We've seen a variety of captaincy styles in the two current Test series between the best four sides in the competition, India, England, Australia and New Zealand.
Rohit Sharma and Ben Stokes have waged an intriguing captaincy battle in their Test series. However Stokes' aggressive leadership faltered at a crucial time and India - well led by Rohit - claimed the series with a resounding victory in the fourth Test in Ranchi.
On the third evening Stokes desperately needed to start India's chase with his best two bowlers and try to claim at least one wicket. Incredibly, he gave the ball to a part-timer, Joe Root, and ignored the experienced, probing bowling of Jimmy Anderson. India took full advantage and scored an invaluable 40 runs off just eight overs.
Stokes missed a trick in Ranchi. He then compounded his error by allowing too many easy singles on the final day by resorting to some cautious field placings. At a time when Stokes needed to be extremely brave as captain and hope he got lucky, he was abnormally conservative.
India probably would still have won but at least by going on the attack, Stokes would have given England their best chance of an upset victory. Stokes could improve his captaincy in demanding chases if he took the example of the leadership master in those situations - Pakistan's Javed Miandad.
Rohit proceeded to take full advantage of the tentative field placings with a thoughtful innings and India's solid opening partnership helped seal victory.
The second innings should have been a time to force the Indian batters into taking a risk, but by allowing easy singles, Stokes gave his opponents the upper hand. He also needed to use the experience and guile of Anderson to try and force the issue on the third evening but instead relied on the part-time spin of Root.
The use of Root could probably be put down to an over-reliance on the right-left combination to get the wicket of India's accomplished opener Yashasvi Jaiswal. There are times when good captaincy hinges on gut feel rather than statistics or theories; this was such an occasion.
In Wellington a week or so ago, New Zealand captain Tim Southee lost the plot by allowing Cameron Green and batting rabbit Josh Hazlewood to amass a century stand for Australia's last wicket. New Zealand made numerous mistakes to comfortably lose the Test but despite Green's undoubted skill in shepherding the tail, Southee's leadership blunder was monumental.
Continually dropping catches has certainly hurt New Zealand but allowing a mammoth tenth-wicket partnership is an unpardonable sin. New Zealand's feeble batting - they failed to reach 200 in either innings - called into question their tentative approach against Australia, and spoke of their inability to cope with the offspin of Nathan Lyon.
The inability to battle against Australia is in sharp contrast to the New Zealand rugby team. In recent years the All Blacks have been dominant against Australia on the rugby field but the opposite is true on the cricket ground.
As for playing offspin, in both India and New Zealand some techniques have been questionable. Why do right-handers get caught at leg slip against an offspinner? In fact, why are they trying to hit the ball there when there is a leg slip in place? American baseballer "Wee" Willie Keeler's credo of "Hit 'em where they ain't" is equally applicable to cricket.
In the final Test in India, England again capitulated to spin - this time it was the wrist version, from the talented Kuldeep Yadav, who broke open England's vulnerable batting order while R Ashwin plundered the bottom half as offspin was again dominant.
India have been getting stronger in this series, while England are regularly being overwhelmed by spin. They're fortunate it's the final Test. Meanwhile, in Christchurch, New Zealand's capitulation continued; they slumped to a third consecutive score below 200, this time at the hands of Australia's excellent fast bowlers.
Despite all the feel-good stories and bold predictions, India and Australia are still flexing their muscles as dominant teams.