The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Are we selecting captains in the wrong way?

Poor selections and captaincy cost Australia at the World T20. (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
Roar Guru
24th August, 2015
29

When Michael Clarke announced his retirement at the end of the Test in Trent Bridge the Australian selectors took action to determine his successor. The meeting probably didn’t take long.

There were likely no longwinded discussions about candidate A’s potential captaincy strengths and weaknesses in comparison with candidates B and C.

There weren’t really any candidates B and C.

But why was it that Steven Smith was the only real choice to succeed Clarke as captain? His previous spells as captain for New South Wales and Australia didn’t bring about this decision, though he did seem competent enough in these games.

What truly influenced the decision were the runs he scored.

Steve Smith may well be the best option for Australia, but there certainly is a growing trend where international sides pick their best players as captains rather than who they think will be their best captain. Though in truth this has been the case, at least with Australia, for quite some time.

Recent leadership decisions in international cricket include Virat Kohli succeeding MS Dhoni as India captain, Angelo Mathews succeeding Tillakaratne Dilshan for Sri Lanka, Kane Williams being appointed New Zealand’s vice-captain and Brendon McCullum’s eventual successor, and Joe Root similarly being chosen as England’s vice-captain with a view to full captaincy in the future.

There is no doubting the talent of these players, but are they their respective sides’ best captains as well as being their best players?

Advertisement

There is obviously some merit to picking your best player as captain. They are able to, as Michael Clarke often said, “lead from the front” by producing good individual performances. Picking the best player also means there is little chance they will have to fight for their spot.

In some sports the team could operate no different without a captain. In cricket, however, the captaincy is vital both in terms of tactics and man management, two things largely detached from individual performance.

In an interview in 2013 Mark Brearley stated that giving the captaincy to whoever was in form was to “undervalue captaincy”. Brearley is well equipped to make this statement. His Test batting average for England was just 22.88 and in 39 games he never made a hundred. Yet at the same time virtually no one questions whether he deserved a place in the side because of his skill as a captain.

As well as being an astute tactician, Brearley was a brilliant motivator. One of Australia’s finest pacemen in the late seventies and early eighties, Rodney Hogg, described Brearley as having “a degree in people”.

Brearley’s management of his two main pace-bowlers was a highlight of his captaincy. Under Brealrley Ian Botham and Bob Willies took a combined total of 262 wickets, Botham averaging 19 while Willis averaged 24. Another captain’s treatment of these two strong characters may have seen very different results.

To make it as a player alone Brearley probably would’ve had to lift his batting average by 15 or 20. That is on average another 30 or 40 runs per Test that another player may have scored, yet the importance of captaincy is so great that Brearley more than made amends for his batting shortcomings with his leadership.

The attitude of picking the best player as captain can certainly work and it may well with Smith. But it is an attitude that will harvest mixed results, sometimes it will succeed, as with Allan Border, other times it may be the opposite, as with Kim Hughes.

Advertisement

Mike Brearley’s book was titled The art of captaincy, and like all art, captaincy is open to interpretation. How Steve Smith’s reign will be interpreted is unknown. But regardless of his performance as leader of side, the process of deciding who should be captain needs to change.

close