• 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.

Virat Kohli: The Captaincy Breakdown

cricketsavant

U19 12th Man
You realise the BCCI has an actual CEO right?

And not this nonsense about Kohli putting together a pace attack again ffs. Such dumb bull****.
LOL I used the company as an example.

And you don't think that the captain of a test side has nay influence in constructing the bowling unit?
 

cricketsavant

U19 12th Man
No, you're still dancing around it and placing Kohli at the centre of such things when it's more likely stuff already planned before games as a group.

And the rest of your writeup stinks of this nonsense as well, to paint a pretty little picture you made up.
What do you mean? You think the tactics for every possible situation that could occur on a cricket field are set before the players walk out? That is utter nonsense...it seems like you don't even watch cricket :laugh: Easily my first ignore on this site (which is saying a lot considering the quality of Indian trolls on here).
 

Xix2565

State Vice-Captain
What do you mean? You think the tactics for every possible situation that could occur on a cricket field are set before the players walk out? That is utter nonsense...it seems like you don't even watch cricket :laugh: Easily my first ignore on this site (which is saying a lot considering the quality of Indian trolls on here).
You think that most aren't in an era with video recording and analysis? How moronic is this? This insistence on crediting/blaming Kohli for everything is total insanity at this point.
 

subshakerz

International Regular
I actually agree with most of this except the bolded. We did not enter any of these series as favourites other than the latest one in SA.
I distinctly recall India propped up as favorites before England in 2018. In fact, it was considered the easiest of the overseas series that year and they were expected to do very well. There was a shift in expectations mid-series after that lost the second test heavily.

In NZ, India began the tour with whitewashing NZ in the LO matches, and the middle order was supposed to be in pretty good form heading into the tests. They were at least expected to draw the series if not win it outright.
 

cnerd123

likes this
LOL I used the company as an example.

And you don't think that the captain of a test side has nay influence in constructing the bowling unit?
Minimal. He doesn't scout, develop or coach the bowlers. He may have a say in selections, but he's not picking the entire squad. He may have a say in bowling plans, but there are coaches and analysts in the team whose primary job is doing that.

He basically just picks who bowls when, and even then there is backroom influence because of different match ups and bowling plans to specific batters.

India's current pace battery is the result of decades long work by grassroots coaches, scouts and selectors at all levels of cricket leading into the Indian team, plus administrative level decisions by the BCCI about domestic cricket structures, pitches, and talent identification. Plus the IPL has had a big role in it too. To attribute it to Kohli is not just wildly ignorant, but disrespectful to all the people who are actually involved with this.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I distinctly recall India propped up as favorites before England in 2018. In fact, it was considered the easiest of the overseas series that year and they were expected to do very well. There was a shift in expectations mid-series after that lost the second test heavily.

In NZ, India began the tour with whitewashing NZ in the LO matches, and the middle order was supposed to be in pretty good form heading into the tests. They were at least expected to draw the series if not win it outright.
I just tried looking it up here (https://oddspedia.com/cricket) and they did not appear to be favourites

1642601867611.png

Came down a bit in the second test but they were still not favourites

1642601958506.png

Then in NZ you're right, they were very marginal favourites to begin with

1642602046738.png
 

subshakerz

International Regular
A lot of the stuff you do describe as indicators of good captaincy could also be attributed elsewhere, especially in the modern era where there are a lot of people involved in all sorts of jobs necessary to elevate a team from selection, talent development, coaching, etc. Kohli's definitely had his visions on how to make India great but a lot of the groundwork was stuff he had no real control over.
No doubt that the support staff has a more important role now but my point is that you cannot by definition call a captain good if he can't improve their standing in his time. Like Ian Chappell say to the effect that a good captain will make a good team better.

Is any captain now just good and not great just because they didn't win silverware in international competitions involving more than two teams when silverware didn't exist for a long while in any format, let alone all 3?
I think this applies to modern captains. Silverware tournaments are the highest stake and pressure encounters that demand to most out of teams so success in them can seem a reasonable captaincy indicator.

Is it impossible to acknowledge that Test teams nowadays are, you know, somewhat good and have better bowling lineups than what the past great teams feasted on or bullied? And that Tests nowadays result in a lot more wins/losses compared to draws for various reasons? There's another tangent to this that puzzles me a bit, this idea that teams are somehow weaker/worse nowadays than in the past as if nothing has actually changed other than players are getting worse. Feels a lot more like there's actual parity rather than one team just running rampant because everyone else is poor.

This is definitely a question to ponder, considering that we've had Waugh-Ponting as an example of greatness continuing between captains.
Depends. I think there were better bowling attacks in the 90s than today and and more parity between teams in general as well. I didn't say teams nowadays are weaker either, its just that India is a better team than them.

Not at all? It showed we had depth, and considering a lot of the relevant plans made by the team then to beat Australia weren't really inspired by either Kohli or Rahane it says nothing about captaincy (beyond making sure bowlers execute the plans) and speaks more about how important planning with the backroom staff can be, stuff we never hear about until after things are done.
Yeah, you had depth, but ignoring Rahane's role as captain leading to that series victory is just wrong. Team players are not automatons, they respond to the signals, tactics and style of their captain and that does have an impact on how they play. You needed something special to rebound after the 1st test defeat.
 

subshakerz

International Regular

Xix2565

State Vice-Captain
No doubt that the support staff has a more important role now but my point is that you cannot by definition call a captain good if he can't improve their standing in his time. Like Ian Chappell say to the effect that a good captain will make a good team better.



I think this applies to modern captains. Silverware tournaments are the highest stake and pressure encounters that demand to most out of teams so success in them can seem a reasonable captaincy indicator.


Depends. I think there were better bowling attacks in the 90s than today and and more parity between teams in general as well. I didn't say teams nowadays are weaker either, its just that India is a better team than them.



Yeah, you had depth, but ignoring Rahane's role as captain leading to that series victory is just wrong. Team players are not automatons, they respond to the signals, tactics and style of their captain and that does have an impact on how they play. You needed something special to rebound after the 1st test defeat.
Still missing the point though. This is still attributing far more to Kohli than reality. If you're going to judge him or do a breakdown focus on actual actions and consequences.

So Graeme Smith is a bad captain? Sorry but as already mentioned earlier in the thread this is still subjective.

And you think there isn't any of that now? This sounds more like nostalgia more than anything.

Still making the mistake of giving captaincy more credit and respect vs the actual players performing their roles. Captaincy doesn't make Rahane score a 100 or let Ashwin big brain Smith out of the match, there's actual batting/bowling involved.
 

karan_fromthestands

International 12th Man
Still missing the point though. This is still attributing far more to Kohli than reality. If you're going to judge him or do a breakdown focus on actual actions and consequences.

So Graeme Smith is a bad captain? Sorry but as already mentioned earlier in the thread this is still subjective.

And you think there isn't any of that now? This sounds more like nostalgia more than anything.

Still making the mistake of giving captaincy more credit and respect vs the actual players performing their roles. Captaincy doesn't make Rahane score a 100 or let Ashwin big brain Smith out of the match, there's actual batting/bowling involved.
I never cared about his batting or captaincy. I was a fan of Graeme Smith - the off-spinner, any off-spinner that can give it a proper drift is a treat to watch, even if he/she is a part timer.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
the whole thread can be summed up by "unlikeable man was unlikeable" really

not the most novel of observations
 

cricketsavant

U19 12th Man
Minimal. He doesn't scout, develop or coach the bowlers. He may have a say in selections, but he's not picking the entire squad. He may have a say in bowling plans, but there are coaches and analysts in the team whose primary job is doing that.

He basically just picks who bowls when, and even then there is backroom influence because of different match ups and bowling plans to specific batters.

India's current pace battery is the result of decades long work by grassroots coaches, scouts and selectors at all levels of cricket leading into the Indian team, plus administrative level decisions by the BCCI about domestic cricket structures, pitches, and talent identification. Plus the IPL has had a big role in it too. To attribute it to Kohli is not just wildly ignorant, but disrespectful to all the people who are actually involved with this.
Look, I fully understand backroom staff have a role, the reality is, they have had a role for decades and with statisticians they have become even more important....although not necessarily better (came up a lot during the Mens World T20 and the talk of match ups) but the idea of going with quicks in tests was not the norm, even as recently as the late 2000s. There was still a heavy reliance on getting huge runs on the board and spinners, which is why India's away record was not as good or as competitive as it became later. The captain has an important role, far more in cricket than almost any other team sport.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
I never said that. I said he was a good captain but not great, reflect by his team also being good but not great.
yeah but ultimately this was the product of some fairly weak analysis

what we need to remember here really I think is that he was a very odious man and this is reflected in the way people found him to be very odious
 

cnerd123

likes this
but the idea of going with quicks in tests was not the norm, even as recently as the late 2000s.
Because India had no good fast bowlers till then..

Dhoni throughout his reign kept complaining that there were no pace bowlers coming through and that's why India couldn't win overseas. Kohli's just lucky he inherited a pace bowling attack that no Indian captain before him ever had.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Because India had no good fast bowlers till then..

Dhoni throughout his reign kept complaining that there were no pace bowlers coming through and that's why India couldn't win overseas. Kohli's just lucky he inherited a pace bowling attack that no Indian captain before him ever had.
So we just pretend 2006 Munaf/Sreesanth did not exist along with Zaheer propping up well from his side?
 

Top