Recently Shane Warne was highlighting in commentary all the changes that have been made to the playing conditions of One-Day Internationals. He felt that they have tended to be in favour of the batsmen. If so, then the idea must be that the bigger the scores, the greater the entertainment. That is certainly not my experience. Some of the most gripping games for me have been of the lower scoring variety when runs are hard to come by and preserving wickets a key issue.
Years ago I floated a very different approach. This was to limit the number of batsmen who were allowed to bat in certain circumstances. Both sides would always be able to play their top seven but, if the team batting first lost only five wickets, then the team batting second would also be limited to seven. For each extra wicket lost, so the team batting second would gain one themselves.
The intention is to make the later overs a better cricketing contest, less of a thrash with loss of wickets immaterial. For example, if team A has made 200 for 5 after forty overs, then there may be a case for guarding that position to limit the opposing batting side. Meanwhile the fielding Captain may want to set attacking fields, because for every extra wicket he takes, he gains an extra batsman himself.
There may be more ramifications with alterations in the batting order depending on the state of the innings. Also there may be more thought given to the best make up of the side depending on the strength or weakness of the opposition lower batting strength.
There may be something in the idea - or just as easily nothing - but we will never really know until it is given a public airing for discussion and then more importantly a reasonable trial period when the various scenarios are played out for real. It just appeals to me to the extent that Captains and players will find themselves more involved in fine judgements and tactical planning than is the case at the moment. And, who knows, the spectators may find the nuances a little more stimulating than the present, rather formalistic patterns of play.
My friend Johnnie Stephens handed me a copy of the Chris Waters biography of the late Freddie Trueman: "Ferocious" to some, FST and even Frederick Sewards on occasions.
" There are a few brickbats thrown in your direction" Johnnie told me " but nothing you can't handle". And he is right. They are more pinpricks than anything but perhaps the more irritating for that. Not to say it isn't a good read.
I am flattered to be mentioned on 10 separate pages, the same number as Peter May which means very exalted company in my book but the emphasis on put-downs, however minor is wearisome. Take the Gordon Pirie incident on board the Canberra when Fred decided not to join in the gentle exercise routines. Fred is depicted in all his rugged, no nonsense Yorkshire colours as something of a hero. What people forget is that in those days there was no "squad" system. A number of the younger players may not have ever met Fred, let alone played with him in the same team. Finding some joint activity seemed like a good idea - I believe "bonding" is the modern term - and yet Fred declined. The sequel is that Fred was the only player to break down on the whole trip.
Then Fred is quoted as " advising me to play two spinners" in the third Test which we lost. I take full responsibility as Captain for making the mistake of keeping the winning side from Melbourne but any idea that I wilfully went against his advice is way wide of the mark. I remember a whole group of us looking at the pitch including all the senior players, not to mention Alec Bedser and my other co-selectors. It was a close call - and anyway, who can say with certainty that we would have won had the extra spinner played.
Perhaps some of these niceties might have found their way into this Trueman story had the author taken the trouble to spend a little more time in my company. Most of the people who are treated less than kindly are passed away and unable to respond. Yet here am I, reasonably compos mentis and casually bypassed. I shared a room with Fred in 1959 and nobody else alive that I know has enjoyed that somewhat dubious privilege. I toured with him in West Indies in 1960. I captained him in 1963, In fact I spent the whole of my career playing with and against our Fred.
The only direct quote from me is in answer to a question concerning Fred being docked 25 percent of his bonus after the 62/63 tour. This one/off enquiry is dignified in the book with the word "interview" which seems unlikely, given the brevity of my response saying how Fred was "always going on about" his supposed shabby treatment. I had no intention of washing dirty linen in public then and I will not do so now. But as to whether some minor rap over the knuckles was in order, I feel the same way now as I did then.
The supposed North South antagonism gets a fairly regular airing throughout the story though I don't feel that this old saw was very high on Fred's agenda. We were certainly on the best of terms personally at all times, whether as room-mate, opposing player, team-mate and indeed as Captain. In fact the last time I saw him was when Susan and I stayed the night with him and Veronica in their cosy home in Flasby. " Bring your dressing gowns. There are no en-suite whathaveyous here. We don't want any embarrassment".
Indeed, there was nothing other than warm hospitality, a nice drop of champagne and a short' informative lesson on the local birdlife which he loved so much. That is as pleasant a way for me to remember him as any, though his larger than life cricketing character will always loom large in the background.
Another potential niggle is that from friend and foe there is a strangely repetitive theme going the rounds concerning my Captaincy style on the 62/63 tour . It seems that my decisions were taken on a whim or a fancy under the general heading of a new theory every minute. With an older and wiser head at the helm the critics suggest we would have won the Series and flown back with the Ashes.
Ho! Hum! A gentle reminder of the situation may not go amiss. We were up against a settled and successful Australian side, playing at home under one of their most successful Captains, Richie Benaud, who had a reputation for dynamic and aggressive leadership, Press interest in the Poms was lukewarm and the bookmakers were quoting odds against us.
As it turned out it was the underdogs who made the running. Twice in the warm-up games we scored over 400 in the day which made people sit up a bit. We made good on my pledge to bowl our overs at 15 overs per hour - only the current ICC requirement, you may think - except that we are talking about 8 ball overs!! And boy o boy was the media heat turned up when we went one ahead at Melbourne. It took me a couple of hours simply to get away from the airport on arrival in Sydney after interviews with every newspaper and radio station in the State.
But down to the nitty gritty. Was it by chance that the brick wall defences of the great Bill Lawry were first undermined and then dismantled? Was it down to the great fast bowler Freddie Trueman? No, it was down to careful planning between Edward Dexter and the Worcestershire medium pacer Len Coldwell. Between us we cut off his oxygen supply of quick singles used to rotate the strike. As we marooned him at one end, so the frustration of his partners grew at the other. We halved his run rate and forced him to rethink his whole game plan. His scores thereafter were 8,8,10,16,11 and 45.
Fast forward to last summers series against the South Africans when the demolition of England in the first Test was not a pretty sight. I sent an e-mail to Andrew Strauss in similar vein to the Lawrie strangulation. I had no clever plans for two great players like Amla and Kallis but I had a plan for Graeme Smith who had just scored 131. Once again it worked nicely, cutting off his singles on the leg side getting it into his head that life was no longer so easy. In his next five inning he averaged less than 30 and took twice as long to get them.
This current England team makes a virtue of seeking continuous improvement. This is admirable but I see no obvious signs of it happening. Short term I would insist on the fast bowlers bowling a regular supply of slower balls, something they do every other week in 20/20. It is not that the slower ones take the wickets but they keep the batsman guessing, playing fractionally later at the quicker ones. I would ask the batsmen to reserve 15 minutes of every net session to ensuring that the back foot remains parallel with the crease at all times. The number of times I see false strokes made with both toes pointing straight up the pitch is both alarming and distressing.
Longer term I would insist that Monty Panesar runs up straighter and plants his feet in a line going towards the target. Currently he starts moving from half-way behind the umpire and winds up with his front foot way out in the line of the return crease. Now he has to bowl all round his front leg and never gets his left hip through properly. The result is lack of turn which is amplified by the angle of attack. And that is not all - as if it were not enough!
When a bowler approaches the crease from a wide angle (as John Emburey did in his later unproductive years) he may think that he has "cocked the spring" i.e. wound up his shoulders against his hips, whereas he has done nothing of the sort. Monty should put down some cones to straighten himself out.
So there you are. Another of those whimsical Dexter theories.
Two high profile deaths in the cricket world so close together is tough going . Both Tony Greig and Christopher Martin-Jenkins were an integral part of the game: both giants in their own spheres, they are sorely missed.
The young Tony appeared on the Sussex scene just as I was about to call it a day and I barely had time to form an opinion of his ability at the time. Fast forward three years when I was called back to play under his captaincy at Hove and it was a different story. “Come on Ted, I’ll bowl you a few in the nets”.
The next thing I knew, I was at full stretch defending my self as much as my stumps against a hail of quick, bouncy missiles. I might have known he had more in mind than a gentle practice session – more an opportunity to display a new found power and confidence in his skills. The only other time I remember being such an Aunt Sally was when Les Jackson was out to impress his Captain enough to be selected the next day against Australia at Headingley. Putting the two in the same bracket is meant as a credit to both of them.
I seldom get to attend the annual Cowdrey “Spirit of Cricket” lecture at Lord's but when I heard that Tony Greig was the speaker last summer, I made a point of being there. His brilliantly conceived theme was to demand that cricket administrators should act with equal integrity and respect for each other, as that expected of the players. That he ruffled a few feathers, notably in India, was to be expected but, though he was a mite surprised at the level of reaction, there was no hint of retraction when we met again some days later.
It was a shock to hear of his lung cancer diagnosis before the year was out and a greater jolt to hear that a heart attack had brought about his death. He was a large strong man who drove himself hard but always managed many smiles along the way.
I had less close personal involvement with CMJ, the most influential cricket journalist, author, commentator and editor of his lifetime. Yes, we inevitably attended the same dinners where I tried to make sure that I was not on the list of speakers. He tended to eclipse the others whoever.
Mostly I count myself among the millions of listeners to Test Match Special where he played many a masterly innings on the air. Never was his inimitable style and voice more welcome than in recent years returning by car from France in French cars which all have long wave bands on the radio (German cars do not). You tend to be able to tune in about 150 kilometers from Calais when all is suddenly homely and familiar – a marvelous feeling.
I was always an admirer of his son Robin's cricketing talent. CMJ once asked me to watch the teenage all-rounder bat on the basis that he might be susceptible to the short stuff. Happily I was able to give his anxious father a positive report.
Perhaps it was this early involvement which made me follow his subsequent professional career with more than a casual interest. He always seemed to deliver when most needed with both bat and ball and as a key player in a team which won three County Championships in five years, it is a palpable shame, and very possibly England's loss that he received little or no International recognition.
So the cricket circus will whirl away regardless with new critics and new players coming and going as ever before. But in both professions they will need to look to their laurels if they are to reach the standards of these two highly skilful and committed individuals.
Mixing with the present generation of Test cricketers can be slightly unnerving for older players, mainly because theyounger men are almost all two or three inches taller than they look on the TV. Not Michael Atherton, who is our sort of size and approachable at normal eye level. Our stalwart opening batsman is also more at ease than some of his contemporaries when discussing the game and life in general. That is what comes with experience, being sure of who you are and what your responsibilities are.
The occasion in question was a farewell and God speed lunch to the touring team on the day of their departure to South Africa. The England Cricket Club, membership automatic to anyone who has played for his country, was invited by the England Cricket Board to provide a novel send-off - and a good turn-out by both sides ensured a happy occasion. Or so it seemed to me and a few direct contemporaries including Peter Richardson, Raman Subba Row and Alan Smith.
But I wonder how it felt for the first time tourists. It was certainly a gentle enough introduction to the social side of the game which tends to be more formal overseas.
The speaking was kept to a minimum with Lord Maclaurin as the genial host and Sir Alec Bedser finding just the right light touch in reply. There will certainly be times when patiences are more thoroughly tested by the proverbial local politician who cares more for the sound of his own voice than the sensibilities of his audience.
I had the pleasure to sit next to Yorkshire's Michael Vaughan and the conversation got off to a bright start. Yes, he toured India with the under-19 side. Yes, he opened the innings at Delhi and made runs. Yes, I had been there as Chairman of the England Committee to watch him play. So far so good. My gaffe came when I wondered whether he was a fully capped Yorkshire team member. The answer was that he was capped in 1995!
But despite having to wait four years in the county game for his first chance to play International cricket, I got the feeling that he was quietly confident and self-assured. He told me that he had played successfully in all the England junior age groups, which obviously gave him no God given right to the next step up but at least meant that the final selection came as no great surprise.
It made me think of the whole business of getting the timing right when first putting a player into the International arena. There is the celebrated case of Graham Hick who finished his lengthy qualifying period just in time to catch a home series against the West Indians with Marshall and Ambrose firing on all cylinders. It is arguable that he would have had a more productive career if he had encountered easier opposition
at the beginning.
Which leads me on to the selection of Chris Adams at the age of 29 with anything but a solid background of run scoring to give him that essential belief in himself if the time comes and he is able to force his way into the team. For the past two years his name does not appear in the list of “leading current players” which means that he is out of the top 36 headed incidentally by Graham Hick!
Adams had a highly successful season leading Sussex brilliantly in the CGU Division Two and often bringing home the bacon with his bat. But he again missed out in the leading batsmen list in the PPP Championship and failed to reach the acceptable level for a top class player of 1000 runs in the season.
I am not making these rather damning points to suggest he is not a good striker of a cricket ball or that he will necessarily fail if and when a good opportunity comes along but I do think that he will have a number of psychological obstacles to jump as he walks out to bat which will be of no concern whatsoever to the younger players. They carry very little baggage with them. Mostly unmarried and fancy free, they see the world as full of opportunity, whereas the older players trying to get a foothold tend to see a lot more of the pitfalls.
It is not long since another leading Sussex player, Alan Wells was asked to make his Test debut at the Oval in 1995 against the West Indians at the age of 33. I remember with a wince the apparent state of nervousness which produced an awful prod at his first short ball, caught at forward short-leg for a duck. 3 not out in the second innings in a drawn game was not enough to draw his name to the selectors notice again.
I remember when I was brought out of semi-retirement back into the England side in 1968 that I felt decidedly different walking out to bat without much personal conviction and this state of mind was pretty well reflected in the way I played. At the time I had a decent record behind me so it cannot be much fun when even that comfort is missing from the mental equation.
Of course there have been successful come-backs such as Cyril Washbrook against the Australians and indeed David Sheppard on the 62-63 Tour. His only hang-up was his usually safe hands mysteriously developed a severe case of butter-fingers.
There was a recent newspaper photograph of the new team manager (name?) with the young players forming the future of England cricket. Sadly Chris Adams was not included. That does not stop me wishing him all the luck in the world, even though the selectors have set him a mighty formidable task.
Ted Dexter copy for the Cricketer Magazine
Deadline July 7th
I was cordially, if somewhat warily received, when my delayed meeting with the E.C.B. technical staff finally took place, not at Lord's as I expected but in a back office buried in the stands at Edgbaston.
What were they to make of a sixty-five year old blast from the past taking issue with what turned out to be carefully researched pieces of cricket coaching in their official manual? Should they treat him as a well intentioned old buffer who still believed that all our yesterdays were golden or listen seriously to what he had to say.
I was delighted to find that Hugh Morris, Technical Director, and Gordon Lord , Coach Education Manager were perfectly open minded and gave me a good hearing. That is not to say that I persuaded them to change their minds all that much. But they were kind enough to call it a fascinating discussion and to agree that we all held the same aim which was to ensure that “ all support to coaches should be of the highest quality.”
In fact, thinking back, it was I who was the more intemperate particularly over the explanation given for the “eyes level” requirement in the batting stance. I felt I was being blinded with science when the language reached the level of vertical and horizontal receptors. When I talked about “sideways” play, they started talking about biomechanical advantage and at one stage I regret to say that I called their approach a load of balls.
On this subject we basically agreed to differ. I cited the case of the squash player picking up shots in the back corners of the court. How ludicrous it would be to tell him that he had to have his eyes level before he could assess where the ball was going to be. For their part they pointed out that we were talking about cricket, not squash, and were able to quote from an optometrist report. “Balance is effected if the head and eyes are not level. Look at tight-rope walkers and dancers.” Now who was going off at a tangent?!
I return to my central point. Relaxation in the batting stance is essential. This is best achieved by standing with the left shoulder pointing to mid-on and the head turned to the bowler only so far as is comfortable. The left shoulder is then brought into the sideways position as part of the backlift and held there through all the straight bat shots.
This will usually mean that the head and eyes are tilted up to 25 degrees and I believe that attempts to keep the “eyes level” are a major factor in so many modern batsmen playing open-chested, toes pointing up the pitch as in French Cricket. Of course they can get runs. Anyone who wields a cudgel 4 ΒΌ inches wide against a ball of 9 inches circumference should be able to make contact from time to time. But are they as effective as they could be? That is the point.
On the subject of the right elbow position in the backlift, I am prepared to give a little ground when faced with the following .
“ Biomechanical analysis of players, including Greenidge, Tendulkar, Crowe and Richards shows how the unit created by the shoulder, arms, hands and bat retain a figure 9 shape, the plane of which adjusts according to the intended direction of stroke.” So be it. For my part, as long as they get the tip of the bat pointing to the sky with the face pointing to cover rather than at the ground ( see Lara, Gower, Botham ) they can do it any way they like.
Hardest to come to grips with was head position at release point when bowling. Here I maybe gained a point when Gordon Lord writes “there are examples of world class bowlers who clear a path for the bowling shoulder and arm by dropping the head away to the off-side. (see Curtley Ambrose and Darren Gough)
…… by achieving this position I accept that performance in terms of pace or rotation may well be enhanced. Well, now then, isn’t that what I have been saying all along?
Finally I made my point about the hand position for the high catch and the sheer impossibility of making a finger pouch for the ball if the catch is attempted at “eye level”. Here the technicians were prepared to go back to the drawing board but the matter failed to get a mention in the two-page follow-up letter to our meeting.
However there was an oft repeated slow motion sequence of Ricardo Powell being caught off a skier on the boundary at Bristol in the first match of the Triangular Series and it was comforting to see that the catch was made at chest height with the fingers parallel to the ground rather than facing skywards.
There may be a sense that you have to see your hands in front of your face by way of good preparation but that is nonsense. Nobody misses their mouth with a forkful of food. We know where our hands are without having to check before making a catch.
Finally a subject which really gets my goat i.e. when bowlers in the media start pontificating about batting. Simon Hughes is my current bete-noir with his simplistic notion that too much coaching stifles ability.
He cites Aravinda De Silva's precocious ability to whip straight balls through the on-side as evidence. What he seems to miss is that without perfect head and body positions such a move would be doomed to failure. Any coach who knew the most simple basics would recognise such perfection and leave well alone.
