A cheat is a cheat

[TheJediBrah]

Specialist captains ought to be more considered, or at least some kind of idea that bursts the bubble that your best bat has to be captain.

There's probably a **** load of pressure too externally if you succeed greatly as a bat to be captain in domestics and international cricket, even if you say you have no interest in captaincy, don't have the acumen or patience. Particularly if your side's batting is shaky with few regulars.

Tbf I think a bit part of that is you just want to make sure your captain isn't someone who is going to get dropped

 

[stephen]

Well done Agarwal. Battled well for his runs.

 

[cnerd123]

Specialist captains is a very club cricket kinda thing, and sometimes comes off in professional cricket at lower levels as well. But by the time you get to international cricket, having someone in the XI who doesn't belong at that level is a huge liability.

I suppose it makes sense for a team that lacks any Test standard options for a certain role to instead pick someone who can double up as an excellent captain and let them lead. That's basically what Australia has done with Tim Paine hasn't it? And West Indies went that route with Darren Sammy in Tests for a while. England obviously had Mike Brearley. Lee Germon probably counts in this category too?

 

[cnerd123]

Well done Agarwal. Battled well for his runs.

And didn't cheat to get there either

 

[Spark]

Specialist captains is a very club cricket kinda thing, and sometimes comes off in professional cricket at lower levels as well. But by the time you get to international cricket, having someone in the XI who doesn't belong at that level is a huge liability.

I suppose it makes sense for a team that lacks any Test standard options for a certain role to instead pick someone who can double up as an excellent captain and let them lead. That's basically what Australia has done with Tim Paine hasn't it? And West Indies went that route with Darren Sammy in Tests for a while. England obviously had Mike Brearley. Lee Germon probably counts in this category too?

Tim Paine would have been considered a perfectly respectable Test standard keeper before Gilchrist tbf. Clean glovework and occasional useful gritty lower order knocks averaging low-to-mid-30s was considered absolutely fine back then.

 

[TheJediBrah]

a low-to-mid 30s batting average for a keeper would have been considered pretty elite back then.

Ian Healy averaged 27. Boucher only just managed a 30 average, and he wasn't even a particularly good keeper. I'm guessing most keepers around the 80s & 90s would have been averaging in the 20s (except for blokes like Alec Stewart/Andy Flower who were more batsmen forced to keep for the sake of team balance)

 

[Spark]

Keepers bring a lot more to the side than just their technical ability though.

Again Paine would score fine on that front. Gilchrist really did just completely break everyone's expectations as to what constitutes a Test standard keeper.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah I'm agreeing with you, just adding that not only would "Clean glovework and occasional useful gritty lower order knocks averaging low-to-mid-30s" be considered fine, but it would probably be considered pretty special.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I'm agreeing with you, just adding that not only would "Clean glovework and occasional useful gritty lower order knocks averaging low-to-mid-30s" be considered fine, but it would probably be considered pretty special.

Yeah for most of Test cricket history, a keeper who batted with a technique that withstood varied conditions, consistently made starts, dug in to build partnerships with set batsmen and averaged any number starting with a 3 would be world class from a batting perspective. Of course actual wicket keeping has historically come under more scrutiny than it does now to offset that, but he's a good gloveman too.

 

[cnerd123]

Tim Paine would have been considered a perfectly respectable Test standard keeper before Gilchrist tbf. Clean glovework and occasional useful gritty lower order knocks averaging low-to-mid-30s was considered absolutely fine back then.

well yea, I agree with this. But my point was more 'if you have a bunch of candidates for a role in the team who are equally capable, may as well pick the best captain out of them and let them lead'. There are no outstanding alternatives for keeper/batsman in Australia to Tim Paine, and Paine adds value as a decent skipper, so may as well pick him and let him captain. That's the most feasible way to work a specialist captain into a Test XI in this day and age.

 

[trundler]

Pataudi would be another specialist captain.
A specialist captain can work if you've got 81' Botham in the side to compensate.

 

[the big bambino]

You have to be Brearley good (pun intended) to be a specialist captain. Even Jardine could hold his spot as a batsman. It seems that a captain's credibility is mainly fortified by his playing skill. If he isn't rated as a player then the men he leads will see him as privileged and not even deserving of a spot let alone leading men and his country. This can even happen when the player is good enough to earn his place in the side but is thought inferior to more senior men. Like the situation with Kim Hughes and Dennis Lillee. Thinking about it I reckon Keith Miller must have been an exceptional bloke to accept his snubbing as test skipper. Then again he may have put that down to Bradman (whether true or not) and didn't hold it against the eventual skippers.

 

[trundler]

Yeah takes a big man to cop that respectfully. I knew a guy who quit the military because he was snubbed similarly.

 

[Borges]

Why is so much being written about Tim Paine in this 'a cheat is a cheat' thread?
As an Australian cricket tragic, I resent this insinuation that every Australian captain is a cheat is a cheat. Get this straight: Tim Paine is not a cheat, is not a cheat.

 

[trundler]

We somehow ended up discussing nonperforming captains.

 

[Spark]

Why is so much being written about Tim Paine in this 'a cheat is a cheat' thread?
As an Australian cricket tragic, I resent this insinuation that every Australian captain is a cheat is a cheat. Get this straight: Tim Paine is not a cheat, is not a cheat.

i mean this is more interesting than whatever you lot were discussing the other day

 

[Daemon]

Virat cheating at 2:43

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Ball tampering?

 

[andruid]

Ball tampering?

Depends on the balls you are talking about.

 

[Midwinter]

This is from the SMH about Dave Warner

"It’s been easy for some to suggest he doesn’t have the support of sections of the dressing-room but this, as this column understands it, has been overblown. Some of the same people in that dressing-room know too well that Warner has shouldered too much of the responsibility for what happened in Cape Town.

Let's ask the nagging questions yet again: Was he really the sole conspirator? The only one who knew? Was the ball fiddled with for one session in one Test and the South African broadcaster just so happened to pick up on that one moment of madness involving Bancroft? "