
|

'Ultimately the buck stops
with me, in the playing sense, and you have to see if your captaincy is
hindering or helping your game'
© Getty Images
|
|
One hundred and ninety four is the highest score in a one-day
international. Come tomorrow and it will also be the number of one-day
games in which Stephen Fleming has led New Zealand, beating Arjuna
Ranatunga's record. In an age when captains are swapped on a seasonal
basis - in some countries even on a daily basis - he's stayed pilot for
close to a decade. It's been a journey that's seen someone who "didn't
know what was happening" turn into one of the shrewdest minds in the
business. Better still, the end isn't anywhere in sight.
"I didn't know what I was doing in my first game," he reminisced when
asked of the
March day in
1997 when he led New Zealand for the first time in an ODI. "My style
of captaincy has gone 360 [degrees] and more; I've used different styles
and developed different ways. Probably now, with the advantage of
hindsight I'm at a point where I'm discovering just how important
leadership can be. And that comes down to being in the job for so long.
I'm thankful for being given such a long run."
Captaining New Zealand couldn't have been easy. Out of the 25 men who've
led, seven didn't manage more than five Tests. Only 12 captained a
winning team and just two others - Geoff Howarth and Jeremy Coney - have
won more Tests than they have lost. To present-day audiences Coney might
appear to be a stand-up comic providing a lot of mirth but his
hard-as-nails approach catapulted New Zealand to one of the leading sides
in the '80s. His assessment of Fleming is worth noting: "He has a
mariner's gaze," he told Cricinfo. "There's a calmness," says Coney about
Fleming's on-field countanance, "he has a word here and there, puts in a
lot of introspection and thought. At times it would have been very
frustrating - with the team playing inconsistently. But he's got through
it all very impressively."
Fleming spoke of the hard times, moments when he thought of throwing in
the towel. "Giving up the captaincy for the betterment of the side is
something I've grappled with," he continued. "Ultimately the buck stops
with me, in the playing sense, and you have to see if your captaincy is
hindering or helping your game. Yes, I have thought of giving it up."
In his first 15 innings as captain, Fleming managed just two fifties. In
fact, throughout his career he's endured phases of low scores (once in
1998-99 he strung together 23, 21, 23, 5, 16, 9 and 0). "It comes down to
how you play as a batter," he reflected when asked about captaincy
pressures. "I'm certainly not as good a captain when I'm under
pressure batting wise. The decision making is not confident as it should
be when you're under pressure with your batting. I think I've been in the
game long enough to know that I can set that aside and concentrate on my
captaincy even if my batting is not going well. The hardest time is when
you're under pressure with both. The bottom-line is that I didn't want to
give up when the times were bad, I didn't want to give the opportunity
up."
Fleming's longevity doesn't confirm to Steve Waugh's assertion about
captains having shelf-lives. So what's the secret? Where does he summon
the energy and inventiveness to lead day after day? "I'm still getting
massive satisfaction from leading," he responded, "and that's an important
thing to acknowledge. Even after ten years, there's a drive and desire to
get better as a captain. It's as intense as it's always been from day one.
I understand the shelf-life talk but I've tried to be innovative and
encourage leadership. There's still a lot to achieve - winning this
[tournament], winning the World Cup, encouraging people like Vettori,
Oram, Bond and the Marshalls to develop their leadership along with me.
They're the next group of leaders that this team has."
He completely agreed with the notion that established captains often
receive more credit than they deserve. He's also quick to point out the
flipside. "You're only as good as your team's performance," he asserted
when asked if captaincy is over over-estimated. "You must remember the
flipside as well - when you captain and your team loses, there are
subtleties that you miss, something that don't work out. But if you're in
the game for that kind of recognition, you're there for the wrong reasons.
Team success is what counts. There have been great sides with average
captains. And there have been very good captains who haven't had too much
success."
So what advice would the Stephen Fleming of today offer to the Stephen Fleming
who walked out to toss in his first game? Is leadership a natural
attribute or does one learn on the job? "You learn most of it," he said
introspectively. "If you're observant and if you have the man-mangement
skills in order then half of it sorted out. Then there's the tactical
side, then development side. If you walk around thinking you're a leader,
you're a long way from it."
In India and talking about captaincy, there was no way Fleming could avoid the inevitable query - the captaincy credentials of Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly. At this stage, Fleming felt, it wouldn't be appropriate to compare them. "Captaining India is probably the toughest job around, considering the pressure from fans and number of people who follow cricket," said Fleming.
"Both have contrasting styles and both are very strong personalities.
Sourav had quite an emotional streak but Rahul seems more calculated and
more measured. Now they're examples of different styles and can also
complement where their teams are.
"Teams develop naturally depending on styles," he continued. "I don't
think you should compare. You need to respect what Sourav did - he brought
a lot of spark and passion to the side. In a way he was a little
different, because there was always a passive approach from India. But
Sourav was very confrontational. Rahul is quite measured. It will
be interesting to see over time how they measure up."
Siddhartha Vaidyanathan is staff writer of Cricinfo