The best Australian Test Captain in the last Quarter Century

[Mister Wright]

Alan Border for me. Great player and great captain.

 

[Precambrian]

Dunno why people are voting for Warne here? He never played one test match as captian.

 

[Francis]

Alan Border is probably my second favourite Australian cricket ever, just behind Shane Warne. Border's story explains how Australian cricket became the dominant force they'd later become.

When Ian Chappell replaced Bill Lawry as Australian captain Lawry was subjected to media scrutiny where he was criticised as being soft and unsuitable for the job. After hearing he was the new Australian captain Chappell said to his wife, "The b*stards will never get me." He was referring to the fact that he refused to be a captain who'd be deemed as soft. Chappell started a more aggressive approach of leading his men and that's what Alan Border had to keep alive during tougher time.

That Australian team of the 70s, to me, was as great as the Australian sides of the early 00s. They flogged England in 1974/75 and demolished a wonderful West Indian side in 1975/76. The thing I particularly liked about those sides was that they played their cricket hard but fair. If the opposition claimed a catch, they didn't stand their ground, they left the crease. But they were aggressive and confrontational. Then Lillee, Greg Chappell and Rod Marsh retired and Australia was crippled. Who was left? Just Alan Border.

That, to me, is why Alan Border was so important to Australian cricket - he was the last of the hard uncompromising players from the 70s. As Dean Jones once said, Border took the baggy green out, dusted it off, and educated his players on what it meant. He was such an important link between generations and the only man who could have led a young side and said, "This is how you do it."

The main attribute I respected about Border was that became whatever his side needed. If that meant they needed a grumpy captain, that's what he'd be. If it meant damn near killing Dean Jones in India, then he'd do it. Heck he thought the Aussies were getting soft and told them not to talk to any of the English players in 1989. Again, that's an example of Border being somewhat tough, grumpy and unreasonable... but it got Australia success.

Border was the rock upon which the dominance you saw from Australia in the last decade was built upon. Honestly, players like Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor would have been nothing about Border. Warne admits that too.

Lastly I respect the fact that despite his reputation of being captain grumpy, he was actually a good bloke off the field who works as a terrific ambassador for cricket. Back in his day he was a pr*ck but he was a better sportsman than people give him credit for.

I think it's really fitting that every year when Australia celebrates their best players and the years accomplishments that the winner gets the Alan Border medal. Everything you see from Australia these days is because of Border.

 

[Richard]

b*stards
pr*ck

Bastard and prick aren't filtered TBH but attempting to avoid the filter ain't the wisest idea.

That Australian team of the 70s, to me, was as great as the Australian sides of the early 00s. They flogged England in 1974/75 and demolished a wonderful West Indian side in 1975/76. The thing I particularly liked about those sides was that they played their cricket hard but fair. If the opposition claimed a catch, they didn't stand their ground, they left the crease. But they were aggressive and confrontational. Then Lillee, Greg Chappell and Rod Marsh retired and Australia was crippled. Who was left? Just Alan Border.

That, to me, is why Alan Border was so important to Australian cricket - he was the last of the hard uncompromising players from the 70s.

I'm not totally sure Border fits in with the mid-1970s glory days TBH - Border's first Tests as a first-choice were in 1979/80, after he'd initially debuted during the Packer Schism. The glory days of McCosker, Redpath, the Chappells, Walters, Marsh, Lillee, Thomson, Walker, Gilmour and Mallett, when Australia were indeed up with most of the best sides there's ever been, were before his time. By the time Border became a first-choice, Australia were being beaten by the by then comfortably superior West Indies, though it's fair to say that '79/80-'83/84 (with several of the above still playing) they were certainly the second-best in The World. With the exit of Greg Chappell, Marsh, Lillee, Hughes, Yallop, Wessels, Hogg and Alderman, a more fallow phase was entered where Border was indeed the shining light. But his no-nonsense approach was certainly not a universal sight in the early days of his captaincy - his inspiration for the 1989 Mr Angry approach was derived from his experiences in 1985, where he felt that his being over-chummy with the likes of Gower and Botham contributed to his team's failings. In reality, I feel it had far more to do with the fact that the likes of O'Donnell, Gilbert et al were simply nowhere near as good as Alderman, Lawson, Hughes etc.

The main attribute I respected about Border was that became whatever his side needed. If that meant they needed a grumpy captain, that's what he'd be. If it meant damn near killing Dean Jones in India, then he'd do it.

I'm not really sure that placing the game above the life of a player is a terribly desireable or respectable quality in a captain, or anyone else for that matter. Border seems to agree, thankfully, given that he's stated he realised he'd gone too far in Chennai in '86/87 and that he felt incredibly guilty and remorseful seeing Jones in hospital on a drip, realising he'd almost killed him. If Border had realised the true height of what he was doing to Jones, he'd not have done it.

 

[Francis]

Bastard and prick aren't filtered TBH but attempting to avoid the filter ain't the wisest idea.

I'm aware of that, I was just trying to be polite and in one example I was quoting Ian Chappell, But I accept your point.

I'm not totally sure Border fits in with the mid-1970s glory days TBH - Border's first Tests as a first-choice were in 1979/80, after he'd initially debuted during the Packer Schism.

I wasn't saying Border was apart of the glory days of 70s cricket in Australia... rather he was the very last of a kind of player for a while. After the Packer split he was part of a side that had Lillee, Chappell and March if only for an instant... and then they were gone! Here the Aussie selectors are saying, "Here, you're the captain of this new young team." It was his job to teach the young players about the baggy green and admittedly it took time for him to become good at that job - it was a big load at the time.

But his no-nonsense approach was certainly not a universal sight in the early days of his captaincy - his inspiration for the 1989 Mr Angry approach was derived from his experiences in 1985, where he felt that his being over-chummy with the likes of Gower and Botham contributed to his team's failings. In reality, I feel it had far more to do with the fact that the likes of O'Donnell, Gilbert et al were simply nowhere near as good as Alderman, Lawson, Hughes etc.

I agree, it took time for Border to turn into captain grumpy.

 

[Anil]

Border fought and used a lot of his personal example to push the team slowly upwards from near rock bottom. He ensured that the team did not completely disintegrate in what can be termed a cricketing 'depression' of the type West Indies cricket has faced and Lara has proved unequal to pull them out of.

not sure i would attribute even part of the west indian decline in recent years to lara's failure/inability to hold the fort and energize them back up...i think it shows a difference between the two cultures...border was gritty, determined and a huge factor in the aussie resurgence but the basic aussie grit, fierce pride in sporting performance and their excellent first class structure had a fair bit to do about it as well...the west indians have a comparatively more laid-back culture and a disparate group of island nations which come together mostly for cricket(also resulting in the lack of a solid, cohesive cricketing infrastructure), even during the years of the great west indian teams, i feel it was an abundant overflowing of talent that set them apart, not the aussie-style grit...plus what i understand is that good athletes now focus more on other sports like basketball which offer substantially more money...in my opinion of course from what i have understood about these countries...let me know if i am way off course...

 

[howardj]

Tugger

Turned us into a reflection of his own personality- a ruthless, cold blooded killing machine.

 

[Francis]

I just thought I'd add that another reason why I regard Border so highly was that his team's generally overachieved. The sides Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor captained generally got the success expected of them.

On paper there were probably three or four betters teams than Australia in the 1987 world cup, but Border's dicipline meant they were the best prepared side in the tournament. No one expected them to tie the series in India and Pakistan either. Beating England 4-0 when that Australian team was dubbed the worst to leave their shores was another accomplishment against the trend.

Probably the only knock on Border is that his side didn't beat the West Indies in 1992 when they really should have. However I hate it when people say, "Oh this captain lost that series." You can't put a series loss down to captaincy always. I think in Steve Waugh's case Australia became complacent in 2001, and he should bear a little blame for that... but in 1992 things just didn't go the right way for Border.

 

[Richard]

Australia lost the 1992/93 series against West Indies because a little time was lost at The 'Gabba in the opening Test IMO. No other reason.

They deserved a 2-2 draw at worst from that series. Initially I thought they were exceptionally unfortunate not to get over the line in the Fourth Test too but I've since been assured that they were actually extremely fortunate to get as close as they did.

 

[subshakerz]

Taylor and here's why. Captaincy is based not in terms of numbers of wins and losses but in achievements, and getting the best of your team when faced with a real challenge.

Border, for all his toughness, didn't really get his team to win anything exceptional or above expectations. He lost all his series against the West Indies, and outside of Australia could only beat weak teams like New Zealand and England. He was a fairly conservative captain.

Waugh won most of his series but not only was the standard of his team so high, the quality of his opposition had fallen to the extent that the gap between the teams was huge. The only real challenge for Waugh's team during his time was to win a series in the subcontinent, yet he lost in both India and Sri Lanka and beat a second-string Pakistan lineup in Sharjah.

Yet when Taylor first came in charge, West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan were all vying for the position of best team in the world. In terms of batting talent and quality of pace bowling, they were certainly comparable and challenging to Australia. But under Taylor, each team was beaten both home and away to let Australia claim the title of No.1. A large part of the credit goes to Taylor, whose aggressiveness and smart use of resources made the difference.

 

[Richard]

Border, for all his toughness, didn't really get his team to win anything exceptional or above expectations. He lost all his series against the West Indies, and outside of Australia could only beat weak teams like New Zealand and England.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. In the first half of Border's captaincy Australia were utterly wretched and lost virtually everything but in the second half they actually won most of what they played. I don't consider Border a captain from the very top of the tree but consider this:
1985-1988/89:
Beaten easily in England;
Beaten easily at home by New Zealand (for the only time ever);
Drew at home to India, very fortunately (they would have lost this series heavily had lost play been able to be made-up);
Beaten easily in New Zealand;
Drew in India;
Beaten easily at home to England;
Victorious over New Zealand at home (they were damn lucky it wasn't a 1-1 draw here);
Beaten in Pakistan;
Beaten easily at home by West Indies.
1989-1993/94:
Thrashed England in England;
Beat Pakistan at home;
Beat Sri Lanka at home;
Lost to New Zealand home-and-away (but were denied a 1-1 draw by lost play);
Easily beat England at home;
Lost fairly comfortably in West Indies;
Thrashed India at home;
Won in Sri Lanka;
Lost at home to West Indies (but deserved a 2-2 draw here at worst);
Drew in New Zealand (and in truth were a little fortunate to escape a 2-1 defeat);
Thrashed England in England;
Easily beat New Zealand at home;
Drew home-and-away with South Africa.

You see a very clear pattern of going from whipping-boys to pretty well irrefutably second-best - in the blink of an eye. Border (along of course with Bobby Simpson) has to take some credit for this, as many of the players were the same in both time-periods and despite initial poor performances turned the corner suddenly.

The only occasions Australia were genuinely outplayed between '89 and '93/94 were the series in West Indies in '91 and, perhaps rather surprisingly, the one in New Zealand in '92/93. There were several "and so you damn well should" victories (all 3 over England; and the home ones over India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand), but there were also plenty of credible or excellent performances (beating Pakistan; going toe-to-toe with New Zealand in '89/90 and West Indies in '92/93 even though they ended-up unfortunate losers in both; winning in Sri Lanka; and slogging it out with South Africa). Australia were a fine team in these 5 years and though obviously Border doesn't deserve all the credit for this he certainly deserves some IMO.

All that said, I still rate Taylor a better captain fairly comfortably.

 

[SJS]

I don't find myself in agreement with Malcolm Conn often, but on this bit I do.

Ponting, always an energetic and lively jack-in-the-box, often runs up to players and umpires and almost always uses animated body language, which can look bad.​

 

[Top_Cat]

Taylor and here's why. Captaincy is based not in terms of numbers of wins and losses but in achievements, and getting the best of your team when faced with a real challenge.

Border, for all his toughness, didn't really get his team to win anything exceptional or above expectations. He lost all his series against the West Indies, and outside of Australia could only beat weak teams like New Zealand and England. He was a fairly conservative captain.

Haha, you what? Aside from being captain while Aus went from easy-beats to at least competitive with the WI there's the small matter of the WC win in 1987 and Ashes in England, where Aus hadn't won for ages, in 1989. Considering the batters and bowlers he had at his disposal, I'd say he did pretty well.

EDIT: And pointing out he was captain in losing causes against the WI every time is really unfair. Under his command, the Aussies went from being spanked by the WI to almost beating them and, in reality, would have had a few decisions gone their way in Brisbane in the 1992 series. WI should have been 2-0 down going into the Adelaide Test, the only Test they utterly dominated was the Perth Test. Aus were on top in Brisbane, won Melbourne, Sydney was relatively even, same at Adelaide.