• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Mike Brearley v Clive Lloyd

Who was the better captain?


  • Total voters
    25

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
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:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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. ;)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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. :dry: 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.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
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'
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
So because Australia got beaten emphatically by West Indies in most other series '76-'86, that series in '81/82 doesn't count? :wacko:

I maintain that that series, regardless of anything else, is the best anyone played against the West Indies team which was truly a top-notch one. From 1986/87 onwards, many teams fought valiently against them, but in the decade before that, there had been just one instance.
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.
Of course they could. However, it's always been said that you pick the best captain out of the best eleven players. One can be a great captain without being a great cricketer, but one should not be denied one's right to be recognised a great captain because one was not a great cricketer.

However there's no way that Lloyd would make an all-time West Indies XI either. Consider...
Hunte
Greenidge
Headley
Sobers
Lara
Richards
Weekes

Lloyd, despite being a fabulous batsman, is not close to any of these names - at least, those of the middle-order ranks. It could easily be argued too that Walcott, Worrell, Kallicharran and Chanderpaul are all fit to be ranked above.
 
Last edited:

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Biggest myth of all time. A team full of talented players still needs a decent captain to do well.
a decent captain, right...a great captain, not necessary...which is why taylor was a much better captain than waugh and why brearley is considered such a great captain and ponting is no more than decent...
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
So because Australia got beaten emphatically by West Indies in most other series '76-'86, that series in '81/82 doesn't count? :wacko:
One series does not have the weight of many series.
Especially, if fought in their own backyard.

My point is that, comparatively speaking, I could easier envisage Lloyd leading an AT WI XI than Brearley doing the same for England. Brearley would be lost out of his depth.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Aside from being one of the worst batsmen ever to play for England in a substantial number of tests, Brearley is also one of the most overrated captains in history

He basically made his name by beating Australia in 2 series (first, when Oz was torn apart by WSC, second all due to Botham and Willis) and a bunch of teams without WSC players when Botham was running riot

Only way Brearley and Lloyd should be mentioned in same sentence is as follows:

"Brearley and Lloyd should not be mentioned in same sentence."
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
One series does not have the weight of many series.
Especially, if fought in their own backyard.

My point is that, comparatively speaking, I could easier envisage Lloyd leading an AT WI XI than Brearley doing the same for England. Brearley would be lost out of his depth.
Eh? That comment of mine you just replied to had nothing to do with the later one about all-time teams.

The point is, no-one consistently competed with West Indies between 1976 and 1986. No-one. Apart from New Zealand in 1979/80 where it seems accepted as fact that they were favoured by bad Umpiring. There was just a single series where someone did legitimately - Australia in 1981/82.

After 1986, though, a great many teams - including Pakistan - did indeed compete on level terms with West Indies, as they weren't as good as they had once been.
 

Top