Best current international captain

[tooextracool]

*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.

no, i dont bother looking at the scoresheets to determine which captain is good, i do look at player performances though. the primary reason for anyone to be picked captain, and no matter how much you try to deny it it is the basic fact, is to get your players to perform to the best of their abilities. you most certainly cannot be the best captain in the world or anywhere near it if a side containing tendulkar, dravid, sehwag, ganguly, laxman, kumble and srinath is underperforming constantly both home and away.
if ganguly's team wasnt/isnt delivering in terms of results and his on field decision making is ordinary, then what has ganguly achieved?

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...

india isnt a team of mediocre players. they had a nucleus consisting of tendulkar, dravid, sehwag, laxman, ganguly, srinath, kumble and harbhajan singh. and i dont care what you say about them, all of those players are far better players than hick and hooper turned out to be.
i appreciate what captains like hussain and fleming have done simply because they led a side usually consisting of 1-2 world class players and managed to lead them successfully.
a captain cannot make a player play better than he actually is, but he can make most of them play to their best of their abilities.

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..

doubt it, from what ive seen of ganguly hes used the 'follow the ball' tactics, which almost always comes from a poor on-field decision maker. i've rarely ever seen ganguly come up with a plan for any batsman, its usually just a conventional field for each and every batsman. if you want to know why india have generally been inept abroad, its not only because their bowlers are ordinary, its also because they never have a plan.

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.

then you obviously havent watched much of michael vaughan. no bias of course, but i think its quite obvious from his field placements, even from the 20-20 game recently, that he usually comes up with the most unconventional field placings that usually end up working. its no coincidence that several of the air balls went straight to hand.
hussain was the master though, some of his field placings in the sub continent, and even in the ashes 2003 were quite brilliant. and it somewhat explains how his side managed to achieve as much as it did in the subcontinent in 01/02, especially on the india tour where they competed quite magnificently, despite having a depleted side.

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..

brian lara comes up with the most baffling field placings, which almost always never work, largely because neither he nor anyone else knows what the hell hes trying to do. the point of innovation is not to randomly place fielders to baffle the batsmen as to what your trying to do, its to play to a plan.
ganguly for me rarely has a plan, and of course it doesnt result in any sort of innovation, and its largely why ganguly usually has no answer to new situations.

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.

oh it has, there is no doubt about that. there is no doubt either that ganguly is one of indias finest captains for a very long time(even if that speaks volumes about how poor some of the indian captains in the past have been). it does not however mean that hes the best captain in the world, or anywhere close to it. hes accomplished a few things, but he still hasnt got them to play at or near their best consistently enough, its happened on a few occasions that its been there for people to see though- wc 03, icc trophy 02, aus 03/04 etc.
likewise the same claim could be made about ponting, whos managed to take australia a step further since taking over the captaincy from steve waugh, and has managed to accomplish everything that steve waugh couldnt do in his entire tenure as captain already. now whether thats because steve waugh was completely useless, or because ponting is extremely good is yet to be seen, id say its a bit of both.

 

[tooextracool]

na i dont think steve waugh was an overatted skipper, the accolades he got were rightly deserved

and wheres the evidence to back it up?
steve waugh comfortably had the best team in the world, and yet he couldnt beat india in india or SL in SL. and his captaincy in the 03/04 series against india was so disgraceful that you almost felt happy to see him go and let ponting take over.
if this man is one of the best captains of the last decade, then surely there werent too many good ones.

 

[C_C]

the primary reason for anyone to be picked captain, and no matter how much you try to deny it it is the basic fact, is to get your players to perform to the best of their abilities.

Disagree.
You cannot get your players to perform to the best of their abilities - it has to come from inside the player.
This isnt mindcontrol or a boost in physical faculties - so how exactly are you going to make a player play 'better' ?
The reason for anyone to be picked captain is to maximise the impact of your players on field - which is setting the optimal field and rotating your bowlers astutely and to maintain team harmony/integrity off the field.

india isnt a team of mediocre players. they had a nucleus consisting of tendulkar, dravid, sehwag, laxman, ganguly, srinath, kumble and harbhajan singh. and i dont care what you say about them, all of those players are far better players than hick and hooper turned out to be.

Kumble has rarely performed outside India.
His career average away from home stands at 37+. However, since Ganguly took over, his away performance stands at 31 or so. That is a marked improvement.
Tendy,Dravid, etc. have always performed away from home.
Laxman- well chalk that up to Ganguly or else Laxman would've been history by now, averaging a measely 31-32 as an opener.
Bhajji is still very young and is progressing nicely. For comparison, he aint in Murali-Warne class but at his age, he is bowling no worse than a 24 year old Warne-Murali.
Sehwag- chalk that up to Ganguly as well. He was instrumental in getting Sehwag to open and Sehwag has exploded since he started opening.
That leaves Srinath- who, in all honesty, was finished after his shoulder injury in the late 90s. Srinath was nearing the end of his road anyways when Ganguly came along. But i agree- he didnt succeed with Srinath. but then again, no captain has a 100% record in getting 'improved performances' outta his players.

i appreciate what captains like hussain and fleming have done simply because they led a side usually consisting of 1-2 world class players and managed to lead them successfully.
a captain cannot make a player play better than he actually is, but he can make most of them play to their best of their abilities.

Again- you cannot MAKE a player play to the best of his ability.You mean to say that if a player loses form or hits a rough patch, we should chalk that up to the captain ?!??
All you can do really is optimise your options on field- something Ganguly does quiete well.

doubt it, from what ive seen of ganguly hes used the 'follow the ball' tactics, which almost always comes from a poor on-field decision maker.

I disagree.
He set some very specific field for Gillchrist, Ponting, Kallis, etc. and it has worked pretty well at times.

if you want to know why india have generally been inept abroad, its not only because their bowlers are ordinary, its also because they never have a plan.

India were lacking both direction and bowling performances overseas in the 90s.
Now they have direction but apart from Kumble's improved performance overseas, there is nobody else- bunch of newbie pacers and bhajji yet to fire overseas.
In test cricket, its bowling that wins you matches and until IND bowlers perform overseas,they wont win much.

then you obviously havent watched much of michael vaughan. no bias of course, but i think its quite obvious from his field placements, even from the 20-20 game recently, that he usually comes up with the most unconventional field placings that usually end up working. its no coincidence that several of the air balls went straight to hand.

I havn't seen much of Vaughan, but from what i've seen, i dont find him particularly brilliant.
he is decent but he is behind Flemmo and Ganguly as far as i am concerned.

. it does not however mean that hes the best captain in the world, or anywhere close to it. hes accomplished a few things, but he still hasnt got them to play at or near their best consistently enough, its happened on a few occasions that its been there for people to see though- wc 03, icc trophy 02, aus 03/04 etc.

Fleming apart, Ganguly has accomplished the most in captaincy regards.
His on-field decisionmaking is good and he has been hugely responsible in several key players innovating themselves in new fashion and having a marked improvement in performance.
As per playing at their best, like i said, a captain is not the master of puppets...he cannot MAKE you play better.....

likewise the same claim could be made about ponting, whos managed to take australia a step further since taking over the captaincy from steve waugh, and has managed to accomplish everything that steve waugh couldnt do in his entire tenure as captain already.

And what exactly has ponting achieved that Steve Waugh didn't ?
If you are gonna point towards the 'final frontier', bear in mind that Gilly was in charge there, not Punter.

 

[Sanz]

Personally I can't think of one thing Ponting has done which would put him in line for a penalty.

http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/over_rates/2005.html

Guess who is the first guy in that list. First Name Starts with 'R' Last name Starts with a 'P'. Must be Ganguly

http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/over_rates/2004.html (2004 list)
http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/over_rates/2003.html (2003 list)

Now go and count the no. of times Ponting has been Fined.

 

[marc71178]

Wow, 4 whole fines in 3 years - care to search for the name Ganguly in that same period?

It'll be 7 plus a ban.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Now go and count the no. of times Ponting has been Fined.

Four times in three years... that's a pretty decent record. If you look at the other captains on that list, there are others who have breached a similar amount to Ponting and have suffered fines (as Ponting did), but not bans. Ganguly was banned for repeatedly and flagrantly breaching the over rate limits. Eventually things came to a head when he fell behind repeatedly in the same series, he was warned and fined and then immediately did it again, at which point he was banned. It was completely justified under the circumstances, and in fact most Indian fans I spoke to agreed on that point. Ponting has never been one who consistently violated over rate limits, he does it about once a year, and as I have said Australia actually avoid picking their best team solely to avoid bowling their overs too slowly - if they didn't care, they would pick McGrath, Lee, Kasprowicz and Gillespie together.

In fact, since the start of 2004, Ganguly has breached 6 times, and it was on his 6th time and the second time in the same series that he was finally banned. If you look at the size of the fines, you will see those who breached often in the same period like Inzamam, Smith and Vaughan suffered larger fines, with Vaughan breaching 4 times in the same period and his last two being 50% each, Inzamam also going four times with one fine hitting 30%, and Smith four times, also hitting 50% at one stage. Ponting has breached just twice in that period, and as such is not deserving of significant punishment.

 

[C_C]

I am still working on the Ponting instances...but for now, here is a little something to illustrate the 'one rule for aussies, another rule for the rest' attitude that is prevalent in cricket.

Subcontinental players have been banned for appealing overzealously. Some english players have been fined for shaking their heads vigorously while walkin off....
Yet Warne having a heated exchange with the umpire and it is 'agreed to put behind'...I remember Warne screaming to Aleem Dar - not just 'Howzzzzzaaaaaat' in the top of his lungs but actually had words with him while appealiing ( he said 'look at the viewscreen').
But got away scot free.
hmm

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Subcontinental players have been banned for appealing overzealously. Some english players have been fined for shaking their heads vigorously while walkin off....
Yet Warne having a heated exchange with the umpire and it is 'agreed to put behind'...I remember Warne screaming to Aleem Dar - not just 'Howzzzzzaaaaaat' in the top of his lungs but actually had words with him while appealiing ( he said 'look at the viewscreen').
But got away scot free.
hmm

Australians have also been fined for debating umpiring decisions. For example, in an ODI in Sri Lanka last year, Symonds absolutely belted the ball into his pad (and I mean that, he HIT it, it wasn't an edge) and was given out lbw. As he was walking off the ground the umpire and the Sri Lankan team called him back. When the decision was made however, Gilchrist was at the non-strikers end and shouted something like "you've got to be kidding!", and was fined 50% of his match fee.

Also, Warne's words with the umpire happened in a First Class match, not a test or an ODI, and as such the ICC obviously aren't going to fine him, as its the responsibility of the English cricketing bodies to deal with poor discipline in their domestic competition. Warne had a similar incident last year, and Hampshire was docked Championship points for it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Disagree.
You cannot get your players to perform to the best of their abilities - it has to come from inside the player.
This isnt mindcontrol or a boost in physical faculties - so how exactly are you going to make a player play 'better' ?

Of course one cannot 'force' someone to play better but the better captains are able to talk to players in such a way as to sow seeds of thoughts which may well encourage a player in the right direction. Then the player has to take the cues and go from there, yes, but as far as setting the right conditions for a player's mindset to improve, this most certainly is a captain's responsibility and the hallmark of a good captain is often how well they achieve this. Imran Khan, in my humble opinion, was a true master at this sort of diplomacy. He had to be!

All you can do really is optimise your options on field- something Ganguly does quiete well.

Surely a captain does more than that? In effect, what you seem to be saying is that whether a captain says "Mate, you're really not bowling as well as we all know you can. What's the problem and how can I help you get through this?" or "You're bowling crap. BOWL BETTER." makes no difference. Of course, in the end, it has to stem from the player but as I said, captains give direction/guidance/advice which can help a player in the right direction. Generally captains who really know their players have historically been regarded as great captains.

And what exactly has ponting achieved that Steve Waugh didn't ?

Test series win in SL (no one else had even won a Test in SL for years before that)
WC win in 2003 without losing a match
Better batting record as captain (although Steve Waugh's is still excellent and it's only been 24 Tests for Ponting)

Waugh

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

Ponting

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

Other than that, they're pretty even.

If you are gonna point towards the 'final frontier', bear in mind that Gilly was in charge there, not Punter

Now come on, that's just disingenuous. Gilly was the on-field captain and that was it. Everything else was Ponting, which is pretty much what Gilly said at the time. Gilly was really just the Brevet Sergeant on-field.

 

[C_C]

Okay... maybe that excuses this outburst from Warne......but the one against Dar was in a test match.
I am not saying that the aussies dont get penalised- ofcourse they do. To me it seems that the leeway is that bit extra for the aussie players-they certainly have gotten away with more than any other team IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Better batting record as captain (although Steve Waugh's is still excellent and it's only been 24 Tests for Ponting)

Ponting has actually captained in 13 tests. He took over after the Indian tour of Australia, and has captained each of Australia's 17 tests since aside from missing one in Australia against Sri Lanka and three in India.

 

[Scallywag]

Four times in three years... that's a pretty decent record. If you look at the other captains on that list, there are others who have breached a similar amount to Ponting and have suffered fines (as Ponting did), but not bans. Ganguly was banned for repeatedly and flagrantly breaching the over rate limits. Eventually things came to a head when he fell behind repeatedly in the same series, he was warned and fined and then immediately did it again, at which point he was banned. It was completely justified under the circumstances, and in fact most Indian fans I spoke to agreed on that point. Ponting has never been one who consistently violated over rate limits, he does it about once a year, and as I have said Australia actually avoid picking their best team solely to avoid bowling their overs too slowly - if they didn't care, they would pick McGrath, Lee, Kasprowicz and Gillespie together.

In fact, since the start of 2004, Ganguly has breached 6 times, and it was on his 6th time and the second time in the same series that he was finally banned. If you look at the size of the fines, you will see those who breached often in the same period like Inzamam, Smith and Vaughan suffered larger fines, with Vaughan breaching 4 times in the same period and his last two being 50% each, Inzamam also going four times with one fine hitting 30%, and Smith four times, also hitting 50% at one stage. Ponting has breached just twice in that period, and as such is not deserving of significant punishment.

The size of the fine is dependent on the amount of overs not bowled in the allotted time. For every over not bowled on time 10% is added to the fine. i.e. 1 over = 10%, 5 overs = 50% and so on.

At the end of the game the captain will have to explain to the referee why his team did not complete their overs in the required time. Ganguly in all his arrogance refused to give reasons for his team not completing their overs and walked out of the meeting with the referee without explaining why they were overtime. Ganguly let himself and Indian cricket down by thinking he is bigger than the game.

 

[Top_Cat]

C_C: Without wanting to diminish the possibility of racist tendencies of umpires/administrators, all you're doing is effectively stating innuendos (quite damaging ones at that) about what you 'think' was said. In your example, you don't know for sure what Warnie said to that umpire. All you can do is infer and that, when it comes to stuff like this, simply isn't substantial enough.

And anyway, it defies logic what you're saying; if an umpire had a problem with something said by any player, they've shown that they've been quick to act in punishing players from all countries. If *I* was an umpire and some idiot (legend of the game notwithstanding) was questioning my decisions like you're inferring he said, I'd want to haul him over the coals and I'd suggest there woudn't be an umpire at any level who would feel different. Every umpire I've ever known HATES having their decisions questioned and if anything, considering the level of animosity towards Warnie as a rule, you can bet there would be umpires who would delight in punishing him for the slightest infraction. I know I would, if what he was saying/doing wasn't fair. Certainly Warnie has attracted the ire of administrators enough times for many different things in his life so far and people would be hyper-sensitive to anything he says as a result (rightly so, really). So I would suggest that the lack of action against Warnie on-field is more a function of him being the type of person who 'speaks much but says little.'

Certainly, if you want to talk about racist tendencies, there are plenty of more obvious instances which are more easily proveable than this one (just want to say that I myself am of mixed-race origin so I understand where you're coming from all too well). So I will say, with respect to your usually well-thought-out and detailed opinions, please stick to what you 'know' because you may well be libelling yourself and I don't think risk should be taken.

 

[C_C]

Well ofcourse, a captain has to have the ability to talk to their players and egg them on.
What i am saying is, player performance is not a barometer of that,since ultimately the player has to make it happen.
One indicator to that factor is the respect commanded by Ganguly in the Indian team-esepcially amongst the youngsters, who treat him almost like a father-figure.

For a decent player playing in a team surrounded by superstars like Tendulkar,Dravid,Kumble,etc., thats not an easy thing to accomplish if he didnt have the ability to motivate.

As per Punter's achievements vs Waugh's, i think its peanuts really.
Waugh i think was the first captain to beat RSA in RSA after their reinstatement.
He also won a world cup and was the captain in 98-99 series vs IND- the only time IND got decimated by OZ in the last 10+ years.
As per batting average while captain- that is irrelevant to your captaincy skills...that has everything to do with your individual playing skills.
Like i said, in future if they came up with a non sentient robot that could bat with the best of em, it would have a higher batting average as captain than anyone else....

 

[Scallywag]

I am still working on the Ponting instances...but for now, here is a little something to illustrate the 'one rule for aussies, another rule for the rest' attitude that is prevalent in cricket.

Subcontinental players have been banned for appealing overzealously. Some english players have been fined for shaking their heads vigorously while walkin off....
Yet Warne having a heated exchange with the umpire and it is 'agreed to put behind'...I remember Warne screaming to Aleem Dar - not just 'Howzzzzzaaaaaat' in the top of his lungs but actually had words with him while appealiing ( he said 'look at the viewscreen').
But got away scot free.
hmm

Thats where you just cant understand what happens C_C, umpires and referees will warn the players for their behavoir and its up to the player to pull his head in or face penalties.
Most players curb their behavoir when chatted but Ganguly just wont learn and continues to disregard warnings. No one to blame but Ganguly and all he has to do is pull his head in.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ponting has actually captained in 13 tests. He took over after the Indian tour of Australia, and has captained each of Australia's 17 tests since aside from missing one in Australia against Sri Lanka and three in India.

Eh? In the link I posted above I took Ponting's last 25 Tests and he's been captain in all bar one of them.

 

[C_C]

In your example, you don't know for sure what Warnie said to that umpire.

I knwo for sure thats what warney said- so do most people watching on TV because the stumpMic picked it up.

 

[C_C]

Thats where you just cant understand what happens C_C, umpires and referees will warn the players for their behavoir and its up to the player to pull his head in or face penalties.
Most players curb their behavoir when chatted but Ganguly just wont learn and continues to disregard warnings. No one to blame but Ganguly and all he has to do is pull his head in.

Newsflash mate - last time bhajji got fined for overappealing, he didnt get warned by the umpire.
Infact, umpires rarely warn any abuse directed towards them- they only warn when the sledging gets outta hand. They just note in their pad and report it.
Get your facts straight mate.

Ganguly in all his arrogance refused to give reasons for his team not completing their overs and walked out of the meeting with the referee without explaining why they were overtime.

Please substantiate this with proper evidence.

 

[aussie]

and wheres the evidence to back it up?
steve waugh comfortably had the best team in the world, and yet he couldnt beat india in india or SL in SL. and his captaincy in the 03/04 series against india was so disgraceful that you almost felt happy to see him go and let ponting take over.
if this man is one of the best captains of the last decade, then surely there werent too many good ones.

i wouldn't say australia not been able to win in India were due mainly to Waugh's captaincy. During those two tours the aussie batsmen were still not has good has they were againts spin now and thus even though they competed were always vulnerable againts the treat of the spinners getting it right.

I dont think Waugh's captaincy was great in either series but has i said before his captaincy wasn't the main reason they lost those 2 series.

I agree that his captaincy in his last series wasn't that great, its alos agreeable that Ganguly was the better captain of the two, but to say it was disgraceful is harsh mate . Waugh didn't have the survices of McGrath & Warne (wo i reckon if had played at full fitness & at top form could have gave Waugh a victorious farewell) while the remainder of the attack had injuries, didn't perform too well and were new kids on the block in test cricket. But no bowler on either side did anything too special in that series.

Overall Waugh for me was a pretty darn good skipper, he inspired and motivated his players and since he had such a great team to lead its hard to really find faults in his captaincy.

 

[Top_Cat]

As per batting average while captain- that is irrelevant to your captaincy skills...that has everything to do with your individual playing skills.

Depends on what you term 'captain'. If you talk about on-field manoeverings and off-field tactics/selections, then yes of course the performance as a player is irrelevent. I, however, believe individual performance and captaincy go hand-in-hand. The West Indies of the 70's and 80's recognised this too, targeting the captain to affect his own performance so that the captaincy suffered in turn.

I mean, you yourself have acknowledged that being a good captain is about man-management, on-field motivation of players, etc. too. So it stands to reason that the confidence level of a captain as a player will affect how much confidence he can instill in his players too. If the captain isn't entirely confident in his form, how can he be as effective as if he's in top form? Therefore, in my view the form of the captain does affect the overall rating of the captain because it certainly does affect their ability to be the 'man manager' side of captain as opposide to the 'tactics' side which is obviously not directly related.