luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not going to get caught up in this '40 replies in a post' tripe, but I'll address this point.C_C said:Irrelevant.
You claim that a good captain definately improves the performance of his players.
I claim that ultimately, the performance is in the hands of the players.
If your claim is correct, then logic dictates that every single player improved their performance after the said captain took over.
Are you sure that you cannot find a SINGLE player who's performance deteriorated under a said captain, nomatter how good he is/was ?
A good captain improves the COLLECTIVE performance of his TEAM. It might not be enough to notice on an individual basis, but just making more of the right decisions might make a difference of (say) 20 runs in an innings - a totally arbitrary figure because of course captaincy is not an exact science. Now those 20 runs might take the form of a batsman being more comfortable playing in a certain position, but it's far, far more likely to be because of astute bowling changes, field placements, general day-to-day decisions.
So, there you go. Maybe looking at things on an individual basis, the differences are too marginal to perceive - but just remember what I've said the next time you see a captain fail to position a wide slip to someone like Gilchrist or Flintoff and the ball whistles through third slip at catchable height 3 or 4 times before they take action, and then wonder how they've got 50 already.