The 10 Greatest Test Captains

[fredfertang]

There was nothing new about leg theory (Frank Foster and Fred Root to name two had used it) and nothing new about fast intimidatory bowling (Jack Gregory and Ted MacDonald for example - there had been many others)

All Jardine did was combine the two - he took the view that the strength of Australia's batting was such that conventional tactics would not be successful - who could blame him? after all Australia had comfortably won in 1930 and could include in their batting line up men who still have the 1st, 5th and 6th best career averages (Bradman, Woodfull and Ponsford) as well as McCabe who by all accounts was a better batsman than the latter two - given the sort of shirtfronts the Aussie curators were producing what do you suggest Jardine did - take the 5-0 drubbing?

Would you seriously suggest that had the Big Ship, for one, been in Jardine's shoes he wouldn't have done the same - and even the holier than thou Bill Woodfull was happy to eventually retaliate - but Alexander just wasn't good enough

..... and don't forget either that the two batsmen who were hurt, Oldfield and Woodfull, were hit when Larwood was bowling conventional off theory

 

[bagapath]

andyc! i have no objection to bodyline or leg theory whatever you want to call it. it was not illegal then so it was okay for a captain to use it. "the spirit of cricket" is too vaugue to define like "morality". better to strictly follow the written law with some common sense and things would be fine.

on the other hand, using bottle tops to scratch and scuff cricket balls to aid reverse swing is against the laws of cricket. if you want to not include skippers who practiced such things then you have my support

 

[Smith]

A More illustrious leader and a more directly engaging character than either Armstrong or Darling was M A Noble, one of the great all-rounders in cricket history, a strategist with a penetrating mind and, when his playing days were done, an enthusiastic and illuminating commentator on the game. Even to consider M A Noble in terms of figures alone, apart from his keen brain and warm, friendly personality, is to be a prospector of gleaming riches. . . . Of the three rubbers in which he captained Australia, he lost one after a dramatic struggle and easily on the other two....

We have looked at the 1903-04 rubber . . . it was the first in which Noble, displacing Darling, captained Australia. Of Noble's three captaincies this was the hardest fought and must have brought him more of the joy of battle than the other two, which were won all too easily.

Noble stands high in Australia's line of massively talented all-rounders from Giffen to Benaud and Armstrong, Miller, Lindwall and Davidson. Just as Jackson won all five tosses in 1905, Noble achieved the same number of accurate guesses four years afterwards. . . . He was like Jackson in other ways too, in his confidence and optimism and in the air he spread around him that fortune was on his side and deserved to be. ' Tis not for mortals' to command good fortune but both Jackson and Noble had, besides their manifold gifts, a kind of inspired commonsense which avoided the sillier invitation to misfortune.

A A Thomson

Interesting indeed. Thank you very much.

 

[zaremba]

Absolutely disagree with Jardine's inclusion. The man introduced to test cricket a strategy that placed the opposition team in considerable physical danger, and in doing so threatened the relationships between two countries. Bringing up a point I've raised before, if you're going to praise Jardine for Bodyline, why not praise Greg Chappell for the underarm incident?

No-one got hurt by bodyline bowling in 32/33. I've not done the research but would imagine that plenty of batsmen were hurt by Jeff Thomson - "I enjoy hitting a batsman more than getting him out. I like to see blood on the pitch." Rarely do we hear Aussies getting on their high horses about Jeff Thomson's bowling being unacceptable because of the "considerable physical danger" which he exposed batsmen to.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Absolutely disagree with Jardine's inclusion. The man introduced to test cricket a strategy that placed the opposition team in considerable physical danger, and in doing so threatened the relationships between two countries. Bringing up a point I've raised before, if you're going to praise Jardine for Bodyline, why not praise Greg Chappell for the underarm incident?

Just to echo what others have said, Jardine merely put into operation a tactic that had been extant for quite a long time. You might have seen in SJS's post quoting AA Thompson on Warwick Armstrong that the big fella was an early proponent of the tactic himself:

There is a lovely little book by A A Thomson Cricket:The Great Captains

Of all the Australian leaders before Bradman, the most formidable was W W Armstrong, that great whale of a man, who played in forty-two Tests and won eight of the ten in which he was captain. He was a punishing right hand batsman given ti high scores, a cunning slow bowler and one of the earliest exponents of leg-theory; he was also a relentless foe with a sardonic manner, which he displayed when he was seen reading a newspaper in the field at the Oval during the last of the 1921 series in which England proved rather feeble opponents. 'I was looking,' he said, ' to see if there was any cricket going on anywhere.'​

Surely, just by virtue of successfully besting a team that included (by near universal agreement) the greatest cricketer of all-time Jardine's worthy of inclusion in any list of great skippers?

&, unlike the underarm incident, bodyline could be successfully countered. McCabe's century the obvious example.

 

[steve132]

Certainly not Richards or Ponting anywhere near a top ten, both were very average captains; Lloyd, Ganguly, Border, Brearley and Stephen Waugh all have question-marks over them and as far as the two Australians are concerned everyone who played against all considers the man who came in between them (Mark Taylor) the better captain, usually by a fair way. Brealey's only question-mark is that he debuted too late to be a Test-standard batsman and justify a place. Lloyd and Ganguly were relatively poor tacticians who performed the unique role required to captain West Indies and India (the ability to bind politically divided parts together) well. Smith is too early to judge.

I'd tend to consider these names as worthy of consideration for any top-ten:
Australia: Joe Darling, Warwick Armstrong, Bill Woodfull, Don Bradman, Richie Benaud, Ian Chappell, Mark Taylor
England: Douglas Jardine, Mike Brearley, Nasser Hussain
India: Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi, Ajit Wadekar
New Zealand: Stephen Fleming
Pakistan: Imran Khan
South Africa: Ali Bacher
Sri Lanka: Arjuna Ranatunga
West Indies: John Goddard, Frank Worrell

Too many of those often credited for being outstanding captains are merely those who led outstanding teams, especially those in modern times who have played many matches and thus emerged with many victories credited to them. To be a great leader in cricket requires two fundamental things: tactical excellence (requiring a less-than-superlative side to demonstrate - this rules-out the likes of Waugh and Lloyd); and ability to inspire loyalty and commitment. Any captain who has not clearly demonstrated both of these cannot, in my view, be a contender for a top-ten.

Also, it's interesting how so many of the truly oustanding captains have been Australian.

Richard:

Great post as usual

You might want to add Ray Illingworth to the list. He was, with Brearley, the shrewdest tactician England has produced since the war.

And John Goddard was NOT a good, much less a great, captain. He had no idea of how to dismiss a side other than by bowling Ramadhin and Valentine all the time. Clive Lloyd was a much more imposing - and successful - captain. While he was not a great tactician he commanded loyalty, respect and affection from all his teammates.