Steve Waugh v Shane Warne

[Craig]

Captaincy of course

Who was the better captain and would Shane Warne have been better captain then Steve Waugh was in Tests?

It is no secret, that Warne had plenty of grey matter when it came to captaining a team and was one of the best cricketers not to be captain Australia (old editions of Inside Cricket had Ian Chappell blowing his load for Warne) in Test matches. Steve Waugh had a pretty good record (not counting himself) when he had 3 or 4 all time greats (Warne, Glenn McGrath, Adam Gilchrist, and I guess Matt Hayden), plus some darn good cricketers (when Waugh left, Ricky Ponting was start to make himself one of the leading batsmen in the world, so he counts there), Justin Langer, his brother Mark, Damien Martyn, Jason Gillespie (before he went downhill), it was not hard to be number 1, and it took some truely special efforts to knock Australia off (tbf I don't think much has changed).

 

[IndGunner]

Waugh for mine thought he was the better captain more capable of inspiring those around and getting the best from them. He always seemed so resolute like he was living in some other world.

 

[Ikki]

I think Warne would have been a great captain. He was probably the best cricketing brain in his team and leads by example and encourages his teammates, bringing out the best in them. However, with Waugh you have an actual record to gauge with. With Warne you really have nothing but "ifs".

If the question is who IS the better captain, then it can only be Waugh. If the question is, if Warne had the same chance would he have been better, then it's speculative but I think Warne had better skills in leading a cricket team.

 

[chaminda_00]

Warne and Miller were Australia's best two captains, just learnt never how to play politics and kiss asses.

 

[Goughy]

It has to be Waugh.

One aspect of captaincy is the ability to handle expectation, pressure and have long term stability.

Warne may have had a very good cricket brain but we dont know how he would have coped with the other demands of the job and the management side. We know Waugh did it well.

Sometimes the best cricket brain makes the best vice-captain rather than captain.

 

[Matt79]

Warne and Miller were Australia's best two captains, just learnt never how to play politics and kiss asses.

Easy to be the "best" when you're never given the chance to disappoint people. Would have turned out to have as many flaws as the alternatives, plus possibly some extra ones that formed the basis of the reason not to give them the gig in the first place...

 

[Top_Cat]

Warne was tactically as good as they come, great man-manager but actually being the captain involves a lot more than tactics and I have a feeling he'd have conformed to expectations and been involved in some sort of idiocy whilst captain.

 

[Uppercut]

It's speculative of course, but I firmly believe Warne would've made a fantastic captain. I say so as a Hampshire fan. On the pitch, I've seen noone better tactically bar Fleming. For getting the best out of players, he's as inspirational as anyone. The only question mark for me is how he would've coped with the demands outside cricket, and that's where it starts to get unclear. The media attention wouldn't have bothered him, but there's always a chance he'd have failed with the politics involved and done something stupid.


Personally I don't believe his private life should compromise his position. What he does in the bedrooms of the country isn't relevant (obviously many disagree). The thing that makes me doubt him most is the diuretic incident. Severe balls-up there that CA wouldn't want to risk a repeat of.

 

[Richard]

Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Warne could conceivably have been a good captain, but he could also have been a disaster.

Waugh, as I've said a good few times, was a wholly unremarkable captain IMO, but he was certainly quite acceptable and was exactly what Australia needed at the time. He was capable of getting little bits extra out of sides, to turn them from exceptional into exceptionally exceptional. And he did the basic stuff (which for the most part was all that was needed with such a superb group of players) perfectly well.

Mark Taylor > Stephen Waugh and >>>>> Shane Warne.

Not only do I feel Warne's tactical acumen is a little overrated (he didn't have enough time for defence IMO and was all about attack - and as a captain you can never be one-dimensional) but I also think the claim that "what he does off the field is irrelevant" is something of a fool's-paradise idealistic statement. No two ways about it - a captain who's constantly in the papers (whether the papers are plain wrong-headed to be sticking their noses in or not) is never, ever a good thing for a team.

 

[Goughy]

Waugh, as I've said a good few times, was a wholly unremarkable captain IMO.

Out of interest, in your opinion, who was the better captain,? Waugh, Nasser or Atherton?

 

[Richard]

Certainly Hussain the best out of the three, I've no questions about that one. Stephen Waugh and Atherton, it could go either way. Atherton will always lose marks for his "moodiness", but this I always thought was more something that crept in due to dissatisfaction - and understandable dissatisfaction at that, at any number of different things - rather than something that was inherant.

As I say, I won't ever be able to think of Stephen Waugh as anything more than decent but he made few obvious errors throughout his time. People have tried to make-out that enforcing the follow-on at Eden Gardens in 2000/01 was an error but that's nonsense, anyone under comparable circumstances would almost certainly have done the same, you can't possibly leglislate for not one but two people playing as well as Laxman and Dravid did. Atherton did make the odd error - self-confessed, which some seem to think he's incapable of doing. Two that stand-out in my mind - both from the 1994/95 Australia tour - are the defensive captaincy in the second-innings of the Second Test and the declaration on Hick in the Third. And while being labelled "captain grumpy" isn't neccessarily indicative of a bad captain at all (Allan Border had the same tag for example) it's obviously less ideal than being seen to be constantly engaging. Atherton never hid his distaste for the media at large through his career - and while this is once again quite understandable, it's certainly not ideal at all.

 

[Ponting Man]

Steve Waugh is one of the best captains ever i think

 

[Richard]

I don't.

Stephen Waugh, to me, was someone who was given an easy job, one which anyone with a semi-decent cricket brain could have done, to do and he performed it without any stuff-ups.

Whether he could have performed much tougher roles if assigned them is not something I'd want to rule-out. However, he didn't get the chance, and others did. Hence, there are many captains I'd rate higher than Stephen Waugh.

 

[Uppercut]

Not only do I feel Warne's tactical acumen is a little overrated (he didn't have enough time for defence IMO and was all about attack - and as a captain you can never be one-dimensional) .

Can't be agreeing with that. How do you mastermind a T20 triumph without being able to defend?

Since you insist on ignoring such things, another example of Warne's pragmatism is that when batsmen were on top, he wasn't afraid to go round the wicket and ask them to go after him. In fact he was quite capable of defending in county cricket, better than say, Ponting. In truth though, he'd be much more likely to try a new method of attack.

I'd prefer not to compare him to Waugh, who i think was a quality captain- better than you give him credit for. Waugh captained Australia as well as anyone could have reasonably been expected to. However, if I were to take one of them on as a "specialist captain" to run a first-class side, I'd have Warne every time without hesitation.

 

[Anil]

can't really be compared unless they have had comparable captaincy experience...

 

[subshakerz]

Waugh wins by default, as Warne didn't captain enough to be properly considered.

Waugh was in my opinion a good captain. He had his moments, such as winning the 99 World Cup from a tough position, picking Gilchrist as a opener, and removing Taylor's tendency to take the foot off the pedal in dead rubber matches. His side would not have been as dominant if it didn't subscribe to his ruthless approach.

Having said that, I wouldn't consider him a great captain like Taylor or Imran, simply because nothing stands out in his test captaincy as an amazing achievement. A great captain is able to get his team to perform against either superior teams or in difficult conditions. Waugh's team never faced a team that they weren't expected to beat, and the only two series where he faced difficult conditions were against Sri Lanka in 99 and India in 2001, and he lost both series. He also nearly lost at home to both New Zealand in 2002 and India in 2004, despite facing inferior sides. While I don't consider wins or losses the best measure of captaincy, I do see if the captain can inspire the team when faced with a real challenge. Waugh rarely did.

 

[Migara]

Sometimes the best cricket brain makes the best vice-captain rather than captain.

Exactly. That's why Jayawardane ana Ranatunga were so good for SL. Always had Sangakkara and De Silva thinking it out for them.

Waugh IMO is better captain. A person who could not manage his personal life IS NOT EXPECTED to manage 11 people around him with any success.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's speculative of course, but I firmly believe Warne would've made a fantastic captain. I say so as a Hampshire fan. On the pitch, I've seen noone better tactically bar Fleming. For getting the best out of players, he's as inspirational as anyone. The only question mark for me is how he would've coped with the demands outside cricket, and that's where it starts to get unclear. The media attention wouldn't have bothered him, but there's always a chance he'd have failed with the politics involved and done something stupid.


Personally I don't believe his private life should compromise his position. What he does in the bedrooms of the country isn't relevant (obviously many disagree). The thing that makes me doubt him most is the diuretic incident. Severe balls-up there that CA wouldn't want to risk a repeat of.

I'd actually think that, captaincy wise, the accepting money from illegal Indian bookies for "information" would be at least as big an issue as the masking agent. A skipper's probity should be above reproach for me; it's partly why Cronje seems such a betrayal.

Not equating Warne's indiscretion to Cronje's there before the more emotionally fragile leap to that conclusion.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd actually think that, captaincy wise, the accepting money from illegal Indian bookies for "information" would be at least as big an issue as the masking agent. A skipper's probity should be above reproach for me; it's partly why Cronje seems such a betrayal.

Not equating Warne's indiscretion to Cronje's there before the more emotionally fragile leap to that conclusion.

Hmm, I'd forgotten about that tbh. You're right, it is worse, but both incidents are ones CA couldn't risk a repeat of while he was captain. Although let's not forget, it was actually the nurse-texting that lost him the vice-captaincy.

 

[Richard]

Can't be agreeing with that. How do you mastermind a T20 triumph without being able to defend?

Since you insist on ignoring such things, another example of Warne's pragmatism is that when batsmen were on top, he wasn't afraid to go round the wicket and ask them to go after him. In fact he was quite capable of defending in county cricket, better than say, Ponting. In truth though, he'd be much more likely to try a new method of attack.

What I saw of Warne in one-day county cricket - which was admittedly not that much, but was more than negligable - never particularly impressed me. He always seemed too slow to change the bowling, too slow to recognise what the batsmen were trying to do.

As far as his bowling is concerned, sure, there were times when he knew that he needed to prioritise defence over attack. However, bowling and captaincy aren't quite the same thing.

Waugh, who i think was a quality captain- better than you give him credit for. Waugh captained Australia as well as anyone could have reasonably been expected to.

I don't dispute that for a second. What I say is that captaining Australia as well as you could expect someone to at the time Waugh did isn't really very much of an achievement. There was so little of any great difficulty to do. I've never once called Waugh a poor captain, merely said that the fact he led a terrific team means people think he was some sort of superlative captain when in reality to me he was merely perfectly decent. Pretty well everyone around to watch and\or play against both he and his predecessor said Mark Taylor was notably better.