• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Isn't tactically defensive captaincy legit?

DriveClub

International Regular
I hear so much clapback for defensive captaincy styles especially from so called cricket pundits and commentators with the most notable being Ian Chappell (wac). I want to know have there been captains who have excelled at defensive captaincy styles ala cricketing rope-a-dopes? Would Misbah come under this style?
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
There are many who come under that style. Dhoni is another who has had a lot of success with this type of captaincy. Ian Chappell and other #intent brigade just spout nonsense at times. Its just like defensive batting. It has its merits.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You've named two between you....

You play to the strengths of your team. It's that simple. Chappell had a great pace attack and attacking batsmen. Waugh is often thought of as an attacking captain but really the go to strategy for his side was to bowl a dry line after scoring quick runs.

Other captains like the ones you've mentioned have played more attritional cricket because it suits their team and is the best way of grinding out a result.

There's often a correlation in commentary between funky captaincy and aggressive captaincy. The two aren't really the same.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Often times 'defensive' captaincy is seen as a result of captains playing for the draw or a respectable loss rather than a win. This is why it's so frowned upon
 

quincywagstaff

International Debutant
I think why defensive Test captaincy is judged so harshly by media types is there seems to be a belief amongst them that one or two slow, drawn Tests will mean Test cricket is in major trouble and no one will ever go to a match again.
 

Adders

Cricketer Of The Year
Ex captains in the comentary box are in the main diabolical and downright hypocritical.

Do really think Ian ****ing Botham ever set 6 slips to Viv Richards? Yet to listen to him in the comms box you're on the defense if you've only got 4.

It ****s me because these muppets are tarnishing the reputations and careers of some captains. Warne on Cook in the 2013 Ashes in England is an example.........Cook wasn't a great captain by any stretch but he was no way as bad as Warnie made him out and then as a result his reputation suggests.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Often times 'defensive' captaincy is seen as a result of captains playing for the draw or a respectable loss rather than a win. This is why it's so frowned upon
Playing for the draw isn't necessarily the same as defensive captaincy IMO. Defensive captaincy is fine and has it's time and place, as does playing for a draw if your only alternative is to lose.

Playing for a draw from the start of a match or when you're still a chance of winning though is just **** cricket, regardless if you're leading in a series.
 

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
Excellent thread. As mentioned in the other thread, the conversation around captaincy gets dominated by stupid tropes like "defensive/aggressive/ because there isn't much to go on with.

So when these 'experts' are asked to assess captaincy, they can't go beyond that.

If you dig a little deep, it's so clear how flimsy a construct this is. It is completely based on certain beliefs based on very specific playing conditions and resources.

A recent exchange between Jayawardene with a dumb fan on Twitter highlights this .Fan goes to MJ and asks him "why Angelo Matthews lacks aggression as a captain" and he responded "what do you want him to do? Punch the opposition". I understand amateur fans resorting to hyperbole like that but its frustrating when experts who get paid for their opinions and analysis cannot offer anything more.

A very good example, Misbah-Clarke and the 2014 series in UAE.

Clarke is considered the personification of aggression, pro active, funky fields, and is widely considered one of the best captains of his time by these experts.

Misbah on the other hand, is the dour, boring, negative, reactive, defensive captain who just stands there and doesn't react and lets the game go on.

Clarke set his aggressive, funky fields for Johnson, Starc and Siddle, 3 slips, gully, point, the fields he would set in Australia for them. Pakistan did not touch the ball outside the off stump, new ball didn't swing or carry, and once the bowlers were tired, Pakistan milked them.

Misbah on the other hand, did not set what would be considered an 'attacking field', instead focused on blocking their scoring option, frustrated the Australians through that and got them out.

Australia never took 20 wickets in a single match, but got bowled out in every innings. It wasn't even a square turning SC pitch they would experience in Sri Lanka or India

Chappell would write eulogies on how great Clarke is and how Misbah, Dhoni, Cook are **** captains and need to be sacked.

I don't think Misbah was a defensive captain (at least not in his view of the game). For him, blocking runs is an attacking move. This just doesn't match the conventional wisdom about how we understand 'aggression' is. He would always have a Third man because he feels if a batsman gets an outside edge and is beaten, he should not get 4 runs for it.

A popular TV pundit in Pakistan kept berating Misbah throughout his career for having a third man and how it was such a defensive move.

Ultimately it's how best you make use of your resources given the opposition and the conditions you're facing. If being defensive is what works for you given your resources, then I don't see what's wrong with it.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Playing for the draw isn't necessarily the same as defensive captaincy IMO. Defensive captaincy is fine and has it's time and place, as does playing for a draw if your only alternative is to lose.

Playing for a draw from the start of a match or when you're still a chance of winning though is just **** cricket, regardless if you're leading in a series.

Dhoni was guilty of this couple of times in his career. Once it came back to bite him in the rear when RSA pulled one back in 2010. Think the other was in the same year too in NZ but then we hung on to the draw and won the series. TBH, the bolded part depends on how important the series win is to the captain. For example, if Virat is in that position against WI, he might go for the positive option. But if it is against Pakistan, or Eng in Eng or Oz in Oz, he might settle for the series win and play for a draw. It will be understandable even if not always justifiable.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Dhoni was guilty of this couple of times in his career. Once it came back to bite him in the rear when RSA pulled one back in 2010. Think the other was in the same year too in NZ but then we hung on to the draw and won the series. TBH, the bolded part depends on how important the series win is to the captain. For example, if Virat is in that position against WI, he might go for the positive option. But if it is against Pakistan, or Eng in Eng or Oz in Oz, he might settle for the series win and play for a draw. It will be understandable even if not always justifiable.
I wouldn't be happy with that at all. Teams have done something similar the past in Shield finals where finishing top of the ladder means all you need to do is draw and it just ruins the game if only one team needs to try to win. Team 1 can just bat forever at 1.5rpo and it's ****.

It's one of the reasons I like what Clarke did with Australia, he'd often declare before lunch on day 2, at ~ 450/5 or something where other captains would wait until the end of day 2 to declare on 550-600+. The Aussies took "aggressive cricket" a bit far in recent years (slogging instead of playing for draws etc), but that's another issue.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Yeah leagues create these situations far more often than series do, but I am talking in the context of how big the win is to the captain. I am sure you will different when it is you leading the team and your entire legacy may be defined by the result of that series. :)

As I said, there are times where it is justifiable (very very few IMO), and there are times where it is understandable but not justifiable and then there are times where it is neither. What I mean to say is you cant outright paint all of it with the same brush.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Defensive captaincy is fine, there still has to be some sort of focus on "how are we trying to get the batsman out". Or at least finding a way to exploit a weakness.

For example, every time an Australian commentator gets on the mic when a spinner is on, they always call for mid-off and/or mid-on to be brought up. It ignores the fact that a lot of the Australian batsmen aren't very good workers of the spinning ball - particularly away - and their get out option is the big shot over the top straight. Take that option away, and it keeps them stuck to the crease, pushing at the ball to try and get these singles and dragging their hands away from under their eyes.

Defensive captaincy like Dhoni in the 2011 series vs England, where he had seven fielders out to Alistair Cook facing Suresh Raina, is a disgrace. Too many times when India were going poorly away from home, Dhoni would simply rely on the opposition batsman getting bored; it was like he was trying to lull them into a false sense of security by making the game stupidly easy for the batters.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
You've named two between you....

You play to the strengths of your team. It's that simple. Chappell had a great pace attack and attacking batsmen. Waugh is often thought of as an attacking captain but really the go to strategy for his side was to bowl a dry line after scoring quick runs.

Other captains like the ones you've mentioned have played more attritional cricket because it suits their team and is the best way of grinding out a result.

There's often a correlation in commentary between funky captaincy and aggressive captaincy. The two aren't really the same.
Waugh had two of the best bowlers in history, who were ridiculously accurate and didn't really need to change their modus operandi too often.

Ponting and Gilchrist spoke of how they changed their method for the Indian series in 2004, employing more defensive fields to try and dictate the flow of the game more. Deeper ring men, and more often having four men on the leg-side for the pace bowlers, being two of the things that they employed.
 

quincywagstaff

International Debutant
I think a big reason why defensive Test captaincy has been looked upon so negatively in the modern era is because of how Australian came to dominate Test cricket from the mid-90s till late 2000s so their belief in positive cricket (of the presumption they always played positive cricket) became the dominant theory.

And perhaps more importantly, how virtually every Australian media commentator would gag at the mere suggestion of ever having defensive mindsets under any situation helped create the perception that defensive captaincy is a terrible way to go.
 

DriveClub

International Regular
Look there might be examples of bad defensive tactics or captains who had given up in a passage of play but that shouldn't be reason to knock on defensive captaincy style on the whole. I think the worst offenders would be Ian chapel and Shane Warne with their verbal diarrhea.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Watching what appears to be a well beaten side hanging on for grim death is every bit as fascinating as the exhilarating run chase - Jimmy and Monty at Cardiff in 09 and some pair of Australians at OT in 05 two that immediately spring to mind
 

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
I think a big reason why defensive Test captaincy has been looked upon so negatively in the modern era is because of how Australian came to dominate Test cricket from the mid-90s till late 2000s so their belief in positive cricket (of the presumption they always played positive cricket) became the dominant theory.

And perhaps more importantly, how virtually every Australian media commentator would gag at the mere suggestion of ever having defensive mindsets under any situation helped create the perception that defensive captaincy is a terrible way to go.
Yeah this pretty much and on top of that, you have some of the most vocal analysts/thinkers of the game like Chappell, Warne who are always either on commentary or writing articles, and going on and on and on about 'aggressive' cricket. These are the narrative shapers. They influence people.

Usually the reality is a bit more complex than the simplistic narratives people weave around them. As has been mentioned by vic_orthodox, Australia employed a different approach and strategy in India in 2004 which highlights that there was more to that team than just playing "aggressive" cricket.

In fact, any team that dominates for a significant proportion of time over a range of conditions, will by default have more than just 1 trick up their sleeve.
 

91Jmay

International Coach
I've always thought in the sub-continent, 'defensive' captaincy is a requirement to win Test matches. When India had dominating positions against England in winter they still set basically in/out fields, because they knew that period of the game was going to be them holding England in place for when they took wickets later on.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
The 'aggressive=good' mantra espoused by some of the highest paid names is now quite ingrained and it's irritating as ****

Take this pearl of wisdom from Warne. About a year and a half ago, but King Cricket wrote about it at the time, so it's one I can always find.

aggressive play can also be about wearing down your opposition and letting the ball go well, to keep them out in the field for long periods of time.
What Warne is looking for here is the word 'good'. It's a nice word. 'Sometimes, good play can also be about wearing down your opposition and letting the ball go well, to keep them out in the field for long periods of time."

He just can't bring himself to say it, because aggressive=good in the mind of the hack commentator, especially one who's spent the last five years making despicable personal comments about those that he doesn't perceive as aggressive enough to give the fat blet a day off his cushy job.
 

Top