|Photos||Video & Audio||Blogs||Statistics||Archive||Fantasy||Mobile|
'The spirit of cricket means different things to different people'
Geoffrey Boycott on the Broad incident, McGrath v Lillee, and the plight of the Associate teams (18:57)
Producer: Raunak Kapoor
July 17, 2013
Related Links » Players/Officials: Sir Donald Bradman | Stuart Broad | Colin Cowdrey | Wally Hammond | Dennis Lillee | Glenn McGrath Series/Tournaments: Australia tour of England and Scotland Teams: Australia | England
Bowl at Boycs
'The spirit of cricket means different things to different people'July 17, 2013
Excerpts from the show below.
Raunak Kapoor: After a cracking first Ashes Test, I have a very happy Geoffrey Boycott with me. Geoffrey, let's hear your thoughts on the first Test. What did you make of England's performance in the first Test, were they deserving winners?
Geoff Boycott: Yeah, we won one and we're going to beat them again! In the end, yes, (England were deserving winners). In fact, I was a bit disappointed, I thought they should have won easier, but in the end, they could have lost it. In fact, it was only because of the lunch break on the last day that England got saved. They were able to bowl well and with a bit of gamesmanship slow the game down so that Australia still had to come back after lunch and score 20 runs.
If there had been no break, Haddin would have got them over the line because the momentum was with Australia. And actually, I would have been pleased had that happened because it would have really set up the series if Australia would have won.
RK: Let's get into the questions now Geoffrey, and the first one comes from Hari Pulakat in India. Alan Donald on a recent show with us said that Glenn McGrath was the best Australian bowler he's ever seen, ahead of Dennis Lillee. Hari says that many people in the sub-continent don't rate Lillee that highly because he didn't bowl well there. We know he only played the one series there but we judge him on what we saw. On the other hand, McGrath adapted brilliantly to conditions in India.
Hari's question to you is: How do you compare McGrath with Dennis Lillee and why does everyone judge Lillee purely on wickets taken in England and Australia which are deemed helpful conditions for seam bowlers?
GB: Wow! What a good question! I think he's right. I don't think facts and figures are the only thing you should judge players on, but I've always said all the great players have good figures. And you have to judge them on how they've done not just in their own conditions but all over the world. And you're right, Glenn McGrath has done better than Lillee.
Lille was a great bowler, but people are coloured a bit by television and what they see, and a long time ago when Lillee played in the sub-continent, they didn't see Lillee and Australia play. Television today colours our imagination, we can see every match today and therefore make better judgement.
But I do accept, and I accept that very strongly that he's got a very good point. Lillee never did well in the sub-continent and McGrath was a great bowler. Just because he bowled metronomic line and length and didn't bowl as quick as some of the others, people tend to get the impression that it must be harder to play somebody who bowls quicker, but that's not necessarily so. What McGrath did, looks very simple but many people cannot follow and bowl as well as him.
For me, I judge players on how they play all over the world and not just in their home conditions. I judge them on how they bowl and bat in difficult situations. For me, I'd make Malcolm Marshall the best bowler. His record in the sub-continent and everywhere he bowled, he bowled fast and nasty. He could bowl very lively fast-medium, he could cut the ball, he could swing the ball. He bowled England out with a plastic cast on his arm at Headingley. And I agree, if you can't bowl well in the sub-continent then it is a minus against your name.
RK: The next question Geoffrey, is from ZK from the United Kingdom. It's an interesting one, I'm sure you'll have a lot to say for this. Now, Ed Joyce, the Irish batsman said recently that Ireland had to beg for fixtures against full members from the ICC. Now they've only played Pakistan and England this year. Other than that, they've been reduced to playing tour sides and fellow associates.
ZK asks you Geoff: Do you think the ICC should do more to help the associates? Should the ICC, for example, create some sort of rule, which says that each full member has to play at least one ODI or T20I series against an associate side every year?
GB: It's a good point. May of us think a lot of these very good associate countries can't develop or get any better until they playing the bigger name countries and better players, and then they themselves will get better and stronger.
But how do you force that issue? What you have to remember is that the ICC is the ten major countries, and the ten major chairmen on behalf of the countries are the ICC. And they only want to play where they can make money. Why do you think India, Australia and England are playing each other more often, because it makes a great deal of money.
And therefore, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. The ten chairmen, and with great respect I say this, do tend to look after their own interests. It's all right saying that altruistically, they should be looking after the game first, and then their own interest of their own countries. But do they? I can't prove it you can't prove it. But my view is they do look after their own interest and try and make as much money.
So you're dead right, it is the right idea to bring the Associates on, but try telling the chairmen to vote for that, so you're not going to get a rule. There isn't a cat in hell's chance you're going to get a rule. What they vote for, and what they agree to do, is to try and help these associate countries, but that's when they're at a meeting, and when they're being all nice to each other. But to actually get them to say, right 'when we go to England, we will go to Scotland and Ireland, and play three or four matches.' There's no chance. So you're dead right very good question, but I'll say it again, turkeys don't vote for Christmas, they have to look after themselves.
RK: Lets go on to the final question, Geoff, the question of the week. Now there's been so much talk on this one. Geoffrey, the question comes from Pawan Muddu in India. Recently, Denesh Ramdin was suspended for two ODIS for "conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game". The incident involved Ramdin claiming a catch he knew he had spilt. We all saw the incident during the first Ashes Test when Stuart Broad nicked one to first slip and to the fury of the Australians he was given not out.
Pawan asks: Does this not raise the same question of honesty and if we are going to entertain the clause "Spirit of the Game" does it not open the Pandora's box whereby Broad should also see the same fate as Ramdin?
GB: Good question. I expected it. Look "Spirit of Cricket" was formed by Colin Cowdrey and what does it mean? It means different things to different people, and that's the problem. It doesn't spell out what really is the spirit of cricket. And so I think the two incidents are different for the simple reason that we all know that taking the ball of the ground and claiming a catch is cheating or attempting to cheat. We accept that or we just feel that.
|"Claiming a catch that you know has already bounced on the floor is like robbing a bank, it's terrible as opposed to waiting for the umpire's decision which the law says"|
The difference between that and Broad standing for an absolute nick is that the laws of the game say, and they did say for a long time, that in the opinion of the umpire, you're out or not out. The rules were written a few years ago to say "in the opinion of the umpire" or if the batsman gives himself out and walks off. I'm paraphrasing this so don't come back at me, I'm just reading the rule, and we were discussing this yesterday at the MCC meeting of the World Cricket Committee. We had the laws of the game out and were reading them clearly.
Now then, if you want to be altruistic, moralistic and say "right, everybody should walk when they've hit it", fine, but then when one or two don't then you've got a problem, it's not going to work. How do you make it work, you can't.
The person who introduced the spirit of cricket was Colin Cowdrey, who at the time was Chairman of the ICC, a nice man, brilliant batsman, wonderful technique, wonderful record. Colin was said to be a walker, but he walked when he got a hundred and came back to the dressing room with adulation and applause. But the real test of walking is when you're on single figures, when it's going to be a failure.
But this is been happening since time immemorial. In 1946, after the war, England went to Australia to try to get cricket going again. In a bad time, what was better than England going to Australia and playing cricket. Wonderful. Wally Hammond, the great player, captain of England. Bradman, the great figure, captain of Australia. Wisden Records, and I've read the book, Jack Ikin, the Lancashire batsman caught Bradman at second slip on 28. Bradman stayed and made 187. Australia went on to win the match and the series 3-0. It soured the whole relationship for the series. And Wally Hammond said to Bradman, and I'll paraphrase, "is that how we're going to play cricket this series, then?" I'm sure there are many times when Englishmen haven't walked, Indians haven't walked and so forth.
It's not going to work for everybody to walk. It sounds great that cricket's this wonderful game where we think it's above anything nasty and naughty, and that's above all that and wonderful. But it isn't. It's played by people and human nature being what it is, it's been happening since time immemorial. The only way is everybody, stand there and wait for the umpire's decision.
The only reason we walk, when we've nicked it to second slip, like Broad did, is if we waited for the umpire's decision we'd be so embarrassed. Somebody knocks your off pole out ten yards back. You could still stand! It says, wait for the umpire's decision. But it looks so obvious doesn't it, so we go, but Stuart Broad wasn't embarrassed by that. That's the thing for me! He didn't even stand there like a naughty boy, he just stood there as if he hadn't hit it. He got away with it. That's the luck of the game.
RK: I take your point on the walking bit Geoff, but Pawan's question goes a bit further and a lot of people including Michael Holding raise the question, why do you then go out and penalise conduct?
GB: Look, most people, and not in India cause you can't drive at 70mph in India, there's that much damn traffic. But in most countries, there's a speed limit of 70mph. I don't think you'd find anybody in England who hasn't driven above the speed limit. And they were all actually breaking the law. All of us have done it. But is that the same as breaking the law by robbing a bank or mugging an old lady? No it isn't. We are breaking the law technically, but there are degrees aren't there, and the degree that we accept, rightly or wrongly, even if you ask people on the street, claiming a catch that you know has already bounced on the floor is like robbing a bank, it's terrible as opposed to waiting for the umpire's decision which the law says. So you can't blame Broad, you can change the law if you want. So it's very different, get that clear to all your listeners. Don't get your knickers in twist over it!
RK: Question that arises from your answer Geoffrey then is, is there a separate moral code for batsmen?
GB: Nope. My view is, I always walk, as soon as the umpire puts his finger up. That's the best way for everybody.
RK: So you've heard it then from Geoffrey Boycott, thanks a lot Geoffrey for your thoughts and your time. Don't forget to fill in our feedback form with your questions and Geoffrey will be back in two weeks time to answer them. Until then, thank you and goodbye.
*As at the time of recording, early on July 17, 2013
|Comments have now been closed for this article
Feb 26, 2014 Geoff Boycott on the fastest bowlers the game has seen, and the best among those currently playing (16:43)
Feb 13, 2014 Geoff Boycott on the Kevin Pietersen saga, and how it's different from what he dealt with at Yorkshire in the 1980s (25:03)
Video Report: Colin Croft says that the top order onslaught form Chris Gayle, Dwayne Smith and Marlon Samuels was too much firepower for England to overcome in a 27-run West Indies win at Barbados in the first T20 (01:09) | Mar 10, 2014
Press Conference: England T20 captain Stuart Broad says that the seam conditions in Barbados during England's victorious World T20 win in 2010 played a factor in choosing only one spinner in their 27-run loss on Sunday to the West Indies (00:42) | Mar 10, 2014
Video Report: George Dobell says that England lost the first T20 to West Indies before a ball was bowled after selecting only spinner compared to the three in the West Indies lineup (00:59) | Mar 9, 2014