Shane Warne School of Cricket.

[weldone]

It is Ravinder Jadeja.. Read before you post crap.

Besides, what has cricket got to do with Role Model. Are Ricky Ponting, Sourav Ganguly or the likes of Hansie Cronje, Md. Azharuddin etc are role model ?

Don't know about the other two...but Cronje and Azharuddin are not...And you don't want them to captain your dream side...At least I don't...

 

[weldone]

lol.... I was never really serious abt him being my all time XI captain. That was just some jolly OTT posting enjoying the moment. But I do think he would have been comfortably better than almost all international captains... Esp. if he had captained Australia, who had so many good players that even when his sometimes left field tactics dont work out, they could have pulled them back into the game.

That's OK then....

 

[jeevan]

Warne the captain is bowling Warne the bowler for 3 overs/match and not the alloted 4.
Only reason I can see is to give Dinesh Salunkhe a twirl.

Only Tanvir has better bowling figures (of course) but Watson,Munaf and even Trivedi are also ahead in line to finish their quotas, as they are doing well enough. Leaves only one player to take from....

 

[LongHopCassidy]

All you need to do to get praised in Australia for your captaincy, is put a couple fieldsmen in close and attack like mad, and people laud you as magnificent (witness Clarke in his T20 captaincy debut against New Zealand). Especially Chappelli - according to him, and the vast bulk of Aussies, as long as you go nuts by attacking 24/7, you are a good captain.

Still, it's a breath of fresh air when you consider Waugh and Ponting's tactic of choice was generally 90 overs of Warne and McGrath to a ring field. Not really awe-inspiring in its innovation.

The idea of taking a risk in the field to change the outlook of a match - any risk - seems to have died with Taylor.

 

[Burgey]

Still, it's a breath of fresh air when you consider Waugh and Ponting's tactic of choice was generally 90 overs of Warne and McGrath to a ring field. Not really awe-inspiring in its innovation.

The idea of taking a risk in the field to change the outlook of a match - any risk - seems to have died with Taylor.

But for the most part, Waugh and Ponting never had to. Waugh especially, because his side was so dominant. They had 2 great bowlers, supported mostly by 2 pretty good other bowlers, and just played to their strength.

Certainly not very innovative though.

 

[Richard]

Innovative is for those who don't need innovation.

Often, if you innovate where you don't need to, it does more harm than good.

If the conventional, "standard", works, why risk using anything else?

Of course, innovation makes a great, notable captain, as touched on previously, but it is not a captain's job to make his greatness obvious, it is his job to do what works best for his team.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Innovative is for those who don't need innovation.

Often, if you innovate where you don't need to, it does more harm than good.

If the conventional, "standard", works, why risk using anything else?

Of course, innovation makes a great, notable captain, as touched on previously, but it is not a captain's job to make his greatness obvious, it is his job to do what works best for his team.

Seems to have a distorting view of the way people view quality of captaincy, though - the way most people rate a Brearley or Fleming above a Ponting. The majority, myself included, would equate innovation with quality in that sense.