[Richard]

The way, even with a bowling-attack that was often limited, he still managed often to block batsmen's scoring strokes. He was a master of setting fields for bad bowling, and also for good bowling, and spotting when which one was required. He also knew bowlers very well, however short the length of time they'd been in his team for was - I lost count of the times when a bad ball would be bowled and hit straight to a fielder Fleming had only moved there a ball or two ago. Of course no-one can predict exactly what's coming, but you can notice patterns, and the best captains, like Fleming, do so.

Another thing that should never, ever be underestimated is that he never appeared to lose his cool nor ask too much of his players. He knew how vital it was to continue to make the most of whatever he had and he did it. Obviously, given the rubbish NZ's bowlers could of times serve-up, it'd be very easy to blow your top repeatedly. But Fleming didn't. For 10 whole years.

That makes him in my book a far, far better captain than a Clive Lloyd or Stephen Waugh who virtually everyone who knew them said were no more than adaquete when it came to tactics. They just happened to lead (for the most part in Lloyd's case, for the whole part in Waugh's) far, far, far, far, far better sides which made their captaincy win-lose-draw records majorly more impressive.

What's interesting is that it's difficult to a particularly notably good captain with a really, really good side. Good captaincy skills are essentially wasted if your side is exceptional - being a really good captain is completely unneccessary with such a team. As well as situations like Fleming's, the place a really good captain comes out is in somewhere like Mark Taylor's, where he had a side comprised of plenty of excellence, mostly with 2 or 3 weak-links in there as well, and turned this side into one of the best ever.