Virat Kohli: The Captaincy Breakdown

[subshakerz]

Let the ****er rest in peace ffs His contributions probably lie between either extremes being expressed here. A dominant personality in charge is bound to color the temperament of those around him, for better or worse. I know people will point at the last tour of Aus and say his absence was a blessing...whatever. I expect a relative drop in intensity now that he's not captain...how that affects the team's fortunes remains to be seen.

What extremes though? I don't think anybody says he is a bad captain.

 

[Coronis]

Wasim on the other hand had Imran as a mentor who groomed him and virtually directed him ball by ball in his early years, and more importantly taught him and Waqar the fitness regime to keep them going as a worldclass bowler for a long career.

Pity Wasim didn’t pass it on to Shoaib.

 

[Xix2565]

Kohli as captain is responsible for five-man pace attack, promoting fitness culture, occasionally strange field settings, and the failure of the batting lineup in crunch moments. Does that make it clearer?

As for the rest, you said that teams now are being portrayed as weaker, so I responded that it is not the case for all teams. I think any cricket fan with a knowledge of cricket history could agree that mid-2000s Australia were stronger and mid-80s Australia were weaker than the current version, for example.

This seems very strange to blame him specifically for. So yeah, clear to see that some things are just being made up for nothing.

That is one team, you've yet to show this for the rest to show that India's just statpadding vs weak teams while top teams in the past only beat up good teams (or however that argument will go later on).

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Don't assume my gender

This is an even better title.

 

[sledger]

anyway getting back on topic it is pretty clear Kohli will be remembered mostly as being a jerk, as evidenced by this poll: https://www.indiatimes.com/news/spo...the-week-on-an-australian-website-229163.html

 

[honestbharani]

There's a kid in the U19 WC bowling 140k for India right now. If he makes it to the Indian side in 2 years under Lokesh's captaincy are we suddenly going to say that Lokesh produced him? Would be utter nonsense. We don't even know who the captain will be by the time he debuts, how can we attribute his development to him?

I am not sure why you think the "development" of a fast bowler stops once he plays FC or A Team or IPL or even international cricket. That is just not true and that is the point being made here. He is not the reason for the emergence of all this talent but he definitely has a very significant role in the development and success of these talents and of the attack as an entity.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

anyway getting back on topic it is pretty clear Kohli will be remembered mostly as being a jerk, as evidenced by this poll: https://www.indiatimes.com/news/spo...the-week-on-an-australian-website-229163.html

Lol at being rated worse than the guy who stomps people.

 

[sledger]

Lol at being rated worse than the guy who stomps people.

i think this is just prime evidence of why he is objectively a very bad person to be honest

 

[sledger]

further evidence that a lot of indians really hate kohli: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-Indians-hate-Virat-Kohli

understandable really because he is very hateable

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I'm the IPL records under the description of success.

 

[cnerd123]

I am not sure why you think the "development" of a fast bowler stops once he plays FC or A Team or IPL or even international cricket. That is just not true and that is the point being made here. He is not the reason for the emergence of all this talent but he definitely has a very significant role in the development and success of these talents and of the attack as an entity.

Development doesn't stop but majority of the work is done by the time they get selected for their country. Jasprit Bumrah, for example, is 28 years old and has been playing cricket for about 16 years, 9 of them as a professional and 6 of them for India. He's had a decade of development before being picked for India. 90% of the work to make him who he is has been done by people you can't even name.

On top of that, any development that happens while playing for India is mainly down to the coaches in the setup. Kohli is not at the nets teaching them how to bowl the wobble seam, Kohli is not putting together or supervising their S&C sessions, and Kohli isn't carrying out biomechanical or data analysis of their bowling. Kohli is in the team meetings where bowling plans are made, and he picks when they bowl. That's about it. If you think that has more than a 1% influence on their overall career accomplishments then you're being ridiculous, and frankly disrespectful to all the people who have actually done the ****ing work.

I'm not sure why you can't understand this. I thought you actually played cricket. Did your captains make you a better cricketer, or did your coaches?

 

[subshakerz]

This seems very strange to blame him specifically for. So yeah, clear to see that some things are just being made up for nothing.

That is one team, you've yet to show this for the rest to show that India's just statpadding vs weak teams while top teams in the past only beat up good teams (or however that argument will go later on).

It is totally fair to blame a captain if your batting lineup keeps chocking. That is an issue with the team handling mental pressure.

Never said in this thread that India is stats padding. They just failed in certain away series against teams they were stronger against and should have beaten.

And you can do the same past/present team comparison yourself and let me know if your results come out different.

 

[Xix2565]

It is totally fair to blame a captain if your batting lineup keeps chocking. That is an issue with the team handling mental pressure.

Never said in this thread that India is stats padding. They just failed in certain away series against teams they were stronger against and should have beaten.

And you can do the same past/present team comparison yourself and let me know if your results come out different.

Batting failures fall on the batters. And it's not like they've choked to **** bowling as well to be perfectly frank either unless you subscribe to the idea that any higher rated batting lineup is a choker when they get rolled by a lower rated bowling lineup.

Sure, but it's not like the teams they were playing against were total **** with no way of winning. We don't consider the Aussie side of the 2000s to be like them just because they lost series here and there vs lesser teams (not that those sides and this Indian side are the same in general anyway). The general tone however does seem like asking for true dominance without looking at the other half of the equation, aka the other teams involved in the matches.

You haven't even given **** to compare against, and I'm criticising your methods on how you judge teams.

 

[cricketsavant]

Would be fair to remind that India in that period won in NZ, Eng, WI and had credible draws in SA and Aus. I dont automatically buy that India now are much better away from home than India in the 2000s till their World Cup win.

This is a very good point which is why I list the India sides of the 00s better than the sides that have played post 2010. Winning in England in 2007 was a big win but these performances were not consistent against the absolute top teams (WI does not count and NZ back then were nowhere near as good they have become).

Its also intriguing that results in the early 00s is different to a more effective touring team in the late 00s. But anyway, thats a whole different discussions.

 

[honestbharani]

Development doesn't stop but majority of the work is done by the time they get selected for their country. Jasprit Bumrah, for example, is 28 years old and has been playing cricket for about 16 years, 9 of them as a professional and 6 of them for India. He's had a decade of development before being picked for India. 90% of the work to make him who he is has been done by people you can't even name.

On top of that, any development that happens while playing for India is mainly down to the coaches in the setup. Kohli is not at the nets teaching them how to bowl the wobble seam, Kohli is not putting together or supervising their S&C sessions, and Kohli isn't carrying out biomechanical or data analysis of their bowling. Kohli is in the team meetings where bowling plans are made, and he picks when they bowl. That's about it. If you think that has more than a 1% influence on their overall career accomplishments then you're being ridiculous, and frankly disrespectful to all the people who have actually done the ****ing work.

I'm not sure why you can't understand this. I thought you actually played cricket. Did your captains make you a better cricketer, or did your coaches?

Dude coaches build skill, captains get performances. I am talking about the performance of our attack. I am not sure why we need essays to understand this simple point. All I am saying is any captain can only be a trigger for performance and for culture in the team, the culture that actually drives players towards betterment and development. And Virat has done that brilliantly for fast bowlers and has been found wanting in that aspect with spinners and Bhuvi. If you are gonna blame Bhuvi on Virat, its only fair to credit him where its due. He believed in a fast bowling attack, he believed in the 5 bowler theory and he got the results. Skills were there with half of these players even before Virat but performances only happened under him. There is an obvious thing here you choose to miss. I am done on this topic.

 

[cnerd123]

he definitely has a very significant role in the development and success of these talents and of the attack as an entity.

Dude coaches build skill, captains get performances. I am talking about the performance of our attack. I am not sure why we need essays to understand this simple point.

make up your mind.

 

[honestbharani]

I am not sure why you think the "development" of a fast bowler stops once he plays FC or A Team or IPL or even international cricket. That is just not true and that is the point being made here. He is not the reason for the emergence of all this talent but he definitely has a very significant role in the development and success of these talents and of the attack as an entity.

..

Dude coaches build skill, captains get performances. I am talking about the performance of our attack. I am not sure why we need essays to understand this simple point. All I am saying is any captain can only be a trigger for performance and for culture in the team, the culture that actually drives players towards betterment and development. And Virat has done that brilliantly for fast bowlers and has been found wanting in that aspect with spinners and Bhuvi. If you are gonna blame Bhuvi on Virat, its only fair to credit him where its due. He believed in a fast bowling attack, he believed in the 5 bowler theory and he got the results. Skills were there with half of these players even before Virat but performances only happened under him. There is an obvious thing here you choose to miss. I am done on this topic.

make up your mind.

I did. Did you?

 

[cnerd123]

nice to see you've changed your opinion then. Kohli didn't do a thing to develop this pace attack, he just got some good performances from them.

you're still essentially wrong (our quicks probably would have bowled just as well if he wasn't captain), but less so.

 

[subshakerz]

Batting failures fall on the batters. And it's not like they've choked to **** bowling as well to be perfectly frank either unless you subscribe to the idea that any higher rated batting lineup is a choker when they get rolled by a lower rated bowling lineup.

Sure, but it's not like the teams they were playing against were total **** with no way of winning. We don't consider the Aussie side of the 2000s to be like them just because they lost series here and there vs lesser teams (not that those sides and this Indian side are the same in general anyway). The general tone however does seem like asking for true dominance without looking at the other half of the equation, aka the other teams involved in the matches.

You haven't even given **** to compare against, and I'm criticising your methods on how you judge teams.

Yeah, batting failures are on the batters, bowling failures are on the bowlers, you don't really need a captain then except to toss the coin, huh? It's not like they are playing in a team or anything that has its own culture and playing style that the captain would be involved in.

Yeah, for me, India losing winnable away series is one reason to mark down Kohli from great to good. I'm not asking for dominance, just that he could have done better in Eng/NZ/SA. That's my criteria. I don't think its too harsh. Captaincy stuff is ultimately a personal judgment call.

Let's just agree to disagree because it just seems you are being contrarian without really adding any input of your own. I prefer if posters at least make their own viewpoints clear if we are engaging.

 

[honestbharani]

nice to see you've changed your opinion then. Kohli didn't do a thing to develop this pace attack, he just got some good performances from them.

you're still essentially wrong (our quicks probably would have bowled just as well if he wasn't captain), but less so.

You seem fixated on this silly notion that a fast bowlers' development only means an ability to bowl scrambled seam or a slower one or whatever. I think the term means something a lot more wholistic in how a bowler performs. So yes, I still think Virat had LOTS to do with the development of our fast bowling attack. You can continue to argue semantics if you want.