How much does captaincy impact results?

[centurymaker]

Rohit's captaincy was poor. He allowed new batsmen to settle, reminded me of Dhoni's captaincy days.

 

[Line and Length]

I can think of 5 Ashes captains whose leadership was vital to their teams success. Richie Benaud, Ray Illingworth, Ian Chappell, Mike Brearley and Alan Border. I saw all 5 in action and they were great captains

 

[Chubb]

It's true there is only so much you can do with the players at your disposal.

Nasser Hussain was a better captain than Vaughan or Strauss IMHO yet his record is worse because of the side he led. He is arguably the best captain England has had after Brearley, who is always the standard for this yet was very lucky not to face the great Windies sides and compete against a (relatively) weak Australian team.

I have significant acknowledged bias towards Nasser because he is an Essex boy and a local these days to where my family play (my cousin actually plays alongside his son in club cricket). But he is generally known as an outstanding captain.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I can think of 5 Ashes captains whose leadership was vital to their teams success. Richie Benaud, Ray Illingworth, Ian Chappell, Mike Brearley and Alan Border. I saw all 5 in action and they were great captains

Obviously a long way back but the likes of Armstrong and Jardine achieved a lot as Ashes captains.

More recently Taylor and Waugh were also great, but their teams would've won regardless.
I wonder how influential Vaughan, Strauss, and Clarke were. I'd say a bit.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Nasser Hussain was a better captain than Vaughan or Strauss IMHO yet his record is worse. But he is generally known as an outstanding captain.

"Nasser, you've won the toss. What are you going to do this morning?"

"We'll have a bowl."

 

[Chubb]

"Nasser, you've won the toss. What are you going to do this morning?"

"We'll have a bowl."

Yeah look that was not his finest hour, he acknowledges that. But one mistake should not define him.

Worth remembering Simon Jones did his ACL early on that first day. No way he could've planned for that.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah look that was not his finest hour, he acknowledges that. But one mistake should not define him.

Worth remembering Simon Jones did his ACL early on that first day. No way he could've planned for that.

Planning for a Simon Jones injury actually seems quite sensible tbh.

 

[kyear2]

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

Aren't all of those handled by computers and analysts these days?

 

[subshakerz]

So much wrong with this post, completely opposite to cricket reality.

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.

To quote Ian Chappell, who rates Imran highly, a good captain takes a team and makes them better.

Pakistan in the 70s had a very capable team, probably a better batting unit. They weren't horrible.

But under Imran in the 80s they won in England and India and drew thrice against WI. Those were unusually good results.

Yes, Imran was leading from the front as a player but he managed to unite a fractious team and got the best out of youngster to perform.

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

You already conceded that resources bring most results. So a captain who manages to bring and nurture new resources that lead to results shouldn't get credit?

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.

Lloyd was a good captain to me, not a great one, but it seems you are silly enough to think man management isn't part of captaincy and has no effect on results.

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.

Sure we already conceded most results are due to resources you have. The problem is you think captaincy is a non-factor which is denying reality.

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.

Let's run an experiment. Do you think Pakistan cricket got better result with Waqar Younis and Inzimam who Imran got into the team, or without? Do you think SL cricket were better off with Murali sticking in the team thanks to Ranatunga support or no?

It's just too subjective, and even wins isn't a great indicator.

Most of us with common sense can tell when result improving are due to a captains affect. If you think the change in results from a year prior of Roots captaincy to a year later of Stokes captaincy is just all a matter of opinion, then you are being willfully blind.

Imran being a great captain has about as much consensus as McGrath being a great bowler. Your sour grapes won't affect that.

 

[subshakerz]

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

Apparently @kyear2 can't tell if Smith was a good captain. Ugh...

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.

Really? You are going to get dissenting posts about any cricketer no matter the consensus. Using that as a basis to pretend we can't assessment quality of a captaincy is just disingenuous.

 

[subshakerz]

Obviously a long way back but the likes of Armstrong and Jardine achieved a lot as Ashes captains.

More recently Taylor and Waugh were also great, but their teams would've won regardless.
I wonder how influential Vaughan, Strauss, and Clarke were. I'd say a bit.

Sorry but there are no guarantees that a different captain would have won in WI, SA and Pakistan as Taylor did.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Obviously a long way back but the likes of Armstrong and Jardine achieved a lot as Ashes captains.

More recently Taylor and Waugh were also great, but their teams would've won regardless.
I wonder how influential Vaughan, Strauss, and Clarke were. I'd say a bit.

Bradman in that Ashes where he reversed the batting order.

 

[kyear2]

So much wrong with this post, completely opposite to cricket reality.


To quote Ian Chappell, who rates Imran highly, a good captain takes a team and makes them better.

Pakistan in the 70s had a very capable team, probably a better batting unit. They weren't horrible.

But under Imran in the 80s they won in England and India and drew thrice against WI. Those were unusually good results.

Yes, Imran was leading from the front as a player but he managed to unite a fractious team and got the best out of youngster to perform.


You already conceded that resources bring most results. So a captain who manages to bring and nurture new resources that lead to results shouldn't get credit?


Lloyd was a good captain to me, not a great one, but it seems you are silly enough to think man management isn't part of captaincy and has no effect on results.


Sure we already conceded most results are due to resources you have. The problem is you think captaincy is a non-factor which is denying reality.


Let's run an experiment. Do you think Pakistan cricket got better result with Waqar Younis and Inzimam who Imran got into the team, or without? Do you think SL cricket were better off with Murali sticking in the team thanks to Ranatunga support or no?


Most of us with common sense can tell when result improving are due to a captains affect. If you think the change in results from a year prior of Roots captaincy to a year later of Stokes captaincy is just all a matter of opinion, then you are being willfully blind.

Imran being a great captain has about as much consensus as McGrath being a great bowler. Your sour grapes won't affect that.

In the 70's the team wasn't horrible, who were the great bowlers, the match winners. What were Imran's bowling numbers in those matches.

Bringing players into a team that helps to build a team of course impacts results. It doesn't make them a good captain. When Lloyd went to county cricket, he was shown up to not be the best tactically. Similarly nothing I've read says that Imran was either.

Let's step into the hypothetical. You always say that Imran would be the ideal captain for an all time team and that boosts his inclusion.
1. He isn't bringing in or nurturing anyone, so that's out the window.
2. His, don't want to use the word bullying, so contentious style of leadership wouldn't work so that's out, and he wasn't a great tactician. So what is there?

So yeah, they get credit for helping to build the team, but that isn't the extent of captaincy.

Is it winning, it's it man management and discipline, being a great tactician.

It's like the Patriots Bill Belichick, he was seen as the greatest coach ever, the undoubted GOAT. Brady left and haven't even made the playoffs since.

And again, when Miandad stepped in, results didn't vary.

I've always said Imran was a captain of note, but from all accounts brought the team together, but that's the baseline for what makes a competent captain, and yes Imran was a good one.

And before you start up, Viv was also a bully and neither him nor Lloyd were tactically great either.

With regards to Root and Stokes, Root also had a management team that was going the same direction he was and they also get recognized for and allocated a fair share of the accolades.

There's also a 2nd reason why I can't rank him in the pantheon of great captains and that was due to a legacy that he mot only perpetrated but even more damningly, passed on.

In any event the captains that I have witnessed that I would even suggest were great was possibly Border and Taylor. I never saw Benaud and no other captains I've ever watched or witnessed popped out to me in that way. And even with them as captains, the teams never reached that level of success until the firm of McWarne and Ponting came into their own. Though an additional credit goes to Border because they managed to sustain and build on what he started, after he left.

In summary though, there are 3 areas that makes a great captain. Winning, being the best... Man management and disciple and ... Tactical nous, brilliance even. Don't think any captain really hit all 3. Bradman possibly? Must try to read up on that part of his game more.

 

[kyear2]

Bradman in that Ashes where he reversed the batting order.

This always seem to be the sole example when asked about his captaincy.

The thing is, do we know who made that decision?

I will endeavor to read up more about that part of his game.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This always seem to be the sole example when asked about his captaincy.

The thing is, do we know who made that decision?

I will endeavor to read up more about that part of his game.

This is not the sole, rather the most popular example of his captaincy, because it was extremely shrewd decision, that alone practically won a series. Can't say too many such exists. His crowning moment as a captain was definitely the Invincibles, since no other Aussie had managed that.

 

[subshakerz]

In the 70's the team wasn't horrible, who were the great bowlers, the match winners. What were Imran's bowling numbers in those matches.

I was replying to your comment that the team before Imran was horrible. Not true.

Bringing players into a team that helps to build a team of course impacts results. It doesn't make them a good captain. When Lloyd went to county cricket, he was shown up to not be the best tactically. Similarly nothing I've read says that Imran was either.

There are three main parts to captaincy: on field tactics, man management/motivation and team-building/grooming. All three contribute to results.

It's really a silly take to pretend that a captain who backs players into the team who otherwise wouldn't be there can't take credit for their performance.

Let's step into the hypothetical. You always say that Imran would be the ideal captain for an all time team and that boosts his inclusion.
1. He isn't bringing in or nurturing anyone, so that's out the window.
2. His, don't want to use the word bullying, so contentious style of leadership wouldn't work so that's out, and he wasn't a great tactician. So what is there?

This is a bad example since we have already established that an ATG team superior to all others sort of captains itself.

However, you miss the most important part of Imran's captaincy: inspiration. He had the ability and charisma to lift the team when faced with superior opposition or tough circumstances, often by leading from the front.

So if the ATG XI was facing a Martian XI that was superior and you needed a captain to get the team to play beyond itself, that would be Imran.

So yeah, they get credit for helping to build the team, but that isn't the extent of captaincy.

Except you aren't giving them credit at all.

Is it winning, it's it man management and discipline, being a great tactician.

It's like the Patriots Bill Belichick, he was seen as the greatest coach ever, the undoubted GOAT. Brady left and haven't even made the playoffs since.

Yeah except you are arguing against a strawman since we ALREADY accepted that 80 percent is due to resources available

And again, when Miandad stepped in, results didn't vary.

Except the whole reason Imran became captain was that there was a players revolt against Miandad as captain. Imran had to unite the team and Miandad stepped in to take over mostly at home in easier series.

I've always said Imran was a captain of note, but from all accounts brought the team together, but that's the baseline for what makes a competent captain, and yes Imran was a good one.

Won a WC, undefeated against a superior WI team, first ever series in Eng and Indi, undefeated at home. Introduced an attacking brand of Pakistani cricket. That is a strong legacy.

And before you start up, Viv was also a bully and neither him nor Lloyd were tactically great either.

Tactics aren't everything. It's about getting players to play to their full potential.

With regards to Root and Stokes, Root also had a management team that was going the same direction he was and they also get recognized for and allocated a fair share of the accolades.

Root by his own admission didn't know how to get the best out of the team and attributes recent success to changed environment.

There's also a 2nd reason why I can't rank him in the pantheon of great captains and that was due to a legacy that he mot only perpetrated but even more damningly, passed on.

I guess this ugliness had to come out sometime. You should instead be giving Imran credit for having a legacy of fast bowlers introduced after him.

In summary though, there are 3 areas that makes a great captain. Winning, being the best... Man management and disciple and ... Tactical nous, brilliance even. Don't think any captain really hit all 3. Bradman possibly? Must try to read up on that part of his game more.

I actually think tactics are less important to the positivity of play a captain can introduce.

But give the teambuilders and man managers their due credit.

 

[Coronis]

iirc one of Bradman’s things was his winning mentality, not just as a player, but as a captain, which was obviously a driving force behind the Invincibles tour. Teammates (rightly) thought he was a **** but he did get results. I mean under say Miller or Hassett as captain does that team go undefeated? I very much doubt it.

 

[kyear2]

This is not the sole, rather the most popular example of his captaincy, because it was extremely shrewd decision, that alone practically won a series. Can't say too many such exists. His crowning moment as a captain was definitely the Invincibles, since no other Aussie had managed that.

I'm not saying that he wasn't a great captain, I don't have nearly enough information to make that call. But it is the example that pops up when people are asked.

And as I asked, no way to know who actually floated that idea.

The invincibles had a better team. England was easily more impacted by the war and Australia was clearly superior, and with much better depth.
How much credit do we give a captain for that? Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Bradman and the rest of that batting line up...

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm not saying that he wasn't a great captain, I don't have nearly enough information to make that call. But it is the example that pops up when people are asked.

And as I asked, no way to know who actually floated that idea.

The invincibles had a better team. England was easily more impacted by the war and Australia was clearly superior, and with much better depth.
How much credit do we give a captain for that? Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Bradman and the rest of that batting line up...

The funny thing about Captaincy is it's easy to notice at times, at times hard; but looking back, hardly sticks out in memory. These are the moments, the memories which lasts. Impactful decision that changed the course of a series for the ages, is like prime stuff for that.
Coronis mentioned he doubts whether the feat Invincibles achieved would had been possible under Hassett or Miller, and I would tend to agree.

 

[peterhrt]

Bradman in that Ashes where he reversed the batting order.

There was nothing original about this. It had happened several times before. Only two years earlier both West Indies and England did the same on a sticky in Barbados. Ken Farnes (career average 4.83) opened for the visitors while Manny Martindale (5.27) came in at number three for West Indies.

Hammond batted six and Headley seven, the same positions as Fingleton and Bradman at Melbourne.