***Official*** Australia in South Africa 2018

[SeamUp]

I've addressed a couple of these points already. Most of the rest are too subjective to hold conversation on. You believe them to be important in part because you hold a high opinion of him as a captain. I believe them to be unimportant in part because I do not.

Don't you think that the primary job of a captain is to win matches though? Given that everyone else won a higher percentage of games than him, doesn't this lower him in your estimation?

Exactly. So when you aren't winning you lose the job. The history of the test game has shown that there aren't many captains for more than 10 years and he was one of them for a reason.

Tactically he wasn't a Vaughan or a Fleming but he knew when his sides had to go for the throat and when they had to sit back and absorb pressure. He was the one responsible for quite a few things that don't just happen. Someone has to drive ideas and make them happen and he did.

So to sum up, he was a leader of men who his team mates followed and wanted to play for. He had to take over and still perform his skills (opening the batting , dealing with transformations targets and being not technically perfect had to use up a lot of mental reserve but still produced as a leader and you don't want to give him credit for that ?) Wow.

Pollock was sincere but undemonstrative as a captain. I used to watch Pollock go bowl , moan at his fielders and shake his head as a captain because he was a bowler. Nice to have the Woolmer carry over a bit and the fixtures he had like Stephen mentions. We needed personality and Smith gave us that.

The fact that you are going on pure win/loss ratios and the fact he didn't field 5 slips and a gully and had a silly mid-on and silly mid-off and went gung-ho is laughable.

 

[akilana]

Tbf he does have a point wrt to the Cronje thing which is often cited when praising Smith but never Pollock. Largely disagree with the win-loss analysis though.

Maybe because Pollock didn’t last long as a captain to cultivate an image free of scandals.

 

[wpdavid]

I personally don't judge captains by win-loss record anyway. I think it's pretty lazy and in most cases, misleading.

Absolutely right. It's all about trying to quantify value added given the players available and standard of opposition. Not easy, but far more useful.

Smith was something of a mixed bag from an English pov. An absolute giant giant in England, but , ironically, less awesome on home territory. In terms of results, as well as his own batting. But winning 2 out of 3 series in England, and being a bit unlucky not to win the other one, puts him streets ahead of any of the other SA captains that we've seen since readmission.

 

[SeamUp]

Atherton

Watching Smith was a reminder of the variety the game can incorporate. He carried bulk and his batting was ugly. Through force of personality, though, and of sheer will, he became a great captain of a great team. South Africa will struggle to replace him.

Gary Kirsten

Gary Kirsten, the former South African batsman and coach, has called Graeme Smith the "greatest captain ever" in Test cricket. What instantly struck and stayed with Kirsten, who played his final four Test series under a 22-year-old Smith, was the young captain's credibility as a leader and a genuine feeling for the job. Self-belief, presence, leading from the front, man-management and shielding his players from critics and media were what made Smith his best captain, Kirsten pointed out.

"Is he the greatest captain ever in Test match cricket? In my view he must be," Kirsten told ESPNcricnfo. "I don't think anyone had led as long. We know that. He has taken South Africa to great heights. The kind of success he has had, the kind of success he has taken South African cricket to, I would argue that he is the best captain that has ever lived."

"You look at his record in the fourth innings and his ability to make important contributions. That gave the team a lot of confidence. It gives your team a lot of comfort to know that the captain is walking the talk."

What Kirsten always liked about Smith was that he could trust the captain to stand up for his players. "Having played under him, which I really enjoyed even though he was a young captain at the time, I felt he was believable to me," Kirsten said. "He had credibility in my eyes. Because I knew he would front up to difficult situations."

When Kirsten became South Africa coach, he noticed Smith had become a complete captain. "By that stage he had learned a lot about leadership," Kirsten said. "We always had a good connection and we had an enormous amount of fun over the two-year period we were together leading the team. We were able to tweak a few things and take the performance to even greater levels. We both believed that South Africa could become the No. 1 team in the world."

 

[akilana]

I've addressed a couple of these points already. Most of the rest are too subjective to hold conversation on. You believe them to be important in part because you hold a high opinion of him as a captain. I believe them to be unimportant in part because I do not.

Don't you think that the primary job of a captain is to win matches though? Given that everyone else won a higher percentage of games than him, doesn't this lower him in your estimation?

It is. But most captains are groomed for the job and are familiar with the setting before appointed. Smith was an outsider and barely played any internationals when he was appointed.

 

[Marius]

Can't believe there is a guy trying to argue that Smith was a rubbish captain.



You sometimes got the feeling that we won matches only because of Smith's sheer force of will.

 

[Spark]

Can't believe there is a guy trying to argue that Smith was a rubbish captain.



You sometimes got the feeling that we won matches only because of Smith's sheer force of will.

It's currently so weird to have multiple threads open and swap quickly to this one and be utterly confused at posts like this.

 

[Marius]

Since Wessels the permanent captains have been Cronje, Pollock, Smith, Faf. Lowest win percentage of this group was Smith. There have been a number of others who captained for a (few) match(es). No idea on their records, but they didn't have the job for long enough to be relevant in discussion.

Smith is not a superior captain by virtue of having captained for longer and having won more matches. Win percentage is the only meaningful metric.

If we're saying guys appointed to the position, and not just stand-ins, then you have to include AB and Hash. And using your logic AB is a better captain than Smith because his Test won-loss record is 50%.

 

[SeamUp]

It's currently so weird to have multiple threads open and swap quickly to this one and be utterly confused at posts like this.

Too much.

 

[SeamUp]

Sorry just got to add this piece. I must admit I have gotten very emotional on the topic. That is how much I will fight Biff's corner. Went through so many ups and downs with him as leader and the way he fought through it and that sheer-will was stuff of dreams.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/04/graeme-smith-retires-the-spin

 

[StephenZA]

Graeme Smith is the best captain SA has had post isolation. Questioning the great man is silly.

Hansie would have been (and should have been) our greatest captain... but then he did what he did, so he gets nothing.

 

[Stefan9]

Hansie would have been (and should have been) our greatest captain... but then he did what he did, so he gets nothing.

True but money matter more to him. So instead he gets the hall of shame instead.

 

[Gob]

True but money matter more to him. So instead he gets the hall of shame instead.

I thought leather jackets

 

[Stefan9]

I thought leather jackets

Jackets only later, was money first...

 

[Bolo]

Exactly. So when you aren't winning you lose the job. The history of the test game has shown that there aren't many captains for more than 10 years and he was one of them for a reason.

Tactically he wasn't a Vaughan or a Fleming but he knew when his sides had to go for the throat and when they had to sit back and absorb pressure. He was the one responsible for quite a few things that don't just happen. Someone has to drive ideas and make them happen and he did.

So to sum up, he was a leader of men who his team mates followed and wanted to play for. He had to take over and still perform his skills (opening the batting , dealing with transformations targets and being not technically perfect had to use up a lot of mental reserve but still produced as a leader and you don't want to give him credit for that ?) Wow.

Pollock was sincere but undemonstrative as a captain. I used to watch Pollock go bowl , moan at his fielders and shake his head as a captain because he was a bowler. Nice to have the Woolmer carry over a bit and the fixtures he had like Stephen mentions. We needed personality and Smith gave us that.

The fact that you are going on pure win/loss ratios and the fact he didn't field 5 slips and a gully and had a silly mid-on and silly mid-off and went gung-ho is laughable.

Smith’s win loss record and tactical shortcomings are far from the only reasons I believe him to be a poor captain. They are however the only effects we can clearly see and are just about the only points on which two people of differing opinion can engage in meaningful debate, because it is extremely difficult to substantiate anything else with fact. You are going to say “he was a leader of men who his team mates followed and wanted to play for”. I’m going to say he was a hard-nosed and dislikeable authoritarian who was willing to destroy the careers of people like Jennings and Klusener on the basis of personality clashes, which created an ethos of yes men. Neither of us is going to change our opinion on this (and numerous other points like it) and there is little middle ground on which we can turn debate into anything more than a “I think”, “No I think”.

My argument is this- I’m not going to debate his style, contribution to team ethos etc. I’ll hypothetically accept your point that he was a strong leader people wanted to follow. But I’ll ask: to what end? To have players on the field follow his tactical instructions more unquestioningly than they did for Pollock? What good is this if it results in poorer tactical play? To somehow contribute some unquantifiable spirit to the team? Sure, this is what we accept as one of the primary functions of a captain. But is he actually doing this/ what exactly is this spirit doing if his team is losing more?

All captains face challenges. I don’t believe Smith faced more significant ones than Cronje or Pollock, but it’s pretty ethereal. Even if there was a definitive answer, I’m not sure that either of us is truly capable of arriving at it honestly, because the answer is too linked to our emotional assessment of Smith.

As for Smiths contribution as a batsman, Pollock (whose captaincy you are disparaging) averaged 41 with the bat and 21 with the ball as captain. Great though Smiths batting may have been, it’s not anywhere near Pollocks contribution. This doesn’t make Pollock a better captain in my eyes though, just a better player. FTR, I’m not of the opinion that Pollock was a great captain, just that he was a tactically very good one with a great record. I believe that there is more to assessing his captaincy than this, I just think it’s difficult to assess.

 

[Bolo]

He had to learn on the job while leading a bunch of seniors named kallis, pollock, klusenar, boucher, gibbs etc. What he was at the time? 22 or something. He made it his own team only in the late 2000s. It is silly to look at the winning percentage and claim he wasn’t a great leader. He was better than his average or winning percentage tells u.

Yes, this is true in some regard, and I acknowledge that the circumstances under which the he took the captaincy were challenging for him.

If it took him half a decade (or whatever you are defining this as) to fully overcome these challenges, is this not problematic? Wouldn't it the actions of a better captain be to refuse the captaincy under these circumstances until he was better equipped to handle them?

 

[SeamUp]

Smith’s win loss record and tactical shortcomings are far from the only reasons I believe him to be a poor captain. They are however the only effects we can clearly see and are just about the only points on which two people of differing opinion can engage in meaningful debate, because it is extremely difficult to substantiate anything else with fact. You are going to say “he was a leader of men who his team mates followed and wanted to play for”. I’m going to say he was a hard-nosed and dislikeable authoritarian who was willing to destroy the careers of people like Jennings and Klusener on the basis of personality clashes, which created an ethos of yes men. Neither of us is going to change our opinion on this (and numerous other points like it) and there is little middle ground on which we can turn debate into anything more than a “I think”, “No I think”.

My argument is this- I’m not going to debate his style, contribution to team ethos etc. I’ll hypothetically accept your point that he was a strong leader people wanted to follow. But I’ll ask: to what end? To have players on the field follow his tactical instructions more unquestioningly than they did for Pollock? What good is this if it results in poorer tactical play? To somehow contribute some unquantifiable spirit to the team? Sure, this is what we accept as one of the primary functions of a captain. But is he actually doing this/ what exactly is this spirit doing if his team is losing more?

All captains face challenges. I don’t believe Smith faced more significant ones than Cronje or Pollock, but it’s pretty ethereal. Even if there was a definitive answer, I’m not sure that either of us is truly capable of arriving at it honestly, because the answer is too linked to our emotional assessment of Smith.

As for Smiths contribution as a batsman, Pollock (whose captaincy you are disparaging) averaged 41 with the bat and 21 with the ball as captain. Great though Smiths batting may have been, it’s not anywhere near Pollocks contribution. This doesn’t make Pollock a better captain in my eyes though, just a better player. FTR, I’m not of the opinion that Pollock was a great captain, just that he was a tactically very good one with a great record. I believe that there is more to assessing his captaincy than this, I just think it’s difficult to assess.

All that really matters is that he won test matches and his team mates, opposition , cricket scribes rank him extremely highly and was a respected and revered leader. He will go down as the most capped captain in test history with the most wins who saw through multiple phases and rebuilding phases and statistically the most successful captain in Wisden annuals.

You go on about 'known facts' but you seem to want to try raise a debate that isn't there by knocking my strong points as to why he is a good captain by mentioning terms such as unquantifiable and use test win ratio's and averages when you want to choose them.

So if you still don't want to believe he was a good captain that is your personal choice but I will continue to go with my points raised and my understanding of the game which are substantiated and quantified by cricketers who played with and against him and the scribes who have spoken to the relevant people and have made their judgement calls too.

You can't get more tangeable than that.

 

[Bolo]

All that really matters is that he won test matches and his team mates, opposition , cricket scribes rank him extremely highly. He will go down as the most capped captain in test history with the most wins who saw through multiple phases and rebuilding phases and statistically the most successful captain in Wisden annuals.

You go on about 'known facts' but you seem to want to try raise a debate that isn't there by knocking my strong points as to why he is a good captain by mentioning terms such as unquantifiable and use test win ratio's and averages when you want to choose them.

So if you still don't want to believe he was a good captain that is your personal choice but I will continue to go with my points raised and my understanding of the game which are substantiated and quantified by cricketers who played with and against him and the scribes who have spoken to the relevant people and have made their judgement calls too.

My argument is that your strong points are what I regard as weak points and visa versa. No meeting of the minds is possible because we are emotionally debating from opposing positions. I'm trying to find something to engage on which does not stem from our emotional (dis)like of his captaincy. He wasn't good because he was strong in your eyes or bad because he was abrasive in mine, at least not to any extent that either of us will accept the others view on.

It's difficult to engage on anything that is not quantifiable in this regard, and the only thing that I can think of that is quantifiable is his record.

 

[SeamUp]

My argument is that your strong points are what I regard as weak points and visa versa. No meeting of the minds is possible because we are emotionally debating from opposing positions. I'm trying to find something to engage on which does not stem from our emotional (dis)like of his captaincy. He wasn't good because he was strong in your eyes or bad because he was abrasive in mine, at least not to any extent that either of us will accept the others view on.

It's difficult to engage on anything that is not quantifiable in this regard, and the only thing that I can think of that is quantifiable is his record.

I think you are confused with his early days again and being abbrassive and he was anything but ! He was a calm, well planned captain that drove ideas to execute success after the initial years. Once again I will go with those that were there and playing under him as the most tangeable you can get.

No numbers required. The best captains are the one's your team mates want to play for. As Gary Kirsten says when he spoke he was believable. Whether it was tactics or walking the talk or just body language.

PS anyways I don't even think his abbrassiveness in the early days was necassarily a bad thing. In fact it probably shaped him to be a better captain later on and one of the great captains Stephen Fleming said that.

 

[Bolo]

I think you are confused with his early days again and being abbrassive and he was anything but ! He was a calm, well planned captain that drove ideas to execute success after the initial years. Once again I will go with those that were there and playing under him as the most tangeable you can get.

No numbers required. The best captains are the one's your team mates want to play for. As Gary Kirsten says when he spoke he was believable. Whether it was tactics or walking the talk or just body language.

I don't believe he was a bad captain or particularly abrasive in his later years. I believe that on balance, over the course of the captaincy he was both.

I'm not going to believe the testimony of his teammates or coach in singing his praises, when he emphatically killed the careers of both of these early in his career for doing otherwise.

Edit to your edit:

Fair enough. May not have actually made him worse. Just one of those things that made me dislike him that leads to rational debate being difficult.