Captaincy: why authenticity matters

For an explanation of the latest Ashes narrative, go back to 600 BC. Aesop, the ancient Greek slave and storyteller, devised the fable of the tortoise and the hare.

The hare: quicker, nimbler, more eye-catching. The tortoise: persistent, steady, easily underestimated.

There are many different versions of the story, of course, with a wide range of moral interpretations. But it is the tortoise that eventually overhauls the hare and wins the race.

Eighteen months ago, Michael Clarke's captaincy seemed central to Australia's 5-0 dismantling of Alastair Cook's England. Clarke was irresistible: quick-thinking, adventurous, intuitive, light on his feet (literally and metaphorically), bold, unpredictable.

Clarke danced around his England counterpart, his feet and hands moving at a dizzying pace. Here was Clarke flashing into a cover drive, there he was manipulating the field with an animated gesture. Clarke was all lightness and sparkle, as giddying and marketable as champagne.

How sluggish and stubborn Cook appeared in contrast. According to the seasoned pundits, Cook had to watch and learn. Couldn't Cook see it was time to change the bowling, change the team, change direction? Look at Clarke, dazzling the crowd in the sunshine. Be more like him. Skip, surprise, bluff, manoeuvre, feint, conjure.

But what use was it all? Not a listener, not a learner, they scoffed. Like trying to teach an old English oak tree new magic tricks. Good player, but… Nice man, but… Respected person, but…

As Cook's captaincy was ridiculed, not far beneath the surface lurked an old English conspiracy theory, always ready to rear up into familiar cliché. It was all an establishment stitch-up - so bayed the mob - the latest chapter in a game riven by class imbalances. Because Cook was polite and well-mannered, the product of a certain kind of education, he was obviously being propped up by a prejudiced hierarchy.

Conspiracy! Stitch-up! Complacency! Outrage! Into that poisonous mix, stir in a good measure of the Kevin Pietersen controversy. If English cricket was a "meritocracy", pundits thundered, then surely Pietersen had to play! (Rarely has the word "meritocracy", coined by the sociologist Michael Young in 1958 as part of a dystopian satire, been used more ineptly.) No, English cricket was run from the corridors of power, with men in blazers protecting Cook, keeping out talent, working against the good of the game. As an interpretation of events on a cricket pitch, this had all the validity of a pathetic populist trying to whip up support for a cod-Marxist student rally.

And now? It is Clarke who ran out of steam, Cook who kept chugging along. The qualities that were once held against Cook now appear to sustain his moment of triumph. Stubbornness now emerges as resilience, steadiness is revealed as equanimity. Cook's inability (or reluctance) to wrong-foot the media with clever diversion tactics now seems part of his strength. It is funny how victory recasts naivety as admirable straightforwardness.

None of this should detract from Clarke's fine achievements. Age and injuries are part of the equation. Clarke has suffered from long-term back and hamstring problems. He nearly missed the World Cup but found enough water in the well for one last successful campaign. Only now, in England, have the reserves - in both body and mind - run dry.

Both Clarke and Cook made moving and gracious comments after the fourth Test. Both men know the pain of defeat and have empathy for each other's experiences on the wrong end of Ashes drubbings.

Nothing should be taken away from Clarke's wonderful career. Few batsmen have given me more pleasure. He played a superb brand of cricket, with skill, style and adventure. As a batsman, he almost never got stuck without answers or mired in a defensive trough. Young batsmen who want to learn how to play spin should simply watch videos of Clarke: positivity without premeditation, adventure without recklessness, fast hands, a perpendicular bat, a strong mind, a clear head.

All taken together - batting style, captaincy approach, handling the media - Cook was never likely to win a cricketing beauty contest against Clarke. Nor was he going to win a social-media popularity poll. Clarke's closest ally has been Australian cricket's most famous (living) name - Shane Warne. In contrast, Cook has never had the unwavering support of a vociferous English legend. Indeed, in July last summer, England's former captains formed a long queue to be the next man to advocate Cook's sacking. Cook has plodded along, sometimes feeling very alone but always under his own steam.

Here, though, my argument takes a slight shift in direction. In one central respect, though it may hold for this series, I do not follow the logic of Aesop's fable all the way. Cook's style of captaincy is not "better" than Clarke's style of captaincy.

Rather than one single model, there are many different approaches to leadership. The only prerequisite is a degree of authenticity. So long as he is being himself, a captain has a fighting chance. (Some decent bowlers are also pretty handy.)

Clarke won an Ashes series 5-0, lifted the World Cup, impressing everyone as he did so with his savvy and intuitive cricket brain. Cook is now only the third English captain, after WG Grace and Mike Brearley, to win two home Ashes series. Nice company to keep. As players alone, there is little to choose between Clarke and Cook - after 100 Tests there was a spooky similarity between their two careers.

In other words, there are many ways to lead, to win, to inspire. Some do it with inventive imaginativeness, others through stoic resilience. One method is not better than the other.

But the long, patient and ultimately triumphant progress of Cook does prove that professional sport, like the wider society it reflects, is prone to undervaluing unflashy qualities.

Quiet achievers across every profession can walk a little taller.