The 10 Greatest Test Captains

[rivera213]

Stephen Fleming and Michael Vaughan are the top 2 of my watching era IMO.

Other good captains like Steve Waugh had such an abundance of talent around him that pretty much anyone could create a winning team.

Ricky Ponting is 1 of the worst captains I've seen.

Imran was a fantastic captain, he didn't need to say anything and the team played for him. You can't buy that. Botham as great as he was split dressing rooms, Imran galvanised them.

Kapil Dev is up thee too. I really like his captaincy and think that's the type of captain India need now.

Mike Brearley is 1 of the best of all time for me. Sure, his batting didn't warrant being in the team but his captaincy did. There'd be a bunch of headless chickens on the field had he not been in charge.

 

[Fusion]

Thanks SJS for the reply. It’s interesting to read your comments on Pataudi. I must admit that my knowledge of him is limited. I’ll read up on him. From your analysis, it seems that you consider Imran to be a great Captain, but just that you consider at least 10 to be better. I have no qualms with that.

 

[fredfertang]

Consider myself put in my place re his record. Am quite surprised, as I always was of the opinion he was a hack, but was never someone I considered worthy to actually check facts on. Stand by my colourful and somewhat derogetory rantings of his character however.

Australia picked Harry "Bull" Alexander for the final test in 32/33 to bump a few down at England

For me he has the last word on Jardine - speaking fifty years later he said of him

"I hit him a few times at Sydney. He had blood coming out of his glove but he never flinched - he had a ton of it - what it takes"

As Mr Z said he would be tickled pink with your reaction to him - he'd be doing again the "Indian war dance" that he did when Bill Bowes bowled Bradman for a duck in the second test

 

[Sanz]

If Imran had a fault, it was that he was aloof and a bit unapproachable for his young team-mates.

What is the basic premise for such an opinion or conclusion about Imran ? Has anyone of his team mates written about this ?

 

[SJS]

Thanks SJS for the reply. It’s interesting to read your comments on Pataudi. I must admit that my knowledge of him is limited. I’ll read up on him. From your analysis, it seems that you consider Imran to be a great Captain, but just that you consider at least 10 to be better. I have no qualms with that.

You see the list I gave has only three captains (Brearley, Chappell and Fleming) from those I have actually seen. So when one is making an all time list then, considering that Test cricket had gone on for almost a hundred years before I started watching, there will have to be a very large number from those from before our times and for assessing these one has to rely upon 'second-hand' sources - from what one has read.

Hence great captains like Imran and Pataudi are not on that list.

If I was to make a list of those I have actually seen leading a side I might have Ian Chappell, Brearley, Fleming, Pataudi, Imran, Close, Illingworth, Border, Taylor, Ranatunga and Ashok Mankad although the last named did not lead a Test side.

 

[Furball]

Yeah you could definitely say that, but it's a bit of chicken and egg because we don't know to what extent its superiority was down to Ponting. I just found the extent to which Ponting's record is better surprising.

I reckon it's down to not carrying an average all rounder in the side.

 

[Smith]

Consider myself put in my place re his record. Am quite surprised, as I always was of the opinion he was a hack, but was never someone I considered worthy to actually check facts on. Stand by my colourful and somewhat derogetory rantings of his character however.

Pathetic.

BTW SJS's list looks awesome indeed. I'd love to hear more about the captaincy credentials of Noble. Particularly surprised at the lack of subcontinental names in that. Not that am advocating for some ridiculous "representative selection", but just wondering.

 

[SJS]

Australia picked Harry "Bull" Alexander for the final test in 32/33 to bump a few down at England

For me he has the last word on Jardine - speaking fifty years later he said of him

"I hit him a few times at Sydney. He had blood coming out of his glove but he never flinched - he had a ton of it - what it takes"

As Mr Z said he would be tickled pink with your reaction to him - he'd be doing again the "Indian war dance" that he did when Bill Bowes bowled Bradman for a duck in the second test

 

[Richard]

Who are the 10 greatest test captains of all time?

1. Allan Border
2. Mike Brearley
3. Clive Lloyd
4. Imran Khan
5. Ian Chappell,Sir Frank Worrell(Add on)
6. Sourav Ganguly
7. Sir Viv Richards
8. Steve Waugh
9. Ricky Ponting
10. Stephen Fleming, Graeme Smith

What’s your take readers ?

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.

 

[bagapath]

To me, the measure of a good Captain is how well he united/inspired/led the team. The "Captain" is the leader of the team, and Imran was as good a leader of men as any that played the game. I would pretty much agree with Oitoitoi’s analysis of what he measures in a Captain. In that regard, I don’t possibly see how Imran could be overrated (or for that matter Ganguly). Did he not get the best out of his team; one that was famous for not living up to potential and working together? Did he not lead from the front as a Captain, contributing at least with the ball or bat, if not both? Did he not give the best team of his era a run for their money? I would be genuinely interested to know what measuring sticks you are using Bagapath, and also SJS if you happen to read my post.

Let me try to verbalize my thoughts. I hope I am able to define properly what I feel about test cricket captains.

A good captain has to unite his team and lead them as a unit, I agree. In this regard we rate people with man management skills very highly. For leading peoples of different islands and bringing them under a common west indian cause, frank worrell and clive lloyd deserve maximum praise. So does allan border for making young cubs believe they could hunt with the bigger animals. Imran also made pakistanis whose brains were spoilt by internal politics and burdened with a colonial servile attitude raise above themselves and develop self-belief. But his energy was spent more on dealing with the pakistan board, regional selectors, umpires' panels etc. Of course, Pakistan cricket should be thankful that he (and miandad) spotted akram, waqar and inzi and brought them into the national team quickly. An the fact that he advocated neutral umpires helped the world body address the issue quicker. But this is a very statesman like role and I am not able to add these factors in his favor while judging him purely as a skipper. I do not believe anyone performed above their potential or a wild champion was harnessed by a skipper to have more focus (eg. waugh under border or botham under brearley). imran got his work done through aggression alone. it is not always enough.

tactically a captain has to be the best in the field. bradman reversing his batting order to handle a sticky and jardine employing the leg theory to counter bradman are examples of well thought out strategies that defined historical moments on the cricket field. imran, to my knowledge, did not bring about anything so special in his tenure as captain.

A cricket captain is expected to lead his team to victories. Some captains are praised for achieving a lot with mediocre teams (fleming) and some don't get praised enough because they already have great teams that even boycott's mom could lead them to victories (s.waugh). But what to do? You have to taste the pudding and judge the cook. Not that Imran didnt have good ingredients. To start with he had two world class fast bowlers at his disposal. Imran himself and Akram were among the very best fast bowlers in the world. Abdul Qadir was the only good spinner in international cricket. He had one of the greatest middle order batsmen of all time, Miandad, to hold the innings together. Around this core, at various times, there were enough good cricketers to build a winning team. With such a unit just 14 victories out of 48 tests is simply not good enough. A great captain, in my book, wins about 40% of his tests. Even Ganguly has won more tests (21) than Imran leading in almost the similar no. of matches.. it is a wrong stat, i know, since some of those wins have come against zim/bang and also test cricket produces more results these days. still i am mentioning it to bring it to your attention that imran's teams won much less than ganguly's. most of those matches were drawn games and hence my apprehension in granting imran an A+ in this test.

in essence we are usually blinded by imran's authority over the pakistanis on the cricket field, his winning the battles with his board and selectors over his team, and his charismatic on field performances - all of it coupled with some important triumphs like the WC - and allow a good captain that he was to turn into an all-time great leader in our minds. he is definitely one special captain, but not among top 10 in my book.

 

[bagapath]

the five best skippers i have seeen are:

lloyd
richards
taylor
waugh
ponting

the remianing in my all time rankings would probably go like

armstrong
jardine
bradman
benaud and
i. chappell

honorable mentions

g.c.smith
woodful
peter may
len hutton
worrell
border
imran

 

[Richard]

What on Earth was so good about Viv Richards as a skipper, apart from the fact that teams led by him won loads of games as he inherited a side containing Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Gomes, himself, Marshall, Holding and Garner?

 

[aussie]

What on Earth was so good about Viv Richards as a skipper, apart from the fact that teams led by him won loads of games as he inherited a side containing Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Gomes, himself, Marshall, Holding and Garner?

I'd say he was a good man manager at least, even if his ability as a tactician was never truly tested.

 

[Fusion]

Let me try to verbalize my thoughts. I hope I am able to define properly what I feel about test cricket captains.

A good captain has to unite his team and lead them as a unit, I agree. In this regard we rate people with man management skills very highly. For leading peoples of different islands and bringing them under a common west indian cause, frank worrell and clive lloyd deserve maximum praise. So does allan border for making young cubs believe they could hunt with the bigger animals. Imran also made pakistanis whose brains were spoilt by internal politics and burdened with a colonial servile attitude raise above themselves and develop self-belief. But his energy was spent more on dealing with the pakistan board, regional selectors, umpires' panels etc. Of course, Pakistan cricket should be thankful that he (and miandad) spotted akram, waqar and inzi and brought them into the national team quickly. An the fact that he advocated neutral umpires helped the world body address the issue quicker. But this is a very statesman like role and I am not able to add these factors in his favor while judging him purely as a skipper. I do not believe anyone performed above their potential or a wild champion was harnessed by a skipper to have more focus (eg. waugh under border or botham under brearley). imran got his work done through aggression alone. it is not always enough.

tactically a captain has to be the best in the field. bradman reversing his batting order to handle a sticky and jardine employing the leg theory to counter bradman are examples of well thought out strategies that defined historical moments on the cricket field. imran, to my knowledge, did not bring about anything so special in his tenure as captain.

A cricket captain is expected to lead his team to victories. Some captains are praised for achieving a lot with mediocre teams (fleming) and some don't get praised enough because they already have great teams that even boycott's mom could lead them to victories (s.waugh). But what to do? You have to taste the pudding and judge the cook. Not that Imran didnt have good ingredients. To start with he had two world class fast bowlers at his disposal. Imran himself and Akram were among the very best fast bowlers in the world. Abdul Qadir was the only good spinner in international cricket. He had one of the greatest middle order batsmen of all time, Miandad, to hold the innings together. Around this core, at various times, there were enough good cricketers to build a winning team. With such a unit just 14 victories out of 48 tests is simply not good enough. A great captain, in my book, wins about 40% of his tests. Even Ganguly has won more tests (21) than Imran leading in almost the similar no. of matches.. it is a wrong stat, i know, since some of those wins have come against zim/bang and also test cricket produces more results these days. still i am mentioning it to bring it to your attention that imran's teams won much less than ganguly's. most of those matches were drawn games and hence my apprehension in granting imran an A+ in this test.

in essence we are usually blinded by imran's authority over the pakistanis on the cricket field, his winning the battles with his board and selectors over his team, and his charismatic on field performances - all of it coupled with some important triumphs like the WC - and allow a good captain that he was to turn into an all-time great leader in our minds. he is definitely one special captain, but not among top 10 in my book.

Thanks for the detailed response Bagapath. I respect your reasoning, though I still disagree with it. I’m going to make just a few, brief counter-points if you don’t mind. In regards to Imran’s winning percentage, I agree it’s low. Though as you already alluded to, it is more common to get a Test result now days than in Imran’s time. This is especially true if you played in Pakistan. Most of the wickets were roads and you rarely had a result. Imran mightily protested preparing such pitches, but even he could not change the mindset of the authorities. I think the fact that he drew the matches against WI is no small feat, considering they were destroying all other opposition at the time. I would agree with you that Imran was not the greatest tactician on the field. That doesn’t mean he was clueless or anything, but perhaps not on the same level as other all-time great Captains. However, he realized this weakness and often took the advice of Miandad (who was a good tactician), if that counts for anything. You give due praise to Imran’s dealings with the board/selecters etc, but I think you undersell his actual influence on the team itself. Imran inspired the team like no one before or since and instilled a confidence in them that they could beat anyone, anywhere, anytime. The battles against WI, India, and the famous comeback in the ’92 WC are great examples of this. To conclude, Imran’s leadership, performance, and aura had a tremendously positive impact on the way his team performed. That’s the best you can ask off a Captain IMO.

 

[subshakerz]

Using just the number of wins and losses to judge a captain is completely bogus measure IMO. The better test of a captain is his ability to get his team to produce results against superior opposition or in tough conditions, and be able to lead from example.

It is for these reasons that I find both Steve Waugh and Mike Brearely far from great captains. Steve Waugh led a side that was light years ahead of his opposition and as such was expected to beat most teams he faced up against. The only real challenge his team faced was to win in a series in the subcontinent, yet he lost both in Sri Lanka and India.

Brearely may have been a great man manager and all that, but it should be remembered that the teams he faced suffered from the loss of key players due to Packer cricket. The only time he went up against a full-strength quality opposition was against Australia in 1979-80 in Australia, and he was helpless as his team was whitewashed comprehensively 3-0. Aside from this, his being in the team was like having a side of 10 players as he was a useless batsman. I find it hard to rate a captain whose very presence in the team is a liability. Can you imagine him trying to lead the West Indies side of the 80s and be taken seriously as a captain when he didn't deserve to be in the team in the first place? That's why guy like Ian Chappell and Imran never rated Brearely that highly.

 

[bagapath]

What on Earth was so good about Viv Richards as a skipper, apart from the fact that teams led by him won loads of games as he inherited a side containing Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Gomes, himself, Marshall, Holding and Garner?

he never lost a test series in the 8+ years he led his west indian teams. who else can boast of such a record, great team or otherwise?

this trend was unchanged even after gomes, holding and garner retired within two years of richards taking over the leadership from lloyd.

 

[gwo]

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


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.

Interesting you have Bradman up there then. If you argue out Waugh on this technicality, then I would say Bradman is in the "same boat" (very loosely). Also interesting no Noble.

Other than that a good list =]

 

[ret]

from the ones that I have seen in no particular order

- Imran Khan
- Martin Crowe
- Mark Taylor
- Arjuna Ranatunga

 

[SJS]

Pathetic.

BTW SJS's list looks awesome indeed. I'd love to hear more about the captaincy credentials of Noble. Particularly surprised at the lack of subcontinental names in that. Not that am advocating for some ridiculous "representative selection", but just wondering.

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

 

[andyc]

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?