"A captain always depends on how the team performs”, is a common chant in defense of a struggling Captain.
So how correct is this assumption?
The Free Dictionary defines a Captain as “one who commands, leads or guides others”. An apt definition as unlike other games, a Captain of a cricket team exercises more influence on the game.
In addition, any leader worth his salt knows success is dependent not on the planning but on the implementation.
So putting the onus on the team to deliver the goods is nothing but a blame game. A Captain is wholly responsible for the success or failure of his team and for that, he has to be proactive.
Do you agree?
20 comments:
The latest duty of a captain is to slap the opponent team member if his team fails. Captaincy is 90% fluke 9% luck and 1% instinct.
R,
Then how do you account for the dismal performance of DC and the rebirth of RC?
That's why a guy like Steven Fleming is the best captain in the world because he can lead a very ordinary team to highly competitive levels and he never complains about his team.
Scorpi,
On the money. This is the reason I have a sneaky appreciation for Warne. Till date he is doing a great job with the RC's.
A captains job is to motivate his players so that they can play to their full potential. His job is also to bind them together in a team. And he is also responsible to lead from the front and by example. But a team is to be blamed if they do not perform. The captain is not the one who is alwas to be blamed. But a good captain will be able to make his team perform even after the failures.
along with the captain's grey cells, far too many grey areas here.
tho "a captain is as good as his team" is one of those stinkers, and whoever uses that should never captain or play the game.
Good captains can inspire average players beyond their mediocrity. And bad captains can burden good players.
I'm curious about Ashraful as a captain - is he burdening the good player within with his captaincy?
bingo scorpy!!
NC, ashraful should consult SRT...he is best person on earth to tell how captaincy affects the good player within...and i have not written it as joke...
Tri,
What you say is true.But it should not be used as an excuse.
I reckon its the captain who makes the team. A team is as good as its captain is. Rather than the other way around.
People like Imran Khan, Ranatunga, Fleming brought out champion like performances from average players.
Warne is doing the same with the Royals.
Yuvraj and Laxman are failing to do that even with star players. And thus the teams are failing.
Give the captaincy of Kings XI Punjab and DC to Warne or Ganguly and u'll see the difference.
Ott,
I am not suggesting that the captains should start using this as an excuse. All i wanted to say is that sometimes the captain is not the one to be blamed.
Tri,
I agree, however neither should be the team held responsible. :)
Ott,
I feel in Cricket any failure/victory should be a collective responsibility.
Tri,
Hmmm.. in general I agree, but when it comes to Captaincy I disagree.
Ott,
Y the bias against captains?
Tri,
Lets take Reliance group as an example. If the company fails then the Ambani's are responsible for the failure and not the workers.
But Reliance has real raw materials to run their company unlike cricket the where the raw materials cannot be expected to give the maximium performance always..
The captain is as good as the opponent team.
R,
The captain is as good as the opponent team - thats an interesting perspective. However, I doubt whether you have any takers.
Ott,
You cannot compare a company with a cricket team. In a company its not only manpower that the chairman has to take care. There are many other factors which are responsible for a company's success. One has been already mentioned by R - Raw Materials. Its the Chairman's responsibility to take care that he gets the maximum output from these factors. Hence here he is more accountable than the captain of a cricket team.
In cricket, there are times when u lose just because the other team had a better day. Thats what happens in close matches. Both the teams perform well. Sometimes the rub of the green goes the other way. Why should a captain be held responsible in these situations?
Tri,
I dont find it a good reason to blame the team or its players either. Accept that the other team was superior.Why go about making statments like I mentioned in the article.
Finally, do we need a Captain?
Ott,
We do need a captain. Just like we always need a leader. To give the team a direction. All i want to say is that the responsiblity should be collective. Why the blame goes only to the captain? The team is equally at fault. For the lose the blame should be the captain's along with his team.
Post a Comment