Rate the captains

[LongHopCassidy]

Going off personal testimony and anecdotes (how are you going to quantify a captain's success if win/loss is suddenly irrelevant?!)

Tactics: Mark Taylor, Mike Brearley

Motivator/leader: Worrell, Ian Chappell, Benaud

Overall: Brearley

Personally think Brearley was a genius, in that his hunches weren't so much instinct but actual assessment of the situation, which he documented so well in The Art of Captaincy. He'd be a colossus in today's age of computerized tactics, though in that sense he was before his time - he stood out as a cricket analyst before computers brought all Test captains up to a more or less uniform standard. Would be surrogate captain or coach of an all-time England XI, for mine.

 

[Richard]

This whole poll was a complete nonsense. The most successful captains ever weren't included because they only won because they had strong teams and Fleming won the poll for no other reason than he had few really high quality players at his disposal.

This whole poll was designed to be nothing particularly scientific.

 

[sanga1337]

Mike Brearly. It has been said that he was very good with people as well as a good tactical leader. Pity he couldn't bat.

second would have to be Taylor

 

[Richard]

Mike Brearly. It has been said that he was very good with people as well as a good tactical leader. Pity he couldn't bat.

Well he could actually - perhaps not to Test standard, but he certainly could.

And we'd have had a better idea about how good he could've been at Test level if he'd debuted at a younger age than 34. But the presence of Edrichs, Luckhursts, Boycotts, Barbers, Milburns and others meant his way was blocked.

 

[sanga1337]

Well he could actually - perhaps not to Test standard, but he certainly could.

And we'd have had a better idea about how good he could've been at Test level if he'd debuted at a younger age than 34. But the presence of Edrichs, Luckhursts, Boycotts, Barbers, Milburns and others meant his way was blocked.

Well yeah if you get to test level of course you have to be a good test batsman, I meant by test standards. Still an average of 22 over 40 tests doesn't strike me as particularly good even if he did start late. He also had a bad batting grip. his hands instead of being together were wide apart which probably made batting harder for him.

 

[Richard]

Virtually no-one would do well if they played Test cricket exclusively between the ages of 34 and 40 though. I'm not saying he'd have done particularly sensationally had he played at a younger age, but you can't really judge all that much by the fact he was poor at the ages he played.

 

[pasag]

Overall: Brearley

Personally think Brearley was a genius, in that his hunches weren't so much instinct but actual assessment of the situation, which he documented so well in The Art of Captaincy. He'd be a colossus in today's age of computerized tactics, though in that sense he was before his time - he stood out as a cricket analyst before computers brought all Test captains up to a more or less uniform standard. Would be surrogate captain or coach of an all-time England XI, for mine.

Similar to what Thomson writes about Bradman:

As a captain, he was a Napoleon who never met waterloo. The same iron will which dictated the almost unbreakable concentration of his batting without cramping his scoring speed sprang from the same intelligence capable of seeing in advance all possibilities of the game.

As a captain, he had the mind of a chess-player, operated with the speed of an Olympic fencer. He was, as R.C. Robertson-Glascow has said in a striking phrase, 'that rarest of Nature's creations, an artist without the artistic temperament....'.

 

[sanga1337]

Virtually no-one would do well if they played Test cricket exclusively between the ages of 34 and 40 though. I'm not saying he'd have done particularly sensationally had he played at a younger age, but you can't really judge all that much by the fact he was poor at the ages he played.

Sure but like you said I don't really think he would be particularly brilliant even if he was playing in his prime. Yes he would've averaged more but I doubt he would've averaged much more than the low 30's to be honest

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Not to denigrate the great man, as he was for all intents and purposes tactically flawless, but I don't think his man-management was all that flash beyond him milking his cult of personality for all it was worth.

Privately don't think someone with Miller's outlook on cricket would have taken marching orders (stiffly told to bowl while injured) or bloodthirsty platitudes ("Grind the bastards into the dust") from anyone who didn't average three figures and thought a national icon for it.

 

[oitoitoi]

I think you need different captains for different kinds of teams. The West Indies needed a no nonsense disciplinarian like Lloyd to harness their talents. NZ needed someone very tactically astute like Fleming (who I don't think was a great man manager) to compete with stronger teams. Pakistan needed someone like Imran Khan who could lead from the front and the players could look upto, as Ramiz Raja said they had to be able to show their faces to the match winning players in the evenings. I think Brearley will always be left out because of his poor performances with the bat.

I reckon Ian Chappell was the most rounded captain, he was good man manager, tactically very good and a good player. Though in terms of sheer brilliance few can compete with Imran.

I think Waugh wasn't the best captain around because he was a poor man manager (he never really got the best out of Warne) and was nothing special tactically, however strategically he was exceptional. He understood the value of selection rotation and ensured that Australia kept improving.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I think Waugh wasn't the best captain around because he was a poor man manager (he never really got the best out of Warne) and was nothing special tactically, however strategically he was exceptional. He understood the value of selection rotation and ensured that Australia kept improving.

Have the sneaking feeling only Warne would have gotten the best out of Warne considering the captaincy debate at the time.

 

[pasag]

Not to denigrate the great man, as he was for all intents and purposes tactically flawless, but I don't think his man-management was all that flash beyond him milking his cult of personality for all it was worth.

Privately don't think someone with Miller's outlook on cricket would have taken marching orders (stiffly told to bowl while injured) or bloodthirsty platitudes ("Grind the bastards into the dust") from anyone who didn't average three figures and thought a national icon for it.

How do you figure he 'milked his cult of personality'?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Relied on unerring respect for his achievements to keep order. And sometimes that wasn't enough:

Yes, you are absolutely correct. If this did happen (and I have no opinion either way- I've never heard of the incident before, but I certainly don't consider myself to have an encyclopedic knowledge of cricket history) it was extremely disrespectful, as it would be to any speaker.

In saying that, I could imagine the disrespect being completely intentional. While Bradman was obviously a phenom on the field, he was apparently widely disliked off the field, all he way back to his own playing days from some of his own teammates. Apparently, there was spontaneous laughter from some corners of his own dressing room when he was dismissed in his last innings, such was the animosity.

From what I have read, there were a couple of distinct groups within that team based on religious lines. Also, Bradman was resented for the fact that although he is held up as a national hero, he also came within a whisker of quitting the country in his playing days to take up a lucrative offer in England. The fact that the cricket board pretty much emptied their coffers to keep him in Australia (thereby leaving very little for his team mates) led to a lot of resentment.

Also, when he led the ACB he was at the forefront of resistance to increasing the pay or conditions of the test players, and was generally considered aloof and unpleasant for the players to deal with.

Essentially, up until the generation of players that came into the system after WSC, Bradman was certainly not universally revered.

Bradman the cricketer was undeniable, but Bradman the man never cut ice with me.

 

[Spinksy]

AB is the best imo.

 

[pasag]

Relied on unerring respect for his achievements to keep order. And sometimes that wasn't enough:


Bradman the cricketer was undeniable, but Bradman the man never cut ice with me.

I think that it was only a select few and that point is more of an exaggeration than anything. Whilst there was a huge amount of respect from him in the side, I would never go as far as saying he 'milked his cult of personality for all it's worth'. You wouldn't be wrong in saying he wasn't an inspiring captain in the mould of Imran or Worrell, and you would never see him doing something like this but he never had to, really.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Bradman himself once said that the only reason he was made captain was because he was the only one the press were interested in talking to anyway.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

Ranatunga

 

[Jakester1288]

Richie Benaud imo.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Ranatunga

Disagree violently. Won a WC, sure, but he's to us what Ponting is to the rest of the world.

 

[gwo]

I think Waugh wasn't the best captain around because he was a poor man manager (he never really got the best out of Warne) and was nothing special tactically, however strategically he was exceptional. He understood the value of selection rotation and ensured that Australia kept improving.

That's true.

Was looking at Warne's stats under Waugh vs Ponting or Taylor and under S. Waugh, Warne averages 28 while under Ponting/Taylor he's in the 24's