How Much Impact Can A Captain Have?

[smash84]

I am really not sure what exactly does this "a captain is as good as his side" mean?

Captaincy has a big effect on how the team plays. India on paper had a better team all throughout the 00s yet the results were better when Dhoni took over. He seemed to get more out of the players.

Imran's side probably had fewer good players compared to the sides in the 90s but the 90s sides were not well led and couldn't realise the potential of they had.

I think that a good captain is fundamental for a side to achieve synergies (to borrow a term from business texts) and to perform at a level above what they are generally used to performing. Which is why I think the role of the captain is very important. You could see that people like Ranatunga, Imran, Fleming had that effect on the team that when they were in charge there was a different energy in the players and the players would raise their game.

 

[sumantra]

I am really not sure what exactly does this "a captain is as good as his side" mean?

Captaincy has a big effect on how the team plays. India on paper had a better team all throughout the 00s yet the results were better when Dhoni took over. He seemed to get more out of the players.

Imran's side probably had fewer good players compared to the sides in the 90s but the 90s sides were not well led and couldn't realise the potential of they had.

I think that a good captain is fundamental for a side to achieve synergies (to borrow a term from business texts) and to perform at a level above what they are generally used to performing. Which is why I think the role of the captain is very important. You could see that people like Ranatunga, Imran, Fleming had that effect on the team that when they were in charge there was a different energy in the players and the players would raise their game.

well, i kind of agree with u and i don't
india started to perform well overseas under sourav ganguly (australia, england, west indies), then it was taken over by dravid (england, south africa, west indies) and after that anil kumble...when dhoni got the captaicy in 2008 (tests), indian team was doing fairly well anyway...i am not trying to take away credit from him (he has been good, there is no way one can deny that) but to say that the results were better after dhoni took over is not suiting me...

and one more thing, though i have no problem with this - "I think that a good captain is fundamental for a side to achieve synergies (to borrow a term from business texts) and to perform at a level above what they are generally used to performing." but at the same time i also feel that it might not be all that "fundamental" all the time...if after steve waugh, the captaincy went to say hayden or gilchrist or warne or anyone else for that matter, instead of ponting, i don't think australia would have performed any worse than what they actually did under ponting...

 

[Prince EWS]

Truly analysing the full impact of someone's captaincy is something that's extremely hard to do, particularly as an outsider, IMO. We can analyse the obvious things - field placements, bowling changes, timing of declarations, decisions at the toss etc - but being a good captain is about so much more than that; it's about getting the most out of your players, and despite the best efforts of everyone's circular logic I don't think it's an aspect of captaincy that can be accurately quantified from outside the team structure.

I think there are small logical fallacies in the way people look at whether a captain gets the most out of his team. We only see the end result - a player's performance - we can't actually tell how much impact a captain has on the standard of that performance. I guess what I'm getting at is that getting the most out of your players does not mean making your players look as crap as possible while still maintaining effectiveness, because that's how a lot of people come up with this 'punching above their weight' stuff, particularly when bigging up captains like Fleming. The argument that a certain captain has good results merely due to the quality of his team and not the quality of his captaincy is somewhat circular, as the holy grail of good captaincy is to create an environment on the field and off as to essentially manufacture good performance. Exactly how much credit should go to the captain is a pure guessing game from outside the team in many instances.

As an example - Steve Waugh had a great side, but there's no real way of knowing, IMO anyway, exactly how much his captaincy can be credited for the quality of the players. Given we only see the end result that is, for example, Hayden's batting, we can't really tell whether Steve Waugh's captaincy influenced it greatly or not. It's hard to give him credit for it one way the other without having an intimate knowledge of the workings of that side and the relationship between Hayden and Waugh.

 

[smash84]

I really couldn't get the crux of your point PEWS

 

[smash84]

and one more thing, though i have no problem with this - "I think that a good captain is fundamental for a side to achieve synergies (to borrow a term from business texts) and to perform at a level above what they are generally used to performing." but at the same time i also feel that it might not be all that "fundamental" all the time...if after steve waugh, the captaincy went to say hayden or gilchrist or warne or anyone else for that matter, instead of ponting, i don't think australia would have performed any worse than what they actually did under ponting...

They might have won the Ashes 2005 if Shane Warne was captain?

 

[Prince EWS]

I really couldn't get the crux of your point PEWS

Essentially I was saying that there are large aspects of captaincy that are almost impossible to accurately analyse from an armchair perspective.

 

[sumantra]

They might have won the Ashes 2005 if Shane Warne was captain?

that is by passing the point!!

 

[sumantra]

Essentially I was saying that there are large aspects of captaincy that are almost impossible to accurately analyse from an armchair perspective.

yes, true, and there might be several other things "impossible to accurately analyse from an armchair perspective." but then, it's ok if we are not 100% accurate from our armchairs...that keeps the debates and arguments alive at least...

 

[Bun]

Even if he had a good infrastructure I don't think he could've done any good at that time. The gap between him and the rest of the team was so huge and given that he expected similar kind of commitment from his team members he was always going to be a failure when it came to capcy.

In a very candid interview Srinath said about sachin's capcy that "his expectations were a little too much from us. He thought we could play like him and he just didn't have the maturity to understand that he was a player from a different universe and we could not play like him".

If you look at Sachin as captain for Mumbai Indians he seems to be doing well simply because he has become wiser with age and has kinda acjnowledged that not everyone is a buddha.

Yes, he was way too young to handle the dual burden of being the batting-only-stay and captain as well. Devang Gandhi, Hrishikesh Kanitkar, Vijay Bhardwaj, DeepdasGupta - a team to die for touring the 99 Australia.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I think a lot of the effect that a captain has begins off the field, and affects the results of matches only indirectly, for example, encouraging bowlers to train and be properly motivated. If Shaoib Akhtar had played under Imran Khan he would have been twice the bowler.

 

[sumantra]

Yes, he was way too young to handle the dual burden of being the batting-only-stay and captain as well. Devang Gandhi, Hrishikesh Kanitkar, Vijay Bhardwaj, DeepdasGupta - a team to die for touring the 99 Australia.

and don't forget sadagoppan ramesh either...it's so scary, even as a viewer to see devang gandhi and sadagoppan ramesh coming out to open the innings against mcgrath and lee (very young and fast those days)...remember rahul dravid said in an interview after the series that the australia bowling line up was the most versatile that he had ever encountered...(mcgrath's line and length, fleming's swing, lee's pace and warne's spin)...think ramesh broke his finger in the second test match and came back... after that prasad and laxman were the openers (devang was dropped)...by the way, i can't remember if deep dashgupta was part of that squad or not, but i am sure the wicket keeper who played all 3 tests was m. s. k. prasad.

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

and don't forget sadagoppan ramesh either...it's so scary, even as a viewer to see devang gandhi and sadagoppan ramesh coming out to open the innings against mcgrath and lee (very young and fast those days)...remember rahul dravid said in an interview after the series that the australia bowling line up was the most versatile that he had ever encountered...(mcgrath's line and length, fleming's swing, lee's pace and warne's spin)...think ramesh broke his finger in the second test match and came back... after that prasad and laxman were the openers (devang was dropped)...by the way, i can't remember if deep dashgupta was part of that squad or not, but i am sure the wicket keeper who played all 3 tests was m. s. k. prasad.

It's a miracle what India achieved in the next decade after being ritually slaughtered all over the world...lol!

 

[sumantra]

it's a miracle what india achieved in the next decade after being ritually slaughtered all over the world...lol!

yes, absolutely...:d

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

Truly analysing the full impact of someone's captaincy is something that's extremely hard to do, particularly as an outsider, IMO. We can analyse the obvious things - field placements, bowling changes, timing of declarations, decisions at the toss etc - but being a good captain is about so much more than that; it's about getting the most out of your players, and despite the best efforts of everyone's circular logic I don't think it's an aspect of captaincy that can be accurately quantified from outside the team structure.

I think there are small logical fallacies in the way people look at whether a captain gets the most out of his team. We only see the end result - a player's performance - we can't actually tell how much impact a captain has on the standard of that performance. I guess what I'm getting at is that getting the most out of your players does not mean making your players look as crap as possible while still maintaining effectiveness, because that's how a lot of people come up with this 'punching above their weight' stuff, particularly when bigging up captains like Fleming. The argument that a certain captain has good results merely due to the quality of his team and not the quality of his captaincy is somewhat circular, as the holy grail of good captaincy is to create an environment on the field and off as to essentially manufacture good performance. Exactly how much credit should go to the captain is a pure guessing game from outside the team in many instances.

As an example - Steve Waugh had a great side, but there's no real way of knowing, IMO anyway, exactly how much his captaincy can be credited for the quality of the players. Given we only see the end result that is, for example, Hayden's batting, we can't really tell whether Steve Waugh's captaincy influenced it greatly or not. It's hard to give him credit for it one way the other without having an intimate knowledge of the workings of that side and the relationship between Hayden and Waugh.

I agree with your point. We don't get to see the complete effect of captaincy on the field of play. A captain is a strategist, a tactician, reads the game well, etc, etc These are things we see on the field of play. But unleashing the potential of a player and backing him, giving him confidence and molding a player is also a cap's job. These are things we don't see right away.

Here is where I think Rahul Dravid failed miserably. The success he had boils down completely to the fact that he had a great team. but if you looked at him even on the field of play his expression was one of Atlas carrying the world...just not inspiring at all. He was tactically no great shakes and he allowed Greg Chappell to screw around the team. It is highly likely that some of the senior folks at that time like Bhajji, Viru, Zak, Sachin, etc would've actually felt betrayed by Rahul.

Even today when folks like Viru, Yuvi, and Bhajji give interviews they give full credit to Saurav and nothing much to Rahul even though Rahul was their captain when these guys were playing beautifully. Best example is Dhoni. Dhoni's brilliance came to the fore under Rahul but he still considers Saurav as his discoverer.

Similarly Kumble seems to enjoy the respect of many Indian players.

A captain can make a team play better than they are "supposed" to. Best example is Saurav - under his captaincy it was always known that India would have 2 centuries from Sachin and 1 century from Rahul in any series but no guarantee of them coming in the same game or whether that will help India win. But Saurav ensured they came in the same game and that they contributed to an Indian win. The guy led by example, and so did Kumble. Good caps seem to possess a good aura that makes the rest of the team feel comfortable and go that extra mile to do stuff for their cap.

 

[sumantra]

I agree with your point. We don't get to see the complete effect of captaincy on the field of play. A captain is a strategist, a tactician, reads the game well, etc, etc These are things we see on the field of play. But unleashing the potential of a player and backing him, giving him confidence and molding a player is also a cap's job. These are things we don't see right away.

Here is where I think Rahul Dravid failed miserably. The success he had boils down completely to the fact that he had a great team. but if you looked at him even on the field of play his expression was one of Atlas carrying the world...just not inspiring at all. He was tactically no great shakes and he allowed Greg Chappell to screw around the team. It is highly likely that some of the senior folks at that time like Bhajji, Viru, Zak, Sachin, etc would've actually felt betrayed by Rahul.

Even today when folks like Viru, Yuvi, and Bhajji give interviews they give full credit to Saurav and nothing much to Rahul even though Rahul was their captain when these guys were playing beautifully. Best example is Dhoni. Dhoni's brilliance came to the fore under Rahul but he still considers Saurav as his discoverer.

Similarly Kumble seems to enjoy the respect of many Indian players.

A captain can make a team play better than they are "supposed" to. Best example is Saurav - under his captaincy it was always known that India would have 2 centuries from Sachin and 1 century from Rahul in any series but no guarantee of them coming in the same game or whether that will help India win. But Saurav ensured they came in the same game and that they contributed to an Indian win. The guy led by example, and so did Kumble. Good caps seem to possess a good aura that makes the rest of the team feel comfortable and go that extra mile to do stuff for their cap.

can't agree with u more on rahul's captaincy...there were times, when he seemed absolutely spineless...that's the biggest bad criticism i have against him...guess, there was something to do with Kiran More and the other selectors, who had tremendous faith on Greg Chappel who they thought was about to turn the team the greatest ever......but mate, dravid under sourav's captaincy was a dream that any captain could have hoped for...it's under sourav that india started to win test matches outside home again...and if i remember correctly, dravid's average under sourav's captaincy in the test matches they won outside india was more than 100...(including australia, england, pakistan and west indies) and it is probably a world record...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Some of Stephen Fleming's captaincy was far from inspirational though. Some of his plans consisted of bowling short and wide with 2 gullies and a backward point, hoping to get a catch there! I remember he got out Damien Martyn a number of times that way!

Sorry, but that's rubbish. Simply put, Martyn's strength was that he didn't need the ball to be short to put it through point, and could do it from balls that most batsmen would leave. The risk was that at some times he hit it in the air. New Zealand didn't bowl short of wide, what they did do was protect themselves from good balls going to the boundary, while also increasing the chances of a wicket.

 

[vic_orthdox]

there is an old saying, 'a captain is as good as his side' agreed with that?

Pretty much. Exceptions are extremely thin on the ground.

AGREED...for me, Imran Khan is one such exception...

Isn't the point with Imran not that they punched above their weight, but for once they played to their potential as a united side, rather than a fractured Pakistan? In other words, they long had the resources, he's just been the (possibly only) man to harness them to their full potential.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Essentially I was saying that there are large aspects of captaincy that are almost impossible to accurately analyse from an armchair perspective.

Very true.

Supposedly when every man and his dog was calling for Ponting's head around the Ashes and just after, the majority of the players would have walked under a bus for him. Does it make him a good captain? Not necessarily. Does it make him better than what most see? Probably.

 

[GIMH]

I said a similar thing in a debate with (I think) SS around WC time. It's often overlooked.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Some of Stephen Fleming's captaincy was far from inspirational though. Some of his plans consisted of bowling short and wide with 2 gullies and a backward point, hoping to get a catch there! I remember he got out Damien Martyn a number of times that way!

The best captains generally had great teams around them. But were the teams great because of the captaincy? Probably not. I'd say this England team could pretty much captain themselves at present, but if they get in bother, a guy like Strauss is perfect.

Cool, calm, collected and reacts well under pressure.

Wasn't the point with Martyn that he'd play that shot of his in the air down to the third man area? It wasn't just Fleming that tried that tactic, and it seemed to work.

As for Strauss...some of his field positions and tactics are questionable at best. I think England are good enough to mask this at the moment. They're not exactly being challenged by most teams around the world.

If they do get in bother though it's then that I think some of Andy's tactics will come under the microscope. I wouldn't say he reacts well under pressure all of the time. His fields scattering towards the boundary for reasons only known to him on occasions are a bit of a reflection of this. With all the criticism Ponting got during his reign, I don't think Strauss was any better when they went head-to-head in The Ashes. He did have a better team though. And it's definitely easier to be an attacking captain if that's the case.

On the other hand, Strauss and Flower must be good at man-management and planning as they go into games now meticulously prepared and work to it well. For Strauss to pull a team together that has KP in it is good work.