Waugh, Border or Ponting?

[subshakerz]

I always felt Waugh was a good captain, but not a great one like Taylor or Imran. He led from the front as a batsman and was fairly aggressive as well. Having said that, I'm not sure he's as innovative as people make him out to be. One stroke of genius I do grant him was placing Gilchrist as opener for ODIs. Still, I would back Ponting or Taylor on tactics over Waugh.

In my opinion, captaincy is best judged when you captain against either better teams or in tough conditions. With a team like the one he had, he should have been expected to beat other teams when cricket standards around the world were dropping, but he still lost to both India and Sri Lanka. He was given a run for his money by Stephen Fleming in 2000/2001 and nearly lost a home series as well.

 

[Richard]

Australia have lost 1 home series since 1988\89. And that they shouldn't have lost, either.

But losing in Sri Lanka and India isn't terribly unusual. Two places where standards haven't always dropped. India at home in 2000\01 were IMO as tough as India in 1992\93 or any other time around then, at the peak of their home invincibility.

 

[subshakerz]

Australia have lost 1 home series since 1988\89. And that they shouldn't have lost, either.

But losing in Sri Lanka and India isn't terribly unusual. Two places where standards haven't always dropped. India at home in 2000\01 were IMO as tough as India in 1992\93 or any other time around then, at the peak of their home invincibility.

But to be properly judged as a captain, you have get the team to perform when faced with greater challenges. Taylor faced some tough challenges as a captain when he lead the team against West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa in their own backyards, back in the mid-90s when all of those teams had great bowlers and batsmen and were much stiffer competition. Taylor won in all three critical series.

Waugh captained away from home against West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan sides that were mediocre and on the wane. England and New Zealand at the time were never really great competition, even in their own backyards. The only formidable opponents away from home were India and Sri Lanka, and he lost both series. It's easy to look good if you win series you are expected to win, but if you can't get your team to do well in the tough series, then you can't call yourself a great captain.

 

[Richard]

I don't disagree for a second that Waugh the captain's achievements are overstated - it would've taken an abysmal captain not to win almost everything with the team he almost always had at his disposal.

But I'm not going to condemn anyone too badly for failing to win in Sri Lanka and India, simply because so few do it. I also don't think Waugh's captaincy really made any impact on things - I don't think there's much he could have done different to change the results of the series.

Waugh was still a very fine captain despite these two setbacks.

 

[Engle]

But to be properly judged as a captain, you have get the team to perform when faced with greater challenges. Taylor faced some tough challenges as a captain when he lead the team against West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa in their own backyards, back in the mid-90s when all of those teams had great bowlers and batsmen and were much stiffer competition. Taylor won in all three critical series.

Waugh captained away from home against West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan sides that were mediocre and on the wane. England and New Zealand at the time were never really great competition, even in their own backyards. The only formidable opponents away from home were India and Sri Lanka, and he lost both series. It's easy to look good if you win series you are expected to win, but if you can't get your team to do well in the tough series, then you can't call yourself a great captain.

Taylor locked horns in away series with skippers such as Saleem Malik, Aamer Sohail, Richie Richardson, M.Azharuddin, Hansie Cronje...not exactly exemplary leaders, save the last one. And he did have a better team than Cronje's XI.

SWaugh went against Ganguly in India, a far more formidable challenge than any of the above.

 

[subshakerz]

Taylor locked horns in away series with skippers such as Saleem Malik, Aamer Sohail, Richie Richardson, M.Azharuddin, Hansie Cronje...not exactly exemplary leaders, save the last one. And he did have a better team than Cronje's XI. .

The challenge is not the captain, but the team itself. Pakistan under Inzamam beat Fleming's New Zealand in 2004, but that does not mean Inzi was a better captain than Stephen Fleming.

The point is that Taylor's team faced and succeeded against high-quality opposition which was noticeably absent in Waugh's time. Fast bowlers were in their prime and they had plenty of good batsmen as well. Even if Australia were slightly better, beating these teams in their backyards was far greater an achievement under Taylor's captaincy than anything Waugh accomplished. And the sign of a great leader is getting the team to perform in tough circumstances, which Taylor did.

SWaugh went against Ganguly in India, a far more formidable challenge than any of the above.

Well, Waugh with a far better team went against Ganguly and lost in 2001 and nearly lost at home in 2003-4, so it's not like he proved much captaincy-wise against India.

 

[deeps]

THe Sri Lanka series was the one where almost all the games were washed out wasn't it?

 

[Burgey]

The challenge is not the captain, but the team itself. Pakistan under Inzamam beat Fleming's New Zealand in 2004, but that does not mean Inzi was a better captain than Stephen Fleming.

The point is that Taylor's team faced and succeeded against high-quality opposition which was noticeably absent in Waugh's time. Fast bowlers were in their prime and they had plenty of good batsmen as well. Even if Australia were slightly better, beating these teams in their backyards was far greater an achievement under Taylor's captaincy than anything Waugh accomplished. And the sign of a great leader is getting the team to perform in tough circumstances, which Taylor did.



Well, Waugh with a far better team went against Ganguly and lost in 2001 and nearly lost at home in 2003-4, so it's not like he proved much captaincy-wise against India.

Tbf, he was without his two best bowlers, both of whom would be considered, if not all timers, then close to it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

THe Sri Lanka series was the one where almost all the games were washed out wasn't it?

I think the last two matches of the series were washed out. From memory, one was evenly balanced (probably in SL's favour), and the other one Australia had the upper hand. CBF checking though.

 

[Richard]

THe Sri Lanka series was the one where almost all the games were washed out wasn't it?

I think the last two matches of the series were washed out. From memory, one was evenly balanced (probably in SL's favour), and the other one Australia had the upper hand. CBF checking though.

The series ended 1-0 after a comfortable Sri Lankan victory in the First game. The next 2 were both severely disrupted by weather. It seems logical to suggest SL would almost certainly have won the Second and Australia very probably the (would-be dead) Third. But the last 2 games saw just 20 and 14 wickets respectively falling - easily few enough for a turnaround of sorts.

 

[Richard]

The challenge is not the captain, but the team itself.

Exactly. There is no time in a game of cricket where captaincy skills are pitted head-to-head.

 

[sideshowtim]

Tbf, he was without his two best bowlers, both of whom would be considered, if not all timers, then close to it.

Punter managed to beat a stronger India side without 'em.

 

[subshakerz]

Punter managed to beat a stronger India side without 'em.

Exactly. And Ponting also whitewashed a strong Sri Lankan side with Murali at his best, both home and away.

 

[Engle]

Exactly. There is no time in a game of cricket where captaincy skills are pitted head-to-head.

Well, but I think there is. Leadership matters.
Obviously if there is a large difference in talent/abilites, then the stronger team will prevail.

Imran vs CLloyd or VRichards were classic battles of past.
MVaughan over RPonting another.

Also recall, how in Chappell/Hadlee series vs NZ, how the team fell apart with a new captain in Punters absence. Then ran roughshod once he returned.

So, Ganguly vs SWaugh is a good battle.
But Taylor over whom ?

 

[Richard]

How did the captains do battle though? That precise reason - that they can't - is why claims in 2005 that "Vaughan outwitted Ponting at every turn" were so unutterably ludicrous. Borne more of the wish of those who perported such a thing to find as many things as they could in which England bettered Australia than reality.

There is nothing in cricket which pitts the captaincy skills of one captain against the captaincy skills of the other. Captaincy skills can only be exercised on one's own team. Captaincy is all about maximising the skills of your own team. It's not like bowling, where the bowler is actually pitted against the batsman, attempting to oust him.

A good captain is one who manages his own team well. One can be a fantastic captain yet have next to nothing against his name because his team are not skilled enough for him to be able to use them.

 

[Engle]

Well, beg to differ. Will allow others to opine.
History does show great captaincy matchups. Illingworth vs IChappell frinstance.
Who you appoint captain can make the difference between winning or losing, IMO.

SWaugh vs Ganguly, twice, I reckon is deserving of historical significance.

But Taylor vs whom ?

 

[subshakerz]

How did the captains do battle though? That precise reason - that they can't - is why claims in 2005 that "Vaughan outwitted Ponting at every turn" were so unutterably ludicrous. Borne more of the wish of those who perported such a thing to find as many things as they could in which England bettered Australia than reality.

There is nothing in cricket which pitts the captaincy skills of one captain against the captaincy skills of the other. Captaincy skills can only be exercised on one's own team. Captaincy is all about maximising the skills of your own team. It's not like bowling, where the bowler is actually pitted against the batsman, attempting to oust him.

A good captain is one who manages his own team well. One can be a fantastic captain yet have next to nothing against his name because his team are not skilled enough for him to be able to use them.

I agree to most of what you say. I think it's misleading to say that "Vaughan outwitted Ponting at every turn" in 2005, what would be more accurate is to say that Vaughan led his team much better than Ponting did. It's not cricket is a chess match, where the rest of your players are mere pawns. Having said that, captaincy does have a big bearing on the team's performance.

 

[Anil]

taylor was easily the best captain in that stretch, border was for me the 2nd best because of his incredible leadership during some very difficult times for australian cricket, waugh would be third and ponting would be last...

as batsmen, for me, border, waugh, ponting and taylor come in that order...

 

[Mister Wright]

I'd have all three with Border as captain.

 

[R_D]

Punter managed to beat a stronger India side without 'em.

Not really.. as far as i can remember Ponting only played in the last match against India and Australia lost that one.
Gilchrist captained rest of the match. Its also debatable whether that was a strong Indian team but it was a very good acheivment by Gilchrist thou.
Damian Martyn.