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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Luke Smyke
Roar Pro
I struggle to fathom the logic behind this argument RMC. Alistair Cook is a fine batsman and a commendable, well voweled human being with probably many more unpublicised talents. Captaincy certainly isn't one of them.
Luke Smyke
Roar Pro
Wonderfully spectacular riposte brendon, i am still in stitches.
Spanner
Guest
RMC - everyone is entitled to their opinion -- here is mine ! Clarke is the best all round captain Australia has had since Ian Chappell. My summary is thus : Hughes - a wonderful batsman who was never going to succeeed because of the diabolical undermining by a group of senior players who behaved disgracefully, Border - a wonderful bat, led by example but a negative tactician, Taylor, a great tactician, good off field leader but average batsman, Waugh, great fighting qualities as a batsman and off field leader but a dreadful tactician and Ponting who was a brilliant batsman but a terrible tactician who, like Waugh, believed the bowlers had to bowl in the order that they appeared on the scoreboard ! Clarke has shown already that he a master tactician, always wanting to try something, even when the team is playing poorly and he is clearly the best batsman in the world. Off the field, I believe his best is yet to come, particularly as the influence of the great Darren Lehmann porgresses.
Sandy
Guest
Well done Brendon, I enjoyed that. Sophisticated English / enlightened English, oxymoron's surely.
Blaze
Guest
Doesn't lead from the front and never makes the tough runs? Are actually listening to yourself as you write? That has to be the most stupid comment I have ever heard. I realise you would be upset given this game and where it is at but come off it... Clarke has lead from the front and gotten tough runs consistently... Just because he doesn't open means nothing in test cricket, would have figured you would know that.
Blaze
Guest
+1 usual rubbish. More than fine to make assumptions based on fact for one person, but fine to make them based on rumour and innuendo purely because one team was winning and needed something to talk about and blame from the media... Just garbage... Poor character.
brendon the 1st
Guest
Cant you understand the big words Alan?
AlanKC
Guest
You may as well say god forbid if he ever put on the keepers gloves everyday for all the sense that made Merv. Coming in at 2/75 when the england bowlers had the opportunity to break the second innings open was tough enough for me.
RMC
Roar Pro
Brendon, I said Warner could potentially destroy, given the situation. Never said he was the bigger threat, nor that Clarke wasn’t a massive threat. Warner could have potentially scored a big century at a strike rate of well better than a run ball. I doubt Clarke could have matched his strike rate, if Warner got going. As I’ve said Clarke is better tactically. Cook maybe too defensive, but his style has had success. Also Warne said today in commentary “when a player gets dropped back said away like that, I can’t agree with the captain/coach”. It highlights the role of the coach in tactics. Again I’ll claim captaincy is more just tactics. Its about off field as well. Its why Ricky was captain instead of Warne, when Warne was the far superior tactician. As far as the off field aspect, do you think Clarke could improve his off field aspect of captaincy? Or is it as good as we can reasonably expect from him? As far as a Clarke having a poor team, is it any worse than Allan Border’s team? Border is praised as a wonderful captain, despite having a poor team riddled with controversy. Clarke is a good captain, but he could improve.
Brendon the 1st
Guest
Winning teams don't have issues, that's the theory, we've not been winning so the papers dig stuff up, look for someone to blame, they're tabloids, that's what they do, and let's face it, Ponting is a bit of a tool, I'm not sure I'd be taking his word on to much. Sure you're allowed to have an opinion, but when you say yourself that Clarke is the better on field captain yet base your opinion on the off field stuff that in reality you know nothing about, then your argument becomes thin. For the record, I've read a fairly lengthy article on the Katich and Clarke episode, and putting aside the fact that Clarke wasn't even captain at that stage and is a lot older/mature now, it was midnight and Clarke had asked before politely once quite some time before and did so again the second time, the reason he wanted to go is because he'd organised a team function/night out that they were all going to miss had they not left, it wasn't as has been speculated so he could go off and be with Bingle. Katich had been on the turps and over reacted, these things happen when you live in each others pockets for nine months of the year. Opinions are cool, but opinions based purely on speculation and here-say are just that, more speculation and here-say.
RMC
Roar Pro
So brendon, its all a myth than? The rumours just keep coming, yet were simply made up. Also Ricky has claimed Clarke could have been a better vice captain. Are you saying the team culture is perfect and couldn't be improved? Did I say I'm expert? Did I say my word are any more accurate? No I presented my opinion, using my interpretation of facts. Rather being a sheep and following the popular view I developed my own opinion. Besides isn't The Roar about everyone having their opinion? Or do you only like people writing what you agree with?
RMC
Roar Pro
I never said player all need to be friends, nor get along all the time. But they should be united in their cause and respect their captain. Do you think all players under Allan Border all thought of him as a friend? If Allan Border was captain do you think he would tolerate ‘sources’ being leaked to the media? You claim these assertions are just myth. Yes there in no primary source. But they have been around a long time, coming from different sources and sometimes Clarke when asked about them has failed to deny them. Seriously I’m not a professional journalist, yet you expect me to interview a number of players. I based this article based on the information available to me. I never said all players don’t want to play for Clarke, but certain players don’t. Besides even if I asked the players, chances are they would give a diplomatic answer, neither confirming nor denying it. Yes its easier to captain a winning side. But I’m not convinced this is a truly great England side. Read Geoff Lemon’s article from yesterday, it supports this. Part of the reason they are as good as they are, is because of the way the respond to adversity, partly attributed to Cook. Beside like I’ve said, if you don’t have a great team, isn’t that all the more reason to have a positive culture? Or do you think Clarke is doing everything to ensure the right culture? I never said Clark is a poor captain. Tactically he is better than Cook, no doubt. He’s the best, and possibly only, opinion we have. Does that mean he perfect or expected to be? Of course not, but I think he could improve his off field captaincy. Do you think Cook or Clarke is the better captain? Also where do you think Clarke’s captaincy should improve, or do you think he is doing everything realistically possible?
brendon the 1st
Guest
brendon the 1st
Guest
You talk as if tour opinion on Clarkes off field captaincy is the absolute truth, but in reality you have absolutely no idea, what are you? One of the Aussie players dads? A team physio? Have you even met an Aussie cricketer? Just because you read a newspaper doesn't make you an expert or your words any more accurate than the rest of us.
brendon the 1st
Guest
Yeah its all about yesterday, keep telling yourself that
RMC
Roar Pro
Two wrongs don't make a right. Clarke was officially a selector when Xavier Dohety was chosen, over SOK, for the tour of India. Did Clarke fight to have SOK included? Yes say apparently doesn't mean it's fact. But these rumours have been around a long time and haven't gone away. Where there's smoke there's generally fire. If these are fiction, isn't it partly Clarke's responsibly to put an end to them? Do you think Allan Border would have sat by idly, if there were rumours of discontent? Like I've said. Clarke is a wonderful tactician. He is also the best (only?) choice Australia has as captain, and a good one at that. That doesn't mean he is flawless and can't improve team culture.
Brendon the 1st
Guest
I'm just an Australian savage Merv, what is to be expected of me other than uncultured and uneducated remarks? I humbly apologise, having spent five years living in the UK, I should know better. As it seems to be part of your culture to automatically assume I am a typical boorish Australian, having obviously met me on many occasions, I will hence forth strive to be more English, you know, enlightened and sophisticated. To do this, I will be recording all the episodes of Geordie Shore on pay TV, eating more kebabs, I'll start using the letter "f" in place of the more commonly spoken but obviously wrong "th", drinking more warm beer before the 12 o'clock closing time, then I may, If I so choose, pop out for a good old fashioned, yet completely cultured car park biff and a quickie behind the local offie with one of the will spoken ladies I've met at the bar during the evening, perhaps the next day I could attend a West Ham vs Millwall game for a real taste of the famous British culture. Yes Merv, you truly are the kings of culture, and I'm sorry I can't be the articulate person I'd love to be, it's not my birth right, It is therefore a pity that your proud nation full of such high class citizens is really very terrible at cricket and your captain is a boring yet cultured man with no tactical nous whatsoever, sporting mediocrity is after all, an Englishman's birth right. Sure you may be the better of two poor teams for a while, stacked with South Africans and Irishmen just to be competitive, but then the status quo resumes, as it is beginning to do now, articulate as much as you like, but in the cold, hard light of day, your team is old, your captain is predictably reactive, and you haven't been able to beat South Africa even in your "successful" years, and so the wheel turns to our favour once again, back to mediocrity for you old boy. Cultured enough for you?
eagleJack
Guest
In a team environment, where you live and breathe each other's lives, going from one hotel room to the next in stressful conditions, you are bound to have players not see eye to eye at times. It is only natural. You are basing your assertions completely on unfounded rumour and innuendo. If you were to say you had spoken to a number of players yourself, and none of them want to play under Clarke, then your article may have some credibility. But you didn't. For me it is only a good culture that is seeing us do as well as we are. You can see the hunger in the players eyes. They want results. Without that we would be struggling even more so. Cause let's face it - over half the team are very average cricketers lucky to be playing in an era where they are getting picked because there is no one else. Whereas many of Cook's side would be regarded as all time English greats. A little easier to captain such a side, with results going your way and to put on a united front, wouldn't you say? I'm actually not saying that Clarke is a better captain. But I would prefer more solid criteria than simply "where there is smoke there is fire" in categorising him as poor.
Jo M
Guest
But there it is again. Steve O'Keefe "apparently" doesn't get along with Clarke and that is why he is not picked. SOK has been an outstanding bowler for years and long before Clarke took over the captaincy, but Ponting never fought for him to be picked even towards the latter stages of his captaincy.
RMC
Roar Pro
Vas, lets not forget when Cook saves a match using dour tactics, he earns praise. Like I said, I tried to give logic to his tactics, rather than people who just say he is a rubbish captain. Like I said in the article that doesn't mean the tactics were right. I agree with what your saying though. Cook made so very questionable decisions. Just on Clarke using Johnson. I wasn't watching but maybe it was because Johnson is in such good form and had troubled Trott. I also agree, few poor days don't make you a terrible captain - media and fans jump the gun. Some people just read what everyone else says and believe its fact. Like I've said though, looking overall at their captaincy Clarke is no doubt the better tactician. But overall I would still prefer Cook as captain.