The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Why Cook is a better captain than Clarke

Roar Pro
23rd November, 2013
Advertisement
Michael Clarke and Alastair Cook helm two sides on the verge of history. Are you watching? (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
Roar Pro
23rd November, 2013
34
1023 Reads

Yes, you read that headline right. No, it’s not a typo either.

Nor am I classified as mentally insane.

As soon as the third day of the Gabba Test had finished, articles and comments appeared on The Roar attacking Alastair Cook’s captaincy.

Most notably was his tactics to keep Clarke on strike and Cook’s dour, defensive mindset.

On Cook’s approach to Clarke, I believe it was done 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, potentially a bigger threat than Clarke.

Not to say these tactics were right, but there is probably a justifiable reason behind them. Furthermore, if England had got Clarke out early, it probably would be labeled it a masterstroke.

Advertisement

Cook, much like his South African counterpart Graeme Smith, has always had a mentality to secure a draw first, then play for the win.

Boring? A bit.

Safer? No doubt.

It may cost his teams some wins, but Cook also saves matches England should have lost. Sometimes by going defensive when the opposition is on top it keeps you in the game and can win matches.

Winning ugly beats losing. Better to salvage a draw in a dire situation, than try and win only to lose.

Spiro Zavos, with his meticulous style of writing, even went so far as to suggest Clarke should be tactically more like Cook, given Cook’s success. It was a fair point, one that I agree with.

However that’s not why I think Cook is the better captain.

Advertisement

It should also be noted, the captains only play a part in the tactics in a match. Coaches would be pivotal in the planning and can communicate with players during matches

The captain must keep the team to these plans and ultimately judge when to use what strategies. Still its not only the captain who should be credited/criticised for tactics used.

But lets put aside tactics for the moment, as captaincy entails far more than that.

Clarke cops a lot of flack, perhaps some unfair, for being all smiles on the field, being a pretty boy show pony and not being ruthless enough.

Again, that’s not why I think Cook is the better captain.

Let me start by having a hypothetical situation of two captains.

Captain A uses positive tactics. Always look to take wickets, be positive in your approach to bating and stick to your guns even when things aren’t going well. What’s more, always go for the win, even at risk of losing.

Advertisement

Captain B is the opposite. Saving runs is important, strike rates are less important than wickets in hand and when things don’t go well, be defensive to limit the carnage. Not losing is the first priority, winning is the second.

Everyone knows who of Clarke and Cook out of these two.

Given this information, I’d pick Captain A as the better captain. I image most people, particularly Australian fans, would too.

However if given the following information, my choice would change.

Captain A has team that is plagued by rumors of instability and discontent. Certain players don’t like the captain and would rather someone else as captain.

Worse yet, they don’t really want to play for him and players have acted out off the field at inappropriate times. Many fans in his country want a different captain.

Captain B has team that is stable and has a fantastic environment. Players want to play for each other and the captain. He’s kept notorious trouble makers in check and conducts himself flawlessly to earn the respect of the vast majority of fans.

Advertisement

By now you probably know where I’m going with this and why I think Cook is the better captain. I’ll elaborate anyway.

Not all the short coming such as instability can be blamed on Clarke. However it’s his job to make players want to play for him. Players don’t have to like Clarke, but he must earn their respect.

This is of course easy with a better side, which Cook has. However given Australia doesn’t have a great line-up, its imperative all players respect Clarke, to help build the right culture and then a champion team.

Simply winning won’t make players want to play for Clarke. Look no further than the infamous throat grabbing incident, to show how Clarke can rub players the wrong way, even in spite of a win.

Again that’s not say all blame should be placed on Clarke.

Respect must be earned and team culture built. But players must remember Clarke is captain. Thus he should be treated as such.

That means giving him some respect. Follow orders, particularly on the field.

Advertisement

That doesn’t mean the players have to do everything Clarke’s way. And if rumors of Clarke favouring his buddies are true, than certain players have every right to be unhappy.

This is in stark contrast to English players, who want to play for Cook, as he has earned their respect.

So given both sets of information about Captain A and B, who would you choose?

Clarke may have bag tricks when it comes to tactics, but captaincy is so much more than that.

Man management, team harmony and the right culture all need to be implemented by the captain.

There is no doubt in my mind. Cook is a better captain than Clarke.

close