The issue of captaincy has been under renewed scrutiny in recent days after Sky TV in the UK used a rain delay to host a debate between Nasser Hussain, Michael Atherton and Shane Warne about the qualities required.
I am a psychiatrist by profession, and I thought it might be timely to consider how different personalities lead teams differently.
Pakistan finds itself at a delicate crossroads now with the captaincy. Azhar Ali is only 7 Tests into the captaincy, but he was elevated to it at an age where almost all his contemporaries - Alastair Cook, AB De Villiers and others - had long since retired, and at a time at which his own performances had entered a steep decline, especially away from the comfort of home pitches.
It's an awkward and sad situation. Misbah gambled upon elevating to the captaincy a man who is mature, sensible, decent, honest and admirable. But he failed to see that his own admiration for Azhar had blinded him to his permanent loss of batting ability. And what should have been the proudest event in Azhar's life has become difficult, embarrassing and almost humiliating.
So what makes a good captain? And how can you distinguish between different types of captain.
Type 1 - The Smart, Diplomatic Thinker
This is the role that Misbah filled and that Shan Masood could do. Overseas think of Andrew Strauss and how England tried to clone Strauss with Alastair Cook, only to find that he didn't have Strauss' leadership skills.
The guy needs to be smart, educated and fluent in English. Training hard helps, especially if like Misbah and Shan he isn't a particularly talented cricketer.
You won't get any scandals, and the sort of racist disgrace that Sarfraz Ahmed created in South Africa won't happen. But you will lose a lot of games too, because these guys are fairly defensive safety-first captains who tend to travel badly.
For this to work the captain needs to have some steel inside the velvet glove. Misbah and Strauss were utterly ruthless - think of the way that Strauss discarded Kevin Pietersen when he became England team supremo. And Cook just didn't have that ruthless streak.
Type 2 - The Aggressive, Positive Leader
This is a completely different type of captain - it's a leader.
The player is proactive and positive, and usually has no fear.
Successful examples include Shane Warne and Brendan McCullum. Unsuccessful ones include Ken Rutherford and Mike Gatting, who got sacked 16 months after winning an away Ashes series and 6 months after reaching a World Cup Final.
The lack of fear and relative lack of education means that these guys don't kowtow to tradition and seniority. If they see a dead weight in the team - underperforming senior players for example - they simply discard them.
Warne's aggression found its expression in positive tactics on the field, as did Michael Clarke's. In contrast Graeme Smith was a stodgy, almost negative captain but was an alpha male who led the team in an aggressive way, chin jutting out, leading by example each time Mitchell Johnson broke his hand.
McCullum could be a powerful captain because in Mike Hesson he had a weak, passive coach who let him run the team. But this only works if the captain is given power and authority and is allowed to discard the failing seniors.
The obvious Pakistani here is Shadab Khan. We have seen 18 months of the senior players briefing the media against him because they know that with him in power there would be no place for Azhar, Shafiq, Hafeez or Shoaib.
In the First Innings of the First Test in England in 2020, it was Shadab who took control as the innings was capsizing, and it was extraordinary that he was the senior partner in the partnership with Shan Masood. The guy with leadership skills led the guy who is the born diplomat.
Type 3 - The Weak, Passive Captain
All too often it is this type of captain who appeals either to the cricket board, the chairman of selectors or the Head Coach.
A weak captain allows the coach to occupy and expanded role, almost like in football. The role of Head Coach in cricket is relatively new - Imran Khan and Ian Chappell used to have total authority in the absence of a coach at all, and were supported by a manager whose role was to book tickets, net sessions etc.
Darren Lehmann loved having Steve Smith as skipper, because Smith isn't very smart and wanted to be left to be completely absorbed in his own batting. This left a leadership vacuum which Lehmann was delighted to fill.
I would argue that this is why Misbah nominated Azhar Ali to be his captain. Azhar is not a weak man but he is a gentleman with a timid and gentle personality, who had spent years under the leadership of Misbah as his captain. Azhar knew that he was on borrowed time as a player and was fortunate to ascend to the captaincy under Misbah when it was clear that under Inzamam and Arthur he had already played his last Test in South Africa. He owed Misbah patronage and so Misbah by appointing Azhar was - like Lehmann with Smith - able to exert a far greater degree of control over matches than a cricket coach normally could.
But weak, passive captains usually fail. They struggle to be respected for anything other than seniority, and they tend to lack the imagination and personality to take control on the field.
And, above all, the opposition might like such an opposing captain, but they tend not to respect him, and that lack of respect makes them target the captain.
Type 4 - The Loose Cannon
And then there are men who are appointed because they are dominant characters but who lack the brains or the personality or the attention span to lead a team.
Think of Kevin Pietersen issuing his ultimatum for the Coach to be sacked. Think of Andrew Flintoff and Ian Botham, two superb players whose casual attitudes to training meant that they could never be a respected captain.
Don't say it too loud, but think also of how under Viv Richards the West Indies suddenly stopped reaching World Cup Finals. Think of Diego Maradona's spell as Argentina's coach (which is more analogous to cricket captaincy than his time as captain).
And think of the young Javed Miandad in 1981-82, when he had alienated all his senior players until they mutinied against him.
The problem with appointing a loose cannon is that he tends to leave the team in turmoil. Relationships are fractured, key players are embittered and the team tends to underperform.
I am a psychiatrist by profession, and I thought it might be timely to consider how different personalities lead teams differently.
Pakistan finds itself at a delicate crossroads now with the captaincy. Azhar Ali is only 7 Tests into the captaincy, but he was elevated to it at an age where almost all his contemporaries - Alastair Cook, AB De Villiers and others - had long since retired, and at a time at which his own performances had entered a steep decline, especially away from the comfort of home pitches.
It's an awkward and sad situation. Misbah gambled upon elevating to the captaincy a man who is mature, sensible, decent, honest and admirable. But he failed to see that his own admiration for Azhar had blinded him to his permanent loss of batting ability. And what should have been the proudest event in Azhar's life has become difficult, embarrassing and almost humiliating.
So what makes a good captain? And how can you distinguish between different types of captain.
Type 1 - The Smart, Diplomatic Thinker
This is the role that Misbah filled and that Shan Masood could do. Overseas think of Andrew Strauss and how England tried to clone Strauss with Alastair Cook, only to find that he didn't have Strauss' leadership skills.
The guy needs to be smart, educated and fluent in English. Training hard helps, especially if like Misbah and Shan he isn't a particularly talented cricketer.
You won't get any scandals, and the sort of racist disgrace that Sarfraz Ahmed created in South Africa won't happen. But you will lose a lot of games too, because these guys are fairly defensive safety-first captains who tend to travel badly.
For this to work the captain needs to have some steel inside the velvet glove. Misbah and Strauss were utterly ruthless - think of the way that Strauss discarded Kevin Pietersen when he became England team supremo. And Cook just didn't have that ruthless streak.
Type 2 - The Aggressive, Positive Leader
This is a completely different type of captain - it's a leader.
The player is proactive and positive, and usually has no fear.
Successful examples include Shane Warne and Brendan McCullum. Unsuccessful ones include Ken Rutherford and Mike Gatting, who got sacked 16 months after winning an away Ashes series and 6 months after reaching a World Cup Final.
The lack of fear and relative lack of education means that these guys don't kowtow to tradition and seniority. If they see a dead weight in the team - underperforming senior players for example - they simply discard them.
Warne's aggression found its expression in positive tactics on the field, as did Michael Clarke's. In contrast Graeme Smith was a stodgy, almost negative captain but was an alpha male who led the team in an aggressive way, chin jutting out, leading by example each time Mitchell Johnson broke his hand.
McCullum could be a powerful captain because in Mike Hesson he had a weak, passive coach who let him run the team. But this only works if the captain is given power and authority and is allowed to discard the failing seniors.
The obvious Pakistani here is Shadab Khan. We have seen 18 months of the senior players briefing the media against him because they know that with him in power there would be no place for Azhar, Shafiq, Hafeez or Shoaib.
In the First Innings of the First Test in England in 2020, it was Shadab who took control as the innings was capsizing, and it was extraordinary that he was the senior partner in the partnership with Shan Masood. The guy with leadership skills led the guy who is the born diplomat.
Type 3 - The Weak, Passive Captain
All too often it is this type of captain who appeals either to the cricket board, the chairman of selectors or the Head Coach.
A weak captain allows the coach to occupy and expanded role, almost like in football. The role of Head Coach in cricket is relatively new - Imran Khan and Ian Chappell used to have total authority in the absence of a coach at all, and were supported by a manager whose role was to book tickets, net sessions etc.
Darren Lehmann loved having Steve Smith as skipper, because Smith isn't very smart and wanted to be left to be completely absorbed in his own batting. This left a leadership vacuum which Lehmann was delighted to fill.
I would argue that this is why Misbah nominated Azhar Ali to be his captain. Azhar is not a weak man but he is a gentleman with a timid and gentle personality, who had spent years under the leadership of Misbah as his captain. Azhar knew that he was on borrowed time as a player and was fortunate to ascend to the captaincy under Misbah when it was clear that under Inzamam and Arthur he had already played his last Test in South Africa. He owed Misbah patronage and so Misbah by appointing Azhar was - like Lehmann with Smith - able to exert a far greater degree of control over matches than a cricket coach normally could.
But weak, passive captains usually fail. They struggle to be respected for anything other than seniority, and they tend to lack the imagination and personality to take control on the field.
And, above all, the opposition might like such an opposing captain, but they tend not to respect him, and that lack of respect makes them target the captain.
Type 4 - The Loose Cannon
And then there are men who are appointed because they are dominant characters but who lack the brains or the personality or the attention span to lead a team.
Think of Kevin Pietersen issuing his ultimatum for the Coach to be sacked. Think of Andrew Flintoff and Ian Botham, two superb players whose casual attitudes to training meant that they could never be a respected captain.
Don't say it too loud, but think also of how under Viv Richards the West Indies suddenly stopped reaching World Cup Finals. Think of Diego Maradona's spell as Argentina's coach (which is more analogous to cricket captaincy than his time as captain).
And think of the young Javed Miandad in 1981-82, when he had alienated all his senior players until they mutinied against him.
The problem with appointing a loose cannon is that he tends to leave the team in turmoil. Relationships are fractured, key players are embittered and the team tends to underperform.
Last edited:
