Rate the captains

[Zinzan]

Twose and Allot in their prime were right up there. Good old Chris Harris as well. Perhaps Taylor but he didn't captain him much. Styris would roughly equal Astle. They're the only ones I can think of that she might be reffering to.

With all due respect to Twose,Allott, Styris and Harris, they would hardly be considered some of the great world ODI players of their time. Allott had one outstanding 99 world cup, Styris was decidely average until around 2003 and Twose was a very good ODI batsmen for a period of around 2-3 years max, but hardly a great of the game. Finally Chris Harris was an exceedingly useful cricketer who got a lot more out of himself than his natural talent would suggest but again he was hardly one of the great ODI players of his time.

 

[Zinzan]

Twose and Allot in their prime were right up there. Good old Chris Harris as well. Perhaps Taylor but he didn't captain him much. Styris would roughly equal Astle. They're the only ones I can think of that she might be reffering to.

To sum it up only Bond and Cairns would have been consistently good enough to be a regulars in the Australian ODI side in the last 5-10 years and possibly Vettori in the last couple of years since Warne retired.

 

[Flem274*]

With all due respect to Twose,Allott, Styris and Harris, they would hardly be considered some of the great world ODI players of their time. Allott had one outstanding 99 world cup, Styris was decidely average until around 2003 and Twose was a very good ODI batsmen for a period of around 2-3 years max, but hardly a great of the game. Finally Chris Harris was an exceedingly useful cricketer who got a lot more out of himself than his natural talent would suggest but again he was hardly one of the great ODI players of his time.

Yeah I know. I'm just throwing some names out of who she may be talking about.

 

[NZTailender]

Twose and Allot in their prime were right up there. Good old Chris Harris as well. Perhaps Taylor but he didn't captain him much. Styris would roughly equal Astle. They're the only ones I can think of that she might be reffering to.

No, he doesn't.

 

[Richard]

To sum it up only Bond and Cairns would have been consistently good enough to be a regulars in the Australian ODI side in the last 5-10 years and possibly Vettori in the last couple of years since Warne retired.

Vettori > Warne for much of the time Vettori has been a good ODI bowler (ie, about 2000 or so onwards). And obviously more of that time than not now features Warne in retirement.

 

[a massive zebra]

Bradman was never thought to have been a particularly outstanding captain, merely adaquete and of course a phenomenal batsman;

I would be interested to know where you heard that. All the objective evidence points to Bradman being a quite superb captain - he never lost a series as captain, has one of the highest winning percentages of any captain in history, is the only captain to win a 5 match test series having been 2-0 down at one stage, and managed to guide his team through an entire Ashes tour without a single defeat, a quite unparalleled achievement. Obviously having himself in the side would have helped, but I don't think one can ignore this immense weight of evidence.

To quote Bill Brown "Don was the best tactical captain I ever played under, he new all about the opposition batsmen and placed his field accordingly, he remembered things that happened in previous matches, when the new ball was due the bowlers were rested and ready, I'd say he just never missed a trick in the field."

 

[a massive zebra]

You provide us with the opportunity to select one of the very worst captains in history, an arrogant, overbearing and unreliable man who lost every series as captain at a time when England were blessed with some of the best resources of natural talent in their history. What's more, he is chosen at the expense of a contemporary who inspired England to lift the the Ashes for the first time in years having lost the previous three series under MacLaren's captaincy.

According to Plum Warner, MacLaren was a pessimistic captain who considered himself beaten before the match even began, and was prone to be critical rather than constructive when things were going badly. MacLaren's biographer Michael Down concluded "He was too inflexible to suit everyone who played under him."

Also, he made his fair share of selectoral mistakes, most notably the omission of a fast bowler at The Oval in 1909.

Furthermore, Monty Noble remarked "If there was a weakness in his general method of attack it was a tendency to give his stock bowler too long a spell at the crease." The most striking example of this was his merciless use of Barnes in 1901-02, who, having won the first Test with a marvellous performance, broke down in the second after being bowled down to the ground and could not play in the final three tests of the series. England lost the last three tests comfortably.

Finally, everything in MacLaren's manor radiated supriority, and he regularly made his team mates feel inferior and uncomfortable. To quote C.B. Fry, MacLaren was "an iron and joyless captain... under him you entered every game bowed down with the hurculean labour of a cricket match against Australia; you were as in a trance to your doom."

 

[Ikki]

Vettori > Warne for much of the time Vettori has been a good ODI bowler (ie, about 2000 or so onwards). And obviously more of that time than not now features Warne in retirement.

WTF? . A new entry into Richard's Hall of All-Time Whoppers.

 

[a massive zebra]

You provide us with the opportunity to select one of the very worst captains in history, an arrogant, overbearing and unreliable man who lost every series as captain at a time when England were blessed with some of the best resources of natural talent in their history. What's more, he is chosen at the expense of a contemporary who inspired England to lift the the Ashes for the first time in years having lost the previous three series under MacLaren's captaincy.

According to Plum Warner, MacLaren was a pessimistic captain who considered himself beaten before the match even began, and was prone to be critical rather than constructive when things were going badly. MacLaren's biographer Michael Down concluded "He was too inflexible to suit everyone who played under him."

Also, he made his fair share of selectoral mistakes, most notably the omission of a fast bowler at The Oval in 1909.

Furthermore, Monty Noble remarked "If there was a weakness in his general method of attack it was a tendency to give his stock bowler too long a spell at the crease." The most striking example of this was his merciless use of Barnes in 1901-02, who, having won the first Test with a marvellous performance, broke down in the second after being bowled down to the ground and could not play in the final three tests of the series. England lost the last three tests comfortably.

Finally, everything in MacLaren's manor radiated supriority, and he regularly made his team mates feel inferior and uncomfortable. To quote C.B. Fry, MacLaren was "an iron and joyless captain... under him you entered every game bowed down with the hurculean labour of a cricket match against Australia; you were as in a trance to your doom."

Deepest apologies to the excellent cricketweb poster Archie Mac.

 

[Athlai]

WTF? . A new entry into Richard's Hall of All-Time Whoppers.

He's referring to ODI bowling while Vettori was in his prime so it's a fair statement.

 

[Richard]

WTF? . A new entry into Richard's Hall of All-Time Whoppers.

I wonder if you even read the post before taking a seeming chance to jump on something else.

 

[Flem274*]

I wonder if you even read the post before taking a seeming chance to jump on something else.

Remembering of course that no one can possibly be better than an Australian, or have I mixed him up with SST?

 

[Richard]

I would be interested to know where you heard that. All the objective evidence points to Bradman being a quite superb captain - he never lost a series as captain, has one of the highest winning percentages of any captain in history, is the only captain to win a 5 match test series having been 2-0 down at one stage, and managed to guide his team through an entire Ashes tour without a single defeat, a quite unparalleled achievement. Obviously having himself in the side would have helped, but I don't think one can ignore this immense weight of evidence.

To quote Bill Brown "Don was the best tactical captain I ever played under, he new all about the opposition batsmen and placed his field accordingly, he remembered things that happened in previous matches, when the new ball was due the bowlers were rested and ready, I'd say he just never missed a trick in the field."

Of the results, I'm aware but not, as I said earlier in the thread, particularly interested. Good teams, not good captains, get good results. Brown's comment is more something of significance, but he's the first person I've ever heard talk of Bradman as a tactically skillful captain. I've honestly never read anything along those lines before. Everyone, but everyone, speaks in higher terms of his predecessor, Woodfull, and his successor, Hassett.

And there's also, of course, the issue that both (and Benaud, and several others) were more skillful unifying operators. With the likes of Fingleton and O'Reilly (and they were by no means the only ones) Bradman's teams often had a rift running through them, as would later be the case with Stephen Waugh \ Adam Gilchrist and Shane Warne. Woodfull and Hassett were much more skilled at being all things to all men.

 

[Ikki]

He's referring to ODI bowling while Vettori was in his prime so it's a fair statement.

Maybe I read it wrong, but I thought he was comparing both in ODI post-2000. Even then, Vettori is still behind. Maybe at some point when Warne was at his worst and Vettori at his best Vettori was better than Warne. But generally and, even post-2000, Warne has been the better ODI bowler.

Warne post-2000, Vettori post-2000.

 

[Ikki]

Of the results, I'm aware but not, as I said earlier in the thread, particularly interested. Good teams, not good captains, get good results. Brown's comment is more something of significance, but he's the first person I've ever heard talk of Bradman as a tactically skillful captain. I've honestly never read anything along those lines before. Everyone, but everyone, speaks in higher terms of his predecessor, Woodfull, and his successor, Hassett.

And there's also, of course, the issue that both (and Benaud, and several others) were more skillful unifying operators. With the likes of Fingleton and O'Reilly (and they were by no means the only ones) Bradman's teams often had a rift running through them, as would later be the case with Stephen Waugh \ Adam Gilchrist and Shane Warne. Woodfull and Hassett were much more skilled at being all things to all men.

Well, if they had a rift it never showed up in a match and that is what matters. To be successful and to control men with the stature of Warne or Miller is a much different and difficult task.

 

[S.P. Fleming]

I am only young and have not seen many of the captains on this list. But from what I have seen Fleming is amazing as he carried a struggling team so well, if he wasnt there NZ may well have been down with the lower-tier nations. His tactics against aussie batsmen, martyn with the backward point/ gully move and recently the short cover against Ponting were just a couple of his genious ideas, but dont underestimate his presence on the field.

 

[Briony]

I am only young and have not seen many of the captains on this list. But from what I have seen Fleming is amazing as he carried a struggling team so well, if he wasnt there NZ may well have been down with the lower-tier nations. His tactics against aussie batsmen, martyn with the backward point/ gully move and recently the short cover against Ponting were just a couple of his genious ideas, but dont underestimate his presence on the field.

NZ is down with the lower-tier nations in tests.

 

[Flem274*]

NZ is down with the lower-tier nations in tests.

I think he means Bangladesh, Zimbabwe etc.

 

[Richard]

Well, if they had a rift it never showed up in a match and that is what matters. To be successful and to control men with the stature of Warne or Miller is a much different and difficult task.

Of course, that it never showed-up (obviously) in a match is important. However, it's better still to be so skillful a man-manager that these rifts are healed. This was a gift Woodfull and Hassett always had. Bradman, on the other hand, believed he was right to take the attitude he did - and perhaps history has shown that he has. Instead of trying to accommodate the O'Reilly\Fingleton types, he deemed that they were in the wrong. Australia were still, of course, a phenomenal side despite this (it'd be fairly difficult for a side containing Bradman not to be, really), but had a Woodfull been in charge for the entire duration of the 1930s (not realistic, of course, but hypothetically speaking) it's conceivable Australia might have been even better than they were.

 

[JBH001]

Haha! Can not believe that Fleming is leading the votes...

By a considerable margin too, lol!