Michael Jeh July 18, 2010

O'captain my captain

In my last post , I touched briefly on the traditional Australian way of selecting captains
31

In my last post, I touched briefly on the traditional Australian way of selecting captains. The captaincy issue has now come into even sharper focus with the Shahid Afridi situation. Mike Holmans has written an excellent piece on that.

It might be interesting to buy a Round The World ticket and look at the cricketing world to see if we can explain (or hypothesise) why different countries have their own unique way of choosing captains and whether this reflects something about the culture of that country.

Starting with Australia, it's pretty much accepted that it's always been the Australian way to select the best 11 players and the captain usually emerges from that lot. There haven't been too many cases where a captain was brought into the team purely for leadership purposes. Bob Simpson did that in the late 1970's during the height of the World Series Cricket crisis but his performances did him no shame, despite being an old man. Mark Taylor's loss of form around the 1996-97 period presented a conundrum - had he not scored that career-saving century in the second innings at Edgbaston in 1997, he might have become a victim of that tradition. It's generally a pretty ruthless (and readily-accepted) practice so most Australian captains actually jump before they're pushed anyway. Even the great Allan Border was given a polite nudge when it looked like he wanted to hang on for a little bit longer. That's why Michael Clarke's position as T20 captain must be under severe threat - he's got the weight of history and tradition against him if he continues to fail.

I'm no expert on New Zealand but they seem to have a similar attitude to Australia. Most of their captains are chosen from amongst the ranks of the better players and they tend to enjoy relatively stable captaincy careers with loyalty and support from the troops. The only exception that readily comes to mind is in the mid 1990s when Lee Germon made his Test debut as captain! Otherwise, recent captains like Martin Crowe, Stephen Fleming and Daniel Vettori have all come from common ancestry; as the best players in the team, their leadership credentials are unquestioned by the rank and file. Again, this seems to be a very ANZ philosophy (apart from politics which recent history has shown to be anything but!). Leaders generally enjoy loyal service from the troops and if the leader senses that he is not amongst the best performing members of that team, he rarely hangs around long enough to feel the knives in his back. What do you reckon? Is that fair comment?

South Africa, since their re-introduction to cricket in 1992, seem to have enjoyed a similarly stable captaincy regime too. In almost 20 years, we've only had Kepler Wessels, Hansie Cronje, Shaun Pollock and Graeme Smith as long-term captains. There may have been the odd game here or there with another temporary captain but I can't think of too many. Again, that notion of clearly being amongst the first-picked in the starting XI is a South African tradition too. SA legends rarely seem to hang around until they get dropped. It seems to be a cultural norm that allows them to sense when the mood for change is ripe and they prefer to go of their own accord rather than being dropped at the end of a distinguished career. I've spent a bit of time in South Africa and have gained a bit of an understanding of their complex cultures so I'm going to suggest that it might have something to do with the 'olde worlde' attitudes and even the compulsory military service discipline that may contribute to this pattern. In general, I've found most South Africans extremely polite, well-mannered and disciplined, almost old fashioned in that sense. I'd be interested to hear from our South African friends on this issue of captaincy accession.

Zimbabwe is a difficult case to consider in the current climate but when they were a lot stronger in the 1990s, they too usually picked one of their best players as captain. There was usually little dissension in the ranks when Andy Flower, Alastair Campbell or Heath Streak ran the show. Strong characters, running a young cricketing nation with a frontier-style leadership theme.

Bangladesh is probably too young to comment on. I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough about their cricketing history to offer any educated guesses. Is it a pure meritocracy where the best player (or undisputed selection in the team) gets the captaincy or is there more to it in Bangladesh? If anyone with a knowledge of the politics and history of Bangladesh cricket can shed light on that, it would be interesting.

Speaking of politics, we move then to Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan. Like it or not, it is undeniable that captaincy issues are inextricably linked with politics and relatively unstable captaincy regimes. That's not necessarily to say that it's a bad thing. It just may be the style of that system.

Sri Lanka is clearly a cricket system that has significant political involvement but to be fair, the captains themselves have almost always commanded a place in the team without question. Recent memory fails to bring up too many captains who have failed to hold down a place in the team in their own right. The turnover has been reasonable but it's not the long reigns that Australia, NZ or SA tend to have. I can think of Arjuna Ranatunga, Aravinda De Silva (actually, was he ever captain?), Hashan Tillekeratne, Sanath Jayasuriya, Mahela Jayawardene and now Kumar Sangakkara in the last 15 years. That's not a ridiculous list of short dynasties but there has been some chopping and changing. Interestingly, the culture of all these South Asian countries allows ex-captains to keep playing in the team, even after they are deposed (or resign) as leader. This is an interesting phenomenon because it's generally something that the Aussies and New Zealanders are uncomfortable with. It's a bit like the leader of a pride of lions - once the big male gets deposed, he disappears into the sunset and is not tolerated in the new pride. You rarely see them hanging around for too long, skulking on the fringes.

In pure leadership theory terms, it has two possible interpretations. Firstly, you can lose a lot of knowledge and experience when the former leader walks away but perhaps they leave a strong legacy behind them. On the plus side, it tends to eliminate the 'bad feeling' of having a (possibly) disgruntled ex-captain still causing dissent in the background. To be fair to India and Sri Lanka, their team culture must be pretty strong to allow so many great players to finish their captaincy stints and return to the ranks for long and successful periods. The new captain seems to have the maturity and self-esteem to not feel threatened by a former leader. Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Kumble, Jayasuriya, Jayawardene - in their country's ranks, these guys are All-Time Greats and yet, they seem to be able to slip seamlessly back into the team without necessarily (or openly) causing any bad feeling. Perhaps that is a very 'Eastern' thing where old folk are venerated for their wisdom and knowledge and are therefore (rarely) cast aside in old age. Certainly in Sri Lankan culture, an old person is still seen as a figure of respect and the keeper of a store of wisdom. Until their death (literally or figuratively), they are still seen as the ceremonial head of the family even if they are no longer useful on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, the Pakistani situation is less fluid in this respect.

I'm fascinated by the dressing room dynamics in the Indian team for example. So many great players, many of them ex-captains, and yet; they seem to operate as a relatively peaceful unit. Perhaps our Indian friends with 'inside knowledge' can shed more light on this. Is that really the case or is it a case of a duck swimming smoothly on the surface with the legs going madly under the surface?

Pakistan of course has no such mystery about their captaincy methods. I can't really figure it out myself because it seems to be such a tumultuous and dramatic process. Since Imran Khan finished his career, I've lost count of the number of captains and coups. Perhaps the Pakistani players are used to it and can put it behind them when play begins but I think their erratic performances have everything to do with the uncertainty of the captain's leadership tenure. They can be brilliant and awful in the space of a single session of play but it happens all too often to be purely coincidence. I know that the PCB is an overtly political organisation and perhaps this, more than any other reason, is responsible for the constant shift in loyalties and plans. Again, looking from the outside, it doesn't seem to be a particularly harmonious environment but that doesn't seem to get in the way of individual brilliance on a stunning scale. I've played against Pakistan twice in first-class matches and both times, it was hard to get a sense of who the captain was in the field. Everyone seemed to be having their say and it was a tense environment but perhaps organised chaos is just their way. For what it's worth, I think Pakistan play best under a very strong leader who almost rules with an iron fist. Imran is the obvious candidate but there were brief periods under Wasim Akram and Inzamam-ul-Haq when you got that sense of unity. What do our Pakistani friends think about this?

Moving north to England - that becomes a terribly interesting case study. I'm hoping Mike Holmans will post a rejoinder to provide a British perspective on this. From my perspective, England have almost been the mirror opposite of Australia. Or perhaps Australia deliberately tried to be the mirror opposite of the mother country, just to be perverse! England, until recently, have long enjoyed a tradition of picking a captain first and then crafting a team around him. And they've had great success stories to justify that too. Mike Brearley's 1981 Ashes triumph was a stunning case in point, ironically, inspiring the deposed Ian Botham to heroic deeds. There have been other cases too. The Cowdrey family feature in that list. Also, England teams don't seem to have much of a problem with ex-captains still continuing to play their role, long after their captaincy ambitions have been extinguished. Mike Gatting, David Gower, Botham, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff and Graham Gooch are ready examples that come to mind. Again, that may have something to do with the County cricket system where it's almost seen as a job and players just slip into and out of teams on a daily basis. The bigger issue of selecting the captain first may come from the old Gentleman vs Players legacy or it may even hark back to the military where Generals and Admirals were chosen by the aristocracy and were "born to lead", so to speak. Looking forward to hearing a local perspective on that.

The West Indies is our final destination. I deliberately chose to finish my journey there. What better place to end this odyssey? Clearly, up until their recent demise as the cricketing superpower, the West Indies always thrived under a talismanic leader. Frank Worrell, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and Richie Richardson were undisputed legends in the dressing room, able to exert their charisma on a dressing room that was made up of many island kingdoms. It seems like a team made up of members from these tiny islands need a strong and inspirational leader. In more recent times, their choice of captain has still (generally) been one of the best players but even these guys find it difficult to shake off the yoke of their superpower history. Carl Hooper, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Courtney Walsh and now Chris Gayle are fabulous cricketers in their own right but I keep waiting for another leadership coup (or voluntary resignation). Perhaps that's being a bit unfair on Walsh who was probably a benevolent and popular leader but because his reign coincided with the West Indies' fall from grace, he gets lumped in with that lot. I can't see the situation improving in the immediate term, not with the lack of depth, the inter-island rivalries and the constant battles between the governing body and the Players' Association. When you add the lure of the IPL to this mix, I can't see the leadership issues getting fixed anytime soon. Perhaps Gayle has the "cool" to pull it off but I remain unconvinced. Lloyd and Viv were as cool as they come but for some reason, they were cool because they weren't trying to be. They just exuded 'Lion King' status every time they took to the field. Mind you, that's a lot easier with a quartet of seriously fast bowlers at your disposal!

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the responses and learning a bit more about the cultural tendencies that govern cricket leadership. These are all just theories so in the absence of anything scientific, it's all we've got to have fun with. For a day, we can all pretend to be philosophers!

Michael Jeh is an Oxford Blue who played first-class cricket, and a Playing Member of the MCC. He lives in Brisbane

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • waterbuffalo on July 25, 2010, 5:57 GMT

    I think Ponting is a genius, a superb captain, the conditions are overcast, there was rain overnight, pakistan cannot bat at all, but they can bowl, with 3 very decent bowlers, one of which is superb (aamer)and what does he do? bat first, I have known schoolboy captains who are smarter than him, do you know why he did it, to prove his and australia's machismo, we can face anybody, so they get get bowled out for the lowest total since, Garner, Holding and Marshall. I hope he continues to be captain of australia, I hope he continues to prove his machismo, over and over again, as he did in 2005 when McGrath was injured but he stil wanted to have a bowl. You won the toss, wanted to bat, 88 all out, if you had bowled, you would have got Pakistan out for 48. The aussies should be proud. Keep him as captain, we can all use a good laugh now and then.

  • Blackcat on July 24, 2010, 15:22 GMT

    Aravinda was Sri Lanka's captain for the 1992 world cup in which Arjuna played as a player, after Arjuna was removed following the 1991 tour to New Zealand. The latter was restored to lead Sri Lanka after the World Cup and Aravinda went back to being his deputy.

    I do not recall Aravinda being appointed to captain the Sri Lanka Test team while Arjuna was in the team. Any Ideas?

    WelL I don't agree with the captain having to quit in 3-4 years, probably if he was good enough and keen enough for the job he should be around longer.

    As for Murali I don't think politics played a hand in him not captaining. It was a more a bias towards the captaincy going to batsmen. Every where this is true. Barring Wasim and Waqar; Walsh and Shaun nor other bowling captains come to mind. These days Daniel Vettori can easily be taken as an all rounder though if you want you can include him. Imran Khan himself said when he became captain people were thinking bowlers can't captain.

  • Porterhouse on July 23, 2010, 20:46 GMT

    Yeah Michael I'm just trying to point out such a stupid course of action is not something we Aussies would do. We love putting the Poms in their place on the sporting field but most of our institutions are straight copies. If it isn't broke then it would be stupid to change it just to spite the Poms. And besides we did go to four wars just to back the blighters up. Anyway Happy Black July day! I see it's been 27 years since you arrived but still don't seem to understand us too well.

  • dmqi on July 20, 2010, 4:45 GMT

    Could you please compile the comments of PCB chairman, selectors and coaches in last few years. You can see how many disgraceful comments have been posted in different blogs about PCB and its chairman. My big question is : why don't they listen to the expert and the spectators. Recently an ICC official have given a name yo PCB chairman. Does he feel bad? he is destroying the game in a country. May be time has come when other countries take a strong action to solve the problems in Pak cricket. It seems to me that country does not have anyone in the sports ministry or in Govt. to take any action. May GOD bless that country, named Pakistan.

  • dmqi on July 20, 2010, 4:17 GMT

    There is no one in Pakistan except Yunus Khan who can lead the team now, because of his records, seniority and ability. Truly speaking the PCB did not allow someone to become a long tern captain whereas in other countries the board appointed a captain and backed him. It is cricket board and the selectors who are responsible for the unruliness in the players. Pakistan and west Indies are good examples in the recent past. Even Lara did not have good time as captain. The Australians and Indians are doing very well since they have good Board and they know what to do when a player does not listen to his captain. Pakistan board should have a tutorial session with the Indian/australian board. That might help them. The dull old man needs a tutor.

  • Harsh on July 20, 2010, 2:41 GMT

    This is one of the best Blogarticle I have read, couldn't finish reading it, so bookmarking it. I can put my own inputs, but I don't want to take anything away from this Blogarticle (I made this word, copyrighted haha)

    Cheers, brilliant.

  • FrustratedPakiFan on July 20, 2010, 1:49 GMT

    Pak cricket is a basket case. No point in trying to understand or asking the fans (if any left) to opine. They are happy that they could win an odd meaningless T20 game and now Afridi is the best Captain there ever was. Great. Let them be where they want to be. The Pak players only play for themselves, while mouthing off pride, love of the nation etc.

    You can feel that the Paki team is entering the ground two hours before they actually do. Know why? Because their egos get to the ground first, before they actually show up.

    So, like my friend Pakistani says, let us be happy with one odd win here and there and leave us alone. We are very happy to be the frogs in the well.

  • abcd on July 19, 2010, 19:15 GMT

    What about Brian Lara for the West Indies? Which group does he fall under?

  • Creek on July 19, 2010, 17:22 GMT

    When you look at Pakistan, the most successful captains have been the best player in the team who have some leadership skills. In Pakistan, I agree that everybody wants to be the captain, that is why only the best player can earn respect and maintain the captaincy. The biggest challenge for a Pakistani captain is to bring unity and then the team starts winning. Also, with the best player leading, there is a history of him and second best player disputing, for example Imran Khan and Javed Miandad, then Wasim and Waqar, then Inzimam and Shoaib Akhtar. And now we are in a shamble because we do not have a standout best player who can lead. As far as culture is concern being a Pakistani, I can tell from experience every Pakistani like to impose his ideas and views, and the only time one will listen is when somebody undisputedly proven better than you is telling you what to do.

  • cooldude on July 19, 2010, 15:57 GMT

    I would like to comment on the difference between captaincy approach in india and australia, the 2 superpowers. While both appoint most talented player as captain, india is open to experimentation in the light of performance. Most talented player need not be most inspiring leader, see the case of sachin tendulkar. With aussies it seems to be egoistic issues preventing to do so, a captain will leave the team mostly when he retires, no way a taylor or a border or even ponting will revert to being just a player. While it can be argued the merits of this approach, they lost some very exciting players who could have been inspirational leaders, like shane warne, the best captain which australia never had. Luckily, their approach has not backfired so far coz they enjoy one of the best teams which neutralizes the effect of a destructive leader like ponting, hope it remains so.

  • waterbuffalo on July 25, 2010, 5:57 GMT

    I think Ponting is a genius, a superb captain, the conditions are overcast, there was rain overnight, pakistan cannot bat at all, but they can bowl, with 3 very decent bowlers, one of which is superb (aamer)and what does he do? bat first, I have known schoolboy captains who are smarter than him, do you know why he did it, to prove his and australia's machismo, we can face anybody, so they get get bowled out for the lowest total since, Garner, Holding and Marshall. I hope he continues to be captain of australia, I hope he continues to prove his machismo, over and over again, as he did in 2005 when McGrath was injured but he stil wanted to have a bowl. You won the toss, wanted to bat, 88 all out, if you had bowled, you would have got Pakistan out for 48. The aussies should be proud. Keep him as captain, we can all use a good laugh now and then.

  • Blackcat on July 24, 2010, 15:22 GMT

    Aravinda was Sri Lanka's captain for the 1992 world cup in which Arjuna played as a player, after Arjuna was removed following the 1991 tour to New Zealand. The latter was restored to lead Sri Lanka after the World Cup and Aravinda went back to being his deputy.

    I do not recall Aravinda being appointed to captain the Sri Lanka Test team while Arjuna was in the team. Any Ideas?

    WelL I don't agree with the captain having to quit in 3-4 years, probably if he was good enough and keen enough for the job he should be around longer.

    As for Murali I don't think politics played a hand in him not captaining. It was a more a bias towards the captaincy going to batsmen. Every where this is true. Barring Wasim and Waqar; Walsh and Shaun nor other bowling captains come to mind. These days Daniel Vettori can easily be taken as an all rounder though if you want you can include him. Imran Khan himself said when he became captain people were thinking bowlers can't captain.

  • Porterhouse on July 23, 2010, 20:46 GMT

    Yeah Michael I'm just trying to point out such a stupid course of action is not something we Aussies would do. We love putting the Poms in their place on the sporting field but most of our institutions are straight copies. If it isn't broke then it would be stupid to change it just to spite the Poms. And besides we did go to four wars just to back the blighters up. Anyway Happy Black July day! I see it's been 27 years since you arrived but still don't seem to understand us too well.

  • dmqi on July 20, 2010, 4:45 GMT

    Could you please compile the comments of PCB chairman, selectors and coaches in last few years. You can see how many disgraceful comments have been posted in different blogs about PCB and its chairman. My big question is : why don't they listen to the expert and the spectators. Recently an ICC official have given a name yo PCB chairman. Does he feel bad? he is destroying the game in a country. May be time has come when other countries take a strong action to solve the problems in Pak cricket. It seems to me that country does not have anyone in the sports ministry or in Govt. to take any action. May GOD bless that country, named Pakistan.

  • dmqi on July 20, 2010, 4:17 GMT

    There is no one in Pakistan except Yunus Khan who can lead the team now, because of his records, seniority and ability. Truly speaking the PCB did not allow someone to become a long tern captain whereas in other countries the board appointed a captain and backed him. It is cricket board and the selectors who are responsible for the unruliness in the players. Pakistan and west Indies are good examples in the recent past. Even Lara did not have good time as captain. The Australians and Indians are doing very well since they have good Board and they know what to do when a player does not listen to his captain. Pakistan board should have a tutorial session with the Indian/australian board. That might help them. The dull old man needs a tutor.

  • Harsh on July 20, 2010, 2:41 GMT

    This is one of the best Blogarticle I have read, couldn't finish reading it, so bookmarking it. I can put my own inputs, but I don't want to take anything away from this Blogarticle (I made this word, copyrighted haha)

    Cheers, brilliant.

  • FrustratedPakiFan on July 20, 2010, 1:49 GMT

    Pak cricket is a basket case. No point in trying to understand or asking the fans (if any left) to opine. They are happy that they could win an odd meaningless T20 game and now Afridi is the best Captain there ever was. Great. Let them be where they want to be. The Pak players only play for themselves, while mouthing off pride, love of the nation etc.

    You can feel that the Paki team is entering the ground two hours before they actually do. Know why? Because their egos get to the ground first, before they actually show up.

    So, like my friend Pakistani says, let us be happy with one odd win here and there and leave us alone. We are very happy to be the frogs in the well.

  • abcd on July 19, 2010, 19:15 GMT

    What about Brian Lara for the West Indies? Which group does he fall under?

  • Creek on July 19, 2010, 17:22 GMT

    When you look at Pakistan, the most successful captains have been the best player in the team who have some leadership skills. In Pakistan, I agree that everybody wants to be the captain, that is why only the best player can earn respect and maintain the captaincy. The biggest challenge for a Pakistani captain is to bring unity and then the team starts winning. Also, with the best player leading, there is a history of him and second best player disputing, for example Imran Khan and Javed Miandad, then Wasim and Waqar, then Inzimam and Shoaib Akhtar. And now we are in a shamble because we do not have a standout best player who can lead. As far as culture is concern being a Pakistani, I can tell from experience every Pakistani like to impose his ideas and views, and the only time one will listen is when somebody undisputedly proven better than you is telling you what to do.

  • cooldude on July 19, 2010, 15:57 GMT

    I would like to comment on the difference between captaincy approach in india and australia, the 2 superpowers. While both appoint most talented player as captain, india is open to experimentation in the light of performance. Most talented player need not be most inspiring leader, see the case of sachin tendulkar. With aussies it seems to be egoistic issues preventing to do so, a captain will leave the team mostly when he retires, no way a taylor or a border or even ponting will revert to being just a player. While it can be argued the merits of this approach, they lost some very exciting players who could have been inspirational leaders, like shane warne, the best captain which australia never had. Luckily, their approach has not backfired so far coz they enjoy one of the best teams which neutralizes the effect of a destructive leader like ponting, hope it remains so.

  • waterbuffalo on July 19, 2010, 13:18 GMT

    any Pakistani who thought Afridi was captaincy material knows nothing about cricket and has obviously never been a captain himself.

  • pakipower on July 19, 2010, 10:34 GMT

    i agree with the writer that Pakitanis can only be captained by a player with strong character. the captain should rule with iron fist.

  • Mohsin Jamal on July 19, 2010, 9:52 GMT

    Good writing Jeh, as always; opening new angles and finding corners to ponder. In my opinion, the political systems of the south asian countries is a prime source that matter and affect on their cricketing sense and culture in appointing or adapting or accepting... a captain. Keep writing good.!

  • Dr.Iyer on July 19, 2010, 8:21 GMT

    Good one. About my India its excaptains because of the strong intrinsic values and discipline bred by our best players right from time of Kapil. Yeah there are some exceptions like Yuvi or Bhajji but they are well under control of seniors who happen to be their idols mostly. For example a word of SRT or RD is respected not just because they are great players but more they are great Humans. Its boon we Indians got. Same so for our neighbours Lankans. Murali, Mahela or Sanga are all first better Humans and our wins despite lot of short comings is because the unity these Legendary Humans bring with them.

  • Deepak on July 19, 2010, 6:44 GMT

    @Andrew: You said it!. In India the captain is somebody who is the object of most of the blame that happens when they lose. When personally successful players (like Tendulkar & Dravid) become captains, they face a different situation than they had thus far in their carrers - unfair criticism. This leads most of them (Tendulkar, Dravid, Kapil) to leave aside this crown of thorns and go back to doing things they know well. It could also do with the Indian middle-class mentalitity of not trying to change things around them too much and only do their core jobs well. It also explains that the successful captains have almost never been the best players on the side (be it Azhar, Sourav or Dhoni)...

  • The Third Eye on July 19, 2010, 5:57 GMT

    Michael, you have left out Marvan Atapattu from the Sri Lankan pantheon. Regrettable, since he was a good captain for Sri Lanka for many years whilst Hashan Tillekeratna, whom you include, captained only a handful of matches and was not a successful captain. The latter's reign could not have lasted even a year (from memory). Aravinda De Silva was not a Sri Lankan captain in his own right. He was merely acting (usually for an absent Ranatunga).

  • david on July 19, 2010, 5:51 GMT

    Compulsory military service in South Africa was abolished in 1994, thus none of the current players would have had to do the compulsory service.

  • andrew on July 19, 2010, 3:55 GMT

    How could India not play previous captains? They wouldnt win a game if they didnt play all their ex-captains! Its seems that being captain of an Indian, Sri Lankan and even Pakistan cricket team isnt the honour it is compared to Australia and Sth Africa.

  • Aparajithan on July 19, 2010, 2:36 GMT

    well, as far as india is concerned, i think you would first have to look at the individuals we are picking as examples - Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Kumble, Kapil... all highly respectable gentlemen. maybe its them thats giving the indian dressing room an image or respectability? scratch below that surface and you will find tons of examples thats not so different from political wrangling...

  • nadeem on July 18, 2010, 13:57 GMT

    I agree with you Mr.Arvind......

  • masterturner on July 18, 2010, 13:41 GMT

    Pakistan is not like Australia or South Africa where players follow discipline strictly and one who is appointed captain is given due respect. there is a long history of revoults against captains. The present couch Waqar Younis himself led a revoult against the then captain and who can forget the tensions between Wasim and Waqar... everyone who performs better feels himself as the best captain. People like Imran Khan who was not only senior most, was also a good leader and later on Inzamam who was so senior and inspiring as batsman kept the team together. The key to be good captain in Pakistan is just to be senior or to perform extraordinarily.

  • Daz on July 18, 2010, 12:55 GMT

    One problem Englan seems to have had often is the misguided idea that their best play is therefore the best captain. I appreciate that Botham and Gower did have the problem of facing the West Indes at their peak but they seem to me to be good examples of making them captain for their performaces as opposed to their captaincy ability. There have been many more too

  • ankur prakash on July 18, 2010, 11:35 GMT

    Srilankan cricket has got his unique culture but if you notice properly nearly every time they have a new captain in every world cup.after how ranatunga was deposed after 99 world cup.srilanka tends to appoint skippers keeping in mind upcoming world cup.in a way they have been pretty successful.Mahela yahyawardene started a new trend to quit captaincy saying in asia a captain should not be at helm for more than 3 4 years .let's see sangakarra follows.

  • Michael Jeh on July 18, 2010, 11:22 GMT

    Thanks for the comments thus far.

    Porterhouse, I'm posing that question only because I wondered if that original meritocracy was born from that sense of trying to be the polar opposite to the English system. Thanks for your opinion.

    Arvind, perhaps my use of the word "useless" was clumsy. Thanks for pointing it out. What I should used was a set of words that tried to describe the notion that just because someone is no longer a 'working' member of the group, they are still venerated because of their age, status, past contribution etc. Thanks for prompting me to correct my clumsy intentions.

  • jalps on July 18, 2010, 10:46 GMT

    For a long time, up until Len Hutton I believe, the England captaincy was only held by 'Gentlemen'. Since that distinction was dropped I think that they've tried to follow the Australian model of picking the 'best' player. The trouble with this approach is that England, as a nation, tends to put far too much pressure on individuals anyway. So we get situations where Flintoff comes back from injury, gets thrown the captaincy and told to win the Ashes in Australia on his own. Part of this approach is the need to find someone who'll be guaranteed to be in the side over the long term; Pietersen was selected as captain as he was the only player who would be guaranteed to be in the team in all three formats. I'm not sure whether it's a matter of better selection or natural temperament but England seem to select a lot more bad captains and throw away a lot more good ones than our antipodean cousins.

  • pakistani on July 18, 2010, 8:05 GMT

    We are different. With all of our shortcomings, one must keep in mind that Pakistanis are a force to be reckoned with, regardless of who is playing. Ask the Aussies, Black Caps, or the Proteas. Heck, ask our neighbors. T20, the world's choice, is our game, a game of the gullies; our record proves it. "Fight" is in our blood, and we have fought for the better part of our national being. Wars with India, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Israel, be it on the battlefield, lands or skies, mountains or oceans, Gaddafi Stadium, or Lords. We are an emotional people, very different. Ask Britain. Press the right buttons and the 'cornered tigers' will show how they react when cornered. We are different, we are Pakistanis. A famous quote goes "The one thing you can be sure about the Pakistanis is that you never know what the Pakistanis will do." Do us a favor and write us off, because that is when we tend to be at our best. Great article. Tea and biscuits anyone?

  • Jim on July 18, 2010, 6:06 GMT

    As for India, there are no grudges of ex-captain against new captain or players, though you could see lot of rumors in different fans' perspectives. India is basically a country of exemplary diversity with every state speaking different languages, having different cultures and even cuisines. And, thus every player gets stardom easily and also now IPL provides captaincy to each and every player, but India's diverse culture helps in bringing unity in diversity. And, the system is that every talented player would want to be a captain sometime and would get a chance, then come back to ranks like Sehwag did. Now, Gambhir and Raina are recent captains, apart from Dhoni. Ganguly and Dhoni used the opportunities they got and took their respective team to higher level and thus got to be captains for longer time than others. Become captain, prove yourself, if so enjoy the captaincy and power like Dada. Or return to your ranks and have nice time under new captain.

  • Arvind on July 18, 2010, 5:53 GMT

    "they are still seen as the ceremonial head of the family even if they are no longer useful on a day-to-day basis."

    What is this nonsense? Do you think of people as only 'useful' or 'useless'? Get out of that narrow minded mentality.

  • wanderer on July 18, 2010, 4:51 GMT

    The Pakistani cricket team only ever thrives under the captaincy of an individual when the leader themselves is someone who is larger than life. They must first of all command respect but also fear, both on and OFF the field of play. There must be no doubt as to their ability and achievements. It's a psyche of total dedication, all or nothing. There is no half hearted approach with Pakistan. It's a dialectic approach to cricket of do or die. For the average Pakistani cricketer this total dedication to a captain is not easy, it is not something easily given and thus you have the merry-go-round that is the captaincy, of players who want their players to follow them, but the players reluctant to only offer total subservience to one who commands it, deserves it, not just someone who merely wants it. From time to time when they do get such leaders it can be fascinating seeing them battle to world class status. In Pakistan everyone wants to be captain, but captaincy is earned never given.

  • Modaya on July 18, 2010, 4:34 GMT

    Maybe I am as stupid as my name implies but I would like to put it down that Murali should have been made captain of Sri Lanka long before Mahela or Sanga, he deserved his place in the side more than anyone else with consistant performances and is a thinker as implied in everything he does, was it politics ?? Or a hidden factor. Farewell Murali, you are the greatest and will remain on top forever.......

  • Porterhouse on July 18, 2010, 4:19 GMT

    "Or perhaps Australia deliberately tried to be the mirror opposite of the mother country, just to be perverse!"

    What a weird thing to say. Australian cricket is a meritocracy. How long have you been living in Australia? I ask because you don't really seem to understand Australians.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Porterhouse on July 18, 2010, 4:19 GMT

    "Or perhaps Australia deliberately tried to be the mirror opposite of the mother country, just to be perverse!"

    What a weird thing to say. Australian cricket is a meritocracy. How long have you been living in Australia? I ask because you don't really seem to understand Australians.

  • Modaya on July 18, 2010, 4:34 GMT

    Maybe I am as stupid as my name implies but I would like to put it down that Murali should have been made captain of Sri Lanka long before Mahela or Sanga, he deserved his place in the side more than anyone else with consistant performances and is a thinker as implied in everything he does, was it politics ?? Or a hidden factor. Farewell Murali, you are the greatest and will remain on top forever.......

  • wanderer on July 18, 2010, 4:51 GMT

    The Pakistani cricket team only ever thrives under the captaincy of an individual when the leader themselves is someone who is larger than life. They must first of all command respect but also fear, both on and OFF the field of play. There must be no doubt as to their ability and achievements. It's a psyche of total dedication, all or nothing. There is no half hearted approach with Pakistan. It's a dialectic approach to cricket of do or die. For the average Pakistani cricketer this total dedication to a captain is not easy, it is not something easily given and thus you have the merry-go-round that is the captaincy, of players who want their players to follow them, but the players reluctant to only offer total subservience to one who commands it, deserves it, not just someone who merely wants it. From time to time when they do get such leaders it can be fascinating seeing them battle to world class status. In Pakistan everyone wants to be captain, but captaincy is earned never given.

  • Arvind on July 18, 2010, 5:53 GMT

    "they are still seen as the ceremonial head of the family even if they are no longer useful on a day-to-day basis."

    What is this nonsense? Do you think of people as only 'useful' or 'useless'? Get out of that narrow minded mentality.

  • Jim on July 18, 2010, 6:06 GMT

    As for India, there are no grudges of ex-captain against new captain or players, though you could see lot of rumors in different fans' perspectives. India is basically a country of exemplary diversity with every state speaking different languages, having different cultures and even cuisines. And, thus every player gets stardom easily and also now IPL provides captaincy to each and every player, but India's diverse culture helps in bringing unity in diversity. And, the system is that every talented player would want to be a captain sometime and would get a chance, then come back to ranks like Sehwag did. Now, Gambhir and Raina are recent captains, apart from Dhoni. Ganguly and Dhoni used the opportunities they got and took their respective team to higher level and thus got to be captains for longer time than others. Become captain, prove yourself, if so enjoy the captaincy and power like Dada. Or return to your ranks and have nice time under new captain.

  • pakistani on July 18, 2010, 8:05 GMT

    We are different. With all of our shortcomings, one must keep in mind that Pakistanis are a force to be reckoned with, regardless of who is playing. Ask the Aussies, Black Caps, or the Proteas. Heck, ask our neighbors. T20, the world's choice, is our game, a game of the gullies; our record proves it. "Fight" is in our blood, and we have fought for the better part of our national being. Wars with India, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Israel, be it on the battlefield, lands or skies, mountains or oceans, Gaddafi Stadium, or Lords. We are an emotional people, very different. Ask Britain. Press the right buttons and the 'cornered tigers' will show how they react when cornered. We are different, we are Pakistanis. A famous quote goes "The one thing you can be sure about the Pakistanis is that you never know what the Pakistanis will do." Do us a favor and write us off, because that is when we tend to be at our best. Great article. Tea and biscuits anyone?

  • jalps on July 18, 2010, 10:46 GMT

    For a long time, up until Len Hutton I believe, the England captaincy was only held by 'Gentlemen'. Since that distinction was dropped I think that they've tried to follow the Australian model of picking the 'best' player. The trouble with this approach is that England, as a nation, tends to put far too much pressure on individuals anyway. So we get situations where Flintoff comes back from injury, gets thrown the captaincy and told to win the Ashes in Australia on his own. Part of this approach is the need to find someone who'll be guaranteed to be in the side over the long term; Pietersen was selected as captain as he was the only player who would be guaranteed to be in the team in all three formats. I'm not sure whether it's a matter of better selection or natural temperament but England seem to select a lot more bad captains and throw away a lot more good ones than our antipodean cousins.

  • Michael Jeh on July 18, 2010, 11:22 GMT

    Thanks for the comments thus far.

    Porterhouse, I'm posing that question only because I wondered if that original meritocracy was born from that sense of trying to be the polar opposite to the English system. Thanks for your opinion.

    Arvind, perhaps my use of the word "useless" was clumsy. Thanks for pointing it out. What I should used was a set of words that tried to describe the notion that just because someone is no longer a 'working' member of the group, they are still venerated because of their age, status, past contribution etc. Thanks for prompting me to correct my clumsy intentions.

  • ankur prakash on July 18, 2010, 11:35 GMT

    Srilankan cricket has got his unique culture but if you notice properly nearly every time they have a new captain in every world cup.after how ranatunga was deposed after 99 world cup.srilanka tends to appoint skippers keeping in mind upcoming world cup.in a way they have been pretty successful.Mahela yahyawardene started a new trend to quit captaincy saying in asia a captain should not be at helm for more than 3 4 years .let's see sangakarra follows.

  • Daz on July 18, 2010, 12:55 GMT

    One problem Englan seems to have had often is the misguided idea that their best play is therefore the best captain. I appreciate that Botham and Gower did have the problem of facing the West Indes at their peak but they seem to me to be good examples of making them captain for their performaces as opposed to their captaincy ability. There have been many more too