Watching the 4th day in the 3rd Ashes test match was Fascinating. Not only because of the dominance of the England team but because of two contrasting figures that run their respective Cricket teams. An air of total relaxation and fun surrounded Michael Vaughan as he sat in the player’s balcony at Old Trafford laughing, applauding every shot and genuinely enjoying Strauss’ elegance and Bell’s determination. And that in itself is fascinating as there are very few people who can remember that look on an England captain’s face in an Ashes Series. And equally fascinating was watching a champion team slowly lose its edge in this series. And Ricky Ponting looked as tired and out of ideas as some of Vaughan’s predecessors. They say that a captain’s actions on the field mirror the form and confidence of the rest of the team. And that has been the stark contrast between the two men on view.
Great leaders come in many forms. In one sense solid leadership is a subjective thing, in another there are certain characteristics that are, by consensus, typical of quality leadership. It is the process of influencing team members to work hard towards, and be committed to, team goals. Steve Waugh was a prime example of that. He took a team of achievers and turned them into a ruthless unit of world beaters that single mindedly focused on destroying oppositions in every way possible, be it on the field or in the mind. Waugh and for that matter Hussain focused on a more task-oriented form of leadership where they demanded the very best from a player in any situation. Vaughan on the other hand seems to have a more people-oriented approach, where he has a set of talented individuals and tells them to go out and have fun. And sometimes it’s important that captains gauge the team dynamics and adapt their style of leadership. Waugh’s leadership had no time for mediocrity and half-efforts and Michael Slater was a player who fell by the wayside. Vaughan seems to be the guy you can hang out with and talk, in Hussain’s words, the “Playstation generation” talk. That is where Ponting has had a hard time, torn between carrying on Waugh’s legacy and at the same time stamping his own authority. Winning consistently papers over the cracks, but a team in adversity reflects the true characteristics of its leader. And if Australia does retain the Ashes from here, Ponting will have found the strength to create his own legacy, much like Waugh did after some hairy moments in the Caribbean series in ’99.
Good teams in the past and present have been characterized by strong and stable leaders. And it’s no surprise that the teams struggling at the moment lack a strong man at the helm. A good example being the musical chairs played over India’s captaincy. Ganguly has done wonders for Indian cricket and should be lauded for his efforts. But to judge Dravid on the basis of one series where the players were rusty and inexperienced was harsh. But the real question the selectors should be asking is the one Sachin Tendulkar answered for himself when he resigned. Who is more important? Ganguly the captain, or Ganguly the batsman? And the answer to this question, hopefully, is the reason for the selectors’ decision. Because, a characteristic of a good leader comes from the ability to perform and hence demand performance from the team. And Ganguly’s personal struggles might leave a legacy that might be hard for Indian cricket to overturn.
Great leaders come in many forms. In one sense solid leadership is a subjective thing, in another there are certain characteristics that are, by consensus, typical of quality leadership. It is the process of influencing team members to work hard towards, and be committed to, team goals. Steve Waugh was a prime example of that. He took a team of achievers and turned them into a ruthless unit of world beaters that single mindedly focused on destroying oppositions in every way possible, be it on the field or in the mind. Waugh and for that matter Hussain focused on a more task-oriented form of leadership where they demanded the very best from a player in any situation. Vaughan on the other hand seems to have a more people-oriented approach, where he has a set of talented individuals and tells them to go out and have fun. And sometimes it’s important that captains gauge the team dynamics and adapt their style of leadership. Waugh’s leadership had no time for mediocrity and half-efforts and Michael Slater was a player who fell by the wayside. Vaughan seems to be the guy you can hang out with and talk, in Hussain’s words, the “Playstation generation” talk. That is where Ponting has had a hard time, torn between carrying on Waugh’s legacy and at the same time stamping his own authority. Winning consistently papers over the cracks, but a team in adversity reflects the true characteristics of its leader. And if Australia does retain the Ashes from here, Ponting will have found the strength to create his own legacy, much like Waugh did after some hairy moments in the Caribbean series in ’99.
Good teams in the past and present have been characterized by strong and stable leaders. And it’s no surprise that the teams struggling at the moment lack a strong man at the helm. A good example being the musical chairs played over India’s captaincy. Ganguly has done wonders for Indian cricket and should be lauded for his efforts. But to judge Dravid on the basis of one series where the players were rusty and inexperienced was harsh. But the real question the selectors should be asking is the one Sachin Tendulkar answered for himself when he resigned. Who is more important? Ganguly the captain, or Ganguly the batsman? And the answer to this question, hopefully, is the reason for the selectors’ decision. Because, a characteristic of a good leader comes from the ability to perform and hence demand performance from the team. And Ganguly’s personal struggles might leave a legacy that might be hard for Indian cricket to overturn.
