Captaincy debate: Inzamam vs Ponting

[nightprowler10]

The two captains who have recieved more flak than anyone else since the last World Cup for their captaincy have got to be Inzamam and Ponting. Both have supposedly been crap on the field and won thanks to a talented team or due to their own superb contributions. So, which one of these do you think is actually a better captain?

P.S: Not to forget both of them are whinging idiots

 

[Pratters]

We wont tell you.

 

[nightprowler10]

Just to clarify, I am referring to their on field captiancy, not their Win/Lose record...

 

[BoyBrumby]

Both are pretty ordinary captains for mine; Pakistan looked far more pro-active over here when Younis took over in Inzi's absences & Punter doesn't seem to think on his feet too well, very inflexible (witness bowling at Edgbaston when McGrath had knackered his ankle & the sun was out).

Of the two I'd probably just go for Punter on the grounds of his more dynamic on-field presence.

 

[silentstriker]

Just to clarify, I am referring to their on field captiancy, not their Win/Lose record...

Aside from the win/lose record, there is no way to judge who is the better captain.

 

[nightprowler10]

Aside from the win/lose record, there is no way to judge who is the better captain.

How about by watching them on the field?

 

[silentstriker]

How about by watching them on the field?

And that proves what? If their actions don't lead to wins, what is the point?

 

[pug]

And that proves what? If their actions don't lead to wins, what is the point?

Leadership is important for many reasons and not always, sadly, directly reflected by results. A truly good captain of an average side will always remain a better leader than an average captain of an excellent side.

 

[nightprowler10]

And that proves what? If their actions don't lead to wins, what is the point?

That's exactly what I'm saying, it has been said time and again about these two that it isn't their on field actions that lead to wins but the talent of their players. The reason why many believe Fleming to be a better captain than these two.

I think you're missing the whole point of the thread mate.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ponting is better.

Neither of them are particularly great tacticians, but Ponting leads from the front very well, with the bat and in the field, and he's pretty good at getting the best from his players. Tactically he's sometimes found wanting, but he's not actually terrible. I think people often ignore his good points because he leads such a strong side. The other night for instance against the West Indies, I thought Ponting did an excellent job with his manipulation of the power plays and his bowling changes. A different captain might well have lost the match.

 

[silentstriker]

That's exactly what I'm saying, it has been said time and again about these two that it isn't their on field actions that lead to wins but the talent of their players. The reason why many believe Fleming to be a better captain than these two.

I think you're missing the whole point of the thread mate.

Yes, people say Fleming is good captain, and Ponting is not so great. Yet Ponting wins and Fleming doesn't. If you say that on field actions don't lead to wins, then what is the point of a captain? So what exactly is the criteria to judge a good captain from a bad one? How he talks to the umpires? How he talks to his team? Whether his team likes him (which does not necessarily make a person a good leader)?

 

[Dasa]

Yes, people say Fleming is good captain, and Ponting is not so great. Yet Ponting wins and Fleming doesn't. If you say that on field actions don't lead to wins, then what is the point of a captain? So what exactly is the criteria to judge a good captain from a bad one? How he talks to the umpires? How he talks to his team? Whether his team likes him (which does not necessarily make a person a good leader)?

You're oversimplifying things by just saing "Yet Ponting wins and Fleming doesn't". Even the best captain can only do so much with the players he or she is given.
Ponting has the luxury of being able to turn to great bowlers and very good batsman whenever his team is in trouble. Most captains (including Fleming) don't have that luxury. No one is saying that on field actions don't]/i] lead to wins. People just seem to be saying that Australia wins consistently despite Ponting's captaincy.
Judging a captain solely on a win-loss record is like judging a wicketkeeper using dismissals per match. Neither gives a really effective indication of how good that player is at his job because his stats are largely dependent on others.

 

[Swervy]

Both are pretty ordinary captains for mine; Pakistan looked far more pro-active over here when Younis took over in Inzi's absences & Punter doesn't seem to think on his feet too well, very inflexible (witness bowling at Edgbaston when McGrath had knackered his ankle & the sun was out).

Of the two I'd probably just go for Punter on the grounds of his more dynamic on-field presence.

absolutely...at no time can I remember a time when Inzy has impressed, but Younis is almost infectious with enthusiasm and his willing to try things out...much like Vaughan was like in fact.

Its hard to make a judgement about ponting really because he wins. the one time he has struggled is when his team has been outplayed...my gut feeling is punter is actually the better leader, but remains down the list compared to someone like Fleming or Vaughan

 

[Pratters]

Aside from the win/lose record, there is no way to judge who is the better captain.

So if *put the captain you think was the best here* captains Bangladesh today, you will not be able to judge?

If you captained the Windies in their peak, they would have still won against most sides despite 10 cricketers and a silentstriker being there. That wouldn't make you a better captain than Mike Brearly.

 

[SJS]

Ponting is better.

Neither of them are particularly great tacticians, but Ponting leads from the front very well, with the bat and in the field,

Agree with all of that.

Inzemam is a drifter on the field which can be worse than someone who takes action even if its not always perfect decision making. Someone who looks as lost as Inzy does on the field cant make a great leader for as effervescent a set as the talented Pakistanis are.

Imran comes to mind when one feels what's needed to get the best out of the talented and aggressive Pakistanis and the only think Inzy may have in common with Imran is his indispensabilty as a player.

 

[aussie]

Ponting is better.

Neither of them are particularly great tacticians, but Ponting leads from the front very well, with the bat and in the field, and he's pretty good at getting the best from his players. Tactically he's sometimes found wanting, but he's not actually terrible. I think people often ignore his good points because he leads such a strong side. The other night for instance against the West Indies, I thought Ponting did an excellent job with his manipulation of the power plays and his bowling changes. A different captain might well have lost the match.

right on the money here..