• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Virat Kohli: The Captaincy Breakdown

Xix2565

International Debutant
Yeah, batting failures are on the batters, bowling failures are on the bowlers, you don't really need a captain then except to toss the coin, huh? It's not like they are playing in a team or anything that has its own culture and playing style that the captain would be involved in.

Yeah, for me, India losing winnable away series is one reason to mark down Kohli from great to good. I'm not asking for dominance, just that he could have done better in Eng/NZ/SA. That's my criteria. I don't think its too harsh. Captaincy stuff is ultimately a personal judgment call.

Let's just agree to disagree because it just seems you are being contrarian without really adding any input of your own. I prefer if posters at least make their own viewpoints clear if we are engaging.
Captains do not suddenly make batters edge like crazy or smash attacks out of the game by themselves. So yeah, when you have more than "Kohli was captain when collapses happened so he needs to take the blame alone" this line of thought is pointless.

You are asking for dominance essentially with all the handwringing and general reluctance to consider teams and competition possibly being better now, let alone all the changes in the modern game. Yes, captaincy is a personal judgement call but that is no excuse for shoddy decision making in constructing an opinion.

I've made my points clear, if you don't like to read them that's on you not me.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
Captains do not suddenly make batters edge like crazy or smash attacks out of the game by themselves. So yeah, when you have more than "Kohli was captain when collapses happened so he needs to take the blame alone" this line of thought is pointless.

You are asking for dominance essentially with all the handwringing and general reluctance to consider teams and competition possibly being better now, let alone all the changes in the modern game. Yes, captaincy is a personal judgement call but that is no excuse for shoddy decision making in constructing an opinion.

I've made my points clear, if you don't like to read them that's on you not me.
Which teams are better now compared to when in the past? Please be clear.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Which teams are better now compared to when in the past? Please be clear.
Would definitely take this Aus side over the one ten years ago. NZ is definitely stronger too, as is Bangladesh and you could make a decent case for Pakistan being a stronger all-round side.
 

cnerd123

likes this
You seem fixated on this silly notion that a fast bowlers' development only means an ability to bowl scrambled seam or a slower one or whatever. I think the term means something a lot more wholistic in how a bowler performs.
explain yourself, because this statement makes no sense. Exactly what development in our fast bowlers did Kohli directly cause? And don't just throw numbers back at me. Explain what Kohli did specifically to cause those numbers outside of simply tossing them the ball.

It's easy to make bold claims without needing to back them with logic/facts/reasoning. If you really believe this there must be something tangible you can point to.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
Would definitely take this Aus side over the one ten years ago. NZ is definitely stronger too, as is Bangladesh and you could make a decent case for Pakistan being a stronger all-round side.
If ten years ago, sure. Though Pakistan was under Misbah at that time and was likely stronger then.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
explain yourself, because this statement makes no sense. Exactly what development in our fast bowlers did Kohli directly cause? And don't just throw numbers back at me. Explain what Kohli did specifically to cause those numbers outside of simply tossing them the ball.

It's easy to make bold claims without needing to back them with logic/facts/reasoning. If you really believe this there must be something tangible you can point to.
I mean Kohli is responsible for when they bowl, the plans they're given, the fields they're to bowl to etc etc. Fast bowling management is a tricky business and certainly more complicated than "simply tossing them the ball". They were a precious resource at his disposal for him to use judiciously - although I'm not necessarily making a judgment on how well he used them (they do seem to pick up a fair few injuries).
 

cnerd123

likes this
I mean Kohli is responsible for when they bowl, the plans they're given, the fields they're to bowl to etc etc. Fast bowling management is a tricky business and certainly more complicated than "simply tossing them the ball". They were a precious resource at his disposal for him to use judiciously - although I'm not necessarily making a judgment on how well he used them (they do seem to pick up a fair few injuries).
Yea but HB claims he had a big role in their development. How is any of this 'developing' the bowlers? This is just utilizing them.

Fast bowler management is probably one of the easier jobs for a captain anyways - much harder getting the most out of a spinner or your batters.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Yea but HB claims he had a big role in their development. How is any of this 'developing' the bowlers? This is just utilizing them.

Fast bowler management is probably one of the easier jobs for a captain anyways - much harder getting the most out of a spinner or your batters.
It's a pretty big part of their development! It's being, you know, in control of the most important part of their development: when and how they actually bowl in real games.

Idk if it's that trivial. We've seen enough examples of it going wrong. We've seen just how incredibly cautious Aus are being with Green, for example, refusing to bowl him even when the match situation dictates he really should be bowling.
 

cnerd123

likes this
It's a pretty big part of their development! It's being, you know, in control of the most important part of their development: when and how they actually bowl in real games.

Idk if it's that trivial. We've seen enough examples of it going wrong. We've seen just how incredibly cautious Aus are being with Green, for example, refusing to bowl him even when the match situation dictates he really should be bowling.
Green's an allrounder, that's a totally different scenario.

Kohli was given a pace attack and had to use them. They were going to bowl anyways. It's not like he used them in some genius way that got more out of them than their talent dictated. Most, if not all, captains and teams around the world would have used these guys in more or less the same way. At this point we're just praising him for not ****ing up.

I do give him credit for backing them with encouragement and the belief that they'd win games, but again you expect that from any captain who had that quality of bowling at his disposal.

It's different when trying to fit in an allrounder as the 5th bowler into a game. The way Kohli handles the 4th seamer or lone spinner in the 5 man attacks is more telling of his leadership ability than how he uses the frontline 3 quicks IMO. And he's never been that brilliant at that anyways.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
I'm not even disagreeing tbh. But the captain does have a fairly big say in these matters by definition, even if the most they can do most of the time is "don't be Joe Root". Clarke/Johnson situations where you have a genuinely unique weapon that must be used in a unique way to get the best out of him is rare.
 

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
Would definitely take this Aus side over the one ten years ago. NZ is definitely stronger too, as is Bangladesh and you could make a decent case for Pakistan being a stronger all-round side.
Yes, Aus, NZ, BD and Pak are stronger now.

India is arguably stronger than the previous side of 10 years back too. Sachin and Dravid were in their final years and bowling had also not improved at that time.

The batting was comparatively stronger earlier and now the bowling is stronger, which is shown in the results. But there is huge scope to improve further now that Pujara and Rahane are set to be dropped.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
Yes, Aus, NZ, BD and Pak are stronger now.

India is arguably stronger than the previous side of 10 years back too. Sachin and Dravid were in their final years and bowling had also not improved at that time.

The batting was comparatively stronger earlier and now the bowling is stronger, which is shown in the results. But there is huge scope to improve further now that Pujara and Rahane are set to be dropped.
Dont think Pakistan is stronger. 10 years ago Pakistan were whitewashing a no.1 England side at UAE. Dont think they can do that now.

And its all arbitrary anyways depending on which era you pick to compare with. The point is that it is hard to make the case that quality of world cricket opposition is better now to explain away India not performing better overseas.
 

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
Dont think Pakistan is stronger. 10 years ago Pakistan were whitewashing a no.1 England side at UAE. Dont think they can do that now.
You are basing decisions on specific series results instead of the whole term. But since you are going that route and now that you accept Aussies are a strong side who are number one now, once Pak wins the series over Aussies if/when they travel there, you should be accepting Pak is better as well now.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Expecting saltshakerz to be fair... do you ever learn? :laugh:

And on topic, Virat's India have been the 3rd best test match side in my time of watching cricket, since late 80s. And has a very arguable case to have been the second best. So he is easily amongst the great captains of test cricket AFAIC, the biased drivel in this thread notwithstanding.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
You are basing decisions on specific series results instead of the whole term. But since you are going that route and now that you accept Aussies are a strong side who are number one now, once Pak wins the series over Aussies if/when they travel there, you should be accepting Pak is better as well now.
I was using that series as an example. 10 years ago Pakistan under Misbah had built a fortress in the UAE, and were a stronger team than they are now. If you disagree, please show me how Pakistan now is stronger.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
Expecting saltshakerz to be fair... do you ever learn? :laugh:

And on topic, Virat's India have been the 3rd best test match side in my time of watching cricket, since late 80s. And has a very arguable case to have been the second best. So he is easily amongst the great captains of test cricket AFAIC, the biased drivel in this thread notwithstanding.
3rd best...so assuming you put 2000 Aus and Smith's SA ahead of them as you mentioned, would you rank Kohli's team as better than late 80s WI?
 

Top