Ed Smith
Ed Smith Ed SmithRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Former England, Kent and Middlesex batsman; writer for the New Statesman

Captaincy: not what you might think it is

Leadership isn't a quality, or about field placings. It is an effect that a player has on a group

Ed Smith

February 15, 2012

Comments: 42 | Text size: A | A

Andrew Strauss looks pensive as Pakistan pile on runs, Pakistan v England, 3rd Test, Dubai, February 4, 2012
Andrew Strauss: undemonstrative on the field, but he gets the job done © Getty Images
Related Links

A few years ago, I played in a charity match with an Australian cricketer. He was captain for the day and casually told the fielders to just "spread out". As we walked off at the end, after a laidback game, he said (at least half-seriously): "How can Tugga [Steve Waugh] get paid so much extra money just for doing that?"

The view that captaincy is easy - perhaps even irrelevant - is not uncommon. Professional sport is a macho culture that prefers to deal in physical realities rather than abstract concepts. That bowler is quick, that batsman is powerful, that fielder is fast - as skills, they are all easy to admire. Leadership, in contrast, is an elusive thing to identify. That captain is shrewd, that one is subtle, that one encourages the players around him to be themselves - sportsmen are not trained to recognise or celebrate those gifts.

But the evidence is overwhelming: leadership matters. Look at the turnaround in Pakistan cricket. Two years ago I was at Lord's on the Saturday before the News of the World published their scoop about spot-fixing. Pakistan were not merely losing, they were broken. When Salman Butt was bowled, he initially stood his ground, as though he was waiting for some outside intervention that allowed him to have another go. When Mohammad Yousuf was caught on the boundary, hooking, he too stood still in disbelief. It was sad to watch.

Now, under the captaincy of 37-year-old Misbah-ul-Haq, Pakistan are revived and victorious - and able to beat the world's top Test team 3-0. It is a powerful riposte to the critics who argue that no one should be selected as captain if he isn't an automatic choice as a player. In fact, the best team is simply the 11 players who produce the most effective cricket. If the presence of a good captain improves the team by a greater margin than the advantage gained by picking a slightly superior player, then it is obviously rational to select the superior captain. The best XI is the most effective team: end of story.

The next question is much harder to answer: what makes a good captain?

It is easy to fall back on familiar clich├ęs: "the natural captain", "the leader of men", "the alpha male". But it is striking how many effective captains do not fit that mould. Take Andrew Strauss. When Strauss was appointed England captain in 2008, several English cricket legends criticised the appointment because he "wasn't a natural captain". What did they mean? They meant that Strauss is unshowy and undemonstrative on the field. Off the field, he is not the biggest, loudest man at the bar. Tactically he doesn't go in for flashy, "original" field-placement. In press conferences he avoids controversy. In short, he is isn't Mr Obvious or Mr Born to Lead. Strauss - we now know - has gone on to win two Ashes series as captain.

The whole business of captaincy is misunderstood. It tends to be thought of as a list of qualities, a set of boxes to tick - as though a good captain has to be x, y and z. In fact, all captains are different. Perhaps the only essential characteristic for any captain is the one that cannot be taught or emulated: he must be himself.

Instead, pundits look for qualities they recognise in themselves and assume that's what makes a good leader. When I was appointed captain of Middlesex, a senior figure at the club asked me what "kind of captain" I was going to be, as though I had a list of adjectives up my sleeve. When I asked what he meant, he said, "You know, are you going to be a strong captain?" I replied that I'd have to be seriously stupid if I announced at the outset that I wanted to be a weak captain.

We have captaincy in the wrong box. We should not think of captaincy - or leadership in general - as a characteristic or even a quality. Instead, it is an effect. If the captain has a positive effect on the group then he is leading effectively. That doesn't sound like much. But it is, of course, mighty difficult.

Off-field stability, good management and strong relationships at the heart of the team are infinitely more important than moving silly mid-off half a yard to the left

Captains are always being judged, but most of the analysis focuses on largely irrelevant side issues. During the deciding Test against Australia at The Oval in 2009 - it turned out to be the very day that the Ashes turned in England's favour - I bumped into a former England player who has become a leading voice in the media. "What a stupid mistake of Strauss', not using the heavy roller!" he began. "Schoolboy error! You just can't make mistakes like that!" I was surprised at the vehemence of the reaction. Despite many years as an opening batsman, it was often unclear to me when to use the heavy roller, or indeed if the decision was worthy of much analysis or energy.

Many "talking points" about captaincy are complete red herrings. Should he have a third man? Why is gully standing so deep? These "controversies" are often just convenient distractions to fill the airwaves and newspaper columns. Yes, very occasionally an inspired field placing can strangle a batsman, or a shrewd bowling change can lead to a wicket. But much more often we read far too much into surface decision-making, and radically underestimate the underlying foundations that lead to success: off-field stability, good management and strong relationships at the heart of the team. They are infinitely more important than moving silly mid-off half a yard to the left.

Captaincy is both overrated and underrated. It is overrated because people expect too much of it in the short term. Very few losing teams can be galvanised by a single stirring team-talk. "Gee them up!" is the commonest (and stupidest) advice given to captains.

But captaincy is underestimated over the long term. Losing teams often think that they should change the captain every five minutes "until the right person emerges". Quite the opposite happens: the latest captain merely takes over an unsteady ship. In contrast, successful teams quickly forget their debt to their captain, imagining that they would be just as good - or better - if they axed him. When you're winning, it's easy to underestimate the culture that helped you to win.

When it comes to leadership, cricket teams should remember a line from Bob Dylan: "No matter what you think about, you just won't be able to do without it."

Former England, Kent and Middlesex batsman Ed Smith's new book, Luck - What It Means and Why It Matters, is published in March 2012. His Twitter feed is here

RSS Feeds: Ed Smith

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by StoneRose on (February 17, 2012, 17:09 GMT)

Very good article - at the heart of it (my take on it anyway) is that great leaders (this goes for adminstrators and selectors too) look to the medium and long-term rather than the short-term e.g. it's not the heavy roller that makes the difference over the course of a Test match, it's who plays best (or least-worst) over the course of 5 days. Similarly, don't drop a player who has been out of nick for a few innings if you think he will come good over the long-term. Alastair Cook being a pertinent example. I keep saying this but this is the reason why England have been successful recently (and maybe Pakistan) and Aus less so. It's also the reason why I hate the phrase "It's a crucial first half hour" from commentators at the start of seemingly every session!

Posted by vajira12 on (February 17, 2012, 3:07 GMT)

Brilliant analysis. The trust the players havewith the captain to make fair desiions is probably a key trait of succesful captains. If you are seen to be a unfair/ prejudiced that is the end.And for that to seal it takes time.

Posted by landl47 on (February 16, 2012, 22:36 GMT)

Interesting article. My memory stretches back to the late 1950s. In that time I have seen a handful of great captains, some good ones, a lot of ordinary ones and a few woeful ones. Among the greats, the stand-outs to me are Richie Benaud, Frank Worrell, Mike Brearley and Imran Khan. As a pure captain, Brearley was probably the best of the lot, although the other three were much better players. If I had to choose one captain for my all-time eleven of players I have seen, it would be Imran; he was not only a magnificent captain, but an extraordinary cricketer in every phase of the game. However, all four were wonderful inspirers of men and their records show that. In answer to Kathy (great to see a woman here) I'd put it the other way round. Every team that has had a great captain was a winning team. Not every game or every series, but in the long-term. A losing team might have a poor captain or an average one, maybe sometimes a good one, but not a great one.

Posted by Dannymania on (February 16, 2012, 20:29 GMT)

Stephen Flemming,Nasser Hussain..these two were the great captains that i've seen playing.They were both great at tactics.ONE big difference though,Stephen Flemming was the team's best player too.the team won whenever he performed.Misbah is somewhere below these two i guess.He is NOT a great tactition,he does TRY to perform to his best abilities though.Its a pitty that he is just not that talented to perform like an Inzi.And well,he does have a masters' degree in Business and administration,which makes him a good choice for a captain.Misbah does NOT have the captaining abilities like steve flemming or nasser hussain though,and those abilities,playing with the opponent's minds,is what i call the real captaincy.

Posted by Rajeshchakram on (February 16, 2012, 14:30 GMT)

Brilliantly written! One of the best I have seen about leadership in general and sports leadership in particular. While off-field stability, good management and strong relationships are certainly important,I would like to add strategic thinking to it as well. And tactical thinking are essential as well.The impact of this skill vary from one form of the game to other. For instance, missing out on moving a silly point to another position may not change the course of the match in Test match, In a odi/t20,it cud make or break a match! And as for Dhoni not being a good test captain is concerned, its simple. He is simply not interested in this form of the game and when ur not interested you cannot even be a player, forget about leading!

Posted by Arpra on (February 16, 2012, 12:01 GMT)

Ed. Lovely, lovely piece!!! "Professional sport is a macho culture that prefers to deal in physical realities rather than abstract concepts." Bang on!

A person watching the game from the outside is not really privy to the softer aspects like dressing room culture, 'effect' etc. So he goes ahead and analyses whatever he can see - the cover drive, the leg cutter, the runs scored... And comes up with conclusions which handle the surface and not the depth.

Am looking forward to your next article!

Posted by Nerk on (February 16, 2012, 11:33 GMT)

It would be foolish to say that tactics have little part to play in captaincy. Stephen Fleming was a great tactician, knew how to get the best out of his bowlers. But I would agree that leadership itself has a certain transcendental quality, and is difficult to pin down to certain words or concepts. Perhaps the best way to define a good captain is that persons ability to raise his own game, and also raise the game of those around them. Dhoni is one who I believe has done that, as has Strauss and Misbah. Clarke has started well, with a few hiccups, but hopefully he will learn to extract the very best out of his player. @Nutcutlet - I agree. Sir FW was a great leader of men. Anyone who captains the Windies to any sort of success must be! If only more men in Windies cricket were like him.

Posted by ToTellUTheTruth on (February 16, 2012, 3:31 GMT)

oh Ed!!! Love you...love you...love you for such a beautiful piece. Awesome writing.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2012, 2:45 GMT)

Only in a winning team can an under performing captain be viable. And even so that is not guaranteed. A team that is constantly losing even matches they were supposed to win cannot afford a player who is there just for captaincy sake. In modern cricket a captain must be able to perform admirably on the field because no matter his leadership, social, man management skills, @ the end of the day it is what happens on the cricket pitch in terms of action & results that matter. Someone should not have the captaincy of his test team when individuals are around who can do a better job as a member of the team. They belong with the support staff or 'cheer leaders' where their non cricketing skills can be of assistance to the team without blocking capable individuals from being among the 11 men on the field.

Posted by rienzied on (February 16, 2012, 1:58 GMT)

There is a huge difference between test, ODI and T20 captaincy. focusing on Test captaincy, you must have strategy and be willing to look at the big picture. Results are less instantaneous and a fair comparison of this would be playig chess and chequers! Looking at the quality of captains at the moment, I would put Clarke, Smith, Misbah and Mahela , at the highest level, with Taylor at the middle level. As for Dhoni he would be a very average captain and at the bottom of the pile would be Sammy, who not only doesnt deserve his place, has poor strategic ability. He is not bad in terms of getting the team to play for him, but he is extremely limited. Clarke is heading in the right direction and as for Smith , Misbah and Mahela, they are class acts. Dhoni should give it up and stick to the T20s and ODIs. I suggest Gambhir to take the test spot for India and to remove their current set of coaches

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 22:20 GMT)

What makes a Captain suddenly become ineffective? Ganguly for example. Ponting is another one. MS Dhoni when it comes to test matches on foreign soil.

Posted by Nutcutlet on (February 15, 2012, 21:04 GMT)

... It was the men on his side who had no social status whatever for whose interest and welfare he was always primarily concerned. They repaid him with fanatical devotion." Thus, the legendary CLR James on an equally great West Indian. It is worth going back half a century to inform the present. How Sir Frank would have grieved the actions and decisions of the small-minded men who seem to hold the power and the purse of WI & international cricket now. And 'captaincy character' or however you'd care to term it, Ed, well, FW indisputably had it, as no other ever has. I wonder if there are many suited men, who are the current custodians of our great game, have read about or heard of FW. I think that it is high time they became acquainted with his story and the values he held sacred. Should they deign do so, then they may do a somewhat better job than they do. Let not history be forgotten, or the great men & women who populate it. They have much to teach us still.

Posted by Nutcutlet on (February 15, 2012, 20:42 GMT)

Apologies for another post. IMO, the greatest Test captain of them all, bar none, was the late great Sir Frank Worrell. The captaincy of the WIndies has always been a unique challenge because of the tradtional and deep inter-island rivalry. For his obit. CLR James wrote:"W as captain entered a decadent Test cricket. Captains sought to ensure the avoidance of defeat... W made the tremendous decision to restore the spirit of the game he had learnt in Barbados... He was able to weld his West Indians from dispersed areas into a disciplined unit. Having rapidly created his instrument, W intiiated a regeneration. Benaud, Australian capt, met him halfway and the result was the most exciting Test series in living memory... Behind the singular grace & inherent dignity of manner, FW was a man of very strong character. His relations with WIBC earned him the title of a 'cricket Bolshevik'. He possessed an unbridled passion for social equality. [Continued...]

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 20:39 GMT)

An interesting article. But, logically, does that therefore mean that if a team are losing, they have a bad captain?

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 20:36 GMT)

Due to some members' defence of Ricky Ponting - some of the things Ed Smith says can be said differently and then perhaps you'll realise why Ricky Ponting was not such a good captain. First, it's easy to be a good captain if you have talented, assured and loyal team members, but if you rely on one or two star performers to the extent that their absence (such as the Ashes 2005 when McGrath got injured) or loss of form means the team loses, then you're not much of a captain. Second, a well-led team is a team that is greater than the sum of its constituent parts such as NZ under Jeremy Coney but unlike Australia 2010-11. Third, a good captain leaves a positive legacy meaning that the team is in better shape than when he inherited it. Ian Chappell, Lloyd, Border, Taylor, Strauss and Misbah (if Pakistan continue as positively) meet this criteria, Ponting does not as is proved by the shambles he left behind. Ponting is a great player but was a poor captain.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 20:02 GMT)

Very good piece. I like the way you described how people tend to underrate and overrate captains. I totally agree with your view that captaincy is an effect. Mahela serves as a great ongoing example. I can clearly see the effect he has on the SriLankan boys.

Posted by Nutcutlet on (February 15, 2012, 19:43 GMT)

@Angus Bell. Loved it! Many of us have been there in our time. You doubtless put your shoulder to the heavy roller too. Thank you for reminding us of the grass roots. Without them, what is our game? (PS My father regularly had to coerce a motley crew of expats into turning out in Lagos in the '50s &'60s. Yachtsmen were dragged from their sails; drunks from the bar; even Americans, once persuaded that it really was 'quite like baseball', turned out to make up the team. Then the matting would be unrolled, only to discover that it had been ravaged by termites!)

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 18:38 GMT)

Amen, Angus, although curiously I can easily imagine AB de Villiers doing any or all of those things - that man lives for cricket more than anyone I've ever seen at international level.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 14:56 GMT)

It's harder to captain a club team than an international one. Ponting and Strauss never had to drive 20 miles out of their way on the morning of a match to pick up the wicketkeeper, opening bowler, debutant, club kit, gas for the bbq, ice packs and teas. They never have to do the scoring, umpiring, grass cutting, set up, tidy up and hide 3 players with no shoulders, 2 with no knees, and 5 who can't catch in the field. It's not like Cook, Morgan, Trott, Bell and Prior all demand to bowl 6 overs each, in addition to the others in a Twenty20 - and still win the game - or have to set fields when every over contains a 2 long hops, 2 wides, and a full toss - sprayed either side of the wicket. How would Strauss cope if everyone refused to ''face the fast guy opening the bowling'' and demanded to bat at number 5 for 40 balls each? Has Punter ever had to empty the bin at the ground when everyone else has gone home, in a scene reminiscent of Lord of the Flies? I didn't think so.

Posted by Deuce03 on (February 15, 2012, 14:37 GMT)

@bigwonder: isn't that the point? Captains are all individuals, they all have their idiosyncratic style, and it doesn't matter if, for instance, Strauss and Ponting appear completely different so long as they get the job done. The comparison is particularly fatuous because nobody can agree how good a captain Ponting actually was. He had a good record, but inherited a very strong team, and was in charge during Australia's decline. If Clarke fulfils his early promise, Ponting might actually turn out to have been the worst full-time Australian captain since Kim Hughes.

Posted by Drew12 on (February 15, 2012, 14:23 GMT)

In reading this piece I cannot help but think of the fact that a captain is only as good as his team mates allow him to be. I'm sure that rings true for most but for some reason it has never resonated when Ponting is concerned. He captained toward the twilight years of many champion players, perhaps even prolonging their greatness by his deeds but this is never mentioned. The 2005 and 2009 ashes loses cannot be blamed on Pontin. They were, in different ways, the result the team not performing. Particularly in post 2006 Ponting did not have enough quality players in the team and that affected his own performance - the pressure of captaincy. That he could not handle his bowlers is a comment post-warne, post-Mcgill, post-Hogg, and the truth is the bowlers were not there. Only now has Australia rebuilt its pace attack and we have a spinner in Lyon who can be trusted. The truth is, captaincy is one thing, it is another to have a team the captain can rely on to deliver what s/he wants.

Posted by bigwonder on (February 15, 2012, 13:54 GMT)

Based on what author said in this article, how does it compare with Pointing? Nothing jives between Strauss and Pointing. This article is just a feel good for Strauss - badly needed when his over-rated test team got white-washed by PAK. Note to self, IPL or ODI is not the cause of exhaustion or teams being under-prepared for tests. Its just used as an excuse by some teams.

Posted by popcorn on (February 15, 2012, 13:43 GMT)

The ONLY definition of Leader I know, which is generic, and can be applied to all sports and corporate life is: A LEADER GETS OTHERS TO DO WILLINGLY WHAT HE THINKS SHOULD BE DONE. In soccer, hockey, rugby, the captain plays no role at all. It is the Coach or Manager who makes astute changes.

Posted by ansram on (February 15, 2012, 12:26 GMT)

Very cool one. Thanks. The role of the captaincy is both underrated and overrated. Under rated in the sense, that a good captain can often make up for one or two weak links in the team. A good captain knows how to exploit or cover up the weak links in the team. It is overrated in the sense that, unless the team itself has match winning players, a captain can only sit and watch. Calling for a captain's head after a loss or two, should be made, only after careful analysis of whether it was the captain who contributed to the loss. No captain, however good, can lead a mediocre team to a win over a superior rival team.

Posted by nastle on (February 15, 2012, 11:52 GMT)

Very good insightful article, thanks. This is the sort of stuff I come to cricinfo for.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 11:50 GMT)

Very good article indeed Mr Smith, as a former officer & teacher I'd say you've nailed it. I love your reply to the question about what kind of captain you would be, which reminds of one of the best replies given by Archie MacLaren at a dinner after Victor Trumper had run riot - "Gaps be dammned! Good God, I knew my man - Victor had half a dozen strokes for the same kind of ball. (Detailed description using sugar cubes to illustrate). I couldn't very well have had a man fielding in the bloody practice ground, now could I?"

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 11:41 GMT)

I always enjoy your articles.

Posted by smalishah84 on (February 15, 2012, 11:16 GMT)

Amazing article. Really captaincy is a very very under rated art of the game. A wonderfully fresh article

Posted by RandyOZ on (February 15, 2012, 10:57 GMT)

At what point do you drop a so-called good captain like strauss when they are not performing with the bat. Strauss wouldn't make the United 3rd XI's on his batting. England need to man up, give Cook the captaincy and axe Strauss. Him and Bell are two of the most embarrassing batsmen to watch against spin in world cricket history.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 10:22 GMT)

Ed Smith is truly the man.

Posted by andysarmy on (February 15, 2012, 10:15 GMT)

Great article. Can someone show it to Michael Vaughan? He is always saying 'I'd like England to be more aggressive here' but that was his particular style; captaincy - as Smith points out - is an individual business.

Posted by Sugath on (February 15, 2012, 9:31 GMT)

Leadership is not about who you are, but what you are. It got to be both on field and off the field. good leaders are revered by the flock. You need to see where your influence is and try to expand the sphere. Interpersonal skills and character ethic are must for good leaders. Mike Brealy was a great leader yet an ordinary batsman. He instilled confidence in the minds of players, could read them based on actions and guide them in the correct path

Posted by SouthPaw on (February 15, 2012, 9:29 GMT)

Very true. Especially considering that people like Gavaskar, Boycott and Shastri sit in the commentary box and pass judgements on aspects of the game that they have absolutely no idea about, about situations they had been in themselves and not done then what they are preaching now!

Posted by cricmatters on (February 15, 2012, 9:12 GMT)

Very good article. Unlike the performance of a batsman or bowler, a captain's performance can not be measured by runs or wickets. Dhoni once said that captain's role is to channel the pressure and pass it on to the individuals. Once you throw that ball to your strike bowler to bowl the last over in a tight match, you can do nothing as a captain if he suddenly starts bowling no balls and wides. Captaincy is more than tossing the coin or setting fields. For instance, good captains share the blame and don't hyperventilate when things start to go pear shaped. Good captains recognise the efforts of their team mates in public. Good captains think ahead and are proactive. Good captains are always aware of game situation. Good captains are humble in victory and don't put their opposition down in media. Good captains learn from their mistakes and think on their feet. Good captains set good examples by leading from the front. BE, DO and then TELL is the mantra for any good leadership.

Posted by Nutcutlet on (February 15, 2012, 8:11 GMT)

There is no matter in cricket so fascinating as captaincy. A gifted captain can turn an average side into a good one; a good one into a very good one (as Strauss has done with the current England test side, the UAE aberration not withstanding), and occasionally, a very good one into a great one (S Waugh). Of these, the first two (av. to good, & good to v good) are the most challenging. And as Ed surmises here, it is not a question of ticking boxes. It is a combination of sensitive management of the individuals within the side, so skills like communication on different levels & a readiness to empathise are as important as tactical nous and proactive strategy. He is frequently not an establishment figure, preferring to be his own man. Lord Hawke was a lousy captain, PGH Fender (a really subversive amateur!) was a great one, probably the best never to captain England. Brian Close led by fearless example, but the establishment couldn't stand (up to) him, so they kept him away. Gt article!

Posted by Balumekka on (February 15, 2012, 8:10 GMT)

Good article. however Ed has not properly addressed an important aspect of captaincy. Captaincy is not just setting fields and using bowlers appropriately. Sometimes captains lift the spirit of the team and revolutionize the thinking pattern of a team. The best example is Arjuna Ranatunga, who has a very ordinarily win record as a captain. However, he transformed the mind set of a cricket team who play for a reasonable fight to play everytime for a win. He inspired a bunch of youth to become professional cricketers and to go on and win a world cup in a unique style. He was able to convince players that they are nothing less than Aussies or Englishman. He defended his players at any cost, being aggressive at times and that saved the career of the greatest wicket taker ever. I've seen people compare stats of captains. I feel that stats are not just sensitive enough to describe these qualities of captains, although rarely seen in the field today.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 7:33 GMT)

Another fine piece though some of it goes without saying. What I would have liked to see is contextualizing cricket captaincy against captains of, say, a football or a rugby team. With my limited knowledge of football and rugby it seems to me cricket captains face greater scrutiny than a football captain. Whereas a rugby captain's role seems closer to that of the cricket captain. Like I said, I rarely follow football and rugby so I may come across as uninformed. Apologies if that is the case, but the point is I'd have liked to see that covered in the article.

As an aside, do basketball teams even have captains?

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 5:45 GMT)

Single-handedly, this was one of the best articles I've read on Cricinfo.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 5:40 GMT)

Such a brilliant analysis with anectodes coming in from multiple quarters...Ed Smith has got it spot on in reading the mind of the ubiquitous CAPTAIN and the merry go round associated with the appointment in many countries , thanks to all the arm chair critics and balding cricketers who think they have a handle on ANYTHING CRICKET !!!! Superb...lovbed readin it

Posted by casey200 on (February 15, 2012, 5:36 GMT)

another brilliant ed smith post, captaincy is a hard thing to measure but certainly an aura surrounding the likes of flemming, strauss and co secures them amongst the greats. often criticized, captains are still i feel underrated as exponents of great results. there should be more said about holding a teams nerve to victory rather than a great out-swinger or a blazing outswinger.

Posted by PrasadReddyy on (February 15, 2012, 5:32 GMT)

Excellent article !! I think you have simplified one of the most complex attribute of the game beautifully, Smith.

This is worth of getting into an MBA text book.

Posted by s3ns3 on (February 15, 2012, 4:33 GMT)


Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print

    No place like Arundel

When you spend your childhood in the shadow of a magnificent cricket ground, you tend to take it for granted. Revisiting helps put things in perspective

    Misbah's Pakistan or Imran's Pakistan?

Numbers Game: Pakistan have notched up some fine wins under Misbah's leadership, but they haven't been consistent outside the UAE

Bowler non grata

The Cricket Monthly: Chucking allegations turfed Ian Meckiff out in his prime. More than 50 years on, he still doesn't have a bad word to say about it
Download the app: for iPads | for Android tablets

'Brilliant at keeping the good balls away'

Modern Masters: Rahul Dravid and Sanjay Manjrekar discuss Steve Waugh's adaptability

Viva indoor cricket

Nicholas Hogg: It's one way to keep in touch with the game in the long, dark English winters

News | Features Last 7 days

Pakistan should not welcome Amir back

The serene team culture cultivated by Misbah and his men shouldn't be allowed to be disrupted by a player with a tainted past

Contrite Kohli, apoplectic Kohli, and a Dhoni impersonator

Plays of the day from the fifth ODI in Ranchi

'I don't blame Arjuna for my early retirement'

Former Sri Lanka batsman Asanka Gurusinha talks about playing and coaching in Australia, and tactics during the 1996 World Cup

Dhoni's absence a guide to India's future

He's past his use-by date as a Test captain and keeper. India now have a chance to test Kohli's leadership skills

'I'm a bit disappointed not to get that Test average up to 50'

Mahela Jayawardene reflects on his Test career, and the need to bridge the gap between international and club cricket in Sri Lanka

News | Features Last 7 days