Steve Waugh v Shane Warne

[Precambrian]

Adding to what Richard said above, a major "flaw" in Warne's career is that he was never made test captain.

And at comparable ages, we hardly regarded Warne as captaincy material as compared to KP or Dhoni at 27. Maybe Warne has learnt a lot and become a lot wiser in the later years, and is a late bloomer in terms of captaincy acumen. At 27, Warne had a lot of things going against him as captaincy material than in favor of him.

 

[Uppercut]

Adding to what Richard said above, a major "flaw" in Warne's career is that he was never made test captain.

And at comparable ages, we hardly regarded Warne as captaincy material as compared to KP or Dhoni at 27. Maybe Warne has learnt a lot and become a lot wiser in the later years, and is a late bloomer in terms of captaincy acumen. At 27, Warne had a lot of things going against him as captaincy material than in favor of him.

Why is KP captancy material? He's never even captained a club side.

Anyway, how about if one was to go back to the appointment of Ponting as captain and ask that if the choice was made purely from a cricketing perspective, would it have been Warne? If so, would you have agreed with the choice?

I'm quite happy to speculate on the subject of whether certain players would have made good captains if given the chance. If you think it's pointless to, then don't.

 

[Precambrian]

Why is KP captancy material? He's never even captained a club side.

Hardly a disqualification. There have been very good captains who have never captained a domestic side. Case in point is Mahendra Dhoni.

Anyway, how about if one was to go back to the appointment of Ponting as captain and ask that if the choice was made purely from a cricketing perspective, would it have been Warne? If so, would you have agreed with the choice?

I take cricketing perspective as from one's ability to inspire others through own performance. Ponting was groomed early from probably his debut to become a future captain. I still think Warne would have become captain, if his off-field activites were not there. And the substance abuse in 2003 was the death-knell on his captaincy. No, I wouldnt have agreed on Warne becoming Aus captain purely on the basis of his cricketing performances, because he hardly seemed mature at that time.

I'm quite happy to speculate on the subject of whether certain players would have made good captains if given the chance. If you think it's pointless to, then don't

Please be free to as this forum is mine as much as yours. I am hardly against Warne's captaincy ability, and I think if not for 2003 ban, he'd made a very good captain post 2004. As I said, some players achieve maturity to captain the side early, and some later. In Warne's case I would never be surprised to see him becoming a successful coach in the future, as he's shown immense skill to inspire and get the best out of even a rookie bunch like the Rajasthan Royals. Some of the junior guys like Asnodkar, Jadeja and Trivedi have replicated their IPL success in the FC circuit this season.

However purely from the perspective of the original question of this thread, Waugh has facts backing him, while in Warne's case it is a complete "What if". It'd be along the lines of "Archie Jackson would have rivaled Don Bradman, had cruel fate not nipped the promising guy's life at 23".

It adds to the romanticism.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I still think Warne would have become captain, if his off-field activites were not there. And the substance abuse in 2003 was the death-knell on his captaincy. No, I wouldnt have agreed on Warne becoming Aus captain purely on the basis of his cricketing performances, because he hardly seemed mature at that time.

Small point, and probably largely a semantic one, but I wouldn't call Warne's drug difficulties "substance abuse"; it isn't as if he was caught tooting on a crystal meth pipe. He took a banned substance that has been used to mask the usage of performance enhancing drugs.

 

[anoop4real]

I do feel that there is not enough data to compare between Steve and Shane but I feel Steve is better................

 

[Matt79]

Adding to what Richard said above, a major "flaw" in Warne's career is that he was never made test captain.

And at comparable ages, we hardly regarded Warne as captaincy material as compared to KP or Dhoni at 27. Maybe Warne has learnt a lot and become a lot wiser in the later years, and is a late bloomer in terms of captaincy acumen. At 27, Warne had a lot of things going against him as captaincy material than in favor of him.

Why is it a "flaw"? Disappointment maybe, but the decision not to remove him from consideration for captaincy was for strictly non-cricket reasons, so I don't see how it can have any bearing on his Test record. Is it a flaw in McGrath's career that he was never captain?

 

[bagapath]

Warne and Miller were Australia's best two captains, just learnt never how to play politics and kiss asses.

those are also important for a good captain. its not just about field placement and bowling changes.

arjuna, imran and ganguly were superb politicians. they also had their own methods of cajoling problematic players to come around for the team cause.

shane warne did not become captain not because he was "too honest and straight forward" as most people make it sound. he was too in disciplined to be entrusted with such a responsibility. he was more useful as the star bowler and the additional brain in the second slip. with all his knowledge he might have made it as the best captain or he might have gone the ian botham way.

 

[Precambrian]

Why is it a "flaw"? Disappointment maybe, but the decision not to remove him from consideration for captaincy was for strictly non-cricket reasons, so I don't see how it can have any bearing on his Test record. Is it a flaw in McGrath's career that he was never captain?

The pinnacle of every cricketer's career is to captain his test side imho.Again, maybe wrong choice of word, disappointment is more apt.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, disappointment rather than black mark on his record, as it was in one sense outside of his control, and in another, had nothing to do with his ability to do the job. Outside of his control in that by the time he was a candidate, the three guys who got the job in Taylor, Waugh and Ponting were all massively successful. If he had played in another team, where that stability/success of the leaders wasn't present, the selectors would not have had the luxury of ignoring the inspirational leader/cricketing genius who was also a firm fixture in the team from their calculations, and he probably would have got a go - witness most other test teams and their number of captains over the same period.

 

[Richard]

Between '89 and '03, when Australia had 4 captains, Sri Lanka had half that number.

Heck, believe it or not England had just 5 (1 of whom did the job for a year only) between '90 and '08.

 

[Matt79]

Or we could chose more relevantly choose the dates of Warne's career - 1992 to 2007.

Australia has the least, but by less than I'd have thought - a slight misconception caused probably by the length of time Border had been in office already by that point (if we widened the dates out from the time Border took up the role until today for instance, the difference becomes more stark), and by the fact that Taylor's prolonged slump aside, none of the captain's have ever looked insecure in their position aside from the few months ahead of their retirement, and that even in those times, there's been a clear succession plan. The four captains were in place uninterrupted, whereas in several of the other nations, it went back and forth a couple of times between some of the captains.

Aust: 4 captains substantive captains (Border, Taylor, Waugh, Ponting) with one additional fill-in (Gilchrist)
Eng: 6 captains (Gooch, Atherton, Stewart, Hussain, Vaughan, Flintoff) with a further three filling in (Butcher, Trescothick, and Strauss)
SL: 5 captains (Ranatunga, Jayasuriya, Tillekaratne, Attapattu, Jayawardena) with a further fill in (De Silva)
India: 5 captains (Azharuddin, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Kumble) with Sehwag filling in.
South Africa: 4 captains (Wessels, Cronje, Pollock, Smith), with four fill ins, Kirsten, Kallis, Prince, and Boucher.
Pakistan: 11 captains (Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Malik, Raja, Anwar, Sohail, Moin Khan, Inzi, Youssuf, Shoiab Malik) with Rashid Latif and Younus Khan also filling in.
West Indies: 8 captains (Richardson, Walsh, Lara, Adams, Hooper, Chanderpaul, Sarwan, Gayle), with Bravo, Ganga and Jacobs also filling in.
NZ: 5 captains (Crowe, Rutherford, Germon, Fleming, Vettori), with Nash filling in.

 

[Richard]

Or we could chose more relevantly choose the dates of Warne's career - 1992 to 2007.

Australia has the least, but by less than I'd have thought - a slight misconception caused probably by the length of time Border had been in office already by that point (if we widened the dates out from the time Border took up the role until today for instance, the difference becomes more stark), and by the fact that Taylor's prolonged slump aside, none of the captain's have ever looked insecure in their position aside from the few months ahead of their retirement, and that even in those times, there's been a clear succession plan. The four captains were in place uninterrupted, whereas in several of the other nations, it went back and forth a couple of times between some of the captains.

Aust: 4 captains substantive captains (Border, Taylor, Waugh, Ponting) with one additional fill-in (Gilchrist)
Eng: 6 captains (Gooch, Atherton, Stewart, Hussain, Vaughan, Flintoff) with a further three filling in (Butcher, Trescothick, and Strauss)
SL: 5 captains (Ranatunga, Jayasuriya, Tillekaratne, Attapattu, Jayawardena) with a further fill in (De Silva)
India: 5 captains (Azharuddin, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Kumble) with Sehwag filling in.
South Africa: 4 captains (Wessels, Cronje, Pollock, Smith), with four fill ins, Kirsten, Kallis, Prince, and Boucher.
Pakistan: 11 captains (Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Malik, Raja, Anwar, Sohail, Moin Khan, Inzi, Youssuf, Shoiab Malik) with Rashid Latif and Younus Khan also filling in.
West Indies: 8 captains (Richardson, Walsh, Lara, Adams, Hooper, Chanderpaul, Sarwan, Gayle), with Bravo, Ganga and Jacobs also filling in.
NZ: 5 captains (Crowe, Rutherford, Germon, Fleming, Vettori), with Nash filling in.

Flintoff was only ever a fill-in. And Kumble only assumed the Indian captaincy after Warne's retirement. Ditto Vettori and New Zealand. Jayawardene assumed the Lankan captaincy only by default through injury, otherwise he too would've waited until after Warne's retirement.

Anyway, aside from Pakistan and West Indies who (always and in recent times respectively) are notorious for leader-changes, the lead for Australia over others is not massive. That's the point I was making.

 

[Matt79]

Was Flintoff really a fill-in? He was put in place for at least a whole season, with it being unclear whether Vaughan would be coming back. To me, a fill in is someone who's in charge for no more than one whole series at a time... Why does Jayawardena's ascension through injury make it irrelevant - my point was about the stability, brought about in no small part by the resiliance of the men in place for Australia.

Fair cop on the Kumble and Vettori figures, I was just going by calender year - some of the guys who only captained in 1992 probably didn't do so AFTER Warne debuted.

My other qualifications re: Border's tenure and the stability of each of those four reigns remains valid IMO, however.

 

[Precambrian]

Flintoff was only ever a fill-in. And Kumble only assumed the Indian captaincy after Warne's retirement. Ditto Vettori and New Zealand. Jayawardene assumed the Lankan captaincy only by default through injury, otherwise he too would've waited until after Warne's retirement.

Anyway, aside from Pakistan and West Indies who (always and in recent times respectively) are notorious for leader-changes, the lead for Australia over others is not massive. That's the point I was making.

Agree with everything except your comment regarding Flintoff. He was never a fill in captain.

 

[Ikki]

What is probably not discussed, and is most relevant, with regards to the number of captains each test nation has had, is that Australia didn't change captain because their captain failed.

 

[Richard]

Not that many of the others did either.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Agree with everything except your comment regarding Flintoff. He was never a fill in captain.

He was tho; as soon as his knee allowed Vaughan took over again. If memory serves he actually played in a few of the Commonwealth Bank one-dayers after the main event until he succombed to another injury.

Link. As Stuart Law here said (article dated 11/12/06),

"Fred knows that when Michael Vaughan is fit, Fred's not captain any more."

 

[Matt79]

Meh, it's a moot point in lots of ways - at what length of time as the appointed captain does someone's captaincy become 'substantive' as opposed to simply keeping the seat warm?

 

[Richard]

Agree with everything except your comment regarding Flintoff. He was never a fill in captain.

Was Flintoff really a fill-in? He was put in place for at least a whole season, with it being unclear whether Vaughan would be coming back. To me, a fill in is someone who's in charge for no more than one whole series at a time...

For me, Flintoff was a fill-in. He was never given the job on a permanent basis, it was always "until Vaughan comes back", even if there were times where we all worried that he might well not be back.

Why does Jayawardena's ascension through injury make it irrelevant - my point was about the stability, brought about in no small part by the resiliance of the men in place for Australia.

I don't think back injuries come under "lack of resilience" TBH. It's just luck of the draw. Trust me, bad backs run in my family.

Fair cop on the Kumble and Vettori figures, I was just going by calender year - some of the guys who only captained in 1992 probably didn't do so AFTER Warne debuted.

Not sure, I can't think of anyone off the top of my head, apart from maybe a Pakistani.

My other qualifications re: Border's tenure and the stability of each of those four reigns remains valid IMO, however.

Yeah, that's fair noof - not totally sure what figures would be Border to Ponting (whenever Ponting's tenure ends) but I'd be very surprised if Australia weren't ahead.

 

[Richard]

Meh, it's a moot point in lots of ways - at what length of time as the appointed captain does someone's captaincy become 'substantive' as opposed to simply keeping the seat warm?

When it's confirmed fo' sho' that the person they've been standing-in for isn't coming back. IMO.