Steve Waugh v Shane Warne

[Precambrian]

He was tho; as soon as his knee allowed Vaughan took over again. If memory serves he actually played in a few of the Commonwealth Bank one-dayers after the main event until he succombed to another injury.

Link. As Stuart Law here said (article dated 11/12/06),

"Fred knows that when Michael Vaughan is fit, Fred's not captain any more."

That's Stuart Law's perception. Had Fred lead England to an Ashes win, he'd be still captain.

 

[Ikki]

Not that many of the others did either.

Some did, some didn't. Of course, it doesn't have anything to do with Matt's point about Warne. Warne didn't get a look in because the others that lead the side were great players who also did more than enough as captains, not looking to drop the ball. In the other Test sides Warne would have been chosen, probably.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That's Stuart Law's perception. Had Fred lead England to an Ashes win, he'd be still captain.

It would've difficult to drop him, yes, but the ECB's policy was that Flintoff was the captain for the tour only and Vaughan remained in overall command & would resume the armband when his body allowed him to retake his position in the XI.

Whether this was a sensible policy was a matter of some debate at the time, I personally don't think it strengthened Fred's hand to have the quote-unquote "real" captain hanging around the tour like Banquo's ghost; but the fact remains that Flintoff was only ever a fill-in, albeit one who filled in for some little time.

 

[Richard]

That's Stuart Law's perception. Had Fred lead England to an Ashes win, he'd be still captain.

Leaving aside the fact that that was never likely... only with Vaughan's compliance. Had Vaughan stated that he wanted to keep the captaincy, he'd have done so. However, he said that if Flintoff led England to victory in the 2006/07 series, he could keep it.

That, IMO, would've been a disaster as whatever the result of that series (and I don't think Flintoff as captain had any power at all to influence it), as Vaughan is and always has been simply a better captain than Flintoff.

 

[Richard]

Some did, some didn't. Of course, it doesn't have anything to do with Matt's point about Warne. Warne didn't get a look in because the others that lead the side were great players who also did more than enough as captains, not looking to drop the ball. In the other Test sides Warne would have been chosen, probably.

Pretty unlikely he'd have got the Lankan captaincy following either Ranatunga or Jayasuriya, and pretty unlikely he'd have got the England captaincy ahead of either Hussain or Vaughan. It's also absolutely certain he'd not have got the SAfrican captaincy ahead of Smith, though he could easily have done so ahead of Pollock.

If he'd gotten the Pakistan captaincy, of course, safe to say he'd have been unlikely to last long, because people just don't.

 

[Athlai]

Flintoff was only ever a fill-in. And Kumble only assumed the Indian captaincy after Warne's retirement. Ditto Vettori and New Zealand. Jayawardene assumed the Lankan captaincy only by default through injury, otherwise he too would've waited until after Warne's retirement.

Anyway, aside from Pakistan and West Indies who (always and in recent times respectively) are notorious for leader-changes, the lead for Australia over others is not massive. That's the point I was making.

Vettori captained when Fleming was still in the team.

 

[Richard]

Yuh-huh, but not on a permanent basis until after WC2007. Warne's last ODI engagement came 4 years earlier and Warne's last Test came before Fleming had resigned the Test captaincy.

 

[Matt79]

Pretty unlikely he'd have got the Lankan captaincy following either Ranatunga or Jayasuriya, and pretty unlikely he'd have got the England captaincy ahead of either Hussain or Vaughan. It's also absolutely certain he'd not have got the SAfrican captaincy ahead of Smith, though he could easily have done so ahead of Pollock.

If he'd gotten the Pakistan captaincy, of course, safe to say he'd have been unlikely to last long, because people just don't.

If Warne had been in the SA team at the time Smith was given the guernsey, given Smith was what, 22 IIRC and still a relative test rookie, it would have been very surprising if they'd bypassed a player of Warne's experience and nous in his favour, especially when he would still have been expected to have years ahead of him.

 

[G.I.Joe]

If Warne had been in the SA team at the time Smith was given the guernsey, given Smith was what, 22 IIRC and still a relative test rookie, it would have been very surprising if they'd bypassed a player of Warne's experience and nous in his favour, especially when he would still have been expected to have years ahead of him.

Wasn't Smith handed the captaincy because they wanted someone who had no throwbacks to the Cronje era and could inject a freshness to the side? If experience mattered, they'd have handed it to Kallis or Boucher.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, suppose there would have been no way Warne wouldn't have been heavily mired in the politics of the team if he'd been there, so may have been in the same boat.

 

[stphn]

Wasn't Smith handed the captaincy because they wanted someone who had no throwbacks to the Cronje era and could inject a freshness to the side? If experience mattered, they'd have handed it to Kallis or Boucher.

Yes and No..... Pollock was given an opportunity even if not a very good one, truth was Smith was ear marked for captain at a young age because of his skill and leadership abilities. He was meant to make the SA side while still under Cronje era and put under Cronjes leader and tutorship but we all know how that ended.... one of the biggest reasons SA lost continuity in tests.

I personally think that Steve Waugh would always have been a better Captain than Warne as I think he was a better leader.
Don`t get me wrong the brillance of Warne and the cricket brain he had on him was phenomenal but could he lead a team... I can`t say for sure but I think Waugh was a better leader.

 

[Goughy]

Yes and No..... Pollock was given an opportunity even if not a very good one, truth was Smith was ear marked for captain at a young age because of his skill and leadership abilities. He was meant to make the SA side while still under Cronje era and put under Cronjes leader and tutorship but we all know how that ended.... one of the biggest reasons SA lost continuity in tests.

I personally think that Steve Waugh would always have been a better Captain than Warne as I think he was a better leader.
Don`t get me wrong the brillance of Warne and the cricket brain he had on him was phenomenal but could he lead a team... I can`t say for sure but I think Waugh was a better leader.

Pollock has one of the most winning records as captain in the history of Test cricket.

Smith was given the captaincy as he was young and had no power base and could have things thrust upon him that more powerful players in South African cricket would have never agreed to.

 

[Richard]

If Warne had been in the SA team at the time Smith was given the guernsey, given Smith was what, 22 IIRC and still a relative test rookie, it would have been very surprising if they'd bypassed a player of Warne's experience and nous in his favour, especially when he would still have been expected to have years ahead of him.

Wasn't Smith handed the captaincy because they wanted someone who had no throwbacks to the Cronje era and could inject a freshness to the side? If experience mattered, they'd have handed it to Kallis or Boucher.

That (what G.I.Joe said) is precisly what I meant when I said had Warne been in the SA side when Smith was given the captaincy, Smith would've gotten it 10 times out of 10.

 

[howardj]

I pay on results. Moreover, there is more to captaincy than setting aggressive field placings (not that you'd know it, the way Australian commentators carry on). Captaincy, for mine, is about getting the best out of your men. To that end, Tugga Waugh has few peers.

 

[Edged&Taken]

Warne would not have achieved success as captain: Hayden"

 

[dhillon28]

if Shane warne was ever allowed to be a captain, then you'd basically have another pakistan.

 

[cnerd123]

I'm a Warne fanboy, but from a objective point of view you could say Warne would have definitely had his moments as a captain.

The problems would arise from if he could get the whole team behind him. He managed that with Hampshire and RR, but in both cases it was probably more due to the fact that he was a Legend and hardly anyone is going to raise issues with that, especially when he was so enthusiastic.

But in the middle of his career, with his off-field issues and some as experienced, if not more experienced, players in his side, there could be problems. Could he manage all those big-name stars? Who knows. But it's doubtful, Warne's a greate people person but the stuff he did off the pitch could easily have lost him respect.

Tactically...I have only seen him in action for RR - faithfully for the last 3 seasons, nearly every match - and yes, attacking is his main mode. He doesn't see the point in restricting runs unless doing so leads to a wicket. That's an admirable trait, and it works well in T20s. He has also a couple of times (the match against Mumbai in season 1 comes to mind) played defensively with bowling plans to get the match into the final few overs, where they have the best chance of a win, rather than going gun-ho.

I don't doubt he'd be a fine FC captain. He seems quite brilliant tactically, reads batsmen very well, and he does all the basic obvious moves right, with the odd piece of brilliance here and there. Does he make the best of resources he has (ala Fleming?). IPL 1 would suggest so, as would his success with Hampshire. Can he lead from the front? He certainly seems the sort. Does he get the best out of the players? Everyone who has played under him says he has.

But would he have been a success leading Australia? Doubtful, considering his offield problems, the big names in the side, and that he wouldn't have the experience he had in the Hampshire/RR stint.

But like I said, he would have had his moments.

Would have been a great captain in his final years too.

 

[smash84]

I think that Waugh's captaincy was not as great because he had a very very strong team at his disposal. Ricky Ponting carried out similar kinds of successes with an essentially similar team because the team was just so good.

From what I could gauge about Warnie he would have made a great captain. The Rajasthan Royals was probably the ****tiest team in the IPL but Warne got the best out of the men. Warne was a very very attacking player and I do believe that attacking almost at all times is the best form of play.

And i don't quite buy the theory that since Warne's personal life was not very disciplined hence he would not be a great captain. Imran Khan for one had a very unconventional personal life as far as Pakistan is concerned and there would be few captains better than him in the history of the game.

 

[akilana]

From what I could gauge about Warnie he would have made a great captain. The Rajasthan Royals was probably the ****tiest team in the IPL but Warne got the best out of the men. Warne was a very very attacking player and I do believe that attacking almost at all times is the best form of play.

Not sure they were a weak team given they had Smith, Watson, Pathan, Warne himself and Tanvir(who was a good limited overs bowler then).

 

[gwo]

The Rajasthan Royals was probably the ****tiest team in the IPL but Warne got the best out of the men.

Did anyone else read that as prettiest?