Test Cricket is a game in which the captain is the strategist.
In football a coach like Jose Mourinho or Pep Guardiola can design a team's strategy and micromanage it, but in cricket the captain has 2 hour sessions in the field in which he can lock down or throw away the match by his decisions.
A good Test skipper does not need to be highly educated but he needs a certain level of intelligence combined with an ability to exercise critical thinking.
This does not mean that to be a good captain a player needs a high IQ or a university education. But it means that he needs:
1. A certain level of intelligence to be able to weigh up his options.
2. A certain level of education to have the capacity to critically evaluate the information before him.
3. A certain knowledge of the history of cricket to understand the probability of, say, scoring 300 to win in 90 overs on Day 5, or the risk of losing control by declaring too early or too late.
4. A certain level of enterprise and willingness to take mild risks.
5. A personality that inspires others to be led by him.
I was no fan of Misbah-ul-Haq because by personality he was too cautious and conservative for me. For me he excelled at the first two factors (intelligence and critical thinking), was weaker on the history of the game (he never really understood alien conditions and over-bowled Yasir Shah to negative fields) but above all he eschewed all risks and played dour, safety-first cricket. In spite of having an admirable personality!
Michael Clarke had all of the first four factors. He wasn't educated but he was smart and he knew how to think, and his declarations were usually superbly timed. He was also a surprisingly keen student of cricket history. Unfortunately his problem was his personality: his team-mates often disliked him.
Steve Smith was in many ways the opposite. He was a magnificently intense batsman who practiced with manic zeal, but he was barely educated at all and he disliked reading. It meant that he was profoundly ignorant of cricket history and could always be relied upon to declare a session later than he should have. His team-mates liked his gentle nature but never viewed him as a leader.
Sarfraz Ahmed is starting to worry me. He was the only viable candidate for the captaincy after Misbah retired 18 months ago because he was the only genuinely Test-class player. Azhar Ali was the next closest, but he was already at an age at which his peers like Alastair Cook were retiring due to old age.
Sarfraz has tended to captain more like Windsor Davies' Sergeant-Major in "It Ain't Half Hot, Mum" than like a leader. He fails to control his passions, berates people who are sloppy or slack and generally shows little sign of intelligent thought on the field. He has a degree in electrical engineering, yet he shows little sign of creative thought.
And then came yesterday's woeful declaration. His team is 1-0 behind in a 3 Test series, and he is at the crease himself on a slow, grassless wicket on which only 1 wicket has fallen all day. A pitch offering nothing to spin or pace.
Australia batted all day to save a Test there last month, with a club-level batting line-up.
And yet Sarfraz Ahmed declares with just 418 runs on the board on a dead pitch? Ninety minutes into a session in which he is at the crease, batting on a manifestly easy track.
He obviously fantasised about taking 2 or 3 quick wickets before the close, as if his bowlers were better than the opposition's. Trent Boult took no wickets with 2 new balls, but his boys would do better!
And so now if New Zealand can bat for 2 days they can compile a score of around 600 by lunch on Day 5 and ensure that only 1 team can win the match.
It doesn't matter if they do collapse tomorrow. The damage is done - the captain of Pakistan is exposed before the whole cricket world as a man whose strategies are unsound.
Why would a deeply conservative man with a relatively high intellect make such an appalling decision?
The answer, unfortunately, seems clear.
Desperation.
He knew that the wicket held no dangers to the batsmen and that his most likely route to victory was patience - keeping New Zealand in the field until after lunch on Day 3.
But he couldn't help himself - he gambled everything on a few quick wickets before the end of Day 2.
And now New Zealand can set the tone of the match. If they bat patiently, they can ensure that they take a lead and that it is Pakistan which bats late on Day 5, not themselves.
In football a coach like Jose Mourinho or Pep Guardiola can design a team's strategy and micromanage it, but in cricket the captain has 2 hour sessions in the field in which he can lock down or throw away the match by his decisions.
A good Test skipper does not need to be highly educated but he needs a certain level of intelligence combined with an ability to exercise critical thinking.
This does not mean that to be a good captain a player needs a high IQ or a university education. But it means that he needs:
1. A certain level of intelligence to be able to weigh up his options.
2. A certain level of education to have the capacity to critically evaluate the information before him.
3. A certain knowledge of the history of cricket to understand the probability of, say, scoring 300 to win in 90 overs on Day 5, or the risk of losing control by declaring too early or too late.
4. A certain level of enterprise and willingness to take mild risks.
5. A personality that inspires others to be led by him.
I was no fan of Misbah-ul-Haq because by personality he was too cautious and conservative for me. For me he excelled at the first two factors (intelligence and critical thinking), was weaker on the history of the game (he never really understood alien conditions and over-bowled Yasir Shah to negative fields) but above all he eschewed all risks and played dour, safety-first cricket. In spite of having an admirable personality!
Michael Clarke had all of the first four factors. He wasn't educated but he was smart and he knew how to think, and his declarations were usually superbly timed. He was also a surprisingly keen student of cricket history. Unfortunately his problem was his personality: his team-mates often disliked him.
Steve Smith was in many ways the opposite. He was a magnificently intense batsman who practiced with manic zeal, but he was barely educated at all and he disliked reading. It meant that he was profoundly ignorant of cricket history and could always be relied upon to declare a session later than he should have. His team-mates liked his gentle nature but never viewed him as a leader.
Sarfraz Ahmed is starting to worry me. He was the only viable candidate for the captaincy after Misbah retired 18 months ago because he was the only genuinely Test-class player. Azhar Ali was the next closest, but he was already at an age at which his peers like Alastair Cook were retiring due to old age.
Sarfraz has tended to captain more like Windsor Davies' Sergeant-Major in "It Ain't Half Hot, Mum" than like a leader. He fails to control his passions, berates people who are sloppy or slack and generally shows little sign of intelligent thought on the field. He has a degree in electrical engineering, yet he shows little sign of creative thought.
And then came yesterday's woeful declaration. His team is 1-0 behind in a 3 Test series, and he is at the crease himself on a slow, grassless wicket on which only 1 wicket has fallen all day. A pitch offering nothing to spin or pace.
Australia batted all day to save a Test there last month, with a club-level batting line-up.
And yet Sarfraz Ahmed declares with just 418 runs on the board on a dead pitch? Ninety minutes into a session in which he is at the crease, batting on a manifestly easy track.
He obviously fantasised about taking 2 or 3 quick wickets before the close, as if his bowlers were better than the opposition's. Trent Boult took no wickets with 2 new balls, but his boys would do better!
And so now if New Zealand can bat for 2 days they can compile a score of around 600 by lunch on Day 5 and ensure that only 1 team can win the match.
It doesn't matter if they do collapse tomorrow. The damage is done - the captain of Pakistan is exposed before the whole cricket world as a man whose strategies are unsound.
Why would a deeply conservative man with a relatively high intellect make such an appalling decision?
The answer, unfortunately, seems clear.
Desperation.
He knew that the wicket held no dangers to the batsmen and that his most likely route to victory was patience - keeping New Zealand in the field until after lunch on Day 3.
But he couldn't help himself - he gambled everything on a few quick wickets before the end of Day 2.
And now New Zealand can set the tone of the match. If they bat patiently, they can ensure that they take a lead and that it is Pakistan which bats late on Day 5, not themselves.
Last edited:
