-
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.
Worst Captain?
- Thread starter henochschon
- Start date
full_length
U19 Vice-Captain
About Waugh accepting defeat: I dont think he did a good job of it in that series. To his credit, he didn't make any stupid excuses though.
As the series went on, I was enjoying how the schedule suddenly got tiring and Waugh found more and more reason to be pissed with Ganguly
Infact, his team didnt do a good job of it at all. Their reactions didnt come in shape of complaints (like Hussain for instance) but basically resulted in Waugh going at Saurav with anything and everything.
****
some opinions:
I guess you couldnt imagine what it was like in India during the series. We were all somehow tuned in to the entire series from Waugh's smear campaign that started in Australia to when it ended back in Australia. I for one felt that that episode with Slater-Cammie-Rahul-Steve kinda pushed the Indians to react to the Aussies' sledging as a team.
Apart from that, surely some in the team probably remembered India's tour to Australia, with all those decisions by Harper and co, as well as the Aussie sledging. And it showed.
T'was good to see that.
As the series went on, I was enjoying how the schedule suddenly got tiring and Waugh found more and more reason to be pissed with Ganguly
Infact, his team didnt do a good job of it at all. Their reactions didnt come in shape of complaints (like Hussain for instance) but basically resulted in Waugh going at Saurav with anything and everything.
****
some opinions:
I guess you couldnt imagine what it was like in India during the series. We were all somehow tuned in to the entire series from Waugh's smear campaign that started in Australia to when it ended back in Australia. I for one felt that that episode with Slater-Cammie-Rahul-Steve kinda pushed the Indians to react to the Aussies' sledging as a team.
Apart from that, surely some in the team probably remembered India's tour to Australia, with all those decisions by Harper and co, as well as the Aussie sledging. And it showed.
T'was good to see that.
full_length
U19 Vice-Captain
On Marc's post:
Smart yes. I wont argue with that. That was exactly what i was saying infact.
He used a pithy phrase to veil calling the spinner a dog.
Note that this is a general characterestic of the Waugh-led team. Waugh needled the youngster. When given back he was 'surprised'.
Glen McGrath behaved like a street lout with Sachin many times. Once in the One day series, he showed Sachin how to hook, and needled him. That game called for caution and Sachin didn't do it. A couple of games later, Sachin hooked, and replayed the shot for McGrath's benefit. And the pigeon writes that he was 'surprised' because 'he didnt start it'. Sachin isn't supposed to react you see. He's only supposed to take abuse.
They always seem to be very surprised indeed when someone does retaliate Mark of a bully 
[Edited on 9/18/02 by full_length]
Smart yes. I wont argue with that. That was exactly what i was saying infact.
He used a pithy phrase to veil calling the spinner a dog.
Note that this is a general characterestic of the Waugh-led team. Waugh needled the youngster. When given back he was 'surprised'.
Glen McGrath behaved like a street lout with Sachin many times. Once in the One day series, he showed Sachin how to hook, and needled him. That game called for caution and Sachin didn't do it. A couple of games later, Sachin hooked, and replayed the shot for McGrath's benefit. And the pigeon writes that he was 'surprised' because 'he didnt start it'. Sachin isn't supposed to react you see. He's only supposed to take abuse.
They always seem to be very surprised indeed when someone does retaliate
Mark of a bully [Edited on 9/18/02 by full_length]
aussie_beater
State Vice-Captain
He started this whole mental disintegration business before the tour and ended it with that comment about Ganguly not being worthy to be his friend or something to that effect, and this "prick" comment which I hadn't heard about earlier.I don't have paper clippings to quote all his comments verbatim now.
full_length
U19 Vice-Captain
*bump*
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just some clarification on the Elworthy comment:
The phrase is used when people say, "Oh I've gone for a brain scan/CAT scan" and the response is "Did they find anything?", with the pun being about whether they found anything in the head at all or whether they found anything wrong. It's just a gag.
Steve Waugh just stuffed up the joke which says a lot about his sanse of humour (or lack thereof). There was nothing malicious in it and anyone who argues otherwise is just looking for things to criticise him about. Believe me, there's a lot more much more obvious and less debateable stuff to harp on about but that incident was just Steve's attempt at a joke which he muffed. I notice the object of the humour at the time actually got the joke and knew what he meant.
As for the rest, well I'd happily concede that Steve Waugh is arrogant and a hypocrite. No doubt about it.
As for that article by Ramesh, I take issue with parts of it. His statement that the Aussies crack under pressure is laughable; name me one team that DOESN'T. He talks like Australia is the only team. I'll admit our press hypes up the Aussie macho thing a lot but if you put enough pressure on ANY team they will crack. If you believe they're invincible then you'll lose. It was the prime mistake everyone made against the WI team of the 70's and 80's.
I can even name incidences when the Aussies have cracked in Tests; against South Africa in Sydney in 1993, against England at the Oval in 1997, against India numerous times in India etc. (any person that mentions Headingly 1981 gets a cyber-punch from me)
But for those incidences, there are twice as many where the Aussies having faced a pressure situation have come through. Not many teams can make that claim.
So yeah, the Aussies do crack under pressure. They're human after all. But I'd bet that they've done it less than any other team of the past 10 years at least. Ramesh's article was just needlessly pointing out what everyone already knows.
The phrase is used when people say, "Oh I've gone for a brain scan/CAT scan" and the response is "Did they find anything?", with the pun being about whether they found anything in the head at all or whether they found anything wrong. It's just a gag.
Steve Waugh just stuffed up the joke which says a lot about his sanse of humour (or lack thereof). There was nothing malicious in it and anyone who argues otherwise is just looking for things to criticise him about. Believe me, there's a lot more much more obvious and less debateable stuff to harp on about but that incident was just Steve's attempt at a joke which he muffed. I notice the object of the humour at the time actually got the joke and knew what he meant.
As for the rest, well I'd happily concede that Steve Waugh is arrogant and a hypocrite. No doubt about it.
As for that article by Ramesh, I take issue with parts of it. His statement that the Aussies crack under pressure is laughable; name me one team that DOESN'T. He talks like Australia is the only team. I'll admit our press hypes up the Aussie macho thing a lot but if you put enough pressure on ANY team they will crack. If you believe they're invincible then you'll lose. It was the prime mistake everyone made against the WI team of the 70's and 80's.
I can even name incidences when the Aussies have cracked in Tests; against South Africa in Sydney in 1993, against England at the Oval in 1997, against India numerous times in India etc. (any person that mentions Headingly 1981 gets a cyber-punch from me
)But for those incidences, there are twice as many where the Aussies having faced a pressure situation have come through. Not many teams can make that claim.
So yeah, the Aussies do crack under pressure. They're human after all. But I'd bet that they've done it less than any other team of the past 10 years at least. Ramesh's article was just needlessly pointing out what everyone already knows.
full_length
U19 Vice-Captain
hmm.. T_C, lots of such things are swept under the carpet with the 'humour' word.
If you'd remember-and I talk purely based on following the news..i didnt talk to Waugh and find out whether it wasn't one of his famed mind games - it came after a few calls for Steve Waugh's head. I looked for a comment expressing concern for Elworthy (who had suffered a very serious blow indeed to the head). I probably missed it. He made a comment much later defending himself and apologised to Elworthy.
Surely someone who was joking in the press conference should have also expressed some concern or at the very least "I hope he gets better". If he did, I'm willing to accept that it could have been just crass, and not necessarily-you-know what.
It looks very odd to me that he did respond to the issue through a question posed to someone else, and still chose not to clear the air then and there. He apparantly said it to someone else in the squad, loud enough for people to hear.
If I remember right, he did find the time to insult the media in the same press conference. (the only part i dont remember is whether it was the same conference. He called media ****heads once, and another time other stuff..when asked about selection issues. i think it was the same one...)
I find it very difficult to believe that that was just some good natured ribbing. Ah forget it- I guess we agree to disagree on this !
I agree completely with the rest of your post, with some tempering.
You see, when a team has a run like the Australians did, the aura they had, and with the very attitude of the Aussie team- tough under pressure, confident, and on the flip side always a pointer to how other teams are mentally weak (see SA. Also think about the comments they keep making about SA- how they have the wood over them, etc etc.) it's obvious that finding a chink in their armour or proving that they too can crack under pressure becomes relevant indeed. That's why Ramesh's comments were not trivial as you suggest. If you remember, there was a lot of talk of how they are invincible, and Waugh himself had suggested they were as good if not better than any other team in history.
Second: when your game includes needling the opposition, proving that you aren't that tough when sledged at, that you don't take as easily as people think you will, is again non-trivial.
Other than that, I do agree that it is obvious that they are humans and are bound to crack under pressure. Statements like these are also usually obvious:
"they played better than us so they won"
"we could have played better"
"Sachin is a great player" duh!
I'm sure you can come up with many..
Yeah you wouldnt come up with this one:
"we lost because we batted badly bowled badly and fielded badly" - the incomparable Azhar
If you'd remember-and I talk purely based on following the news..i didnt talk to Waugh and find out whether it wasn't one of his famed mind games - it came after a few calls for Steve Waugh's head. I looked for a comment expressing concern for Elworthy (who had suffered a very serious blow indeed to the head). I probably missed it. He made a comment much later defending himself and apologised to Elworthy.
Surely someone who was joking in the press conference should have also expressed some concern or at the very least "I hope he gets better". If he did, I'm willing to accept that it could have been just crass, and not necessarily-you-know what.
It looks very odd to me that he did respond to the issue through a question posed to someone else, and still chose not to clear the air then and there. He apparantly said it to someone else in the squad, loud enough for people to hear.
If I remember right, he did find the time to insult the media in the same press conference. (the only part i dont remember is whether it was the same conference. He called media ****heads once, and another time other stuff..when asked about selection issues. i think it was the same one...)
I find it very difficult to believe that that was just some good natured ribbing. Ah forget it- I guess we agree to disagree on this !
I agree completely with the rest of your post, with some tempering.
You see, when a team has a run like the Australians did, the aura they had, and with the very attitude of the Aussie team- tough under pressure, confident, and on the flip side always a pointer to how other teams are mentally weak (see SA. Also think about the comments they keep making about SA- how they have the wood over them, etc etc.) it's obvious that finding a chink in their armour or proving that they too can crack under pressure becomes relevant indeed. That's why Ramesh's comments were not trivial as you suggest. If you remember, there was a lot of talk of how they are invincible, and Waugh himself had suggested they were as good if not better than any other team in history.
Second: when your game includes needling the opposition, proving that you aren't that tough when sledged at, that you don't take as easily as people think you will, is again non-trivial.
Other than that, I do agree that it is obvious that they are humans and are bound to crack under pressure. Statements like these are also usually obvious:
"they played better than us so they won"
"we could have played better"
"Sachin is a great player" duh!
I'm sure you can come up with many..
Yeah you wouldnt come up with this one:
"we lost because we batted badly bowled badly and fielded badly" - the incomparable Azhar
aussie_beater
State Vice-Captain
See the point is that you never know what a man really means, other then to make sense out of the spoken word.So, this argument about Steve not "really" meaning anything malicious in his statements is pure baloney.What he said sounded pretty offensive to everybody and that's why all the hoopla.No one cares what he wanted to mean.His words meant something that everybody got.No one has the faculties to read his mind to figure out what he actually wanted to mean.
[Edited on 9/18/02 by aussie_beater]
lord_of_darkness
Cricket Web XI Moderator
Well if you want to say in terms of Worst .. then either Kenya , Holland and Bangladesh would have to be in that category
But if im talking about top 6 or 7 Cricket teams Gangu would have to be the worst/worser:P ...
If you see , S.Waugh and Stephen Flemming might be the best captains in the world currently their tactics can be clearly seen in some matches , and even if the bowlers arent performing properly the captain does some real clever fielding changes / bowling changes and their side starts winning ...
I would say A.Jadeja was a good captain while he had been given the captaincy for a few matches .. i know even though he has got a ban from match fixing , he had led India to the Sharjah Cup when he had been given the captaincy from the middle of the tournament i think it was , he bowled well and used tactics well
yea if anyone was to replace Ganguly i would see it would have to be Dravid , but if captaincy affects the batting like it did to ganguly or sachin i dont want dravid to suffer ...
But if im talking about top 6 or 7 Cricket teams Gangu would have to be the worst/worser:P ...
If you see , S.Waugh and Stephen Flemming might be the best captains in the world currently their tactics can be clearly seen in some matches , and even if the bowlers arent performing properly the captain does some real clever fielding changes / bowling changes and their side starts winning ...
I would say A.Jadeja was a good captain while he had been given the captaincy for a few matches .. i know even though he has got a ban from match fixing , he had led India to the Sharjah Cup when he had been given the captaincy from the middle of the tournament i think it was , he bowled well and used tactics well
yea if anyone was to replace Ganguly i would see it would have to be Dravid , but if captaincy affects the batting like it did to ganguly or sachin i dont want dravid to suffer ...
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
The point is that Ganguly has been vilified as a captain for the silliest list of reasons.
Let's check the reasons:
He showed aggression and gamesmanship against Waugh. Laughable, especially coming from Waugh, it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
He wears his heart on a sleeve and shows his emotions too much(as witnessed after the Natwest triumph). Big deal! That shows he is a sincere and earnest person(not too much of a diplomat like Hussain, but shows his heart is in the right place).
Brash and ****y - so are most international captains. Do you think Hussain with his false modesty(the other team is always the favourite - supposedly puts all the pressure off himself and his team - stupid tactics to say the least) and his whining and innuendos on umpiring decisions in matches they lose(if they win, all is fair and forgiven) is really fooling anybody? He is being compared with Brearley. I don't think Brearley ever had to resort to such tactics and especially after the current series can be said to have been tactically far superior.
He is tactically poor when compared to other captains. I agree that he might not be tactically anything great and sometimes looks all at sea when the opposition is dominating, but consider the ammo he has had through out his captaincy in terms of bowlers. Srinath(of the drooping head), Prasad(of the military medium pace), Kumble(lion at home, lamb abroad), Harb and Zaheer(shows promise, but miles to go yet), Nehra(so far, out of his depth in tests, pulling on somehow in one dayers)Agarkar(enough has been said about him, I guess) and a whole lot of nincompoops who aren't worth mentioning. Consider the bowling attacks of other teams, even a depleted England. With this (non) attack, he has managed to win in the last 2 1/2 years, (I am not talking about batting bailing out the team with draws) the maximum no: of tests abroad of any Indian captain while maintaining their near-perfect record at home.
His captaincy helped him to remain in the test team even when he was miserably out of form. True to a large extent. He never lost form in one dayers though and in the last two away series, looks to have turned the corner in tests also.
So, I repeat, he is definitely not a great captain, but has proved to be a good one.
Let's check the reasons:
He showed aggression and gamesmanship against Waugh. Laughable, especially coming from Waugh, it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
He wears his heart on a sleeve and shows his emotions too much(as witnessed after the Natwest triumph). Big deal! That shows he is a sincere and earnest person(not too much of a diplomat like Hussain, but shows his heart is in the right place).
Brash and ****y - so are most international captains. Do you think Hussain with his false modesty(the other team is always the favourite - supposedly puts all the pressure off himself and his team - stupid tactics to say the least) and his whining and innuendos on umpiring decisions in matches they lose(if they win, all is fair and forgiven) is really fooling anybody? He is being compared with Brearley. I don't think Brearley ever had to resort to such tactics and especially after the current series can be said to have been tactically far superior.
He is tactically poor when compared to other captains. I agree that he might not be tactically anything great and sometimes looks all at sea when the opposition is dominating, but consider the ammo he has had through out his captaincy in terms of bowlers. Srinath(of the drooping head), Prasad(of the military medium pace), Kumble(lion at home, lamb abroad), Harb and Zaheer(shows promise, but miles to go yet), Nehra(so far, out of his depth in tests, pulling on somehow in one dayers)Agarkar(enough has been said about him, I guess) and a whole lot of nincompoops who aren't worth mentioning. Consider the bowling attacks of other teams, even a depleted England. With this (non) attack, he has managed to win in the last 2 1/2 years, (I am not talking about batting bailing out the team with draws) the maximum no: of tests abroad of any Indian captain while maintaining their near-perfect record at home.
His captaincy helped him to remain in the test team even when he was miserably out of form. True to a large extent. He never lost form in one dayers though and in the last two away series, looks to have turned the corner in tests also.
So, I repeat, he is definitely not a great captain, but has proved to be a good one.
just picking up on the last bit....
I agree that Ganguly is far from being the worst captain - anyone who is given the honor of captaining their country for anything can't be bad!!!!
when you look at the reasons given for India the same could be said for NZ & more so as Fleming has had even fewer resources to work with both batting and bowling etc....
yet what makes Fleming stand out has been his innovation & quick responses on the field...I am looking forward to seeing what he does with the upcoming invitational matches with the talent at his disposal, although it is never easy to make a team of champions into a champion team in a couple of days.!!!!
if anything I think Hussain under performed in the recent Test series and let some opportunities slip.....
both Hussain & Ganguly have been able to take their respective teams & give them some international respectability even with new players coming in to both forms of the game.....
W Indies have not been able to do this, Pakistan have their problems, Ponting is too new & inherited his squads & success from the Taylor & Waugh eras.
IMO of the current crop, only Fleming, Ganguly & Hussain can say they have had a positive impact on their teams as captains!!!
Going on performances you would have to say that Hooper & Adams were the least effective with WI, followed by Waqar because of the Pak problems (even if they are not of his making)!!!!!
8D
I agree that Ganguly is far from being the worst captain - anyone who is given the honor of captaining their country for anything can't be bad!!!!
when you look at the reasons given for India the same could be said for NZ & more so as Fleming has had even fewer resources to work with both batting and bowling etc....
yet what makes Fleming stand out has been his innovation & quick responses on the field...I am looking forward to seeing what he does with the upcoming invitational matches with the talent at his disposal, although it is never easy to make a team of champions into a champion team in a couple of days.!!!!
if anything I think Hussain under performed in the recent Test series and let some opportunities slip.....
both Hussain & Ganguly have been able to take their respective teams & give them some international respectability even with new players coming in to both forms of the game.....
W Indies have not been able to do this, Pakistan have their problems, Ponting is too new & inherited his squads & success from the Taylor & Waugh eras.
IMO of the current crop, only Fleming, Ganguly & Hussain can say they have had a positive impact on their teams as captains!!!
Going on performances you would have to say that Hooper & Adams were the least effective with WI, followed by Waqar because of the Pak problems (even if they are not of his making)!!!!!
8D
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No argument there. In fact, any captain who complains about the gamesmanship of another is being hypocritical. They ALL do it.
True too. He went over-the-top after they beat the Aussies once in the second Test of the last series but other than that, I don't think what he does is bad at all.
I agree. Hussain's tactics leave a lot to be desired. As with most other mediocre captains, he doesn't back his own players enough. I mean, his quote with regards to picking two fast bowlers for Australia and not any "floating medium pacers" is atrocious. Gee, if Dom Cork thought he was on the outer before then, he's certainly left in no doubt now!
Here's where we differ. The mark of a great captain isn't about the bowlers and batsmen who he has at his disposal; it's about getting the best out of those who you DO have. Personally, I don't think anyone can deny that Ajit Agarkar is an exceptionally talented bowler. His lack of success says more to me about the way he's been treated than his raw talent. Obviously that key which unlocks the best in him has't been turned (and is going rusty!
). For example, when I was playing grade cricket, we had 7 current or former State level players in our playing eleven for most of the season (including both State opening bowlers) and we didn't even make the finals.
So as usual, a team of champions does not a champion team make and it works the other way too. Even a team of mediocre cricketers can be a champion team if the captain is on the ball and I think THERE has been the failing of not just Saurav Ganguly but of most Indian captains so far. They seem to think that if you have bowlers and batsmen, the rest will take care of itself and it's partly an explanation for why they were such an atrocious fielding side for a while. Same goes with looking after bowlers.
You can set a field and encourage a bowler to bowl to it but if they're having an off day, well you have to make some concessions. It seems that Ganguly is usually unwilling to do that and this sort of approach is what diminishes a bowler's confidence to the point of not caring whether they get hit around or not.
Us bowlers need to know the captain has confidence in us and this is the mark of a great captain, vs a good one. A great captain will inspire a struggling bowler to feel like a million dollars to perform great things.
aussie_beater
State Vice-Captain
Oh ! I don't think so. A captain is as good as the team he leads.It maynot be true the other way round but you cannot deny the fact that great teams have not been because of great captains only.Give Clive Lloyd or for that matter Tony Greig to lead the Bangladeshis and still you won't be able to win a match against a top side......I can bet my life on that.
This whole captaincy thing can only make a difference to an extent.All the great captains that we pay tribute to, like Clive Lloyd or Steve Waugh or Imran Khan had a special quality in them to lead people but also had a great set of people who excelled in what they did.That matters a lot.
[Edited on 23/9/2002 by aussie_beater]
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
My point is that having champion players won't guarantee you winning side as much as having lesser players doesn't guarantee you a losing side. It's mainly about attitude. You surely need a couple of key players but still, a great captain whilst maybe not effecting a win with lesser players, will surely make sure they play as well as they can. I mean, when you consider the population of India and the quality (in terms of raw talent) of players to come through the ranks in batting and bowling, the team should definately have been more successful than they have been, if not than any other team.
I mean, how else do you explain NZ's semi-final appearance in the WC of 1992 after being unbeaten for all but their final preliminary match? India winning the WC in 1983? NZ beating the WI in a Test series in 1981? Examples abound of where a team may have been inferior to another on paper but won anyway due to a great captain's tactics or the concept of a team.
Frankly, I don't think a bowler like Craig McDermott would have been as successful without the captain behind him just as Ajit Agarkar should definately have been more successful. He certainly isn't bowling well but I get the feeling he's not getting the support he needs either.
[Edited on 23/9/2002 by Top_Cat]
I mean, how else do you explain NZ's semi-final appearance in the WC of 1992 after being unbeaten for all but their final preliminary match? India winning the WC in 1983? NZ beating the WI in a Test series in 1981? Examples abound of where a team may have been inferior to another on paper but won anyway due to a great captain's tactics or the concept of a team.
Frankly, I don't think a bowler like Craig McDermott would have been as successful without the captain behind him just as Ajit Agarkar should definately have been more successful. He certainly isn't bowling well but I get the feeling he's not getting the support he needs either.
[Edited on 23/9/2002 by Top_Cat]
royGilchrist
State 12th Man
This is like a replica of the 'phil jackson coaching the clippers' argument. My personal opinion is that give (hypothetically) two captains identical sides for a long time, and the better captain will show better results. But at the same time we keep associating tactics and field placing selection etc. with good captaincy, but its only a minor thing compared to the ability to lead men. Making a team fight as a unit, and squeezing the best out of ur bowlers is a captain's main responsibility. Imran for example, did not have the kind of men at his disposal as the Pak sides after him, post WC92, but he got much better results. Most of the historic series wins, ties, outside Pak came in his reign. Similarly in some other post, S Waugh was being discredited, but what else could he possibly have done better. I mean Aus has just crushed every other team (except in India) for the last 4 years. And is should not be difficult to appreciate that the quality of his team is not of the same magnitude of the 70s-80s WI, but the results are similar.
TC has many ood points, especially about McDermott/Agarkar.
aussie_beater
State Vice-Captain
Yes the odd one ofcourse....and captains who can inspire their teams to achieve their potential have been able to show results once in a while, but in a long run the quality of the team matters a lot and IMO is the deciding factor.The WI domination of world cricket was chiefly dependent on the firepower that Lloyd had at his disposal and he was clever enough to use it to achieve what they did.So he was a great captain, but he had a greater team.
Same applies for Waugh's case.He is a good captain, but he also has a McGrath, a Warne, a Slater, a Mark Waugh, a Gilchrist to demolish the opposition.Allan Border was a great captain but he spent most of his career failing to achieve what he could have.He only had a mediocre McDermott and a Greg Matthews as a spinner to fall back to.Maybe a Greg Dyer as a batsman or a Bruce Reed as a bowler but that's as far as his options could go.
Imran Khan led a team which was by no means a lesser team then what Pakistan fielded in the later years.He had a Javed Miandad and a Salim Malik to look after the batting and a young Wasim Akram to share the new ball with him.That was the creme de la creme of Pakistani cricket ever and so to say that Imran didn't have the team is absolutely incorrect.
royGilchrist
State 12th Man
Javed was excellent no doubt. But other than that Salim Malik, Ramiz, Mudassir, do not stack up well against, Aamir Sohail, Saeed Anwar, Youhanna, Inzi. In 1982 on his first tour, Pak fielded Ehteshamuddin in their line-up, a player of that quality does not even make it to Bangladesh. But still Pak came very close to beating Eng in Eng, against a stellar Eng side, and some partial umpiing. Pak won a test in England after the 60s I think.
Also, in bowling Pak has had players with excellent potential now, Mohammad Zahid, Mohammad Akram, Wasim, Waqar, Sami, Shoaib, Shabbir. Imran had Akram for part of his captainy but u have to remeber that ZAkram was raw in those days, and his peak was around 1990. For part of Imran's captaincy he had an over the hill Sarfraz, and players like Rashid Khan, Tahir Naqqash, Shahid Mehboob, got a chance, that sort of a moderate talent level has not been seen in Pak cricket since then. Mudassir used to be an all rounder in thsoe days in ODI!! In those days Pak team was definetely overachieving. And after WC92 Pak has definetely underachieved.
Also, in bowling Pak has had players with excellent potential now, Mohammad Zahid, Mohammad Akram, Wasim, Waqar, Sami, Shoaib, Shabbir. Imran had Akram for part of his captainy but u have to remeber that ZAkram was raw in those days, and his peak was around 1990. For part of Imran's captaincy he had an over the hill Sarfraz, and players like Rashid Khan, Tahir Naqqash, Shahid Mehboob, got a chance, that sort of a moderate talent level has not been seen in Pak cricket since then. Mudassir used to be an all rounder in thsoe days in ODI!! In those days Pak team was definetely overachieving. And after WC92 Pak has definetely underachieved.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
For sure. I guess I'm just arguing that the results of the Indian team in Tests has less to do with the quality of the bowlers than the ability of the captain to get the best out of them. Agarkar, Srinath, Kumble and Harby are hardly hacks. They are all quality bowlers, yet they've all (except for Harby against the Aussies) underachieved so some extent. So what's left? The captain. Maybe Ganguly needs to turn a performance corner himself as a captain.
Y'know what? I just had a premonition that India will win the WC and it will be brilliant tactics by Ganguly that will do it. Weird, eh?
Mark this post.
Yeah but McDermott was only mediocre early on in his career. Once he had the full support of Border, he was one of the finest strike bowlers in the world from about 1992-1995. For that period he was up there with the best, Wasim Akram and Curtly Ambrose notwithstanding.
My point was that he probably wouldn't have been as successful if it weren't for Border's faith in him. Same with Merv.
To be honest, Australia's lack of success in the 80's was more a function of their batting than bowling. We had a decent Test attack in Merv (a MUCH better bowler than people gave him credit for), McDermott, Reid and Alderman (83 wickets in two Ashes series against a strong England). We really lacked a spinner and genuinely attacking batsmen other than Dean Jones and Steve Waugh and even then only Jones was a real match-winner off his own bat. Boonie was a great player too but wasn't the most attacking player in the world.
Mate, Greg Dyer was a 'keeper.
aussie_beater
State Vice-Captain
Most of these bowlers,except Harby and Agarkar have been around for longer then Ganguly.Kumble hasn't achieved anything outside the sub-continent and Srinath's case is better left alone.Indian quicks have a problem in that they cannot perform well at home even given the pitch conditions etc. except for a Kapil or a Srinath.That affects yougsters like Agarkar and others and they have a greater pressure on them abroad when they don't even know what a match winning performance looks like.No Indian captain has been able to make a bowler out of these blokes that come out of the ranks....like a Vivek Razdan or a Chetan Sharma or a Salil Ankola.So blaming Ganguly doesn't hold any water.
That's what I am saying....he is just an example I was trying to put forth.....they didn't have the right stuff during those years.Mate, Greg Dyer was a 'keeper.
McDermott spent the better part of his career(almost eight years) being an average bowler and Border had to take that for the most part.McDermott started to turn around during the last stages of Border's captaincy.So to attribute Border making his turn around doesn't make too much of sense....what did Border tell him that he didn't for almost nine years.He was the best Australia had got at that point.