Captaincy - does it or doesn't it?

[hang on]

Affect a player's performance? Now, I am not referring to the reading of the riot act to a recalcitrant but talented player (an asif being torn another one by a person like imran would be the exemplar), but am referring to the affect of the role of captaincy on the captain's own performance/form.

Some players arguably thrive on the 'added(?)' responsibility of captaincy (Lara, Smith, Imran while others seem to baulk at the onerous honour, and let it affect their form (Tendulkar). (Of course, the affect of coincidences and the timing aspect of things - players often becoming captains when past their peak etc. should not be ruled out....)

Personally, I don't think that captaincy and suchlike completely intangible attributes should be taken into account while considering the worth of a cricketer. What do u think?

[Ikki]

I think it should be taken into account. It is added pressure and responsibility. It is drawing your attention and energy away from yourself and for the team. How you gauge how it affects certain players is a different question though and harder to answer.

[Spark]

There's no one answer to this. Every player is different as people and will react differently to the added responsibility. Some will thrive, some will falter, some won't be affected at all.

[smalishah84]

Agree with ikki here

[fredfertang]

This is an interesting question, the more so with some individuals than others.

Ian Botham is one I find particularly interesting. He had a brief stint as captain - appointed when 24, he captained for a dozen Tests none of which were won - as we all know he was replaced as captain by Mike Brearley immediately prior to Headingly '81 and the rest, as they say, is history.

Nine of the first ten of the Tests were against the West Indies. It was a 1-0 defeat at home in '80 and 2-0 in the Caribbean in 80/81. In the context of what happened for the rest of the decade England didn't actually do too badly under his leadership.

I believe now, as I did then, that he shouldn't have been made captain in 1980 but I always felt he should have got the captaincy later in his career - his last series in which he justified his place was 86/87 yet he carried on playing, when injury and other issues permitted, until 1992 whilst achieving comparatively little.

We hear a lot of the bloke as a pundit - would the captaincy passing from Gower to him in 86 rather than to Mike Gatting have resulted in his batting better? (his bowling was getting to be a spent force by then) and how would England have done under him? - is he tactically astute? He doesn't always come across that way to me in the commentary box but he does have some decent ideas and is obviously no one's fool - would the power of his personality have had a positive or negative effect?

[Jono]

Of course it does.

[vcs]

I guess a successful captaincy stint is a positive thing to have on your resume.. but when players are compared and rated on it, it becomes kind of unfair because the hands that different captains are dealt are so, so vastly different that comparisons are rendered pretty meaningless.

[mrcheek]

Captaincy has had a huge effect on Andrew Strauss.

For the 2006-7 tour of Australia, he expected to be named captain. When Flintoff got the nod, if seriously upset him, and he struggled for the next year or so, and even lost his place.

He eventually got back in, and since being given the captaincy, he has played even better. Tactically, he would never be called a great captain, but he leads from the front. and noone else can claim 3 victories by an innings in Australia...

[Daemon]

Originally Posted by mrcheek

Captaincy has had a huge effect on Andrew Strauss.

For the 2006-7 tour of Australia, he expected to be named captain. When Flintoff got the nod, if seriously upset him, and he struggled for the next year or so, and even lost his place.

He eventually got back in, and since being given the captaincy, he has played even better. Tactically, he would never be called a great captain, but he leads from the front. and noone else can claim 3 victories by an innings in Australia...

It's not easy to attribute wins and losses to a captain because it could very well be that things just fall into place at the right/wrong time. Whether a teams good form coincides with the change or whether the captain coaxed it out of the team is really impossible to judge. No doubt captains have an influence on the performance of the team, but you can't really say that a team has succeeded due to the captaincy. Some players react well under some captains, some don't.

Take Ponting for example, general consensus here is that he is a poor captain, yet enjoyed one of the most successful stints as one.

[8ankitj]

Originally Posted by hang on

Personally, I don't think that captaincy and suchlike completely intangible attributes should be taken into account while considering the worth of a cricketer. What do u think?

Yes, mostly my view too.

[flibbertyjibber]

Originally Posted by Daemon

It's not easy to attribute wins and losses to a captain because it could very well be that things just fall into place at the right/wrong time. Whether a teams good form coincides with the change or whether the captain coaxed it out of the team is really impossible to judge. No doubt captains have an influence on the performance of the team, but you can't really say that a team has succeeded due to the captaincy. Some players react well under some captains, some don't.

Take Ponting for example, general consensus here is that he is a poor captain, yet enjoyed one of the most successful stints as one.

Vaughan was a good captain yet his batting average as captain was well below his career average and miles below his average purely as a batsman.

Strauss has thrived and for a long time Ponting scored heavily before age caught up with him.

Every player is different though and people could come up with as many Botham's as they could Border's.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by 8ankitj

Yes, mostly my view too.

But in some cases it really does. For e.g. Cronje and Stephen Fleming come to mind. I really rate Stephen Fleming very highly. He really made a difference and got some very good results out of a very ordinary team.

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

But in some cases it really does. For e.g. Cronje and Stephen Fleming come to mind. I really rate Stephen Fleming very highly. He really made a difference and got some very good results out of a very ordinary team.

"very" is pushing it tbh. Astle, Cairns, Bond, Vettori, McMillan, Styris, Twose, Richardson, Mills. Stephen Fleming does stand a class apart from most of the captains today though.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Mike5181

"very" is pushing it tbh. Astle, Cairns, Bond, Vettori, McMillan, Styris, Twose, Richardson, Mills. Stephen Fleming does stand a class apart from most of the captains today though.

ok, not very ordinary. An ordinary team.

[salman85]

It probably shouldn't be taken into account.Very naive example,but when you go through history and look at the greatest players of all time,how many of these players were great captains too?Not that many.

Doing well as a captain makes a great player look even better.But doing poorly as a captain won't make a great player look significantly poorer IMO.However,an average/good player being a great captain will probably make him look a lot better as a cricketer than he actually is.