Originally Posted by wpdavid
Agree with the previous post. As long as the captain's competence is above a certain minimum threshold, he probably doesn't make much difference most of the time. I can easily think of a few guys whose credentials are massively overstated simply because they competently managed extremely talented bunches of players (Lloyd, Richards & Waugh spring to mind fairly rapidly). Likewise, several England skippers have been unfairly criticised for failing to make silk purses out of sows' ears. The significant guys are those whose captaincy somehow 'added value' to their team, enabling them to achieve more than the sum of their parts. There's not very many of them, imo.
Guys like Hayden and Gilchrist were FAR
more prolific under Steve Waugh than under Ponting.
How much of that was just coincidence/good form, and how much of that was down to Waugh being able to get an extra 10% out of his players that Ponting couldn't?