5 Greatest Captains Ever

[Autobahn]

Lloyd wasn't a great tactical captain, i've never heard of him making a particularly good tactical decision apart from bringing on another quick bowler but he shouldn't be penalised for that.

I feel there are two types of captains "Fighters" and "Thinkers" people like Inzy, Waugh and Lloyd are the "fighters" they might not make stunning tactical decisions like bringing on a part-time bowler and having him take a wicket straight away, but they are more likely to "lead" their teams and are more likely to galavinse their teams into better performances with their own performances.

Whereas "thinkers" like Taylor, Brearley and fleming are less likely to rally their team with a stunning century or a flurry of wickets but help their teams via their superb tactical skills and getting the most out of their star-players.

It's pretty hard IMHO to compare two captains who come from different classes, i mean what swings a match more? A fantastic back-to-the-wall century that rallies the troops, urging Bob Willis to go flat out or bringing on a part-timer to break a dangerous partnership?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I agree with that.

I'd say the best captains of all are those who can combine tactical brilliance, strong leadership and quality, "leading from the front" play. That's why I rate Taylor so highly... not only was he a brilliant cricket mind and excellent at guiding the team in the right direction as a whole, but he also managed to lead from the front with the bat a lot of the time, despite being one of the less talented guys to be a successful test batsman. Having said that, he was never a great batsman once he took over the captaincy, but he still managed to play some definitive innings when the team was in trouble, and was a superb slip fielder and generally contributed well.

Chappell was in a similar vein... a quality, tough batsman and a great "man manager" who was a great tactical leader. Imran Khan, Frank Worrell and Richie Benaud probably qualify as well. Guys like Waugh and Lloyd manage the leadership part of captaincy very well but fall down occasionally (and only occasionally, I'd say) tactically. Then you've got guys like Brearley and Ponting who are top class in one area but border on hopeless in another (Brearley with the bat, Ponting tactically).

 

[Autobahn]

I agree with that.

I'd say the best captains of all are those who can combine tactical brilliance, strong leadership and quality, "leading from the front" play. That's why I rate Taylor so highly... not only was he a brilliant cricket mind and excellent at guiding the team in the right direction as a whole, but he also managed to lead from the front with the bat a lot of the time, despite being one of the less talented guys to be a successful test batsman. Having said that, he was never a great batsman once he took over the captaincy, but he still managed to play some definitive innings when the team was in trouble, and was a superb slip fielder and generally contributed well.

Chappell was in a similar vein... a quality, tough batsman and a great "man manager" who was a great tactical leader. Imran Khan, Frank Worrell and Richie Benaud probably qualify as well. Guys like Waugh and Lloyd manage the leadership part of captaincy very well but fall down occasionally (and only occasionally, I'd say) tactically. Then you've got guys like Brearley and Ponting who are top class in one area but border on hopeless in another (Brearley with the bat, Ponting tactically).

I wouldn't say people like waugh or Lloyd fall down tactically they just don't bring much to the table in that department, much like Brearley doesn't bring much to the table batting-wise.

 

[SJS]

1. John Brearley
2. Ian Chappell
3. Nawab of Pataudi Jr.
4. Brian Close
5. Hansie Crinje

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I wouldn't say people like waugh or Lloyd fall down tactically they just don't bring much to the table in that department, much like Brearley doesn't bring much to the table batting-wise.

I think it's interesting that Brearley gets so much support in this thread, but Ponting doesn't. Shows that tactical ability is rated higher than leadership qualities, I'd say.

Brearley was a good cricket thinker who oversaw a very successful team, who carried him as a batsman. In fact, I think it's fair to say Brearley is one of the poorest batsman to play as many tests as he did, at least in a long time. An average (and a scoring rate, in fact) in the 20s and no centuries for a whole career as a specialist bat is something that few teams would accept.

Ponting is fairly lacking tactically, but leads well and his record with the bat as captain is second only to Bradman. Maintains a solid side free of off-field drama and conflict, and is occasionally passable with his tactical leadership, but is a long way from the brilliant thinking of a Taylor or a Brearley.

And given both those records, Brearley is widely recognised as a great captain, while Ponting is generally considered below par.

 

[Autobahn]

I think it's interesting that Brearley gets so much support in this thread, but Ponting doesn't. Shows that tactical ability is rated higher than leadership qualities, I'd say.

Brearley was a good cricket thinker who oversaw a very successful team, who carried him as a batsman. In fact, I think it's fair to say Brearley is one of the poorest batsman to play as many tests as he did, at least in a long time. An average (and a scoring rate, in fact) in the 20s and no centuries for a whole career as a specialist bat is something that few teams would accept.

Ponting is fairly lacking tactically, but leads well and his record with the bat as captain is second only to Bradman. Maintains a solid side free of off-field drama and conflict, and is occasionally passable with his tactical leadership, but is a long way from the brilliant thinking of a Taylor or a Brearley.

And given both those records, Brearley is widely recognised as a great captain, while Ponting is generally considered below par.

Well to be fair Brearley made his debut at the age of 34 and was 40 by his last test so i think he always had that excuse, and in those days teams were more willing to carry people who where only good in one area (bob taylor is a prime example).

And i think Brearley fitted his team better as Captain, in a team full of some of the best cricketers around at the time they needed someone with good captaincy skills to get the best out of them even if they had to carry him, whereas ponting doesn't fit his team as well, he might be a very good batsmen, but what people feel Aus need is someone to manage them well.

It would intresting to see if Aus would be willing to carry someone like Brearley.

 

[Armadillo]

You are being sarcastic , right??

Inzi... very often clueless
Bothom..Flunked as skipper
Sachin...Got into a shell while captaining.
Butcher..No idea about him though
Saeed Anwar..Fared poorly, and looked ill suited for the job.

You need a lesson in reading sarcasm!

 

[wpdavid]

Well to be fair Brearley made his debut at the age of 34 and was 40 by his last test so i think he always had that excuse, and in those days teams were more willing to carry people who where only good in one area (bob taylor is a prime example).

And i think Brearley fitted his team better as Captain, in a team full of some of the best cricketers around at the time they needed someone with good captaincy skills to get the best out of them even if they had to carry him, whereas ponting doesn't fit his team as well, he might be a very good batsmen, but what people feel Aus need is someone to manage them well.

It would intresting to see if Aus would be willing to carry someone like Brearley.

They almost certainly wouldn't. Perceived wisdom is that Aus pick the best XI and then choose the skipper. I know Taylor had a rotten run with the bat, but he had enough track record to have shown that he could cut it at test level. The same could never be said for Brearley.

There's no denying he was a fine county captain, but I find his elevated status somewhat baffling. In terms of the timing of his captaincy, he was perhaps the luckiest England captain ever, facing several sides weakened by WSC whereas England's best players emerged just too late to be signed up by Packer. The one time he faced the Aus 1st XI, England (including the likes of Boycott, Willis, Botham, Gower, Gooch & Underwood) lost all 3 tests. Had Lillee been available in 1977 or Greg Chappell in 1981, chances are the results would have been different. And, of course, he never faced the best side in the world at the time.

 

[Autobahn]

They almost certainly wouldn't. Perceived wisdom is that Aus pick the best XI and then choose the skipper. I know Taylor had a rotten run with the bat, but he had enough track record to have shown that he could cut it at test level. The same could never be said for Brearley.

There's no denying he was a fine county captain, but I find his elevated status somewhat baffling. In terms of the timing of his captaincy, he was perhaps the luckiest England captain ever, facing several sides weakened by WSC whereas England's best players emerged just too late to be signed up by Packer. The one time he faced the Aus 1st XI, England (including the likes of Boycott, Willis, Botham, Gower, Gooch & Underwood) lost all 3 tests. Had Lillee been available in 1977 or Greg Chappell in 1981, chances are the results would have been different. And, of course, he never faced the best side in the world at the time.

Yeah true he even says that himself

You can never really accurately predict what would have happened to be fair, and you could turn the WI fact around and say he never got the chance to prove himself.

His status as a great captain comes from the opinions of his players and the opposition he faced at the time.

 

[archie mac]

They almost certainly wouldn't. Perceived wisdom is that Aus pick the best XI and then choose the skipper. I know Taylor had a rotten run with the bat, but he had enough track record to have shown that he could cut it at test level. The same could never be said for Brearley.

There's no denying he was a fine county captain, but I find his elevated status somewhat baffling. In terms of the timing of his captaincy, he was perhaps the luckiest England captain ever, facing several sides weakened by WSC whereas England's best players emerged just too late to be signed up by Packer. The one time he faced the Aus 1st XI, England (including the likes of Boycott, Willis, Botham, Gower, Gooch & Underwood) lost all 3 tests. Had Lillee been available in 1977 or Greg Chappell in 1981, chances are the results would have been different. And, of course, he never faced the best side in the world at the time.

I think you are being a bit hard on Brearley, you can only beat the opposition you face. In 1981 England looked gone for all money until Brearley took over the leadership duties.

He had one bad series in Aust. so that is the end of him? Waugh had one bad Test against India so that is the end of him?

You are indeed a hard marker

 

[luckyeddie]

I think you are being a bit hard on Brearley, you can only beat the opposition you face. In 1981 England looked gone for all money until Brearley took over the leadership duties.

He had one bad series in Aust. so that is the end of him? Waugh had one bad Test against India so that is the end of him?

You are indeed a hard marker

I think it's extremely hard on Brearley.

He had two spells of captain, of course, and in my opinion (which counts for little in the big picture) it was the one job he could do better than anyone else before or since - England's best-ever captain (including Jardine).

England dispensed of his services after defeat in Australia following a very successful period in which Brearley led quietly, unassumingly and quite brilliantly (a good job, because he couldn't do a job with the bat). That didn't matter - we had Botham, and he would lead England in style - only it didn't work out and the wheels fell off Botham and England against the West Indies.

The MCC went cap-in-hand to Brearley following Botham's embarrassing pair in the most deafening silence you ever heard at Lord's, and the rest is history.

Perhaps Brearley's light wouldn't have shone quite so brightly if it hadn't been for Botham and Willis's remarkable heroics during the rest of the series, so you could say that he was lucky in that respect, but believe me, Brearley was highly thought-of as a (somewhat enigmatic) leader way before 1981.

 

[Goughy]

I think you are being a bit hard on Brearley, you can only beat the opposition you face. In 1981 England looked gone for all money until Brearley took over the leadership duties.

He had one bad series in Aust. so that is the end of him? Waugh had one bad Test against India so that is the end of him?

You are indeed a hard marker

That 1981 series will obviously always be remembered for Bothams exploits but you are spot on to give credit to Brearley. He took England from the brink.

Criticise him as a player all you want, criticise him as a person (I dont know what he was like but Im sure someone will not like him) but he was a great captain.

An intellectual and a leader of men. He could get the best from Botham and others.

 

[Autobahn]

I think it's extremely hard on Brearley.

He had two spells of captain, of course, and in my opinion (which counts for little in the big picture) it was the one job he could do better than anyone else before or since - England's best-ever captain (including Jardine).

England dispensed of his services after defeat in Australia following a very successful period in which Brearley led quietly, unassumingly and quite brilliantly (a good job, because he couldn't do a job with the bat). That didn't matter - we had Botham, and he would lead England in style - only it didn't work out and the wheels fell off Botham and England against the West Indies.

The MCC went cap-in-hand to Brearley following Botham's embarrassing pair in the most deafening silence you ever heard at Lord's, and the rest is history.

Perhaps Brearley's light wouldn't have shone quite so brightly if it hadn't been for Botham and Willis's remarkable heroics during the rest of the series, so you could say that he was lucky in that respect, but believe me, Brearley was highly thought-of as a (somewhat enigmatic) leader way before 1981.

The thing is he actually retired after the Tour to Aus because he wanted to continue his studies in Psychoanalysis and he didn't feel he would be able to accommodate the England captaincy as well. He was brought back really when it was obvious botham couldn't handle the captaincy.

 

[luckyeddie]

The thing is he actually retired after the Tour to Aus because he wanted to continue his studies in Psychoanalysis and he didn't feel he would be able to accommodate the England captaincy as well. He was brought back really when it was obvious botham couldn't handle the captaincy.

I totally forgot about that, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

 

[wpdavid]

I think you are being a bit hard on Brearley, you can only beat the opposition you face. In 1981 England looked gone for all money until Brearley took over the leadership duties.

He had one bad series in Aust. so that is the end of him? Waugh had one bad Test against India so that is the end of him?

You are indeed a hard marker

Nicely put And fair point about one poor series. I guess I've just acquired a taste for sacred cows over the years.

Take Botham, who is widely thought of as a quite terrible skipper. As the man himself will tell you, his record of losing 1-0 & 2-0 to the WI side of 1980/81 is no disgrace, especially looking at what happened on our next 3 series against them. And if it hadn't been for That Dropped Catch by Gower, we'd have won the home series 1-0, which would have been one of the alltime great results. Not that I'm seriously arging that he was a great skipper, tbf.

Anyway, if I was going to actually make a decision and rank the skippers in my lifetime who did the most to add value to their sides, here's my current top 5.

1. Benaud
2. Border
3. Howarth
4. Ganguly
5. Vaughan

There's others, of course, but I'd still maintain that captains often take too much credit when things go well and too much blame when they don't.

 

[archie mac]

Nicely put And fair point about one poor series. I guess I've just acquired a taste for sacred cows over the years.

Take Botham, who is widely thought of as a quite terrible skipper. As the man himself will tell you, his record of losing 1-0 & 2-0 to the WI side of 1980/81 is no disgrace, especially looking at what happened on our next 3 series against them. And if it hadn't been for That Dropped Catch by Gower, we'd have won the home series 1-0, which would have been one of the alltime great results. Not that I'm seriously arging that he was a great skipper, tbf.

The other thing about Botham his own form seemed to suffer when he was captain. I know he has dismissed this, but still it makes you wonder.

Anyway, if I was going to actually make a decision and rank the skippers in my lifetime who did the most to add value to their sides, here's my current top 5.

1. Benaud
2. Border
3. Howarth
4. Ganguly
5. Vaughan

I didnot know you were old enough to have seen Benaud captain?

There's others, of course, but I'd still maintain that captains often take too much credit when things go well and too much blame when they don't.

It is one of the rare things in cricket where stats are no real guide, as win/loss- does not explain a captains worth, and we don't have the chance to see or hear the one on one talks and such the captains have with their team/players.

 

[wpdavid]

The other thing about Botham his own form seemed to suffer when he was captain. I know he has dismissed this, but still it makes you wonder.

Playing back-to-back series against WI didn't help, I suppose. That being said, his game seemed to have lost its zip in the 1st 2 games of the 1981 Ashes, even if we shouldn't draw huge conclusions from 2 games. For all my previous comments, I'm not arguing that it was right to give him the job at that stage of his career: there were alternatives. I reckon it soured his attitude somewhat and contributed to his decline, although that's purely guesswork of course.

I've occasionally pondered what would have happened to Woolmer if he hadn't signed up for WSC. At that point he was a fixture in the side, whereas subsequently he never settled back in. Given his subsequent success as a coach, I wonder if he was the great captain that we lost. Not obvious at the time, though.

I didnot know you were old enough to have seen Benaud captain?

I'm cheating a bit there. I was alive during his captaincy, but still in nappies. If my dad did have the telly on, I can't honestly say it registered.

If I was to restrict it top players I've actually seen, I'd probably bring in Cronje, if only for SA's outstanding results in the subcontinent. He's be higher SA had not lost to us in 1998 (when they really shouldn't) and had managed to capitalise on some promising positions against Aus on the mid/late 90's.

It is one of the rare things in cricket where stats are no real guide, as win/loss- does not explain a captains worth, and we don't have the chance to see or hear the one on one talks and such the captains have with their team/players.

Absolutely.

 

[archie mac]

I've occasionally pondered what would have happened to Woolmer if he hadn't signed up for WSC. At that point he was a fixture in the side, whereas subsequently he never settled back in. Given his subsequent success as a coach, I wonder if he was the great captain that we lost. Not obvious at the time, though..

Never thought of that, you may be right, he would have done a much better job than Willis.

If I was to restrict it top players I've actually seen, I'd probably bring in Cronje, if only for SA's outstanding results in the subcontinent. He's be higher SA had not lost to us in 1998 (when they really shouldn't) and had managed to capitalise on some promising positions against Aus on the mid/late 90's.

I though Cronje a little to defensive, which is the same reason I do not rate Border that highly. Though they both had plenty of fight.

 

[wpdavid]

Never thought of that, you may be right, he would have done a much better job than Willis.




I though Cronje a little to defensive, which is the same reason I do not rate Border that highly. Though they both had plenty of fight.

I wonder how many captains are truy attacking unless they have an overwhelming superiority in terms of personnel. I thought Cronje did well with what was not actually an outstanding group of players, apart from the opening bowlers. A real case of a capable side often playing to the extremes of their ability and regularly showing up supposedly more talented opponents. As an Englishman, I could only be very jealous and wonder why we couldn't do the same. Maybe the defensiveness was what prevented them from winning a series against Aus. It may well have been a factor against us in 1998 too.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I wonder how many captains are truy attacking unless they have an overwhelming superiority in terms of personnel. I thought Cronje did well with what was not actually an outstanding group of players, apart from the opening bowlers. A real case of a capable side often playing to the extremes of their ability and regularly showing up supposedly more talented opponents. As an Englishman, I could only be very jealous and wonder why we couldn't do the same. Maybe the defensiveness was what prevented them from winning a series against Aus. It may well have been a factor against us in 1998 too.

That's a harsh judgement on the talent of the South African team that Cronje worked with.

Not only did he have Donald and Pollock, he also had De Villiers and Kluesener, who were very good bowlers early in their careers. Throw in Brian McMillain and Kallis as all-rounders, both of whom were very good when Cronje had them. The batting was a little light at times, but really it wasn't a poor batting lineup, just average by international standards, with some top class players like Gary Kirsten. The bowling more than made up for it.

Cronje was definitely a good captain, but I think he had a strong team too, especially in ODIs.