Do you need to be tactically astute as a captain?

[StephenZA]

So seen much talk about tactics when captaining a team and I don't seen them as the same thing. Captaining is about managing a team for me, understanding your players, getting them to play as a team. Having the charisma to encourage and berate when needed. Having a presence and control over the different personalities. And of course you need the respect of the team.

As for the cricket tactics on the field, if you are not the best at tactics as a captain, that is fine; provided you listen to advice and you have a strategic person you can go to within the team. I would also expect quality international bowlers to have plans in place. And with the amount of back room staff and water-boys running on and off the field difficult to believe somebody of more tactical awareness is not available.

Think this is possibly different at lower levels, but for me the Test captain should be the best man manager in the team, that has the respect of his players.

 

[mr_mister]

I'd say it's 50-50 good tactics to suitable personality

 

[GoodAreasShane]

If this is about QDK, he has neither imo

 

[mr_mister]

Surely Paine a bit of inspiration too

 

[MrPrez]

Yeah you need both.

That said I'd prioritise tactics over player management, as the latter can still be done by senior players and doesn't need to be quite as hands-on a role as tactics.

The captain is an official role that should be the overarching lead on decision-making on the field, so they should be a good tactician so that they don't veto good tactics for bad ones.

 

[mr_mister]

Never underestimate the importance of speaking to the press, protecting player's egos etc

 

[MrPrez]

Never underestimate the importance of speaking to the press, protecting player's egos etc

You're not wrong. They're all important, but in the real world it's incredibly tough to find a captain who ticks every box - and I'd rather have performance on the field than performance off it if I have to prioritise.

 

[StephenZA]

If this is about QDK, he has neither imo

Not about anybody in particular.

Yeah you need both.

That said I'd prioritise tactics over player management, as the latter can still be done by senior players and doesn't need to be quite as hands-on a role as tactics.

The captain is an official role that should be the overarching lead on decision-making on the field, so they should be a good tactician so that they don't veto good tactics for bad ones.

I agree both are needed; you need some tactical awareness. I just look at it from a management perspective. Captaining is about managing a team, at least for me, on and off the field. You are still the leader even when not playing. Tactical awareness can come from anybody, provided that people are willing to listen. Management of players comes from leadership and most importantly for a team, from the captain. So it seems to be more important to manage, provided as a leader you are willing to listen to others ideas.

I have known many brilliant people, capable of brilliant thoughts and ideas but could not organise a piss-up in a brewery. It is a much rarer quality to be able to successfully manage a diverse group of people successfully.

 

[vcs]

95% of successful captaincy is having decent players who have a modicum of respect for you, and not letting your personal performance drop in the process.

The "best captains" (not coincidentally) tend to have the best teams at their disposal.

 

[mr_mister]

You're not wrong. They're all important, but in the real world it's incredibly tough to find a captain who ticks every box - and I'd rather have performance on the field than performance off it if I have to prioritise.

But one can lead to another. Keeping up say a fringe players confidence could be the difference between them having a Labuschagne series or a Head series

If you have an unsettled side wanting mutiny they won't play 100%. Business 101

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Ahh OK fair enough.

QDK definitely strikes me as the exact polar opposite of shrewd and thoughtful though

 

[Arachnodouche]

Has a tactically astute captain ever been a poor leader of men? Seems like there's a natural order of precedence there.

 

[mr_mister]

Has a tactically astute captain ever been a poor leader of men? Seems like there's a natural order of precedence there.

Clarke I guess. Certainly made a lot of enemies

 

[Daemon]

On one hand you see Root and think the leadership side of things is more important.

On the other you see Holder and think the opposite.

 

[SeamUp]

Would it be fair to say the majority of captain's today are leaders of men. Lead through example. You not going to get Mike Brearley's or Peter van der Merwe's

Leader of men ie Gooch, Border, S.Waugh, Potning, G.Smith - they were pretty astute captains still. Maybe not M.Taylor, Cronje, Fleming astute but I don't think they ever lacked a cricket brain.

I suppose the answer is, you probably do but there are varying degrees of being "astute" possibly ?

But give me a leader who leads by example to allow the others to follow and the battle is half won.

 

[Daemon]

Faf, Kohli, Holder, Porterfield, Rashid Khan are the more 'natural' leaders that people rally around imo.

KW & Paine - neither here nor there
Root & Sarfraz - defs not there
Mushy & Dimuth - Can't really get a read on what their teammates think of them

 

[mr_mister]

Disagree on Paine. His popularity amongst the team is evident

 

[Daemon]

I mean I’m sure there are others who are really popular too but I’m more looking at the willingness of the rest to do his bidding and how much they’ll respect him if he tells them off etc. Dunno if he commands that level of respect.

All pure conjecture obviously

 

[Flem274*]

after captaincygate 2012 it became very clear to me that no matter if you're clever or lead from the front with your performance, you've got to be able to keep the team in line and performing to their best above all else.

this was reinforced by sandpaper day.

 

[morgieb]

Has a tactically astute captain ever been a poor leader of men? Seems like there's a natural order of precedence there.

My personal favourite captains to watch got at least half his side off-side, so yes.

Though admittedly it's hard to think of good non-Clarke examples.