Why Ricky Ponting is the anti-Steve Waugh

There are two ways one can be an awesome captain of a cricketing side:

1. You can be a tactician
2. You can be a strategist

I shall elaborate, because, heck, it ain't much of a post if I end it there.

A tactician is somebody who wields his captaincy skills within the game. A brilliant bowling change. A challenging declaration. An unexpected reshuffling of the batting order. A tactical captain excels in these areas.

A strategist wields his captaincy skills outside the game. A strategist inspires his players. He brings out the very best in them (for, unlike the rest of us, it is not enough for professional athletes to do their jobs simply because they are being paid lots of money. No, they must be in the right headspace to perform. This is why there are sports psychologists, but not, y'know, accountant psychologists). A strategist will talk his players up. Will talk the opposition down. Will bond the team. His players will follow him everywhere and play at their peak.

A captain can, of course, blend these abilities, but such an uber-god is rare. Generally, the great captains excel primarily in one area or the other.

Of Australia's pre-Ponting captains, Mark Taylor was a tactician. Steve Waugh was a strategist.

Little Captain Punter is, alas, neither.

We've already seen how he falls apart in the tactician stakes - see Cardiff two Tests ago and the decision to bowl Mitchell's Johnson long after he'd fallen to pieces. Or give Magnetic Marcus North the final few overs at the last batsmen in, while leaving The House of Hilf standing in the outfield, picking his nose. This is one of many examples. No, Little Captain Punter is no tactician.

But he's no strategist, either. He doesn't bring out the best in his players. In fact, he brings out the very worst. Would Steve Waugh have put up with Johnson's bowling performances so far? Would he have put up with Dizzy Gillespie's in 2005? You can argue that Little Captain Punter has a weaker team than Steve Waugh did, but that's wrong on two counts:

1. Before Steve Waugh wielded his 'I believe in you' mojo, most people considered Matt 'The Pillock' Hayden's game unsuitable for Test cricket. Similarly, for Justin 'The Gnome' Langer. Steve Waugh didn't inherit a team of greats - he built a team of greats (or 8/11 of it, anyway, I'll return to Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist in point 2). Little Captain Punter is building a team of grapefruits.
2. The three exceptions alluded to above are Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist who would all make Australia's greatest team ever. Any captain with those three in it has an advantage he can't possibly claim credit for. And yet Taylor, Waugh and Ponting had all three of them at some point in their captaincy. (Okay, Taylor didn't have Gilchrist - but he did have Steve Waugh himself in the peak of his batting career. And what people may not remember is this - when Steve Waugh was at his batting peak in the mid-90's, he was officially rated a better batsman than Lara and Tendulkar, two undeniable all-time greats. A Steve Waugh at his batting peak just about balances out a lack of a Gilchrist)
   
   So the three captains are just about comparable over the time period when those champion players were available. And what did they do? Taylor dragged Australia to the top of the Test-playing tree. Waugh built a team that ruthlessly crushed just about everything that confronted it (exception: those plucky Indians), in the process, making himself obsolete (not much point being known as the batsman who comes to the rescue at 50/3 once you build a team that tends to lose its third wicket at 300-odd. It's no coincidence that Steve Waugh's career-saving innings at Sydney came about when the team suffered a rare top-order collapse).
   
   And what did Little Captain Punter do when he had those three champions in his team? Why, he went to England and couldn't inspire them sufficiently to retain the Ashes. It wasn't a lack of ability that cost the Ashes - that was shown fifteen months later when, pissed off and self-motivated, they got their shit together and crushed the Poms 5-0. Yes, there are other factors. The strength of the England team on the two occasions and the home ground advantage being the main two. But they don't explain such an enormous turnaround.

Steve Waugh inspired good (but obviously idiotic) players to want to run through brick walls for him and, in the process, they became near-great players. He inspired his great players to crush anybody who dared face them and only the occasional superhuman individual performances could stop them.

Little Captain Punter inspires his good players to descend into shadows of their former selves. And the only way he could get his great players into 'crush the opposition' mode was by leading them to a humiliating defeat.

That's why Little Captain Punter is no strategist, neither.

And that's why Little Captain Punter is the anti-Steve Waugh.