The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Haha, take it up with DoG!Viv needs to play in that second XI surely. Can't take it seriously with Sanga in there.
Haha, take it up with DoG!Viv needs to play in that second XI surely. Can't take it seriously with Sanga in there.
I think the closest statistically you can gather is whether over time, how well your team progresses up the rankings.What makes a good captain though? How is that quantified? Wins and losses? Being liked or respected? A good tactician?
There was a drop off. Viv drawed a lot of series that were won in Lloyd's time.Despite how the intial question was raised, I do believe fielding is actually a secondary skill as well. And not only in the slips in tests, but in all forms of cricket these days.
So let's take Imran and Kallis out of it.
As a coach, what would you want more on your team, a great captain or a great cordon? I totally agree with TJB, outside of the crazy extremes the impact of captaincy is minimal. Lloyd was supposedly a much better captain than Viv, but results wise, there wasn't a drop off.
Getting the most out of your team is basically maintaining your own performance so you can set an example and lead from the front with credibility. And not being a dick so that when you speak, they listen. The rest you pick up with experience.
Additionally, we somewhat still by default give it to the best player. Even when we are picking ATG teams, isn't Bradman always the captain, almost as is by default.
And I know this one is likely just me, and possibly just a few others. But when picking teams, I factor in who the slip fielders would be and how best to get a good balance. While for captain I just choose the best one from the players already selected.
Plus let's be honest, we all armchair captain at home while watching matches and think we can do a better job, set a better field, rotate the bowlers better, while I can for sure say I couldn't catch a cold in the cordon. And slip fielding is up there with opening and wrist spin as among the toughest disciplines in cricket. The great ones just make it look easy.
I think that is my point. If you are captaining a team of all-stars, your effect will be minimal as they will be expected to crush the opposition. But for regular teams, captains make a difference.Mike Brearley wrote in his book on captaincy that Clive Lloyd didn’t have a cricketing brain and was exposed when placed in charge of the limited Lancashire County XI.
Didn't those teams also get better players as time went along?I think the closest statistically you can gather is whether over time, how well your team progresses up the rankings.
Imran Khan took Pakistan from a mid-tier (4-6) to a top tier team (1-3).
Ganguly took India from a mid-tier to top tier team.
Border took Australia from a mid/bottom tier to top tier team.
Taylor took Australia from a top tier to undisputed No.1 team.
Ranatunga took Sri Lanka from a bottom tier to mid tier team.
This to me is the best way to tell if someone is a good captain, is if the team progresses with their captaincy or not. The rest is through the context, their leadership style, tactics, etc.
It depends. It is easy to say 'better cricketers came and the team became better'. For example. the Pakistan team that toured India in 1980 was on paper stronger than the one in 1987 yet the latter won and the former lost.Didn't those teams also get better players as time went along?
I'm not discounting captaincy, and also think coaching should get some credit, but at the end of the day you need good players to win.
I'm just looking at the WI teams, and to me our teams performances were always linked more to our talent, or lack there of, than whoever was the captain.
Coaching and player development probably contributes more and also factors into the locker room environment.
2nd XI stronger for sure.Interesting to compare the bowling attacks based on the above:
1st XI
Hadlee
Steyn
Barnes
Murali
Sobers
2nd XI
Marshall
McGrath
Imran
Warne
Kallis
Except they're not, specifically because Bradman.2nd XI stronger for sure.
To be fair, I think TJB was just referring to the bowling attack.Except they're not, specifically because Bradman.
Still wrong.To be fair, I think TJB was just referring to the bowling attack.
Marshall > HadleeStill wrong.
Barnes > Imran
Sobers > Kallis
Rest all equals.
Marshall = HadleeMarshall > Hadlee
McGrath > Steyn
Barnes ????? v Imran (hard to rate Barnes)
Warne = Murali
Kallis = Sobers
Except for Sobers, I disagree with all of these.Marshall = Hadlee
McGrath < Steyn
Imran < Barnes
Warne < Murali
Kallis < Sobers
as you shouldExcept for Sobers, I disagree with all of these.
So much is wrong with this post. Only the last line makes any sense.Marshall = Hadlee
McGrath < Steyn
Imran < Barnes
Warne < Murali
Kallis < Sobers
so he'd play 150 tests for England?Barnes would be a club B-grade bowler today