Home truths.
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.
02-01-13
Sad passing
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.
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.
in Cricket
15-12-12
Timing is everything (2002)
Dexter copy for the Cricketer magazine.
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.
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.
ECB Coaching Manual Under Critical Analysis (2001)
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 ¼ 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.
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 ¼ 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.
in Cricket
All balls!! (2000)
Ted Dexter Copy for the Cricketer Magasine
Monday 4th September 2000
I like listening to Angus Fraser on the radio. He is an agreeable man with a dry wit and his attitude to the game seems to have preserved a freshness which long service in county cricket sometimes dulls.
It was intriguing to hear him debating the cricket ball issue, especially the notion that all Test cricket should be played with a standard product. Apparently David Lloyd had suggested the machine stitched Kookaburra as the answer with less prominent stitching. This could mean more emphasis on swinging the new ball and a need for spinners if the “old” ball was no help to the “seamers”.
Angus felt that since batsmen were free to take their pick of the world’s best bats, bowlers should have the same opportunity to pick the ball they like best. It is entirely logical and I tend to agree. Where he slipped up was saying that bat technology had progressed while the ball was still the same. Wrong!
Cricket balls are definitely not the same. The main difference is that the core of the ball has changed significantly, from strips of cork bound in layer by layer with twine, to a composite lump of cork and latex which constitutes two thirds or more of the overall sphere. The change was made largely in the cause of uniformity from the administrators point of view and was embraced by manufacturers because the process was less labour intensive.
I heard umpires Shepherd and Harper saying that the balls had lasted well in the recent Test series – not surprising when some of the innings have been rather short – but one reason must be that the core of the modern ball remains unchanged for the whole 80 overs, before a new one becomes due. It is self evident that the ball therefore remains harder for longer and gives the faster bowlers a lot more chance of success with the old ball. More broken fingers is another result.
It may even be that the “discovery” of reverse swing was due to this basic change.The cork and twine ball became too soft for the quick men to bother after 30 overs, so the opportunity to experiment with rough sides, smooth sides, wet sides and dry sides and different seam positions barely came along.
Going back to the bowlers’ free choice argument, they are lucky that the authorities have the need to maintain competition between manufacturers to keep the price down. They stipulate as closely as they can what the ball should be like and then test them to ensure that they conform to a standard. But there will always be variations and bowlers will always find the one that feels smallest in the hand and gives the most chance of swing and seam.
All that is fine until five day matches are reduced to two with thousands of dissappointed spectators. Repayment of hundreds of thousands of pounds for unused tickets is something the game can ill afford so it would be simply bad business not to look hard at the ball and the pitches to ensure as far as possible the right balance between bat and ball.
It is just as well that the Oval Test lasted into the fifth day and it was a delight that the West Indians included the leg-spinner Nagamootoo. Without him they would have hardly fared as well as they did because he broke up the key Engand partnerships in both innings, Trescothick in the first and Stewart in the second. Such a long, thrilling match will at least keep the arguments for change of ball or different pitch construction in perspective.
The series overall confirmed some of the eternal truths of Test cricket. That the outcome is usually determined by the best bowling attack and at long last England were able to put three experienced men together, Gough, Caddick and Cork with three hundred or so Test wickets between them. Often enough in recent years we have gone in with raw talent alone and you only have to see what happened to the promising Reon King to know that is not enough. When Craig White suddenly joined the party with a vengeance, there was no doubt where the advantage lay. Obviously Walsh and Ambrose would have been first pick for either side from the start but the support bowling was not enough to sustain the pressure they created.
It was definitely not a series for fancy stroke making, Lara excepted, with major contributions made by Atherton and Vaughan for England, Adams and Sarwan for West Indies, all of them prepared to defend correctly and wait for the scoring opportunities. It was gritty stuff for most of the time but never dull, all culminating in the full house thiller on the fifth day at the Oval.
A final word for Simon Hughes who made a spirited response to my comments two months ago about bowlers and their views on batting techniques.Simon’s gentle barb in my direction was that he took time to accept my view of his bowling “because I was a batsman”.
Sorry to do this to you Simon, but the 1969 Playfair career records section tells me that Dexter.E.R took 419 first class wickets at an average of 29.9 – 5 wickets 9 times, 10 wickets twice.
The 1994 edition reveals that Hughes.S.P took 466 wickets at 32.48 – 5 wickets 10 times and 50 wickets in a season twice. I went back to 1969 to check my own season by season tallies to find that the criteria for a mention in the final column used to be 100 wickets, not 50. I did not get a mention.
Monday 4th September 2000
I like listening to Angus Fraser on the radio. He is an agreeable man with a dry wit and his attitude to the game seems to have preserved a freshness which long service in county cricket sometimes dulls.
It was intriguing to hear him debating the cricket ball issue, especially the notion that all Test cricket should be played with a standard product. Apparently David Lloyd had suggested the machine stitched Kookaburra as the answer with less prominent stitching. This could mean more emphasis on swinging the new ball and a need for spinners if the “old” ball was no help to the “seamers”.
Angus felt that since batsmen were free to take their pick of the world’s best bats, bowlers should have the same opportunity to pick the ball they like best. It is entirely logical and I tend to agree. Where he slipped up was saying that bat technology had progressed while the ball was still the same. Wrong!
Cricket balls are definitely not the same. The main difference is that the core of the ball has changed significantly, from strips of cork bound in layer by layer with twine, to a composite lump of cork and latex which constitutes two thirds or more of the overall sphere. The change was made largely in the cause of uniformity from the administrators point of view and was embraced by manufacturers because the process was less labour intensive.
I heard umpires Shepherd and Harper saying that the balls had lasted well in the recent Test series – not surprising when some of the innings have been rather short – but one reason must be that the core of the modern ball remains unchanged for the whole 80 overs, before a new one becomes due. It is self evident that the ball therefore remains harder for longer and gives the faster bowlers a lot more chance of success with the old ball. More broken fingers is another result.
It may even be that the “discovery” of reverse swing was due to this basic change.The cork and twine ball became too soft for the quick men to bother after 30 overs, so the opportunity to experiment with rough sides, smooth sides, wet sides and dry sides and different seam positions barely came along.
Going back to the bowlers’ free choice argument, they are lucky that the authorities have the need to maintain competition between manufacturers to keep the price down. They stipulate as closely as they can what the ball should be like and then test them to ensure that they conform to a standard. But there will always be variations and bowlers will always find the one that feels smallest in the hand and gives the most chance of swing and seam.
All that is fine until five day matches are reduced to two with thousands of dissappointed spectators. Repayment of hundreds of thousands of pounds for unused tickets is something the game can ill afford so it would be simply bad business not to look hard at the ball and the pitches to ensure as far as possible the right balance between bat and ball.
It is just as well that the Oval Test lasted into the fifth day and it was a delight that the West Indians included the leg-spinner Nagamootoo. Without him they would have hardly fared as well as they did because he broke up the key Engand partnerships in both innings, Trescothick in the first and Stewart in the second. Such a long, thrilling match will at least keep the arguments for change of ball or different pitch construction in perspective.
The series overall confirmed some of the eternal truths of Test cricket. That the outcome is usually determined by the best bowling attack and at long last England were able to put three experienced men together, Gough, Caddick and Cork with three hundred or so Test wickets between them. Often enough in recent years we have gone in with raw talent alone and you only have to see what happened to the promising Reon King to know that is not enough. When Craig White suddenly joined the party with a vengeance, there was no doubt where the advantage lay. Obviously Walsh and Ambrose would have been first pick for either side from the start but the support bowling was not enough to sustain the pressure they created.
It was definitely not a series for fancy stroke making, Lara excepted, with major contributions made by Atherton and Vaughan for England, Adams and Sarwan for West Indies, all of them prepared to defend correctly and wait for the scoring opportunities. It was gritty stuff for most of the time but never dull, all culminating in the full house thiller on the fifth day at the Oval.
A final word for Simon Hughes who made a spirited response to my comments two months ago about bowlers and their views on batting techniques.Simon’s gentle barb in my direction was that he took time to accept my view of his bowling “because I was a batsman”.
Sorry to do this to you Simon, but the 1969 Playfair career records section tells me that Dexter.E.R took 419 first class wickets at an average of 29.9 – 5 wickets 9 times, 10 wickets twice.
The 1994 edition reveals that Hughes.S.P took 466 wickets at 32.48 – 5 wickets 10 times and 50 wickets in a season twice. I went back to 1969 to check my own season by season tallies to find that the criteria for a mention in the final column used to be 100 wickets, not 50. I did not get a mention.
in Cricket
New Year Resolutions (2001)
opy for Cricketer Magazine from Ted Dexter
New Year’s day at Sunningdale Golf Club resounded to the hum of good resolutions. No drink for a month ( with occasional lapses allowed ) was a popular choice. Then there was my own determination to keep the head steadier and more behind the ball in the downswing.
Top of the bill was the ageing scratch player who ordered his usual large tot before a twinge of guilt made him switch to mineral water. Only the night before he had embarked on the most stringent of remedies for recent poor form which involved a stone of weight loss, a two month course of lessons in the art of Seniors golf and a commitment to intensive physiotherapy for a stiff neck. In the cold light of day the immediate future looked a trifle bleak!
I found myself wondering whether cricketers are prone to the same kind of good intentions at this time of year. And, if so, what general lines of self-improvement would be the most useful. Obviously there is the whole fitness issue which is mighty important whatever the level of play, but setting yourself more technical goals is no simple matter.
I suppose it would be possible for a batsman to learn a particular stroke like an on-drive if that shot is not in an existing repertoire. Or a course in letting the ball go outside the off-stump would be a good exercise for anyone. The trouble is that serious work on such skills almost certainly needs a bowling machine for some of the time and a couple of competent bowlers to provide variety thereafter. Not everyone has access to such facilities.
Perhaps the first resolution should be to genuinely earmark rather more time for practice than normal during the rest of the winter, stepping it up a gear once the Spring comes round. When the summer is in full swing, then only the most dedicated have the drive and inclination to add practice time to what may be an already arduous day’s play. At the highest level, it was Geoffrey Boycott above anyone else I can think of, who regularly found the extra hour or two in every day to bat against all-comers in the nets whether it was early in the morning or late into the evening.
By comparison the golfer has a far easier task. As a much more repetitive game with a still ball to boot, it is merely a question of defining your problems and then working hard to eliminate them. Hitting hundreds of balls is almost essential to reach a high standard even if the amazing Colin Montgomerie is a current exception.
Because of the cricketers difficulties in defining specific problems plus often inadequate practice facilities, I am going to suggest a couple of more general points to consider where some hard concentration in an armchair may be worth many actual hours of hands on activity.
We all know that the best batsmen appear to have more time to play the ball and that the best bowlers have plenty of rhythm, but when did you last hear of cricketers working exclusively on those two key factors. Brian Statham worked at nothing other than his rhythm, for a short time before each day’s play and then again the moment he had the new ball in his hand.
When lucky enough to be captaining this wonderful bowler, he would give me bulletins on whether it was feeling right or not quite right or whatever. Unlike some who would be fretting about lack of swing or spin or bounce, all results of their efforts rather than the root cause. It may be that a few home sessions with eyes shut imagining your best bowling action in perfect rhythm would prove more productive than repetitive slogging in the indoor nets.
To find extra time as a batsman may be a little harder, but time spent in studying the problem objectively will not go amiss. It is mostly a matter of believing that there is extra time available and being prepared to take a leap of faith when the actual equations of feet per second and hundredths of seconds tend to disprove any such notion.
One of the most commonly asked questions by young batsmen is how on earth it is possible to play the fastest bowlers when at 90 miles per hour there is only a quarter of a second to actually play the stroke after an even shorter slice of reaction time. It seems impossible until you put it another way. If you say that you have 35 hundredths of a second to play the ball it seems just that bit longer.
There are two essentials in finding extra time. One is to wait for the ball to come to you rather than rushing around trying to get to it. And the other is to have a pre-determined reaction to the kind of ball you most expect. Some of the greatest players may have played each individual ball strictly on merit but for the rest of us, a certain amount of pre-planning is essential.
So shut your eyes and imagine the ball leaving the bowler’s hand while you, the batsman, are still simply relaxed and ready. Take that leap of faith which is to believe in your natural reactions and that there will be time enough for them to put you in good position to play the ball when it arrives. If Gary Sobers can stand stock still against Dennis Lillee until the ball is nearly half way down the pitch, then it must be possible for most of us to play the majority of bowlers with time to spare.
New Year’s day at Sunningdale Golf Club resounded to the hum of good resolutions. No drink for a month ( with occasional lapses allowed ) was a popular choice. Then there was my own determination to keep the head steadier and more behind the ball in the downswing.
Top of the bill was the ageing scratch player who ordered his usual large tot before a twinge of guilt made him switch to mineral water. Only the night before he had embarked on the most stringent of remedies for recent poor form which involved a stone of weight loss, a two month course of lessons in the art of Seniors golf and a commitment to intensive physiotherapy for a stiff neck. In the cold light of day the immediate future looked a trifle bleak!
I found myself wondering whether cricketers are prone to the same kind of good intentions at this time of year. And, if so, what general lines of self-improvement would be the most useful. Obviously there is the whole fitness issue which is mighty important whatever the level of play, but setting yourself more technical goals is no simple matter.
I suppose it would be possible for a batsman to learn a particular stroke like an on-drive if that shot is not in an existing repertoire. Or a course in letting the ball go outside the off-stump would be a good exercise for anyone. The trouble is that serious work on such skills almost certainly needs a bowling machine for some of the time and a couple of competent bowlers to provide variety thereafter. Not everyone has access to such facilities.
Perhaps the first resolution should be to genuinely earmark rather more time for practice than normal during the rest of the winter, stepping it up a gear once the Spring comes round. When the summer is in full swing, then only the most dedicated have the drive and inclination to add practice time to what may be an already arduous day’s play. At the highest level, it was Geoffrey Boycott above anyone else I can think of, who regularly found the extra hour or two in every day to bat against all-comers in the nets whether it was early in the morning or late into the evening.
By comparison the golfer has a far easier task. As a much more repetitive game with a still ball to boot, it is merely a question of defining your problems and then working hard to eliminate them. Hitting hundreds of balls is almost essential to reach a high standard even if the amazing Colin Montgomerie is a current exception.
Because of the cricketers difficulties in defining specific problems plus often inadequate practice facilities, I am going to suggest a couple of more general points to consider where some hard concentration in an armchair may be worth many actual hours of hands on activity.
We all know that the best batsmen appear to have more time to play the ball and that the best bowlers have plenty of rhythm, but when did you last hear of cricketers working exclusively on those two key factors. Brian Statham worked at nothing other than his rhythm, for a short time before each day’s play and then again the moment he had the new ball in his hand.
When lucky enough to be captaining this wonderful bowler, he would give me bulletins on whether it was feeling right or not quite right or whatever. Unlike some who would be fretting about lack of swing or spin or bounce, all results of their efforts rather than the root cause. It may be that a few home sessions with eyes shut imagining your best bowling action in perfect rhythm would prove more productive than repetitive slogging in the indoor nets.
To find extra time as a batsman may be a little harder, but time spent in studying the problem objectively will not go amiss. It is mostly a matter of believing that there is extra time available and being prepared to take a leap of faith when the actual equations of feet per second and hundredths of seconds tend to disprove any such notion.
One of the most commonly asked questions by young batsmen is how on earth it is possible to play the fastest bowlers when at 90 miles per hour there is only a quarter of a second to actually play the stroke after an even shorter slice of reaction time. It seems impossible until you put it another way. If you say that you have 35 hundredths of a second to play the ball it seems just that bit longer.
There are two essentials in finding extra time. One is to wait for the ball to come to you rather than rushing around trying to get to it. And the other is to have a pre-determined reaction to the kind of ball you most expect. Some of the greatest players may have played each individual ball strictly on merit but for the rest of us, a certain amount of pre-planning is essential.
So shut your eyes and imagine the ball leaving the bowler’s hand while you, the batsman, are still simply relaxed and ready. Take that leap of faith which is to believe in your natural reactions and that there will be time enough for them to put you in good position to play the ball when it arrives. If Gary Sobers can stand stock still against Dennis Lillee until the ball is nearly half way down the pitch, then it must be possible for most of us to play the majority of bowlers with time to spare.
in Golf
Changing tactics (1999)
Ted Dexter Copy for the Cricketer Magazine June Issue
Development of techniques for limited overs cricket has been going on steadily ever since the first major matches were played under the banner of “The Knock-Out Cup” (sponsored by Gillette) in 1963.
They were 65 0ver matches and the modern player will wonder how on earth there were enough hours in the day to reach a finish. There was ,of course, the famous televised match at Old Trafford in the sixties which went on into the late evening with Jim Laker telling us what was happening in the dark, but that was an exception. Mostly we completed in normal working hours.
The difference is that it is now a ball by ball game rather than over by over. A Captain is not thought to be worth his salt unless he intervenes regularly to reset the field, and if that means walking with due ceremony from slip to the end of the bowler’s run-up, then so be it. If a batsman has the temerity to hit a four or six early in an over then it is obligatory to bring the game to a grinding halt while everyone regains their composure.
There were no fielding restrictions except the limitation of two behind square on the leg side but it was not long before circles were drawn and the first 15 over rule came into being. From these artificial impositions came the age of the “ pinch-hitter” with strict instructions to hit the new ball in the air into the open spaces.
But I have moved on too quickly. Individually there was experimentation from both bowlers and batsmen with the one trying to respond to each new move by the other.
“Giving yourself room” by stepping to leg was nothing new, already a feature of run chases in three day championship cricket but the advent of the blockhole ball and the importance of regular changes of pace came along more gradually. Meanwhile the essential agility in ground fielding was leading to longer training sessions and much practice in throwing direct at the stumps.
It was clear enough in the early days that the ball should be pitched up and straight and there is a case for this simple formula to this very day. However, the advent of heavier bats meant that thick inside edges went for twos and threes and pushed the bowling line more to the off-side - hence the sweeper fieldsman on the cover boundary employed by most teams nowadays.
Statistical analysis was perhaps a little slow to get going but it showed soon enough that quality bowling was nothing like the panacea it assumes in Test cricket. With restricted overs it is a fact that wickets are spread pretty evenly amongst the great and the fairly ordinary. Even more surprising is the fairly small differential between the runs per over conceded. The faster bowlers tend to be edged for four on an unlucky day with the slower men containing well for some, but not all of the time.
It was the winning Sri Lankan side that rather confirmed what the figures were suggesting i.e. that the ideal one-day side is made up of eleven batsmen who can all field like Jonti Rhodes and just do the best they can with the ball. Ideally this type of side prefers to bat second and backs itself to get the runs, however large the target.
The latest innovation which only appeared this winter is for the best fast bowlers to mount a full scale attack on the opening batsmen showing scant regard for the more restrictive playing condition regarding short pitched bowling. This tactic is only part of improved awareness of Captaincy which sometimes demands real aggression and quick thinking as opposed to the bad habits of some who kept defensive formulae to the finish, even when defeat was staring them in the face. Shane Warne was seen in a very good light in this respect during the games he captained when Steve Waugh was out of action.
It would be wrong not to mention the reverse sweep, given a rather permanent bad name by the infamous attempt by Mike Gatting in the final against Australia in India.
Less in evidence these days, it remains a powerful weapon in the right hands and it is probably only a matter of time before we see the first of a generation of switch-hitters, equally capable left and right handed. I believe they exist in baseball and there is no doubt that they would have value against the fair number of leg-spinners who are succeeding in tying down the lesser right-handers. How the umpires will deal with switching guard from one over to the next and even from one ball to the next remains to be seen.
Talking of umpires, they have had to move with the times as well, slowly redefining what is and what is not a wide ball, and finding it quite a struggle to achieve consistency between individual umpires and between the various stages of a fluctuating match. What is a wide to one batsman standing still, may not be to another who moves across his stumps and this is only one of a number of anomalies which the experts are trying to sort out in the Laws rewrite which is going on apace behind the scenes at Lord’s.
So the shorter game continues to change and develop. On the few occasions when I coach batsmen these days, there is a different session for full scale attack when the only crime is “dot-balls” and getting out is preferable. Those who saw me bat will be relieved to know that I give no instruction on the sweep or indeed its reverse counterpart. Never fancied it myself for fear of getting a top edge into my nose. But if I had had a helmet?
Development of techniques for limited overs cricket has been going on steadily ever since the first major matches were played under the banner of “The Knock-Out Cup” (sponsored by Gillette) in 1963.
They were 65 0ver matches and the modern player will wonder how on earth there were enough hours in the day to reach a finish. There was ,of course, the famous televised match at Old Trafford in the sixties which went on into the late evening with Jim Laker telling us what was happening in the dark, but that was an exception. Mostly we completed in normal working hours.
The difference is that it is now a ball by ball game rather than over by over. A Captain is not thought to be worth his salt unless he intervenes regularly to reset the field, and if that means walking with due ceremony from slip to the end of the bowler’s run-up, then so be it. If a batsman has the temerity to hit a four or six early in an over then it is obligatory to bring the game to a grinding halt while everyone regains their composure.
There were no fielding restrictions except the limitation of two behind square on the leg side but it was not long before circles were drawn and the first 15 over rule came into being. From these artificial impositions came the age of the “ pinch-hitter” with strict instructions to hit the new ball in the air into the open spaces.
But I have moved on too quickly. Individually there was experimentation from both bowlers and batsmen with the one trying to respond to each new move by the other.
“Giving yourself room” by stepping to leg was nothing new, already a feature of run chases in three day championship cricket but the advent of the blockhole ball and the importance of regular changes of pace came along more gradually. Meanwhile the essential agility in ground fielding was leading to longer training sessions and much practice in throwing direct at the stumps.
It was clear enough in the early days that the ball should be pitched up and straight and there is a case for this simple formula to this very day. However, the advent of heavier bats meant that thick inside edges went for twos and threes and pushed the bowling line more to the off-side - hence the sweeper fieldsman on the cover boundary employed by most teams nowadays.
Statistical analysis was perhaps a little slow to get going but it showed soon enough that quality bowling was nothing like the panacea it assumes in Test cricket. With restricted overs it is a fact that wickets are spread pretty evenly amongst the great and the fairly ordinary. Even more surprising is the fairly small differential between the runs per over conceded. The faster bowlers tend to be edged for four on an unlucky day with the slower men containing well for some, but not all of the time.
It was the winning Sri Lankan side that rather confirmed what the figures were suggesting i.e. that the ideal one-day side is made up of eleven batsmen who can all field like Jonti Rhodes and just do the best they can with the ball. Ideally this type of side prefers to bat second and backs itself to get the runs, however large the target.
The latest innovation which only appeared this winter is for the best fast bowlers to mount a full scale attack on the opening batsmen showing scant regard for the more restrictive playing condition regarding short pitched bowling. This tactic is only part of improved awareness of Captaincy which sometimes demands real aggression and quick thinking as opposed to the bad habits of some who kept defensive formulae to the finish, even when defeat was staring them in the face. Shane Warne was seen in a very good light in this respect during the games he captained when Steve Waugh was out of action.
It would be wrong not to mention the reverse sweep, given a rather permanent bad name by the infamous attempt by Mike Gatting in the final against Australia in India.
Less in evidence these days, it remains a powerful weapon in the right hands and it is probably only a matter of time before we see the first of a generation of switch-hitters, equally capable left and right handed. I believe they exist in baseball and there is no doubt that they would have value against the fair number of leg-spinners who are succeeding in tying down the lesser right-handers. How the umpires will deal with switching guard from one over to the next and even from one ball to the next remains to be seen.
Talking of umpires, they have had to move with the times as well, slowly redefining what is and what is not a wide ball, and finding it quite a struggle to achieve consistency between individual umpires and between the various stages of a fluctuating match. What is a wide to one batsman standing still, may not be to another who moves across his stumps and this is only one of a number of anomalies which the experts are trying to sort out in the Laws rewrite which is going on apace behind the scenes at Lord’s.
So the shorter game continues to change and develop. On the few occasions when I coach batsmen these days, there is a different session for full scale attack when the only crime is “dot-balls” and getting out is preferable. Those who saw me bat will be relieved to know that I give no instruction on the sweep or indeed its reverse counterpart. Never fancied it myself for fear of getting a top edge into my nose. But if I had had a helmet?
in Cricket
First steps towards DRS from 1999
Channel 4 Test match coverage has given us a number of innovations. Some of them seem a little contrived, but the superimposition of the red strip down the pitch and the “ghosting” of the pads to show the stumps behind, has brought real benefits in the understanding of the L.B.W. Law. If nothing else, the commentators have been forced to articulate it’s subtleties rather better than previously.
So now we are all experts. Or are we? Let me set you a simple test. A batsman goes to sweep and is hit full toss on the front leg. The point of impact is between wicket and wicket (not a very good case for the red strip treatment which really only shows where the ball pitches) and the general line of the ball suggests that it will go on to hit the stumps. Out or not out?
Your immediate response is likely to be a request for further information. If the ball is going to hit the stumps on the full then it is almost certainly out. But if it is going to hit the pitch first, does it matter who has actually bowled the ball? If the bowler is Shane Warne on a turning pitch, the chances of it spinning past the off stump are pretty high. If it is a gentle arm ball from an English off-spinner on a flat track then the raised finger is more likely.
In this case we may feel that the umpire should not be in the business of making assumptions about what the ball may or may not do after the ball has hit the pad. And yet that is exactly what he is required to do for every single L.B.W. decision he ever gives. About the only certain thing about L.B.W. is that is always a matter of opinion and never a matter of fact.
There is a further oddity about the full toss conundrum. When a group of “experts” were posed the question recently, almost without exception we all thought that it was traditionally given out while the umpires in our midst were more circumspect. Looking at the Law as it stands there is no “requirement” to give it out and it is a particular case where it may be right to give umpires more direction.
The much more difficult and prevalent problem is for the umpire to decide whether a stroke has been made at the ball or just a pretence. There is one method used where the bat is brought down on the line of the ball but remains behind the pad. The other is the batsman deliberately playing outside the line of the ball while his only intention is to pad the ball away. Sometimes we all feel that continued subterfuge of this kind should earn a dismissive finger from the umpire, but the Law does not allow for irritation or cumulative evidence.
What has emerged from discussions on this point is that there is no attempt in the Law to define what is a “stroke” and what is not. First-class umpires who have mostly played the game tell me that they are well aware of which is which but still have difficulty in being sure of the ball hitting the stumps since the “non-shot” device is almost always used with the pad well forward outside the off-stump. For the benefit of the week-end umpire of limited experience, it may be that the Law could actually say that hiding the bat behind the pad is not considered a stroke.
The late Bob Wyatt, stalwart England Captain in the thirties, remained adamant all his life that the first major change in the Law was fatally flawed. This was when the ball was first allowed to pitch outside the off-stump, even though the point of impact still had to be between wicket and wicket. He always claimed that a better solution would have been to simply widen the target (probably a fourth stump).
A “solution” was considered necessary to stop a few cautious players who became expert at judging the pitch of the ball and padded away anything outside the “red” strip. What the Law changers failed to appreciate was the extent to which bowling methods would change once the requirement to pitch between wicket and wicket was removed. The front-on fast bowler charging through the crease was a new phenomenon culminating in the greatest exponent Malcolm Marshall. Derek Underwood was another who gained great advantage by being able to bowl from wide with this new chance of getting an L.B.W. decision in his favour.
There has been talk recently of doing away with all the frills and simply making Leg-Before-Wicket as simple as those three little words. If it is going to hit, then you are out, mate! But the thought of what is currently thoroughly defensive bowling, such as Tufnell in his over-the-wicket, into the rough mode against right-handers becoming a full scale attacking method, is a bit too much for purists to bear.
Apart from going back to the original Law with four stumps which is certainly worth some trial matches to see how it works, I have always harboured an idea of giving the batsman two L.B.W chances rather than one. At least it would be spectator friendly, saving the frustration of going to see a great player perform only for the umpire to send him on his way with apparently precious little evidence.
If the batsman had two chances, he could scarcely complain at unfairness. And the umpire could reasonably be rather more harsh on those batsmen who are over keen on using their pads for survival.
13-12-12
Further thoughts on corruption
Ted Dexter copy for June issue of the Cricketer
When the first whispers and rumours about match fixing were voiced in dark corners,
I simply refused to believe my ears, treating every allegation with the disdain that I thought they deserved. First of all the mechanics of underperforming as a team seemed to contain far too many uncertainties, totally at odds with what the serious gambler needs. Easier surely to fix a tennis or boxing match with only one intentional loser to pay, and only one to settle with in case of a double cross.
Even now, having accepted with heavy heart that the game has been dragged into the gutter by a few unprincipled players, if you read Mihir Bose in your Wisden Almanack , you may agree with me that neither the cricketers involved nor their gambler counterparts really seemed to know what they were doing. It was as if they were playing some sort of silly game, blissfully unaware of the damage done. Forgive them, for they know not what they do. How horribly apt is that biblical reference in this context.
It is human nature to tear down those things that are most revered – and some might say that reverence for cricket is overdone, out of proportion –all about just another ball game like baseball or hockey. I happen to think otherwise. The facts about cricket and how it all works are pretty clear even if some people still find it all a bit of a mystery. But there remain those who know all the facts, think they understand and yet still totally miss the point.
Let me tell you what I think sets cricket apart.
One. It is not a contact sport, but it remains physically demanding and essentially dangerous.
Two.It is a team game but one in which personal performance is highlighted – also there is a requirement for every player to take personal responsibility. You cannot complain in cricket that nobody passed you the ball. You are often enough on your own.
Three. There is such variation in accomplishment from one day to the next. 200 for mike atherton one day and zero the next. 7 wickets fo Gough and then nothing. It takes a stout heart to deal.with such swings of the pendulum. Nobody tells Tiger Woods for instance that he must go stew back in the clubhouse for a couple of days just because he played one bad shot.
Four. The major games last long enough to deny individuals the luxury of pretending to be what they are not. Cricketers personalities are fully revealed on the field of play.
Ian Botham, the wild spirit, Geoff Boycott, the curmudgeonly Yorkshireman and proud of it, the cash register mind of the late Sir Donald Bradman, the carefree genius of Dennis Compton and so to the delightful Muttiah Muraltharan, a man who was apparently born to the game and the business of bowling a cricket ball.
No wonder the game has a literature beyond compare. There is this great edifice of the games history, carved more deeply by some more than others but solid – something permanent against which every generation can test itself. And then along comes one group of thoughtless dunderheads who virtually aim a canon at the middle of it, apparently not caring a jot if it all comes tumbling down. Well, if it is not in ruins, there are certainly some gaping wounds to be healed – and the question is how?
Match fixing is of course not the only assault on the game. There is orchestrated cheating on a scale never encountered before. It is cheating, plain and simple but the perpetrators simply shrug and say it is the way of the world.
Resist the temptation to cheat your way through life is the very message which cricket was designed to bring home to young and old alike. Accept bad luck – and wrong decisions when they come along. Rejoice when the wheel comes round again and it is your turn to profit from a bit of good fortune.
So what is the way out of this unholy mess? For once I am wholly in tune with one aspect of Mr Blair’s policy style of government on the hoof. If you seek a reduction in major crime, get rid of minor criminal activity first. Clean up the graffiti in an area and there will be less muggings as people gain respect for their surroundings and then for each other. So we clean up what goes on on the field first and the off-field misbehaviour will more likely wither and die.
Looking around me there is precious little to be immediately optimistic about. Sir Paul Condon seems to be offering no more than a historical record and a few suggestions on policing to minimise the incidence of this scourge. In the same way as fire and brimstone from the pulpit did precious little to modify human frailty , you can forget about the effect of dire threats or getting people to sign pledges of honesty.
We administrators must, I think, adopt a more evangelical approach. We must paint a picture of a new dawn, a resumption of innocence, if you like, which may grab the imagination of a few young players and then spread around when others see how much fun they are having.
It is hard to get the image of the late Colin Cowdrey out of my mind when I start thinking along those lines. Colin saw clearly the importance of those five little words “The Spirit of the Game” tucked away for so many years in Law 42 “Fair and Unfair Play” and set the process in motion whereby that “SPIRIT” has now been defined and brought forward as a preamble to the Laws much like Etiquette in golf. It is our responsibility now – and particularly mine at MCC – to make sure that every young cricketer gets to know the wording of the spirit of cricket by heart. At Colin’s magnificent memorial service in the abbey, there were three youhg captains in the procession. To my shame, none of them had even read the words. They all received a copy personally from me. This, on a hugely expanded scale is a fruitful avenue, to be pursued in concert with the ECB and can only benefit the game.
Looking around further for inspiration , imagine my surprise when I came across it in, of all places, Southern California, a land with more eccentrics per square yard than even, may I make so bold, an MCC AGM. Of all places in the world, can you believe it, they have a National Sportsmanship Day.. God Bless those thousands of oddballs, because they talk about “ a day to celebrate the intrinsic value of sport as a source of inspiration”.
They go on to ask simple questions about what is fair as opposed to unfair. Its easy they say. Just look at the rules- Laws- and ask whether any questionable tactic demonstrates a skill the game was designed to measure. Was cricket designed to Test which group of fielders can clap their hands louder than the other teams ? answer –no- so don’t do it.
Finally these definitive words There is no victory without honour. Now if every international cricketer had that logo on his shirt rather than the name of a mobile phone or fast food outlet, then we would be starting to win hearts and minds. Any multi- millionaire with a yen to do good in the world could do worse than to buy and decorate Test Team shirts with such a poignant message
When the first whispers and rumours about match fixing were voiced in dark corners,
I simply refused to believe my ears, treating every allegation with the disdain that I thought they deserved. First of all the mechanics of underperforming as a team seemed to contain far too many uncertainties, totally at odds with what the serious gambler needs. Easier surely to fix a tennis or boxing match with only one intentional loser to pay, and only one to settle with in case of a double cross.
Even now, having accepted with heavy heart that the game has been dragged into the gutter by a few unprincipled players, if you read Mihir Bose in your Wisden Almanack , you may agree with me that neither the cricketers involved nor their gambler counterparts really seemed to know what they were doing. It was as if they were playing some sort of silly game, blissfully unaware of the damage done. Forgive them, for they know not what they do. How horribly apt is that biblical reference in this context.
It is human nature to tear down those things that are most revered – and some might say that reverence for cricket is overdone, out of proportion –all about just another ball game like baseball or hockey. I happen to think otherwise. The facts about cricket and how it all works are pretty clear even if some people still find it all a bit of a mystery. But there remain those who know all the facts, think they understand and yet still totally miss the point.
Let me tell you what I think sets cricket apart.
One. It is not a contact sport, but it remains physically demanding and essentially dangerous.
Two.It is a team game but one in which personal performance is highlighted – also there is a requirement for every player to take personal responsibility. You cannot complain in cricket that nobody passed you the ball. You are often enough on your own.
Three. There is such variation in accomplishment from one day to the next. 200 for mike atherton one day and zero the next. 7 wickets fo Gough and then nothing. It takes a stout heart to deal.with such swings of the pendulum. Nobody tells Tiger Woods for instance that he must go stew back in the clubhouse for a couple of days just because he played one bad shot.
Four. The major games last long enough to deny individuals the luxury of pretending to be what they are not. Cricketers personalities are fully revealed on the field of play.
Ian Botham, the wild spirit, Geoff Boycott, the curmudgeonly Yorkshireman and proud of it, the cash register mind of the late Sir Donald Bradman, the carefree genius of Dennis Compton and so to the delightful Muttiah Muraltharan, a man who was apparently born to the game and the business of bowling a cricket ball.
No wonder the game has a literature beyond compare. There is this great edifice of the games history, carved more deeply by some more than others but solid – something permanent against which every generation can test itself. And then along comes one group of thoughtless dunderheads who virtually aim a canon at the middle of it, apparently not caring a jot if it all comes tumbling down. Well, if it is not in ruins, there are certainly some gaping wounds to be healed – and the question is how?
Match fixing is of course not the only assault on the game. There is orchestrated cheating on a scale never encountered before. It is cheating, plain and simple but the perpetrators simply shrug and say it is the way of the world.
Resist the temptation to cheat your way through life is the very message which cricket was designed to bring home to young and old alike. Accept bad luck – and wrong decisions when they come along. Rejoice when the wheel comes round again and it is your turn to profit from a bit of good fortune.
So what is the way out of this unholy mess? For once I am wholly in tune with one aspect of Mr Blair’s policy style of government on the hoof. If you seek a reduction in major crime, get rid of minor criminal activity first. Clean up the graffiti in an area and there will be less muggings as people gain respect for their surroundings and then for each other. So we clean up what goes on on the field first and the off-field misbehaviour will more likely wither and die.
Looking around me there is precious little to be immediately optimistic about. Sir Paul Condon seems to be offering no more than a historical record and a few suggestions on policing to minimise the incidence of this scourge. In the same way as fire and brimstone from the pulpit did precious little to modify human frailty , you can forget about the effect of dire threats or getting people to sign pledges of honesty.
We administrators must, I think, adopt a more evangelical approach. We must paint a picture of a new dawn, a resumption of innocence, if you like, which may grab the imagination of a few young players and then spread around when others see how much fun they are having.
It is hard to get the image of the late Colin Cowdrey out of my mind when I start thinking along those lines. Colin saw clearly the importance of those five little words “The Spirit of the Game” tucked away for so many years in Law 42 “Fair and Unfair Play” and set the process in motion whereby that “SPIRIT” has now been defined and brought forward as a preamble to the Laws much like Etiquette in golf. It is our responsibility now – and particularly mine at MCC – to make sure that every young cricketer gets to know the wording of the spirit of cricket by heart. At Colin’s magnificent memorial service in the abbey, there were three youhg captains in the procession. To my shame, none of them had even read the words. They all received a copy personally from me. This, on a hugely expanded scale is a fruitful avenue, to be pursued in concert with the ECB and can only benefit the game.
Looking around further for inspiration , imagine my surprise when I came across it in, of all places, Southern California, a land with more eccentrics per square yard than even, may I make so bold, an MCC AGM. Of all places in the world, can you believe it, they have a National Sportsmanship Day.. God Bless those thousands of oddballs, because they talk about “ a day to celebrate the intrinsic value of sport as a source of inspiration”.
They go on to ask simple questions about what is fair as opposed to unfair. Its easy they say. Just look at the rules- Laws- and ask whether any questionable tactic demonstrates a skill the game was designed to measure. Was cricket designed to Test which group of fielders can clap their hands louder than the other teams ? answer –no- so don’t do it.
Finally these definitive words There is no victory without honour. Now if every international cricketer had that logo on his shirt rather than the name of a mobile phone or fast food outlet, then we would be starting to win hearts and minds. Any multi- millionaire with a yen to do good in the world could do worse than to buy and decorate Test Team shirts with such a poignant message
in Cricket
Early thoughts on match fixing
ted dexter copy for the cricketer magazine
3rd november 2000
I received a news release recently from the International Cricket Council headlined “ ICC commits to ongoing fight against cricket corruption”, a statement of intent which had all the impact of a cotton wool ball bowled at a brick wall. “ICC suspends three nations from international cricket for three years” – or “ Seventeen Test cricketers banned for life” would have knocked one or two bricks out of the wall at least.
More earth shattering revelations were to come. “The Pakistan Board intends to pursue a policy of no tolerance to corruption.” Which suggests that prior to the recent ICC meetings in Nairobi, there was a possibility that a blind eye had been turned to certain misconduct in that part of the world. I am amazed that Pakistan could have approved the text of a release with such negative implications.
On a more positive note, it was the first time that I became fully aware of a formal Anti-Corruption Unit under Sir Paul Condon and the existence of individual investigating processes in each affiliated country.
Turn the page, however, and matters seem to descend into pure farce with the reqirement for every Tom, Dick and Harry involved with international cricket – including groundsmen – to sign “honesty” declarations with a pro-forma players’ form attached. It is rather like one of those old-fashioned immigration forms where you were asked whether you had ever been involved in subversive activities for the overthrow of the state.
Is any player seriously going to have a sudden change of heart and admit to match fixing just because he is faced with a new scrap of paper to sign?
Every existing player contract contains a clause binding him to observe the Code of Conduct which already theatens disciplinary action for everything from dissent to drug taking and includes a detailed list of offences involving cricket gambling of any kind. To add a further layer of bureaucracy is surely pure window dressing.
And so to the mention of Alec Stewart’s name within the Indian Government enquiry into cricket related misconduct. Some have dignified these mentions with the word “allegations”, but since they emanate from a self confessed criminal corrupter, an Indian bookmaker acting unlawfully in the first place, it is totally irresponsible and odious to do so. If ever there was a need to remember the old maxim of “innocent until proven guilty”, it is now in relation to Stewart. It also strikes me as a total overreaction for a posse of anti-corruption officers to rush over to India in the light of such a totally unsubstantiated linking of the Stewart name to the very serious offences admitted by other individuals.
There is just one more small point of probably academic interest only.
I see that the relevant Appendix to the ICC Code of Conduct dealing with gambling starts with the words “ at any time after the 1st July 1993”. The England Tour to India finished in March 1993.
My off-the-cuff recollection of the 1992/1993 tour to India was of England performing so poorly that there was no possibility of a bet of any kind. We lost all three Tests by such margins that under-performance by one or two of the Indian batsmen would scarcely have made any difference. It is quite scary to note that our two spinners, Tufnell and Emburey took their grand total of 6 wickets in the series at an average of 69 and 72 respectively.
However the 6 match series of one-day internationals was well contested with England and India winning 3 matches each. I have looked at the analyses of each game, not to see what Stewart did or did not do, but to see whether there was any pattern which suggested anything unusual and my conclusion is one of total inconclusiveness. Perhaps that is where the so-called glorious uncertainties of cricket play into the hands of unscrupulous gamblers. 0 one day and 100 the next is commonplace without any help from ideas of match-fixing.
Going back to the ICC release, I was dissappointed to see that the penalties imposed on Herschelle Gibbs and Henry Williams were confirmed. As young players early in their careers, it must have put them on the spot in an unprecedented way to be instructed to underperform by their Captain, Hansie Cronje. Such was the general high level of respect for Cronje before his fall from grace, it was virtually impossible for such juniors to blow the whistle.When I first played under Peter May, his word was law as far as I was concerned and I am sure I would have done whatever he told me to do. It would have been a nice way of emphasising the crucial role of cricket captains in the conduct of the game if those penalties had been suspended by ICC.
It warms my heart just a little to finish by talking actual cricket. Watching the first one-day international in Pakistan, my heart was in my mouth when Hick started to take a swing at Saqlain’s very first ball. He was clearly nowhere near the pitch of the ball but miraculously there was a meaty connection and the ball sailed away for six. It was a defining moment which heralded a famous victory just as much as the wonderful clean hitting by Flintoff.
Only a few days later, exactly the same scenario emerged in the Final. Saqlain to Hick, a mighty swing and victory to Saqlain on this occasion. Now who could have bet on that.
3rd november 2000
I received a news release recently from the International Cricket Council headlined “ ICC commits to ongoing fight against cricket corruption”, a statement of intent which had all the impact of a cotton wool ball bowled at a brick wall. “ICC suspends three nations from international cricket for three years” – or “ Seventeen Test cricketers banned for life” would have knocked one or two bricks out of the wall at least.
More earth shattering revelations were to come. “The Pakistan Board intends to pursue a policy of no tolerance to corruption.” Which suggests that prior to the recent ICC meetings in Nairobi, there was a possibility that a blind eye had been turned to certain misconduct in that part of the world. I am amazed that Pakistan could have approved the text of a release with such negative implications.
On a more positive note, it was the first time that I became fully aware of a formal Anti-Corruption Unit under Sir Paul Condon and the existence of individual investigating processes in each affiliated country.
Turn the page, however, and matters seem to descend into pure farce with the reqirement for every Tom, Dick and Harry involved with international cricket – including groundsmen – to sign “honesty” declarations with a pro-forma players’ form attached. It is rather like one of those old-fashioned immigration forms where you were asked whether you had ever been involved in subversive activities for the overthrow of the state.
Is any player seriously going to have a sudden change of heart and admit to match fixing just because he is faced with a new scrap of paper to sign?
Every existing player contract contains a clause binding him to observe the Code of Conduct which already theatens disciplinary action for everything from dissent to drug taking and includes a detailed list of offences involving cricket gambling of any kind. To add a further layer of bureaucracy is surely pure window dressing.
And so to the mention of Alec Stewart’s name within the Indian Government enquiry into cricket related misconduct. Some have dignified these mentions with the word “allegations”, but since they emanate from a self confessed criminal corrupter, an Indian bookmaker acting unlawfully in the first place, it is totally irresponsible and odious to do so. If ever there was a need to remember the old maxim of “innocent until proven guilty”, it is now in relation to Stewart. It also strikes me as a total overreaction for a posse of anti-corruption officers to rush over to India in the light of such a totally unsubstantiated linking of the Stewart name to the very serious offences admitted by other individuals.
There is just one more small point of probably academic interest only.
I see that the relevant Appendix to the ICC Code of Conduct dealing with gambling starts with the words “ at any time after the 1st July 1993”. The England Tour to India finished in March 1993.
My off-the-cuff recollection of the 1992/1993 tour to India was of England performing so poorly that there was no possibility of a bet of any kind. We lost all three Tests by such margins that under-performance by one or two of the Indian batsmen would scarcely have made any difference. It is quite scary to note that our two spinners, Tufnell and Emburey took their grand total of 6 wickets in the series at an average of 69 and 72 respectively.
However the 6 match series of one-day internationals was well contested with England and India winning 3 matches each. I have looked at the analyses of each game, not to see what Stewart did or did not do, but to see whether there was any pattern which suggested anything unusual and my conclusion is one of total inconclusiveness. Perhaps that is where the so-called glorious uncertainties of cricket play into the hands of unscrupulous gamblers. 0 one day and 100 the next is commonplace without any help from ideas of match-fixing.
Going back to the ICC release, I was dissappointed to see that the penalties imposed on Herschelle Gibbs and Henry Williams were confirmed. As young players early in their careers, it must have put them on the spot in an unprecedented way to be instructed to underperform by their Captain, Hansie Cronje. Such was the general high level of respect for Cronje before his fall from grace, it was virtually impossible for such juniors to blow the whistle.When I first played under Peter May, his word was law as far as I was concerned and I am sure I would have done whatever he told me to do. It would have been a nice way of emphasising the crucial role of cricket captains in the conduct of the game if those penalties had been suspended by ICC.
It warms my heart just a little to finish by talking actual cricket. Watching the first one-day international in Pakistan, my heart was in my mouth when Hick started to take a swing at Saqlain’s very first ball. He was clearly nowhere near the pitch of the ball but miraculously there was a meaty connection and the ball sailed away for six. It was a defining moment which heralded a famous victory just as much as the wonderful clean hitting by Flintoff.
Only a few days later, exactly the same scenario emerged in the Final. Saqlain to Hick, a mighty swing and victory to Saqlain on this occasion. Now who could have bet on that.
in Cricket
Ted Dexter article for Cricketer magazine (see MCC Report)
TED DEXTER COPY FOR THE CRICKETER MAGAZINE
A golfing friend admitted to me the other day that he had never been to Lord’s. What rather shocked me was the matter of fact tone, as though a visit to the Mecca of cricketers worldwide was simply an optional extra. What can you say in the face of such indifference? Better to say nothing perhaps and hope that he comes to realise the error of his ways before too long.
To me the place is more of a second home, starting with a Test match outing from preparatory school. Sitting on the grass below the Mound Stand, we small boys were able to ask Denis Compton for his autograph when a wicket fell. “Not now lads” was the answer but he still made our day with a little chat about the game. Next time it was Alec Bedser bowling to Don Bradman with a ring of close fielders known in those days as the “Leg Trap”. Hutton dropped one and caught another. Or did he?
Childhood memories can be vivid enough but they can also be wildly inaccurate. Not so long ago I returned to the first proper school cricket pitch I played on, only to find that it was hardly larger than a couple of tennis courts. No wonder my first six seemed such a mighty hit at the time. So it was reassuring to check my facts with the great Sir Alec some fifty years after the event and to have my recollection instantly confirmed. “He should have caught the first one” was the typical bowler’s response.
Along came representative schools matches, university matches, Bank holiday matches, (Middlesex v Sussex), Gentlemen v Players, M.C.C v Tourists and finally the first of a few Tests. There are too many memorable moments to start recounting them here but there was always the same tingle up the spine just walking in at the Grace gate and even more so when walking through the Long Room and out onto the pitch. Rather like hitting the drive off the first on the Old Course at St Andrew’s. The ghosts of players from down the ages are never far away.
Apart from the abiding sense of history, I have to admit that Lord’s was not my absolute favourite ground to play on. There was the sideways slope to contend with and the “ridge” at the Nursery End where one ball would fly and the next keep low. Also, in keeping with most grounds at the time, there was no sightscreen in front of the pavilion. Seeing the ball as it emerged from a mixture of red brick, reflecting windows and a sea of panama hats was not always easy.
It was at our insistence as players after one particularly lively pitch that “Gubby” Allen, who virtually ran the place in those days, was persuaded to survey the playing area properly. Though he was loath to embrace the “ridge” theory at the time, our concerns did seem to bear fruit over a period and with all of the playing area now re-laid, and a sliding sight-screen to boot, there is much that the modern batsman can thank us for.
Since then, of course the ground has become hardly recognisable with the demise of the original Tavern and then the Warner Stand arising in place of the original few rows of seats and shed roof in the North-West corner. More recently the enlarged Compton and Edrich stands, the partly Getty-funded Mound stand with its fairground tented look and the massive new Grand Stand give the ground a whole new stature, with the modernistic NatWest Media Centre providing an extraordinary, yet challenging contrast to the unchanging facade of the great pavilion at the other end.
It would be a comfort for the Members and the administrators of M.C.C., amongst whom I now sit, to pat ourselves on the back and view the brand new aspect of the ground as a job well done. Just pay off the debt incurred and turn our thoughts to watching great games at our leisure for the foreseeable future. But as we all know, modern life is not like that – if indeed it ever was.
My experience is that our overall expectations of what life should offer are always on the increase. For instance, to quote my other sport, the playing standards of golf courses have improved immeasurably as have the clubhouse facilities, shower rooms etc. I was lucky enough to attend the 150th anniversary celebrations at Prestwick Golf Club last week where literally hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent to give it a five-star feeling of comfort inside, even when the wind and rain outside still has its way of reminding players that not all of life has changed.
Lord’s Cricket Ground, always in the forefront of the nation’s cricketing affairs, deserves nothing less than the same approach. Nobody wants to see this great ground go the way of Wembley, which, despite its history and unique atmosphere, failed to move with the times and was gradually overtaken by events.
The pavilion itself is a key part of the heritage and needs as full a face-lift as funds will allow. The playing area, despite the most sophisticated covering arrangements, remains vulnerable to the least downpour, because it is made of solid London clay. Keeping it playable is extremely labour intensive, even with the technological help of the weird and wonderful hover cover, and it is a level of manpower which it is only realistic to provide for the very big occasions. Modern re-surfacing methods are now available which would ensure that any rain was immediately sucked under, rather being allowed to run over the top with inevitable ponding. There is much to do.
With an increasing number of major matches, time out for pitch preparation grows accordingly. Sadly, it means that demands from the whole world of recreational cricket to have their one day of a lifetime playing at Lord’s cannot often be met. An attractive solution lies with the introduction of drop-in pitches, prepared at the Nursery end or even off-site altogether. Already pioneered successfully in Australia and New Zealand, our otherwise unreliable climate can be depended upon to present a few problems that will need to be overcome. But the prospect of more cricket at ‘headquarters’ means that this is an innovation that we simply cannot ignore.
Finally there is the matter of floodlighting. For all their popular appeal, there will be a continuing debate about the future of day-night matches as long as sides batting second seem virtually friendless when it comes to predicting the outcome. However, there seem to be no such doubts - certainly not in the corridors and committee rooms of the ICC - about the merits of additional lighting being used to avoid the players trooping off on a gloomy day in the middle of an exciting Test. Every avenue should be explored to make this a possibility.
All of this is not news to the 18,000 members who are committed to the idea of maintaining Lord’s as the very best of grounds as well as being the most prestigious. They may be not quite so enthusiastic about the financial implications where an increase in subscriptions is very much on the cards! Whatever that increase may be, there is little doubt that in terms of comparative value for money, M.C.C membership is still to the forefront. Season tickets to modest football clubs cost more whilst plain fitness emporiums and social clubs, let alone golf clubs are in another league altogether.
I just hope that my long association with Lord’s will continue in such a way that I can continue to be genuinely proud of the way it changes with the times. It is not only the fabric of the place that is changing for the better. The whole idea of the private club with a public role is being re-visited with a number of pure cricketing initiatives on hand - on umpiring and the Spirit of the Game, for example - which can only benefit cricket both here at home and world-wide. If everyone can take a leap of faith, I believe they will live to enjoy the fruits of their actions with M.C.C. and Lord’s at the head of affairs as never before.
A golfing friend admitted to me the other day that he had never been to Lord’s. What rather shocked me was the matter of fact tone, as though a visit to the Mecca of cricketers worldwide was simply an optional extra. What can you say in the face of such indifference? Better to say nothing perhaps and hope that he comes to realise the error of his ways before too long.
To me the place is more of a second home, starting with a Test match outing from preparatory school. Sitting on the grass below the Mound Stand, we small boys were able to ask Denis Compton for his autograph when a wicket fell. “Not now lads” was the answer but he still made our day with a little chat about the game. Next time it was Alec Bedser bowling to Don Bradman with a ring of close fielders known in those days as the “Leg Trap”. Hutton dropped one and caught another. Or did he?
Childhood memories can be vivid enough but they can also be wildly inaccurate. Not so long ago I returned to the first proper school cricket pitch I played on, only to find that it was hardly larger than a couple of tennis courts. No wonder my first six seemed such a mighty hit at the time. So it was reassuring to check my facts with the great Sir Alec some fifty years after the event and to have my recollection instantly confirmed. “He should have caught the first one” was the typical bowler’s response.
Along came representative schools matches, university matches, Bank holiday matches, (Middlesex v Sussex), Gentlemen v Players, M.C.C v Tourists and finally the first of a few Tests. There are too many memorable moments to start recounting them here but there was always the same tingle up the spine just walking in at the Grace gate and even more so when walking through the Long Room and out onto the pitch. Rather like hitting the drive off the first on the Old Course at St Andrew’s. The ghosts of players from down the ages are never far away.
Apart from the abiding sense of history, I have to admit that Lord’s was not my absolute favourite ground to play on. There was the sideways slope to contend with and the “ridge” at the Nursery End where one ball would fly and the next keep low. Also, in keeping with most grounds at the time, there was no sightscreen in front of the pavilion. Seeing the ball as it emerged from a mixture of red brick, reflecting windows and a sea of panama hats was not always easy.
It was at our insistence as players after one particularly lively pitch that “Gubby” Allen, who virtually ran the place in those days, was persuaded to survey the playing area properly. Though he was loath to embrace the “ridge” theory at the time, our concerns did seem to bear fruit over a period and with all of the playing area now re-laid, and a sliding sight-screen to boot, there is much that the modern batsman can thank us for.
Since then, of course the ground has become hardly recognisable with the demise of the original Tavern and then the Warner Stand arising in place of the original few rows of seats and shed roof in the North-West corner. More recently the enlarged Compton and Edrich stands, the partly Getty-funded Mound stand with its fairground tented look and the massive new Grand Stand give the ground a whole new stature, with the modernistic NatWest Media Centre providing an extraordinary, yet challenging contrast to the unchanging facade of the great pavilion at the other end.
It would be a comfort for the Members and the administrators of M.C.C., amongst whom I now sit, to pat ourselves on the back and view the brand new aspect of the ground as a job well done. Just pay off the debt incurred and turn our thoughts to watching great games at our leisure for the foreseeable future. But as we all know, modern life is not like that – if indeed it ever was.
My experience is that our overall expectations of what life should offer are always on the increase. For instance, to quote my other sport, the playing standards of golf courses have improved immeasurably as have the clubhouse facilities, shower rooms etc. I was lucky enough to attend the 150th anniversary celebrations at Prestwick Golf Club last week where literally hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent to give it a five-star feeling of comfort inside, even when the wind and rain outside still has its way of reminding players that not all of life has changed.
Lord’s Cricket Ground, always in the forefront of the nation’s cricketing affairs, deserves nothing less than the same approach. Nobody wants to see this great ground go the way of Wembley, which, despite its history and unique atmosphere, failed to move with the times and was gradually overtaken by events.
The pavilion itself is a key part of the heritage and needs as full a face-lift as funds will allow. The playing area, despite the most sophisticated covering arrangements, remains vulnerable to the least downpour, because it is made of solid London clay. Keeping it playable is extremely labour intensive, even with the technological help of the weird and wonderful hover cover, and it is a level of manpower which it is only realistic to provide for the very big occasions. Modern re-surfacing methods are now available which would ensure that any rain was immediately sucked under, rather being allowed to run over the top with inevitable ponding. There is much to do.
With an increasing number of major matches, time out for pitch preparation grows accordingly. Sadly, it means that demands from the whole world of recreational cricket to have their one day of a lifetime playing at Lord’s cannot often be met. An attractive solution lies with the introduction of drop-in pitches, prepared at the Nursery end or even off-site altogether. Already pioneered successfully in Australia and New Zealand, our otherwise unreliable climate can be depended upon to present a few problems that will need to be overcome. But the prospect of more cricket at ‘headquarters’ means that this is an innovation that we simply cannot ignore.
Finally there is the matter of floodlighting. For all their popular appeal, there will be a continuing debate about the future of day-night matches as long as sides batting second seem virtually friendless when it comes to predicting the outcome. However, there seem to be no such doubts - certainly not in the corridors and committee rooms of the ICC - about the merits of additional lighting being used to avoid the players trooping off on a gloomy day in the middle of an exciting Test. Every avenue should be explored to make this a possibility.
All of this is not news to the 18,000 members who are committed to the idea of maintaining Lord’s as the very best of grounds as well as being the most prestigious. They may be not quite so enthusiastic about the financial implications where an increase in subscriptions is very much on the cards! Whatever that increase may be, there is little doubt that in terms of comparative value for money, M.C.C membership is still to the forefront. Season tickets to modest football clubs cost more whilst plain fitness emporiums and social clubs, let alone golf clubs are in another league altogether.
I just hope that my long association with Lord’s will continue in such a way that I can continue to be genuinely proud of the way it changes with the times. It is not only the fabric of the place that is changing for the better. The whole idea of the private club with a public role is being re-visited with a number of pure cricketing initiatives on hand - on umpiring and the Spirit of the Game, for example - which can only benefit cricket both here at home and world-wide. If everyone can take a leap of faith, I believe they will live to enjoy the fruits of their actions with M.C.C. and Lord’s at the head of affairs as never before.
MCC Cricket Committee Report (see associated article for Cricketer Magazine
CRICKET COMMITTEE
[Agreed by Tony Dodemaide: 17.1.2002]
[Amendments from Roger Knight incorporated: 31.1 2002]
“The Cricket committee is responsible for the main ground at Lord’s and all matters relating to the Laws of the game. It drives the policy of the Club, in all of its cricket activities - playing, coaching and supporting the game”.
The Cricket committee believes that 2001 will prove to have been a pivotal year for Lord’s, and the Club. At the Special General Meeting, Members approved subscription increases that will enable MCC to press ahead with three major ground improvement projects. As indicated in the President’s Statement, each of these initiatives is important and, taken together, they are also extremely ambitious. They present us with an unique opportunity to ensure that, in future, Lord’s can combine its undoubted historic appeal with genuinely state-of-the-art sporting facilities.
The Cricket committee undertook much important preparatory work in advance of September’s SGM. In particular, it considered evidence, from a wide variety of sources, on the re-laying of sporting surfaces, the use of portable cricket pitches, and the relative merits of different types of floodlighting. In addition, it contributed to the preparation of the documentation (including the special memorandum) that was sent to Members, to ensure that everyone was fully informed about the MCC Committee’s proposals and their merits from a cricket-playing perspective.
Since September, the committee has continued to take a close interest in all three projects. It has been pleased by the amount of progress that has been made. For example, the first metal trays, in which drop-in pitches will be developed, initially on a trial basis, arrived in England (from Australia) in December. Similarly, plans for the re-laying of the outfield have proceeded well. As a result, the Cricket committee believes that the existing outfield should be removed as soon as possible, starting in September 2002, and is confident that its replacement will provide a high-quality playing surface from the outset of the 2003 season. (The famous Lord’s ‘slope’ will, of course, be unaffected). As far as floodlighting is concerned, the committee continues to examine all the available evidence about the likely costs, benefits and practicality of installing floodlights at Lord’s.
In due course, these ground improvement projects should help to increase the quality and quantity of cricket that Lord’s can offer. For instance, the new outfield will reduce the amount of play lost after rain, while portable pitches should cut the number of days which have to be reserved for pitch preparation before major matches. This will not only increase the amount of cricket that MCC Members can watch, but it should enhance the prospect of Playing Members being able to demonstrate their skills at ‘headquarters’.
Indeed, the Club’s key achievements in 2001 included the organisation of a match between MCC North East and MCC London North. The chance to play at Lord’s was greatly appreciated by the twenty-two participants, whose selection reflected the strength of their commitment to Club’s Out Match programme. Moreover, the game, which was a great success, marked the start of a cycle which will enable a team representing each of the twelve MCC regions to play at Lord’s on a regular basis.
Other notable matches included MCC’s encounter with the Australians, at Arundel Park. However, high-profile fixtures remain less important than the Club’s overall playing programme which, in 2001, continued to prove its worth. Its value was vividly demonstrated by the results of a questionnaire sent to schools which play MCC sides. The vast majority of respondents were extremely positive about these matches and their effectiveness in cricket development terms. Looking further afield, the tours undertaken by MCC teams were equally productive and further enhanced MCC’s worldwide reputation.
In total, our teams played almost 500 matches in 2001 - consolidating MCC’s position as the most active cricket-playing club in the world. The Cricket committee was pleased to note that three groups enjoyed particularly successful seasons. First, MCC’s Young Cricketers broke record after record, with the best summer (particularly from a batting perspective) in their history. Second, the end-of-season games played by the Cross Arrows Cricket Club featured some outstanding individual performances, including Kevin Sedgbeer’s undefeated 226 against Adastrians C.C. - the highest score in the Cross Arrows’ 121 year history. Finally, MCC’s women’s teams had their most active season so far. It included their first tour, to the Netherlands, in July. The committee congratulates them on their achievements, and looks forward to our women’s teams assuming an increasingly important role in the Club’s playing programme in 2002 and beyond.
Our congratulations must also go to Mick Hunt, the Head Groundsman, and his colleagues, whose pitches continued to earn good marks from umpires. In 2001, pitch markings remained at their previously high levels in respect of the four-day games played at Lord’s, while umpires rated its one-day pitches more highly than in 2000 - helped by the successful re-introduction of the most recently re-laid surfaces.
Other improvements included the creation of a gymnasium in the MCC Indoor School, which further enhanced the facilities available for cricketers’ use at Lord’s - as noted by, for example, the touring Australians. However, 2001 included some disappointments, too. Security concerns resulted in the scheduled tour of Israel being postponed (but replaced by a trip to Portugal), while our hopes of developing a multi-faceted regional centre, in partnership with a club in Castleford, proved to be too ambitious and will not be pursued.
While such developments were unfortunate, the Cricket committee believes that they should not detract from one of the most active and successful years in MCC’s history - and one which will prove pivotal to its future.
[Agreed by Tony Dodemaide: 17.1.2002]
[Amendments from Roger Knight incorporated: 31.1 2002]
“The Cricket committee is responsible for the main ground at Lord’s and all matters relating to the Laws of the game. It drives the policy of the Club, in all of its cricket activities - playing, coaching and supporting the game”.
The Cricket committee believes that 2001 will prove to have been a pivotal year for Lord’s, and the Club. At the Special General Meeting, Members approved subscription increases that will enable MCC to press ahead with three major ground improvement projects. As indicated in the President’s Statement, each of these initiatives is important and, taken together, they are also extremely ambitious. They present us with an unique opportunity to ensure that, in future, Lord’s can combine its undoubted historic appeal with genuinely state-of-the-art sporting facilities.
The Cricket committee undertook much important preparatory work in advance of September’s SGM. In particular, it considered evidence, from a wide variety of sources, on the re-laying of sporting surfaces, the use of portable cricket pitches, and the relative merits of different types of floodlighting. In addition, it contributed to the preparation of the documentation (including the special memorandum) that was sent to Members, to ensure that everyone was fully informed about the MCC Committee’s proposals and their merits from a cricket-playing perspective.
Since September, the committee has continued to take a close interest in all three projects. It has been pleased by the amount of progress that has been made. For example, the first metal trays, in which drop-in pitches will be developed, initially on a trial basis, arrived in England (from Australia) in December. Similarly, plans for the re-laying of the outfield have proceeded well. As a result, the Cricket committee believes that the existing outfield should be removed as soon as possible, starting in September 2002, and is confident that its replacement will provide a high-quality playing surface from the outset of the 2003 season. (The famous Lord’s ‘slope’ will, of course, be unaffected). As far as floodlighting is concerned, the committee continues to examine all the available evidence about the likely costs, benefits and practicality of installing floodlights at Lord’s.
In due course, these ground improvement projects should help to increase the quality and quantity of cricket that Lord’s can offer. For instance, the new outfield will reduce the amount of play lost after rain, while portable pitches should cut the number of days which have to be reserved for pitch preparation before major matches. This will not only increase the amount of cricket that MCC Members can watch, but it should enhance the prospect of Playing Members being able to demonstrate their skills at ‘headquarters’.
Indeed, the Club’s key achievements in 2001 included the organisation of a match between MCC North East and MCC London North. The chance to play at Lord’s was greatly appreciated by the twenty-two participants, whose selection reflected the strength of their commitment to Club’s Out Match programme. Moreover, the game, which was a great success, marked the start of a cycle which will enable a team representing each of the twelve MCC regions to play at Lord’s on a regular basis.
Other notable matches included MCC’s encounter with the Australians, at Arundel Park. However, high-profile fixtures remain less important than the Club’s overall playing programme which, in 2001, continued to prove its worth. Its value was vividly demonstrated by the results of a questionnaire sent to schools which play MCC sides. The vast majority of respondents were extremely positive about these matches and their effectiveness in cricket development terms. Looking further afield, the tours undertaken by MCC teams were equally productive and further enhanced MCC’s worldwide reputation.
In total, our teams played almost 500 matches in 2001 - consolidating MCC’s position as the most active cricket-playing club in the world. The Cricket committee was pleased to note that three groups enjoyed particularly successful seasons. First, MCC’s Young Cricketers broke record after record, with the best summer (particularly from a batting perspective) in their history. Second, the end-of-season games played by the Cross Arrows Cricket Club featured some outstanding individual performances, including Kevin Sedgbeer’s undefeated 226 against Adastrians C.C. - the highest score in the Cross Arrows’ 121 year history. Finally, MCC’s women’s teams had their most active season so far. It included their first tour, to the Netherlands, in July. The committee congratulates them on their achievements, and looks forward to our women’s teams assuming an increasingly important role in the Club’s playing programme in 2002 and beyond.
Our congratulations must also go to Mick Hunt, the Head Groundsman, and his colleagues, whose pitches continued to earn good marks from umpires. In 2001, pitch markings remained at their previously high levels in respect of the four-day games played at Lord’s, while umpires rated its one-day pitches more highly than in 2000 - helped by the successful re-introduction of the most recently re-laid surfaces.
Other improvements included the creation of a gymnasium in the MCC Indoor School, which further enhanced the facilities available for cricketers’ use at Lord’s - as noted by, for example, the touring Australians. However, 2001 included some disappointments, too. Security concerns resulted in the scheduled tour of Israel being postponed (but replaced by a trip to Portugal), while our hopes of developing a multi-faceted regional centre, in partnership with a club in Castleford, proved to be too ambitious and will not be pursued.
While such developments were unfortunate, the Cricket committee believes that they should not detract from one of the most active and successful years in MCC’s history - and one which will prove pivotal to its future.
in Cricket
12-12-12
Daily Mail Dec 5 2012
Ted Dexter was an honoured guest at the Calcutta Test together with his opposing Captain in 1961, Nari Contractor. On the eve of this match, Dexter gave the five Test scorecards to his Indian opposite number 50 years on at a ceremony the Cricket Association of Bengal laid on to celebrate 80 years of Anglo-Indian clashes and the half-century since that first, famous Indian series victory over England
Both Dexter and Contractor were due to be presented to the Eden Gardens crowd.
'It's wonderful to be here,' he added. 'My wife was born here and loves coming to India.'
Dexter speaks with the gushing enthusiasm of a man who could be excused for being scarred by his time in India
His series as a sort of interim captain in 1961-62, with Peter May, Tom Graveney, Jim Laker, Fred Trueman, Colin Cowdrey and Brian Statham missing, ended in a 2-0 defeat.
Worse followed more than 30 years later when, as chairman of selectors, Dexter presided over a 3-0 'brownwash' for Graham Gooch's England.
That was the tour of dodgy prawns, smog in Calcutta and 'a study into facial hair'.
Dexter, for a man who was lampooned for muddling his words - 'Who could forget Malcolm Devon?' he once said - was both lucid and articulate as he spoke to Sportsmail.
'Our side were in a terrible state,' the former chairman remembered.
'Air India had gone on strike so they did all their travelling by train or bus. I invited Graham Gooch for dinner first night and halfway through the soup he went . . . bonk. Out for the count, his head on the table.
Then there was that report into the pollution. 'I got into terrible trouble about the smog,' winced Dexter.
'This professor said he was making a study of pollution and its effects on athletes. I told him a couple of ours were coughing and perhaps he could let us have a proof.
'I don't think I ever saw it but I mentioned it in a press conference. Two guys heard some rumour and gave me a hard time.
England, in particular manager Bob Bennett, were also criticised for being unshaven after an arduous train journey.
'Oh yes, we had all that business too,' he said. 'It went with the territory I suppose.'
This dashing batsman, one of England's best post-war, and innovative chairman of selectors whose legacy remains in the form of rankings and a four-day County Championship, should not be remembered for slips of the tongue.
'I still follow cricket,' said a man now living in the south of France. 'You can read my blog. It's teddexter.com.' He always was a modern thinker
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2242986/Lord-Ted-Dexter-said-defeat-India-great.html#ixzz2Er1woB1w
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Both Dexter and Contractor were due to be presented to the Eden Gardens crowd.
'It's wonderful to be here,' he added. 'My wife was born here and loves coming to India.'
Dexter speaks with the gushing enthusiasm of a man who could be excused for being scarred by his time in India
His series as a sort of interim captain in 1961-62, with Peter May, Tom Graveney, Jim Laker, Fred Trueman, Colin Cowdrey and Brian Statham missing, ended in a 2-0 defeat.
Worse followed more than 30 years later when, as chairman of selectors, Dexter presided over a 3-0 'brownwash' for Graham Gooch's England.
That was the tour of dodgy prawns, smog in Calcutta and 'a study into facial hair'.
Dexter, for a man who was lampooned for muddling his words - 'Who could forget Malcolm Devon?' he once said - was both lucid and articulate as he spoke to Sportsmail.
'Our side were in a terrible state,' the former chairman remembered.
'Air India had gone on strike so they did all their travelling by train or bus. I invited Graham Gooch for dinner first night and halfway through the soup he went . . . bonk. Out for the count, his head on the table.
Then there was that report into the pollution. 'I got into terrible trouble about the smog,' winced Dexter.
'This professor said he was making a study of pollution and its effects on athletes. I told him a couple of ours were coughing and perhaps he could let us have a proof.
'I don't think I ever saw it but I mentioned it in a press conference. Two guys heard some rumour and gave me a hard time.
England, in particular manager Bob Bennett, were also criticised for being unshaven after an arduous train journey.
'Oh yes, we had all that business too,' he said. 'It went with the territory I suppose.'
This dashing batsman, one of England's best post-war, and innovative chairman of selectors whose legacy remains in the form of rankings and a four-day County Championship, should not be remembered for slips of the tongue.
'I still follow cricket,' said a man now living in the south of France. 'You can read my blog. It's teddexter.com.' He always was a modern thinker
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2242986/Lord-Ted-Dexter-said-defeat-India-great.html#ixzz2Er1woB1w
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
in Cricket
10-12-12
Times Calcutta 2012
In a floodlit corner of the huge Eden Gardens stadium last night some 200 local cricket aficionados and dignitaries turned out for the felicitation of Ted Dexter by the Cricket Association of Bengal in a ceremony to mark the 80th anniversary of Test matches between England and India.
It would be cynical and wrong to suggest that Dexter is popular here because he was the first England captain to lose a series to India, in 1961-62, and then chairman of selectors in 1992-93, when his side was beaten in all three Tests.
Nowhere do they appreciate charisma more than in India and Dexter possessed that in spades on and off the field. His charm shone through the ceremony, his eyes twinkling as brightly as they had been half-an-hour beforehand when he reflected on his experiences of a country he loves.
The 1961-62 tour visited what are now all four Test-playing nations on the sub-continent.
The India series was sandwiched in the middle of a programme in Pakistan. Peter May, Colin Cowdrey, Fred Trueman and Brian Statham were among those who made themselves unavailable, but Dexter jumped at the opportunity to take charge.
“As a cricket experience for a young captain getting a grounding it was the best bar none,” he said. “There was no television and very few hotels. We mostly stayed in rest houses and made our own entertainment. But we were garlanded and made to feel important wherever we went.
“I loved the speeches and big evenings, the spirit and colour of it all. It was fabulous for me and on the back of it I managed to sneak to Australia as captain in 1962-63. Although we lost 2-0, many younger players like Peter Parfitt, Geoff Pullar and Kenny Barrington went on to have very good careers.”
England drew the first three games, but Dexter lost a crucial toss at Calcutta to Nari Contractor, who was also lauded last night. The ball spun sharply after the first day and England succumbed by 187 runs. Salim Durani, the left-arm spinner born in Afghanistan, took eight wickets in the match.
Over the series, the England spin pair of Tony Lock and David Allen held their own. “Dear old Locky was among the few big names who came with us,” Dexter said. “Sadly, he was at the end of his England career because his knees were buggered. But he hurled himself around the field all the time and I couldn’t get the ball off him — a great competitor.”
Some questionable umpiring decisions did not help England. “Well, they were locals,” Dexter said. “I once asked Don Bradman whether he thought there was any slight bias with home umpiring. I tried to be discreet. ‘Always,’ he said back straightaway. But everybody had home umpires then.” At least Dexter avoided illness.
“I have never had a single day’s problem in India,” he said. “Tom Pearce [the tour manager] told me not to drink alcohol unless I was with him, but if we drank whisky together we would be all right.” A nip every day kept the bugs away. “Actually, it might have been a couple,” he said.
The 1992-93 series was the nadir of his four years in charge of picking the England side. He was lampooned after the loss at Calcutta, when England chose four pace bowlers, for saying that he would commission a report into smog over India by way of response to the defeat.
“Our side was in a terrible state,” he said. “Air India had gone on strike so we did all our travelling by train or bus, and it is a huge place. I invited Graham Gooch to dinner with us first night and halfway through the soup he just conked out, shattered. We were a poor bunch.
“And I did get into terrible trouble about the smog. One night I’d been sitting next to this professor. He told me he was studying the effects of pollution on athletes. A couple of our team had been coughing, so I asked for a copy of it. It sounded interesting. Let me tell you that I haven’t seen that report to this day.”
Dexter is 77 and less steady on his pins. But his style is undimmed by age. A well-cut, sky
blue suit testified to that, and the sea air around his home in Nice in the South of France is helping his health. He comments on the game in a blog that also features fashion tips from his wife, Susan, a former model.
Celebrations were due to continue today with a parade during a break in the third Test. Eden Gardens has changed, he thinks, over the past 50 years.
“But one thing is the same,” he said. “The crowds have always been wonderful. When you play against an India team, you are taking on the whole of India.”
From Milan to Marylebone
• Born in Milan on May 15, 1935
• A beautiful strokemaker, he played 62 Tests for England from 1958-68, scoring 4,502 runs at 47.89 and taking 66 wickets at 34.93
• Chairman of selectors from 1989-93
• Also worked as a journalist and broadcaster
• Stood as the unsuccessful Conservative candidate against James Callaghan in the 1964 General Election
• Married Susan Longfield, a model
• Became president of MCC and was appointed CBE in 2001
It would be cynical and wrong to suggest that Dexter is popular here because he was the first England captain to lose a series to India, in 1961-62, and then chairman of selectors in 1992-93, when his side was beaten in all three Tests.
Nowhere do they appreciate charisma more than in India and Dexter possessed that in spades on and off the field. His charm shone through the ceremony, his eyes twinkling as brightly as they had been half-an-hour beforehand when he reflected on his experiences of a country he loves.
The 1961-62 tour visited what are now all four Test-playing nations on the sub-continent.
The India series was sandwiched in the middle of a programme in Pakistan. Peter May, Colin Cowdrey, Fred Trueman and Brian Statham were among those who made themselves unavailable, but Dexter jumped at the opportunity to take charge.
“As a cricket experience for a young captain getting a grounding it was the best bar none,” he said. “There was no television and very few hotels. We mostly stayed in rest houses and made our own entertainment. But we were garlanded and made to feel important wherever we went.
“I loved the speeches and big evenings, the spirit and colour of it all. It was fabulous for me and on the back of it I managed to sneak to Australia as captain in 1962-63. Although we lost 2-0, many younger players like Peter Parfitt, Geoff Pullar and Kenny Barrington went on to have very good careers.”
England drew the first three games, but Dexter lost a crucial toss at Calcutta to Nari Contractor, who was also lauded last night. The ball spun sharply after the first day and England succumbed by 187 runs. Salim Durani, the left-arm spinner born in Afghanistan, took eight wickets in the match.
Over the series, the England spin pair of Tony Lock and David Allen held their own. “Dear old Locky was among the few big names who came with us,” Dexter said. “Sadly, he was at the end of his England career because his knees were buggered. But he hurled himself around the field all the time and I couldn’t get the ball off him — a great competitor.”
Some questionable umpiring decisions did not help England. “Well, they were locals,” Dexter said. “I once asked Don Bradman whether he thought there was any slight bias with home umpiring. I tried to be discreet. ‘Always,’ he said back straightaway. But everybody had home umpires then.” At least Dexter avoided illness.
“I have never had a single day’s problem in India,” he said. “Tom Pearce [the tour manager] told me not to drink alcohol unless I was with him, but if we drank whisky together we would be all right.” A nip every day kept the bugs away. “Actually, it might have been a couple,” he said.
The 1992-93 series was the nadir of his four years in charge of picking the England side. He was lampooned after the loss at Calcutta, when England chose four pace bowlers, for saying that he would commission a report into smog over India by way of response to the defeat.
“Our side was in a terrible state,” he said. “Air India had gone on strike so we did all our travelling by train or bus, and it is a huge place. I invited Graham Gooch to dinner with us first night and halfway through the soup he just conked out, shattered. We were a poor bunch.
“And I did get into terrible trouble about the smog. One night I’d been sitting next to this professor. He told me he was studying the effects of pollution on athletes. A couple of our team had been coughing, so I asked for a copy of it. It sounded interesting. Let me tell you that I haven’t seen that report to this day.”
Dexter is 77 and less steady on his pins. But his style is undimmed by age. A well-cut, sky
blue suit testified to that, and the sea air around his home in Nice in the South of France is helping his health. He comments on the game in a blog that also features fashion tips from his wife, Susan, a former model.
Celebrations were due to continue today with a parade during a break in the third Test. Eden Gardens has changed, he thinks, over the past 50 years.
“But one thing is the same,” he said. “The crowds have always been wonderful. When you play against an India team, you are taking on the whole of India.”
From Milan to Marylebone
• Born in Milan on May 15, 1935
• A beautiful strokemaker, he played 62 Tests for England from 1958-68, scoring 4,502 runs at 47.89 and taking 66 wickets at 34.93
• Chairman of selectors from 1989-93
• Also worked as a journalist and broadcaster
• Stood as the unsuccessful Conservative candidate against James Callaghan in the 1964 General Election
• Married Susan Longfield, a model
• Became president of MCC and was appointed CBE in 2001
in Cricket
30-11-12
1963 KO Cup. Memories
1963 Knock-Out Cup. Ted Dexter remembers.
As I held the coveted silver cup above my head in front of the mighty Lord's pavilion after a pulsating victory over Worcestershire, it was the thrill of the moment rather than the historical significance that was uppermost in my mind.
Of course we were not to know if this new competition would be repeated. It might have been just a one-off.So we were just living in the moment and enjoying every minute of the experience. All the more so because until the final hour of the match few betting men would have given Sussex a hope in hell.
So what had happened to the considerable skills we had shown as we won our way through to the Final? Why did we make such a small total? And why were two great bowlers like Snow and Thomson unable initially to redress the balance.
Remember that this was a 65 overs a side match - scarcely conceivable to anyone brought up in the modern era. So there was time for what may be called "proper" cricket. But Sussex strengths were born of the sporting pitch at Hove with swing and bounce. Lord's tended to be much the same often enough - except that this time we found a very unfamiliar dry, dusty surface, more like Ahmedebad than St John's Wood. Worcestershire had three recognised spinners, Slade, Gifford and Horton and we had barely a one.
Winning the toss we batted and were going well enough at 62 for no wicket but that soon became 98 for four, all out to the spinners. Only Jim parks held firm and to be all out for 168 with 5 unused overs was pretty disastrous - we were grateful that the third highest scorer was the extras column!!
Looking at the Worcester scorecard I am a bit flummoxed to see that John Snow appears last in the list of bowlers. It cannot have been an oversight by the Captain, surely. But it may have been in an attempt to throttle the scoring rate early on, starting with Thomson and Buss.
Their batsmen seemed confident that they had plenty of time and at 91 for three needing less than 80 more, things looked pretty bleak. A change of tactic was needed so I threw the ball to Alan Oakman whose off-spin was no more than an occasional divertion in Championship games.
I can still hardly believe it but the tall, smiling, laid back opening bat and superb slip fielder managed to bowl 13 overs for just 17 runs. He had a particularly good tussle with Ron Headley who was looking to hit the ball sure enough but Alan's line was so consistent that there was always a fielder in the way.
Slowly, slowly we started to get them fretting and at last I came to my senses and unleashed a fresh and eager John Snow who defeated Broadbent before skittling the tail: 3 for 13 off 8 overs.
There is no doubt that Sussex were very lucky with the draw as the early rounds came and went. We had more than our fair share of home matches which built up the crowd support enormously and the smallish Hove ground was simply bulging all summer.
Mostly our tactics had been to bat first if possible. Then we would look to keep wickets in hand before starting to accelerate through the last twenty overs. As for the bowlers, I asked nothing more of them than to bowl every ball to hit the stumps. Wide on the off-side was a no-no. Short of a length with the ball going over the top was a no-no. Up and straight allowed me to set fielders according to the strengths and weaknesses of all the different batsmen. To right handers we often had 6 on the leg side. To left-handers we had to split the field 5/4. Early in the innings we had close in men in front of he wicket to stop any quick singles.
At the same time other County Captains and bowlers were coming up with some pretty weird and wonderful plans to control the scoring rate. I remember Trevor Bailey suggesting that with a fully defensive field, he would back himself to keep things down to two an over. When we played an early round in deepest Essex one year, he went for four or five times as many!
If lack of a good spinner or two had tended to deny Sussex the chance of winning Championships played on uncovered pitches, our seam bowling quartet of Snow, Buss, Thomson and Bates was well suited to the shorter games. When we won again in 1964 and narrowly lost another Final, we had not only had a lot of fun and fulfilment as players but we had given our supporters some great days to remember and cherish.
Of course these were as nothing compared with the three Championship wins in 5 years of recent memory - but that first Sussex win in 1963 had been a hundred odd years in coming and was all the sweeter for that.
As I held the coveted silver cup above my head in front of the mighty Lord's pavilion after a pulsating victory over Worcestershire, it was the thrill of the moment rather than the historical significance that was uppermost in my mind.
Of course we were not to know if this new competition would be repeated. It might have been just a one-off.So we were just living in the moment and enjoying every minute of the experience. All the more so because until the final hour of the match few betting men would have given Sussex a hope in hell.
So what had happened to the considerable skills we had shown as we won our way through to the Final? Why did we make such a small total? And why were two great bowlers like Snow and Thomson unable initially to redress the balance.
Remember that this was a 65 overs a side match - scarcely conceivable to anyone brought up in the modern era. So there was time for what may be called "proper" cricket. But Sussex strengths were born of the sporting pitch at Hove with swing and bounce. Lord's tended to be much the same often enough - except that this time we found a very unfamiliar dry, dusty surface, more like Ahmedebad than St John's Wood. Worcestershire had three recognised spinners, Slade, Gifford and Horton and we had barely a one.
Winning the toss we batted and were going well enough at 62 for no wicket but that soon became 98 for four, all out to the spinners. Only Jim parks held firm and to be all out for 168 with 5 unused overs was pretty disastrous - we were grateful that the third highest scorer was the extras column!!
Looking at the Worcester scorecard I am a bit flummoxed to see that John Snow appears last in the list of bowlers. It cannot have been an oversight by the Captain, surely. But it may have been in an attempt to throttle the scoring rate early on, starting with Thomson and Buss.
Their batsmen seemed confident that they had plenty of time and at 91 for three needing less than 80 more, things looked pretty bleak. A change of tactic was needed so I threw the ball to Alan Oakman whose off-spin was no more than an occasional divertion in Championship games.
I can still hardly believe it but the tall, smiling, laid back opening bat and superb slip fielder managed to bowl 13 overs for just 17 runs. He had a particularly good tussle with Ron Headley who was looking to hit the ball sure enough but Alan's line was so consistent that there was always a fielder in the way.
Slowly, slowly we started to get them fretting and at last I came to my senses and unleashed a fresh and eager John Snow who defeated Broadbent before skittling the tail: 3 for 13 off 8 overs.
There is no doubt that Sussex were very lucky with the draw as the early rounds came and went. We had more than our fair share of home matches which built up the crowd support enormously and the smallish Hove ground was simply bulging all summer.
Mostly our tactics had been to bat first if possible. Then we would look to keep wickets in hand before starting to accelerate through the last twenty overs. As for the bowlers, I asked nothing more of them than to bowl every ball to hit the stumps. Wide on the off-side was a no-no. Short of a length with the ball going over the top was a no-no. Up and straight allowed me to set fielders according to the strengths and weaknesses of all the different batsmen. To right handers we often had 6 on the leg side. To left-handers we had to split the field 5/4. Early in the innings we had close in men in front of he wicket to stop any quick singles.
At the same time other County Captains and bowlers were coming up with some pretty weird and wonderful plans to control the scoring rate. I remember Trevor Bailey suggesting that with a fully defensive field, he would back himself to keep things down to two an over. When we played an early round in deepest Essex one year, he went for four or five times as many!
If lack of a good spinner or two had tended to deny Sussex the chance of winning Championships played on uncovered pitches, our seam bowling quartet of Snow, Buss, Thomson and Bates was well suited to the shorter games. When we won again in 1964 and narrowly lost another Final, we had not only had a lot of fun and fulfilment as players but we had given our supporters some great days to remember and cherish.
Of course these were as nothing compared with the three Championship wins in 5 years of recent memory - but that first Sussex win in 1963 had been a hundred odd years in coming and was all the sweeter for that.
in Cricket
(Page 1 of 4, totaling 51 entries)
next page
