Loony BoB
International Captain
Since 7th March, 2002 - the day Graeme Smith made his debut (I'm such a poet) - Fleming averages 42.26
Smith averages 58.67
Since 1st January, 2003, their averages are as follows:
Fleming averages 54.73
Smith averages 63.55
Since 1st January, 2004, their averages are as follows:
Fleming averages 40.90
Smith averages 64.75
Fair enough, Smith is definitely ahead of Fleming's game in the batting.
But now look at it this way:
Smith bats brilliantly in New Zealand.
Smith is leading a side which, going by their averages, should well and truely demolish New Zealand. They have Kallis (ranked 4th in the world by PWC), Gibbs (6th), Smith (11th) batting for them (not to mention Kirsten, not sure where he adds up now) and Pollock (3rd), Ntini (9th), Kallis (12th), Nel (21st) and Boje (27th) ensuring they have a prime bowling attack. New Zealand in the meantime are lacking their prime bowler in the shape of Bond and their best batsman outside Richardson (10th) is Fleming (22nd), then they have Styris (32nd), Macca (33rd) and Astle (34th, not sure if he played) holding their batting. Note the differences in the skill, on paper, between these sides. New Zealand's best bowlers had nothing against South Africa's batsmen and our batsmen had nothing against their bowlers.
New Zealand did not lose the series as they technically should have. Why? Because they work as a unit and they have a highly tactical and inspirational leader. At the time Kallis had come over here, he was hitting double centuries on a whim. South Africa should have annihalated us. It's also known that NZ has a history of suffering psychologically against South Africa, too, and Fleming lead them to surpass that.
After watching his tactics on the field, I highly rate Vaughan as a tactical captain as well as Fleming, although he can't seem to pull it through in ODI's (I don't know why, because his test captaincy interested me a lot). He could compete with New Zealand. I think South Africa, with all their stars, should be able to compete with the rest of the world but Smith's captaincy isn't good enough (at the moment - I have no doubts of him becoming a better captain in the future).
South Africa should have scored at least a hundred runs more in every match. But they didn't. That wasn't just individual New Zealanders performing, that was a team performing under a captain they all knew was top class. That's why Fleming is rated. I'd say the "five or eight runs" that someone mentioned would get added to his average should be much higher. Captaincy is clearly underrated by some of you. It wins New Zealand games, and they aren't by five to eight runs. It wins New Zealand games by fair margins against quality outfits.
You can have individuals score amazing runs, like Smith does, or you can have a guy score 40 and cause everyone around him to up their game. Not just adding 5-8 runs to his average, but adding 5-8 runs to everyone's scores and dropping 5-8 runs from every bowler's average. That's a considerable difference that no other captain today can match. It might not always win you a match if your opposition is that good, but it sure as hell is better than having everyone drop their game due to the having the second-best captain.
[/rant]
But that's just my opinion. I can see why people would think otherwise, I just disagree with them.
Smith averages 58.67
Since 1st January, 2003, their averages are as follows:
Fleming averages 54.73
Smith averages 63.55
Since 1st January, 2004, their averages are as follows:
Fleming averages 40.90
Smith averages 64.75
Fair enough, Smith is definitely ahead of Fleming's game in the batting.
But now look at it this way:
Smith bats brilliantly in New Zealand.
Smith is leading a side which, going by their averages, should well and truely demolish New Zealand. They have Kallis (ranked 4th in the world by PWC), Gibbs (6th), Smith (11th) batting for them (not to mention Kirsten, not sure where he adds up now) and Pollock (3rd), Ntini (9th), Kallis (12th), Nel (21st) and Boje (27th) ensuring they have a prime bowling attack. New Zealand in the meantime are lacking their prime bowler in the shape of Bond and their best batsman outside Richardson (10th) is Fleming (22nd), then they have Styris (32nd), Macca (33rd) and Astle (34th, not sure if he played) holding their batting. Note the differences in the skill, on paper, between these sides. New Zealand's best bowlers had nothing against South Africa's batsmen and our batsmen had nothing against their bowlers.
New Zealand did not lose the series as they technically should have. Why? Because they work as a unit and they have a highly tactical and inspirational leader. At the time Kallis had come over here, he was hitting double centuries on a whim. South Africa should have annihalated us. It's also known that NZ has a history of suffering psychologically against South Africa, too, and Fleming lead them to surpass that.
After watching his tactics on the field, I highly rate Vaughan as a tactical captain as well as Fleming, although he can't seem to pull it through in ODI's (I don't know why, because his test captaincy interested me a lot). He could compete with New Zealand. I think South Africa, with all their stars, should be able to compete with the rest of the world but Smith's captaincy isn't good enough (at the moment - I have no doubts of him becoming a better captain in the future).
South Africa should have scored at least a hundred runs more in every match. But they didn't. That wasn't just individual New Zealanders performing, that was a team performing under a captain they all knew was top class. That's why Fleming is rated. I'd say the "five or eight runs" that someone mentioned would get added to his average should be much higher. Captaincy is clearly underrated by some of you. It wins New Zealand games, and they aren't by five to eight runs. It wins New Zealand games by fair margins against quality outfits.
You can have individuals score amazing runs, like Smith does, or you can have a guy score 40 and cause everyone around him to up their game. Not just adding 5-8 runs to his average, but adding 5-8 runs to everyone's scores and dropping 5-8 runs from every bowler's average. That's a considerable difference that no other captain today can match. It might not always win you a match if your opposition is that good, but it sure as hell is better than having everyone drop their game due to the having the second-best captain.
[/rant]
But that's just my opinion. I can see why people would think otherwise, I just disagree with them.
