Cricket's worst captaincy decisions

[TheJediBrah]

Nah mate, that is plain wrong.

Your boys top the averages for that series but they achieved that in 2 tests......there were 5 in the series. And you can't bowl that many balls at Monty Panesaar and James Anderson without getting one of them out and feel stiffed about it.

I was on another forum at the time and this was fiercely debated. I recall even working out which side won each session throught the series and Eng won comfortably by that metric too.

This is all very subjective. For me if one team wins a Test by an innings and 300 runs, but loses 4 Tests by 1 run, I'd almost still say their the better team even though they lost 4-1 . . . almost.

England deserved the win for winning important moments, not debating that, but Aus were undoubtedly the stronger team on paper, and on overall performances

 

[TheJediBrah]

Actually I'm not sure they were even the better team on paper, that was a pretty weak Aus side, bowling particularly. That was a rough few years between McGrath/Gillespie retiring and the current guys arriving.

 

[GIMH]

On paper fine, but overall performance = winning the moments that matter.

 

[TheJediBrah]

On paper fine, but overall performance = winning the moments that matter.

That's one way of looking at it

 

[JBMAC]

Going by the title of thread

Greg Chappell instructing his brother to bowl underarm in New Zealand. Worst decision i have ever seen made in all the years of my watching and playing

 

[subshakerz]

Actually I'm not sure they were even the better team on paper, that was a pretty weak Aus side, bowling particularly. That was a rough few years between McGrath/Gillespie retiring and the current guys arriving.

They had just come from winning in SA. For some reason Stuart Clark didnt play the first three four tests and Johnson was utterly horrible. But this was before the Strauss side was solidified so it looked like Australia had the better team.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They had just come from winning in SA. For some reason Stuart Clark didnt play the first three four tests and Johnson was utterly horrible. But this was before the Strauss side was solidified so it looked like Australia had the better team.

I forgot about Stuart Clark, but he didn't pay much and the rest of the Aus bowling attack was trash during that period. Hilfenhaus, Bollinger and Siddle (who was probably the best of the lot). Johnson played a bit but was usually bad.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Root's less-than-optimal onfield captaincy probably has a few contenders. His commitment to bowling his fastest bowlers in 10+ over spells regardless of how many broke down as a result certainly warrants a mention.

In terms of specific tactical decisions I reckon his worst one was his early declaration in the Shai Hope Headingley Test, where he gave the WIndies more than 3 sessions to chase 320 on a flat pitch.

 

[h_hurricane]

Azhar inserting SL in 1996 WC SF.

Ganguly inserting Aus in 2003 WC Final.

We would have still lost these matches and these decisions were driven by the outcome of the league matches. However, they are still blunders imo, looking at the nature of pitches on offer on that day.

 

[mr_mister]

Azhar maybe was making a little coin from the result

 

[Jayro]

Azhar in wc 96 semifinal against srl, won the toss and, chose to bat second on a pitch which was meant to break, and it did so viciously you would think he was an idiot.

 

[Moss]

I suppose it’s the recency effect, but Williamson refusing to bowl Ajaz Patel for the rest of the match (and then series) after Stokes got after him in 2 overs at Lord’s was both terrible captaincy and player management IMO.

 

[Chubb]

Steven Smith deciding he didn't want to know about whatever plan Warner and Bancroft had concocted.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fake crying at the press conference an even worse decision

 

[CricAddict]

Indian captains

Dravid - Declaring innings when Sachin was on 194 no
Ganguly choosing to chase in 2003 WC final
Dhoni recalling Ian Bell in the name of sportsmanship
Kohli deciding that Bhuvi is not fit for tests - not entirely him of course

 

[subshakerz]

Indian captains

Dravid - Declaring innings when Sachin was on 194 no
Ganguly choosing to chase in 2003 WC final
Dhoni recalling Ian Bell in the name of sportsmanship
Kohli deciding that Bhuvi is not fit for tests - not entirely him of course

Dravid's was a ballsy decision in the interest of the game. I think he gave Tendulkar enough time to score.

 

[CricAddict]

Dravid's was a ballsy decision in the interest of the game. I think he gave Tendulkar enough time to score.

Tendulkar loved his stats. More than just that specific match, this created a permanent wedge between him and Sachin, a grudge which I believe Tendulkar holds to this day.

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar loved his stats. More than just that specific match, this created a permanent wedge between him and Sachin, a grudge which I believe Tendulkar holds to this day.

Same happened between Imran declaring when Javed was on 280. You respect the captain more for taking the heat.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Graeme Hick wants a word

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Steve Tikolo won the toss and elected to bowl...the rest was history (A world record total)