2nd greatest living cricketer

[subshakerz]

Captaincy is not a cricketing skill. 10 out of 11 players doesn't even get the chance to prove their worth in this regard.

Captaincy isn't a cricket skill but it does add to the player's value in determining their greatness.

I would consider Mark Taylor a greater cricketer than Atherton even though as batsmen I consider them roughly the same level.

 

[h_hurricane]

So re the above post , what do most people see as a more impactful 3rd skill.
Great captain or elite slip fielder?

Elite slip fielding for me.

 

[subshakerz]

I think it's very important to not have an absolute **** captain, but the real-world difference between a great one and a decent one at Test level is marginal IMO.

Unless the team is horrible or an ATG level like 80s WI or 2000s Australia, captaincy makes a notable difference in results achieved.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I would consider Mark Taylor a greater cricketer than Atherton even though as batsmen I consider them roughly the same level.

That doesn't really answer the question since he was a captain as well as a great Slip fielder

Unless the team is horrible or an ATG level like 80s WI or 2000s Australia, captaincy makes a notable difference in results achieved.

Nah PEWS is right, it's only going to make a notable difference if you're comparing 2 extremes

 

[subshakerz]

I've always thought that it was an over rated notion. The team is generally as good as the sum of its players. But Border/ Waugh and Lloyd does seem to get quite a bit of praise for their team's successes.

There are plenty of examples of talented teams that didn't match their talents with success though.

 

[subshakerz]

A player is judged fforemostly on their bowling, batting or a combo of these skills.

If all things are equal, then you look what the team needs more. You could argue that Kallis' fielding is great for making the slips tight, or Imran being an ATG captain for an ATG team can get the most out of their performance. I think the latter matters more.

 

[subshakerz]

However, Imran > Kallis as players, given that they are relatively equal in secondary skills but Imran is top 10 in his primary skill.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Don't think we can downplay Imrans value as captain when the pakistan team he led was so much more successful than the one after he retired which was way more talented but pretty obviously suffered from poor leadership and a fractured dressing room.

 

[ankitj]

However, Imran > Kallis as players, given that they are relatively equal in secondary skills but Imran is top 10 in his primary skill.

I feel it's other way round. They are roughly equal in their primary skills but Imran is better in secondary skill.

 

[ankitj]

@TheJediBrah agrees with above post but votes for Kallis in the poll ?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Didn't read your post just thought I hadn't given you a like in a while

 

[kyear2]

Unless the team is horrible or an ATG level like 80s WI or 2000s Australia, captaincy makes a notable difference in results achieved.

Unless the team is horrible or an ATG level like 80s WI or 2000s Australia, captaincy makes a notable difference in results achieved.

What makes a good captain though? How is that quantified? Wins and losses? Being liked or respected? A good tactician?

 

[Teja.]

I think it's very important to not have an absolute **** captain, but the real-world difference between a great one and a decent one at Test level is marginal IMO.

An inspirational captain who can bring people together is extremely important in cases where the sports setup is not as professional as it should be and financial incentives from the cricket board are not highly motivating. This covers a massive portion of cricket teams across history.

All the 90s Sri Lankan cricketers vouch for how Ranatunga transformed them into a team.

 

[Burgey]

What makes a good captain though? How is that quantified? Wins and losses? Being liked or respected? A good tactician?

Dragging a team of n00b losers from the depths of despair through respectability and towards greatness. And doing it through sheer force of will.

 

[kyear2]

A player is judged fforemostly on their bowling, batting or a combo of these skills.

If all things are equal, then you look what the team needs more. You could argue that Kallis' fielding is great for making the slips tight, or Imran being an ATG captain for an ATG team can get the most out of their performance. I think the latter matters more.

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.

 

[kyear2]

However, Imran > Kallis as players, given that they are relatively equal in secondary skills but Imran is top 10 in his primary skill.

Totally separate question , is Kallis really not a top 10 batsman though, or at least not in that discussion? Is it that his record doesn't stack up, or did we (and me to a point) just didn't like the way he batted?

 

[Spark]

What makes a good captain though? How is that quantified? Wins and losses? Being liked or respected? A good tactician?

Just because something is difficult to quantify doesn't mean it can't be hugely important. Cricket is a sport played by human beings; leadership matters.

 

[honestbharani]

An inspirational captain who can bring people together is extremely important in cases where the sports setup is not as professional as it should be and financial incentives from the cricket board are not highly motivating. This covers a massive portion of cricket teams across history.

All the 90s Sri Lankan cricketers vouch for how Ranatunga transformed them into a team.

And this is why I feel Ganguly has been the most important captain of India in my time of watching cricket. He has his faults as a captain and even as a leader but without him, Indian cricket would not be where it is today IMO.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

 

[Coronis]

Totally separate question , is Kallis really not a top 10 batsman though, or at least not in that discussion? Is it that his record doesn't stack up, or did we (and me to a point) just didn't like the way he batted?

Yes, sadly. Honestly outside of a guy like Bradman theres not that much to pick between a lot of the 50-60 averaging guys, it really comes down to which intangibles you find more important in a lot of cases.

Also will personally say I don’t think Imran’s batting was better than Kallis’ bowling but thats just me.