Battle of the Test captains

[Pedro Delgado]

Taylor. Top skip and top fellow to boot.

 

[Fratboy]

I respect your oponion buddy but i picked Viv and Akram based on my judgement. I've not seen Kapil captain and also never really rated Azhar so i decided not to pick them.

Next time when you get the opportunity to start a similar thread then you have all the rights to pick players who you feel are more deserving.

Well, the next time you put yourself in charge of picking a list and inviting nominations, I hope you have the decency to reply to someone questioning a nomination you've made instead of completely ignoring him, even if the reason might just be plain bias/ignorance/personal preference or whatever.

 

[archie mac]

Taylor is the best captain I have seen in my time watching cricket. He was simply brilliant, and head and shoulders above the likes of Waugh. He could win a match from any situation, and he always seemed to come up with a strange field or bowling change that would bring success from nowhere. One of my favourite batsmen and a great slipper as well.

I don't know about head and shoulders, in fact I thought Waugh the better captain, but only just

PS Hope I am not being too hard on you, after the Crows lost

 

[Xuhaib]

Well, the next time you put yourself in charge of picking a list and inviting nominations, I hope you have the decency to reply to someone questioning a nomination you've made instead of completely ignoring him, even if the reason might just be plain bias/ignorance/personal preference or whatever.

OK lets now

 

[C_C]

I don't think it's utterly ridiculous as it is, ultimately, what a captain will be judged on (Wadekar got the boot because of it), but I do agree that it doesn't give the whole picture, much as a keeper's dismissals & byes conceded don't say everything about his quality behind the stumps. The trouble is tho that a captain's win/loss/draw ratio is really the only quantitive data it's viable to post in the body of the thread.

Anyway, it's Taylor for me.

Some things cannot be quantified.
So whats so wrong in keeping it unquantified, instead of trying to attach quantifiable markers to it that are extremely inadequate to judging the said unquantifiable thing ?

If win-loss record is considered, then one must also consider one thing- If Taylor was a zimbabwean he'd be considered a pathetic captain or even lesser than a mediocre one like Lara. The same can be said otherwise of total ninny captains captaining WI of the 70s/80s and OZ of today.

Quality of captaincy-qualify of wicketkeepers,qualify of catchers- these cannot be quantified because the quantifiable aspects cover far less than half of the picture.
In this field opinions are all that there is. Period.
Which is why whether Jonty or Warne or Gus Logie were the better fielders or between Imran and Tendy who the better captain was is ultimately an utterly pointless discussion if one uses win-loss record or catching ratio etc etc.
The concept of attaching win-loss record is inherently flawed thinking and it does nothing more than distort the idea of what a good captain is or isnt.

I suppose it is an inherent need to compare everything to everything(even things that are unquantifiable and thus, uncomparable in the first place!) for some reason and the latest fad with stats without understanding their context or usefulness.
Some dood even popped in the rather ludicrous idea that 'if we dont know about them, its a rather good benchmark'. I sure hope he lives long enough to hear some dood go 'Poontang? no wait. Ponting his name was is ? hmmm. another prehistoric namby pamby.
Taylor ? hmm captain namby pamby. okies. now lets look at the win-loss record of these doods i've never heard of and use this 'useful' tool to guage captaincy. Wow. Ponting dude...God captain. Taylor sux compared to this dood!I shall now pick this dood in my alltime 2090 world test XI list coz he is so uber captain'
With that, i withdraw from this thread.

 

[pasag]

Taylor

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Mark Taylor

 

[nightprowler10]

OK lets now

What? Snuggle?

Taylor for me.

 

[silentstriker]

Taylor, he won more.

 

[nightprowler10]

Taylor, he won more.

Will you be going for win% for every battle?

 

[Mister Wright]

Will you be going for win% for every battle?

Yeah, seems a bit strange. Winning games doesn't make a good captain. Just look at Ponting for an example.

 

[silentstriker]

Will you be going for win% for every battle?

Yes, or sometimes # of wins, depending how many. I.e, if someone has won 4 out of 5, and another has won 70 out of 100...I'll go for the 70.

But generally speaking, always winning %.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, seems a bit strange. Winning games doesn't make a good captain. Just look at Ponting for an example.

Yea, just look at him. All that horrendous man does is win. Bad captain!

C_C has said that a large part of 'good captaincy' is unquantifiable. That may be true, but then the only way to pick a captain is personally know all of them and/or know what goes on in the locker room, etc. Since I haven't met any of the captains on the list, nor have I ever participated in team meetings with them, I'll go by wins.


Which by the way is the point of playing.

 

[Mister Wright]

Yea, just look at him. All that horrendous man does is win. Bad captain!

C_C has said that a large part of 'good captaincy' is unquantifiable. That may be true, but then the only way to pick a captain is personally know all of them and/or know what goes on in the locker room, etc. Since I haven't met any of the captains on the list, nor have I ever participated in team meetings with them, I'll go by wins.


Which by the way is the point of playing.

Don't look at the games he wins.

Look at the games he loses that he should win. That's the sign of a poor captain. The captains who win the games they should or the games they shouldn't are the good ones. Not the ones that lose the ones they should win.

 

[silentstriker]

Don't look at the games he wins.

Look at the games he loses that he should win. That's the sign of a poor captain. The captains who win the games they should or the games they shouldn't are the good ones. Not the ones that lose the ones they should win.

That might be fair, except a captain like Ponting loses so rarely that its meaningless to count the few games that they lost against him. What you would be arguing at that point is to say that he should be undefeated or he's a bad captain, which is unfair. You can't expect anyone to go undefeated.

 

[nightprowler10]

That might be fair, except a captain like Ponting loses so rarely that its meaningless to count the few games that they lost against him. What you would be arguing at that point is to say that he should be undefeated or he's a bad captain, which is unfair. You can't expect anyone to go undefeated.

I don't think he's saying that Ponting should be undefeated with the team he's got. Rather, he's considered an average captain due to his actions that lead to lost matches. Very rarely do Australia lose due to the awesomeness () of the other team.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't think he's saying that Ponting should be undefeated with the team he's got. Rather, he's considered an average captain due to his actions that lead to lost matches. Very rarely do Australia lose due to the awesomeness () of the other team.

All right, so if he shouldn't be undefeated, then that means its ok for him to lose a series or two.

And thats exactly what he's done. He has won 11 out of 12 series as captain.


So, what exactly is the problem? You're basically calling him 'average', or 'bad', becaus he lost one series in his career as captain so far.

 

[Goughy]

Taylor

Win/Loss is not everything but as C_C stated, it is the objective so it has to have some influence.

Its a starting point but then you have to add in innovation, inspiration, tactical nous etc.

If Jardine had lost the Bodyline series, whould he still be classed as a great captain even if he had instituted the same tactics? I don't think so. Winning is important in judging a captain but it is certainly not the only thing.

 

[Jono]

That might be fair, except a captain like Ponting loses so rarely that its meaningless to count the few games that they lost against him. What you would be arguing at that point is to say that he should be undefeated or he's a bad captain, which is unfair. You can't expect anyone to go undefeated.

Someone who can't defend 434 runs is someone who loses when they should win. Ponting has issues with his captaincy SS, and sometimes even when he does win, he made the match closer than it should have been due to his **** captaincy decisions.

He still performed badly, but Aus still win. But by your standards he still did well. Stupid.

Anyway, Taylor here.

 

[silentstriker]

He still performed badly, but Aus still win.

How do you know he performed badly if they won?

Its not a quantifiable thing, like other stats, so you can only go on W/L. Tough luck, but thats what it is.

I find it hilarious that people are comparing todays captains to someone who played in the 30's. No one here was likely alive and you have no idea how he did field placings, how he interacted with others, except through third party reports...which, unlike stats, are highly subjective.

Admit it, W/L is the only criteria for a captain.