Who do you think are the best and worst odi captains currently?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Just because it isn't tactical brilliance doesn't mean its not the right thing to do most of the time. I hate it when coaches/captains make unconventional decisions for no good reason other than the fact they're full of themselves. Just because its out of the box doesn't mean its brilliant ffs.

But it's not basis to discount a captains tactical ability because he saves his powerplay. It's only a bad move in retrospect.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Doesn't have to be tactical brilliance, in most cases it's common bloody sense. Australia were not scoring at a ridiculously alarming rate, NZ could've afforded to use them. That 34-39 over stint really set us up for the last 10 overs. It was a silly decision.

As silly as batting first? That decision by Ponting was pretty obviously stupid at the outset. Fleming's is only an error in retrospect. Both are good captains.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Certainly then to get them out of the way than use them in the 34th over when 2 of the best international batsmen in the world have their eye in 100% and are well past 50. It was idiotic captaincy. It's what happens when trying to be unconvential goes too far.

Because he knew that they would be there and set in the 90s by the time the 34th over rolled around, right?

 

[honestbharani]

He bowls the ball for them and faces the deliveries, does he?

The players are the only ones who can get themselves to do what they're meant to do. Blaming captains and coaches is an easy way out for underperforming players IMO.

I quite like that movie analogy, tbh.

I mean, the director is the one who chooses whom to cast and for what part. And when for some reason, his first choice is unavailable, he has to make do with the second best. And as a director, he has to get the best out of his actors. Some actors may have forceful and expressive eyes and so when you are directing them, you try and concentrate on that a lot, because it makes them look good. Some actors are better at dialogue delivery and you make sure such guys get a lot of the good lines written for the movie. Some others just have a great screen presence and you concentrate on that.


Similarly, in cricket, you have batsmen who bat better at certain positions and certain situations and you try and utilize them in that role. Ditto with bowlers. So, I think the captain's role in cricket is quite analogous to the role of a director of a movie.


But the only thing is, I think the coach has a part in all of this as well. So, for me, both the captain and coach are like the directors in a movie. Only thing is, I guess, with the captain, it is like a director who is also playing a major role in the movie. With the coach, it is the case of a director who is only directing and not playing any roles in the movie.
That is the closest analogy I can come up with from the movie world. lol.



But the point is that these days, both captains and coaches (and senior players and selectors) are all involved in off the field planning these days. The main reason why the captain is always more important than the coach is that he has to make the on-the-field think-on-your-feet decisions. And sometimes they do affect the outcome of the match. That is why a captain gets a lot of cheers/jeers for his teams' good/bad performances. And I think it is quite right too. The role of the coach is always secondary to the captain, IMHO, but not all that insignificant as some of you think. AT worst, he can at least be the mentor to the guys who are not playing, whose confidence is low etc. He has a whole variety of stuff he can do and stuff that can make a difference in the end analysis to the performance of the side.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He bowls the ball for them and faces the deliveries, does he?

The players are the only ones who can get themselves to do what they're meant to do. Blaming captains and coaches is an easy way out for underperforming players IMO.

Only just saw this post.

There are good directors (Chris Nolan/Michael Vaughan) and bad directors (Eli Roth/Andrew Flintoff). A good director gets the best out of his cast. Of course a large measure is up to the cast, but you're essentially discounting the influence of a captain. If the director is good enough, he gets the cast to perform to the best of its ability, which may not be very good or may be worldbeating. Or somewhere in between.

You're also discounting basic implications of my statement, such as field placements and man management.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But the only thing is, I think the coach has a part in all of this as well. So, for me, both the captain and coach are like the directors in a movie.

The producer and director do tend to have strong interaction.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't be surprised if he was saving the second powerplay for the fall of the next wicket. It didn't pay off, but jeez, that's not evidence that Fleming is a rubbish captain.

Ahem...

Simple fact of the matter is, there was no time after the compulsary Powerplay when they didn't look very good. Had someone managed to take one of those early Hayden catches, things would've been different.

Your best bet is to try and get them out, then take the thing immidiately. We've seen that happen loads. Obviously, there's always going to be the odd occasion where people just go on and on and on. This was one. Therefore Fleming was made to look silly by making a sensible decision. Just like Hussain in 2002\03 in the Test at The 'Gabba.

 

[Richard]

I quite like that movie analogy, tbh.

I mean, the director is the one who chooses whom to cast and for what part. And when for some reason, his first choice is unavailable, he has to make do with the second best. And as a director, he has to get the best out of his actors. Some actors may have forceful and expressive eyes and so when you are directing them, you try and concentrate on that a lot, because it makes them look good. Some actors are better at dialogue delivery and you make sure such guys get a lot of the good lines written for the movie. Some others just have a great screen presence and you concentrate on that.


Similarly, in cricket, you have batsmen who bat better at certain positions and certain situations and you try and utilize them in that role. Ditto with bowlers. So, I think the captain's role in cricket is quite analogous to the role of a director of a movie.


But the only thing is, I think the coach has a part in all of this as well. So, for me, both the captain and coach are like the directors in a movie. Only thing is, I guess, with the captain, it is like a director who is also playing a major role in the movie. With the coach, it is the case of a director who is only directing and not playing any roles in the movie.
That is the closest analogy I can come up with from the movie world. lol.



But the point is that these days, both captains and coaches (and senior players and selectors) are all involved in off the field planning these days. The main reason why the captain is always more important than the coach is that he has to make the on-the-field think-on-your-feet decisions. And sometimes they do affect the outcome of the match. That is why a captain gets a lot of cheers/jeers for his teams' good/bad performances. And I think it is quite right too. The role of the coach is always secondary to the captain, IMHO, but not all that insignificant as some of you think. AT worst, he can at least be the mentor to the guys who are not playing, whose confidence is low etc. He has a whole variety of stuff he can do and stuff that can make a difference in the end analysis to the performance of the side.

The captain is the Clint Eastwood of proceedings, IOW.

 

[Richard]

Only just saw this post.

There are good directors (Chris Nolan/Michael Vaughan) and bad directors (Eli Roth/Andrew Flintoff). A good director gets the best out of his cast. Of course a large measure is up to the cast, but you're essentially discounting the influence of a captain. If the director is good enough, he gets the cast to perform to the best of its ability, which may not be very good or may be worldbeating. Or somewhere in between.

You're also discounting basic implications of my statement, such as field placements and man management.

I wasn't trying to, obviously good captaincy has a large part to play in cricket (as good directorship has a large part to play in filmmaking).

I do think good captaincy is sometimes a little overrated, mind. Without the good players, good captaincy won't all that often be noticed - and with good players, captaincy is very often overrated (hence the "who's the best captain of all-time? Obviously it comes down to one of Lloyd, Waugh, Richards, Brearley", etc.). Judging good captaincy is not the easiest thing in The World. Too many are too quick to say "he was a good captain because he lead and others followed" thereby trying to make someone appear a good captain just because of good results and good personal performance.

 

[Richard]

The producer and director do tend to have strong interaction.

You could use a writer\lyricist\producer relationship, too. It's one I, personally, understand better.

 

[aussie]

Ponting for me, his record has ODI & the tactics he uses on the field since he took over in 2002 have always been impressive for me. Lara also of late has been very impressive as skipper.

Worst amongst the top 8 nations would be any England skipper that has been in charge of late.

 

[Richard]

Certainly not Vaughan or Hussain.

And Ponting has not been outstanding at all (and has had dire moments, such as bowling Lewis for 10 overs in THAT game), he's just by-and-large led a very fine team who could never be stopped from being repeated winners merely by a poor captain.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Obviously it comes down to one of Lloyd, Waugh, Richards", etc.).

Brearley is in that mix too.

 

[Richard]

And I'm sure David L will give you the reasons for Brearley that I'll give you for Waugh in terms of why-his-captaincy-was-overrated.