In the first
test of the 2015 Ashes series at Cardiff, England administered a sound
beating to their Australian opponents. Joe Root, before he had scored
and with England 43/3, was given a life when he was dropped by Brad
Haddin and from there he led his team from the corner they were boxed in
and into the ascendency. It was a position they would maintain the rest
of the way.
As England dominated Australia, and as they romped happily home, much praise was heaped upon players like Root, Ian Bell, Moeen Ali, Jimmy Anderson, and Stuart Broad for the runs they made and the wickets they captured. Much praise was also laid at the feet of captain Alastair Cook for what was, we are told, his outstanding captaincy during the game.
The encomiums came in from myriad directions, even from places that previously had only sent mounds of coal. They came from Kevin Pietersen, Shane Warne and a host of others who are on record as not rating England's long-time captain very highly. He was said to be positive, decisive, imaginative, inspiring. And Cardiff, we heard, was Cook's greatest exhibition of captaincy. Cook had even out-captained the highly acclaimed Michael Clarke.
Let's now go back to the end of the 2013-14 Ashes encounter in Australia. England had suffered a terrible 0-5 whitewash and there was chaos and scapegoats all around. Then, as now, Cook was captain. Then, unlike now, he was castigated from all corners. We were told that he was too defensive, too unimaginative, too unwilling to think outside the box. "Cook must go," was being loudly declaimed in many quarters.
An unadventurous mindset had long been the rap against Cook. Now, after Cardiff, he's being hailed for his flair and aggression. The question, therefore, is this: What has accounted for the turnaround? To what can his leadership makeover be attributed?
Perhaps its simply that Englands captain reevaluated his modus operandi and opted to make a change. At Cardiff, it did appear he was less willing to let the game drift; more willing to set what I hear described as "funky fields." Perhaps what we are witnessing is not really an alteration of outlook but rather a response to his numerous critics; he might have surmised that there was substance to what the detractors were saying.
Then again, the answer may be simple and straightforward. Perhaps the real difference is that in Australia his side fell to a disastrous defeat, while in Cardiff they won. Generally speaking, the good captain is the winning captain. The bad captain, on the other hand, is likely to have racked up more than his fair number of losses. Perhaps the change we see in Cook's approach is more a matter of style than substance.
I have often said that there can be no good captain of a bad team. And a good team is normally one that wins. Former West Indies captain, Clive Lloyd was an astute tactician, a caring father-figure and a great leader of men, yet he would not have been as highly acclaimed as the man at the helm when the West Indies ruled world cricket were not the best pace attack in history his to command.
Mike Brearly might have had a degree in people as Rodney Hogg memorably proclaimed, but, more importantly, he had Ian Botham at his peak, along with great players like Willis, Gower, and Boycott. Additionally, he was fortunate to have avoided the unbeatable West Indies and built a fair chunk of his stellar captaincy record against teams depleted by defections to Packer.
All this is to say that we are possibly overestimating the effect a captain has on the performance of his team. Capable leadership is always a good idea and an incompetent captain can be a heavy burden to his side, but a team's fortunes is much more reliant on the quality of its members than on the expertise of its captain.
Overwhelmingly, it is the better team that wins, regardless of how cunning the leader of the weaker team is. The captain could be the craftiest there is, he will achieve little if his men are unable to adequately execute his plans. He could concoct the shrewdest schemes in the world; he will still need players of discipline and skill to carry them out. No captain can spin straw into gold.
England won the first leg of the 2013 Ashes double-header 3-0. The common view, at the time, was that the result was flattering to the hosts. I happen to think it was flattering to the visitors. Australia just didn't have the team then to beat England in their home conditions.
The return leg saw a different Australia. Led by a much-improved David Warner and a rejuvenated Mitchell Johnson, Australia grew into a unit that was unbeatable in their home conditions. England could find no answer to the power of Australia's pace bowling. That is the reason they were so comprehensively defeated in the last series and it is the reason they will be defeated this time as well.
For both games, the pitches were said to be extremely benign. Yet if preparing sluggish surfaces is the home team's way of seeking an advantage, or their way of quashing the strength of their opponents, then it should prove to be ineffective, especially as they themselves rely heavily on their fast bowling weapons. Anderson may be the most skilled swing bowler in the world, but the visitors have shown that swing is a large part of their armoury as well, and their bowlers, on the whole, deliver it at a much higher pace.
The Lord's Test saw a complete turnaround of the fortunes of both teams. It was now the turn of the visitors to celebrate their thumping win on the fourth day. This time, however, the victory was even more overwhelming.
Whereas England won the first Test by 169 runs, Australia won the second by 405. England's first Test win, I dare say, was an anomaly. The second Test result should be more indicative of the path things are likely to take for the rest of the series. And Cook's funky field settings or his newfound upbeat attitude won't matter all that much.
As England dominated Australia, and as they romped happily home, much praise was heaped upon players like Root, Ian Bell, Moeen Ali, Jimmy Anderson, and Stuart Broad for the runs they made and the wickets they captured. Much praise was also laid at the feet of captain Alastair Cook for what was, we are told, his outstanding captaincy during the game.
The encomiums came in from myriad directions, even from places that previously had only sent mounds of coal. They came from Kevin Pietersen, Shane Warne and a host of others who are on record as not rating England's long-time captain very highly. He was said to be positive, decisive, imaginative, inspiring. And Cardiff, we heard, was Cook's greatest exhibition of captaincy. Cook had even out-captained the highly acclaimed Michael Clarke.
Let's now go back to the end of the 2013-14 Ashes encounter in Australia. England had suffered a terrible 0-5 whitewash and there was chaos and scapegoats all around. Then, as now, Cook was captain. Then, unlike now, he was castigated from all corners. We were told that he was too defensive, too unimaginative, too unwilling to think outside the box. "Cook must go," was being loudly declaimed in many quarters.
An unadventurous mindset had long been the rap against Cook. Now, after Cardiff, he's being hailed for his flair and aggression. The question, therefore, is this: What has accounted for the turnaround? To what can his leadership makeover be attributed?
Perhaps its simply that Englands captain reevaluated his modus operandi and opted to make a change. At Cardiff, it did appear he was less willing to let the game drift; more willing to set what I hear described as "funky fields." Perhaps what we are witnessing is not really an alteration of outlook but rather a response to his numerous critics; he might have surmised that there was substance to what the detractors were saying.
Then again, the answer may be simple and straightforward. Perhaps the real difference is that in Australia his side fell to a disastrous defeat, while in Cardiff they won. Generally speaking, the good captain is the winning captain. The bad captain, on the other hand, is likely to have racked up more than his fair number of losses. Perhaps the change we see in Cook's approach is more a matter of style than substance.
I have often said that there can be no good captain of a bad team. And a good team is normally one that wins. Former West Indies captain, Clive Lloyd was an astute tactician, a caring father-figure and a great leader of men, yet he would not have been as highly acclaimed as the man at the helm when the West Indies ruled world cricket were not the best pace attack in history his to command.
Mike Brearly might have had a degree in people as Rodney Hogg memorably proclaimed, but, more importantly, he had Ian Botham at his peak, along with great players like Willis, Gower, and Boycott. Additionally, he was fortunate to have avoided the unbeatable West Indies and built a fair chunk of his stellar captaincy record against teams depleted by defections to Packer.
All this is to say that we are possibly overestimating the effect a captain has on the performance of his team. Capable leadership is always a good idea and an incompetent captain can be a heavy burden to his side, but a team's fortunes is much more reliant on the quality of its members than on the expertise of its captain.
Overwhelmingly, it is the better team that wins, regardless of how cunning the leader of the weaker team is. The captain could be the craftiest there is, he will achieve little if his men are unable to adequately execute his plans. He could concoct the shrewdest schemes in the world; he will still need players of discipline and skill to carry them out. No captain can spin straw into gold.
England won the first leg of the 2013 Ashes double-header 3-0. The common view, at the time, was that the result was flattering to the hosts. I happen to think it was flattering to the visitors. Australia just didn't have the team then to beat England in their home conditions.
The return leg saw a different Australia. Led by a much-improved David Warner and a rejuvenated Mitchell Johnson, Australia grew into a unit that was unbeatable in their home conditions. England could find no answer to the power of Australia's pace bowling. That is the reason they were so comprehensively defeated in the last series and it is the reason they will be defeated this time as well.
For both games, the pitches were said to be extremely benign. Yet if preparing sluggish surfaces is the home team's way of seeking an advantage, or their way of quashing the strength of their opponents, then it should prove to be ineffective, especially as they themselves rely heavily on their fast bowling weapons. Anderson may be the most skilled swing bowler in the world, but the visitors have shown that swing is a large part of their armoury as well, and their bowlers, on the whole, deliver it at a much higher pace.
The Lord's Test saw a complete turnaround of the fortunes of both teams. It was now the turn of the visitors to celebrate their thumping win on the fourth day. This time, however, the victory was even more overwhelming.
Whereas England won the first Test by 169 runs, Australia won the second by 405. England's first Test win, I dare say, was an anomaly. The second Test result should be more indicative of the path things are likely to take for the rest of the series. And Cook's funky field settings or his newfound upbeat attitude won't matter all that much.
No comments:
Post a Comment