The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[bagapath]

Of course he is the best captain. Denied a series win in the caribbean in the 1980s due to cheating umpires and the only one to probably take the WI to sword at their home in the 1980s. Series wins in England, India, and SL. Great eye for picking talent and excellent man manager. And not being stupid enough to declare and lose the match (like Garry Sobers ).

Never believed he was a great skipper. Too autocratic. Too tunnel visioned. No wonder his team's unity crumbled after his retirement. Was good enough to lead a bunch of moderately educated or uneducated raw talents with his bullying attitude I agree. But he would never have got the best out of a Warne or a Gavaskar. Managing super egos is a different talent. Imran was a captain of "yes men".

He had a Decent to Good test record as captain. But not earth shattering. Ganguly's India beat the Aussie team; which is one step better than Imran's Pakistan not losing to Windies. Doesn't make him an ATG skipper either.

Imran had too much say in team selection. Won't happen anywhere outside Pakistan. He was good for his country for the times he lived in. That's all. Don't take him anywhere near the ATG teams as captain. Of course, he is in the first or the second team as a player for sure.

 

[Red]

I've never really understood the massive accolades heaped on Worrell as a leader. What made him so good? Just the fact he was the first black guy to regularly captain WIs?

If I was going to pick someone to captain it'd be Mark Taylor, Warwick Armstrong or Chappelli.

Yes, I am Australian, and yes, we do produce thd best leaders of men..

 

[smash84]

Never believed he was a great skipper. Too autocratic. Too tunnel visioned. No wonder his team's unity crumbled after his retirement. Was good enough to lead a bunch of moderately educated or uneducated raw talents with his bullying attitude I agree. But he would never have got the best out of a Warne or a Gavaskar. Managing super egos is a different talent. Imran was a captain of "yes men".

He had a Decent to Good test record as captain. But not earth shattering. Ganguly's India beat the Aussie team; which is one step better than Imran's Pakistan not losing to Windies. Doesn't make him an ATG skipper either.

Imran had too much say in team selection. Won't happen anywhere outside Pakistan. He was good for his country for the times he lived in. That's all. Don't take him anywhere near the ATG teams as captain. Of course, he is in the first or the second team as a player for sure.

Who says you need to be democratic to be a good cricket captain And lawl at tunnel vision

Ganguly's side didn't beat a side at THEIR home ground that had been unbeaten for a decade. WI hadn't even lost a test IIRC let alone a series in their backyard. So I wouldn't put Ganguly's achievement as a step above. Besides nobody in their right mind would put Ganguly anywhere near an ATG XI so he is quite irrelevant here.

Lots of captains throughout the ages have had a fair amount of say in team selection and that Imran had more say and did well with that is more an attestation of the fact that he was superb at spotting talent. SO he would probably kick out the likes of Gavaskar and Warne and get the others to perform better without the super egos (ala his cousin majid khan who got booted by Imran and to this day their relations have not been the same)

 

[smash84]

I've never really understood the massive accolades heaped on Worrell as a leader. What made him so good? Just the fact he was the first black guy to regularly captain WIs?

If I was going to pick someone to captain it'd be Mark Taylor, Warwick Armstrong or Chappelli.

Yes, I am Australian, and yes, we do produce thd best leaders of men..

Do agree with you.

Don't know about Armstrong but Chappell and Taylor are two of the finest captains ever. Tactically very strong and good man managers. Chappell was just superb as a captain.

 

[bagapath]

I've never really understood the massive accolades heaped on Worrell as a leader. What made him so good? Just the fact he was the first black guy to regularly captain WIs?

If I was going to pick someone to captain it'd be Mark Taylor, Warwick Armstrong or Chappelli.

Yes, I am Australian, and yes, we do produce thd best leaders of men..

Your question shows how open minded you are and that you possess an uncluttered mind. I am really glad to see the question "so what if he was the first black skipper?" asked so nonchalantly. It means a man's race is irrelevant in your decisions, but unfortunately that was not the case with WI cricket a few decades ago.

West Indies team is made up of people from different nations in the Caribbean islands and the South American nation of Guyana. They were all British colonies for a long time and populated with indentured laborers who were culturally antagonistic towards each other. Brits did control their lives even after slavery was abolished. So it was cool for the WI board to appoint a white man to lead more talented black men for many decades. Eventually when it was impossible for them to keep the top job away from the black man for too long - please read C.L.R. James for details - Worrell was appointed skipper.

Had Worrell been unable to unite the men under him from different nations for the cause of West Indies cricket, had he not been an erudite and diplomatic man who represented his team with style and dignity on world stage, had he not been an inspiring cricketer who taught his team to play the game in the right spirit and respect the opponents, had he been not tactically sound, had he been a failure for any reason then the idea of a black skipper could not have had too many takers. Luckily he was a great leader of men and a superb captain of cricket teams that he inspired all those nations to come together and play as one team.

 

[bagapath]

SO he would probably kick out the likes of Gavaskar and Warne and get the others to perform better without the super egos (ala his cousin majid khan who got booted by Imran and to this day their relations have not been the same)

And that is exactly why he should not be made captain because howmuchever you push less talented players, they will never be a Shane or a Sunny. I can't even imagine how many such great talents were wasted in Pakistan for the sake of Ijaz Fakhis, Younis Ahmeds, Tauseef Ahmeds etc etc who were all whimsical selections of Imran. In fact, a young, arrogant Imran would not have made it big had he been captained by an autocratic Imran like figure early in his career. A lesser cricketer would have taken his place. It is a captain's job to make use of such super talents by controlling their egos; kicking out is not great leadership.

Autocratic leadership may bring temporary order in a chaotic, raw, unevolved system. But after a successful dictatorial leader's exit the facade will crumble and chaos will prevail once again.

Border - Taylor - Waugh - Ponting is the real handing over of the leadership baton that showed the power of the strong foundation laid by Border that kept Australia on top for decades. They beat the West Indies, not Imran's faithful followers. Ganguly-Kumble-Dhoni has also been a very smooth transition. And they were the no 1 team in the world; not Pakistan.

And please don't keep harping on not losing to Windies. Even India drew the 87-88 home series against Richards' team. After Lloyd, Holding and Garner's retirements, that team was waiting to be dethroned. But by keeping only "yes men" in his team Imran could not beat them even once (which ganguly managed to achieve against a much stronger Australia in 2001).

See bro. He led the team his way which worked to some extent. But by not fine tuning the system and by acting on his whims, he undermined the foundation of his future national teams. The talents of Inzy, Wasim, Waqar, Anwar and Saqlain could never come together in the 90s to become the number one team in the world because team culture was not nurtured in Pakistan. Imran was one of the inadvertent culprits of this crime. Of course, he stemmed the corruption and delayed the onset of overbearing religiosity. But he didn't encourage the individual talents to play for each other. They played for Imran and after he was gone they played for themelves which is never good enough.

 

[Red]

I appreciate your considered posts there bagapath. Thanks. My question about Worrell was a genuine one and I really appreciate your answer. I'd like to get hold of the best bio of Worrell at some stage.

 

[kyear2]

Of course he is the best captain. Denied a series win in the caribbean in the 1980s due to cheating umpires and the only one to probably take the WI to sword at their home in the 1980s. Series wins in England, India, and SL. Great eye for picking talent and excellent man manager. And not being stupid enough to declare and lose the match (like Garry Sobers ).

It alsways make me laugh to hear you speak of cheating umpires when all you have to reference is one match in one series compared to the help that Pakistan received at home. You also failed to mention some of the other things that Imran taught his players.

To answer Monk, Worrell was brilliant and a great leader of men. In a xenophobic era, with deep divisions among players from different contries he was the first that brought the team together as a singular unit. The caribbean streches from Jamaica to Guyana with persons of different cultures and representatives from each country clamouring for their own players to be selected in the team, he managed all of that while fighting for players rights and increase in pay long before WSC. He actually skipped a tour to prove the point that he and the rest of the players in the team expected and deserved to be better compensated and to be able to better provide for their families. He succeded. He was tactically astute and along with Benaud was credited with saving and breathing new life into cricket in the '60's from the dour style was beginng to dominate the game. In addition, the pressures he faced as the second and first regular black captain of the W.I was immence because if he had failed, it would have been a long time before it was entrusted to another and he carried the role and responsibility with grace and total dignity.

So yes Frank Worrell was a great captain.

 

[kyear2]

Your question shows how open minded you are and that you possess an uncluttered mind. I am really glad to see the question "so what if he was the first black skipper?" asked so nonchalantly. It means a man's race is irrelevant in your decisions, but unfortunately that was not the case with WI cricket a few decades ago.

West Indies team is made up of people from different nations in the Caribbean islands and the South American nation of Guyana. They were all British colonies for a long time and populated with indentured laborers who were culturally antagonistic towards each other. Brits did control their lives even after slavery was abolished. So it was cool for the WI board to appoint a white man to lead more talented black men for many decades. Eventually when it was impossible for them to keep the top job away from the black man for too long - please read C.L.R. James for details - Worrell was appointed skipper.

Had Worrell been unable to unite the men under him from different nations for the cause of West Indies cricket, had he not been an erudite and diplomatic man who represented his team with style and dignity on world stage, had he not been an inspiring cricketer who taught his team to play the game in the right spirit and respect the opponents, had he been not tactically sound, had he been a failure for any reason then the idea of a black skipper could not have had too many takers. Luckily he was a great leader of men and a superb captain of cricket teams that he inspired all those nations to come together and play as one team.

Well said, and better that I could ever hope to articulate it.

And that is exactly why he should not be made captain because howmuchever you push less talented players, they will never be a Shane or a Sunny. I can't even imagine how many such great talents were wasted in Pakistan for the sake of Ijaz Fakhis, Younis Ahmeds, Tauseef Ahmeds etc etc who were all whimsical selections of Imran. In fact, a young, arrogant Imran would not have made it big had he been captained by an autocratic Imran like figure early in his career. A lesser cricketer would have taken his place. It is a captain's job to make use of such super talents by controlling their egos; kicking out is not great leadership.

Autocratic leadership may bring temporary order in a chaotic, raw, unevolved system. But after a successful dictatorial leader's exit the facade will crumble and chaos will prevail once again.

Border - Taylor - Waugh - Ponting is the real handing over of the leadership baton that showed the power of the strong foundation laid by Border that kept Australia on top for decades. They beat the West Indies, not Imran's faithful followers. Ganguly-Kumble-Dhoni has also been a very smooth transition. And they were the no 1 team in the world; not Pakistan.

And please don't keep harping on not losing to Windies. Even India drew the 87-88 home series against Richards' team. After Lloyd, Holding and Garner's retirements, that team was waiting to be dethroned. But by keeping only "yes men" in his team Imran could not beat them even once (which ganguly managed to achieve against a much stronger Australia in 2001).

See bro. He led the team his way which worked to some extent. But by not fine tuning the system and by acting on his whims, he undermined the foundation of his future national teams. The talents of Inzy, Wasim, Waqar, Anwar and Saqlain could never come together in the 90s to become the number one team in the world because team culture was not nurtured in Pakistan. Imran was one of the inadvertent culprits of this crime. Of course, he stemmed the corruption and delayed the onset of overbearing religiosity. But he didn't encourage the individual talents to play for each other. They played for Imran and after he was gone they played for themelves which is never good enough.

Again, wow. Your extensive knowledge of the history of the game comes through in every post.

 

[honestbharani]

Responding to smileyshah on Imran is the same thing as responding to Jono on Virat..

 

[smash84]

Responding to smileyshah on Imran is the same thing as responding to Jono on Virat..

true

 

[smash84]

And that is exactly why he should not be made captain because howmuchever you push less talented players, they will never be a Shane or a Sunny. I can't even imagine how many such great talents were wasted in Pakistan for the sake of Ijaz Fakhis, Younis Ahmeds, Tauseef Ahmeds etc etc who were all whimsical selections of Imran. In fact, a young, arrogant Imran would not have made it big had he been captained by an autocratic Imran like figure early in his career. A lesser cricketer would have taken his place. It is a captain's job to make use of such super talents by controlling their egos; kicking out is not great leadership.

Autocratic leadership may bring temporary order in a chaotic, raw, unevolved system. But after a successful dictatorial leader's exit the facade will crumble and chaos will prevail once again.

Border - Taylor - Waugh - Ponting is the real handing over of the leadership baton that showed the power of the strong foundation laid by Border that kept Australia on top for decades. They beat the West Indies, not Imran's faithful followers. Ganguly-Kumble-Dhoni has also been a very smooth transition. And they were the no 1 team in the world; not Pakistan.

And please don't keep harping on not losing to Windies. Even India drew the 87-88 home series against Richards' team. After Lloyd, Holding and Garner's retirements, that team was waiting to be dethroned. But by keeping only "yes men" in his team Imran could not beat them even once (which ganguly managed to achieve against a much stronger Australia in 2001).

See bro. He led the team his way which worked to some extent. But by not fine tuning the system and by acting on his whims, he undermined the foundation of his future national teams. The talents of Inzy, Wasim, Waqar, Anwar and Saqlain could never come together in the 90s to become the number one team in the world because team culture was not nurtured in Pakistan. Imran was one of the inadvertent culprits of this crime. Of course, he stemmed the corruption and delayed the onset of overbearing religiosity. But he didn't encourage the individual talents to play for each other. They played for Imran and after he was gone they played for themelves which is never good enough.

lawl at your brilliant analogy, Confusing the board's incompetence and blaming them on the captain. The pakistan cricket board of the 80s was pretty much as incompetent as the latter years. The only difference was that there was no strong personality like Imran that could keep the team together. Which is also the reason why despite Imran harping on and on about changing the domestic structure things never were changed in that area. Reason being that Imran's authority stopped after the national squad.

And Australia had a great transition because of their whole cricketing system and structure not just because Border made a fantastic team It is so silly to assume that baton of captaincy was passed along so smoothly when the real reason that the Aussie team was so competitive was the fact that their system threw up such awesome players (Which directly links back to my point regarding spotting talent). It was the Chappells IIRC who in the 80s identified players who had the talent to compete with the world (and which is what happened later on) not that Border was making a fantastic culture that would transition leadership. And if Ricky Ponting was such a great captain then what really happened after the McWarne retirements? And you talk of the Ganguly-Kumble-Dhoni transition being smooth, what does smoothness really have to do with captaincy. Again your logic is quite messed up. And besides what good is the Dhoni's captaincy when India have lost 0-8 outside India and then losing to England at home .

 

[smash84]

It alsways make me laugh to hear you speak of cheating umpires when all you have to reference is one match in one series compared to the help that Pakistan received at home. You also failed to mention some of the other things that Imran taught his players.

lawl. Getting touchy are we

By teaching some other things, you mean to say that he taught them reverse swing?

 

[bagapath]

Hey Smali. I knew you won't agree with me. I have said all I had to say about why I don't consider Imran a great skipper but merely a good one who suited the time and place when he played international cricket. Bradman, Sobers, Gavaskar etc don't need the kind of authoritative leadership he practiced over lesser players. So I don't think his kind of captaincy will work in an ATG set up. Besides "cornered tigers...." kind of speech might result in Lillee and Miller throwing up in the changing rooms.

 

[Dan]

Pick your team then the best captain from among them.

Pick your team then the best slip cordon from among them.

 

[smash84]

Hey Smali. I knew you won't agree with me. I have said all I had to say about why I don't consider Imran a great skipper but merely a good one who suited the time and place when he played international cricket. Bradman, Sobers, Gavaskar etc don't need the kind of authoritative leadership he practiced over lesser players. So I don't think his kind of captaincy will work in an ATG set up. Besides "cornered tigers...." kind of speech might result in Lillee and Miller throwing up in the changing rooms.

Hey bagapath I knew you won't agree with me. I haven't said all I had to say about why I consider Imran a great skipper and not merely a good one who suited the time and place when he played international cricket

Besides I don't really see how you can divorce a player from the context that he plays in . Like all great players Imran would have adapted his style given the conditions and he would do well with whatever he was given to work with. Given that he worked so well with Javed Miandad who has to be one of the most difficult characters to work with in the history of the game

 

[bagapath]

...... not that Border was making a fantastic culture that would transition leadership.

he did. thats why the work ethic established by him and bob simpson (after australia fell into a slump following lillee, g.chappell and marsh's retirements) continued well after their exits. of course, there was no questioning border's authority. but other team members were also encouraged to develop leadership qualities; not just the future captains taylor and s.waugh but also core players like boon and healy. nothing like that happened under imran. he was the be all and end all of pakistan team. he left and the little flicker died with him.

And if Ricky Ponting was such a great captain then what really happened after the McWarne retirements?

i never called ricky a great captain; though i consider him to be in the same league as imran. 16 test match wins on the trot, some of them after mcwarne retired, is no joke. my point was about border passing on a good team to his successor unlike imran.

anyways, what happened to australia when lillee, chappell and marsh retired? what happened to west indies when richards, marshall, greenidge and dujon retired?

what this shows is that great players are great players. captains dont matter beyond a point at the international level. when you lose great players, imran, or any other captain, cannot whip someone ordinary to replace them. the art of good captaincy is a lot more nuanced than displaying a forceful personality.

And you talk of the Ganguly-Kumble-Dhoni transition being smooth, what does smoothness really have to do with captaincy.

ganguly had created a team atmosphere where future leaders were in place.

imran's dictatorial leadership killed smooth succession after his retirement.

 

[smash84]

he did. thats why the work ethic established by him and bob simpson (after australia fell into a slump following lillee, g.chappell and marsh's retirements) continued well after their exits. of course, there was no questioning border's authority. but other team members were also encouraged to develop leadership qualities; not just the future captains taylor and s.waugh but also core players like boon and healy. nothing like that happened under imran. he was the be all and end all of pakistan team. he left and the little flicker died with him.

You missed out my earlier point that stated that the Aussies team of the 90s wasn't a product of Border's work ethic as you mistakenly believe. It was a result of the talent identified by the Chappells et al in the 80s that was to prove fruitful in the 90s. Besides, the Australian system was and always has been very strong so the captain really doesn't have much say in the system. Lillee found many Shield matches to be much more intense than some of the international matches that he played so it was always part of the Australian system. Not that Border came out with a magic wand. And yes, Border himself also had some say in the selection of players during his time (as I believe the captain should have).

i never called ricky a great captain; though i consider him to be in the same league as imran. 16 test match wins on the trot, some of them after mcwarne retired, is no joke. my point was about border passing on a good team to his successor unlike imran.

anyways, what happened to australia when lillee, chappell and marsh retired? what happened to west indies when richards, marshall, greenidge and dujon retired?

what this shows is that great players are great players. captains dont matter beyond a point at the international level. when you lose great players, imran, or any other captain, cannot whip someone ordinary to replace them. the art of good captaincy is a lot more nuanced than displaying a forceful personality.

ganguly had created a team atmosphere where future leaders were in place.

imran's dictatorial leadership killed smooth succession after his retirement.
.

It is a little silly to call Imran's leadership to just be force of personality and nothing else. His understanding of the game was outstanding (and he borrowed his style from Ian Chappell). Dickie Bird recently came out with his team and I doubt he made Imran the captain of his side because of force of personality.

What happened to NZ when Fleming was in charge? What happened to India (in ODIs) when Dhoni became in charge? They started to win a lot more and a lot of times with very ordinary teams because they could get the best out of the players. It had nothing to do with smooth transitioning from Ganguly to Kumble to Dhoni. And what smooth transition are you talking about and who are you trying to kid? The transition where Ganguly himself was kicked out of the team because he had rifts with the team management and Rahul Dravid became captain (the episode that you conveniently choose to ignore and paint it as a SMOOTH transition? .

 

[smash84]

he did. thats why the work ethic established by him and bob simpson (after australia fell into a slump following lillee, g.chappell and marsh's retirements) continued well after their exits. of course, there was no questioning border's authority. but other team members were also encouraged to develop leadership qualities; not just the future captains taylor and s.waugh but also core players like boon and healy. nothing like that happened under imran. he was the be all and end all of pakistan team. he left and the little flicker died with him.

You missed out my earlier point that stated that the Aussies team of the 90s wasn't a product of Border's work ethic as you mistakenly believe. It was a result of the talent identified by the Chappells et al in the 80s that was to prove fruitful in the 90s. Besides, the Australian system was and always has been very strong so the captain really doesn't have much say in the system. Lillee found many Shield matches to be much more intense than some of the international matches that he played so it was always part of the Australian system. Not that Border came out with a magic wand. And yes, Border himself also had some say in the selection of players during his time (as I believe the captain should have).

i never called ricky a great captain; though i consider him to be in the same league as imran. 16 test match wins on the trot, some of them after mcwarne retired, is no joke. my point was about border passing on a good team to his successor unlike imran.

anyways, what happened to australia when lillee, chappell and marsh retired? what happened to west indies when richards, marshall, greenidge and dujon retired?

what this shows is that great players are great players. captains dont matter beyond a point at the international level. when you lose great players, imran, or any other captain, cannot whip someone ordinary to replace them. the art of good captaincy is a lot more nuanced than displaying a forceful personality.

ganguly had created a team atmosphere where future leaders were in place.

imran's dictatorial leadership killed smooth succession after his retirement.
.

It is a little silly to call Imran's leadership to just be force of personality and nothing else. His understanding of the game was outstanding (and he borrowed his style from Ian Chappell). Dickie Bird recently came out with his team and I doubt he made Imran the captain of his side because of force of personality.

What happened to NZ when Fleming was in charge? What happened to India (in ODIs) when Dhoni became in charge? They started to win a lot more and a lot of times with very ordinary teams because they could get the best out of the players. It had nothing to do with smooth transitioning from Ganguly to Kumble to Dhoni. And what smooth transition are you talking about and who are you trying to kid? The transition where Ganguly himself was kicked out of the team because he had rifts with the team management and Rahul Dravid became captain (the episode that you conveniently choose to ignore and paint it as a SMOOTH transition? .

 

[the big bambino]

You missed out my earlier point that stated that the Aussies team of the 90s wasn't a product of Border's work ethic as you mistakenly believe. It was a result of the talent identified by the Chappells et al in the 80s that was to prove fruitful in the 90s.

There is no way the success built up by Border and Simpson should be credited to the Chappells whose influence on Australian cricket has been in some instances toxic.