Battle of the Test captains

[Slow Love™]

Read?

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.

* it should read "hearsay"

 

[silentstriker]

Read?

Unless its reading stats, its completely subjective and its sort of like 'your favorite captain', and not 'the best captain'.

So unless you are voting for the person you like better, the only way to vote is by W/L.

EDIT: For some reason I couldn't edit the earlier post.

 

[Turbinator]

Why isn't dhoni in this?

 

[Slow Love™]

Unless its reading stats, its completely subjective and its sort of like 'your favorite captain', and not 'the best captain'.

So unless you are voting for the person you like better, the only way to vote is by W/L.

EDIT: For some reason I couldn't edit the earlier post.

If you're well-read enough, you could probably get a decent feel for how a captain is regarded by people you respect. I suppose it's fair enough. I myself feel a lot more comfortable talking about captains I've seen rather than those I might have only read about, though, in general.

 

[archie mac]

Unless its reading stats, its completely subjective and its sort of like 'your favorite captain', and not 'the best captain'.

So unless you are voting for the person you like better, the only way to vote is by W/L.

Chapman only lost one Test, but everything I have read from Fender to the players who played under him suggests he was not a great captain but a captain of a great team.

If we can't learn from reading then we are in trouble

 

[archie mac]

If you're well-read enough, you could probably get a decent feel for how a captain is regarded by people you respect. I suppose it's fair enough. I myself feel a lot more comfortable talking about captains I've seen rather than those I might have only read about, though, in general.

Yes I can agree with that, it does make it hard to compare Taylor with Woodfull for instance, which is why the oldies usually get voted out early unless they are really well known like a Bradman or Benaud.

 

[silentstriker]

Chapman only lost one Test, but everything I have read from Fender to the players who played under him suggests he was not a great captain but a captain of a great team.

If we can't learn from reading then we are in trouble

Um, of course we can learn from reading. We can learn peoples' opinions. Again, you can figure out who you like from reading, but you have to look at the stats for anything objective.

 

[C_C]

Um, of course we can learn from reading. We can learn peoples' opinions. Again, you can figure out who you like from reading, but you have to look at the stats for anything objective.

Whats your obsession with applying stats to a category that is largely INDEPENDENT of stats ?
You really think Gilly is a better keeper than Healey because he has a better catch-per-match ratio ?
The captaincy record has nothing to do with how good a captain is, considering that the best captain in the world wouldnt have a 0.500 win record with Bangladesh and the worst one wont hae less than a 0.500 win record with Australia.
Therefore, win-loss record is utterly meaningless in evaluating a captain.
Rarely have i seen such ridiculous application of statistics without understanding that this criteria is pretty much all 100% intangiable !!

 

[Sanz]

Before that series Australia had done a lot of pre-planning on how to win, Gilchrist just put that into place on the field.

And Ponting forgot to put that plan in Mumbai. It tells us who understood the plan and who didn't.

 

[silentstriker]

Whats your obsession with applying stats to a category that is largely INDEPENDENT of stats ?
You really think Gilly is a better keeper than Healey because he has a better catch-per-match ratio ?
The captaincy record has nothing to do with how good a captain is, considering that the best captain in the world wouldnt have a 0.500 win record with Bangladesh and the worst one wont hae less than a 0.500 win record with Australia.
Therefore, win-loss record is utterly meaningless in evaluating a captain.
Rarely have i seen such ridiculous application of statistics without understanding that this criteria is pretty much all 100% intangiable !!

Ah, thats what I'm trying to get at. Because its 100% intangible as you admit, then you are really voting for 'your favorite captain'. I am obessed because I see people trashing Ponting as a captain because they don't like him. They have every right to dislike Ponting, but I have a problem when people try to pass that 100% intangible feeling as some sort of objective fact that he is a bad captain.

 

[C_C]

Ah, thats what I'm trying to get at. Because its 100% intangible as you admit, then you are really voting for 'your favorite captain'. I am obessed because I see people trashing Ponting as a captain because they don't like him. They have every right to dislike Ponting, but I have a problem when people try to pass that 100% intangible feeling as some sort of objective fact that he is a bad captain.

Ofcourse you can!
just because Ponting wins way more than Taylor doesnt negate the FACT that he doesnt even have half the wits Taylor did.

 

[silentstriker]

Ofcourse you can!
just because Ponting wins way more than Taylor doesnt negate the FACT that he doesnt even have half the wits Taylor did.

Again, thats a completely 100% subjective and intangible conclusion. Which is OK, but then you have to admit that it is.

 

[Sanz]

How the hell is that subjective ? Its like C_C is saying that Einstien was a much more brainy than 'Xerox' Khan and you calling his (C_C's) opinion as 100 % subjective intangible conclusion.

Ricky is just dumb.

 

[C_C]

Again, thats a completely 100% subjective and intangible conclusion. Which is OK, but then you have to admit that it is.

Subjective and intangiable doesnt necessarily exclude it from being an objective conclusion either- for noone said that a subjective viewpoint cannot also be an objective one.

PS: Lets not get too much into this subjective-objective debate now. The point i am making is that win-loss record is utterly and totally irrelevant in measuring the worth of a captain.

 

[silentstriker]

How the hell is that subjective ? Its like C_C is saying that Einstien was a much more brainy than 'Xerox' Khan and you calling his (C_C's) opinion as 100 % subjective intangible conclusion.

Ricky is just dumb.

Not really, Einstein has produced evidence of his intellect by doing something that Khan hasn't. The same way, Ponting has won while Fleming hasn't.

for noone said that a subjective viewpoint cannot also be an objective one.

The objective methodology may sometimes reach a conclusion that is the same as a subjective methodology, but you can't just do the subjective methodoloy and call it objective. That makes no sense.


In any case, I've made my case and I don't think I've convinced anyone. So I'll leave it at this and everyone can get back to voting.

 

[Sanz]

Not really, Einstein has produced evidence of his intellect by doing something that Khan hasn't.

Depends who you ask. If you ask the Iranians (or North Koreans) they probably would disagree.

 

[C_C]

The objective methodology may sometimes reach a conclusion that is the same as a subjective methodology, but you can't just do the subjective methodoloy and call it objective. That makes no sense.

i..really..dont..want...to...get..into...subjective..and..objective...reality...discussions.
This is a subject with thousands of discourses on it.
Asking me to get into a discussion on subjective/objective realities would be like asking a Christian to get into a discussion about original sin....
But l will say this - there is no reason why one cant use a subjective methodology to come to an objective conclusion is it matches the objective reality and the objective methodology is far far inferior in the said case.

 

[archie mac]

i..really..dont..want...to...get..into...subjective..and..objective...reality...discussions.
This is a subject with thousands of discourses on it.
Asking me to get into a discussion on subjective/objective realities would be like asking a Christian to get into a discussion about original sin....
But l will say this - there is no reason why one cant use a subjective methodology to come to an objective conclusion is it matches the objective reality and the objective methodology is far far inferior in the said case.

I had better not give this post the Inzi, people will think I am stupid

 

[Perm]

Mark Taylor takes it 14-0

Round 1, Battle 2

Arjuna Ranatunga

Test: 56 Matches, 12 Wins, 19 Losses. Winning Percentage: 21%
ODI: 193 Matches, 89 Wins, 95 Losses. Winning Percentage: 46%

vs

Sir Garfield Sobers

Test: 39 Matches, 9 Wins, 10 Losses. Winning Percentage: 23%

Voting will last 24 hours.

 

[Sir Redman]

Well for batting/bowling, you have stats. Runs scored, centuries scored, conversion rates, averages, strike rates, attacks faced, etc.

What do you have for captaincy?

How about runs scored, centuries scored, conversion rates, batting averages, batting strike rates, wickets taken, bowling averages and bowling strike rates of that player's team? Because it makes the world of difference to which result is likely to occur.

I'm sure someone could come up with a basic formula based on their team's stats, something that gives lower scores if their players are good e.g (winning %)*(sum of bowling averages of team's bowlers)/(total number of wickets taken*sum of top six batting averages*total runs scored)

And you could screw around with the formula to get values in a range of say 0 to 100.