Sport Today

On the surface this statement might seem that if what is true for one
than the reverse must hold true and therefore the title statement is
not applicable.

However, if one carefully analyzes the statement what I am trying to
say is the following.

No matter how good you are as a captain you are only as good as your
team. You may try and make the best decisions possible but if your team
doesn't perform than there is nothing you can do. Therefore, even the
best of captains cannot turn around a mediocre team and take them to
victory.

However, the reverse is not neccessarily true. A bad captain or let us
say that an extremely poor decision by a captain in a match can LOSE
you that match. (Even if your team was a good one and was equal if not
better than the opponents).

Dravid's horrendous decision cost India the match. If you go back a few
years you will see that Steve Waugh's terrible decision cost Australia
that historic test match and with it the series which was eventually
lost.

The statement I am making is controversial for my point is that while
the team alongwith the captain must get credit for victory sometimes a
major blunder by the captain can cost you the match. In that regard the
captain should be held responsible. (Alongwith the others who
contributed to that decision).

In war if a victory is won the general gets credit alongwith the
soldiers who fought the battle. But if one with an equal (if not
superior force) loses the battle due to a blunder in strategy than the
general alone must bear responsibility.

Sometimes the team plays badly and all must bear the burden of loss.
However, sometimes it is the poor decision by the captain which
accounts for defeat and in those cases the captain (alongwith the team
managment) must bear the responsibility for the loss.

What this implies is that India at home cannot even draw a test against
a depleted English side and has to depend on winning the toss making
the correct decision.

England won the toss and chose to bat in the first two games. But this
didn't cost India any match. Infact they won the second. So batting or
fielding first was not a significant factor.
thus your statement is crap.

   OK, in the World Cup final against Australia, Ganguly won the
   toss and decided to field first. Australia scored 359/4 in 50
   overs. India lost the match by 125 runs. So was Ganguly's
   decision to field first a bad one?? Did it cost India the match??
   IMO, the Indian bowling on display was pathetic. Even if India
   batted first and scored around 275-280, they would have lost
   the match with that kind of pathetic bowling. So who do you
   blame for India's loss in the World Cup finals?? Ganguly's
   decision to bowl first or pathetic bowling by Zaheer, Srinath
   and co.??

   Rubbish. Steve Waugh didn't have the benefit of hindsight.
   Mind you, before the Kolkata Test, there were only two Tests
   in which a side following on had gone on to win a Test match.
   One of these occasions was the famous Headingley Test in
   1981. It took a once-in-a-lifetime innings of 281 from Laxman,
   who along with Dravid (who made 180) put up a massive 376
   fifth wicket partnership to steer India away from danger. What
   followed is now part of cricketing folklore. Australia lost the
   Kolkata Test by 171 runs. his was only the third Test
   (and last to date) to have been won by a side following on.

Steve Waugh's terrible decision?. Did you think it was terrible
decision then?. Indian batting seemed more or less in shambles at that
time. Morale wasn't all that great. 274 behind. Bowled out very cheaply
in the first innings. Bowled out very cheaply in both innings at Mumbai
in the first test match and batsmen apart from SRT and to a certain
extent VVSL looked totally out of form.It wasn't something like that
the Aussie bowlers had been in the field for a long time. SRT was also
dismissed early in both innings.. The odds that India would go on to
win the match was very low. And even with the score somewhere around
200/4, it didn't seem all that good. As the aussies said later, they
were just a wicket away from series win. Don't think it had anything to
do with SRW's decision to enforce the follow on.

-Aravind

With the fielding and batting display that we put up on the last test
match, I don't think we would have won even with batting first.

-Aravind

tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

Excuse me? What leads you to the conclusion that the best of captains
cannot turn around a mediocre team and take them to victory?

Turning round mediocre teams and taking them to victory has been one
of the most obvious marks of the best captains for the last couple of
hundred years and is unlikely to change any time soon.

Since you're basing your theory on contradicting centuries of recorded
history, it doesn't hold very much water.

Cheers,

Mike

[snip]

Which wasn't a terrible decision.

No its just stupid.

[snip]
--
You can't stop the signal

Plus a great bowling performance in the 4th innings from Harby who took
6 wkts. If Harby did not deliver, Laxman's and Dravid's efforts would
have gone in vain. Note: Australia started their 4th innings just
before lunch on the 5th day and India had very little time to get
Australia out.
I think any other captain would have taken the same decision that Waugh
took.

Totally agree....Mike.
Brearley was a very good example......captained England in 31 matches
with
18 wins and only 4 losses while his batting ave in those 31 matched was

22.48 with 1102 runs.  Imran won WC with a mediocre team with only
Wasim Akram being the world class player in the team. Javid was already
passed his prime. Imran himself was not bowling and playing as a
batsman.

How is the statement crap. Just because you win inspite of the odds (as
in Mohali) doesn't negate the fact that you can always make your
position easier by doing the right thing. Just because a team wins a
match (inspite of the odds) like at Mohali, doesn't take away the fact
that they could have made thier job a lot easier had they used the
conditions to thier advantage in the best possible way.

Mumbai always takes turn on the fourth and definitely the fifth day.
The pathetic display by the Indians just covers up the fact that had
they even batted well they might have just (maybe just) scraped out a
draw. More likely they would have probably lost about an hour certainly
half an hour before the end of the day's play.

However, even if they had drawn the match it still doesn't take away
the fact that had they batted first they would in all likelihood
probably won the match. Batting got more difficult from the second day
onwards so even if England had bowled India out for under 250 (with
India getting day one to bat on), in all likelihood England may still
not have gotten more than 300 if they had to bat on day two and the
first session on day 3. India may then have gotten lets say 200 or so
leaving England 150 to get and in all likelihood England too would
probably have crumbled under the pressure of Harbhajan and Kumble.

Cricket is all psychological. Its more a game in the mind and the
psychological pressure of having to bat last would in all probability
have done England in.

I am in no way taking away the terrific performance of the England
team. Just pointing out the obvious mistake by Dravid which probably
cost India the match.

I am not saying this in hindsight. I made the statement (which I am
going to write below) even before the first ball was bowled in the 2003
world cup final match between India and Australia. The moment we won
the toss and Mr. Ganguly chose to field first I told everyone who was
sitting and watching the match that we have lost the match. Period. End
of discussion.

I am of the firm opinion that if you win the toss you bat first.
Period. End of discussion. The only exception to this is probably in
places like England where the ball may be seaming around a lot in the
morning and the weather forecast states that the sun will come out
later on in the day which may make batting easier. In such
circumstances I may consider batting second so that my team gets the
best conditions while batting.

In South Africa that was simply not the case and by putting Australia
in we lost the match before the match even started. As I mentioned, I
stated this before the first ball was even bowled.

Had India batted first and even scored about 270 or 280 we could in all
likelihood have put Australia under pressure and probably won the world
cup. Another blunder made by
Ganguly was not picking Kumble in the final. So, those were two huge
blunders made by whom many consider an excellent captain.

Of course by batting second Kumble couldn't have done much anyway.
Maybe instead of chasing 350 plus we may have chased 320 plus. However,
like I said I would have batted first, put up at least 250 or 260
(maybe even upto 270 or 280) and then put Australia under pressure
batting last in a world cup final. The pressure may have gotten to
them. Sure, Australia may still have won the match but IMHO it was
India's best chance of victory. Not the blunder which Ganguly made.

Neither did I. Yet the moment Waugh put India in I told everyone
watching that this is a mistake as India are not likely to crumble
again in the second innings and even if Australia are chasing a low
score they will face pressure batting last. I proved correct. And once
again my statement was made the moment Waugh put India in again. My
statement was not in hindsight. My statement was made by a certain gut
feeling I had watching Laxman bat in the first innings. I just felt
that he was playing superbly. Of course I expected India to make about
400 to 450 in the second innings setting Australia a target of around
170 or 180. I never expected India to make over 600 runs and then
declare. I will certainly admit that. However, the basic crux of my
argument holds. I did expect India to cross 400 and probably make
around 450 or so. And I expected that Australia will crumble in the
fourth innings.

Of course even though he made this monumental blunder he still stands
as a good test captain. One horrible mistake does not take away his
many achievements.

It may happen on the rare occasion and in such a case the captain must
get the major part of the credit.

I guess my statement (to put it as briefly as I can) is the following.

In a victory, the leader almost always shares the credit with his
teammates. However, in defeat the leader (especially the really strong
ones) take majority of the blame on themselves especially if they have
made a strategic blunder.

There are times you can blame the team if you lose and then there are
also times you should give credit to those extraordinary individuals
who take you to victory inspite of the odds.

However, when you lose due to a strategic blunder you must take the
blame squarely on your shoulders.

I  believe the captaincy ( a major part of it) is all about common
sense. You should do the basics right. Occasionaly you get a gut
feeling and the really good captains are ones whose gut feelings prove
more right than wrong. You can make all the changes do all the right
things but if your team doesn't perform you are sunk. In that sense I
meant that the best of captains cannot turn the team around and make
the team win.

However, you may have the best team at your disposal and if you make a
monumental strategic blunder you have given a huge advantage to the
opposition. When two teams are almost at par than that huge advantage
almost certainly will end in defeat.

In victory you need the contribution of others. Strategy alone will not
ensure victory. Of course you still need your team mates to perform.
However, a blunder in strategy can assure you defeat. In spite of their
best efforts the team may still lose because the blunder was so huge
that recovering from it was extremely difficult.

Saeed Anwar was mediocre. Inzamam Ul Haq was mediocre. If you look at
the pakistan team it was really quite talented. It was certainly not
mediocre. You can call the present Bangladesh team mediocre. And if
their captain takes them to certain victories you can praise him. Even
then it would be due to terrific contributions by certain players like
Mohammed Ashraful (thier one and only class player).

Which is exactly my point. Which unfortunately people haven't either
got or are just missing.

Good captaincy cannot win you a match without the contributions of your
teammates. However, bad captaincy can certainly lose you the match
inspite your team trying its best. Sometimes a blunder may be so huge
that a team cannot recover from it inspite of its best efforts.

 Javid was already

I still don't understand how a wrong coin toss decision is a captaincy
decision.  Presumably, it's a team decision.  Your lead post implies
that Dravid and only Dravid is responsible for the wrong call.  It's
almost as if you are saying that Chappel and the Indian brain trust all
would have wanted to bat but they stayed silent on the issue as it was
not their decision and Dravid - with no input from anyone - went the
other way.

Same deal with Waugh's follow on decision in Kolkata.  Whether or not
the decsioon was correct is immaterial.  But are you saying that this
was a decision taken unilaterally by the capatin?  Maybe it is...I
don't know.  I am asking 'cause I don't know.

But I agree with at least one point in your post:  It is hard to prove
that you are a great captain in any one test match.  Greatness becomes
evident only over time.  But it's quite easy to show the world that you
suck as a captain.  And it doesn't take long to do that.

It certainly can't be said that Dravid sucks as a captain.