Harsh Thakor
First Class Star
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Runs
- 3,520
- Post of the Week
- 2
Steve Waugh and Clive Lloyd are 2 of the most successful skippers ever in the history of test cricket.Waugh led Australia to win 41 out of 57 tests while Lloyd led West Indies to win 36 out of 74.Lloyd led West Indies to 2 world cup win as as well as Waugh.Lloyd led his side to 11 consecutive test wins while Waugh 16.Unlike Lloyd Waugh did not lead a side to win a series in India which Clive did twice.Lloyd also led West Indies to win their 1st ever Frank Worrell trophy in 1979-80 on Australian soil.Lloyd was responsible for knitting a bunch of gifted individual sinto a world champion team after 1976 while Waugh inherited a cricketing empire from Mark Taylor in 1999.Another feather in Lloyd's cap was his leading West Indies to win the supertests series in Australia in 1977-78 in Kerry Packer cricket.I feel Clive was the greater father figure.
Both rank amongst the best no 5 batsmen of all time.Waugh was more restrained or reserved ,Lloyd was more attacking and savage.For consistency Waugh was marginally ahead ,for domination Lloyd was superior.Lloyd was a better player of genuine pace or the short,bouncing ball while Waugh was the shrewder judge on a bad wicket.Lloyd could turn the course of a game in quicker time while Waugh was better to bat for your life.
Waugh had a considerably better record on the seaming English tracks.Lloyd had a better record facing brutal pace like in 1975-76 down under and on turning Indian tracks like in 1974-75 and in 1983-84.Clive averaged around 49 in Australia and around 80 in India.However Steve was outstanding in South Africa where Lloyd never toured and in Pakistan.Waugh also faced many more crisis situations than Lloyd and was marginally more effective when the chips were down,exhibiting grit more consistently.On a broken wicket Waugh was a better 'surgeon' able to adjust according to the conditions.Still although Waugh averaged 69 in games won which was 11 more than Clive,I preferred Lloyd as a match -winner with his greater audacity as a stroke player.Steve also was not at his best in 4th innings.
So what is my final choice?On fast wicket at Perth or Kingston possibly Lloyd but on seaming Leeds track or broken Trinidad wicket I would not hesitate to choose Steve.On a genuine track Steve would win my vote because of more consistency and ability to graft.Clive was the more inspiring leader and entertaining cricketer.Still Waugh had the better temperament .
Both rank amongst the best no 5 batsmen of all time.Waugh was more restrained or reserved ,Lloyd was more attacking and savage.For consistency Waugh was marginally ahead ,for domination Lloyd was superior.Lloyd was a better player of genuine pace or the short,bouncing ball while Waugh was the shrewder judge on a bad wicket.Lloyd could turn the course of a game in quicker time while Waugh was better to bat for your life.
Waugh had a considerably better record on the seaming English tracks.Lloyd had a better record facing brutal pace like in 1975-76 down under and on turning Indian tracks like in 1974-75 and in 1983-84.Clive averaged around 49 in Australia and around 80 in India.However Steve was outstanding in South Africa where Lloyd never toured and in Pakistan.Waugh also faced many more crisis situations than Lloyd and was marginally more effective when the chips were down,exhibiting grit more consistently.On a broken wicket Waugh was a better 'surgeon' able to adjust according to the conditions.Still although Waugh averaged 69 in games won which was 11 more than Clive,I preferred Lloyd as a match -winner with his greater audacity as a stroke player.Steve also was not at his best in 4th innings.
So what is my final choice?On fast wicket at Perth or Kingston possibly Lloyd but on seaming Leeds track or broken Trinidad wicket I would not hesitate to choose Steve.On a genuine track Steve would win my vote because of more consistency and ability to graft.Clive was the more inspiring leader and entertaining cricketer.Still Waugh had the better temperament .
