Best current international captain

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm sorry but this is quite funny.

http://www.sportnetwork.net/boards/read/s119.php?f=118&i=322714&t=322714&sid=119

Rofl! I wonder who Cavalier_Carver might be?

 

[C_C]

Its me.
They have some posters there in ICF who watch each and every cricket match and they document these sorta things on numerous occasions.
I dont see whats funny in looking for references in your research...i am trying to shave off as much time i can from my 'research'.

 

[C_C]

i find it a bit odd that you say "captaincy cant be evaluated by achievement", and in the same post claim that ganguly performed an absolute miracle by beating australia.

*I* dont agree with looking at the scoresheets to determing which captain is good and which captain is a tosser.
If someone does,good on em- as long as they are consistent.
Quoting examples of Chappelli getting 'instant results' after taking over the helm and the team fortunes taking an upswing is fine......... but in the same breath to claim that its not the case with Ganguly isn't- because that would be inconsistent.

but surely underperforming is something he could have done something about?

If you have the ability to own the world but end up being an alsoran mediocre player ( Hick/Hooper etc.) , what can another person do about it ?
They cant MAKE you play better........its not master of puppets you know..

as far as ganguly and his decisions on field is concerned, i cant believe that anyone can even claim that he is anything but poor at it. almost every commentator has commented on it.

I really dont give two hoots about what commentators say, unless they are pointing out a fact. I form my own decisions. Don't comment about their 'expertise' because nationalism often clouds their viewpoints. Just look at comments like 'any aussie dismissed by Giles should shoot themselves', 'mohammed sami is bowling awesome(despite going for 15-2-80-1 or something)' , etc etc.
Ganguly's field placement is pretty good and his bowling changes, particularly in test matches, are pretty good.
His only failing in the field, when it comes to decisionmaking, is innovation. Once plan A,B and C have failed, he doesnt know what to do.
But then again, apart from Fleming, no other captain in international cricket today does either.
Brian lara didnt innovate, he just played russian roulette.
The hallmark of innovation is the territorry of the greatest cricket captains on field- something Taylor, Ranatunga,Imran,Chappelli, Lloyd etc. did.
Which is why i said that Ganguly is a good captain on the field but not great.

India's overseas performance is nothing extraordinary. But one cannot lay claims to objectivity while claiming that it hasnt improved considerably under Ganguly, compared to under Azhar.

 

[King_Ponting]

doesnt mean ganguly is a better captain than ponting.

 

[C_C]

That's true to a point, but more in an extreme case like say... southern America, Australia or post-apartheid South African legal systems, rather than a sporting body like the ICC. I mean, the ICC isn't exactly a body with a long history of displaying completely overt and extreme racist tendancies. I don't think they have to "prove" themselves.

I think it was Neitzche who said that sports is the modern day version of historical warfare.
As such, sporting psychology and mentality is reflective of the conditions of the various nations and demographics for that sport.
For a tendency, it doesnt have to have equal intensity to be of similar intent. Which is why plotting to kill is a crime, as well as killing. No one is getting killed, lynched or tortured in sports but it does show general trends.
Ofcourse, the reaction is dependent on the intensity- which is why i am not advocating life imprisonment of previous sporting governors.

ICC ( or its precessessor) has shown consistent racist tendencies in the past.
Pre-WWII, it was pretty reflective of the pro-white socities but it continued post-war as well.
ICC has shown a consistent pattern in the past to deny colored teams. Initially it insisted on white-only umpires, even in territorries such as west indies and the subcontinent.
It then immediately changed the lbw rules when Ramadhin and Valentine bamboozled the english - nevermind the fact that they were copying tactics used by bowlers such as Verity, Laker, O'Reiley, etc.
The ICC changed the bouncer rule right before Lillee and Thommo retired, because it was deemed 'unfair' that 4 worldclass west indies bowlers could target-practice on the heads of the batsmen. Nevermind the fact that the entire bowling strategem developed by the west indies ( bounce em out till your arm drops off) was straight-lifted from Lillee-Thommo combo after the WI received the same thing in 1975.

I think it is fairly accurate to say that the ICC/its predecessessor has displayed racist tendencies in the past and again- the onus is on them to prove otherwise.

If someone gets 5 years for stealing a TV, then another guy should get 5 years for stealing a TV if the circumstances are the same. Anything else breaks the 'established pattern of justice', and is as such injust.

I agree with your point on legal precedent. But it does raise an interesting question in my mind, since you said "anything else that breaks the established pattern of justice is as such injust".
Lets look back 50 years. A brahmin could get away with assault/abuse against an untouchable in India and a white man in certain parts of the states could get away with killing black men - the 'mississippi burning' case, for eg.
However, in today's world, they cannot.
So if today, lets say a brahmin gets life sentencing for killing a person who's from untouchable origin or a white man can get hung for killing a black man, isn't it breaking with the established pattern of justice ??

t's not racist of you to point it out, but it borders on racist to assume that because justice systems in most caucasian nations have mistreated non-caucasians (which is true), that therefore any body with any authority that involves white people at high level is necessarily inclined towards racism.

I never claimed that.
I never claimed that just because a justice system has mostly caucasians in it, it is inclined towards racism.
What i claimed is that this particular system we are talkin about is historically inclined towards racism.
Infact, there are certain 'predominantly caucasian' justice systems that are fairer and less racially oriented than many colored justice systems - Canada, New Zealand and Sweden for example, have a fairer system and track trecord of dealing with colored folks compared to several predominantly afro justice systems when it comes to dealing with caucasians.

 

[C_C]

doesnt mean ganguly is a better captain than ponting.

I think he is a better captain than ponting and i have said why - he is significantly better off field and they are both pretty much the same on field.

 

[King_Ponting]

Both the same on feild...... no........ Still ahvent got that evidence yet have we C_C

 

[C_C]

Both the same on feild...... no........ Still ahvent got that evidence yet have we C_C

What part of 'gimme a few days ' don't you understand ?

And yes, both are pretty much the same on field....ponting has the luxury to fall back on tried and tested bowlers and an awesome batting lineup to carry the team.

 

[Scallywag]

I can help CC

Here are the over breaches for Ponting and Ganguly.

25th may 03 Aus 1over Ponting fined 10% match fee

3rd nov 03 Aus 2over Ponting fined 20% match fee

4th dec 03 Ind 1over Ganguly fined 10% match fee

18th jan 04 Ind 3over Ganguly fined 30% match fee

22th jan 04 Ind 2over Ganguly fined 20% match fee

13th mar 04 Ind 2 over Ganguly fined 10% match fee

4th sept 04 Aus 1 over Ponting fined 10% match fee

13th nov 04 Ind 5 over Ganguly fined 50% match fee

21st jan 05 Aus 1 over Ponting fined 10% match fee

9th apr 05 Ind 3over Ganguly fined 30% match fee

12th apr 05 Ind 3over Ganguly fined 30% match fee

And here are the breaches of player conduct

22nd jan 04 Ganguly breach of code C1 50% match fee

13th nov 04 Ganguly breach of code C1 2 test ban

28th nov 04 Ganguly breach of code C1.3 30% match fee

9th apr 05 level 2 breach of code C1 70% match fee

12th apr level 3 breach of code C1 6 ODI ban

You might notice that Ponting has not breached the players code of conduct compared to gangulys 5 times. You may also notice that ponting has 4 fines for slow overs and Ganguly has 8 fines for slow overs.

 

[Blaze]

If Fleming was good enough to be in the Aus team I think he would be doing just as good, if not better, a job as Ponting and if Ponting was captain of NZ I doubt he would be able to do much better than Flem has done results wise. (Not taking into account the batting ability Ponting has)

 

[Scallywag]

If Fleming was good enough to be in the Aus team I think he would be doing just as good, if not better, a job as Ponting and if Ponting was captain of NZ I doubt he would be able to do much better than Flem has done results wise. (Not taking into account the batting ability Ponting has)

It is a fact if Ponting played for NZ and Fleming played for Aus then NZ would be a better team and Aus would not be as good as they are. Part of the captains job is to go out and score runs or take wickets. What you are saying is like if you only look at how many runs a batsman scores without taking into account how many times he got out. It is vital that a captain leads his team with performance. You cant remove part of the captains responsibilities and say lets not look at the part of his responsibilities that he is only average and only look at the sections where he is good so it makes him look better.

After thinking about it I suppose richard would.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think it is fairly accurate to say that the ICC/its predecessessor has displayed racist tendencies in the past and again- the onus is on them to prove otherwise.

Without wanting to appear as if I disagree with what you're saying (I suspect you may well be right), this isn't strictly true. The onus is on others to prove that the ICC has racist tendencies because it's others, not the ICC, that are the complainants in this instant. You can't ask the ICC to prove they're 'not' something because of the basic scientific premiss that you cannot prove a negative (e.g. prove to me you're not an alien ).

It really hasn't been 'proven' to any degree that the ICC has displayed racist tendencies in the past. There's just anecdotal evidence to 'suggest' this is so. Nothing has been presented and/or proven, really. Until that point, the ICC must officially be regarded as a race-neutral organisation, regardless of the anecdotal evidence to suggest otherwise.

Also, another old adage applies here I reckon; don't attribute to malice that which can more easily be attributed to incompetance.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think it was Neitzche who said that sports is the modern day version of historical warfare.

Blasphemy!

It was a quite brilliant man by the name of George Orwell.

 

[marc71178]

Marc you posted a whole pile of garbage, have you any idea what you are saying.

No, I posted a lot of questions and queries which you couldn't answer so resorted to abuse.

Quite your usual style really.

 

[Scallywag]

No, I posted a lot of questions and queries which you couldn't answer so resorted to abuse.

Quite your usual style really.

you just dont make any sense marc, what are you after.

 

[honestbharani]

I think it is too early to rate Ponting. Sourav was rated as God after his first one and half years as captain. I agree with that part of CC's argument..... We need to give more time to Ponting. That will be fair to us and to him.


Fleming has been good, but I get the feeling that Vaughan has been better over the last year or so.... Fleming seems to be losing his touch, maybe he has been there for too many years. Certainly, he is amongst the best captains over the last decade though, if not the best.


Sourav is a very good leader of men, and is a very good judge of potential. Unfortunately, his tactical acumen is definitely open to question. But, I guess, with sharp cricketing minds like Dravid, Sachin and Wright around, India needed more of a leader than captain at that time and Ganguly fitted the bill perfectly. He certainly is a success as a captain and even that is saying more about him than any other Indian captain.



INzy is showing signs of improving fast, but I still think it was horrible of him to support Afridi in that little locker room incident.



Smith is actually looking very good, IMO. He has to deal with some politics in the selection committee, I presume, and I think he is doing a very good job of captaining RSA at a difficult stage for them as a team. I guess this year end will prove whether he is really good or just good.



Atapattu is almost invisible here. He is doing a fair job, nothing too good but nothing too bad. He too has some turbulent times with politics interfering in his job.


Chanders looks to be in the Atapattu mould. Again too early to comment on him, like Atapattu and Ponting, hasn't been captain for that long.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I agree with your point on legal precedent. But it does raise an interesting question in my mind, since you said "anything else that breaks the established pattern of justice is as such injust".
Lets look back 50 years. A brahmin could get away with assault/abuse against an untouchable in India and a white man in certain parts of the states could get away with killing black men - the 'mississippi burning' case, for eg.
However, in today's world, they cannot.
So if today, lets say a brahmin gets life sentencing for killing a person who's from untouchable origin or a white man can get hung for killing a black man, isn't it breaking with the established pattern of justice ??

Well, legal precedent is reliant on the court heirarchy, and is also reliant to a certain degree on the personal discretion of the person overseeing the trial.

Person A might get 5 years for stealing a TV in say, State of California v Person A, and the one side or another in State of Washington v Person B might well reference the former case as grounds for precedent, but it doesn't necessarily have to be applied if one can make a reasoned argument why the circumstances are different - which the other side almost certainly will. Let's say 5 years for stealing a TV is considered fairly lenient, and a case was made in the precedent trial for leniency because the person suffered from withdrawl symtoms from a heroin addiction at the time, and therefore stole the TV to feed their habit. The normal penalty might be 10-15 years (harsh, I know ). The defence counsel in the second trial references the California v A one because his client was suffering from a withdrawl from sugar at the time, and attempts to parallel sugar addiction with heroin addiction and get leniency to the tune of a 5 year sentence. The prosecution will argue that the precedent is not applicable due to different circumstances, and the judge may well agree.

The point is that if a white who killed a white in Mississippi in 1939 got 25 years and therefore established some form of crude precedent, and a black person was killed in the exact same way, the precedent didn't necessarily by law have to be applied if it was decided the circumstances were different. If you look at the history of racially injust trials in the US (forgive me but aside from reading The God Of Small Things I don't know much at all about the Brahmin-Untouchable relationship, so I'll stick to the American South), you will see that almost all of them contain some sort of "reason" for the crime. Emmett Till was murdered because he whistled at a white girl, and his killers got off because they used an argument that Till did something wrong and thereby enraged them to the degree that their actions were somewhat justified and precedent from other murders could not be applied. As such, they got off. The injustice was there for all to see, but it didn't actually violate the concept of legal precedent directly, because they found ways around applying it - namely absolutely ludicrous reasons for committing brutal crimes, combined with racist judges and all-white juries. Bob Dylan said it best: "some men they dragged him to a barn, and there they beat him up/they said they had a reason, but I disremember what".

This is of course ignoring the fact that for a long time it was actually a different sort of a crime to kill a black man than a white man, in which case obviously precedent would never apply. With changes in the laws and a less injustice legal system, precedent from white murders is simply being applied correctly, and precedent from black murders is irrelevant either because higher ranking courts have overruled the verdicts or because the laws are simply different.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, legal precedent is reliant on the court heirarchy, and is also reliant to a certain degree on the personal discretion of the person overseeing the trial.

Person A might get 5 years for stealing a TV in say, State of California v Person A, and the one side or another in State of Washington v Person B might well reference the former case as grounds for precedent, but it doesn't necessarily have to be applied if one can make a reasoned argument why the circumstances are different - which the other side almost certainly will. Let's say 5 years for stealing a TV is considered fairly lenient, and a case was made in the precedent trial for leniency because the person suffered from withdrawl symtoms from a heroin addiction at the time, and therefore stole the TV to feed their habit. The normal penalty might be 10-15 years (harsh, I know ). The defence counsel in the second trial references the California v A one because his client was suffering from a withdrawl from sugar at the time, and attempts to parallel sugar addiction with heroin addiction and get leniency to the tune of a 5 year sentence. The prosecution will argue that the precedent is not applicable due to different circumstances, and the judge may well agree.

The point is that if a white who killed a white in Mississippi in 1939 got 25 years and therefore established some form of crude precedent, and a black person was killed in the exact same way, the precedent didn't necessarily by law have to be applied if it was decided the circumstances were different. If you look at the history of racially injust trials in the US (forgive me but aside from reading The God Of Small Things I don't know much at all about the Brahmin-Untouchable relationship, so I'll stick to the American South), you will see that almost all of them contain some sort of "reason" for the crime. Emmett Till was murdered because he whistled at a white girl, and his killers got off because they used an argument that Till did something wrong and thereby enraged them to the degree that their actions were somewhat justified and precedent from other murders could not be applied. As such, they got off. The injustice was there for all to see, but it didn't actually violate the concept of legal precedent directly, because they found ways around applying it - namely absolutely ludicrous reasons for committing brutal crimes, combined with racist judges and all-white juries. Bob Dylan said it best: "some men they dragged him to a barn, and there they beat him up/they said they had a reason, but I disremember what".

This is of course ignoring the fact that for a long time it was actually a different sort of a crime to kill a black man than a white man, in which case obviously precedent would never apply. With changes in the laws and a less injustice legal system, precedent from white murders is simply being applied correctly, and precedent from black murders is irrelevant either because higher ranking courts have overruled the verdicts or because the laws are simply different.

I am a brahmin, Faaip. Want some help?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I am a brahmin, Faaip. Want some help?

Hey, feel free to add your two cents about legal issues with regard to crimes against Untouchables if you feel up to it. I'm certainly interested.

 

[honestbharani]

well, I am going away right now. I will try to do it tomorrow. But here is a warning: It is more complicated than Indian politics.