What do you value in a captain?

[LongHopCassidy]

Interesting question, which seems very divisive on CW.

Obviously it's easy to tell between a good captain and a bad one, but what facet of them do you notice the most? Inspired fields? The loyalty of your team? Leading by example with bat or ball?

Discuss.

 

[Satyanash89]

Ideally in a captain you'd want all three.
But for me, a captain's got to have the force of personality and ability to instill the belief to win in a bunch of guys, especially if the team doesn't have too many exceptional individual cricketers. In a team filled with stars, obviously man-management becomes essential.
I certainly don't agree with the opinion that "The best player should be captain... find that to be incredibly silly". really think it's a specialized job which not everyone is perfectly suited for, which is why if he's an inspirational leader and manages the team well, he should be good enough to hold his place in the squad... anything more from him in terms of personal performances is a bonus.

 

[Pothas]

Well we normally want what we do not currently have so as an England fan it would be really nice to see a captain with bold and inventive field placing and tactics. You have to say though, that the thing that really stands out with successful captains in recent years has been their leadership. Not many have them have been what you would describe as inspirational but you would say they were all good leaders.

Wider question though is how important are captains these days? They quite clearly still play an integral role but I would reckon that we would have seen a bigger change in the way England play if it was Flower that had left rather than Strauss.

 

[Prince EWS]

One of the top two. I voted for field placing and tactics mainly because I think it separates the good captains from the middle of the road captains, but you're going to be a completely rubbish captain if you have poor leadership. I think there's basically a minimum standard of leadership ability required, and from those who meet that standard you go with the bloke who's the best tactically.

Personal performance doesn't really come into it as a standalone factor at all. I think it helps on the leadership front; it's easier to lead if you can do it from the front, and it's a lot harder to get players to get behind you if they don't think you command your place, but it's more of a sub-factor for the second option IMO.

 

[smash84]

I think once you are able to ensure that you are good enough to be selected in the best XI of the country then I think the most important thing because man management and motivating the players since then your own place in the team is not in question. All the good captains that I have seen have over the years have commanded that sense of loyalty/give-it-all feeling from their players which is what gives the team real character IMO

 

[Red]

Field placements and tactics ability- you either have them or you don't. And they don't always go hand in hand with the ability to lead others.

I'd be all for having two captains in cricket, each with distinct roles. One takes care of on field tactics, and the other is the leader of the team.

Ponting and Steve Waugh were both examples of guys who were good leaders of men, but weren't great tacticians (in my opinion). While Clarke is a great tactician on field, he is possibly struggling to keep order in the house (based on speculation only).

An interesting side conversation would be guys who have managed to combine all the facets of captaincy successfully. From Australia, I'd say the best captain we've had was Ian Chappell. Very good tactically, probably in the top 3 batsmen in the team, and players who played under him all speak of him incredibly highly.

 

[smash84]

Field placements and tactics ability- you either have them or you don't. And they don't always go hand in hand with the ability to lead others.

I'd be all for having two captains in cricket, each with distinct roles. One takes care of on field tactics, and the other is the leader of the team.

Ponting and Steve Waugh were both examples of guys who were good leaders of men, but weren't great tacticians (in my opinion). While Clarke is a great tactician on field, he is possibly struggling to keep order in the house (based on speculation only).

An interesting side conversation would be guys who have managed to combine all the facets of captaincy successfully. From Australia, I'd say the best captain we've had was Ian Chappell. Very good tactically, probably in the top 3 batsmen in the team, and players who played under him all speak of him incredibly highly.

I didn't see Ian Chappell lead but he is very highly rated indeed.

 

[Satyanash89]

I didn't see Ian Chappell lead but he is very highly rated indeed.

So that's why half the crap he says in the commentary box begins with "if i was captain..."?

 

[Prince EWS]

So that's why half the crap he says in the commentary box begins with "if i was captain..."?

Yeah pretty much. He sits there and thinks about the game as if he was the fielding captain. I actually really like that aspect of his commentary tbh.

 

[Red]

Most people don't rate Chappeli as a commentator, but I do. Pretty insightful during match commentary. He spouts a lot of crap on his videoblogs and in print, but he knows the game better than almost anyone imo.

 

[Jnr.]

Ed Smith wrote a really good article on this a few days ago. Ed Smith: Why Cook's the right man to lead England | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

I prefer great man-management skills, to get the best out of every player in the team. I think that on-field captaincy is over rated.

 

[Viscount Tom]

It depends on the team Darren Sammy's no great strategist or tactician, but he's done what no Windies captain seems to have done for nearly a decade or more and got the team pulling in the same direction.

Some teams are best served having a Sammy some teams are better suited to having a tactician.

 

[Jono]

Yeah gun post viscount. Depends on the maturity of the team and the politics of the board.

 

[Burgey]

Blokes would walk over broken glass for Chappell. He backed his players to the hilt and was tactically pretty sound as well. Also, his average as skipper increased pretty dramatically UIMM.

Mind you, it helped to have the the pace attack he did. Still, that side of his hot to number one pretty soon after being drubbed by SA then England. And they did it without especially decent opening batsmen too, interestingly enough.

 

[Red]

Blokes would walk over broken glass for Chappell..

Steve Waugh had a bit of this about him as well. At least with Langer!

 

[benchmark00]

Steve Waugh is no worse a captain than Ian Chappell was. They were both aggressive and both had the cattle to be aggressive.

Chappell's commentary is rubbish because his only philosophy on captaincy is be aggressive, and any captain who isn't aggressive is a bad captain according to him.

If he was the captain of a team with a poor pace attack over an extended period of time, if he used his captaincy approach he would almost certainly be a failure. Just because it worked with a great attack doesn't mean it would work with another attack.

His commentary is also to blame for a large majority of fans thinking Shane Warne would be, or is, a good captain.

 

[subshakerz]

Steve Waugh is no worse a captain than Ian Chappell was. They were both aggressive and both had the cattle to be aggressive.

Chappell's commentary is rubbish because his only philosophy on captaincy is be aggressive, and any captain who isn't aggressive is a bad captain according to him.

If he was the captain of a team with a poor pace attack over an extended period of time, if he used his captaincy approach he would almost certainly be a failure. Just because it worked with a great attack doesn't mean it would work with another attack.

His commentary is also to blame for a large majority of fans thinking Shane Warne would be, or is, a good captain.

I disagree, Chappell never lost a test series as captain. Waugh had the best Australian team in history yet lost in Sri Lanka and India. He had the best attack in the world yet was clueless several times (he let the Indian team bat an entire day without taking a wicket, allowed teams to chase 300 plus twice and over 400 once).

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Steve Waugh is no worse a captain than Ian Chappell was. They were both aggressive and both had the cattle to be aggressive.

You are a total putz if you think Lillee-Thomson-Walker-Mallett was equal cattle to Warne-McGrath-Gillespie-Lee.

 

[uvelocity]

the most important captaincy credential is that they be a fast bowler. need someone with brains ffs

 

[Red]

Chappell's commentary is rubbish because his only philosophy on captaincy is be aggressive, and any captain who isn't aggressive is a bad captain according to him.

I agree with his aggression philosophy 99% of the time. Every great test series ever has had aggressive captain/s.