Jump to content
veloman

Cricket: General Chat

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'd suggest that the higher up the game you go the less important the person in the role actually is (unless they're truly inspirational or amazing) especially as most teams seem to be led by committee rather than individual nowadays (skipper, vice-skipper, coach, goodness knows how many technical people adding input, &c.).

 

So would you have put Mike Brearley in that bracket? I didn't rate him much as a batsman (but what do I know ) but he got the best out of his players IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, veloman said:

So would you have put Mike Brearley in that bracket? I didn't rate him much as a batsman (but what do I know ) but he got the best out of his players IMO.

Absolutely. More from the psychological angle than the cricket brain, perhaps.

I'm certainly not denying the potential contribution of either an inspirational character or someone really astute but I don't think it's as important as people make out or believe. We do it elsewhere when we believe that success in charge in one field ought to necessarily transfer to success in charge in other fields and I'm not sure the ecidence supports that.

The important thing is to look at it this way:

can someone improve a situation as 'a leader'? sure, they can.

do you need 'a leader' to succeed? No, of course not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'd suggest that the higher up the game you go the less important the person in the role actually is (unless they're truly inspirational or amazing) especially as most teams seem to be led by committee rather than individual nowadays (skipper, vice-skipper, coach, goodness knows how many technical people adding input, &c.).

I don't think that's right. A 30 over session in the field can only be loosely mapped out by the coaching staff. The captain is managing loads of things by himself in reaction to the changing dynamics of the game - field placings, bowler workload, reviews, man management of bowlers and fielders, etc. You can't plan all that stuff in advance, no matter how much you spend on backroom staff.

Also the captain in cricket is much more involved in the backroom preparations with the squad. He helps to select the 11 from the selectors' 13 for a start, which is completely different from any other sport.

I thought there were hints of problems when Root overbowled Archer in the first test, and Archer has gone off the boil a bit since, especially with his questionable attitude when he bats. It's little things like that where a good captain shows his value. Brearley was a great captain because of his man management skills, not because of his field placings.

I do agree with your point about the captaincy going to someone who is first choice in the team, but Burns averaging over 40 this series has possibly played his way into a regular starting slot. It might need another series or so to confirm, but he'd be one candidate for the captaincy if Root doesn't turn things around. I don't see Root or Stokes as captain material. There's just a certain personality that good captains have and Root looks like a boy leading men. Massive contrast with Eoin Morgan.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, veloman said:

I didn't rate him much as a batsman

I remember Top Trumps and dreading it whenever I had Brearley as the next card...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I don't think that's right. A 30 over session in the field can only be loosely mapped out by the coaching staff. The captain is managing loads of things by himself in reaction to the changing dynamics of the game - field placings, bowler workload, reviews, man management of bowlers and fielders, etc. You can't plan all that stuff in advance, no matter how much you spend on backroom staff.

You don't need to plan it in advance. They're monitoring stuff in real time in the pavilion and there may not be the Bob Woolmer interaction with the Captain out on the field but players are coming in and out of the pavilion whenever they want so there's plenty of opportunity to get info out to the people on the field. Add in that it's very rare that a captain is making any sort of decision on their own and it's not the kind of position that you suggest it is.

24 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Also the captain in cricket is much more involved in the backroom preparations with the squad. He helps to select the 11 from the selectors' 13 for a start, which is completely different from any other sport.

I don't disagree. Do your criticisms of Root as a captain extend to his selections?

24 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I thought there were hints of problems when Root overbowled Archer in the first test, and Archer has gone off the boil a bit since, especially with his questionable attitude when he bats. It's little things like that where a good captain shows his value.

I genuinely don't think Root's captaincy can be blamed for Archer being lackadaisical when he's batting/running.

24 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Brearley was a great captain because of his man management skills, not because of his field placings.

Indeed. That rather fits in with where I'm coming from.

24 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

There's just a certain personality that good captains have and Root looks like a boy leading men. Massive contrast with Eoin Morgan.

And herein lies the problem. The captain's ability is largely defined by the team's performances and results.

If they win then the captain necessarily has to be good. If they lose then the captain is at fault.

Make Morgan the captain of this England test side at the start of the series and I'd be immensely surprised if there were any difference to the results.

Edit: I want to stress that I think you're making some valid points it's just that I disagree with the essence of the 'good captain' theory.

Edited by snowychap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stokes gave the team talk yesterday so looks likely it would be him as next cpt

Roy , Buttler , Overton and  Bairstow our for the 5th test 

but in all likelihood it will be the same squad , maybe just Woakes coming back in 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't disagree. Do your criticisms of Root as a captain extend to his selections?

Yes, Overton for Woakes was a mistake.

As for your other point about hindsight bias, yes, fair enough, but I think you're overegging this a bit. You're absolutely correct that some mediocre captains are seen as brilliant because they captained brilliant squads.

But Nasser Hussein was a superb captain with a pretty average record. It was just obvious from all the things he did. He laid down a lot of the groundwork for England's re-emergence as a genuine test force. You can see it even in his commentary career (even that KP documentary) that he has that ability to engage with and empathise with all kinds of people, while setting high expectations. Morgan has that too. I don't see it in Root.

Root for me is the classic English schoolboy cricketer. Cheeky banter and gets his mum to iron his whites. Nice lad and brilliant cricketer, but don't see him having the gravitas to manage a dressing room dispute, which will happen at some point (probably already has). Stokes is the classic low IQ, naturally gifted brute like Botham or Flintoff - both terrible captains.

It's so much more important in cricket because of the amount of time spent out in the field and the amount of time spent touring. Keeping all these players happy and firing on all cylinders is hard work.

Also, just the sheer number of (recent) ex-pros who credit good captains with their performances suggests there's more to it than just people jumping to the wrong conclusions. They almost always frame it in terms of that captain's man management skills.

Edited by KentVillan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Stokes gave the team talk yesterday so looks likely it would be him as next cpt

Various different people give talks in the huddle.

Warner gave the Aussie one the other day, I can't see them making him captain in a month of sundays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Various different people give talks in the huddle.

Warner gave the Aussie one the other day, I can't see them making him captain in a month of sundays.

He isn’t allowed to be under the terms of his ban :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’d like to think we start to see Curran in the side now. 

Hats off to the Aussies and of course Smith, he’s been brilliant throughout 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Yes, Overton for Woakes was a mistake.

Was that solely down to Root?

Why was it a mistake? Tbh, given Woakes's record, I'd only consider playing him at Lords and Edgbaston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any decent Aussies/South Africans we can steal?

Edited by StefanAVFC
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, snowychap said:

Was that solely down to Root?

Why was it a mistake? Tbh, given Woakes's record, I'd only consider playing him at Lords and Edgbaston.

It would have been down to Root and Bayliss. Who knows - I saw Root quite confidently defending the decision on TV and saying "we felt that Overton offered something specifically at Old Trafford", but of course you never know exactly what's happened until everyone serialises their autobiography in the Mail.

Woakes's Test bowling record at Old Trafford is 8-188 at 23.5. His Test bowling average in England is something like 21. He's a far superior bowler to Overton, and a better batsman.

I get there was some logic to it, but it looked a questionable decision at the time, and it looks worse with hindsight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

As for your other point about hindsight bias, yes, fair enough, but I think you're overegging this a bit. You're absolutely correct that some mediocre captains are seen as brilliant because they captained brilliant squads.

But Nasser Hussein was a superb captain with a pretty average record. It was just obvious from all the things he did. He laid down a lot of the groundwork for England's re-emergence as a genuine test force. You can see it even in his commentary career (even that KP documentary) that he has that ability to engage with and empathise with all kinds of people, while setting high expectations. Morgan has that too. I don't see it in Root.

Root for me is the classic English schoolboy cricketer. Cheeky banter and gets his mum to iron his whites. Nice lad and brilliant cricketer, but don't see him having the gravitas to manage a dressing room dispute, which will happen at some point (probably already has). Stokes is the classic low IQ, naturally gifted brute like Botham or Flintoff - both terrible captains.

It's so much more important in cricket because of the amount of time spent out in the field and the amount of time spent touring. Keeping all these players happy and firing on all cylinders is hard work.

Also, just the sheer number of (recent) ex-pros who credit good captains with their performances suggests there's more to it than just people jumping to the wrong conclusions. They almost always frame it in terms of that captain's man management skills.

Talk about overegging...

Of course they're going to credit good captains with their performances, we are absolutely conditioned to look up to managerial input, 'mentoring' and such other things. That is part of my point.

You talk about Hussein as though he breezed in, alone, and made 'the difference'. He didn't as far as I remember. Fletcher had as much of an input as he did.

Root is the 'classic English schoolboy cricketer'? Really? How so - because you imagine his mum irons his whites or for any actual reason other than some sort of prejudice?

I mean, you've gone from making some reasonable points to some sort of 'leaders lead because they're born to lead' crap.

Edited by snowychap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

It would have been down to Root and Bayliss.

And not the selectors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain is important but it’s all about the players really. Think Australia were just superior especially in the bowling department. Ok broad was outstanding and archer in patches but they could rest and rotate their seam attack to keep everyone fresh. It made difference who they brought in because they are all world class bowlers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KentVillan said:

Selectors pick the 13.

Fair enough.  :thumb:

They've obviously thrown someone else in to the mix with comments, though, haven't they?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Talk about overegging...

Of course they're going to credit good captains with their performances, we are absolutely conditioned to look up to managerial input, 'mentoring' and such other things. That is part of my point.

You talk about Hussein as though he breezed in, alone, and made 'the difference'. He didn't as far as I remember. Fletcher had as much of an input as he did.

Root is the 'classic English schoolboy cricketer'? Really? How so - because you imagine his mum irons his whites or for any actual reason other than some sort of prejudice?

I mean, you've gone from making some reasonable points to some sort of 'leaders lead because they're born to lead' crap.

It was just a joke re: Root. Calm down. I could list all the reasons - he's immature, unserious, I think his teammates like rather than respect him. I think he's a brilliant cricketer, and I love him, but he just doesn't scream captain to me, and given that other players who've actually played with him have said the same thing, I don't think I'm just plucking this out of thin air.

I don't talk about Hussain as though he breezed in, alone and made the difference - as I said, the results weren't there. But he was very good. Here's what Tendulkar had to say about Hussain (no doubt a bit of pro-Indian bias creeping in, but nonetheless):

Quote

"Among the Captains I have played against, I consider Nasser Hussein the best. He was an excellent strategist...He was a very good thinker about the game and was proactive. Nasser would not place a fielder in a particular position after a shot was played. Rather, he had the ability to anticipate the shot and would place a fielder well in advance, making a real difference to his team"

I'm not sure why you're getting worked up about this, I'm not completely disagreeing with your point, but you seem to be completely ruling out the idea that there might be a better captain than Root available to this England team.

Edit: and yes, I'm sure you're right the selectors make suggestions. It was just an example of where Root had direct influence and may have misused it / failed to use it.

Edited by KentVillan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

It was just a joke re: Root. Calm down. I could list all the reasons - he's immature, unserious, I think his teammates like rather than respect him. I think he's a brilliant cricket, and I love him, but he just doesn't scream captain to me, and given that other players who've actually played with him have said the same thing, I don't think I'm just plucking this out of thin air.

I don't talk about Hussain as though he breezed in, alone and made the difference - as I said, the results weren't there. But he was very good. Here's what Tendulkar had to say about Hussain (no doubt a bit of pro-Indian bias creeping in, but nonetheless):

I'm not sure why you're getting worked up about this, I'm not completely disagreeing with your point, but you seem to be completely ruling out the idea that there might be a better captain than Root available to this England team.

I'm getting worked up because it's an annoying reaction to the England team not doing well. Of course there may be a better captain than Root. Would a better captain than Root mean a better England team than now? Maybe, maybe not.

Oh, but it must be the captian...

What do people wheel out? His mum irons his whites - it was just a joke. My real thoughts are, "He's immature, unserious". Is that a joke or not?

Ah, he doesn't 'scream' captain to you. Well, that's unsurprising as I'd take a puint very few people 'scream' captain to anyone.

My point is that the whole 'Captains make successful teams' trope is largely bollocks and the continuing search for someone who will be that captain in order to make a team succeed is infuriating beyond belief.

Captains can improve individuals' and teams' performances - they don't make them.

Edited by snowychap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â