Best captain in world cricket

[open365]

How can you say that? Sweeping statements like that are wrong 99.99% of the time. you could pick a player from club cricket in Australia to captain the side and bat him at 11 without bowling him and they'd still win a few games....hell, you could pick me as captain and they wouldn't do too badly.

Likewise, you could pick the best captain in history as captain of Bermuda in the World Cup, and even if they only lost every game by 1 run, your logic would still show him to be a terrible captain. You never cease to amaze me.

Don't flatter yourself Matt

SS, that's just wrong, Vaughan and Fleming are better captains than Ponting full stop.

 

[open365]

I am saying that there is no other way to say who is better because a captain has to make decisions on and off the field. Its a lot more than picking who bowls when.

Captain A (Fleming) employs lots of strategy to give his team a chance...moves around the fielding expertly, and rotating the bowlers perfectly....but loses.

Captain B (Ponting) stands there with a thumb up his butt....but wins.


I am asking how you can judge A & B. I mean, aside from results....how do you judge?

Subjectively, I think Fleming and Vaughn might be better at onfield management, but there is no way I can say that with any certainty...because they don't win enough.

So Ponting is a better captain because he captains the best team?

It's hard to judge captains i admit, but saying that Ponting is better because he wins more is just plain stupid.

 

[silentstriker]

Don't flatter yourself Matt

SS, that's just wrong, Vaughan and Fleming are better captains than Ponting full stop.

I am asking how you can come to that conclusion, given that they lose more?

It's hard to judge captains i admit, but saying that Ponting is better because he wins more is just plain stupid.

You play sports to win.

I am anxious to see what your criteria is, if not the win-loss record.

 

[open365]

I am asking how you can come to that conclusion, given that they lose more?

You look at what field placings they employ to which bowler/batsman, what bowling changes they make and when, when they declare in certain situations, the batting order, how he handles the media.

There are factors we can judge captains on by watching and listening, not just by hard and fast results.

 

[GIMH]

Leading by example is a key part of being captain. Ponting's recent behaviour is an embharassment to most Aussies.

He'll always be the man who lost the Ashes, he'll never be rememebred as a good captain, however good he may or may not be

 

[open365]

Leading by example is a key part of being captain. Ponting's recent behaviour is an embharassment to most Aussies.

He'll always be the man who lost the Ashes, he'll never be rememebred as a good captain, however good he may or may not be

Another example, people like Greame Smith and Ponting aren't the best captains partly because of their on feild decisions and partly because of their off feild behaviour.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Don't flatter yourself Matt

Oi! I'll have you know last season I captained a side that had won 1 game in 13 in the two previous years, and led it to its biggest victory in almost a decade (apparently), and its first 200+ score in at least 3 years. We smashed our local rivals by 90 runs.





























Never mind that we lost the other 5 games that season.....

 

[silentstriker]

You look at what field placings they employ to which bowler/batsman, what bowling changes they make and when, when they declare in certain situations, the batting order, how he handles the media.

So captain 1 employs all the placings, but they lose the match. Captain 2 does not do anything, but they take the wickets anyway, and win the match.


Who is better? How do you know that doing nothing was not in fact more beneficial?

 

[GIMH]

My Nan could captain that lot

 

[open365]

So captain 1 employs all the placings, but they lose the match. Captain 2 does not do anything, but they take the wickets anyway, and win the match.


Who is better? How do you know that doing nothing was not in fact more beneficial?

We use our judgement, surely you must realise that not every part of sport is played and judged by pure statistics.

 

[GIMH]

We use our judgement, surely you must realise that not every part of sport is played and judged by pure statistics.

You've had it now son. The stat police will be round in no time.

 

[open365]

Oi! I'll have you know last season I captained a side that had won 1 game in 13 in the two previous years, and led it to its biggest victory in almost a decade (apparently), and its first 200+ score in at least 3 years. We smashed our local rivals by 90 runs.

Never mind that we lost the other 5 games that season.....

Just out of intrest, may i enquire into your contribution?:P

 

[ClownSymonds]

Prosper Utseya for me. Ricky "we'll have a bowl mate" Ponting tied for second with Inzamam "boys played well" Ul-Haq. Shivnarine "..." Chanderpaul gets an honorable mention for his past performances.

 

[aussie]

He'll always be the man who lost the Ashes, he'll never be rememebred as a good captain, however good he may or may not be

I dont think so, is Lindsay Hassett only remember as the man who lost the Ashes to England in 1953?, no he isn't. If Australia retain the ashes coming up & Ponting does a good job in leading the next generation post 2007 world cup surely that wont be the case.

People on this forum make Ponting's captaincy sound like the worst in the world just because of the mistakes he has made since the ashes, its like all the good work he has done doesn't exist.

 

[silentstriker]

We use our judgement, surely you must realise that not every part of sport is played and judged by pure statistics.

But there is no objective basis for that judgement, thats what I am trying to say. Thats like asking who looks better. For bowling and batting there are myriad of stats, which you can point to. But for captains, there is only one...

 

[aussie]

McGrath bowled England out for the 2 sub-200 scores bowling as beautifully as anyone could on that sort of wicket.

Yes but it wasn't as if Lee & Warne didn't cause England problems.

The rest of the seam bowlers hadn't really done a great deal in that game, so to suggest that they had the wood when missing their leader is a bit fanciful.

Gillespie wasn't that penetrative yes but he had hit rock bottom to the surprise of may at that time & Lee definately bowled wel, plus again Warne showed in the second innings that he had the wood on England batsmen.

Australia would have obviously missed someone of McGrath's skill after his performance @ Lords going into the Edgbaston test but along with Lee, Warne, Gillespie (who even though wasn't at his best as i said wasn't at rock bottom) & an in form replacement in Kasper, Ponting was right to believe on that overcast morning condition that he could dent England's batsmen who would have been lacking in confidence & he would have if Australia had their disciplines sorted out that morning (but England showed there & for the rest of the series that they weren't the England of past ashes encounters & they played brilliantly).

 

[Jono]

Prosper Utseya for me. Ricky "we'll have a bowl mate" Ponting tied for second with Inzamam "boys played hard" Ul-Haq. Shivnarine "..." Chanderpaul gets an honorable mention for his past performances.

LOL @ Chanders saying nothing.

 

[Matt79]

They'd rarely had only 1 form seam bowler (who then got injured) before.

True - but some context - they toured NZ where the KIWIS said McGrath, Gillespie and Kaspa were like three Hadlees. They had hunted well as a pack for a long time, and whichever of Lee or Kaspa had to carry the drinks was considered damned unlucky. I think it was a foolhardy decision by Ponting, but I can see why he felt he should have faith in Gillespie, Kaspa and Lee at that point, and why he felt he wanted to demonstrate that faith publically with the team having just lost McGrath.

That said, he was there to make a hard-nosed decision, which he got wrong. Certainly a touch of hubris.

 

[pug]

@ SS...

Mate, when we ask about who's the best captain, we don't just mean which captain has had the best record. There's a lot more to it. It boils down to who's been the best leader for his side, whether it be a good side or average or plain pathetic. In such a case, a pathetic side may have a truly amazing leader as captain but still not win too many matches. The reflection of such statistics are not of his ability as a leader of his side but the overall quality of players playing on his team.

Taking your claim that Ponting is the best captain because of his results with Australia. This also follows that a team such as, say Bangladesh, must have a poor captain due to the team's poor record. Let's consider this hypothetical situation in which Ponting somehow becomes captain of B'desh and vice versa. Would Ponting still have the same results? No. But would Australia still win matches? Yes. Then by your own reasoning, Ponting suddenly turns into a pathetic captain from being the best, while the worst captain becomes the best. Which is why such results are a poor indicator of a person's leadership (captaincy) abilities.

 

[Slow Love™]

I am asking how you can judge A & B. I mean, aside from results....how do you judge?

Subjectively, I think Fleming and Vaughn might be better at onfield management, but there is no way I can say that with any certainty...

Yeah, subjectively - that answers the question. Because I may say, "wow, Vaughan's strategy was really stupid there, he should have....". But -- it may be that the strategy I advised (which, clearly, Vaughan didn't implement) may have indeed brought more disastrous results. Anything can happen, and people are wrong all the time.

I don't think you really have objective standards in this kind of debate (I also think this applies to many arguments on this forum, even those that use stats to prove a point, unless the situation is just so clear that anybody can see it). It's a matter of everybody's subjective viewpoint, and now and then you get some kind of rough consensus. Of course, that still doesn't mean something's completely true, but providing the opinions are of those who are well acquainted with the game, it often counts for something.