Australian Captaincy Thoughts

Australian Captaincy Thoughts

Post by Donald Ros » Tue, 31 Mar 1998 04:00:00


Our Aussie newspapers are full of stories which cover the crisis (induced by
the selectors) in the Australian Captaincy.

The main thrust appears to be that Taylor will confront the selectors and
suggest that he resign and allow Steve Waugh to fill both positions since
Taylor is only being considered for the Test team now.

Sadly the wear and tear of well over a decade of Test and ODI cricket is
beginning to show on S. Waugh's body and performances.  In most sports, the
first sign that a player is coming to the end of his career is a spate of
niggling injuries.  Frequently performances are still not too bad.  These
injuries are usually passed off by the player as temporary and nothing to
worry about.   Does this sound familiar?

Steve Waugh may still have another  few years in the Australian team, but
not if we saddle him with the responsibilities of caring for an ageing body,
salvaging the Aussie batting innings time after time, bowling a few overs,
trying to be one of the better fielders in the team, chronicle the tours and
lead the side as well.   Three or four years ago--sure.  Ask him to do this
now and we are courting mild failure.

Warne has demonstrated the ability to undertake the captaincy with the dash
and the innovative imagination of a Taylor or a Benaud.  Moreover, he has
the player loyalty (both ways) that was Ian Chappell's great strength.

On the few times when he has captained Australia he appeared to bowl himself
very cautiously and demand more from the other bowlers.  Therein may lay his
greatest gift:  the ability to preserve his skills and not overbowl himself,
contrary to accepted wisdom on bowlers objectivity on their ability to
contribute.

Most observers believe that Warne is potentially a far better batsman than
his lowly position in the order or his average indicates.  Some, when handed
the captaincy find it interferes with their focus on personal skills.  In
Warne's case, I believe that he is the type of player who will bat with a
far greater sense of responsibility and we will see him finish his career
with performances akin to Reiffel's.  His bowling should be more carefully
conserved.  Warne appears to have the ability to call on other bowling
resources and eke out greater efforts of focus, pace and variety out of
sheer loyalty.  As for his fielding, was it ever much more than adequate.
It will always be just there or thereabouts.  He will never be a Taylor,
Waugh or Ponting in the field.

 
 
 

Australian Captaincy Thoughts

Post by Arthur Ts » Wed, 01 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Hmmmm maybe you could think about Mark Waugh too.......

Quote:

> Our Aussie newspapers are full of stories which cover the crisis (induced by
> the selectors) in the Australian Captaincy.

> The main thrust appears to be that Taylor will confront the selectors and
> suggest that he resign and allow Steve Waugh to fill both positions since
> Taylor is only being considered for the Test team now.

> Sadly the wear and tear of well over a decade of Test and ODI cricket is
> beginning to show on S. Waugh's body and performances.  In most sports, the
> first sign that a player is coming to the end of his career is a spate of
> niggling injuries.  Frequently performances are still not too bad.  These
> injuries are usually passed off by the player as temporary and nothing to
> worry about.   Does this sound familiar?

> Steve Waugh may still have another  few years in the Australian team, but
> not if we saddle him with the responsibilities of caring for an ageing body,
> salvaging the Aussie batting innings time after time, bowling a few overs,
> trying to be one of the better fielders in the team, chronicle the tours and
> lead the side as well.   Three or four years ago--sure.  Ask him to do this
> now and we are courting mild failure.

> Warne has demonstrated the ability to undertake the captaincy with the dash
> and the innovative imagination of a Taylor or a Benaud.  Moreover, he has
> the player loyalty (both ways) that was Ian Chappell's great strength.

> On the few times when he has captained Australia he appeared to bowl himself
> very cautiously and demand more from the other bowlers.  Therein may lay his
> greatest gift:  the ability to preserve his skills and not overbowl himself,
> contrary to accepted wisdom on bowlers objectivity on their ability to
> contribute.

> Most observers believe that Warne is potentially a far better batsman than
> his lowly position in the order or his average indicates.  Some, when handed
> the captaincy find it interferes with their focus on personal skills.  In
> Warne's case, I believe that he is the type of player who will bat with a
> far greater sense of responsibility and we will see him finish his career
> with performances akin to Reiffel's.  His bowling should be more carefully
> conserved.  Warne appears to have the ability to call on other bowling
> resources and eke out greater efforts of focus, pace and variety out of
> sheer loyalty.  As for his fielding, was it ever much more than adequate.
> It will always be just there or thereabouts.  He will never be a Taylor,
> Waugh or Ponting in the field.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spam is not welcomed by my mailbox - I have warned you

Assasin aka CyCloNiC - Proud member of Clan ShellShock (CTF)

Please note : In an effort to discourage unsolicited e-mail and
flames, my e-mail address has been modified. Please remove the
###'s to reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Australian Captaincy Thoughts

Post by Pet » Wed, 01 Apr 1998 04:00:00

I do like the dark horse contender Mark Waugh, tho seriously, I think
Warne is the only man who should replace Taylor if and when it does
occur ina  few time preferrably.

Quote:
>Our Aussie newspapers are full of stories which cover the crisis (induced by
>the selectors) in the Australian Captaincy.


 
 
 

Australian Captaincy Thoughts

Post by Stephen Pearso » Thu, 02 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Most observers believe that Warne is potentially a far better batsman than
> his lowly position in the order or his average indicates.  Some, when handed
> the captaincy find it interferes with their focus on personal skills.  In
> Warne's case, I believe that he is the type of player who will bat with a
> far greater sense of responsibility and we will see him finish his career
> with performances akin to Reiffel's.  His bowling should be more carefully
> conserved.  Warne appears to have the ability to call on other bowling
> resources and eke out greater efforts of focus, pace and variety out of
> sheer loyalty.  As for his fielding, was it ever much more than adequate.
> It will always be just there or thereabouts.  He will never be a Taylor,
> Waugh or Ponting in the field.

I wouldn't quite say Reiffel's career is finished, but yes Warne may
become a better
test batsman if he is given the role of captain.  But IMO Mark Waugh is
already
evolving into this form of batsman, so he would be a better choise as
far as the batting
and fielding side(you've seen him feild haven't u) of the matter goes.
In respect to
bowling, and being a captain as a bowler, IMO it has two affects on a
bowler, they will bowl
themselves too much, or too little, and IMO the latter applies here for
both of them, so it
becomes a matter of which bowler should be used more, and that's Warne,
therefore Waugh is
the better option, at the moment.

As far as the the player best suited to be captain (i.e leader) goes, it
is truely Taylor
that leads this department, except for a little lost form a little while
back, and this
current "hissy-fit", he is a strong leader, and with his current form he
could belong in
both sides, as a stabalizing force for the top order (which has not
always been the best
is either Test or ODI lately).  Therefore the selectors might have to
into Taylor and let
him captain both sides, and avoid an incident such as Atherton's
departure, and replacement
by our Adam Holliake (spelling).

Then of course with Lehmann, being named as captian of SA, and with his
dashing 50, maybe
he's been groomed for higher honours.

It appears the solution is not that easy, and I wish the selectors the
best of luck.

Cheers,
Stephen Rodney Pearson


Personel Home Page: http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~pearse


 +--+--+--+    PearsE electronics is my software company and it has a
home page at:
/  PearsE  \   http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/7362
\__/\__/\__/  

"A dream is an answer to a question we haven't leant how to ask" - Fox
Mulder, The X-Files.

 
 
 

Australian Captaincy Thoughts

Post by John Toml » Fri, 03 Apr 1998 04:00:00


     [snip]

Quote:
>Steve Waugh may still have another  few years in the Australian team, but
>not if we saddle him with the responsibilities of caring for an ageing body,
>salvaging the Aussie batting innings time after time, bowling a few overs,
>trying to be one of the better fielders in the team, chronicle the tours and
>lead the side as well.   Three or four years ago--sure.  Ask him to do this
>now and we are courting mild failure.

I'd be more impressed by arguments about age and fragile health if
Bradman hadn't come back after WWII in his late 30s - after being
invalided out of the service - and gone on to lead the invincibles
until his retirement at 40. OK, so even SWaugh isn't the Don, but he
ought to be able to both lead and carry on.

**************************************************************************

*        (Change # to . to get my actual e-mail address)                 *
* "The Australians brought to our Victorian pastime a terrible realism   *
*  and cunning" .... Neville Cardus in "English Cricket"                 *
* http://linus.socs.uts.edu.au/~tomlin                                   *
**************************************************************************

 
 
 

Australian Captaincy Thoughts

Post by User » Fri, 03 Apr 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I'd be more impressed by arguments about age and fragile health if
> Bradman hadn't come back after WWII in his late 30s - after being
> invalided out of the service - and gone on to lead the invincibles
> until his retirement at 40.

I thought Bradman didn't serve in WWII - I'm not out to bag him, I just
thought his poor health prevented him serving.

Quote:
> OK, so even SWaugh isn't the Don, but he
> ought to be able to both lead and carry on.

I think Taylor's tactically the best captain, but I don't think he's a
one-day player: I'd keep him as captain of the test team and pick a young
player who's likely to keep his place as one-day captain.  Why not
Gilchrist ?  My argument for not picking SWaugh as captain of either team
is that he too often has to be the saviour of Aust. batting without the
extra pressure of captaincy, so why take the chance ?  If Taylor throws
all his toys out of the pram and refuses to captain one, but not both, of
the teams, then bring back Law.  Not that I'm biased or anything.

Mike Gooding

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

 
 
 

Australian Captaincy Thoughts

Post by Joel Litt » Fri, 03 Apr 1998 04:00:00

:
: >
: > I'd be more impressed by arguments about age and fragile health if
: > Bradman hadn't come back after WWII in his late 30s - after being
: > invalided out of the service - and gone on to lead the invincibles
: > until his retirement at 40.
:
:
: I thought Bradman didn't serve in WWII - I'm not out to bag him, I just
: thought his poor health prevented him serving.
:
: > OK, so even SWaugh isn't the Don, but he
: > ought to be able to both lead and carry on.
: >
:
: I think Taylor's tactically the best captain, but I don't think he's a
: one-day player: I'd keep him as captain of the test team and pick a young
: player who's likely to keep his place as one-day captain.  Why not
: Gilchrist ?  My argument for not picking SWaugh as captain of either team
: is that he too often has to be the saviour of Aust. batting without the
: extra pressure of captaincy, so why take the chance ?  

Think about how many times Border was the saviour of Australia's batting while
he was captain.  In the batting department, there is not a lot that a captain
can do, it all comes through on the field IMO.

: If Taylor throws
: all his toys out of the pram and refuses to captain one, but not both, of
: the teams, then bring back Law.  Not that I'm biased or anything.

If Taylor refuses to captain the test team because he can not captain the ODIs
then its good-bye tubsy from the Captaincy I say.  Being captain of the AUST.
team does not mean you are the boss of Australian cricket!

Joel

 
 
 

Australian Captaincy Thoughts

Post by John Toml » Fri, 03 Apr 1998 04:00:00

:
: >
: > I'd be more impressed by arguments about age and fragile health if
: > Bradman hadn't come back after WWII in his late 30s - after being
: > invalided out of the service - and gone on to lead the invincibles
: > until his retirement at 40.
:
:
: I thought Bradman didn't serve in WWII - I'm not out to bag him, I just
: thought his poor health prevented him serving.

According to DGB's autobiography and Roland Perry's "The Don", he enlisted
for air crew duty in the RAAF, but the RAAF were over-subscribed and Bradman
was approaching the age limit for air crew anyway, so he was assigned to
"special duties" with the army, essentially of a sporting nature. He
subsequently developed serious eye and muscle problems and was invalided
out. He seems to have spent most of the rest of the war convalescing.
So although it wasn't "active service", I think its fair to say he was
invalided out of the service. I'd still stay his health problems were way
more serious than SWaugh's.

**************************************************************************

*        (Change # to . to get my actual e-mail address)                 *
* "The Australians brought to our Victorian pastime a terrible realism   *
*  and cunning" .... Neville Cardus in "English Cricket"                 *
* http://linus.socs.uts.edu.au/~tomlin                                   *
**************************************************************************