Name some dud Captains of modern times?

An argument could be made that even if Brearley literally couldn't hold a bat, his captaincy was still worth two players to England, and those two players were Ian Botham (who was fairly ordinary under most other captains he played under, and especially woeful under Botham) and His Geoffreyship, who just plain wouldn't turn up for anybody else.

Brearley had three significant redeeming features which made up for his woeful test batting.

1. He could out think the opposition in the days before Sony Vaio's and video clips influenced field placings and attack modes.
2. He succeeded in getting the best out of his bowlers (both Botham and Willis have endorsed this fact) by subtly pitting one against the other, kidology and cajolery.
3. He commanded (without demanding) respect from his team and the opposition.

Was a decent first slipper too.

Merlin wrote:Brearley had three significant redeeming features which made up for his woeful test batting.

1. He could out think the opposition in the days before Sony Vaio's and video clips influenced field placings and attack modes.
2. He succeeded in getting the best out of his bowlers (both Botham and Willis have endorsed this fact) by subtly pitting one against the other, kidology and cajolery.
3. He commanded (without demanding) respect from his team and the opposition.

Was a decent first slipper too.

I have seen him on many older interviews. A very impressive speaker/ communicator/judge of cricket.

Para Batsman wrote:

Merlin wrote:Brearley had three significant redeeming features which made up for his woeful test batting.

1. He could out think the opposition in the days before Sony Vaio's and video clips influenced field placings and attack modes.
2. He succeeded in getting the best out of his bowlers (both Botham and Willis have endorsed this fact) by subtly pitting one against the other, kidology and cajolery.
3. He commanded (without demanding) respect from his team and the opposition.

Was a decent first slipper too.

I have seen him on many older interviews. A very impressive speaker/ communicator/judge of cricket.

I don't think there has been a better captain since.

Basil wrote:

Para Batsman wrote:

Merlin wrote:Brearley had three significant redeeming features which made up for his woeful test batting.

1. He could out think the opposition in the days before Sony Vaio's and video clips influenced field placings and attack modes.
2. He succeeded in getting the best out of his bowlers (both Botham and Willis have endorsed this fact) by subtly pitting one against the other, kidology and cajolery.
3. He commanded (without demanding) respect from his team and the opposition.

Was a decent first slipper too.

I have seen him on many older interviews. A very impressive speaker/ communicator/judge of cricket.

I don't think there has been a better captain since.

Word and Amen.

Would Brearley be rated so highly as a Captain if he was a better player ? ...or if he had a better team?

embee wrote:Would Brearley be rated so highly as a Captain if he was a better player ? ...or if he had a better team?

Better team?

Gooch?
Boycott?
Gower?
Botham?
Willis?

.

An excellent point, h

embee wrote:Would Brearley be rated so highly as a Captain if he was a better player ? ...or if he had a better team?

Better player would certainly have helped.

Better team?
I'm not so sure he really had a "better" team (disrupted and deflated before his appointment as captain)...
but he did mould them into believing they were better.
What Brearley did have though was the strike force of Willis (at his prime) and Botham (out to prove a point) who
between them took over 270 wickets under his captaincy.
Described as a cerebral captain, Rodney Hogg summed him up perfectly with his take:
"Brearley has a degree in people".