ER Dexter: Only winning will turn Stewart into great leader (13 May 1998)

13 May 1998

Only winning will turn Stewart into great leader

By Ted Dexter

ALEC STEWART has joined the long list of England captains to take the reins of a losing side. The last to take over in more positive circumstances was Keith Fletcher from Mike Brearley - and he lasted but a single tour to India and Sri Lanka. In between we have had Botham, Willis, Gower, Gatting, Gooch and Atherton.

These facts serve to remind us that in the history of Test cricket there is no recorded instance of great leadership without consistently winning. So it is a question of which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Get the right man and the results will come, or get the results to suddenly reveal the man.

In Mike Atherton's case, neither the chicken nor the egg ever seemed entirely healthy. The occasional victories tended to come as a surprise, like the ailing patient who has a few sprightly days of remission before slumping back again. The doctor hopes to take some of the credit without ever quite convincing the relatives.

So what can Alec Stewart bring to the party which was missing before, other than a clean white shirt and impeccable use of his razor every morning? He commands respect as a fearless attacking batsman against the fastest bowlers and a straightforward manner in dealing with the media. However, his track record to date of captaincy at Test and lower levels is anything but inspiring.

So much expectation has been attached to this appointment that I really wonder whether any single individual can possibly measure up. Lord MacLaurin recently set out a job description in great detail and compared the qualities needed to those of leadership in industry. It all seemed quite logical and seductive at first sight but he, of all people, should know that no two businesses are ever alike. And I have learnt over the years to distrust the views of successful men in one field who give advice in another.

In business, if directors sack the chief executive there are dozens of possible candidates to replace him. The new man comes in with the power to make sweeping changes. This is a far cry from what faces any new England cricket captain, who is chosen from a short list of barely half a dozen.

The first problem is that he is a part-timer. Most of his day-to-day activity in the home season involves the slog from county ground to county ground. If, like Stewart, he is just a county team member, then there are frequent periods of powerlessness and virtual anonymity.

Suddenly, there is the rush to attend Test selection meetings, where he is faced with senior former players with convictions of their own. When he turns up 36 hours before the start of a home Test match, he may well be faced with a young shaver (or non-shaver) he has never seen play before.

The only time when he can make his presence felt is on tour, when he enjoys a stronger say in selection and gets a better chance to find out what makes the other players tick. But if he is not winning, the publicity glare on him is more acute. In the West Indies there was a gradual erosion of the famous Atherton resolve to soldier on through thick and thin.

Atherton's frailties as a captain on the field were revealed early in his four years at the helm. I always thought him excellent otherwise. Forgetting the dirt-in-the-pocket incident at Lord's in 1994, there was a telling moment at the start of the second day of that first Test match, with South Africa 244 for six and the match evenly poised.

I expected keenly aggressive tactics, but England soon went defensive and the bowlers seemed to share their captain's negative attitude. England lost by 356 runs.

So I was not entirely surprised when the same mistake was made in the first of the Tests in Trinidad. The West Indies were about 150 for five, needing 280 to win on a turning pitch. Phil Tufnell, who had performed brilliantly to beat Australia at the Oval, was the man to wrap it up. They only had to remove Carl Hooper.

Within 15 minutes I was going apoplectic at the sight of England's left-arm spinner continuing to bowl a negative line outside the leg stump, with Hooper able to settle in for a long stay. Once again, the crucial moment of the match had not been recognised, let alone grasped.

There was little to choose between some of the other candidates, Hussain, Ramprakash and Adam Hollioake. From their public comments, they seem to have the same unimaginative views. Nick Knight, according to rumour, was the choice of Lord MacLaurin.

The best thing about the Stewart selection is that the needs of his side have persuaded him to keep wicket and bat down the order, hopefully at No 6. Then we can afford the fifth bowler (all as proposed in this column last summer). More than that he just needs the luck to have his best players fit at the crucial moments and the nous to recognise those moments when they come along.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)