Judging captaincy in modern times

In the sub-continent, the captaincy is mostly judged on runs scored by the captain and volume of the trophy cabinet.

Cricket is perhaps the only sport in which the captain has tremendous responsibilities and is not confined to merely wearing an armband. In essence to having well-articulated cricketing skill-set, an aspiring captain is also weighed on his acumen and man managerial skill. A cricket captain is more like a politician or a military general possessing illustrious leadership.

India went to Tasman shores being a huge favourite against the Kiwis, but a One Day International score-line of 4-0 surely would not have taken many novel followers off-guard who haven’t followed the series but a 0-4 drubbing handed to India would certainly waylay many. The Test series was also lost as the hosts bounced back from impossible situations time and again.

The Black Caps top-order which once used to be sliced like a hot knife through butter on every fortnight, showed immaculate consistency game after game, across both formats.

But still the most staggering part was the leadership of McCullum. He led his side with an ultra aggressive intent, like a warrior oblivious to holding back and waiting in the backseat tactics.

In this modern age of laid-back and so-called methodical captaincy, his Mark Taylor-esque approach was a gust of fresh breeze.

In the last Ashes series in England, Shane Warne took apart Cook’s leadership and termed Clarke a superior captain.

A few former English cricketers made mockery of the comment just because England was leading the Ashes by a whopping 3-0 margin.

The same critics are grilling Cook’s captaincy and applauding Clarke’s brilliant ultra-aggressive tactics as if Clarke has become a master tactician over-night and Cook has lost his tactical mojo on the plane on his way Down Under leading to the 0-5 drubbing.

In fact, Cook’s deficiencies of hanging back were covered up by lack of ineptness of the Australian batting in England, he was barely stretched and throughout, Australia gave away wickets in heaps.

Clarke never had runs to play with but he made most of the resources available with his changes and field placing.

On the field, Clarke was as good as he was in Australia later in the year. That’s typical of the modern verdicts, judging the captaincy in the hindsight of results.

In the sub-continent, the captaincy is mostly judged on the runs scored by the captain and volume of the trophy cabinet. With no disrespect to Ricky Ponting, any one would have ruled the roost with the side that he inherited. In the past, Sunil Gavaskar, Gary Sobers and Graham Gooch all had awe-aspiring batting records as captains but hardly anyone rated them anywhere close to being great captains.

It’s criminally bare to judge a captain solely on his batting prowess, albeit a captain scoring runs and doing his bit is extremely vital but it can’t be the only thing required by his side.

Captains end up even up having only win-loss ratio against their names but many a times deluding, like a captain leading an inferior team like Bangladesh wouldn’t end up winning many Tests against the mightier sides. So, captains should be judged on the tactical ability and the legacy they leave behind, once they are done.

The writer is a cricket enthusiast

Published in The Express Tribune, February 23^rd, 2014.

Like Sports on Facebook, follow @ETribuneSports on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.