3 reasons why England considering Ben Stokes as next ODI captain would be the wrong move

England are in the hunt for a new white-ball captain after Jos Buttler stepped down from the role after a dismal 2025 Champions Trophy campaign. The team recorded three defeats in the group stage to end with 0 points, marking yet another poor ICC campaign.

Although there is no outright frontrunner to succeed Buttler, several were handed a shock when Test captain Ben Stokes was said to be in the running for the role. The all-rounder last played ODI and T20I cricket in the 2023 ODI World Cup and the 2022 T20 World Cup, respectively.

Stokes has led England in three ODIs, all of which came in a home bilateral series against Pakistan, which they won 3-0.

"I think nothing's off the table really, You look at every single option and you think, right, what is the best thing to do? How is that going to impact on other things? Ben Stokes is one of the best captains I've ever seen. So it would be stupid not to look at him. It's just the knock-on effect of what that means," ECB managing director Rob Key said (via ESPN).

"He's an unbelievably good tactician, which we've seen in Test cricket, but he's a leader of men. He's someone who gets the best out of people. He's someone that, when the pressure is really on, he's able to throw a blanket around the players and actually say, 'no, no, this is the way forward. Keep going with it'," he added.

On that note, let us take a look at three reasons why England considering Ben Stokes as the next ODI captain would be the wrong move.

#1 A backward step

Stokes' calibre as a leader is unquestionable. Though England have not raked in silverware as much as they would have liked, his influence on the Test team is clear. His clarity of thought and chemistry with Brendon McCullum all augurs well for the vacant role in the white-ball setup. However, all of the other prominent factors dictate that his potential appointment would be a major backward step.

In this era, for white-ball cricket, young and dynamic options, who could learn from the seniors on the go, are a better choice than the seniors themselves. Australia's appointment of Mitchell Marsh as T20I captain has backfired, and other senior players like Temba Bavuma, Kane Williamson, Aaron Finch, Dasun Shanaka, and more have all faded away in the recent past, due to a wide variety of reasons.

New-age captains like Shubman Gill, Charith Asalanka, Aiden Markram (to a certain extent age-wise), and Najmul Hossain Shanto, are on the rise, and Ben Stokes arguably does not fit this billing.

Buttler's resignation offers ECB a good chance to instill a fresh face who would relish having responsibility on his shoulders. Going after Stokes at this juncture, will not only create insecurity within the current leadership group in place, but also harm England in the long run as they are tampering with the scheme of things.

#2 England have groomed enough players of late

Unintentionally, England have already groomed their next line of leaders over the last few months in Jos Buttler's absence. With the skipper struggling with a calf injury and forced to miss the majority of cricket in the second half of 2024, the leadership responsibility was shuffled among the likes of Harry Brook, Liam Livingstone, and Phil Salt.

All three of them are bonafide members of England's white-ball playing XI, and key members in the transition period. Having amassed leadership experience through the domestic circuit, and in The Hundred, they come across as able and reliable options to build something new in terms of culture and approach. They are an entity around which the rest can be assembled.

Additionally, England's woes are not necessarily tied entirely down to captaincy. It is not as if to say the choice of captaincy does not matter, but ultimately it does, if the other grave issues in the team are not fixed.

Rather than dwelling obsessively over a new captain, England need to set a new path, and conduct a thorough overhaul in terms of culture and approach, before they make a rash decision. Making an appointment after the parameters are defined is the logical course.

Irrespective of the path England choose, whether it be steering in the same direction or shaking things up, it is clear that they have plenty of 'in-house' options to choose from. In light of the leadership hierarchy already in place within, bringing in Stokes, who is not a concrete and reliable option in white-ball cricket, seems a redundant decision.

In the white-ball setup, it seems rather unnecessary to rope in Ben Stokes out of nowhere to disrupt the system of natural progression.

#3 Stokes' workload

It's sort of the elephant in the room when it comes to Stokes' workload and injury record. Even if Stokes was the ideal choice for the role, its execution is difficult as the 33-year-old's days as an all-format player are arguably gone.

As things stand, Stokes' biggest role is as England's Test team captain, and the balance he offers to the red-ball side. Extending his responsibility to the white-ball sides too will compromise his primary role within the team. Already carrying a dodgy knee that has been tested to its limits, the all-rounder also recently tweaked his hamstring twice, which casts serious doubts over another potential return to the white-ball side.

At a time when England crave stability more than ever, they cannot afford to have a captain who might be on the sidelines for the bulk of the matches.

Although Stokes is a natural leader, commands respect from his teammates, and is a great addition on and off the field, his appointment, which will not be long-term in the first place (Stokes will turn 34 in June), hampers the opportunity to do a more meaningful transition.