a few seasons.
England, Australia, South Africa and India in particular will never, while it's commercially viable, get that reduction of the calendar that the players talk about all year round [except when the IPL is on]. The sensible response for nations with the money and resources to do so is to develop their Test, 50-over and T20 teams as separate units with some interchangable components.
Most of the arguments here seem to have been about the components rather than the structure. That structure appears to be the only logical one in the face of the remorseless, relentless international game.
* In France. How can somewhere so close be so utterly cricket-free? They've not even heard of it.
The case for Matt Renshaw
1 week ago