PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
Two of Indias greatest cricketers
Also was a great captain, so obviously the better cricketer.Ashwin is the better bowler, Kapil the better batter and fielder.
Ehhh..... Kapil was a good captain; not sure he was great one, especially in Tests.Also was a great captain, so obviously the better cricketer.
Oh ok, I never realized how poor his win percentage was as a captain.Ehhh..... Kapil was a good captain; not sure he was great one, especially in Tests.
**** way to judge a captain.Oh ok, I never realized how poor his win percentage was as a captain.
The greatest captain, by default, wouldn't come from bd at the first place. Success is the only way by which a captain is remembered.**** way to judge a captain.
You could be the greatest captain ever but if you played for Bangladesh in the 00’s it wouldn’t mean much.
Agree actually. But if you don't have a good record as a captain, you atleast need to do something like win some important series by your geniuses, organise a disoriented team and change their mindset or create the base for a strong team to come. Nawab Jr did those things despite his horrible win/loss record; Kapil didn't.**** way to judge a captain.
You could be the greatest captain ever but if you played for Bangladesh in the 00’s it wouldn’t mean much.
Success doesn't always have to do with win/loss record though. Building a strong base for future, changing a team mindset, unifying a disoriented team, etc also counts as success.The greatest captain, by default, wouldn't come from bd at the first place. Success is the only way by which a captain is remembered.
And having a better win/loss record than if you weren't captain. Which is extremely hard to measure because we're just speculating - but it's what we're basically trying to figure out.Success doesn't always have to do with win/loss record though. Building a strong base for future, changing a team mindset, unifying a disoriented team, etc also counts as success.
Exactly, like I don't think if Australia was led by Gilchrist instead of Ponting (I swear it's just an example, I don't have anything against him) Australia would had lost any more matches or won much more. Can't say the same for Worrell's WIndies or Imran's Pak.And having a better win/loss record than if you weren't captain. Which is extremely hard to measure because we're just speculating - but it's what we're basically trying to figure out.
Now, if they were lead by Warne…Exactly, like I don't think if Australia was led by Gilchrist instead of Ponting (I swear it's just an example, I don't have anything against him) Australia would had lost any more matches or won much more. Can't say the same for Worrell's WIndies or Imran's Pak.
Yeah that's a great point. Noted.Yea Ben Stokes is a good example. It doesn’t matter what his teams results are since he’s saving test cricket which makes him a great captain.
Not really. Fleming is considered a great captain but he is remembered more for strategy and calmness than win %.The greatest captain, by default, wouldn't come from bd at the first place. Success is the only way by which a captain is remembered.
Unsure if trueI'd say Kapil Dev, feel like he is more well rounded, and then you add in fielding and captaincy and Kapil is well ahead as an overall cricketer.
Yeah, small miracle the bowling resources he had at his disposal especially while touring didn't drive him into chronic depression. Must be the stoic and earthy Haryanvi in him. And the Boost, naturally.**** way to judge a captain.
You could be the greatest captain ever but if you played for Bangladesh in the 00’s it wouldn’t mean much.
But then, his calmness or strategy wouldn't be appreciated if those didn't result in any success. Yeah, team success may not be a genuine way to attach greatness to a captain, but also, if you are a great captain, your captaincy would eventually translate into some sort of success.Not really. Fleming is considered a great captain but he is remembered more for strategy and calmness than win %.