Bangladesh have sacked their captain and vice-captain after some less-than-stellar results against Zimbabwe. The sacking has already raised some questions; Cricinfo reports some directors on the country’s board were not consulted.
Which leads to me ask: Why don’t we have term limits for cricket captains? In current political parlance, ‘term limits’ are often proposed as a way to prevent politicians from consolidating power. But the idea of having a set term of office actually has a long history, stretching back to the U.S. Constitution, which famously gives a 2-year term for House members; 6 years for Senators; and 4 for Presidents. In contrast to British (and Indian) Parliament, which can call general elections when they please — a practice the authors of the Federalist Papers labeled “dangerous” — the American system gives office-holders space to achieve what they can before turning to the public for approval (or rejection).
Obviously, cricketers face different challenges from politicians, and other considerations — form, physical shape, etc. — are involved. But I think boards would do best to pick a captain, set a term limit — 2 years, perhaps — and say, “This appointment will not be questioned until the term is up” and give him their best shot. Dissenters will realize they can’t do anything to topple the leader, and captains realize they have limited time to prove themselves.