Was Clarke a better Test captain than Waugh?

That list is utterly ridiculous. Border should be near the bottom, as he was a very negative and unimaginative captain for virtually most of his career at the helm. Only later, during the 89 tour, did he loosen up with a team widely considered easy fodder for the English. He did in fact set the tone for the entire series with a short but telling innings of 60 odd during the first test that was extremely aggressive and even included a cut 6. It was a statement of intent that had a huge impact on the other batsmen. Yet that still didn't mask his many deficiencies in other areas as a captain. The standout from the five is Mark Taylor, who runs only behind Ian Chappell among modern captains for his tactical nous and the ability to make the sum better than the components. It was he, not Border, who set the benchmark for how the team would play for the next 10 - 15 years, and by the time he departed the scene Steve Waugh had at his disposal a team of champions capable of setting the kind of benchmark few others have ever matched, and he did so ruthlessly, mindful of the pasting the West Indies had given the Australian team for over a decade. Ponting to me should be at the bottom simply because a monkey could have captained the team he inherited - it contained 4 to 5 players who'd be walk up selections to an all-time Australian team. Having one or two generational players like that in a team would be considered wonderful. That the team contained the likes of Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath (not to mention Ponting himself) at the same time is mind-boggling. Yet even with such fire-power at his disposal he contrived to lose some important series, and that certainly doesn't work in his favour as far as his credentials as a captain are concerned. Creative and inspirational types like Ian Chappell, Benaud, or Taylor wouldn't have allowed such a thing to happen, while the ruthless types like Waugh and Bradman wouldn't have tolerated anything but annihilation with such resources at their disposal. Measure Ponting against Ian Chappell, truly an inspirational and highly astute individual who took an average bunch of players, bolstered by his brother Greg and Dennis Lillee, the only two world class players in the side, and turned them into a team that was considerably better than its parts - coming in at number 3 he virtually had no openers of note to protect him from the new ball other than Ian Redpath. One of the most underrated accomplishments he managed during his tenure was the 73 tour of the West Indies, when he lost both Lillee and Massie, then his two frontline bowlers, yet managed to bring out the best in both Max Walker and Doug Walters (of all people) to take up the bowling slack and win the series against an aging yet still potent West Indies side. That's what great captains do, inspire others through their belief in them. Clarke didn't particularly have that side to his personality, so it can't be said that he brought out the best in people, but there's no question that he led from the front with his bat, while tactically he was up there with the best in terms of his decision-making processes. Good captains have a seemingly magic ability to make field or bowling changes that bring off results just when the team needs them, and Clarke certainly had that is spades. So for me it would be 1) Taylor, 2) Waugh, 3) Clarke, 4) Border 5) Ponting

Ponting won away ashes series as a player. Clarke went 0-4 including 0-2 as captain. Ponting was also extremely unlucky in 2005. With Selection particularly of fast bowlers causing more problems then anything done on the field. At the World cup Ponting won 3 straight, including 2 as captain and 1 where Australia went undefeated. Without Warne, With untested players like Andrew Symonds and question marks about who would replace Michael Bevan who at that point had been arguably the best limited overs batsman ever. capable replacements were found. Ponting Never had the benefit of having a full strength Mitchel Johnson in his sides, or an on song Ryan Harris. In fact if Clarke had bothered to select Steve O Keefe his bowling attack would arguably be better then the one's fielded by Ponting. Especially later in his career. (First class averages Warne 26.11 SR 56.7 O'keefe 24.79 SR 58.9) The only person Michael Clarke has to blame for having a sub par team is Michael Clarke. The lack of talent on his teams should be a negative mark against his teams. not a positive. When Australia was trying every batsman under the sun and giving Ed Cowan one to many test caps guys like Chris Rodgers, Adam Voges and a few others had their hands up. Rodgers, and Voges have proven to be very capable test players while Neville seems like he will join that list sooner rather then later. Clarke was inventive to the point of Stupidity, and never really understood how to organize a batting order, to the point where every series articles were written about why he should bat anywhere from 3-5. Along with the constant shuffling of shane watson. His positive relationships with the channel 9 commentary team tend to paper over his flaws in this area. If you look closely most of the negative "Ugly Australian" Articles can be greatly attributed to a select few players who Ponting never managed to put in their place. Ponting's teams in general were friendlier then both Clarke and Waugh's teams. but after Waugh perfected the art of sledging, other countries were trying to get back at Australia. A lot of it was also due to the Success Ponting's teams had. Clarke's teams said much worse things, (the broken arm sledge vs England) however by that point Australia had lost its spot as the undisputed no 1 team in cricket and they could get away with more. None of Ponting or Waugh's players ever assaulted an English batsman in a pub. Clarke was very impressive in the aftermath of the Hughes tragedy as a leader. He was the person the nation looked to and he handed that attention very well. However Steve Smith captained more tests then Clarke did and was the one mostly responsible for why last summer was a success for Australian Cricket as both a leader and a batsman. That Clarke had some great moments as a captain but would still go close to the bottom of the list of any player who captained the Australian cricket team for an extended period of time. This just shows how impressive the list of people to captain the team is, and how important the role is in Australian Society

james B Clarke never won an away Ashes, but then neither did Ponting. In fact they won the same number of Ashes, just one each, at home and they were both 5-0. So Clarke's Ashes record is as good as Pontings, but with an inferior side. You say that Ponting won a World Cup without Warne. Clarke won one without Gilly or McGrath or Ponting himself. So Clarke's was as impressive. Plus he did it under the pressure of playing at home right after the Hughes tragedy. It's odd that you say he'll go down as one of the worst captains, but then admit that he was inventive, removed some of the stain of the Ponting era attitude and lead the team impressively during the death of Hughes, a tragedy no recent captain has had to deal with. Seems like a pretty great little resume if you ask me.

Border, Taylor, Waugh, daylight, Clarke. Basing it on how much they got out of the talent pool in the side at the time. Clarke was always active with his bowling and field changes but it turned into hyperactivity the longer he stayed captain, and his man management wasn't ever up to scratch. Ponting is too difficult to judge because the team was always going to drop off during his time as captain due to losing so many players, he stayed too long but it's hard to begrudge him that when nobody was beating down the door.

I think Ponting has benefited the most from being retired and in commentary. In a lot of ways he was the Robin to Steve Waugh's Batman. Where the Shadows of guys like Mcgrath, Warne, Gilly and Waugh have Obscured how good guys were. especially Lee and Ponting. Tactically Ponting was a decent captain, and behind the scenes he was a good bloke but he didn't have the toughness to keep some of the big personalities on the team in check. He also wasn't ruthless enough about letting guys go, which made his job as captain increasingly difficult.

Guys like Rodgers, Voges and Neville were wasting away in state cricket while guys like Ed Cowan and a bunch of batsmen not yet ready for test cricket were getting a chance. The Selection Pannel which for a time included Michael Clarke had appropriate options and chose less capable options. For reasons many suspect to be personality based. Nathan Lyon went from Grounds keeper to Test offspinner within a few years while Steve O'Keefe has played 1 test despite a first class average of 24 with the ball. That pretty much explains the michael clarke era in one sentance

Thats not strictly true. Ponting inherited an aging team in transition for half of his captaincy. The 2005 Ashes Where Ponting had to bowl as the Lee/Tait/Kasperwitz attack fell apart. was a clear example of this. Where Ponting was fortunate was that State selectors had done a good job and guys like Simon Katitch, Mike Hussey, Stuart Clarke, Brad Haddin ect were ready to step up and replace guys like Langer, Waugh (Clarke while a great batsman was unsettled about his role and never really knew where he fit), McGrath and Gilchrist. Ponting Saw the Emergence of Brett lee as a great Bowler, and Shane Watson as a good Opening Batsman. Ponting even went undefeated in the World Cup without Warne. Michael Clarke never won an Overseas Ashes tour including 2 as captain. he lost a home series to New Zeland, He declared in a game lost by an innings after taking a four man fast bowling attack to the Sub Continent. The same tour which his Vice Captain was publicly sent home from after failing to fill in a survey about why the team lost. He self destructed the Culture of the team to the point where they had to remove him as a selector and hire a coach like Darren Leheman to put him in his place and become the Dominant personality of the team. That Doesn't even include the times where his teams were bowled out for less then 100 Runs (too many times but the 47 all out in South Africa and 67 all out in the last ashes tour are notable instances) Clarke should go down as one of the worst Captains in Australian Cricket History. Ultimately he will be remembered as a brilliant batsman who as a captain was inventive and helped reform some of the Ugly Australian attitudes of Ponting's teams. With the Defining moment of his captaincy career coming as he led the nation through the tragic circumstances of last summer

Clarke being the only captain in test cricket history to declare in a game lost by an innings says everything you need to know about him. Great Batsman Decent Bowler, from most accounts a decent bloke to his mates. But a Bad Captain

I think a lot of people have forgotten Waugh's tactical nous and the ability to get the best out of his players thanks to the begrudging voices at Ch9. Hayden, Langer, Ponting and Gilchrist all became greats under his leadership. They weren't greats when he started the captaincy. It wasn't just throw the ball to Warnie to win Tests either. Warnie was injured and serving his suspension for a fair chunk of Waugh's captaincy. Fair enough he had SCG McGill to go to, but, even though they're both leg spinners, they are vastly different in style and he captained them both with aplomb. Think I saw a stat somewhere that Waugh's winning percentage without Warne in the side was just as high (maybe a smidge higher) than when he had Warnie in the side. Some of the other captains, Taylor and Ponting, depended on Warnie a bit more. Think I saw they all depended a great deal on Pidgeon. He was always sorely missed when injured. My 5 in order Waugh -- led the era of cricket I enjoyed watching most. Captaincy suited his team. They flourished. Border -- the grandfather of a great generation of Australian cricket. Taylor -- a good captain who inherited ABs great work. More fondly remembered with each passing year of Ch9 voices continually telling everyone how great he was. Clarke -- tactically innovative when things were going well, often lost the plot when things started to slide. Tearing my hair out every time he set a field with two slips, no gully and no third man. How many fours went through there? I know he's not on his own there with modern captains, but according to Ch9 he's supposed to be the best. Had the potential to be. Wasn't in my opinion. Ponting -- may have been great off the field for the boys, pretty clueless on it. Strange because in commentary he is quite good.

Tactics are a hard one because Waugh had the perfect tactics for the side he had. For me it's the fact that under Clarke there's no fight. Under Clarke and Ponting personality seemed to carry more weight than performance. Basically on the field I think Clarke may just shade Waugh but there's no contest off field, Waugh would do whatever was in the interests of the team and got the best out of his players

Only people to answer that will be the guy who played with and under both of them.Though record wise Waugh is better than Clarke.But a lot of things are more than just what statistics shows so please no comparison.

My top five 1.Taylor 2.Border 3.Waugh 4.Clarke 5.Ponting Taylor was a great instinctive captain. Border brought Australian cricket back from the mire. Waugh was ruthless and wasn't afraid to make tough decisions such as dropping Warne. Clarke at times was like Tubby, instinctive, but I don't think at times he had the whole team singing from the same hymn sheet. As for Ponting, he was a great batsman, but his captaincy wasn't that flash.

It's pretty clear from a few sources that he could be a divisive figure in the dressing rooms. My impression is that he matured over his time as captain, and maybe events such as the Phil Hughes tragedy, which he handled brilliantly, helped make him a better captain.

Jonty, Waugh's aggressive approach and tactic of forcing a result was imaginative, IMO. Of course it helped having a lethal bowling attack with which to apply pressure. There are probably arguments supporting all 3 of Taylor, Waugh and Clarke as to who was the best tactician.

That's certainly my view. Waugh is criticized for being one dimensional by some but at the end of the day, he won 71.9% of the test matches he captained. How did the alleged one dimensional captaincy hold the team back? Clearly it got results. He may have been the most innovative captain ever if he had captained in Border or Clarke's time, but it wasn't needed so he went with what worked. And it worked. Ponting on the other hand inherited the same team and achieved lesser results.

I dont think its right to put Clarke at the end of your second criteria considering how he took an Australian team to the top which had just lost the greatest generation of players it had seen after a couple of years of mediocrity.

It's also great to see a lot of people look passed Pontings win % and realised how easy his job was with arguably the greatest ever test team at his disposal. I wonder how good Ponting would have gone if he had the task/players that Clarke or Border had. At times Clarke, as well as border, seemed to have dragged Australia along all on their own.

Kaks I agree. Can't say Clarke was better than Waugh or Border, but he was a good captain. I think him and Taylor are very close but Ponting was inferior to both. Good to see many consider the difficulties Border needed to overcome as captain and considered him highly despite his winning %.

With all due respect MJ to rank Waugh as a better tactition than Taylor and Clarke is ridiculous. While certainly an outstanding "leader" and people manager Waugh was very one dimensional and tactically limited

Spot on Bushman