How Good a Captain Is Michael Clarke? Assessing Australia Skipper's Record

Although his choice of words towards England's James Anderson in the dying stages of the first Ashes Test have come under fire, the tactical side of Michael Clarke's captaincy in Brisbane has been widely lauded.

Relentlessly proactive and innovative, Clarke's aggressive leadership in the field played a decisive role in Australia's brutal assault on their visitors. By refusing to deploy fielders in boundary-saving positions, the Australian captain afforded his bowlers the luxury of sustained spells against batsmen who had been pinned on strike.

Of course, Clarke's efforts were aided by the match situation in the second innings, but he must be given immense credit for helping to drive Australia into that position.

During England's first innings, Clarke could have been excused for utilising a far more defensive approach. With just 295 runs to defend on a good batting wicket, the tourists were well set to grab a stranglehold on the match when Michael Carberry and Kevin Pietersen occupied at crease at 82-2.

Yet, instead of opting for a method of damage limitation, Clarke displayed the very aggression which has become the defining trait of his leadership.

Recognising that bunches of wickets represented his side's ticket back into the contest, Clarke crowded England's batsmen, at times adding a leg-slip and a short-leg to a field that already contained a strong cordon of three slips and a gully. 

With his bowlers producing incisive spells, Clarke's aggression paid off; the wickets of Pietersen, Carberry, Ian Bell, Matt Prior, Joe Root, Graeme Swann and Chris Tremlett all arriving from catches by Clarke's close-in fielders.

In the space of one afternoon, Clarke had justified the opinions of many who regard him as the game's finest on-field tactician.

However, decisions at pitch level represent only a small part of captaincy.

So, after an impressive display in Australia's victory over England, how does Clarke actually rate as a captain? How can we quantify the impact of his defining attributes?

Perhaps most importantly, what can be used to measure Clarke against others?

With that in mind, it would be undoubtedly foolish to compare the current Australian captain with his recent predecessors. Unlike Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting, Clarke has inherited a decidedly average side that has suffered from inexperience and a lack of elite performers.

In fact, Clarke's ascension to the helm of Australian cricket has coincided with his nation's worst generation of players in close to three decades.

That, of course, puts Clarke in a position very much akin to the one Allan Border found himself in when he was appointed captain in December 1984.

Following humiliating defeats at the hands of a powerful West Indies outfit, Border reluctantly replaced Kim Hughes as the leader of an unusually weak Australian side.

Given that Australia's surprise victory at the 1987 World Cup is widely recognised as the turning point in the nation's fortunes, Border's captaincy before that point becomes a very relevant measuring stick for Clarke's record. 

Michael Clarke's Test Captaincy Record:

Matches	Won	Lost	Drawn/Tied	Success Rate
30	13	10	7	43.3%

Allan Border's Test Captaincy Record At Same Stage: 

Matches	Won	Lost	Drawn/Tied	Success Rate
30	5	9	16	16.7%

These numbers are an interesting reflection on our ever-changing perception and the current haste with which we draw conclusions. 

While aspects of Clarke's captaincy have been intensely criticised, his winning percentage in the Test arena is close to three times greater after 30 matches than his most relevant compatriot. 

Many will point out that Border's era contained an all-conquering West Indies side, in addition to strong England and New Zealand outfits. However, Clarke's generation has seen a South African team take all before them, with both England and India also fielding elite units.

Yet, the comparison doesn't end there. Weighing the current captain's success rate in the 50-over format against Border's also makes for interesting reading.

Michael Clarke's ODI Captaincy Record:

Matches	Won	Lost	Tied/NR	Success Rate
61	39	19	3	63.9%

Allan Border's ODI Captaincy Record at Same Stage:

Matches	Won	Lost	Tied/NR	Success Rate
61	27	32	2	44.3%

Of course, these figures don't suggest that Clarke is a substantially more influential captain than the highly regarded Border. Certainly, the Queenslander is the man credited as the driving force behind the upheaval of Australian cricket in the mid-to-late 1980s that paved way for the nation's commanding dynasty.

However, the numbers do serve as a pertinent reflection on the immediacy of our often distorted conclusions.

Following a lengthy string of defeats and critical remarks from his predecessor Ponting, Clarke entered this Ashes encounter as a captain under genuine pressure, some suggesting that a hammering at the hands of England was capable of dethroning the current leader.

Yet suddenly, after one Test in Brisbane, Clarke's captaincy is once again being admired. The reality is that the 32-year-old's leadership is neither as brilliant, nor as defective as it's often judged to be.

Unquestionably, Australia's disharmony prior to the arrival of Darren Lehmann severely damaged the perception of the sparkling batsman's captaincy. Continued reports of rifts within the team's dressing room, combined with regular off-field indiscretions, publicly projected an image of Clarke as a man incapable of fostering unity and a productive environment. 

However, there were many factors at play during that tumultuous period that Clarke was helpless to. 

The backlash from Australian players—most notably Brad Haddin and Michael Hussey—toward former coach Mickey Arthur clearly paints Lehmann's forerunner as a cause of unease within the camp. While it would be injudicious to pin all of Australia's issues on the South African, the shift in mentality of the current team since Lehmann's arrival is a reflection of Arthur's failures while in the job.

Adding to that, the misguided appointment of Clarke as national selector—a post he has recently left—was one of several errors of judgment from Cricket Australia. Combined with the selection bingo that was played until the latter stages of this year and a team severely lacking experience, it's understandable that the early part of Clarke's tenure was a rocky one.

Which leaves us—with our rapidly seesawing perceptions—left to judge the Australia skipper on quantifiable outcomes.

On that front, he measures up rather well.