The Great Captains

[smash84]

Ian Chappell has to be right up there, was tactically sharp, excellent man manager, and no shrinking violet on the field

 

[AndrewB]

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Benaud yet.

 

[listento_me]

Number 4 will be revealed tomorrow

 

[Victor Ian]

Can a greatest ever player be one who was not a captain. How important is a player's captaincy in making them great? I guess a captains worth to the team is not only his batting average (if he is a batsman) but also the increase in every other players performance that he inspires.

 

[subshakerz]

Criteria IMO for selection of a great captain:

- Uniting a team under your leadership/man management

- Getting your team to perform well (not necessarily win, but perform better than they would previously or are expected to) against either better competition or in tough conditions

- Having a hand in building your team and players into a readily identifiable unit

- Tactical nous (a bit overrated this aspect for me) and a generally results-oriented brand of cricket

 

[honestbharani]

Can a greatest ever player be one who was not a captain. How important is a player's captaincy in making them great? I guess a captains worth to the team is not only his batting average (if he is a batsman) but also the increase in every other players performance that he inspires.

We get it. You are a Border fan...


But seriously, it is true. But then it just becomes so much more intangible. You can argue then the players from Pak or Sri Lanka or India earlier, where sides have talent but do not always perform and any captain who comes in and brings in a bit of discipline and toughness to the team, its obvious they contribute more than even the greatest players of those teams can. On the other hand, a side like Australia (for example), where people do come in from a pretty solid system where certain things are built into you as players from the club level, may not have had to face those challenges at all.

 

[Burgey]

But tbf, when TOTAB took over as skipper, Australian cricket was totally ****ed. It was only by virtue of his amazing work that that changed and the team began to prosper in his Holy Name and Iconic Image.

 

[honestbharani]

Why do I think all the extravagant amounts Burgey bills his clients to post on CW will be used to build a shrine for Allan Border a la Washington DC's Lincoln memorial?

 

[Daemon]

*ahem*

View Profile: Captain - CricSim

 

[Victor Ian]

We get it. You are a Border fan...


But seriously, it is true. But then it just becomes so much more intangible. You can argue then the players from Pak or Sri Lanka or India earlier, where sides have talent but do not always perform and any captain who comes in and brings in a bit of discipline and toughness to the team, its obvious they contribute more than even the greatest players of those teams can. On the other hand, a side like Australia (for example), where people do come in from a pretty solid system where certain things are built into you as players from the club level, may not have had to face those challenges at all.

Seeing as you mentioned the great man's name, it is worth pointing out....

1 Dean Jones was basically told to stop being a pissweak Victorian and scored 210 on a drip. Allan Border.

2 McDermott was put in line and went on to become a very good bowler. Allan Border.

3 Waugh did exactly as his master had shown, stowed away all his flasiness and become better than Tendulkar and Lara for a long time. Allan Border.

4 Boonie drank a ton of piss on a flight because his captain was not a new world media *****. Allan Border.

You point highlights what Fred said about Ranatunga. I agree he is under rated and am a big fan of the 'rotundra that doesn't run'. He should have his own Rushmore (perhaps Rushless) built. Perhaps there is a Sri Lankan lawyer who'll fund that one.

 

[honestbharani]

You can say the same for Ganguly too but I get the feeling that he would build one for himself at Kolkata, right on the branches of Hooghly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Would love it if this turns out to be a massive troll and after days and a dozen pages of discussion the number 1 ends up being Steve Smith or Ganguly or someone equally horrendous

 

[wpdavid]

Is the right place to suggest that Strauss and Vaughan were both better England captains than Brearley?

 

[ImpatientLime]

eh, nasser was better than all three.

 

[Adders]

Is the right place to suggest that Strauss and Vaughan were both better England captains than Brearley?

Can't see why not and I'm sure it would be an interesting discussion. Vaughan was terrific tactically and Strauss did take us from 51AO in the West Indies and ranked 5th (?) to an away win in Aus and No1. But as a man manager and I believe tactician Brearley was outstanding.

 

[Shri]

It'll be hilarious when Ganguly, Imran or Kapil Dev get named number one in this thread. I mean, Dev flukes a WC in a sea of mediocrity, Imran supposedly made Pakistan a force but really they were the best side inthe world for three weeks of his five plus year reign, and that only in ODIs, and Ganguly was King of Spuds. Wouldn't have held a spot in a decent side for more than four months.

Still, let's indulge it.

We don't love Ganguly because he was a great captain. Its because he trolled Aussies and Poms every chance he got.

 

[wpdavid]

Can't see why not and I'm sure it would be an interesting discussion. Vaughan was terrific tactically and Strauss did take us from 51AO in the West Indies and ranked 5th (?) to an away win in Aus and No1. But as a man manager and I believe tactician Brearley was outstanding.

I think Vaughan's man management was also excellent and, as you say, his tactical nous was great. In terms of adding value, he led a team of good players, but not many who could honestly be described as great players, to some of the most famous wins I our life times. On the down side, his final couple of years weren't great tbf.

Strauss, as you said, inherited the fall-out from KP's brief reign and, in terms of adding value, achieved masses. Very good man management, and tactically sound, without being (or needing to be) particularly innovative. Again, loses some credit for not stamping out the cliques and divisions that marred his final few months in charge.

Brearley's man-management and tactical excellence were beyond question, but he was a very lucky captain in terms of timing. Inherited a side that was already improving under Greig, and then got Botham's best years. Didn't get to lead against the best side in the world (see also, Illingworth, R.). Even in 1981, needed Botham and Willis to produce ATG performances after Aus had racked up 400 under his watch on a wicket where 250 would have been a god score. OK, I'm labouring one side of the argument, but you get my drift.

As for Hussain, great in Pakistan and SL, but started off by taking us to the bottom of the rankings at home to NZ (and don't forget that under Stewart we'd beaten SA 12 months previously), and needed Stewart's intervention at Lord's to prevent us losing at home to WI 12 months later. Thought it a good idea to insert Aus at Brisbane in 2002, although I'm not suggesting that changed the series outcome really.

 

[wpdavid]

Going back to Border, how close was he to getting the sack after the 1986/87 Ashes?
Not suggesting it devalues his legacy at all, just wondering.

 

[Burgey]

I don't think there was anyone around who could have done it tbf. I think he was close to sacking them and pulling the pin at one point.

 

[wpdavid]

I don't think there was anyone around who could have done it tbf. I think he was close to sacking them and pulling the pin at one point.

Yeah, I couldn't think of anyone else to replace him, but selectors and journalists aren't always logical.

Oh, and another candidate, if we're talking about leaving his imprint on a side, has to be Warwick Armstrong, although he was also someone who benefited from having a massively superior bunch of players at his disposal.