Alastair Cook is not a good tactician. Mentioned by plenty of journalists earlier in the year, but swept away amidst the glory of a 3-0 series triumph – the realisation is now with us.
With England on the brink of a crushing first Test defeat at the Gabba, the tabloids back home will be circling beneath their leader, ready to attack his poor choice of tactics.
After two quick wickets early on day three, Michael Clarke came to the crease under some duress, especially given his meek first innings dismissal.
Cook immediately pushed two men out for his opposition skipper, gifting Clarke numerous singles which allowed him to settle very quickly.
The reasoning would’ve been twofold: to starve a rampant David Warner of the strike, and to give Stuart Broad a real crack at again exposing Clarke’s perceived weakness of the short ball.
Clarke promptly dispatched two crisp pull shots to the boundary and Cook retreated into his ever-growing shell. Soon there will be enough room in there for the rest of his team.
There was no ‘Plan B’ and the Aussie captain quickly amassed a sparkling hundred to take the game away from England.
Later in the day, after another pair of wickets fell, Cook missed another obvious opportunity to heap the pressure on the new batsman.
George Bailey, who is notably comfortable against off spin, walked to the middle with his Test career on the line.
At this stage England were at long odds to come back and win the match, however another failure from Bailey would’ve surely been a huge psychological blow to the Tasmanian heading into the second Test.
Captain Cook clearly thought otherwise.
He gifted the debutant a single to long on from the very first ball, not to mention the gentle spin of Joe Root in tandem with an ineffective Graeme Swann.
Bailey didn’t set the world alight, however Cook’s defensive mindset meant another opportunity was missed.
In comparison, Michael Clarke has led very well, setting aggressive fields to execute well-educated plans to all the English batsmen.
Jonathan Trott’s second innings dismissal is a prime example. Clarke again had Trott awkwardly dabbing at a short ball, and had a man in the deep to take full advantage.
Many parallels were drawn between the careers of the two captains in the lead up to the series. In terms of statistics, they are very similar.
However, there is no way of quantifying Clarke’s superior tactics. So far this series, Cook has been a distant second, and England will continue to be hampered if his captaincy does not improve.
CoverPoint
Guest
Hey Brendon, let the poster have their say. Does it matter who they support? If every poster had the same views as you then there would be no point in coming here. This is a discussion forum after all.
nick from san francisco
Guest
Why we give so much emphasis on a few journalists think? They have nothing to do with the technical side of the game. They are there to narrate or need to express the general atmosphere of the game. The game. Basically their job is no more required. Thanks to TV and computer. If those cricketers sitting in the box ,even still their opinion is still debatable. Who is going to believe Shahshtri or Gavaskars opinions? ( they get paid to keep their mouth shut) The Captain Cook is the captain no one knows better than him.
brendon the 1st
Guest
I don't think anyone has ever said Ckarke was a bad captain on the field, its widely acknowledged that he's an astute attacking skipper and has been since he took the top job.
brendon the 1st
Guest
Are you ever happy Silver, I've read so many of your comments and you've had not a single positive thing to say. Not sure if you're an Aussie supporter or a closet poms fan. Its Sunday bro, cheer up.
brendon the 1st
Guest
Warner is damaging, but Clark averages 100 plus at the GABBA and is arguably the best batter in the world, given there were three days left to play, quick fire hundreds weren't needed, so how is Warner the bigger threat? Clarke scored two doubles and a triple in a calendar year, now that's dangerous, Englands tactics make me laugh, one boundary then mid off will be moved back and we have easy singles for the rest of the day, predictable, Clarke wrote that very scenario in the paper. Not two Weeks.
MervUK
Guest
And Warner in the first. Innings
atgm
Guest
Clarke is a brilliant captain nd it brings the best outta him as a batsman too.
Silver_Sovereign
Guest
This is one test. Clarke and Australia have lost something like seven or eight straight as well as three straight Ashes losses. Plus in this series they haven't even won one test yet. So we shall see..........
A punter
Guest
Mark, you have raised some valid points. However, Cook has a good record ,so his strategy has worked form him. The idea behind it is that Australian batsmen don't like to be denied boundaries and they get frustrated. It seems to have worked with Watson this match and in general in recent ashes series.
ak
Roar Guru
A captain is only as good as is his team. Last Ashes Clarke was a bad captain. Now we may start calling him wonderful. Actually Mike Brearley was the only one who could make it to the playing eleven for his captaincy. He was a super tactician.
pope paul v11
Guest
This is true but his tactics were poor.
RMC
Roar Pro
Mark, fair points, but I disagree with your premise. On the Clarke tactics today, I think they did it for two reasons. Firstly, maybe they thought the best chance of getting Clarke was bowling a good ball early, so keep him on strike and hope it would come. Meanwhile Warner is robbed of the strike. Secondly, in that situation, at his best, Warner had the potential to absolutely destroy England. He was, in my opinion, a bigger threat than Clarke. Not to say these tactics were right, but there is probably a justifiable reason behind them. I think Cook also doesn't get the praise he should for saving matches his team should have lost and winning tests they shouldn't have. Winning ugly beats losing with positive tactics. Meanwhile Australia has been in winnable positions to lose tests or concede a draw. If not for bad light, and a bit of complaining about it from Clarke, they would have lost the last test of the series in England, when the Poms had no right to even be close. A lot of tactics also come from the dressing room or preplanned. Yes the captain has to implement them and has a large say in the planning, but a lot would be coaches and based on video analysis. Also what this article doesn't mention is the off field aspect to captaincy. Whilst Australia is plagued by rumours of discontent and not liking Clarke, no such rumours happen for England. All English fans seem to like Cook as well, who conducts himself flawlessly. If you had a choice between these two captain who would you choose? A captain who is uses positive and inventive tactics, but can't create a strong team environment, including players who don't want him as captain. Or a player who uses very dour tactics, with the mentality of play not to lose, but has a untitled team who want to play for him. Honestly, I'd pick the second one.
1st XXVI
Guest
Spot on. Without his charges firing, Broad aside, this could become glaringly obvious. Early days though, a collapse or 2 and we're back to square 1. Seems the scales are tipped in our advantage by the collective extra 5 clicks in pace. How rattled is Trott! Eagerly awaiting to see what the other Swann has to say.
Scott Pryde
Expert
Yeah have to agree... Cook really doesnt seem to be captains material! He goes defensive way to early and this i suppose just contunes to highlight the poms negative style of play that is rubber stamped all over their game. As for Australia, I thought that Clarke and Johnson setting up Carberyy yesterday was brillinat and outlined Clarke's aggresive approach to the captains role and the way he wants to play the game which is to always keep it moving. Cook and Clarke are 2 very different captains
ChrisUK
Guest
As you saw with Clarke, what the captain does is of no relevance if your batting falls over catastrophically.
SportsFingers
Roar Pro
Great article Mark, I totally agree. Watching the game today Michael Clarke's tactics were clever and the bowlers executed them well. On the other hand Alastair Cook's plans didn't make any sense. The ball were he allowed Clarke an extra run was just bazaar. In the end Michael used the opportunity and hurt England even more.