Best current international captain

[C_C]

Well like i said, Captaining the subcontinental sides involve considerable off-field expertise.
And the way its been for the past 10 years or so, i would include WI in that category as well.

One thing you dont see as much in non subcontinental sides is regionalism.
that is/was a HUGE part of the fractuous behaviour of the teams.......its always karachi vs lahore, north india vs mumbai,south india vs east india, etc etc.
Yes, there is inter-state rivalry in OZ cricket but it is nowhere near as fractuous as it is in the subcontinent.

Infact, the make-or-break for a subcontinental captain is the off field capabilities.
Which is why almost all of the topnotch subcontinental captains have had a very strong presence to the point of being the 'Don' of the side ( in mafiosi fashion, not braddles)- Imran,Ganguly, Pataudi, etc. etc.

 

[C_C]

I'd rate Inzy 4th, after Fleming, Vaughan and ponting, and ahead of Ganguly.

I thought you just said you rate Ponting after Flemmo/Gangs

 

[Scallywag]

Fleming did an inspired job on the tour to Australia in 2001/02. That was one of the strongest test sides ever fielded and they absolutely mauled the number two side in the world that summer 5-1, and Fleming took his side to a 0-0 drawn series and a win in the ODIs. It was a top effort. He worked out players like Martyn with his field placings, had his players at the top of their game and took it to the best in the world. Mind you, I think Australia deserved to win that series, but you can credit the drawn series to Fleming first and the weather second, more than any of New Zealand's players in their own right.

You have to be kidding, the first test in Brisbane Australia almost won and only lost 11 wickets in the whole test due to Waugh declaring the second innings closed at 2/84. The second test in Hobart Australia scored 8/558 in the first innings and the weather closed out the rest of the game.The third test in Perth was evenly matched at the close of play and could have gone either way. Martyn scored 90 runs in that test. You cannot attribute the first two matches to anything but luck as the reason NZ did well.

In the ODI series Australia did play bad but it was not because of NZ, because NZ also lost to SA.

 

[AndrewM]

You have to be kidding, the first test in Brisbane Australia almost won and only lost 11 wickets in the whole test due to Waugh declaring the second innings closed at 2/84. The second test in Hobart Australia scored 8/558 in the first innings and the weather closed out the rest of the game.The third test in Perth was evenly matched at the close of play and could have gone either way. Martyn scored 90 runs in that test. You cannot attribute the first two matches to anything but luck as the reason NZ did well.

In the ODI series Australia did play bad but it was not because of NZ, because NZ also lost to SA.

The second test was the only one New Zealand were in trouble. The first was a charitable decision between the captains to get a result. Check the scorecards - New Zealand were 10 runs away from victory. 10 runs. Australia definately nearly won that one, you are correct. The third was definately equal, if not points for New Zealand as we got a big first innings lead.

The one-day series was the end of Steve Waugh as one-day captain. Why? Australia played New Zealand four times and lost three. How do you attribute that to South Africa? New Zealand lost to South Africa, and Australia beat South Africa. But they lost three out the four matches to New Zealand, and the one victory was a near miracle rescue mission by Bevan.

Australia were constantly outclassed by New Zealand as a unit but it ultimately highlighted Fleming's sheer innovation and captaincy skills. Field placings was a good example.

 

[Scallywag]

The second test was the only one New Zealand were in trouble. The first was a charitable decision between the captains to get a result. Check the scorecards - New Zealand were 10 runs away from victory. 10 runs. Australia definately nearly won that one, you are correct. The third was definately equal, if not points for New Zealand as we got a big first innings lead.

The one-day series was the end of Steve Waugh as one-day captain. Why? Australia played New Zealand four times and lost three. How do you attribute that to South Africa? New Zealand lost to South Africa, and Australia beat South Africa. But they lost three out the four matches to New Zealand, and the one victory was a near miracle rescue mission by Bevan.

Australia were constantly outclassed by New Zealand as a unit but it ultimately highlighted Fleming's sheer innovation and captaincy skills. Field placings was a good example.

I did not attribute anything to SA, I said Australia played badly and it was not due to Fleming. If Fleming was the reason Australia were beaten then why did SA beat NZ in four of the qualifying games.

 

[AndrewM]

Our record against South Africa is shocking, and that was at a time when they had won a ridiculous amount of games in a row against New Zealand. They therefore "had the wood over us". But Fleming comprehensively outgunned Waugh, and was the reason of his demise. You surely have to attribute that success to Fleming.

 

[simmy]

Vaughan for me.

Ponting... an exceptional player but I could captain Australia to victory to be honest.

Vaughan... tough.. brilliant with press and noone places a field better.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I thought you just said you rate Ponting after Flemmo/Gangs

No, I rate Ponting after Fleming and Vaughan. I don't think Ganguly is a particularly good on-field captain to be honest. He has had a team of immense talent most of his time in charge and taken it nowhere but backwards. He struggles to lead from the front with the bat, he's a liability in the field, and he doesn't bring the best out of his players outside of India. He's not a terrible captain and sometimes inspires some great efforts, but India's shocking record away from home is a major black mark against his captaincy skills.

 

[Scallywag]

Our record against South Africa is shocking, and that was at a time when they had won a ridiculous amount of games in a row against New Zealand. They therefore "had the wood over us". But Fleming comprehensively outgunned Waugh, and was the reason of his demise. You surely have to attribute that success to Fleming.

OK I'm listening, what exactaly did Fleming do that was out of the ordinary.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You have to be kidding, the first test in Brisbane Australia almost won and only lost 11 wickets in the whole test due to Waugh declaring the second innings closed at 2/84. The second test in Hobart Australia scored 8/558 in the first innings and the weather closed out the rest of the game.The third test in Perth was evenly matched at the close of play and could have gone either way. Martyn scored 90 runs in that test. You cannot attribute the first two matches to anything but luck as the reason NZ did well.

In the ODI series Australia did play bad but it was not because of NZ, because NZ also lost to SA.

As I said, Australia deserved to win that series, but Fleming and the rain were the reasons they did not. His tactics managed to shut down McGrath quite effectively at well, which nobody else has ever really managed to do.

 

[King_Ponting]

Well like i said, Captaining the subcontinental sides involve considerable off-field expertise.
And the way its been for the past 10 years or so, i would include WI in that category as well.

One thing you dont see as much in non subcontinental sides is regionalism.
that is/was a HUGE part of the fractuous behaviour of the teams.......its always karachi vs lahore, north india vs mumbai,south india vs east india, etc etc.
Yes, there is inter-state rivalry in OZ cricket but it is nowhere near as fractuous as it is in the subcontinent.

Infact, the make-or-break for a subcontinental captain is the off field capabilities.
Which is why almost all of the topnotch subcontinental captains have had a very strong presence to the point of being the 'Don' of the side ( in mafiosi fashion, not braddles)- Imran,Ganguly, Pataudi, etc. etc.

Mate u come accross as a racesist towards caucasions. S*it its harder in us asian nations cause we have to deal with this extra s*it. Us Aussies and the english have just as much trouble dealing with fractucous behaviour in teams as the sub continent so dont give me that crap mate. Stop talking this marginalisation sh*t and just discuss their captaincy abilities based on their on-feild antics.

 

[Slow Love™]

I would probably say Vaughan, followed by Inzamam (his nasty and hurtful comments about the Shoaib notwithstanding ) and Ponting. (Fleming would probably be next.)

But sign me up to the list of people confounded by all the press regarding Fleming. IMO, he's nothing incredibly special, and you have to wonder, if you took away that 2001 series in Australia, would he be held in anywhere near the same high regard?

That series has obviously developed an incredible mythos as the years have passed by - the funny thing is that, while I agree that there was some good gameplans in place for specific Aussie players, the reason for this likely had a fair amount to do with Denis Aberhart (who looked to be an excellent coach and seems to get NO credit for any of this). A large part of his brief when he accepted the job was to work on strategies for individual opposition players, and he left NZ in pretty healthy shape when he accepted a job outside cricket - mainly because the Kiwi board messed around and couldn't give him any guarantees for his future. Without him, Fleming hasn't appeared to possess half the genius that many on this forum would like to attribute to him.

Aside from this, in that 2001 series they were given a charitible chance by Steve Waugh in the first test (affected by weather) that they couldn't quite take advantage of, and they were being murdered in the second test (even more affected by weather). They played pretty well in the third test, although with Gilchrist in good form at the end, Australia were actually a reasonable chance to win that game.

Fleming deserves to have Alec Baldwin shout at him for half an hour about his inability to be a closer. On the occasions that his side gets on top of their opposition, too often he lets things coast and can't press home the advantage - he becomes overly conservative and waits for things to happen. His batting has sure improved a great deal the last few years though, even if his captaincy hasn't seemed so incredible. Maybe I'm being too hard on him, but it seems he's over-praised to me. Perhaps it's an aura thing for some - he is a fine-looking man.

 

[Slow Love™]

Mate u come accross as a racesist towards caucasions. S*it its harder in us asian nations cause we have to deal with this extra s*it. Us Aussies and the english have just as much trouble dealing with fractucous behaviour in teams as the sub continent so dont give me that crap mate. Stop talking this marginalisation sh*t and just discuss their captaincy abilities based on their on-feild antics.

To my (limited) knowledge though, the Indian selections have historically been openly affected by class and region bias in the past. And the West Indian debates are openly grounded in ethnicity as much as being territorial (and bear in mind that the West Indies represents multiple countries, rather than states). So, in essence, he is right, because we certainly don't experience these problems to anywhere near the same levels in Australia.

 

[Dasa]

SL, haven't seen you around in a while. Good to see you back (even if temporary)!

To my (limited) knowledge though, the Indian selections have historically been openly affected by class and region bias in the past. And the West Indian debates are openly grounded in ethnicity as much as being territorial (and bear in mind that the West Indies represents multiple countries, rather than states). So, in essence, he is right, because we certainly don't experience these problems to anywhere near the same levels in Australia.

Exactly. King_Ponting, you have no idea of the cultures of the subcontinent. India is effectively like the West Indies made up of several cultures - people who speak different languages, are of different religions, even look different. Australia does not have to deal with such issues. It's not about racism or anything of that sort. I highly doubt you have any depth of knowledge of the subcontinent.

 

[King_Ponting]

SL, haven't seen you around in a while. Good to see you back (even if temporary)!

Exactly. King_Ponting, you have no idea of the cultures of the subcontinent. India is effectively like the West Indies made up of several cultures - people who speak different languages, are of different religions, even look different. Australia does not have to deal with such issues. It's not about racism or anything of that sort. I highly doubt you have any depth of knowledge of the subcontinent.

As i also doubtC_C has extensive knowledge about the australian environment. take your tunnel vision else where.

 

[AndrewM]

Can we forget these race issues? its about captains after all. Cheers.

 

[C_C]

Dont be a dumbass.
Australia is pretty homogenous, its cricket teams are pretty homogenous and the populace has one overwhelming majority.

That is totally different from the subcontinent, where you have several regions of different culture, language, customs and religion.
If you want an accurate idea of how India is, envision entire Europe under one national banner, where Germany is a province/state, france is a province/state, luxemburg is a federal territorry, etc etc.
It is true to a lesser extent in Pakistan as well.
It is historically documented that subcontinental cricket politics have been a lot more fractuous than non-subcontinental ones, with WI as the only other team running it close.
England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Zimbabwe etc. dont have to deal with that extra stuff
And what do you mean 'on field only' ? A captain's responsibility lies on field as well as off field.

 

[C_C]

I don't think Ganguly is a particularly good on-field captain to be honest. He has had a team of immense talent most of his time in charge and taken it nowhere but backwards. He struggles to lead from the front with the bat, he's a liability in the field, and he doesn't bring the best out of his players outside of India. He's not a terrible captain and sometimes inspires some great efforts, but India's shocking record away from home is a major black mark against his captaincy skills.

Umm...he has taken his team forward than any other captain arguably.
Ganguly came on right after India lost some key members - Azhar, Jadeja, etc. due to matchfixing and the team was in tatters.
He rebuilt that and India's performance (even though i dont agree with performance being an indicator of captaincy skills, i bring it up because you are factually wrong) under him is a lot better before him.
As per not being 'inspirational', it was Ganguly's idea to let VVS come down the order - he was struggling as an opening batsman but instantly made his mark in the middle.
It was Ganguly who convinced Wright to let Sehwag open the innings and the rest is history.
It was also Ganguly who convinced the selectors to pick this unknown kid called Harbhajan Singh for the OZ series and again, the rest is history.
Never have the younger players from the subcontinent looked up to a captain in the way they look up to Ganguly.

As per India's shocking record away from home, it has improved under ganguly but i think you will find that the root cause of it is India's bowling overseas, which is lacklusture.

His field placements and bowling changes are pretty much the same callibre as everyone else's barring Fleming and his off field handling of personalities, supporting his players and bringing team unity is quiete frankly, peerless.

A captain doesnt have to lead from the front with the bat- his captaincy accumen and off field handling of matters is more than enough. Look at Mark Taylor, Ranatunga,Brearley etc.
Neither one of them were the best batsmen in their team.

 

[King_Ponting]

Mate seriously we are talking about Captaincy issues so dont bring this marginidation bullsh*t into it. I'm sure people are sik of people whinging about how in society this nation and that is marginalised.

It is historically documented that subcontinental cricket politics have been a lot more fractuous than non-subcontinental ones, with WI as the only other team running it close.

That is a statement you have made and according to this zimbabwe should be given more leway as it is certainly the only country in which cricket politics affects the make up of its team. India doesnt have to deal with anything like that. I dont believe just because some people in society think they are being marginalised gives them a harder and or greater job, for a team to suceed. Utter bullsh*t

 

[Slow Love™]

As i also doubtC_C has extensive knowledge about the australian environment. take your tunnel vision else where.

He and Dasa (hi mate!) are still right though - I don't see what tunnel vision has to do with it.

It is historically documented that subcontinental cricket politics have been a lot more fractuous than non-subcontinental ones, with WI as the only other team running it close.
England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Zimbabwe etc. dont have to deal with that extra stuff

To be fair, South Africa and Zimbabwe have had their own fractious and divisive extra stuff to deal with.

I actually forgot to mention Ganguly - it's true that he's bound his team together superbly and has had an Ian Chappellesque affect on the opposition, but his stocks seem to have dipped recently. His on-field game tactics never seemed his strength though, and obviously, the chronic timewasting is overdone.