Best current international captain

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

Yeah, from what I've read I gather that. Maybe we should make an Off Topic thread for it though, since this has gotten a fair way off course.

 

[Zinzan]

My Personal opinion is Michael Vaughan is the better Captain around ATM considering the change of fortunes of England's standing under his Captaincy. It may be just a coincidence that good players as a group have emerged at the same time for England.

I have previously heard people going on and on about Fleming , he hasn't deserved that in the past year because, when the Team was down against the Aussies, he did very little to inspire his Team (both at home and in Aus). He has also struggled badly with the bat if you leave aside the Tsunami games in NZ and the recent MCC one.

He has been a captain for a very very long time and unfortunately the team has achieved only a steady to average performance level without being able to achieve any higher in tests .(current ranking in Tests ranking 7.)

While Ponting is a great captain, the quality of players around him make it pretty easy for him and thus this mitigates against him being judged any greater !!

I'd love to know what Captain (past or present) could have inspired and injured New Zealand side to better compete against that great Aussie side with the gulf between the 2 sides.

Are you suggesting Vaughan would have done any better captaining a half fit NZ side against Australia??? I think not.

Given the resources Fleming has has over the years.....He's clearly been the best captain in the last 5-8 years. Although I will acknowledge his captaincy in general last Summer wasn't up to his usual standards.

 

[AndrewM]

Yeah, from what I've read I gather that. Maybe we should make an Off Topic thread for it though, since this has gotten a fair way off course.

Yeah mate, when i expressed my feeling that it was getting off course 3 pages ago.

 

[C_C]

i can help CC

Again, either rent a brain or be less dense.
What you've documented is the list of instances where both have been penalised for over-rate violations.
My contention is that for some violations ( over-rate and behaviour), Ponting has not been penalised like Ganguly has. As such, your list automatically fails to address that point.

You might notice that Ponting has not breached the players code of conduct compared to gangulys 5 times.

*YOU* might notice that all this list outlines is the times Ponting has been penalised for breaching the code of conduct.
That does not necessarily mean that he did not breach the code of conduct.
I can commit a crime and not get prosecuted for it. Thereby with your logic, i have not committed that said crime.

 

[King_Ponting]

WTF? your argument is stupid. Just admit it mate your anti-caucasian. Once u get that off your back maybe u can start talking some sense. But the thing is ponting has not breached the code of conduct and ganguly has not once, not twice but FIVE times!!!!!

 

[C_C]

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.

And that has nothing to do with Ponting/Fleming's captaincy skills and everything to do with their batting/fielding skills.

A captain's job is to make high quality bowling changes/field placement and manage players off field.
As long as he is good enough to make the team on merit, its irrelevant whether his batting average is 55 or 39.
I suppose if someone made a robot today who would go out and thrash all bowling in the world for a 100+ batting average, he would be a better captain than all, because his personal performance as captain is a light year superior than the next-best man's.

 

[C_C]

WTF? your argument is stupid.

Kindly point out exactly *WHAT* is stupid ?

Just admit it mate your anti-caucasian.

Why don't you get a bit of self confidence and knowledge instead of saying i am anti-caucasian.
You decieded that i am anti-caucasian because i quoted a fact about your country's history.
Wow.
I supposed you missed the part where i decried India's history of caste-based discrimination.
My argument is based on actual instances and a very good grounding in world history.

Oh and before you spew some other diatribe, know that i have caucasian blood in me, have spent most of my life in europe/north america, most of my mates are caucasians,including my girlfriend.

i think a better admission from your part would be that you have a fundamental inability to deal with the truths about human history.

But the thing is ponting has not breached the code of conduct and ganguly has not once, not twice but FIVE times!!!!!

Let me make this simple for you.
You and i deciede to go hunting for Snowy Owls ( a protected species).
You shoot 10, i shoot 10.
We drive back to town and cops pull both our cars over.
Cop charges you with killing 10 snowy owls while letting me go scot free.

I suppose then, it would be accurate to claim that "C_C didnt kill any Snowy Owls but K_P did".

 

[King_Ponting]

But that has nothing to do with it............ Ganguly was in breach and ponting wasnt. Maybe if it had happened maybe 1 or 2 times then ganguly has a case not 5 mate that suggests a serial offender

 

[C_C]

Ganguly was in breach and ponting wasnt.

I would think that for an aussie, you would understand English pretty well.
Apparently not.

Again - all that proves is the number of times one has been penalised for the breach.
Not how many times one has breached the code of conduct.

And i suppose from my previous example, since you got charged by the cops while they didnt charge me, its accurate to say that KP killed those endangered birds but C_C did not.

 

[King_Ponting]

But the thing is C_C i come from a legal background and your case as you put forth would have no chance in hell of even going to trial. Its such a stupid argument. And i suppose u are the yardstick and the rulemaker when it comes to deciding when a player is in breach of the code. HMMMM.......

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I would think that for an aussie, you would understand English pretty well.
Apparently not.

Again - all that proves is the number of times one has been penalised for the breach.
Not how many times one has breached the code of conduct.

And i suppose from my previous example, since you got charged by the cops while they didnt charge me, its accurate to say that KP killed those endangered birds but C_C did not.

I think, if you're going to claim preferential treatment for Ponting, you have to provide examples or it's just hot air. Personally I can't think of one thing Ponting has done which would put him in line for a penalty. Saurav makes a habit of bowling his overs painfully slowly, while Australia specifically choose not to pick their best lineup to avoid this (that's why you don't see McGrath/Lee/Gillespie/Kasprowicz being given 40 overs in a single match or even playing together, barring two individual cases, one of which was against the USA). Ponting has, as far as I know, never criticised umpires publically, or had any significant on-field friction with opposition players, or anything else of note which would justify a punishment, while Saurav of course has quite a number of examples. So, what exactly SHOULD he have been punished for?

 

[C_C]

But the thing is C_C i come from a legal background and your case as you put forth would have no chance in hell of even going to trial.

So what you are saying is, since you got charged, you did commit the crime and since i didnt get charged, i didnt commit the crime ?
Sorry but that is hogwash.

 

[King_Ponting]

No mate your ganguly/ponting argument. Because yur argument is based upon ponting having broken the code of conduct when he hasnt....... Prove he has broken the code and then your case could go to trial.....................................

 

[C_C]

Because yur argument is based upon ponting having broken the code of conduct when he hasnt.......

Again- what you mean is, Ponting hasnt been charged with breech of conduct.
That is different from having actually breeched it (or not).

I can believe that Faaip is in legal field- these sorta technicalities are right up his alley and he picks em up fast. Surprised that you claim to be in the legal field and do not.

Faaip- i am working on it. I will give examples.

 

[King_Ponting]

I am not in the legal field but am currently studying first year law at university. My dad is a contract lawyer for Mitsubishi so that was the legal background i was referring to.

 

[C_C]

Look mate, i dunno why you are not getting this, but this is common sense- not the technical legal quagmire of a high profile lawsuit case.

Dispensing of punishment or accolades are NOT indicative of whether an act has been committed or not.
You can total your dad's car but if your dad doesnt stick you with the repair bill, it doesnt mean that you didnt total his car.
You can get A+ in your courses but if you don't get praised for it, it doesnt mean that you didnt accomplish it.
You can go to thailand, rent out an under-age hooker and do her(or him-depends on which way you sway) in the middle of absolute wilderness and get away with it - that doesnt mean that you aint a paedophile.

Whether one has been punished for an act or not is not indicative of whether one has committed the crime or not.

How many times Ponting or Ganguly have been fined is not indicative of how many times they've broken the rules.

 

[King_Ponting]

Alrite than how many times, exactly, has ponting broke the code?

 

[C_C]

phew.
So now that is out of the way, we are back to where we were a few pages ago- Gimme a few days- i am working on it.

 

[marc71178]

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

Some logical responses to legitimate questions, but you're unable to provide them.

 

[marc71178]

My contention is that for some violations ( over-rate and behaviour), Ponting has not been penalised like Ganguly has. As such, your list automatically fails to address that point.

But you've been completely inable to provide any evidence.