Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

[kyear2]

So is there a point here that is being made or is this just a little bitch fit at being wrong?

You're such a child it's would hilarious if not tragic.

I've meticulously responded to each of your points, with actual good ones. If you can't reply just say so.

 

[Xix2565]

You're such a child it's would hilarious if not tragic.

I've meticulously responded to each of your points, with actual good ones. If you can't reply just say so.

You've not said anything worth discussing. You basically pretend like the reality of the game is a lie, and then expect us to believe your assumptions on what is valuable or not are true. I don't see why you bother to pretend to like cricket if you're going to lie about it all the time like this. Shameless.

 

[kyear2]

You've not said anything worth discussing. You basically pretend like the reality of the game is a lie, and then expect us to believe your assumptions on what is valuable or not are true. I don't see why you bother to pretend to like cricket if you're going to lie about it all the time like this. Shameless.

There's no us, it's you.

There were valid points made, you just can't counter far less concede you may not have the only valid opinion.

You type up nonsense and assume there's some consensus to your opinion.

Your pigeon eyed view of the game is limited and even worse, unwilling to be expanded.

 

[ataraxia]

Mods please ban both of them under the halba clause. Forum atmosphere etc.

 

[subshakerz]

Hard disagree.

But will leave that for another time.

Sure. Though when we get to it I would be interested in your argument how on-field captaincy impacts less than fielding.

 

[subshakerz]

You've not said anything worth discussing. You basically pretend like the reality of the game is a lie, and then expect us to believe your assumptions on what is valuable or not are true. I don't see why you bother to pretend to like cricket if you're going to lie about it all the time like this. Shameless.

I find this rich coming from you who doesn't even address your own argument. Please show me based on the records of Tendulkar and Sobers how Viv is less consistent. You haven't. I can only assume you have no argument then.

 

[kyear2]

Sure. Though when we get to it I would be interested in your argument how on-field captaincy impacts less than fielding.

On field captaincy as a man manager?

Most of those guys were tactically great, not Lloyd nor Imran, my memories of what I read about Worrell isn't clear tbh.

More often that not, the most tenured or best player is names captain. It doesn't mean that much, especially with the days of analytics and a room full of coaches...

We've all heard the guys able to get the best out of your players, one would hope that's the bare minimum.

No one can say why Bradman was a great captain, yet it's automatically assumed he would for an at xi, why, because he's the best player. And yeah, players listen to who they respect.

 

[subshakerz]

On field captaincy as a man manager?

Most of those guys were tactically great, not Lloyd nor Imran, my memories of what I read about Worrell isn't clear tbh.

More often that not, the most tenured or best player is names captain. It doesn't mean that much, especially with the days of analytics and a room full of coaches...

We've all heard the guys able to get the best out of your players, one would hope that's the bare minimum.

No one can say why Bradman was a great captain, yet it's automatically assumed he would for an at xi, why, because he's the best player. And yeah, players listen to who they respect.

Here is the thing. I would say 70/80 percent of results are determined by the set of players you have, which may be outside a captains hands ( though not in Imran's case). The rest is how you manage them into a team.

An average captain pretty much delivers the results you expect. A bad captain will give underperformance. A good captain improves the teams overall performance and stands.

A great captain transforms team totally beyond a good captain. This can include team building, man management, also tactics. They leave a legacy as well.

The best example is Stokes, a great captain, vs Babar Azam, a poor captain, when he whitewashed Pakistan 3-0. There is no way an ordinary English captain would do that, they would be lucky to even win 1-0. And there is no way even an average Pak captain could be whitewashed at home, you need an extra level of bad to achieve that.

Like I said, unless a field is elite, I don't think it comes close to the impact of captaincy.

 

[kyear2]

Here is the thing. I would say 70/80 percent of results are determined by the set of players you have, which may be outside a captains hands ( though not in Imran's case). The rest is how you manage them into a team.

An average captain pretty much delivers the results you expect. A bad captain will give underperformance. A good captain improves the teams overall performance and stands.

A great captain transforms team totally beyond a good captain. This can include team building, man management, also tactics. They leave a legacy as well.

The best example is Stokes, a great captain, vs Babar Azam, a poor captain, when he whitewashed Pakistan 3-0. There is no way an ordinary English captain would do that, they would be lucky to even win 1-0. And there is no way even an average Pak captain could be whitewashed at home, you need an extra level of bad to achieve that.

Like I said, unless a field is elite, I don't think it comes close to the impact of captaincy.

In real life, managing a team, or being a great people manager basically comes down to treating people with respect and learning what motivates each person.

In professional cricket, an exceptionally poor captain can demoralize. Someone who's stubborn or don't know how to motivate or that they just don't respect.

At the end of the day, about 80 to 90% of it is personnel. Lloyd's strengths were a) his vision for the team, but 90% of that was having access to the talent, and getting them to bowl to his plan. And b) his ability to get persons from different cultures and countries to play together, not nearly as easy as you would believe. They were often boycotts in different islands if someone wasn't selected.

Imran's seemed to being able to get them to play as a unit and to believe in him and them selves. While performing well enough to get them to follow him.

Orbit could have been that he was one of the greatest players ever and had a pretty good team, including Javed. Same with Lloyd.

 

[CricketFan90s]

 

[subshakerz]

In real life, managing a team, or being a great people manager basically comes down to treating people with respect and learning what motivates each person.

In professional cricket, an exceptionally poor captain can demoralize. Someone who's stubborn or don't know how to motivate or that they just don't respect.

At the end of the day, about 80 to 90% of it is personnel.

Right so if we can agree then that around 20% of the results are down to captaincy and not the team he is handed, that is already massive then in impact, well beyond a normal good fielder.

Imran's seemed to being able to get them to play as a unit and to believe in him and them selves. While performing well enough to get them to follow him.

Orbit could have been that he was one of the greatest players ever and had a pretty good team, including Javed. Same with Lloyd.

Imran also built a team. He groomed Wasim and the personally selected Waqar and Inzi and others in the team. So he had an added effect.

 

[kyear2]

Right so if we can agree then that around 20% of the results are down to captaincy and not the team he is handed, that is already massive then in impact, well beyond a normal good fielder.


Imran also built a team. He groomed Wasim and the personally selected Waqar and Inzi and others in the team. So he had an added effect.

Have my.own thoughts on that and will leave it at that.
I can say the same about Lloyd and his fast bowlers, but at the end of the day of they couldn't perform, it was all for naught.

I think in the other thread I covered it adequately. A bad captain is more detrimental than a great one is beneficial. You try to motivate the team to their potential and try to put them in positions to succeed.

With that being said, if the fielders are dropping the catches, means much less.

If I am consistent and use similar examples.

Was Lloyd the captain more vital to the success of the team as Lloyd and the rest of death row? No..., not in my opinion. Border and Taylor were better captains, but Australia reached their peak under Waugh and Ponting, when they got... better players.

Richards was a motivator and disciplinarian (probably too far at times) but it worked because he was Viv the batsman.

Do most really consider Ponting and Viv to be great captains?

 

[subshakerz]

Have my.own thoughts on that and will leave it at that.
I can say the same about Lloyd and his fast bowlers, but at the end of the day of they couldn't perform, it was all for naught.

I think in the other thread I covered it adequately. A bad captain is more detrimental than a great one is beneficial. You try to motivate the team to their potential and try to put them in positions to succeed.

With that being said, if the fielders are dropping the catches, means much less.

Yes my friend we have already agreed that players account for 80 percent of the results. But if 20 percent of the results are based on captaincy, that is significant. Moreso than a good fielder who takes the occasional blinder, normally in situations where it is not life or death to the game.

Richards was a motivator and disciplinarian (probably too far at times) but it worked because he was Viv the batsman.

Do most really consider Ponting and Viv to be great captains?

Viv is a good captain but his achievements don't merit him being a great captain.

Ponting was an average/poor test captain and good ODI captain. Under Ponting, Australia lost some very winnable series and went from a confirmed no.1 to a mid-tier team in 3 years. Under Viv, they stayed no.1, albeit with better bowlers.

 

[CricketFan90s]

View attachment 40758

Fast Bowlers of West Indies that Conquered the World
1) Andy Roberts - Antigua and Barbuda
2) Michael Holding - Jamaica
3) Colin Croft - Guyana
4) Joel Garner - Barbados
5) Malcolm Marshall - Barbados
6) Courtney Walsh - Jamaica
7) Curtly Ambrose - Antigua and Barbuda
8) Ian Bishop - Trinidad and Tobago

 

[trundler]

Fast Bowlers of West Indies that Conquered the World
1) Andy Roberts - Antigua and Barbuda
2) Michael Holding - Jamaica
3) Colin Croft - Guyana
4) Joel Garner - Barbados
5) Malcolm Marshall - Barbados
6) Courtney Walsh - Jamaica
7) Curtly Ambrose - Antigua and Barbuda
8) Ian Bishop - Trinidad and Tobago

Can you provide some facts about them? With pictures?

 

[CricketFan90s]

View attachment 40758

@trundler

 

[CricketFan90s]

 

[kyear2]

Yes my friend we have already agreed that players account for 80 percent of the results. But if 20 percent of the results are based on captaincy, that is significant. Moreso than a good fielder who takes the occasional blinder, normally in situations where it is not life or death to the game.


Viv is a good captain but his achievements don't merit him being a great captain.

Ponting was an average/poor test captain and good ODI captain. Under Ponting, Australia lost some very winnable series and went from a confirmed no.1 to a mid-tier team in 3 years. Under Viv, they stayed no.1, albeit with better bowlers.

I'll think about that number, though I'm pretty sure I said 80 - 90, and thinking about it, think that number is too low.

Someone should post a poll.

Ponting wasn't a great test captain, but he captained the greatest team ever. It's not a detriment to a great team.

Ponting lost series as he lost greats, again, it's just like a quarterback. Gets too much credit for victories, and too much blame in defeats.

I think my final answer is a combination of what I said above.

A poor captain is more of a detriment to a team, than the benefits received from a "great one"

Also

Unless horrible, ie someone who disrupts the team culture, not respected or just incompetent, a great captain isn't going to have much of an impact on a great or professional team.

A great team can make a average captain look amazing. Even I could captain the any combination of the 8 bowlers illustrated above.

From everything you've said, Imran was seen as a great captain, partly because of how absolutely horrible the situation was before. And yes, he could get the team to follow him, but that's the baseline for good imho.

I watched back some of the the videos, and while he was lauded as a great captain, it was always "of Pakistan" Not nearly a slight, but observation.

I'll keep watching and digging, in general, not for Imran. I've never been convinced of what makes a great captain. I once even opened a thread regarding Graeme Smith's and there was no consensus there at all.

It's incredibly subjective, hence it's not something I've ever rated or looked into much, and having a great management / coaching structure and overall culture somewhat mitigates all of this as well.

And again, Lloyd, Richards, Waugh, Ponting, Smith. They captained the great teams I always reference, how many would be deemed great.

MIke Brearley was supposedly a great captain, what happened the first 3 tests after WSC?
Also found this clip regarding him

Mike Brearley was an outstanding captain - intuitive, resourceful, sympathetic and clear-thinking - but at Test level his tremendous record owed much to a superb and versatile attack. Its spearheads, Bob Willis and Ian Botham, took respectively 112 wickets (at 24) and 150 wickets (at 19) under Brearley's leadership, and missed only five Tests between them

Again is it record, tactical excellence or people management? Just too much grey for me.

 

[CricketFan90s]

View attachment 40760

Big 8 of West Indies from 1974-2001 - 2296 Wickets at an Average of 22.82

 

[subshakerz]

I'll think about that number, though I'm pretty sure I said 80 - 90, and thinking about it, think that number is too low.

Come on man, don't backtrack. Even if it's 15 percent, that is still more than your good fielder.

Captaincy is the biggest factor after primary disciplines arguably if we are being objective about it.

Ponting wasn't a great test captain, but he captained the greatest team ever. It's not a detriment to a great team.

Ponting lost series as he lost greats, again, it's just like a quarterback. Gets too much credit for victories, and too much blame in defeats.

Ponting as captain lost winnable/drawable series that can be traced to him failing to closing winning situations or captaincy flubs, that is the difference. SA 2008, India 2008 and 2010, England 2009. Those make him a bad captain. His captaincy when Aus were an ATG side isn't as relevant.

A poor captain is more of a detriment to a team, than the benefits received from a "great one"

That's more your hunch. Likely the effect for a mid team is similar.

From everything you've said, Imran was seen as a great captain, partly because of how absolutely horrible the situation was before. And yes, he could get the team to follow him, but that's the baseline for good imho.

He did a lot more than that. He picked and groomed youngsters to become stars, maximized their potential, took them to top tier and built a worldclass team in his wake.

I watched back some of the the videos, and while he was lauded as a great captain, it was always "of Pakistan" Not nearly a slight, but observation.

Nah, Benaud and several commentators have spoken of his leadership abilities. That's partly his natural charisma and aura, it works in his politics as campaigner too frankly regardless of how good was as a policymaker.

The Pakistan part is used to say, 'if you can do that with Pakistan, you are exceptional as a captain.' He would be inspirational in any set up, though not as dictatorial IMO.

And again, Lloyd, Richards, Waugh, Ponting, Smith. They captained the great teams I always reference, how many would be deemed great.

I make a difference between those who build teams and great tacticians as the great captains, and all the rest.

MIke Brearley was supposedly a great captain, what happened the first 3 tests after WSC?
Also found this clip regarding him

Brearely is overrated because of English press like Botham.