Best captain in world cricket

[marc71178]

I have seen nothing from Dravid & Jayawardene so far to say that are better captains than Ponting.

Well for a start, Jayawardene got a drawn series in England...

 

[open365]

I think the the importance of a captian is over-rated, and i think Vaughan is over-rated too.

Fleming is the best captain for me, he makes the changes before the horse has bolted not after.

 

[GIMH]

Vaughan is very much a proactive captain as well though. How many times in the Ashes did a bowler take a wicket for his first ball?

As for Ponting, if you look at the bigger picture, England scored over 400 in the first day of a Test, hit about 20 boundaries in the first session and only a couple of brainless shots prevented us from making an even bigger score. It was a pitch for batting, that deteriorated, it was about as brainless a decision as you can get

 

[open365]

Vaughan is very much a proactive captain as well though. How many times in the Ashes did a bowler take a wicket for his first ball?

As for Ponting, if you look at the bigger picture, England scored over 400 in the first day of a Test, hit about 20 boundaries in the first session and only a couple of brainless shots prevented us from making an even bigger score. It was a pitch for batting, that deteriorated, it was about as brainless a decision as you can get

Or did England bat out of their skins against attack including Brett Lee who can be fodder some days, Gillespie who was terrible, no McGrath, Kasprovicz(who wasn't exactly a demon was he?) and Warne, who was on a first day pitch and we played really well for a change.

And remember, they nearly ended up winning that game, it wasn't as bad a decision as everyone says it was imo.

And if Vaughan's such a brilliant captain, howcome he could never get a team of talented cricketers to perform in one dayers?

I'm not saying he's not good, but i think his effect on the team is over-rated because of the ashes and the bowling attack we had.

 

[Jono]

I think the the importance of a captian is over-rated.

I'm struggling to think of a sport where the captain is more important. Its often all for show, with the coach/manager doing most of the work. However on the cricket field the captain is vital IMO.

 

[Jono]

Or did England bat out of their skins against attack including Brett Lee who can be fodder some days, Gillespie who was terrible, no McGrath, Kasprovicz(who wasn't exactly a demon was he?) and Warne, who was on a first day pitch and we played really well for a change.

And remember, they nearly ended up winning that game, it wasn't as bad a decision as everyone says it was imo.

Everything you just said displays why it was a very bad decision.

 

[Matt79]

his decision would have looked less disasterous if the aussie bowlers (gillespie especially) hadn't been so woeful. Hubris on Ponting's part perhps, but they'd rarely let him down prior to this series...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Vaughan and Fleming are the best around, IMO. After them, I'd say it'd be Ponting and Jayawardene. None of the other captains in world cricket at the moment are particularly special.

Harping on about the Edgbaston call for Ponting is pretty silly. Yeah, it was a poor decision, but most captains make a bad call with the toss at some point in their careers, and I certainly don't think it consigns him to the "bad captain" box forever. He's certainly had some tactical problems over his career, but he is improving and has done some excellent work at times. As I said in another thread, anyone who thinks Ponting is a terrible captain should really have another look at that West Indies ODI the other night. It was very good tactical captaincy, which he is certainly capable of sometimes, and he leads from the front quite brilliantly with the bat and in the field.

 

[aussie]

No, the worst decision would've been to concede the game.

That however wasn't an option at the time so thus it was the worst decision he could have made at the time.

Don't really get your point yo, but the people's idea is that Ponting decision to bowl first @ Edgbaston was very stupid given the fact that he lost McGrath on the morning on the test. I disagree because Australia had just bowled England out for two sub-200 totals in the 1st test & he was right to send England in since his bowlers had the wood on England's batsmen. But as we saw on that morning it was a different England side from past ashes encounters..

 

[crickhowell]

Flem is going stale, but if he was given an attack as strong Englands a few years ago he could have done something special. To do as well as he did with the crop of players in the past shows he at least used to have a brain before Bracewell came along.

Vaughan may have just been in the right place but he was doing some good things in the Ashes last year, even if his plan for Hayden was borrowed from Fleming.

 

[shortpitched713]

Fleming hasn't been (and won't be) playing too much Test cricket. I think we can disregard him.

 

[GIMH]

Don't really get your point yo, but the people's idea is that Ponting decision to bowl first @ Edgbaston was very stupid given the fact that he lost McGrath on the morning on the test. I disagree because Australia had just bowled England out for two sub-200 totals in the 1st test & he was right to send England in since his bowlers had the wood on England's batsmen. But as we saw on that morning it was a different England side from past ashes encounters..

McGrath had taken 9 of the wickets, including 5 of the top 6 in the first innings, so the bowlers who were playing hardly had the wood over our batsmen.

 

[aussie]

McGrath had taken 9 of the wickets, including 5 of the top 6 in the first innings, so the bowlers who were playing hardly had the wood over our batsmen.

Lee had bowled well & had troubled England a lot during the natwest series if you remember, Gillespie even though wasn't at his best hadn't hit rock bottom yet, Warne had shown in the second innings at lord's that he still had the wood on them while Kasper was in good bowling form going into the test.

Maybe Dizzy & Kasper didn't have the wood on them but his decision to bowl first wasn't as stupid as some people have tried to make it out to be. Lets not forget that Australia didn't help themselves with some poor bowling & feilding on that day as well.

 

[marc71178]

his decision would have looked less disasterous if the aussie bowlers (gillespie especially) hadn't been so woeful. Hubris on Ponting's part perhps, but they'd rarely let him down prior to this series...

They'd rarely had only 1 form seam bowler (who then got injured) before.

 

[marc71178]

I disagree because Australia had just bowled England out for two sub-200 totals in the 1st test & he was right to send England in since his bowlers had the wood on England's batsmen.

McGrath bowled England out for the 2 sub-200 scores bowling as beautifully as anyone could on that sort of wicket.

The rest of the seam bowlers hadn't really done a great deal in that game, so to suggest that they had the wood when missing their leader is a bit fanciful.

 

[FRAZ]

I guess Smith might prove himself better and better .... (mark my words ), "After Inzamam Captaincy will become a big problem in the Pakistani cricket team".

 

[PhoenixFire]

Graeme Smith may be a very fine player, but he isn't the sort of captain that I like. I letter into TWC summed him up perfectly.

'The Super Series was a great idea and should continue, but Graeme Smith was a poor choice as captain. A man who tries to wind up the opposition teams now had to lead the sme players. Smith didn't appear to have the respect of his players, and a man who makes childish comments and starts petty arguements is certainly not a wise choice for captain.'

 

[silentstriker]

The best captain in the world is Ricky Ponting. His side as won most games, therefore he is the best. The rest is a meaningless theoretical excercise. Its not like comparing bowlers or batsman, where the results are relatively clear.

Captaincy is a very odd thing, and a lot of it is behind the scenes. For example, how does he resolve private conflicts within the team? How does he keep everyone focused? It is impossible to rate objectively, except through what matters: wins and losses.

Vaughn/Fleming wouldn't even make the Aussie team, let alone be captains.

 

[Barney Rubble]

The best captain in the world is Ricky Ponting. His side as won most games, therefore he is the best.

How can you say that? Sweeping statements like that are wrong 99.99% of the time. you could pick a player from club cricket in Australia to captain the side and bat him at 11 without bowling him and they'd still win a few games....hell, you could pick me as captain and they wouldn't do too badly.

Likewise, you could pick the best captain in history as captain of Bermuda in the World Cup, and even if they only lost every game by 1 run, your logic would still show him to be a terrible captain. You never cease to amaze me.

 

[silentstriker]

How can you say that? Sweeping statements like that are wrong 99.99% of the time. you could pick a player from club cricket in Australia to captain the side and bat him at 11 without bowling him and they'd still win a few games....hell, you could pick me as captain and they wouldn't do too badly.

I am saying that there is no other way to say who is better because a captain has to make decisions on and off the field. Its a lot more than picking who bowls when.

Captain A (Fleming) employs lots of strategy to give his team a chance...moves around the fielding expertly, and rotating the bowlers perfectly....but loses.

Captain B (Ponting) stands there with a thumb up his butt....but wins.


I am asking how you can judge A & B. I mean, aside from results....how do you judge?

Subjectively, I think Fleming and Vaughn might be better at onfield management, but there is no way I can say that with any certainty...because they don't win enough.