Battle of the Test captains

[Mister Wright]

Wasim Akram

 

[Dasa]

Pataudi easily.

 

[Fratboy]

Mansur Pataudi

Test: 40 Matches, 9 Wins, 19 Losses. Winning Percentage: 22%

The Nawab of Pataudi - later Mansur Ali Khan - remains, unarguably, India's greatest captain ever. Taking over the reins of the Indian team at the age of 21, barely months after being involved in a car accident that would impair the sight in his right eye forever, he led India in 40 of 46 Tests he played in, and won 12 of them. But more than anything else, he led Indian cricket out of its morass of defeatism and instilled in his fellow cricketers a belief that winning was possible. Under him, India achieved their first overseas Test victory against New Zealand in 1967. This he achieved by playing, as had become customary with him, three spinners, because he reckoned, against conventional thinking, that India's only chance lay in playing to their strengths. As a batsman he was boldly adventurous and unorthodox for his times, and unafraid to loft the ball over the infield. His Test average was a modest 34, but what he could have achieved with complete sight is a matter of conjecture.

One of you is mistaken.

 

[Fratboy]

oh, and Pataudi easily.

 

[Dasa]

One of you is mistaken.

Pataudi played in 12 Test wins in total, 9 of them as captain. The wording on Cricinfo is a bit misleading.

 

[Fratboy]

Pataudi played in 12 Test wins in total, 9 of them as captain. The wording on Cricinfo is a bit misleading.

Ah, thanks.

 

[Perm]

Thanks for clearing that up Dasa, and incase anybody is wondering where I'm getting the Win/ Loss record from, I find that Howstat is a very helpful resource for captaincy records.

 

[silentstriker]

Akram, winning % isn't even close.

 

[Xuhaib]

Never liked Akram as a captain much so its Patuadi for me.

 

[nightprowler10]

Pataudi for me. Win% be damned. Akram never was a good captain in my book, but probably the best choice at the time.

 

[Sanz]

Pataudi

 

[Sanz]

Akram, winning % isn't even close.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nawab of Pataudi, even if he is an Oxford man.

 

[C_C]

Akram, winning % isn't even close.

And this is where your ignorance/flawed system of 'taking it by win %' is undermined.
Pataudi was a great captain- everyone who's played under him said so-he was a very astute captain tactically and very very good at man management.
Akram was a decent captain but not in the same category.
Ofcourse, your precious win % doesnt factor in the fact that Pataudi had a team far worse than Akram.


PS: vote goes to Pataudi. one of the ten greatest captains IMO.

 

[C_C]

Nawab of Pataudi, even if he is an Oxford man.

Given how much he played for Oxford, he should be called Nawab of Oxford.

 

[Fusion]

Pataudi. Akram was not a good Captain.

 

[Johnners]

Pataudi

 

[aussie]

Akram i gues

 

[marc71178]

In Australia's defence, they did complain officially about the state of the pitch before the fourth innings (not that it's the first time you've heard that, marc ).

And I wasn't talking about anyone but the people on here.

 

[Slow Love™]

And I wasn't talking about anyone but the people on here.

There were plenty of complaints about the pitch well before Australia being skittled in the fourth innings of that match, marc - including by yourself it should be said, before you later decided to berate every Austalian that criticized it. Go back and look at the threads.

Anyhow, Pataudi in this round. Akram, like Viv, had a tendency to treat his players like children, and I think it was often counter-productive.