Sammy vs Gayle as WI captain

[Making_Splinters]

His style of bowling is suited to being part of a four man attack when the other players in that attack are doing their jobs, fairly clearly shown when he got Strauss out.

I think rather than whittering on about how Sammy is supposed to be part of a four man attack you should pay attention to the other three.

[meninblue]

I'm not sure it's fair to use W/L ratios when determining captains. That would make Punter the best ever! If you also consider that Gayle had a better team at his disposal I think it shows Sammy hasn't done badly at all. Losing in England is hardly a disgrace, but it's series' such as the one vs NZ that are important.

IMO Credit should be given where it is due. Ponting is the most successful captain, whether we like it or not. His wins are a testimony to his success and out numbers any other captains wins. It is not Pontings fault that along with good captaincy skills he had a good team as well. Sixteen test wins in a row , couple of world cups, other major test and ODI series are under his belt. I reckon if any captain is given those wins they would be more than happy.

But the thing is when he didnt have a great team, his captaincy looked non-existent. There is a clear correlation.

You mean Ponting does not knows where to place his fielders and trap a batsman caught by planning with a bowler, when to rotate bowlers and whom. Whoever plays at that level clearly knows these things. Ponting like other captains have made superb field placements, rotated the bowlers well and other captaincy tricks. Yes, sometimes tricks fail, but more often than not Ponting has enjoyed captaincy success a lot. It is easy for us to say on our computer that those great players have no clue about captaincy.

[shankycricket]

His style of bowling is suited to being part of a four man attack when the other players in that attack are doing their jobs, fairly clearly shown when he got Strauss out.

I think rather than whittering on about how Sammy is supposed to be part of a four man attack you should pay attention to the other three.

Roach, Rampaul and Narine would be the top 3 IMO. Sammy doesnt allow them to field a 2nd specialist spinner(not Samuels' chucking) which is often required in the Caribbean. I think Sammy as a part of a 4 man attack can work in England,SA,NZ but not in WI.

[ddb]

Huh? Sammy is most effective in West Indies, isn't he?

[shankycricket]

I'm not sure it's fair to use W/L ratios when determining captains. That would make Punter the best ever! If you also consider that Gayle had a better team at his disposal I think it shows Sammy hasn't done badly at all. Losing in England is hardly a disgrace, but it's series' such as the one vs NZ that are important.

IMO Credit should be given where it is due. Ponting is the most successful captain, whether we like it or not. His wins are a testimony to his success and out numbers any other captains wins. It is not Pontings fault that along with good captaincy skills he had a good team as well. Sixteen test wins in a row , couple of world cups, other major test and ODI series are under his belt. I reckon if any captain is given those wins they would be more than happy.

But the thing is when he didnt have a great team, his captaincy looked non-existent. There is a clear correlation.

You mean Ponting does not knows where to place his fielders and trap a batsman caught by planning with a bowler, when to rotate bowlers and whom. Whoever plays at that level clearly knows these things. Ponting like other captains have made superb field placements, rotated the bowlers well and other captaincy tricks. Yes, sometimes tricks fail, but more often than not Ponting has enjoyed captaincy success a lot. It is easy for us to say on our computer that those great players have no clue about captaincy.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/10/14/po ... zs-fields/

[shankycricket]

I'm not sure it's fair to use W/L ratios when determining captains. That would make Punter the best ever! If you also consider that Gayle had a better team at his disposal I think it shows Sammy hasn't done badly at all. Losing in England is hardly a disgrace, but it's series' such as the one vs NZ that are important.

IMO Credit should be given where it is due. Ponting is the most successful captain, whether we like it or not. His wins are a testimony to his success and out numbers any other captains wins. It is not Pontings fault that along with good captaincy skills he had a good team as well. Sixteen test wins in a row , couple of world cups, other major test and ODI series are under his belt. I reckon if any captain is given those wins they would be more than happy.

But the thing is when he didnt have a great team, his captaincy looked non-existent. There is a clear correlation.

You mean Ponting does not knows where to place his fielders and trap a batsman caught by planning with a bowler, when to rotate bowlers and whom. Whoever plays at that level clearly knows these things. Ponting like other captains have made superb field placements, rotated the bowlers well and other captaincy tricks. Yes, sometimes tricks fail, but more often than not Ponting has enjoyed captaincy success a lot. It is easy for us to say on our computer that those great players have no clue about captaincy.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/11/ ... 77643.html

[greyblazer]

Punter got so frustrated with OZ losing against England that he had 2 fielders at covers for no particular reason, not making a weak NZ follow on even with a lead of over 250 but instead batting on and on, just like Strauss rotating the pace bowlers in 5 over spells with a spinner at the other end and many more.

[shankycricket]

Huh? Sammy is most effective in West Indies, isn't he?

I havent checked the stats but that'd be very strange if thats the case.

[greyblazer]

I'm not sure it's fair to use W/L ratios when determining captains. That would make Punter the best ever! If you also consider that Gayle had a better team at his disposal I think it shows Sammy hasn't done badly at all. Losing in England is hardly a disgrace, but it's series' such as the one vs NZ that are important.

IMO Credit should be given where it is due. Ponting is the most successful captain, whether we like it or not. His wins are a testimony to his success and out numbers any other captains wins. It is not Pontings fault that along with good captaincy skills he had a good team as well. Sixteen test wins in a row , couple of world cups, other major test and ODI series are under his belt. I reckon if any captain is given those wins they would be more than happy.

But the thing is when he didnt have a great team, his captaincy looked non-existent. There is a clear correlation.

You mean Ponting does not knows where to place his fielders and trap a batsman caught by planning with a bowler, when to rotate bowlers and whom. Whoever plays at that level clearly knows these things. Ponting like other captains have made superb field placements, rotated the bowlers well and other captaincy tricks. Yes, sometimes tricks fail, but more often than not Ponting has enjoyed captaincy success a lot. It is easy for us to say on our computer that those great players have no clue about captaincy.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/11/ ... 77643.html

Yeah I remember this test as well.

[shankycricket]

http://www.espn.co.uk/cricket/sport/vid ... 59591.html

[Making_Splinters]

I'd suggest it's far more to do with the Windies lacking a keeper who can bat in the top six rather than Sammy playing that limits the team not being able to play five bowlers.

As for captaincy, as both myself and D/L have pointed out on various threads, the majority of it at the professional level is done before players even take the field, the fine tweaks on the field are done in conjunction between the bowler and the captain, it's fairly tough to be a poor on field captain in the modern game beyond man management skills, but that doesn't mean you can't be a good one though.

[greyblazer]

Unless the track is having variable bounce I won't select Shillingford. For me it is Roach, Rampaul, Narine and Sammy.

[meninblue]

I'm not sure it's fair to use W/L ratios when determining captains. That would make Punter the best ever! If you also consider that Gayle had a better team at his disposal I think it shows Sammy hasn't done badly at all. Losing in England is hardly a disgrace, but it's series' such as the one vs NZ that are important.

IMO Credit should be given where it is due. Ponting is the most successful captain, whether we like it or not. His wins are a testimony to his success and out numbers any other captains wins. It is not Pontings fault that along with good captaincy skills he had a good team as well. Sixteen test wins in a row , couple of world cups, other major test and ODI series are under his belt. I reckon if any captain is given those wins they would be more than happy.

But the thing is when he didnt have a great team, his captaincy looked non-existent. There is a clear correlation.

You mean Ponting does not knows where to place his fielders and trap a batsman caught by planning with a bowler, when to rotate bowlers and whom. Whoever plays at that level clearly knows these things. Ponting like other captains have made superb field placements, rotated the bowlers well and other captaincy tricks. Yes, sometimes tricks fail, but more often than not Ponting has enjoyed captaincy success a lot. It is easy for us to say on our computer that those great players have no clue about captaincy.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/10/14/po ... zs-fields/

You can give as many such links as you want, but the fact is he is most successful captain. The positives of his captaincy tactics overcomes the negatives outcomes of his tactics. Not every trick done by captain will work as opponents are also equally professional. Overall Ponting has enjoyed more good days than bad ones as captain.

[shankycricket]

I'd suggest it's far more to do with the Windies lacking a keeper who can bat in the top six rather than Sammy playing that limits the team not being able to play five bowlers.

As for captaincy, as both myself and D/L have pointed out on various threads, the majority of it at the professional level is done before players even take the field, the fine tweaks on the field are done in conjunction between the bowler and the captain, it's fairly tough to be a poor on field captain in the modern game beyond man management skills, but that doesn't mean you can't be a good one though.

Ok this may sound ludicrous but may I suggest giving the gloves to Lendl Simmons?

[greyblazer]

I'd suggest it's far more to do with the Windies lacking a keeper who can bat in the top six rather than Sammy playing that limits the team not being able to play five bowlers.

As for captaincy, as both myself and D/L have pointed out on various threads, the majority of it at the professional level is done before players even take the field, the fine tweaks on the field are done in conjunction between the bowler and the captain, it's fairly tough to be a poor on field captain in the modern game beyond man management skills, but that doesn't mean you can't be a good one though.

A few decisions taken on the field can make a real difference. I remember in the 96 WC Taylor making some instinctive decisions to help OZ reach the final. Even in the final his trick of suddenly bringing on Bevan before the 15th over almost worked but OZ in that match seemed to be hell bent on dropping catches.