cricket betting betway blog banner small

View Poll Results: Who was the better captain?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Mike Brearley

    13 54.17%
  • Clive Lloyd

    10 41.67%
  • I love James Marshall

    1 4.17%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 70

Thread: Mike Brearley v Clive Lloyd

  1. #1
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,127

    Mike Brearley v Clive Lloyd

    Who was the better captain of the two? Voted for Brearley myself.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  2. #2
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    27,072
    Clive Lloyd for me.

    Reminds me of the Steve Waugh vs Stephen Fleming debate where Steve Waugh lost points in some peoples' minds because he was captain of a successful team replete with brilliant players. Clive Lloyd has been thought of in a similar way in the past but it's hard to argue with his records as captain.

  3. #3
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Final Frontier
    Posts
    1,097
    Two opposing leadership styles.
    Brearley may have been the more cerebral and handled his resources exceptionally well, in particular, his star player who flourished under his leadership. He stood up confidently against the ferocious Lillee in the aluminum bat affair.

    However, he could not ‘ lead by example ‘, his batting falling short of expectations.
    And his recommended successor, the great ITB, proved not to be the right decision.
    As England captain, he could have done something against the persistent bouncer, but chose not to, in fact even debated for its continuance against the authoritative E.W.Swanton.

    Lloyd leaked laid-back languid leadership, but behind that lurked lethal intentions. It was under his behest that the 4-pronged pace attack materialized, a policy so potent, it pummeled all in it’s path, making it arguably, the most powerful tactic in the games history. He also served as a father-figure to the many disparate Carib players uniting them together as a fighting force. And he set the stage for the proper passing of the leadership mantle.
    However, he did let slip the 3rd WC from his grasp, was blessed with an embarrassment of riches and really was not tactically tested beyond which straining fastie to unleash.

    Choosing between these two is not an easy automatic, but with sufficient reflection, I must lean towards the one whose decisions had the greater impact, so Lloyd it is.
    Last edited by Engle; 22-04-2008 at 07:05 AM. Reason: para

  4. #4
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Absolutely no contest - Brearley by so far it's untrue. Brearley could very possibly be the greatest captain the game of cricket has ever seen - in fact I'll be surprised if he's not.

    Clive Lloyd was not a particularly good cricket captain in the usual ways. The thing he was brilliant at - as had the tactically superior Frank Worrell, who is for mine easily West Indies' greatest captain, before him been - was uniting the disparate elements that have so often posed problems to West Indies. Tactically, Lloyd was no more than adaquete - and he needed to be no more than that either, as from 1976 to 1984/85 the teams he was leading were almost without fail so superlative they rendered good captaincy unnecessary. Like Stephen Waugh after him he gains credit as a great leader when in reality he was no more than an adaquete leader of a magnificent team, though Lloyd has what Waugh doesn't in that he did something few have ever done successfully, in uniting an oft-divided team. Waugh had better captains before him in Border and Taylor.

    Mike Brearley on the other hand, despite lacking in batsmanship - he was 34 by the time he made his Test debut, and 35 by the time he assumed the captaincy - was everything Lloyd was and so much more. Brearley had the psychological skills - Rodney Hogg, IIRR, once described him as "having a degree in people" - to have done what Lloyd was asked to do if neccessary, and what's more he did it for England too. That his results were superlative is neither here nor there - great captains cannot cause great results, that depends on the teams, and for most of Brearley's captaincy England were a notably superior side to most of the teams they played, most notably of all the effective Australia A of 1978/79. But Brearley extracted every last morsel out of every cricketer who played under him - and without him, it's very possible that such fabulous players as Ian Botham and Bob Willis would not have been as good as they ended-up being. Every single player who played under Brearley talked of his people-skills, and his tactical genius.

    There is no-one, not even Warrick Armstrong, who I would vote for ahead of Brearley as a captain. And I reiterate - this has little to do with how successful England were under him.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006


  5. #5
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    27,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Absolutely no contest - Brearley by so far it's untrue. Brearley could very possibly be the greatest captain the game of cricket has ever seen - in fact I'll be surprised if he's not.

    Clive Lloyd was not a particularly good cricket captain in the usual ways. The thing he was brilliant at - as had the tactically superior Frank Worrell, who is for mine easily West Indies' greatest captain, before him been - was uniting the disparate elements that have so often posed problems to West Indies. Tactically, Lloyd was no more than adaquete - and he needed to be no more than that either, as from 1976 to 1984/85 the teams he was leading were almost without fail so superlative they rendered good captaincy unnecessary. Like Stephen Waugh after him he gains credit as a great leader when in reality he was no more than an adaquete leader of a magnificent team, though Lloyd has what Waugh doesn't in that he did something few have ever done successfully, in uniting an oft-divided team. Waugh had better captains before him in Border and Taylor.

    Mike Brearley on the other hand, despite lacking in batsmanship - he was 34 by the time he made his Test debut, and 35 by the time he assumed the captaincy - was everything Lloyd was and so much more. Brearley had the psychological skills - Rodney Hogg, IIRR, once described him as "having a degree in people" - to have done what Lloyd was asked to do if neccessary, and what's more he did it for England too. That his results were superlative is neither here nor there - great captains cannot cause great results, that depends on the teams, and for most of Brearley's captaincy England were a notably superior side to most of the teams they played, most notably of all the effective Australia A of 1978/79. But Brearley extracted every last morsel out of every cricketer who played under him - and without him, it's very possible that such fabulous players as Ian Botham and Bob Willis would not have been as good as they ended-up being. Every single player who played under Brearley talked of his people-skills, and his tactical genius.

    There is no-one, not even Warrick Armstrong, who I would vote for ahead of Brearley as a captain. And I reiterate - this has little to do with how successful England were under him.
    Biggest myth of all time. A team full of talented players still needs a decent captain to do well. I give you Pakistan in the 90's as a case in point, who were rarely more than middle-table, vs a slightly weaker team under Imran Khan in the 80's who managed to draw two series against the WI when no-one else could even get close.

    As from the rest, well, considering it all happened well before you were even on this planet, excuse me if I take it with a pinch of salt.

  6. #6
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    Biggest myth of all time. A team full of talented players still needs a decent captain to do well.
    Not neccessarily. It needs a better-than-abysmal captain, which Lloyd certainly was. I'm not saying Lloyd was poor (and as I've already mentioned, in one West Indies-centrically essential way he was quite superb) but he wasn't particularly good, and nor was Stephen Waugh. I'm sure there are other examples out there too, but I can't think of any right now.
    I give you Pakistan in the 90's as a case in point, who were rarely more than middle-table, vs a slightly weaker team under Imran Khan in the 80's who managed to draw two series against the WI when no-one else could even get close.
    I find it highly debatable that Pakistan were stronger in the 1990s than late-1980s. And as I've said before - biggest myth that Imran's Pakistan managed to draw against West Indies when no-one could get close - New Zealand, India and England all either drew or were denied by rain from drawing a series in between these three series in which Pakistan did.
    As from the rest, well, considering it all happened well before you were even on this planet, excuse me if I take it with a pinch of salt.
    Happened before your time, too - at least, the time you were watching cricket in if not born. You were 2 when Brearley captained his last Test and 6 when Lloyd captained his last. Doesn't mean one cannot piece together a puzzle by reading. Which you and me are both perfectly capable of doing.

    There are no more than 5 or 6 regulars on this forum who will remember the captaincy times of both Lloyd and Brearley.

  7. #7
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Final Frontier
    Posts
    1,097
    A team full of talented players do need good leadership for fear of conflicting egos, something which the Pak team of the 70's certainly suffered from. It's not a given that all will pull together, and I have doubts whether they would defer to a Brearley who hardly had performances that could count as ' leading from the front'

  8. #8
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Final Frontier
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    I find it highly debatable that Pakistan were stronger in the 1990s than late-1980s. And as I've said before - biggest myth that Imran's Pakistan managed to draw against West Indies when no-one could get close - New Zealand, India and England all either drew or were denied by rain from drawing a series in between these three series in which Pakistan did.
    Imran led a weaker team sandwiched between that of the 70's (Z.Abbas, Asif Iqbal, Mushtaq, Majid) and that of the 90's (The 2 W's at their peak). And it was only his team that stood up to the rampaging WIndies, their hard-fought series are stuff of legend. No other team did this, with the NZ one marred by umpiring.

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Engle View Post
    A team full of talented players do need good leadership for fear of conflicting egos, something which the Pak team of the 70's certainly suffered from. It's not a given that all will pull together, and I have doubts whether they would defer to a Brearley who hardly had performances that could count as ' leading from the front'
    Sorry, anyone who can unite the likes of Boycott, Gower, Botham and Willis can do so to anyone and everyone as far as I'm concerned.

  10. #10
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Engle View Post
    Imran led a weaker team sandwiched between that of the 70's (Z.Abbas, Asif Iqbal, Mushtaq, Majid) and that of the 90's (The 2 W's at their peak). And it was only his team that stood up to the rampaging WIndies, their hard-fought series are stuff of legend. No other team did this, with the NZ one marred by umpiring.
    Yes they did - New Zealand again in 1986/87, India at home in 1987/88, England in 1990, and if you nudge on a bit, Australia in 1992/93.

    Truth is, West Indies were on the way down in 1986/87 after Holding and Garner were gone, and they were only capable from then on of beating the very weak. Many of the better teams matched them from then on.

    Between 1976 and 1986, there was only one team that stood-up to them, and it wasn't New Zealand in that series, and it wasn't Pakistan either - it was Australia in 1981/82.

  11. #11
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Final Frontier
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Sorry, anyone who can unite the likes of Boycott, Gower, Botham and Willis can do so to anyone and everyone as far as I'm concerned.
    Beg to differ. Teams such as England do have structures in place (administrative) which allow for a lot less dissent than others such as Pakistan and WIndies, considered the most difficult to captain.

  12. #12
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    The challenges of captaining West Indies and Pakistan are different than those of captaining England. I believe Brearley (and Imran) would have done a good job at the helm of all three. I don't believe Lloyd would have done a good job with anyone but West Indies, though I do think Frank Worrell would have done well with England.

  13. #13
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Final Frontier
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Yes they did - New Zealand again in 1986/87, India at home in 1987/88, England in 1990, and if you nudge on a bit, Australia in 1992/93.

    Truth is, West Indies were on the way down in 1986/87 after Holding and Garner were gone, and they were only capable from then on of beating the very weak. Many of the better teams matched them from then on.

    Between 1976 and 1986, there was only one team that stood-up to them, and it wasn't New Zealand in that series, and it wasn't Pakistan either - it was Australia in 1981/82.
    Show me. The hardest fought series were those between Pak and the WIndies at their peaks.

  14. #14
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Are you honestly telling me that Pakistan in either 1977 (when, yes, they did indeed take a Test off West Indies, but that's it - they lost 2-1 and it could very easily have been 4-1, though true it could also have been 3-2) or 1980/81 (where they lost 1-0 in a series which saw plenty of abbreviated Tests) pushed West Indies closer than Australia did in 1981/82?

    Or, indeed, that the absurdly fortuitous New Zealand victory in 1979/80 counts as equable with other series of that 1976-1986 decade?

    Australia in this series even took the lead - the only team apart from the aforementioned extremely-fortuitous New Zealand to do so.

    BTW, we will not consider the series in India in 1978/79 as comparable Test cricket, just as we don't with The Ashes of the same year.

  15. #15
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Final Frontier
    Posts
    1,097
    Ok, so we remove India and NZ. Aus did get beat comprehensively in the WIndies (Border's heroics aside) under KHughes leadership. Let's not even mention England. So, I maintain that only Pakistan stood up to them at their peak.

    Moving along to stay on topic. If one were to pick an AT Eng XI, one would find it very hard to have Brearley lead it. But if one were to pick at AT WI XI, Lloyd could smoothly fit into the leadership role.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Where is David Lloyd?!?!
    By simmy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22-04-2007, 01:19 PM
  2. The Clive Lloyd legacy - champs or chumps?
    By Lillian Thomson in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 23-02-2007, 10:25 AM
  3. Ban David Lloyd IMMEDIATELY
    By Lillian Thomson in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 22-11-2005, 04:32 PM
  4. RIP Lloyd Fouracre
    By Langeveldt in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 28-09-2005, 03:07 AM
  5. David Lloyd: Mad or Not?
    By Rich2001 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 29-04-2003, 01:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •