Battle of the Test captains

[silentstriker]

Straw clutching.

You claim that he's loses when challenged and then arbitrarily say that he's only been challenged in the games that he has lost.

Circular logic there. How do you know he hasn't been challenged before? Plenty of games under him have gone on to the 5th day.

 

[Sanz]

Like I said, without other stats, how can you know?

We know because of - "We will have a bowl, mate'

 

[Sanz]

How do you know he hasn't been challenged before?

Because most of us have followed pretty much every test Ponting has captained. And just because a test has gone to 5th day doesn't mean Aus were challenged in that game.

 

[silentstriker]

We know because of - "We will have a bowl, mate'

Now who's clutching the straws?

 

[Sanz]

Didn't Xuhaib already answer that ?

 

[silentstriker]

Because most of us have followed pretty much every test Ponting has captained. And just because a test has gone to 5th day doesn't mean Aus were challenged in that game.

So, your claim, as an avid follower of Ponting and Australia, is that Australia were never in danger of losing a series except in England [when Ponting was captain]?

By the way, since about 2000, I've probably followed Australia more than any other team and most Australians as they were my second favorite team through the Ashes and up until about two months ago.

I stay up every night for most Australian games, even though I'm in the US. So please, your implication that I don't follow the team is moot. And this discussion is not just about Ponting, but every other captain who is held to the same standard (W-L-D).

And then by that same token, what about the captains you haven't followed? Like Jardines? How do you judge them?

Sorry, W-L is the only way.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

TBF tho those self-same third party reports often mention field positions & bowling changes. In fact more column inches have been written on the field placings that a certain 30s captain positioned in one particular contest than in any other series before or since.

Comparing across the decades is never going to be an exact science, but equally we shouldn't be so arrogant as to dismiss contemporary reports on the grounds that we weren't around to witness the matches. I watch a fair bit of cricket, but I have to say I've almost certainly never ever watched every ball of any test live & even if I had often television doesn't pick up a captain's field changes because it tends to focus mainly on the batter & bowler. Often the first that we, the telly audience, know of a change is a report (ha!) from a commentator.

Anyway, it's just a bit of fun & if you wanna vote on win/loss ratios that's your prerogative!

 

[Sanz]

Sorry, W-L is the only way.

Not for me. But I am sure it is for a mamooth cricket follower like you.

 

[silentstriker]

Not for me. But I am sure it is for a mamooth cricket follower like you.

Yes, I suppose it does get hard sometimes to keep my immense knowledge of the game in control, being a mammoth cricket follower, but sometimes its good to keep it simple and only look at stats.

 

[aussie]

Ponting has not won a single series where his team was challenged. He didn't captain in India, infact if we count tests under him, Australia lost the series in India. He lost the series against England.

And yeah if he had a better personality, he probably would rank higher, but the fact is that he doesn't.

Did you see the Sri Lanka series?, Australia were challenged a great deal having to come from behind in the 1st two test & still one. You could even call the recent series home/away vs South Africa strong challenged that Australia won convincingly in the end.

On India, i'm quite sure if Ponting had captained in all 4 test vs India in 2004 Australia had would have still won convincingly. Before that series Australia had done a lot of pre-planning on how to win, Gilchrist just put that into place on the field.

 

[silentstriker]

Did you see the Sri Lanka series?, Australia were challenged a great deal having to come from behind in the 1st two test & still one. You could even call the recent series home/away vs South Africa strong challenged that Australia won convincingly in the end.

On India, i'm quite sure if Ponting had captained in all 4 test vs India in 2004 Australia had would have still won convincingly. Before that series Australia had done a lot of pre-planning on how to win, Gilchrist just put that into place on the field.

Don't bother, an avid follower of Ponting's career would already know that and its not like facts should get in the way of a good group-bashing.

 

[silentstriker]

Not for me. But I am sure it is for a mamooth cricket follower like you.

When you mentioned the word mammoth, for some reason Inzamam came into my mind. Is that wrong?

 

[marc71178]

So Tendulkar is far from the best batsman in tests because he barely wins anything,

Because he's a choker

 

[marc71178]

His record is good thats why he is in the top 32

Nasser Hussain's also in there for some reason...

 

[silentstriker]

Nasser Hussain's also in there for some reason...

TBH, I thought most English considered Hussain a pretty good captain. Most certainly think he is a pretty good commentator (not that the two are related). Didn't follow England during the Husssain era, so I'm not sure.

 

[Perm]

While I do encourage this kind of debate you need to think about it from this way? What other statistical evidence can you use when comparing two captains? Win/ Loss Ratio is about the only thing that isn't objective so I decided to list the Win/ Loss Ratio so as to help some people who may find it helpful. I am by no means encouraging people to look only at the Win/ Loss record when making a judgement about the better captain, but I feel that it helps.

 

[Slow Love™]

So what if a captain is already in charge of a great side? What would make him good?

There are lots of answers to this - how inflexible he might be, how innovative, how he sets his fields, how he looks when things don't go according to plan, how his temperament holds together, whether he gets the best out of his players or not, etc... Anyway, I basically think your point on what makes a good captain is BS anyway, and don't want to spend too much time on it. But consider what perhaps makes people admire men like Brearley so much.

I do think you've hit on something with this post though, which is pretty constant on this forum - people ARE in general extremely hard on players/captains of strong sides, and it sometimes seems like they are constantly penalized for it. For example, bowlers in great sides can never be as good as bowlers in average or poor sides, because they can never prove themselves against "the best" (i.e. the batsmen of their own side). Same applies to the bats, who never prove themselves against the best bowlers (i.e. their own). Captains with strong sides often get little credit. It seems like the fact that they are part of a strong side constantly gets held against them. It seems like sometimes you have to be part of a poor or mediocre side to avoid constant accusations of being overrated. Just something that bugs me.

 

[Slow Love™]

And on the win/loss thing, it's unfortunate, but the further back we go into history (leaving out the greats we're all very aware of), the harder it often gets to compare captains. Unless it's a comparison of somebody really highly regarded or contemporary, most of us won't have seen much of the captaincy of the player concerned in any kind of effective "non-highlights" way, so it's mostly going on heresay anyway. In that sense, I guess the win/loss record is a useful guide, because as some have said, when you haven't seen much/any of the person concerned (which, IMO is the BEST way to judge), how do you judge?

 

[archie mac]

And on the win/loss thing, it's unfortunate, but the further back we go into history (leaving out the greats we're all very aware of), the harder it often gets to compare captains. Unless it's a comparison of somebody really highly regarded or contemporary, most of us won't have seen much of the captaincy of the player concerned in any kind of effective "non-highlights" way, so it's mostly going on heresay anyway. In that sense, I guess the win/loss record is a useful guide, because as some have said, when you haven't seen much/any of the person concerned (which, IMO is the BEST way to judge), how do you judge?

Read?

 

[silentstriker]

.