• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

How much does captaincy impact results?

Coronis

International Coach
There was nothing original about this. It had happened several times before. Only two years earlier both West Indies and England did the same on a sticky in Barbados. Ken Farnes (career average 4.83) opened for the visitors while Manny Martindale (5.27) came in at number three for West Indies.

Hammond batted six and Headley seven, the same positions as Fingleton and Bradman at Melbourne.
Yeah it wasn’t anything new with stickies, but obviously similar to switching it these days with a nightwatchman its all about judgement. Pretty ballsy considering the state of the series. I think Allen was actually criticised for not declaring earlier iirc despite only making 79. Bradman also declared the first innings iirc.

Ward’s biggest contribution to Australia was probably that 18 off 75 he made in that innings, rather than any of his bowling efforts replacing Grimmett.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
I can think of 5 Ashes captains whose leadership was vital to their teams success. Richie Benaud, Ray Illingworth, Ian Chappell, Mike Brearley and Alan Border. I saw all 5 in action and they were great captains
If the 1974/75 Ashes had been 12 months earlier (yeah I know, it wouldn't have been 1974/75), Ian Chappell would have been leading Aus without Lillee and Thomson at his disposal and I don't think we're looking at a 4-1 win. I'm sure he was a terrific captain, but luck can play such a big part. As someone else pointed out, Brearly was smart enough to retire before England played WI and lucky enough to play against Packer-weakened sides and also also lucky enough to inherit peak Willis and see the arrivals of Botham and Gower. Illingworth never had to lead England against the world's best side (SA) and was up against transitional sides from Aus and WI when he led England to number 1.

I still think that the guys who added the most value to England as captains were Vaughan and Strauss. They did have good players at their disposal, but they got the most out of them. Hussain's a interesting one. Fantasic in Pakistan and SL, but lost badly at home to NZ (after the same lineup had beaten SA under Stewart 12 months previously) and were on track to lose at home to WI in 2000 until Stewart engineered the miracle of Lord's.

A couple of years ago, I discussed Clive Lloyd's captaincy with a WI-supporting member of CW. We didn't agree, but that's fine, it was fun anyway. My take was that Lloyd may well have been a good captain, but it did help that his tenure coincided with the arrivals of Roberts, Richards and Greenidge, soon to be followed by Holding, Garner, Croft and, a couple of years later, Marshall. Compare that attack to guys who played when WI were losing at home to India and NZ. Actually, their revival started when Kanhai led the side (featuring an attack of Boyce, Julien, Holder and a very old Sobers) to England in 1973, and won even more comfortably than Lloyd's side in 1976.
 
Last edited:

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
The other thing that struck me is that sometimes there's a time gap between the impact of captaincy on the side's results. Tony Greig springs to mind on that front. If memory serves, England won 3 tests out of 15 under his leadership. Not great if we don't look beyond the bare statistics. But if we go beyond those, he inherited a side that had lost 5 out of 7 against Australia and drew the next 3 to stop the rot. Obviously the 0-3 at home to WI was less than ideal, especially with his regerettable pre-series comment, but their side was way superior to England's. Then we see the improvement with a 3-1 in India and a close centenary match in Australia. Then he has to stand down because of his Packer involvement and Brearley is in place to benefit from the improvements that had taken place under his predecessor.
 
Last edited:

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
I only have to look at the transformation of the England side when Brearley took over the captaincy from Botham. One could argue that it was Botham who was transformed without the burden of captaincy but I still rate Brearley's leadership highly.
As for Chappell and Illingworth, it was the aggression that they showed that made them great captains. Neither would take a backward step and this was reflected in their teams.
 

kyear2

International Coach
If the 1974/75 Ashes had been 12 months earlier (yeah I know, it wouldn't have been 1974/75), Ian Chappell would have been leading Aus without Lillee and Thomson at his disposal and I don't think we're looking at a 4-1 win. I'm sure he was a terrific captain, but luck can play such a big part. As someone else pointed out, Brearly was smart enough to retire before England played WI and lucky enough to play against Packer-weakened sides and also also lucky enough to inherit peak Willis and see the arrivals of Botham and Gower. Illingworth never had to lead England against the world's best side (SA) and was up against transitional sides from Aus and WI when he led England to number 1.

I still think that the guys who added the most value to England as captains were Vaughan and Strauss. They did have good players at their disposal, but they got the most out of them. Hussain's a interesting one. Fantasic in Pakistan and SL, but lost badly at home to NZ (after the same lineup had beaten SA under Stewart 12 months previously) and were on track to lose at home to WI in 2000 until Stewart engineered the miracle of Lord's.

A couple of years ago, I discussed Clive Lloyd's captaincy with a WI-supporting member of CW. We didn't agree, but that's fine, it was fun anyway. My take was that Lloyd may well have been a good captain, but it did help that his tenure coincided with the arrivals of Roberts, Richards and Greenidge, soon to be followed by Holding, Garner, Croft and, a couple of years later, Marshall. Compare that attack to guys who played when WI were losing at home to India and NZ. Actually, their revival started when Kanhai led the side (featuring an attack of Boyce, Julien, Holder and a very old Sobers) to England in 1973, and won even more comfortably than Lloyd's side in 1976.
Fully agree with this.

So much of it is luck and timing.

The guys with the better players win.
 

kyear2

International Coach
The funny thing about Captaincy is it's easy to notice at times, at times hard; but looking back, hardly sticks out in memory. These are the moments, the memories which lasts. Impactful decision that changed the course of a series for the ages, is like prime stuff for that.
Coronis mentioned he doubts whether the feat Invincibles achieved would had been possible under Hassett or Miller, and I would tend to agree.
Well Miller didn't really give a ****, but other than that. Based on what exactly?

I would say that players might be more willing to follow a leader who has proven themselves and can lead by example.

Outside of that, I'm not sure what this is based on.
 

Coronis

International Coach
Well Miller didn't really give a ****, but other than that. Based on what exactly?

I would say that players might be more willing to follow a leader who has proven themselves and can lead by example.

Outside of that, I'm not sure what this is based on.
Perhaps try reading the post(s) regarding it earlier in the thread.
 

Top