Tim Paine

[Daemon]

Mediocre cricketer? He's got a higher test batting average than any other Aust keeper bar Gilchrist and Haddin. And he's a very good keeper.

Well he's definitely not above average. One of the better keepers around but also one of the worst bats. Watling, QdK, Mushy, Sarfraz, Wade, Pant, Buttler, Foakes all better imo, Only Saha and Dowrich are comparable. Even this Rizwan kid looks better than Paine with the bat.

 

[Gnske]

Counter point: A Warner 400 and Pakistan batting out a draw against all odds could only have been a win for both teams, both nations, the spectators, the punters, the media and world cricket at large. There would be so much winning we'd get sick of it.

Brendon McCullum taught us that we have to be prepared to lose to win. How shockingly clear is it that Tim Paine is not prepared to do just that?

 

[the big bambino]

l

most people who have watched cricket can recall countless times when declarations have been delayed in order for milestones to be achieved

but that's 'glory hunting'

and a world record that's stood for more than 15 years, and may never be surpassed, is 'pointless'

I see you've had a second go. Yes declarations have been delayed - but not at the cost of the team. And to second guess you, if a decision to declare turns out to be premature - in hindsight; always in hindsight, it is better to err in favour of the team.

I look forward to your next edit.

 

[Cabinet96]

My hot take is cricket just cares too much about the role of test captain. No reason it should still be such a huge thing in the days of the head coach/full backroom staffs. Test sides should be picking their best XIs and just choosing whoever they trust most to do the pre/post-match press conferences and the tactical decisions on the field on a match to match basis. Whether that be Cummins, Lyon, Head or whoever. If you have someone who is a natural for the role - great player who is not hindered by the extra responsibility, a natural leader and a good tactician - I think it can add value to a team. But it shouldn't come before picking your best XI or trying to maximise the output of your best players (Root).

 

[Prince EWS]

If you have someone who is a natural for the role - great player who is not hindered by the extra responsibility, a natural leader and a good tactician - I think it can add value to a team. But it shouldn't come before picking your best XI or trying to maximise the output of your best players (Root).

But given the former, it's part of the latter. All other things equal when choosing between two players, someone who adds value as captain is the better choice.

All other things almost equal and this is still true. Decisions are made at the margins.

You obviously have to quantify how much value someone will add to a team as captain and draw the line somewhere, and I do agree that it's over-valued (especially in comparison to other kind of fringe attributes like catching) and that the line is sometimes drawn in the wrong place, but if it's value isn't zero than sometimes it will be the deciding factor, as is the case with anything else that isn't zero.

 

[Cabinet96]

But given the former, it's part of the latter. All other things equal when choosing between two players, someone who adds value as captain is the better choice.

All other things almost equal and this is still true. Decisions are made at the margins.

You obviously have to quantify how much value someone will add to a team as captain and draw the line somewhere, and I do agree that it's over-valued (especially in comparison to other kind of fringe attributes like catching) and that the line is sometimes drawn in the wrong place, but if it's value isn't zero than sometimes it will be the deciding factor, as is the case with anything else that isn't zero.

Yeah I get that. I think because cricket cares so much about the captain it's actually more important than it could/(should?) be and is in other sports. I guess my point more is that this doesn't have to be the case. The coach can just step up and it can be much more his team than the captain's team, in terms of man management, team talks, selection, preliminary tactics etc. You know, the guy you hire purely for those skills, and not his ability to bat or bowl as well. Basically a Shane Warne dystopia. Instead cricket culture puts so much importance on the captain being the guy that there's only ever one or two candidates suitable to the role; and when your two senior batsmen behave like dickheads, you're ****ed. Australia could've actually used this situation to innovate and move past a team environment that's built entirely around one playing captain. But instead the team that gave us Gilchrist at number 7 play a keeper with one first class century in 13 years because they couldn't risk choosing a captain who might get injured or dropped.

 

[cnerd123]

Finally, a truth teller haha and someone who has a feel for the wider game

Maybe Paine has such a feeling for the wider game that he realizes David Warner isn't worthy of usurping this record from a legend like Brian Lara

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I get that. I think because cricket cares so much about the captain it's actually more important than it could/(should?) be and is in other sports. I guess my point more is that this doesn't have to be the case. The coach can just step up and it can be much more his team than the captain's team, in terms of man management, team talks, selection, preliminary tactics etc. You know, the guy you hire purely for those skills, and not his ability to bat or bowl as well. Basically a Shane Warne dystopia. Instead cricket culture puts so much importance on the captain being the guy that there's only ever one or two candidates suitable to the role; and when your two senior batsmen behave like dickheads, you're ****ed. Australia could've actually used this situation to innovate and move past a team environment that's built entirely around one playing captain. But instead the team that gave us Gilchrist at number 7 play a keeper with one first class century in 13 years because they couldn't risk choosing a captain who might get injured or dropped.

Yeah I don't really disagree with you that much; I just thought you were phrasing what was at heart a good argument poorly and it annoyed me.

Where I do disagree is in the implication that Australia have had a procession of budding Gilchrists ready to take over from Paine if only he wasn't captain. When Paine was picked originally (not as captain at all, keep in mind), Paine's actual output so far (ignoring captaincy) was pretty much exactly what the selectors were rightly looking for. "Average over 30, keep very well and don't let top order batsmen get stranded very often" was absolutely a good result from the bunch of keepers that existed domestically at the time. Carey has improved a bit since then but was averaging less than Paine does in Tests in FC cricket at the time and the rest of the keepers in domestic cricket were a mix of batsmen pretending, kids, and players whose records (either at Test or recent domestic level) absolutely indicated they would've done worse with the bat.

It's slightly different now that Carey has started scoring some FC runs, and showed an aptitude for international cricket in ODIs, but this is a pretty new thing.

 

[honestbharani]

My hot take is cricket just cares too much about the role of test captain. No reason it should still be such a huge thing in the days of the head coach/full backroom staffs. Test sides should be picking their best XIs and just choosing whoever they trust most to do the pre/post-match press conferences and the tactical decisions on the field on a match to match basis. Whether that be Cummins, Lyon, Head or whoever. If you have someone who is a natural for the role - great player who is not hindered by the extra responsibility, a natural leader and a good tactician - I think it can add value to a team. But it shouldn't come before picking your best XI or trying to maximise the output of your best players (Root).

But given the former, it's part of the latter. All other things equal when choosing between two players, someone who adds value as captain is the better choice.

All other things almost equal and this is still true. Decisions are made at the margins.

You obviously have to quantify how much value someone will add to a team as captain and draw the line somewhere, and I do agree that it's over-valued (especially in comparison to other kind of fringe attributes like catching) and that the line is sometimes drawn in the wrong place, but if it's value isn't zero than sometimes it will be the deciding factor, as is the case with anything else that isn't zero.

Yeah I get that. I think because cricket cares so much about the captain it's actually more important than it could/(should?) be and is in other sports. I guess my point more is that this doesn't have to be the case. The coach can just step up and it can be much more his team than the captain's team, in terms of man management, team talks, selection, preliminary tactics etc. You know, the guy you hire purely for those skills, and not his ability to bat or bowl as well. Basically a Shane Warne dystopia. Instead cricket culture puts so much importance on the captain being the guy that there's only ever one or two candidates suitable to the role; and when your two senior batsmen behave like dickheads, you're ****ed. Australia could've actually used this situation to innovate and move past a team environment that's built entirely around one playing captain. But instead the team that gave us Gilchrist at number 7 play a keeper with one first class century in 13 years because they couldn't risk choosing a captain who might get injured or dropped.

But cricket can never really be a coach's game, at least test cricket. I can kinda see T20 cricket going in the direction you are saying but even then, so much of on the spot decision making is required where your captaincy will be tested. So it does make sense that most times it goes beyond the simple "select your best XI and find the best guy from that XI to be captain". For starters, the best XI is itself a rather complicated situation and differs and changes so much based on conditions, timing etc.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah I don't really disagree with you that much; I just thought you were phrasing what was at heart a good argument poorly and it annoyed me.

Where I do disagree is in the implication that Australia have had a procession of budding Gilchrists ready to take over from Paine if only he wasn't captain. When Paine was picked originally (not as captain at all, keep in mind), Paine's actual output so far (ignoring captaincy) was pretty much exactly what the selectors were rightly looking for. "Average over 30, keep very well and don't let top order batsmen get stranded very often" was absolutely a good result from the bunch of keepers that existed domestically at the time. Carey has improved a bit since then but was averaging less than Paine does in Tests in FC cricket at the time and the rest of the keepers in domestic cricket were a mix of batsmen pretending, kids, and players whose records (either at Test or recent domestic level) absolutely indicated they would've done worse with the bat.

It's slightly different now that Carey has started scoring some FC runs, and showed an aptitude for international cricket in ODIs, but this is a pretty new thing.

Yeah, all fair. The fact it's not actually a clear cut case of him being picked purely for captaincy is why I haven't really gone on about it before. I did think about it a lot when Smith was coming back from the concussion in the Ashes though. My instinct would've been to drop Paine and have Wade keep (I know he was a poor keeper back in the day but I seem to remember people recently suggesting it was fine?) but obviously in the real world that wasn't tenable so they dropped Khawaja instead which felt a bit harsh.

 

[jimmy101]

But cricket can never really be a coach's game, at least test cricket. I can kinda see T20 cricket going in the direction you are saying but even then, so much of on the spot decision making is required where your captaincy will be tested. So it does make sense that most times it goes beyond the simple "select your best XI and find the best guy from that XI to be captain". For starters, the best XI is itself a rather complicated situation and differs and changes so much based on conditions, timing etc.

To be fair, this could also be said about any team sport. Coaching is most effective in a one-on-one situation, like a gymnastics coach for example.

 

[Flem274*]

given how inept some teams are under certain leaders the captain is very important imo. you don't want the coach to have to micromanage tactics from the box or over rates will kill you.

even medium captains can sometimes not be enough. we had a coup over it.

 

[honestbharani]

To be fair, this could also be said about any team sport. Coaching is most effective in a one-on-one situation, like a gymnastics coach for example.

Yeah, but if you look at football or basketball, the coach can call so much of the play, much more than say in cricket.

 

[jimmy101]

given how inept some teams are under certain leaders the captain is very important imo. you don't want the coach to have to micromanage tactics from the box or over rates will kill you.

even medium captains can sometimes not be enough. we had a coup over it.

In that respect, would you say that Richie McCaw was a massive reason why NZ won their back-to-back RWCs?

 

[jimmy101]

Yeah, but if you look at football or basketball, the coach can call so much of the play, much more than say in cricket.

Indeed. Cricket is a bit of an odd sport in regards to the way it functions. I think you said it best when you said that T20 is the format most suited to hands-on coaching. It's the one format of the sport that has the fewest variables, arguably you can create "set plays" for a T20 match & stick to them. Test cricket, not so much.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah and things like the Strategic TimeOut can increase the coach's influence. Thank God that has not found its way yet into the international game.

 

[FBU]

Scroll down to dropped catches

http://www.sportstats.com.au/bloghome.html

 

[Shri]

paine is pretty great

be it banter or telling marnus to take his pads off to bowl

 

[Gob]

"Hey Davey, you have exactly one hour to make the 70 odd runs you need to pass Lara's record"

Pros

- Bulk entertainment for all spectators for that hour.

- Raining sixes and fours from one of the best hitters the game's ever seen.

- Mass media interest in the achievement if he does it.

- A huge talking point at the start of the cricket summer.

Cons

- Might draw a washed out test against Pakistan in a two test series we've already won.

Test championship bro

 

[mr_mister]

Remember how much we all hated Carey at the start of the year