How much does captaincy impact results?

[subshakerz]

We all agree that for all star teams or for minnow level sides, the impact of captaincy is minimal at best as most results write themselves.

But for mid level test teams, what percent of team results in your estimation does captaincy over the long term actually prove a decisive factor in?

 

[Chubb]

A good captain can improve performance 10%, but a bad one can reduce it 50%. Captaincy in cricket is much more important than it is in most other sports.

 

[subshakerz]

A good captain can improve performance 10%, but a bad one can reduce it 50%. Captaincy in cricket is much more important than it is in most other sports.

Interesting. There is less margin for improvement to you than hurting the side.

 

[Molehill]

A good captain can improve performance 10%, but a bad one can reduce it 50%.

This is literally both Ben Stokes!!

 

[Thala_0710]

A good captain can improve performance 10%, but a bad one can reduce it 50%. Captaincy in cricket is much more important than it is in most other sports.

Agree with this, but it also shifts from format to format imo. A t20 or even an odi can be impacted much more by a good captain than a test match. In a test match, the better team for those conditions wins more often that not, and even a great captain wouldn't really be able to change that much. The percentages you gave, I would agree in test matches.
In white ball games though, I believe there is more upside and less downside

 

[Starfighter]

Agree with this, but it also shifts from format to format imo. A t20 or even an odi can be impacted much more by a good captain than a test match. In a test match, the better team for those conditions wins more often that not, and even a great captain wouldn't really be able to change that much. The percentages you gave, I would agree in test matches.
In white ball games though, I believe there is more upside and less downside

Not sure I agree. The overs limitation means fewer degrees of freedom, with there being even fewer in a shorter match. You see bowling changes are more mechanical in limited overs, simply because the bowlers are restricted to a definite maximum. Being limited overs there are definite, predictable phases to the match which will help dictate what you want to do. In comparison, tests are free-form so it's a lot more ambiguous when to make tactical changes like changing bowlers and fields. i think limited overs would probably reduce the difference between an average and brilliant captain.

 

[Thala_0710]

Not sure I agree. The overs limitation means fewer degrees of freedom, with there being even fewer in a shorter match. You see bowling changes are more mechanical in limited overs, simply because the bowlers are restricted to a definite maximum. Being limited overs there are definite, predictable phases to the match which will help dictate what you want to do. In comparison, tests are free-form so it's a lot more ambiguous when to make tactical changes like changing bowlers and fields. i think limited overs would probably reduce the difference between an average and brilliant captain.

I'm not about sure about the difference between avg and brilliant but my point was that brilliant captaincy by itself winning a limited overs game is much more likely imo than tests. In test cricket, quality of the team would usually shine through. Whereas in white ball cricket, a fielding position change or a bowling change, changing the batting order or any specific plan could completely change the game and win the team the match imo

 

[kyear2]

A good captain can improve performance 10%, but a bad one can reduce it 50%. Captaincy in cricket is much more important than it is in most other sports.

These numbers remind me of numbers for head coaches in basket ball or football.

I agree that a bad one hurts more than a great one benefits. Actually significantly more.

And that's before we get into what even makes a great one, and who are the great ones.

But to your primary point, 10% seems a bit high, you're only really as good as your players.

 

[smash84]

A good captain can improve performance 10%, but a bad one can reduce it 50%. Captaincy in cricket is much more important than it is in most other sports.

Your saying reminds of a Richie Benaud saying (himself one of the great captains of all time)

"Captaincy is 90% luck and 10% skill. But don't try it without the 10%". Because bad captaincy can do a lot of damage.

 

[subshakerz]

These numbers remind me of numbers for head coaches in basket ball or football.

I agree that a bad one hurts more than a great one benefits. Actually significantly more.

And that's before we get into what even makes a great one, and who are the great ones.

But to your primary point, 10% seems a bit high, you're only really as good as your players.

10% is a conservative estimate if any. Ganguly, Imran, Ranatunga all took their teams up a tier in their tenures. They built their teams rather than work with the ones they were handed.

And teams take the attitude they get from captains.

I would put it at 15-20 percent.

 

[kyear2]

10% is a conservative estimate if any. Ganguly, Imran, Ranatunga all took their teams up a tier in their tenures. They built their teams rather than work with the ones they were handed.

And teams take the attitude they get from captains.

I would put it at 15-20 percent.

Yes I'm sure you would.

But two points.

1. Is it possible they got better because of Imran the player and Miandad etc coming into their primes

And 2. Does building a team make you a great captain? Lloyd built the WI, even kept them in line. Don't think that made him a great captain, Vivian either.

Great teams are built by great players, most often the captains are along for the ride.

Imran, Miandad and co helped make them that much better team.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes I'm sure you would.

But two points.

1. Is it possible they got better because of Imran the player and Miandad etc coming into their primes

Of course, we already conceded that much of the credit goes to resources available. But he got his team to play above their level often, like against the WI. Pakistan in the 70s had better batting for example.

And 2. Does building a team make you a great captain? Lloyd built the WI, even kept them in line. Don't think that made him a great captain, Vivian either.

Great teams are built by great players, most often the captains are along for the ride.

Imran, Miandad and co helped make them that much better team.

Captains have a huge say in the makeup of their teams.

Imran literally picked Waqar and Inzi over the heads of the selectors.

Ranatunga stood behind Murali otherwise he may not have continued after 95.

Lloyd decided for the pace quartet as opposed to a regular spinner countering typical convention.

Ganguly backed several youngsters over others and made their careers.

 

[Coronis]

I wonder how much this occurs these days.

For example I don’t think Cummins could get away with selecting some random NSW pacer over Starc or Hazlewood like Bradman could with Ward over Grimmett.

 

[subshakerz]

I wonder how much this occurs these days.

For example I don’t think Cummins could get away with selecting some random NSW pacer over Starc or Hazlewood like Bradman could with Ward over Grimmett.

It's true that captains have been downgraded somewhat in the hierarchy lately.

 

[kyear2]

Of course, we already conceded that much of the credit goes to resources available. But he got his team to play above their level often, like against the WI. Pakistan in the 70s had better batting for example.


Captains have a huge say in the makeup of their teams.

Imran literally picked Waqar and Inzi over the heads of the selectors.

Ranatunga stood behind Murali otherwise he may not have continued after 95.

Lloyd decided for the pace quartet as opposed to a regular spinner countering typical convention.

Ganguly backed several youngsters over others and made their careers.

They played better, especially in Pak because Imran played better. And yes, there was an improvement when he was there because he and Javed and co, but also what came before was horrible. But even when Javed took over in-between his stints the results stayed constant.


Re your second point, again, how does that make them actual great captains on the field is my question.

Let's leave out Imran, Lloyd built what was the greatest team ever at the time, but he was never a great captain on the field. Similar with Waugh and Ponting.
Graeme is seen by some as a great captain, but by many as a disaster.

I would wager you all the money in my pockets vs all the money in your pockets that Lloyd was more valuable to that team on the field at 1st than as captain.

Sorry, it takes more than bringing in talent or changing a philosophy to be declared a great captain. I've seen Baggy post on multiple occasions on how not great Immy was as a captain. It's just too subjective, and even wins isn't a great indicator.

 

[Coronis]

They played better, especially in Pak because Imran played better. And yes, there was an improvement when he was there because he and Javed and co, but also what came before was horrible. But even when Javed took over in-between his stints the results stayed constant.


Re your second point, again, how does that make them actual great captains on the field is my question.

Let's leave out Imran, Lloyd built what was the greatest team ever at the time, but he was never a great captain on the field. Similar with Waugh and Ponting.
Graeme is seen by some as a great captain, but by many as a disaster.

I would wager you all the money in my pockets vs all the money in your pockets that Lloyd was more valuable to that team on the field at 1st than as captain.

Sorry, it takes more than bringing in talent or changing a philosophy to be declared a great captain. I've seen Baggy post on multiple occasions on how not great Immy was as a captain. It's just too subjective, and even wins isn't a great indicator.

Not sure this is true. You wouldn’t think a player would remain captain for over 100 tests if people saw him as a disaster.

 

[smash84]

wait, what? Who sees Graeme Smith's captaincy as a disaster?

 

[kyear2]

Not sure this is true. You wouldn’t think a player would remain captain for over 100 tests if people saw him as a disaster.

Pretty sure I've seen quite a few posts by multiple posters saying the opposite.

I even opened a thread asking the same, to which there was no consensus either way with some dissenting views on both extremes.

 

[Chubb]

These numbers remind me of numbers for head coaches in basket ball or football.

That was the inspiration, I've seen a similar thing said about soccer management.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

As a recent example, Latham's captaincy (field setting alone) was much better than Rohit's