Battle of the Test captains

[grecian]

Is the "captaincy win-lose percentage", Silentstrikers "First chance average"?

A minority of one belief.

 

[Jono]

Yeah I reckon that's a good comparison.

 

[silentstriker]

Is the "captaincy win-lose percentage", Silentstrikers "First chance average"?

A minority of one belief.

Probably. I know that almost no one agrees with me. That's ok, I firmly believe that captaincy is a thing that is almost impossible to judge effectively, and on top of that, it lacks any statistics on its own (unlike batting, or bowling). So I think a lot of time, people say a captain is good just because a commentator agrees with his field placement or bowling change decision, or if he has a likeable personality.

A lot of people think Ponting is annoying and Inzy is dumb, so regardless of their on field decisions, they are automatically written off. I'm not saying everyone does that, but a lot do.

So I think the best way is by W-L record. At the very least, it is the least-worst of a bad set of criteria when judging captaincy.

I don't expect many people to agree, but thats OK.

 

[grecian]

Well, you could use more then one criteria, then use reasoning beyond that, rather then a slavish belief in one stat.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, you could use more then one criteria, then use reasoning beyond that, rather then a slavish belief in one stat.

What other criteria do you suggest, when dealing with captaincy?

 

[grecian]

I said "reasoning beyond that", all records need to be taking in context.

Like we all tend to do in all these battles, or else it would be a pretty dull convo, the best stats wins every time.

 

[silentstriker]

I said "reasoning beyond that", all records need to be taking in context.

Like we all tend to do in all these battles, or else it would be a pretty dull convo, the best stats wins every time.

You said "more then one criteria, then use reasoning beyond that". So, I am asking you for criteria. And its not about who has the better stats or going beyond stats, as AS THERE ARE NO STATS FOR CAPTAINCY!

I am waiting for an example of other criteria.

 

[grecian]

Ok, :quality of teams captained: quality of teams played; respective records of captains for the the same team, especially preceding and following; effect on countries cricketing standards.

Thats enough to be getting on with, and I didn't even need to underline owt.








Doh

 

[silentstriker]

Ok, :quality of teams captained: quality of teams played; respective records of captains for the the same team, especially preceding and following; effect on countries cricketing standards.

Thats enough to be getting on with, and I didn't even need to underline owt.

So, what if the team is quality only because the specific captain was in fact the captain? Basically, how do you separate out the good team from its captain? As for preceding and following, that would only work if the teams [except the captain] remained the same. And Fleming has been captain so long that the preeciding captain comparison is meaningless. The teams are totally different.

Effect on countries cricketing standards? What does that even mean, and how do you measure that, and more importantly, how can you tell if it was because of the captain?

 

[Jono]

SS please can you explain to me why Lara was a better batsman than Ponting. I mean you've stated that you believe Lara was better, but Ponting has comparable statistics, by that I mean average, SR, runs scored (relative to no. of matches).

The likely answer will be subjectively based on what you have seen, and the quality of attacks that Lara faced in the 90s compared to Ponting has faced in the past 5 years. You've argued that line before, yet its every bit as subjective (measuring quality of teams/attacks) as using quality of teams faced between captains. Ponting captaining Australia to beat SL in a 3 test series at home is likely to be less of an achievement than Fleming captaining NZ to a drawn series away against Australia. Just like Lara scoring 100 against an attack of Donald and Pollock is more of an achievement than Ponting scoring a 200 against Nehra and Zaheer.

 

[grecian]

So, what if the team is quality only because the specific captain was in fact the captain? As for preceding and following, that would only work if the teams [except the captain] remained the same. Effect on countries cricketing standards? What does that even mean, and how do you measure that, and more importantly, how can you tell if it was because of the captain?

Its all about judgement, like all these discussions.

You can't SS, you can't tell anything, so you use your judgement on cricket. I said before if we judged everything on stats, it would be a very dry forum. The same reason some would rate Tendulkar a better batsmen then Barrington, yet Kens average is better.

The fact Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and Richie Richardson have probably all got great records for WI, and that Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting have all got good records for OZ, does this mean all 6 where great, or that they captained in a great time for theirs respective countries?

 

[grecian]

SS please can you explain to me why Lara was a better batsman than Ponting. I mean you've stated that you believe Lara was better, but Ponting has comparable statistics, by that I mean average, SR, runs scored (relative to no. of matches).

The likely answer will be subjectively based on what you have seen, and the quality of attacks that Lara faced in the 90s compared to Ponting has faced in the past 5 years. You've argued that line before, yet its every bit as subjective (measuring quality of teams/attacks) as using quality of teams faced between captains. Ponting captaining Australia to beat SL in a 3 test series at home is likely to be less of an achievement than Fleming captaining NZ to a drawn series away against Australia. Just like Lara scoring 100 against an attack of Donald and Pollock is more of an achievement than Ponting scoring a 200 against Nehra and Zaheer.

Exactly, point made better then my rambling nonsense

"subjective", being the operable word.

 

[silentstriker]

SS please can you explain to me why Lara was a better batsman than Ponting. I mean you've stated that you believe Lara was better, but Ponting has comparable statistics, by that I mean average, SR, runs scored (relative to no. of matches).

The likely answer will be subjectively based on what you have seen, and the quality of attacks that Lara faced in the 90s compared to Ponting has faced in the past 5 years. You've argued that line before, yet its every bit as subjective (measuring quality of teams/attacks) as using quality of teams faced between captains. Ponting captaining Australia to beat SL in a 3 test series at home is likely to be less of an achievement than Fleming captaining NZ to a drawn series away against Australia. Just like Lara scoring 100 against an attack of Donald and Pollock is more of an achievement than Ponting scoring a 200 against Nehra and Zaheer.

Good points. The quality of attacks can be measured statistically, and I did link to a cricinfo article that showed the declining averages of bowlers. In addition, I think [though not sure] I've posted an article that showed the averages of bowlers faced by different batsman Lara and Ponting when they faced him (as in per series). So, yea, you can make a statistical argument that Lara is better, and after that it is subjective.

For captaincy, there is very little statistically that you can do, so its all subjective. And that's ok. The issue I have is that people rant on people like Ponting, when he rarely loses. You have the right not to like him. But then they pass off the decision that he is is a bad captain as some sort of objective decision.

The man has won 11/12 series in which he has captained. I mean, come on. Its not him, its you.

Its all about judgement, like all these discussions.

Cricket is a very stat oriented game.

If someone asked you to compare similar players, then you could use your judgement. But if you were asked to compare Don Bradman and Steve Tikolo, the very comparison is absurd, because their stats are not remotely similar.

In my opinion, personal judgement only comes into play when stats are similar. So when comparing averages of 58 vs. 55, you can use judgement. When comparing averages of 58 vs. 38, you can't really do that. Well you could, but you'd be foolish in having done so. You can compare them in pieces, saying "Yea, he averaged only 38 overall but averaged 70 when he was playing England." But that argument is also stat based.

In any case, this is one of those issues where I don't expect many to agree with me, and I've written way more on this topic in this thread and others, then I ever thought I would. So, I'll just keep voting for the person who wins more, and you guys can keep voting for the player who you like better.

 

[grecian]

Look SS, most sane people realise its the quality of the teams that effect most results. Kenya couldn't beat Australia if they played a million times, so win-loss would be irrelevant to captaincy.

Actually captaincy is the least way of comparing any stat-related thing. Please SS stop this, I mean If Rikki Clarke was made captain of an England B team, and beat outer Mongolia, Italy, Guernsey and Turkey in test series, would he be the greatest captain of all time.

 

[silentstriker]

Please SS stop this

What do you mean stop this? I was asked about it on this thread .

, I mean If Rikki Clarke was made captain of an England B team, and beat outer Mongolia, Italy, Guernsey and Turkey in test series, would he be the greatest captain of all time.

Assuming those were test countries and he was playing test matches, sure...why not?

 

[grecian]

Okay fair enough, your quite right, if thats one way of me getting out of this execrable convo, I think i'll take it

BTW, do you like my sig SS

 

[Sanz]

A lot of people think Ponting is annoying and Inzy is dumb, so regardless of their on field decisions, they are automatically written off.

Can you tell us when was the last time Inzy took a really smart decision as a captain ?

As for Ponting's annoying personality, you understand that Ponting is the leader of his team and hence has to set examples, he clearly doesn't and infact behaves worse when he is incharge. Leadership/Captaincy is not about your strategic move inside a cricket ground only, That is a very small part of it.

 

[silentstriker]

BTW, do you like my sig SS

Considering I'm not the person that brought up the subject and you are the one that won't change your mind.....yes, I love it.

 

[Perm]

Stephen Fleming progresses with a 11-1 victory

Round 1, Battle 6

Sir Frank Worrell

Test: 15 Matches, 9 Wins, 3 Losses. Winning Percentage: 60%

vs

Michael Vaughan

Test: 33 Matches, 19 Wins, 6 Losses. Winning Percentage: 57%
ODI: 48 Matches, 25 Wins, 17 Losses. Winning Percentage: 52%

Voting will last 24 hours.

 

[Dasa]

Worrell.