There are captains and there are players, just like there are leaders and there are followers. However,  what makes a captain special is his ability to forge a bunch of disparate players into a committed unit and work towards a common goal.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

Of course, the ultimate objective in any World Cup is to become champions. But the path to that goal is often littered with plot, sub-plots, minor skirmishes, needle contests, bitter rivalry, run-ins and innumerable ponderables stretching from weather and pitch conditions, to injuries, to off- days, tantrums, poor decisions, etc, etc. And each of these has to be tackled successfully for a team to rise to the top.

The manner in which captains deal with these issues makes for fascinating study. Their character and personality are revealed by their approach to each crisis. And the World Cup is about the only stage in the cricket world where a range of distinct characters and personalities could be gauged by their reaction to crisis. Sure, there is a World Cup event for the Twenty20 format too. But, there it is a study of captains’ demeanour only when their bowlers face the onslaught.

The 50 overs World Cup format is different. The best of the world’s captains congregate with their teams to one part of the world once in four years to showcase their ability to withstand intense scrutiny under crisis.

And it is their response at various times that sets them apart.

Here, it must be pointed out that in modern cricket, it is not the captain’s duty to work on the long-term development of the team. He has a short-term specific objective to achieve and it is his duty to ensure that the objective is met. The process of team development over a period of time or series, is the responsibility of the selectors, coach and, of course, the national board. The board has a big picture and its choice of selectors, coach and captain is to further that strategy. Of course, its short-term goal would be in winning certain series or tournaments and it is here that its choice of personnel and skipper would be vital.

Occasionally, a team is so strong and dominant that a captain has a very limited role in its success. Former West Indies opener Gordon Greenidge, for instance, refused to give Clive Lloyd any credit for forging one of cricket’s most awesome teams ever. He claimed that the West Indies of the 1980s was so formidable in batting, bowling and fielding that even a donkey could have led it to victory.

On the other hand, Mike Brearley, one of the most analytical captains in the history of the game, claimed that the West Indies lost the 1983 World Cup final to India only because skipper Clive Lloyd wanted to make it his swansong. Brearley claimed that although Lloyd suffered from a groin muscle injury and was in no condition to bat up the order, he chose to go in at No 4 as his team was chasing a small target and he was eager to go out with a bang. He had Desmond Haynes as a runner but his restrictive moments induced the other batting great, Viv Richards, to try and force play. But that proved counter productive as he got out. Lloyd himself played a poor stroke as he could not stretch and drive. Once these two big players were dismissed, the rest of the batting succumbed to pressure.

This clearly shows that the same individual, Lloyd, is seen in contrasting light in different situations by two top international players. Thus, what could be seen as an inspiring move on one day, may be looked upon as a catastrophic blunder in another situation on another day.

More recently, England skipper Andrew Strauss was seen as a real hero after he led his team to an outstanding Ashes win in Australia. But, the same Strauss seemed jaded, formulaic and uninspiring as he failed to arrest a spectacular Irish assault on his bowlers at the World Cup league match in Bangalore. The unheralded Ireland team not only caused the biggest upset of the World Cup, but in the process made light of England’s mammoth target of 328.

Strauss’s field placements, bowling changes, motivation of players and key tactical decisions (including playing a half-fit Stuart Broad for a less than a do-or-die match) were all questioned. Just the other day, when he became only the third English captain to win the Ashes in both Australian and English soil, he was lauded for these very qualities!

Another skipper who has been alternately derided and praised is Ricky Ponting. He has already led Australia to two World Cup triumphs, in 2003 and 2007. But every time his team loses — and it’s becoming habitual of late — there are calls for his sacking. Ian Chappell, for one, believes that his captaincy is actually “hurting the Australian team”.

It is views like these, right or wrong, that make cricket such a special game. Analysts, spectators, media, officials, everybody scrutinise and debate every move of the captain only in cricket. For it is only in this game that the captain has to evolve from team man, try to hone his own skill in batting, bowling or wicketkeeping, become a mentor, motivator, commander, an instant innovative tactician and a foot soldier to boot!

Captains who do all these things successfully and often, find a place in the sun. But they are all too few. Which is why when a chosen one like a Mahendra Singh Dhoni comes about every now and then, there are reasons aplenty to rejoice.

—Vedam Jaishankar is a Bangalore-based cricket writer. He has covered five World Cups and authored Rahul Dravid — A Biography