Mike Brearley v Clive Lloyd

[Richard]

Aside from being one of the worst batsmen ever to play for England in a substantial number of tests, Brearley is also one of the most overrated captains in history

He basically made his name by beating Australia in 2 series (first, when Oz was torn apart by WSC, second all due to Botham and Willis) and a bunch of teams without WSC players when Botham was running riot

Only way Brearley and Lloyd should be mentioned in same sentence is as follows:

"Brearley and Lloyd should not be mentioned in same sentence."

Do you have any idea how to assess captains? It sure as isn't by their results. Nor the calibre of the teams at their disposal.

Yes, some people - those who don't have a clue mostly - do indeed think highly of Brearley only because of the victory over Australia A in 1978\79. Those who actually know how to assess captaincy, though, judge by how they controlled what is in their power to control - tactics, and the use of psychology to get the best out of the players under their command. In both these respects Brearley was brilliant, and it wouldn't matter if England had lost every single Test under his charge, he'd still have been brilliant.

Oh yes, the "the 1977 team was torn apart by WSC" is a convenient excuse some Australians like to hide behind, and it's bull****. England were simply the better side, and it's not because the Australians were distracted by the Packer Schism, it's because they played better in the series in question.

 

[Engle]

Social's on the right track. Brearley was great at 2nd XI cricket, but when faced against a full-fledged Aussie XI, came out short 3-0. If results are not used as a measure of success, what is ? Gut feel ?

 

[Richard]

Assessment of captaincy skills. It's not tricky - cricket tactics, and the ability to use your intelligence to get the best out of the players at your disposal.

It's very obvious to me, reading some of the stuff that's been written by and about and him (both by external viewers and those involved), that Brearley was quite brilliant at both. I've little doubt the aforementioned likes of Boycott, Gower, Botham and Willis would not have been as good as they were during his captaincy but for his captaincy. And each of these four is a totally different personality, and this convinces me that Brearley could turn his hand to anything.

And any fool can tell who's a good tactician and who's not, TBH. And pretty well no-one I've read has EVER described Clive Lloyd as a good tactician. Adaquete, yes; good, certainly not. He didn't need to be.

 

[Engle]

Dont disagree entirely, however merely being a good tactician is not enough, many can do this. Turning the game upside down or thinking outside the box or changing the psyche of your team (and nation) goes beyond the limitations of the playing field.

 

[Engle]

Here's a recent article by Simon Barnes :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/simon_barnes/article3767621.ece?openComment=true

...
When we talk about cricket leaders, when we talk about on-pitch leadership in any sport, we think of Mike Brearley. He was an inadequate Test batsman, but he made the team on pure leadership. Brearley was and is a charming man. As a cricket captain he was also cold, hard and ruthless. He was never aimless, never let a game drift, always looked for an initiative, was clever psychologically - and he had Ian Botham.
......
But perhaps the greatest cricket captain of recent history was Clive Lloyd. Brearley has suggested that Lloyd didn’t “have a cricket brain”, but that wasn’t the point. Lloyd united the West Indies team, got the players to sink inter-island rivalries and play as one. Lloyd rallied them behind the terrifying four-pronged pace attack - Lloyd’s invention - and for years his team were more or less unbeatable. Tactical acumen is a bonus, leadership is what counts. What matters is whether or not you can inspire in others the virtues of fellowship.

 

[Richard]

Dont disagree entirely, however merely being a good tactician is not enough, many can do this. Turning the game upside down or thinking outside the box or changing the psyche of your team (and nation) goes beyond the limitations of the playing field.

Of course it does. Of course, no captain can in himself turn the game upside-down - that requires the skill of the players - but I see no reason Brearley wouldn't have been able to have done this. Lloyd (and most captains) though - no, not a chance.

 

[Richard]

Here's a recent article by Simon Barnes :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/simon_barnes/article3767621.ece?openComment=true

...
When we talk about cricket leaders, when we talk about on-pitch leadership in any sport, we think of Mike Brearley. He was an inadequate Test batsman, but he made the team on pure leadership. Brearley was and is a charming man. As a cricket captain he was also cold, hard and ruthless. He was never aimless, never let a game drift, always looked for an initiative, was clever psychologically - and he had Ian Botham.
......
But perhaps the greatest cricket captain of recent history was Clive Lloyd. Brearley has suggested that Lloyd didn’t “have a cricket brain”, but that wasn’t the point. Lloyd united the West Indies team, got the players to sink inter-island rivalries and play as one. Lloyd rallied them behind the terrifying four-pronged pace attack - Lloyd’s invention - and for years his team were more or less unbeatable. Tactical acumen is a bonus, leadership is what counts. What matters is whether or not you can inspire in others the virtues of fellowship.

Yes - as I've said, Lloyd was excellent at uniting those from the islands of the Caribbean. But uniting West Indies, while important in captaining West Indies, is not by any stretch of the imagination a particularly vital trait when considering captaincy at large.

Had Lloyd captained 10 years earlier, doubtless he'd have done a good job, but there's no way either his captaincy or his team would have stood-out. Lloyd's team made his captaincy, which was adaquete in a broad sense and good from the WI-centric POV, look like top-of-the-tree material.

The only captain in modern (post-1970) times I rate as fit to compare with Mike Brearley is Imran Khan. Though fair to say Stephen Fleming isn't very far behind.

 

[Engle]

Lloyd did do it with ' his invention ' as the article says. His first Test series as captaincy was disastrous losing 5-1 to Australia and many felt at the time, he could be a failure in leadership. But he bounced back resoundingly in a manner that shook the game to its core.

I like too, the comment on Waugh.

Steve Waugh created a team designed to terrify. He outlawed the cricket conventions that indicated weakness: no nightwatchman, no farming the strike, no batting with a runner. He had a messianic view of the nature of leadership and it worked.

 

[Richard]

The 1975/76 series wasn't Lloyd's first as captain - he'd previously taken charge of the victorious 3-2 series in 1974/75 in India, and a 0-0 draw in Pakistan.

I also think the part he played in the advent of the all-seam attack is overstated - apart from the fact Lloyd wasn't the sole team selector, it was only a matter of time once pitches became covered that someone was going to realise that spin for the most part wasn't neccessary, and it's not like those who played for West Indies 1971-1976 were particularly great shakes: Lance Gibbs who went up and down late in his career; Maurice Foster who was more batsman than spinner; Arthur Barrett; Jack Noreiga; Inshan Ali; Tony Howard; Raphick Jumadeen; Elquemendo Willett; Imtiaz Ali; Albert Padmore. Household names none. It wasn't really rocket-science that seam was the way to go. The only surprise is that it took as long as 7 years after pitches were covered to take effect.

But between 1977 and 1986 (excluding Packer-depleted games), no specialist spin-bowler played more than a single Test for West Indies; the all-rounder Roger Harper played 16, but Derick Parry, Rangy Nanan (a fine bowler) and Clyde Butts played just one Test each, though Butts got into the team again after Holding and Garner departed.

I've also never heard of Stephen Waugh refusing to allow runners, though I must say (like nightwatchmen) I've always thought they're often more a hindrance than a help.

BTW, and completely off-topic, I don't suppose you could add your piece to this thread? Something I've often wondered.

 

[subshakerz]

Do you have any idea how to assess captains? It sure as isn't by their results. Nor the calibre of the teams at their disposal.

Yes, some people - those who don't have a clue mostly - do indeed think highly of Brearley only because of the victory over Australia A in 1978\79. Those who actually know how to assess captaincy, though, judge by how they controlled what is in their power to control - tactics, and the use of psychology to get the best out of the players under their command. In both these respects Brearley was brilliant, and it wouldn't matter if England had lost every single Test under his charge, he'd still have been brilliant.

Oh yes, the "the 1977 team was torn apart by WSC" is a convenient excuse some Australians like to hide behind, and it's bull****. England were simply the better side, and it's not because the Australians were distracted by the Packer Schism, it's because they played better in the series in question.

I agree with the comments that Brearely is very overrated. Its easy to captain a side when the side you captain is far better than the opposition, which was the case when Brearely was at the helm against Packer-affected sides.

You can talk about tactics, but they are secondary to being able to lead your men from the front. And another true test of captaincy is getting the best out of your players against superior opposition and in extremely tough conditions. Brearely did neither.

The only time he captained against a markedly superior side was against a full-strength Australia in Australia in 78/79. Brearely could only stand by while his team was comprehensively whitewashed 3-0.

 

[Richard]

I'm guessing you mean '79/80 rather than '78/79. No captain can turn the tide when two sides are that ill-matched, no matter how good he may be. And it's easy to forget, but Brearley's side was Packer-depleted too - Knott and Underwood, two would-be lynchpins, had joined the schism, not to mention previous skipper Tony Greig.

However, Brearley did manage to win 3-0 with a similar England side against a similar Australian side in 1977. Of course, it didn't seem that way - as a rule of thumb, the superior side tends to win the series. So when Brearley's team won, it was because he had the better side; when it lost, it was because he had the lesser side.

You see how absurd it is to judge a captain purely on results?

And I don't agree at all about the leading-from-the-front thing. Graham Gooch did this very well, but there's no way he's even on the same plane as Brearley in the captaincy stakes, because he was far too one-dimensional (though he was indeed much better than he's often given credit for these days).

A player's calibre should not impact one little bit on his skill as a captain. In any case, had Brearley had the chance to lead England at a younger age, while he might have been a lesser captain at that stage, there's no reason to believe he'd not have done well with the bat too - as his domestic record was good and his technique sound. The only barrier was that he was 34 by the time he made his Test debut, and 35 by the time he got the captaincy. I'd like to see any career which was successful under such circumstances - there are virtually none. Only person I can think of who debuted so late and still had a successful career was Bert Ironmonger.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I really thought this was going to be an interesting thread, instead we have Mike Brearley dressed up as the greatest leader since the Duke of Wellington.

 

[Richard]

So then, who is so notably better?

 

[Top_Cat]

Interesting; the only two blokes in the thread old enough to have actually seen both captains in action are saying Brearley was over-rated whilst one guy who was born years after they both retired is defending him.

 

[Richard]

Who're they?

If you're counting social, why? Pretty much every English player who ever lived is overrated according to him.

 

[social]

I'm guessing you mean '79/80 rather than '78/79. No captain can turn the tide when two sides are that ill-matched, no matter how good he may be. And it's easy to forget, but Brearley's side was Packer-depleted too - Knott and Underwood, two would-be lynchpins, had joined the schism, not to mention previous skipper Tony Greig.

However, Brearley did manage to win 3-0 with a similar England side against a similar Australian side in 1977. Of course, it didn't seem that way - as a rule of thumb, the superior side tends to win the series. So when Brearley's team won, it was because he had the better side; when it lost, it was because he had the lesser side.

You see how absurd it is to judge a captain purely on results?

And I don't agree at all about the leading-from-the-front thing. Graham Gooch did this very well, but there's no way he's even on the same plane as Brearley in the captaincy stakes, because he was far too one-dimensional (though he was indeed much better than he's often given credit for these days).

A player's calibre should not impact one little bit on his skill as a captain. In any case, had Brearley had the chance to lead England at a younger age, while he might have been a lesser captain at that stage, there's no reason to believe he'd not have done well with the bat too - as his domestic record was good and his technique sound. The only barrier was that he was 34 by the time he made his Test debut, and 35 by the time he got the captaincy. I'd like to see any career which was successful under such circumstances - there are virtually none. Only person I can think of who debuted so late and still had a successful career was Bert Ironmonger.

Urm, Fleming

Bottom line is that Brearley was adequate but the vast majority of results can be attributed to the huuuuuuuuuge disparity in quality between the players at his disposal (Botham was in the midst of possibly the dominant period produced by any all-rounder) and sides decimated by wsc

However, what really sums up your bias is your assessment of Brearley's batting technique as "sound" when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth - zero foot work and balance = test average of 20

 

[Richard]

Urm, Fleming

Really, when did he do that then?

Bottom line is that Brearley was adequate but the vast majority of results can be attributed to the huuuuuuuuuge disparity in quality between the players at his disposal (Botham was in the midst of possibly the dominant period produced by any all-rounder) and sides decimated by wsc

Yes, and results aren't a particularly important component in judging a captain.

However, what really sums up your bias is your assessment of Brearley's batting technique as "sound" when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth - zero foot work and balance = test average of 20

The reason for Brearley's poor average is his late debut, nothing more. His technique was perfectly fine. I wonder how much you have read of him to come to the conclusion that he had no footwork or balance?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Brearley wasn't a Test batsman at any age and should not have been chosen when he was originally. At the time both he and Richard Gilliat (Hampshire captain) made a few runs in the MCC match against a strong West Indies bowling attack at Lord's and it was a toss up which of the two would be chosen. If Greig hadn't insisted on recalling the 45 year old Brian Close, Brearley and Gilliat would both have been chosen and neither were good enough.

 

[Richard]

Who should have been chosen, instead of all of those three, incidentally?

 

[social]

The reason for Brearley's poor average is his late debut, nothing more. His technique was perfectly fine. I wonder how much you have read of him to come to the conclusion that he had no footwork or balance?

Dont need to read anything - I witnessed every innings that he played against Oz during his test career and quite a few against other countries.