Role and Captaincy

[Caesar]

Role and Captaincy

Something interesting I was thinking about the other day - does the role of a player in the team have much to do with whether he will make a good captain?

My first reaction is no - it's about whether you have a good cricketing brain, which doesn't necessarily align you with a particular role. But then when you look at where various Test captains have played over the years, there is an overwhelming bias towards batsmen. Indeed, the only bowlers who currently captain Test sides are Daniel Vettori and the ZIM captain (no idea how to spell his name so I won't try). Gayle is a batting allrounder, but aside from him that's it.

What's the reason for this difference then? The main factors I can think of is as follows:

1) Perhaps most obviously, batsmen make up the majority of the side;
2) Fast bowlers come into the team young, often retire young, and are frequently in and out of the side with injuries; and
3) Since the biggest job of the captain is done when the team is in the field, a batting captain can remain impartial regarding bowling decisions.

If we accept that these reasons are why batsmen dominate the captaincy ranks (and feel free to disagree), then does that necessarily mean we are picking the best people to be captain?

For example, in grade cricket my club's captains have been overrepresented by bowlers (often spin bowlers). I've always thought this is because bowlers as part of their role are forced to think a lot more about the tactics of a match, whereas batsmen are usually concerned with immediate defined goals (being run totals).

What happens to these captains as they rise through the ranks? And if they're disappearing because batsmen are being appointed, is it improving or reducing the quality of captaincy at the professional level (or having no effect?)

Sorry, bit of a rambling post but just a few thoughts that have been on my mind. Feel free to respond to my questions or just post generally on the topic.

 

[Boris]

Re: Role and Captaincy

I'm unable to vote on the poll, I think it does have an effect, but not sure completely which way.

I think batsmen/wicketkeepers in general will have a better cricketing brain.

Fast bowlers, on the other hand, generally seem to be more ego orientated and not task orientated. They tend to want to bowl better than someone else, rather than bowl better than their personal best. This is my opinion, though, from an outside viewpoint. This isn't a bad thing at all, it just makes captaincy a little inefficient and tunnel visioned.

Plus we all know the way fast bowlers are. Have you ever seen a fast bowler that doesn't want to hit a guy on the head? If you gave the captaincy to Brett Lee, the only field he would set is a body line one - for the whole match. Give Peter Siddle the captaincy and he would have 7 fielders in the slips overlapping each other and covering the same distance as 3 people would, just to stop missed chances going through gaps. A bowler seems more orientated around being better than the other bloke.

This doesn't apply to spin bowlers in general though. A fast bowler bowls mostly to a field set by the captain, perhaps being allowed by the captain to bring one man forward or back. A spin bowler on the other hand, pretty much sets their own fields, and thinks about their own tactics. It is a much more in depth cricketing option than any other role, requires a lot of finesse. As a result they normally have a very good cricket brain with a very good knowledge of the action/reaction status in cricket matches.

Batsmen are always drawn to task orientation, bettering their best score, lifting their strike rate. Even if they are battling someone for their position they are mostly fighting against themselves to make them better. This sort of attitude makes a better captain because they grasp the concept of teamwork better, and maintaining a more 'within the spirit of cricket' attitude, which definitely helps a captain.

Very generalised and stereotypical, but stereotypes are for a reason.

 

[mas cambios]

Re: Role and Captaincy

Logically, the best candidate should be captain, regardless of role within the team. However, being a bowler and captaining a side can be hard work, more so than if you're a bat. There is enough to think about without worrying about field placings, tactics and so on for other players.

I captain and open the bowling - I find that generally the only way to get through is to have a vice captain who takes over when I'm bowling although I have final say.

Also, think about where you need to be in order to get the best view of the action - either slip or mid off/on. Where do most bowlers field, especially during their bowling spells? Fine leg or near the boundary where less action (in theory) takes place; so they can have a breather.

 

[hattrick]

Re: Role and Captaincy

I tend to agree with mas on the idea that it should be the best leader in the side irrespective of role in the side. However I think wicketkeepers should not be inline for the job as they already play a proactive role in the side through their duties. The only exception to the rule is Adam Gilchrist who seemed to be able to cope with the extra role.

However if one looks around the world then it looks like batsman in general have the job just through the numbers

Batsman:
Gayle (West Indies)
Smith (South Africa)
Ponting (Australia)
Strauss (England)

Wicket Keepers:
Sangakkara (Sri- Lanka) however he sometimes fields in Test Matches.
MS Dhoni (India)

Bowlers:
Vettori(New Zealand)
Matshikenyeri(Zimbabwe)
Al Hasan(Bangladesh)

I think the big issue is that the skipper has done it at a First Class level and it also depends on the individual.