News that Daniel Craig is to be the next James Bond left me neither shaken nor stirred.

Not shaken because he was widely tipped to be the latest screen 007 (especially after his mum let the cat out of the bag). Nor stirred because he's a safe, unadventurous choice.

No one doubts he's a good actor but has he got that extra something to make a convincing Bond?

The first blond Bond, certainly. But not the first who, we've been promised, will bring "a contemporary edge" (to quote producers Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli) to the role.

The same claims were made about casting Timothy Dalton in the role.

The result was possibly the least liked movies featuring arguably the worst 007, if you believe that George Lazenby was unfairly criticised for his sole Bond outing in On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

The grittier, more realistic approach didn't work, causing them to appoint Pierce Brosnan. The reliable Brosnan looked comfortable in a suit as well as undertaking the rough stuff - both in the field and in bed - expected of Britain's most famous secret agent.

Martin Campbell steered him in his Bond debut, GoldenEye, and will direct Craig's first 007 appearance, in Casino Royale.

While publicising his British-made thriller, Layer Cake, last year, Craig said he made no difference between acting roles - big or small, British or US, film or television. "I prefer working on good jobs. That's the only criteria I have," he said.

His pre-Bond roles are certainly diverse. He's played a real life poet (Ted Hughes in Sylvia), appeared in steamy bedroom scenes with a grandmother (in The Mother) and played a Geordie (in TV's Our Friends In The North).

* A straw poll of women in The Northern Echo office gave him the thumbs down. They didn't like the look of him. If he can't overcome even that first hurdle, Craig may have to work overtime to convince people he should hold that licence to kill.