There are very few poeple who say the real fact coupled with justification. Ian Chappel is one among them. Taylor simply was outstanding, Caribbean tour being my pick. But you never forget Steve also played a major part in series win, but as a batsman. I always believe Steve is ideal cricketer to be followed upon. He is a better bat than a being a Captain. Taylor is easily forgotten just bcoz he could not win the WC for Australia. But as Ian has pointed out the team grew up and bettered into a higher level. The fact that Steve did not allow the standard to come down is to his credit. But for me Taylor, Stephen Fleming, Ranatunga are great captains of the 90's.
i disagree.because steve is the best captain for australia.talyor was good.taylor made foundation and steve has taken the australian cricket team to it's peak.and ranatunga introdused fast scoring inside 15 overs in odis.steve introdused fast scoring in tests.he saved many matches for australia when required.he maynot be technically sound.but a tough compititor,hardworker.in cricket talent is not enough to win matches .team needs a good leader.best example is indian team.we got excellent players but our captain is not as good as steve.but unfortunately all other teams are well behind australia thats not their fault.what i want to say is taylor was good but waugh is best.after two years we will know who is best the bestcaptain for aus.
The case is that he has been very close to what he did as a captain and very unfortunate thing is that he has been a bit harsh on the role of Coach and his opinion about aussie captains is alwayz great as he has been one himself.
Everybody know the ability of Steve waugh and Mark Taylor.I think steve waugh is better than Taylor becuase bothe have played with same team members, but under Steve captaincy breaking the lot of world record and also shown the capataincy knock in the 1999 world cup against SouthAfrica.This is the one example i can show to all,also he had done lot of acheivements under his captaincy.
Taylor's 340 not out in Pakistan was the peak of his career. He could have tried to break the world record or go ahead than Don Brandman's 340 but he decided to respect Don Bradman and put Pakistan into bat on the 4th days final session.
Australia didn't couldn't bowl out Pakistan but his innings was still better than the 380's and the one Indian's play as they get close to the three figure mark.
Well I think...Border and Taylor are on same level with Steve way behind.
The reason is both former too started from zero. Remember Border missed lille/Chappel/Marsh Era whereas Taylor has started his captoncy when mcdermott/jones retired...Steve has alltogether set team with mcgrath/Gillespie at their best with a great allrounder adam gilchrist....
Also Border didn't win away as much as next two because the mighty westindians were still the mighty ...
My Rating is Taylor=9.5/10...Border 9.25/10 wheras steven waugh 8/10. I still think Shane warne could have been a better capton than steve had he got opportunity.
RE:Mark Taylor: Great Capton
by srinivas on Nov 29, 2003 08:52 AM
i think you compleately wrong.satrting from zero is always easy.when you reached top then problem starts.to maintain that level is difficult.every body expects lot from you when you are at top.if starting from zero is easy,then why india is not winning matches?leadership qualities wont come to all.now ponting's job is not that easy to maintain that standard.every body is thinking that if a team has players that team will win without a captain.thats wrong.if that's true why india is not winning all test matches in india? now you got the exact answer.
Ian chappel is one of those guys who does not shy away from calling a spade a spade.for most of us steve waugh is the best captain that we have seen but for Ian, mark taylor is better and he is probably right.he has the knowledge of the game and he has been a captain himself.he is right yet again about ranatunga and his opinion about coaches is something to think about.
Take that for an interview. Ian Chappell doesn't believe in diplomacy, he speaks what he feels is the truth. I agree with him on almost all points. There is only 1 point wherein I disagree with him, that being the role of a coach. A coach is required because in the heat of the game, it is possible for the skipper to overlook some finer points, like getting a field placing right or making the correct bowling change. It is possible fot the other players on the field also to overlook these errors. The coach as a elder statesman can point out these errors to the skipper. He should be someone who has an overall knowledge about the game. He also helps the team in building a plan for the opposition. His position cannot be taken by any school child.
An excellent interview. I liked what he said about teams playing in Australia nowadays. That they need to keep playing well every single ball to defeat them. I believe that is absolutely true. It is somewhat easier for the opponents to defeat the Aussies in the one-dayers by batting first and putting up a big score. We have seen this a lot of times, Australia crumble under the pressure of chasing big totals, but just about manage to scrape through in the end. If the opponents maintain their intensity right through the end, it is very much possible to defeat them more often. I wish India all the very best in the TVS Cup and the Australian Tour. Come on mates, go for the kill!
by Gireesh on Dec 03, 2003 01:51 AM
I totally disagree to your point. If a captain is overlooking some finer points in the pressure he is in, he should seek help from a guy who is on te field and playing the game or he should suffer the mistake. Cricket is an outdoor game by all means, physically, mentally. Why should a guy sitting in the room be invited into the picture at all? Then all the poeple who are watching the game can play a part in the game plan/strategy. For me cricket should be played in/thought in the field. External factors only complicate & degrade the standard of the game. I am not taking away anything from all successful coach including John Wright. He is doing the job he was asked to do. The most unlucky part of this is it is a player's including the captain's job which John is doing. For me WC 92 is always better than WC 2003 or whatever which have come after that. They say game has changed a lot, but I am against this self killing move of inviting coaches and giving them more role than a player himself.