What do you value in a captain?

[benchmark00]

I disagree, Chappell never lost a test series as captain. Waugh had the best Australian team in history yet lost in Sri Lanka and India. He had the best attack in the world yet was clueless several times (he let the Indian team bat an entire day without taking a wicket, allowed teams to chase 300 plus twice and over 400 once).

Yep, it was all Steve Waugh's doing that they lost those matches you speak of. You're definitely right. But it definitely wasnt his doing when they won the most test matches in a row of all time. That was thanks to the players.

You are a total putz if you think Lillee-Thomson-Walker-Mallett was equal cattle to Warne-McGrath-Gillespie-Lee.

At the time they were. If you're rating the attack head to head, Steve Waugh's team are probably a bit better, but that's not the point, though it's not surprising that you picked that out.

During Chappell's time as captain he had the premier attack. During Steve Waugh's time, he had the premier attack. Putting 8 slips in place does not mean you're a tactical genius.

 

[benchmark00]

I agree with his aggression philosophy 99% of the time. Every great test series ever has had aggressive captain/s.

I'm not saying it's not entertaining. As fans we all want to see captains be aggressive, but that's not always the best way to skin a cat.

 

[Red]

I'm not saying it's not entertaining. As fans we all want to see captains be aggressive, but that's not always the best way to skin a cat.

I can see your point, but Chappell did have a team made to be captained aggressively. If you have that team, you captain aggressively.

For mine, I can rarely see any point in not being aggressive as a captain (in test cricket). In the field you always have to want wickets. As soon as the slips start coming out, and the field gets pushed back, the batsman know they're on top. You have to back your bowlers to do their job with aggressive/positive field placements etc.

 

[Satyanash89]

Yep, it was all Steve Waugh's doing that they lost those matches you speak of. You're definitely right. But it definitely wasnt his doing when they won the most test matches in a row of all time. That was thanks to the players.

The Chappell era was before my time, so can someone here explain why he's considered one of the greatest captains. Was he himself an ultra-aggressive captain who was 100% attack-minded all the time. If so, I can forgive his commentary partly because he's atleast not being hypocritical when criticizing other captains for going even slightly on the defensive

 

[Red]

can someone here explain why he's considered one of the greatest captains.

Captaincy by Ian Chappell

 

[subshakerz]

Yep, it was all Steve Waugh's doing that they lost those matches you speak of. You're definitely right. But it definitely wasnt his doing when they won the most test matches in a row of all time. That was thanks to the players.

Um, shouldnt you judge a captain by their record?

Steve Waugh had a side that was overwhelmingly superior to any other side in the world. The only real challenge for him was to win a series in tough territory like the subcontinent, yet he lost in both Sri Lanka and India. So yeah, it does reflect on his captaincy.

And since the captain is most influential on the field, I do think the fact that he let a team bat a whole day without getting a wicket, and allow teams to chase 300 twice and 400 once indicates that his on-the-field captaincy wasnt all that great. If it happens once that can be an exception maybe. I cant imagine a great captain allowing that with an all-time great bowling attack.

And Ricky Pointing also won the most test matches in a row, you might remember, but once he lost his star players, the team declinded rapidly. Few in any consider him a great captain.

 

[benchmark00]

Um, shouldnt you judge a captain by their record?

No.

 

[benchmark00]

I can see your point, but Chappell did have a team made to be captained aggressively. If you have that team, you captain aggressively.

For mine, I can rarely see any point in not being aggressive as a captain (in test cricket). In the field you always have to want wickets. As soon as the slips start coming out, and the field gets pushed back, the batsman know they're on top. You have to back your bowlers to do their job with aggressive/positive field placements etc.

Your first paragraph - absolutely. I'm not saying Chappell was a bad captain at all. His unwillingness to concede that that's not always the best method in commentary is what frustrates me.

Second part, I'll respond late. NMFC are playing ffs.

 

[Red]

NMFC are playing ffs.

Probably the best reason I can think of to be posting on cricketweb.

 

[subshakerz]

No.

If you are talking about simple win-loss, ratio, I agree with you. But if you are talking about achievements (like winning a world cup, or defeating a superior opponent or like that) I disagree.

 

[benchmark00]

For mine, I can rarely see any point in not being aggressive as a captain (in test cricket). In the field you always have to want wickets. As soon as the slips start coming out, and the field gets pushed back, the batsman know they're on top. You have to back your bowlers to do their job with aggressive/positive field placements etc.

See, this is what Chappell says, but it's not the case. If you don't have the bowling ability to regularly keep producing chances behind the wicket it is absolutely pointless to set fields for that. You're better off getting wickets by sitting fields in front of the wicket, looking to block pressure release zones for batsmen and get them that way.

For example, Sehwag. When he comes in to bat, a deep point is set in place. This is not a negative tactic because Sehwag isn't the player that can manipulate the field by pushing ones to that man, so you cut off his release zones by letting him get a single out there. It's more risk to play that shot because his reward is one run opposed to the reward of four if he executes.

For spin bowlers, it is not a negative tactic to have players deep down the ground. That cuts off that shot and instead gives the bowler confidence to throw the ball up because he knows it's not a wicket/four/six situation, all of a sudden it becomes a wicket/single/six (though this risk becomes huge) prospect.

In India for example, you need to get wickets in front of the wicket. You plug boundaries to choke the scoring rate and then bowl to plans and wear them down.


Being 'aggressive' isn't always the best way to get wickets.

 

[Prince EWS]

Completely agree with Benchy here.

 

[akilana]

see, this is what chappell says, but it's not the case. If you don't have the bowling ability to regularly keep producing chances behind the wicket it is absolutely pointless to set fields for that. You're better off getting wickets by sitting fields in front of the wicket, looking to block pressure release zones for batsmen and get them that way.

For example, sehwag. When he comes in to bat, a deep point is set in place. This is not a negative tactic because sehwag isn't the player that can manipulate the field by pushing ones to that man, so you cut off his release zones by letting him get a single out there. It's more risk to play that shot because his reward is one run opposed to the reward of four if he executes.

For spin bowlers, it is not a negative tactic to have players deep down the ground. That cuts off that shot and instead gives the bowler confidence to throw the ball up because he knows it's not a wicket/four/six situation, all of a sudden it becomes a wicket/single/six (though this risk becomes huge) prospect.

In india for example, you need to get wickets in front of the wicket. You plug boundaries to choke the scoring rate and then bowl to plans and wear them down.


Being 'aggressive' isn't always the best way to get wickets.

Good post

 

[Red]

See, this is what Chappell says, but it's not the case. If you don't have the bowling ability to regularly keep producing chances behind the wicket it is absolutely pointless to set fields for that. You're better off getting wickets by sitting fields in front of the wicket, looking to block pressure release zones for batsmen and get them that way.

For example, Sehwag. When he comes in to bat, a deep point is set in place. This is not a negative tactic because Sehwag isn't the player that can manipulate the field by pushing ones to that man, so you cut off his release zones by letting him get a single out there. It's more risk to play that shot because his reward is one run opposed to the reward of four if he executes.

For spin bowlers, it is not a negative tactic to have players deep down the ground. That cuts off that shot and instead gives the bowler confidence to throw the ball up because he knows it's not a wicket/four/six situation, all of a sudden it becomes a wicket/single/six (though this risk becomes huge) prospect.

In India for example, you need to get wickets in front of the wicket. You plug boundaries to choke the scoring rate and then bowl to plans and wear them down.


Being 'aggressive' isn't always the best way to get wickets.

I agree with what you're saying and the points you're making. I probably put it in fairly simplistic terms (removing slips). I certainly don't mean aggressive captaincy is simply having 5 slips and 2 gullies all the time. I don't think Chappell's philosophy would be that simple either.

Anyway, I agree with all your points, but the point I was trying to make is that captains need to be pursuing wickets in some way. Perhaps a better word to use in place of 'aggressive' would be 'positive'.

 

[BoyBrumby]

While Clarke is a great tactician on field, he is possibly struggling to keep order in the house (based on speculation only).

TBF I think Homeworkgate means we have more solid evidence for this than mere speculation only.

Most people don't rate Chappeli as a commentator, but I do. Pretty insightful during match commentary. He spouts a lot of crap on his videoblogs and in print, but he knows the game better than almost anyone imo.

He's kinda the Australian Boycs, IMHO. Only with less evil and more actual captaincy credentials.

Can be an absolutely irritating twatt at times, but his commentary intersects with good sense too often for it to be a fluke.

It depends on the team Darren Sammy's no great strategist or tactician, but he's done what no Windies captain seems to have done for nearly a decade or more and got the team pulling in the same direction.

Some teams are best served having a Sammy some teams are better suited to having a tactician.

Yeah, absolutely agree.

Sammy's appointment was, IMHO, something of a masterstroke because he, as a genuinely humble and good guy, has managed to get all the considerable egos in the Windies dressing room pulling together without having to go all alpha male and ****ish on their arses.

Given the WICB's general MO one suspects this was more luck than foresight, but credit where it's due and all that.

 

[Himannv]

As with most leadership roles, I reckon he should be a jack of all trades and a master of none.

 

[Adders]

As far as on field tactics go, what I think is most important but seems to be lacking from the modern captains is the ability to think on their feet.

When plan A or even B is not working to have the courage and insight to be able to come up with something else. Game plans and field settings for each batsmen are all devised before they take the field, it seems to me most skippers in the game today are pretty lost when these aren't working out.

 

[Red]

As far as on field tactics go, what I think is most important but seems to be lacking from the modern captains is the ability to think on their feet.

When plan A or even B is not working to have the courage and insight to be able to come up with something else. Game plans and field settings for each batsmen are all devised before they take the field, it seems to me most skippers in the game today are pretty lost when these aren't working out.

This was one of the things I enjoyed about Clarke's captaincy initially. He has that innate ability to know what might work, and he has the guts to try it.

 

[Jono]

If we're talking tactics only - I can't see how anyone can disagree with what Benchy is saying. He is not saying being an aggressive captain is bad, he is just saying you can't be aggressive every over of the day in test cricket. There are times - and it depends on the match situation, the series situation, and your resources - where being defensive is a suitable tactic.

I'm surprised this is even controversial from Benchy. In what sport is being aggressive 24/7 the right way to be? There are times - whether it be when you're trying to kill the clock, stop the other team's momentum, stay in the game - for all sports where a defensive strategy is the right way to go.

 

[Red]

If we're talking tactics only - I can't see how anyone can disagree with what Benchy is saying. He is not saying being an aggressive captain is bad, he is just saying you can't be aggressive every over of the day in test cricket. There are times - and it depends on the match situation, the series situation, and your resources - where being defensive is a suitable tactic.

I'm surprised this is even controversial from Benchy. In what sport is being aggressive 24/7 the right way to be? There are times - whether it be when you're trying to kill the clock, stop the other team's momentum, stay in the game - for all sports where a defensive strategy is the right way to go.

Apart from the last innings in a test match, when it seems clear that the fielding team won't be able to take ten wickets for whatever reason, but the batting team might score the runs required to win, why would you look to be defensive?

The only situation I can think of is if you have injured bowlers, and you need to bowl part timers to give the main bowlers a rest. Then you might set defensive fields.

If you are being defensive by trying to restrict scoring and frustrate batsmen because they are set, that's still a positive method of play, aggressive sort of (in seeking a wicket somehow). But it's also your last resort in a test imo.