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.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.
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.Biggest myth of all time. A team full of talented players still needs a decent captain to do well.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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'
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.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.
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.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.
Show me. The hardest fought series were those between Pak and the WIndies at their peaks.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.
So because Australia got beaten emphatically by West Indies in most other series '76-'86, that series in '81/82 doesn't count?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.
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.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.
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...Biggest myth of all time. A team full of talented players still needs a decent captain to do well.
One series does not have the weight of many series.So because Australia got beaten emphatically by West Indies in most other series '76-'86, that series in '81/82 doesn't count?
Eh? That comment of mine you just replied to had nothing to do with the later one about all-time teams.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.