WTF is the problem with George Bailey?

First topic message reminder :

I was a huge fan of him when he played for Chennai Super Kings, not for his game but for his attitude, his attitude and play resembled like Steve Waugh of 90's, why did Australia delay in bringing Bailey into the national squad? Bailey is a normal player but when he wears the Australian trousers he turns into a monster, having impressed everybody with his assured captaincy and knocks he is not satisfied and going further and further    

Really Aussie team needs a captain and performer like him, he should lead the Ashes team and not the pup, Bailey brings refreshing attitude to this team which was kinda missing all the time under pup's captaincy.

invisiblecoolers wrote:If Aussies are serious about winning the ashes back they should reinstate Bailey as the captain sooner or later for the tests as well, Clarke can be his vice captain.  

It looks to me like Michael Clarke is doing just fine as far as Australia are concerned, right now.

Whats funny is the matter of fact manner with which this spouted.

kingraf wrote:Whats funny is the matter of fact manner with which this spouted.

Nothing funny in it, I still see the inclusion of Bailey brought the much deserved luck for the Australian camp  

invisiblecoolers wrote:

kingraf wrote:Whats funny is the matter of fact manner with which this spouted.

Nothing funny in it, I still see the inclusion of Bailey brought the much deserved luck for the Australian camp  

Hmmm.... that suggests to me that you think Australia's total domination in the three test matches to date, which have seen England completely and utterly routed, is down to "luck".

I can think of some Australians who may possibly disagree with that.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

kingraf wrote:Whats funny is the matter of fact manner with which this spouted.

Nothing funny in it, I still see the inclusion of Bailey brought the much deserved luck for the Australian camp  

Hmmm.... that suggests to me that you think Australia's total domination in the three test matches to date, which have seen England completely and utterly routed, is down to "luck".

I can think of some Australians who may possibly disagree with that.

I believe fortune favors the brave, outside skills one needs luck to win the matches and Bailey is the lucky charm for the current Aussie team.   

invisiblecoolers wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

kingraf wrote:Whats funny is the matter of fact manner with which this spouted.

Nothing funny in it, I still see the inclusion of Bailey brought the much deserved luck for the Australian camp  

Hmmm.... that suggests to me that you think Australia's total domination in the three test matches to date, which have seen England completely and utterly routed, is down to "luck".

I can think of some Australians who may possibly disagree with that.

I believe fortune favors the brave, outside skills one needs luck to win the matches and Bailey is the lucky charm for the current Aussie team.   

Fair comment, old chap.

I think it was von Clausewitz who made the rather pithy point that a General should never plan for luck, but he'll never be able to win the war without it.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Fair comment, old chap.

I think it was von Clausewitz who made the rather pithy point that a General should never plan for luck, but he'll never be able to win the war without it.

I rather like Benaud's take on luck with regard to captaincy:
''Captaincy is 90% luck and 10% skill. But don't try it without that 10%.''

Captaincy really is 90% luck. No co-incidence great teams usually have great captains, while lesser teams only have "Resourceful" or "wily" captains. Quite easy to look good when you have to opening bowlers who average better than five wickets a match, or have Lee McGrath and Warne in your squad.

its not 90% luck at all Kingraf. Ive captained my side for past few seasons now, and you have to know what your doing and be one step of the game. You also have to the respect of your team-mates and be confident in the decisions you make.

I've tried my hand at captaincy myself, CF - I quit because, while it did wonders for my batting (I averaged over 100 in premier league as captain), it did next to nothing for my team. In hindsight, I should have come in higher, as batting at 5/6 meant I exposed lesser players to the new ball - coming in at 40/3, 15/4 hopes pretty much dashed, trying to claw us to 150-180 to give us something to bowl at... which brings me to my point -

My new ball bowlers simply lacked the control and wicket-taking ability to threaten the opposition. More than once having a third man and Fine leg seemed to be inevitable, so badly were they spraying it. Now tell me - is it simply co-incidental that Ponting's winning percentage seemed to fall so far when Australia's golden generation retired? There are of course good captains, and there are bad captains - but would you consider Steve Tikolo a great captain, or one in a similar class to Smith, Border et al? If not, why not?

Of course his win percentages were increased because he had Warne and Mcgrath in his side...however Stephen Fleming who is widely regarded as one of the best captains of all time didn't have a great side and yet his captaincy shone above it..therefore you dont have to the best players in your side for your captaincy to stand out..

I'd call Fleming the exception that proves the rule.

Vaughan? 
Clarke?

Vaughan did not have a poor team - he had a very good one!
Clarke is of course a good captain, but you seem a little forgetful
4-0 vs India
3-0 vs England
series loss vs S.A.

he's a good captain, but to pretend he's a great one to further your point is reaching somewhat

well i think your reading too much into it to be honest.

kingraf wrote:Vaughan did not have a poor team - he had a very good one!
Clarke is of course a good captain, but you seem a little forgetful
4-0 vs India
3-0 vs England
series loss vs S.A.

he's a good captain, but to pretend he's a great one to further your point is reaching somewhat

Yes, definitely not great but he's got a better cricketing brain than most. Quite gutsy too.

Don't forget raf, he has also beaten India 4-0 and England 3-0 and it may well be that SA are there for the taking at home again.
We'll soon see. 

Yeah, but is it a co-incidence that those big emphatic wins have come with some key players hitting serious form? Ponting (and himself) vs India, Johnson and Haddin currently. Being called a great captain is a superficial terminology, a bit like the coach of the year award. Sure there are good coaches, and there bad coaches, but I'm yet to see actual evidence that winning a premier league title (even with limited funds) is a greater coaching feat than winning the North Sudan Second division.

Would be interesting to see your boys this summer, LB, especially your batsmen. Despite Pujara and Kohli trying to show otherwise, S.A. is probably the hardest place to bat in the world, as evidenced by the fact that almost our entire batting line-up averages more away than they do home (not to mention the 47, 45, and 49 all outs which have taken place.). If your batters really have turned the wheel - we'll see in Feb.

Without going into exact percentages , I am with Benaud and Kingraf on this one.

Pretty sure I have captained a lot more teams than either of you young fellows ; and I have noticed over the years that I had a lot more success when I was fortunate enough to have a lot of good players in the team   

You can make all the clever moves you like in the field - and it may help dismiss an opponent for 150 instead of 200. Not that it does much good if your team then gets blown away for 95...

Superior captaincy can of course be a factor : particularly useful in those tight , tense , matches where the right approach can enable your team to retain the calmness and confidence that often makes the difference.

But if there was one captaincy skill I would like to have improved it was an ability to win the toss more often   

kingraf wrote:Captaincy really is 90% luck. No co-incidence great teams usually have great captains, while lesser teams only have "Resourceful" or "wily" captains. Quite easy to look good when you have to opening bowlers who average better than five wickets a match, or have Lee McGrath and Warne in your squad.

If having Warne and McGrath meant "looking good", how would you describe Clive Lloyd when he had Malcolm Marshall.... Michael Holding.... Joel Garner.... Andy Roberts....

Blimey, he must have looked out of this world.

The one thing with Lloyd is that he went looking for those lions. He personally decided the Windies need pace, and he went looking for it. Don't actually think the Windies quartet is much better than Australia's, in fact I have them roughly even.

But Lloyd Captaincy points for that. On that note, Smith's aversion to winning has lost him half of all the captaincy points he won over the last few years.

kingraf wrote:

... Don't actually think the Windies quartet is much better than Australia's, in fact I have them roughly even.

  

Could someone please get me a glass of water?

Sorry Guildford, bouncing teams out is great, but when youre allowed to get away with 76 overs a day, six bouncers an over, then we can't compare them from a statistical vantage point, no? Imagine Steyn and Morkel being allowed to bowl 11 overs an hour, with unlimited bouncers...