How Does The Captain Impact The Team?

[hawkeye]

I have always wondered how much impact the captain has on his team. How much does tactics etc contribute to team performance? How much credit should he get when his team wins and how much blame should he be given when his team loses?

There has never been a good captain of a bad team. The best tactician in the world still needs competent players to execute his schemes. There is hardly anything a captain can do during a game to protect batsmen intent on committing suicide or to improve the technique of those unable to cope with the opposition's bowling attack or the pitch conditions. Nor can the most cunning field setting enforce discipline and accuracy upon bowlers not quite up to the task.

Should we blame the captain when the team fails?

 

[sifter132]

Well I think Richie Benaud is the guy who is always saying that captaincy is 90% luck, and 10% skill. I agree with him, I think captaincy is overrated. Especially these days where there is so much analysis done off the field that a lot of the field placings and bowling changes during matches are almost automatic eg. fielders spread out to the fence by habit in limited overs games as soon as the restrictions are done. But more pertinently, there are often plans already set by the coaching staff for various batsmen eg. have 2 short midwickets for Trott etc. and the captain just has to implement said plan to be 'smart'.

Captains also get lauded for bowling changes which are really very limited in choice eg. you might only have 5-6 guys who can bowl, 2 are already bowling, maybe you've got 1 saved up for another role - so you're lauding a guy for basically getting a 1 in 3 choice 'right'.

So in my opinion, the best captains these days are the dressing room leaders, not because on any on field tactical genius. And because the best captains are dressing room leaders, it's really hard to work out who they are - since we don't know what goes on in there. Therefore we use other things to judge how good a captain might be eg. team performance and personal performance. Darren Sammy might be an absolute master of motivating his team and keeping a unit together, but we just don't know...

 

[puddleduck]

We can only assume that's the case with Darren Sammy... because he can't really bat, bowl or field

 

[cricket_icon]

Good question and it all depends on the captain and the players within his team.

Just a little example of my time playing at an under 16s cricket club a few years back. I was made captain, not because I had the best possible tactical brain (I'd like to think I was more than competent but it was the coach who made all the main decisions) but because I was the most capable batsman on the team.

I think that would be the type of captaincy that is most often seen, a player who is so brilliant in his role as a player that he is raised to rank of captain to try and inspire those around him, irregardless of tactical nous. Flintoff, Botham, Tendulkar, Lara, Waqar Younis were all captains in recent times, based on how well they played.

I think I'm safe in saying that lesser mortals than the ones above were better captains, the likes of Vaughn, Strauss, Misbah-Ul Haq, Ganguly and so on. These men are chosen to captaincy not because of individual brilliance but because of their ability to read a game. Vaughn in the best example. He was kept on as England captain long after his best playing days were behind him. He didn't do a bad job either.

There are a few who are combinations of both great minds and supreme ability, Imran Khan is the finest example of such, he had the ability to unite a fractitious pakistani dressing room, to inspire on the field and to plan off it. The finest captain the game has ever seen, sorry Lloyd and Benaud.

But it's not only the brilliance of the captain. he also needs a team around him that have the ability to back him up. I think Ponting for the first half of his captaincy was blessed with a tremendous team...there were so many good players around his nation could have fielded two separate teams and the second team would probably beat most of the first teams the world over. Take those players away from him and you had Ponting the frustrated man, temper tantrums, dressing problems. He was revealed to be somewhat of an average captain.

He never really managed to impact his team in the last few months of what had turned into a nightmare captaincy. May be his team didn't let him impact them, had he lost their respect? He was no longer the batsman he had once been.

Whereas players like Khan, Richards and Waugh always maintained a level of adoration in their respective teams. Things weren't always smooth but when the team was in trouble they knew who to turn to.

 

[TheNameisNiru]

Captain Play crucial part in a team when the team is not confident on field he's the one who'll be motivating em, some time captain's confidences on a players helps the player to perform well. Captain sets example(batting, bowling,fielding well) for the team.

 

[platoon]

We can only assume that's the case with Darren Sammy... because he can't really bat, bowl or field

I dont agree.
He scored and bowled well when it matters.

Still remember the T20 finals vs Sri Lanka.

 

[vet_m]

Captain reads the script to young artists,so that they can deliver exactly as planned.

 

[Owzat]

I think captains get a bit too much credit, the toss decision can be crucial but generally if he makes a change of bowler is he lucky if there's a wicket in that first over, or a genius?

Sometimes captains get credit for field placement, some of it can be mere observation or having watched where a batsman plays, there is some skill in that, but doing your homework isn't exactly rocket science. And for every time someone puts a bat pad man in and it reaps rewards, he takes out a slip and the ball goes through the vacated space, or 30 boundaries go through an unguarded third man area, or his bowler is constantly pitching short and nobody addresses it etc.