December 18, 2010

'People don't realise how hard it is to win in Australia'

Interview by Richard Gibson
Ray Illingworth looks back on leading England to a hard-fought Ashes win in 1970-71, and dealing with Aussie crowds and umpires
  shares 18

Ray Illingworth is one of only four England captains to have won an Ashes series in Australia since World War II, in 1970-71. He was one of cricket's great strategists and England under his leadership proved uncompromising, aggressive and for a while imperious, as a then record 27 Tests without defeat between 1968 and 1971 testifies.

How big an achievement was winning the Ashes in Australia in 1970-71?
People don't realise how hard it is to win in Australia. A lot of sides have beaten Australia at home but not a lot beat them over there. I am talking about full sides, not without the Packer players and the South African situation. When Mike Brearley went back to Australia against a full side they lost 3-0. I think in living memory there has only been Douglas Jardine, apart from me, who has won the Ashes out there. People have defended them, like Len Hutton did in 1954-55, but not won them back and I am quite proud of that. They were pretty long tours as well, you know. Four and a half months, including New Zealand afterwards, is a really hard slog. So when it all comes to a climax in the last match, as it did in Australia, it's a wonderful feeling. We didn't take any inviting for a drink that night, I must say.

You were 1-0 up with one Test to play. Australia were chasing 223 to win the final match. That last day must have been special…
They only wanted around 100 with five wickets left on that final day of the series. With Greg Chappell and Rodney Marsh in, it only needed one of them to get a quick 30 or 40 and the game was gone. But we won it quite comfortably in the finish. I don't think I ever had another feeling like that.

Would you say you were a tight unit as a touring group?
It was a really good set of blokes. I never had any problems at all that way. All I ever said to the lads was: "Have a pint or two if you feel like it but just make sure you've had enough sleep and are fit for play in the morning." They were all responsible people, and when I see the trick cyclists and psychologists and everything they've got these days, I always feel that, if they are all required, you've picked the wrong people in the first place. John Snow would have sent them round the twist, wouldn't he? We were a good side and we all got on well together. That was the secret. We tended to switch room-mates so you didn't get too cliquey. Swapping about every couple of matches ensured we got the northerners and southerners mixing together. All I ever had to say to them was, "Come on, lads, here we go again, so let's go." No more than that.

The only time I spoke to them any differently was in the dressing room during the first of the Sydney Tests. At tea on the fourth day I felt the game was there for winning, so I went into the back room and said to them: "I can't quite put my finger on what is missing, I can't say that no one is trying because that isn't the case, but there is a difference between trying and giving that little bit more. I would like you to all imagine you are playing in a one-day Lord's final. Imagine they need eight runs to win and the last over is being bowled." We went back out and in 40 minutes the game was as good as over.

That 1970-71 series has a reputation as one of the most heated in history. Is that fair?
It was never like that between the actual teams. The teams always got on all right. We had a system whereby, if we had been in the field, then as soon as we were back in the dressing room, the Aussies would come in and have a drink with us and vice versa. I can remember once in Sydney the dressing-room attendant coming in to complain: "Aren't you buggers going? I want to shut up shop. I've got a home to go to even if you haven't."

But there was a lot of hostility, wasn't there? How much of it was down to the umpire Lou Rowan?

"When I see the trick cyclists and psychologists and everything they've got these days, I always feel that, if they are all required, you've picked the wrong people in the first place"

Without doubt he was the main culprit. It was the only time I ever felt that an umpire wasn't being completely honest. The fact that we didn't get a single lbw in six matches proves the point. Lou Rowan was a very officious sort of character. It was a really silly thing that he did. He got it completely wrong. The game could have got out of hand. For example, we played the first Test in Brisbane and there was one young kid sat with his legs dangling over the wooden boundary fence. Rowan stopped the game and walked 70 yards to tell the lad to get his legs the other side. Yet this was the same guy who told me the ground was fit to continue when 30 or 40 bottles had been thrown on the field. It didn't just happen once, it happened a couple of times. I called the players to the middle and we sat down while they cleared the bottles and cans off. We agreed to start again and then it all began again and that is when I took them off. People forget that I stayed on the field the first time. Rowan was making it appear as if it was nothing, but the bloke who moved the sightscreen was hit on the back of the head by a bottle and was taken to hospital. That could have been Snowy or another of our players. I told them to make an announcement over the loudspeaker that when the ground was cleared, we would go back. "If it starts again we shall come off again," I said. "If we have to forfeit the game, we have to forfeit the game. But there is a principle at stake here." Rowan laid it down that we would have to forfeit unless we went back but I was adamant that we would only go back when it was ready for us to go back.

The inaugural ODI occurred during that tour…
Yes. We had a rained-off Test at Melbourne and we could have started halfway through the fourth day. But the feeling was that there was no point in beginning a Test with a day and a bit to go. So we cancelled that day and arranged a one-dayer for the day after. It was all arranged overnight and we got 45,000 people there. A Test match was then added to the series, which we weren't happy about because it meant we played five Tests in six weeks in the hot part of the summer. The other grumble for us was that the Aussies were promised a full match-fee and we weren't promised anything, so that nearly caused a strike. You can imagine that David Clark, the tour manager, went out with a flea in his ear. He had just spoken with Don Bradman, Sir Cyril Hawker [president of MCC] and Gubby Allen, who were out there watching. They went ahead and did it without speaking to me as captain. When I was told, I warned them that if someone got injured, there would be no one to call up from England. I also warned them that unless we got something for our trouble, they would have a strike on their hands, so they rang Donald Carr and he agreed we should get something. We finished up with 25 quid for the extra match. That's great, isn't it? Even the Aussies were on £200-£250 as a fee. Our amount was a pittance.

How much did the adrenaline of the Ashes help your team?
The crowd are very much on your backs out there. Some of it is quite funny, you know. Certain things like, "I wish you was a statue and I was a bloody pigeon." If you laugh with them, it can help. The old Sydney hill was very much about taking it rather than getting the pin. If you did, they would just give you more stick. Have some fun, give them a wave and you'd have no trouble.

Snow had a wonderful series. How crucial is a genuine fast bowler in any England team's bid to win an Ashes in Australia?
Wonderful was the right word. My biggest disappointment was Alan Ward breaking down more or less before we had played, because he was quick and got bounce. Unfortunately we never had the advantage of having him. I used to talk to John Edrich and Geoff Boycott quite a bit about things and I asked them: "Where do we go from here? Because we have got to get somebody." John told me to go for this young lad [Bob Willis], 6ft 6in, sharp and able to bowl it in the right areas. I remember asking him: "Are you sure, John?" And the reply was: "I don't think he will let you down." So I went on John's say-so.

Do you see similarities between Willis and Steven Finn?
Very much so. Funnily enough, the first time I saw Finn bowl on TV I turned to the wife and told her he should go to Australia because he could do what Bob did for us.

Short balls can cause problems in Australia as John Snow proved.
When he famously hit Terry Jenner, that wasn't even a bouncer. If he had stood straight up it would have hit him on the chest. What he did was get you playing back to a length and under your armpit and then he made it change direction off the seam, so he would get people turned around, knocking it into the slips. That was his great strength. That was why there was such an argument when he hit Jenner. I was at short leg and picked him up, and as he was helped off, Lou Rowan marched over to Snowy and warned him for bowling a bouncer. I told him that even if he considered it a bouncer - which I didn't - he had only bowled one. He went over to Tom Brooks, the other umpire, who wouldn't support him on it. But what worried me most was Snowy - because of his temperament and the fact I knew he was upset by the whole bloody thing - who was mouthing off: "That's not a bouncer". I feared he was going to start letting fly, so I tried to calm him down. The next ball was inevitably a bouncer and was followed by Snow's confirmation: "That's a bloody bouncer."

Geoff Boycott was incredible for you on that tour, wasn't he?
He will tell you that he played better on that tour than at any time in his life. He played magnificently. It was a shame he couldn't play in that last Test. Not that he would have scored many on that pitch. It had been covered for two days, we had non-stop rain and it went all over the place. If I had won the toss, we would've bowled them out for 50. In fact, I was on the verge of declaring at around 170 for 7 or 8 on the first day, for the simple reason that I knew we had to get some wickets that night. I knew with sun on the pitch the next morning it would change, and just as I had my head in my hands, thinking about whether to do it or not, we were all out. We got the two openers out that night for less than 20 and it made all the difference in the match. If they had been there the next morning, it was a different game.

Was one of the sweetest things about 1970-71 the sense of overcoming the odds?
Absolutely. I still have a piece at home, written by Richie Benaud. He said something about Ray Illingworth going home victorious when nearly all the breaks have gone against him, what with injuries, the itinerary, one thing or another.

This article was first published in the December 2010 issue of the Wisden Cricketer. Subscribe here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Fifthman on | December 20, 2010, 15:39 GMT

    Hey Chokkashokka, remind me again how many series India have won in Australia over the years? And don't worry, there'll be a royal welcome for India when they visit English shores next year, especially from our two metre tall quicks and the best swing bowler in the world...

  • POSTED BY Marcio on | December 20, 2010, 2:25 GMT

    As usual, your countrymen see things very selectively, @Himansu Desai. You wrote "No wonder, Sunil Gavaskar always fumed against Australians, considered most of the players an unsporting lot." Yet Illingworth says the teams got on well off the field, and I quote: "The teams always got on all right. We had a system whereby, if we had been in the field, then as soon as we were back in the dressing room, the Aussies would come in and have a drink with us and vice versa." It's time you Indians admitted that you are half the problem, and still are. You choose to remain angry and in the victim state, and that is your issue, not Australia's. It's to do with the way your history and media demonises people of a certain race.

  • POSTED BY Venkatb on | December 20, 2010, 2:23 GMT

    I remember Ray Robinson and Jack Fingleton cover this series in detail, with all the incidents with spectator involvement i.e., grabbing Snow's shirt, throwing debris at the English players, etc. Part of the reason england won was that Australia was between two major fast bowlers, McKenzie who was on the decline and Lillee who was just beginning - a year either way England would have lost.

  • POSTED BY EverybodylovesSachin on | December 19, 2010, 5:46 GMT

    That is going to change and soon they reliase how easy they can win in Australia... and also it also very difficult to win in India....

  • POSTED BY on | December 19, 2010, 5:00 GMT

    Its not hard to win a test in NZ, unless you're NZ.

  • POSTED BY Beertjie on | December 19, 2010, 4:55 GMT

    @ maximum6, Strauss may go down in history, but not in the way Illy did, because, England already have the Ashes. Good parallels between the quality of the teams - England well-balanced (batted deep) and experienced - Australia demoralized after 4-0 thrashing in SA and in need of fresh blood (Greg Chappel'sl and Lillee's first test series). Snow was the difference - difficult man (so was Illy - although you won't pick -it up in the article - whom I particularly dislike, but let's not go there).

  • POSTED BY chokkashokka on | December 18, 2010, 20:58 GMT

    sure sure .....now that the english have won a test and are about the lose the next ...it must be really hard. C'mon man - seems to me the only place it is not hard to win a test is England. And that must be due to the wonderful English hospitality.

  • POSTED BY msnsrinivas on | December 18, 2010, 20:49 GMT

    We really need interviews like these. It gives an insight into how things used to work in the days gone by. You just got to love Ray Illingworth.

  • POSTED BY 2.14istherunrate on | December 18, 2010, 16:57 GMT

    This was an epic series. Illingworth is right aboiut Australia being hard to win in. Brisbane Adelaide and Perth are hardly a treat for England. So one has to try to make the best out of Melbourne and Sydney, and hope to limit the damage in the other venues. Illingworth went down into history for this win. I hope we are seeing Strauss waliking down into history this time round.

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 16:24 GMT

    Let's see if they can continue the momentum till WC2010!!!

  • POSTED BY Fifthman on | December 20, 2010, 15:39 GMT

    Hey Chokkashokka, remind me again how many series India have won in Australia over the years? And don't worry, there'll be a royal welcome for India when they visit English shores next year, especially from our two metre tall quicks and the best swing bowler in the world...

  • POSTED BY Marcio on | December 20, 2010, 2:25 GMT

    As usual, your countrymen see things very selectively, @Himansu Desai. You wrote "No wonder, Sunil Gavaskar always fumed against Australians, considered most of the players an unsporting lot." Yet Illingworth says the teams got on well off the field, and I quote: "The teams always got on all right. We had a system whereby, if we had been in the field, then as soon as we were back in the dressing room, the Aussies would come in and have a drink with us and vice versa." It's time you Indians admitted that you are half the problem, and still are. You choose to remain angry and in the victim state, and that is your issue, not Australia's. It's to do with the way your history and media demonises people of a certain race.

  • POSTED BY Venkatb on | December 20, 2010, 2:23 GMT

    I remember Ray Robinson and Jack Fingleton cover this series in detail, with all the incidents with spectator involvement i.e., grabbing Snow's shirt, throwing debris at the English players, etc. Part of the reason england won was that Australia was between two major fast bowlers, McKenzie who was on the decline and Lillee who was just beginning - a year either way England would have lost.

  • POSTED BY EverybodylovesSachin on | December 19, 2010, 5:46 GMT

    That is going to change and soon they reliase how easy they can win in Australia... and also it also very difficult to win in India....

  • POSTED BY on | December 19, 2010, 5:00 GMT

    Its not hard to win a test in NZ, unless you're NZ.

  • POSTED BY Beertjie on | December 19, 2010, 4:55 GMT

    @ maximum6, Strauss may go down in history, but not in the way Illy did, because, England already have the Ashes. Good parallels between the quality of the teams - England well-balanced (batted deep) and experienced - Australia demoralized after 4-0 thrashing in SA and in need of fresh blood (Greg Chappel'sl and Lillee's first test series). Snow was the difference - difficult man (so was Illy - although you won't pick -it up in the article - whom I particularly dislike, but let's not go there).

  • POSTED BY chokkashokka on | December 18, 2010, 20:58 GMT

    sure sure .....now that the english have won a test and are about the lose the next ...it must be really hard. C'mon man - seems to me the only place it is not hard to win a test is England. And that must be due to the wonderful English hospitality.

  • POSTED BY msnsrinivas on | December 18, 2010, 20:49 GMT

    We really need interviews like these. It gives an insight into how things used to work in the days gone by. You just got to love Ray Illingworth.

  • POSTED BY 2.14istherunrate on | December 18, 2010, 16:57 GMT

    This was an epic series. Illingworth is right aboiut Australia being hard to win in. Brisbane Adelaide and Perth are hardly a treat for England. So one has to try to make the best out of Melbourne and Sydney, and hope to limit the damage in the other venues. Illingworth went down into history for this win. I hope we are seeing Strauss waliking down into history this time round.

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 16:24 GMT

    Let's see if they can continue the momentum till WC2010!!!

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 16:12 GMT

    wow...Ths is a nice article!!

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 16:11 GMT

    wow...Ths is a nice article!!

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 10:30 GMT

    The article/experience of Ray Illingworth quite interesting to note. No wonder, Sunil Gavaskar always fumed against Australians, considered most of the players an unsporting lot. Not to deny the fact, he too, was at the same wavelength, when the question of umpiring in Australia came in, because Australians always complain about local umpiring in , when there were in India and the strong austrarlian & British media came back strongly supporting them. Things are the other way now, with change in technology now a days. About umpiring in India, I do agree to some extent the comments from Nadeem, but I would say, to lesser extent about the umpiring, but it was the wickets where the Indians would play the tricks, preparing to suit their Batsmen & Spinners. While about the umpiring it was Pakistan in Pakistan, that all the visiting teams complained. Himansu Desai

  • POSTED BY crikketfan on | December 18, 2010, 10:17 GMT

    Ariz - Gatting didn't win the Ashes in Australia, he retained them.

  • POSTED BY gujratwalla on | December 18, 2010, 9:48 GMT

    I remember this series and how bravely Ray Illingworth led his side and i am sure his total and unwavering loyalty to his players was the inspiration to many captains afterwards including Ian Chappell.This article belies a great cricketing brain and it is all the more a paradox that Ray didn't let Mike Atherton do what he advocated all his life.But still he remains the best cricketing captain in my memory for his undeniable cricketing knowledge.

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 6:15 GMT

    I think he forgot about Gatting's side winning Ashes in 1986, and if Ray thinks that Aussies side was not strong enough, then 1971 side was also not.

  • POSTED BY Percy_Fender on | December 18, 2010, 4:58 GMT

    Winning in Australia is probably easier now than it was in Ray Illingworth's days. Now it has more to do with the wickets and the very parochial crowds there, apart from some very boorish and abusive spectators.In those days the matches were overseen by local umpires who could give any verdict and it would be accepted.What to talk of UDRS, there was simply nothing one could do if one got a wrong decision. While the Englishmen, felt like their erstwhile colonisers that they were, for others like India and others, the very fact of playing in Australia was what these countrymen had to be grateful for. Who could talk of doubtful decisions in such a situation. Raise questions and be sure you would never go to Australia again. Which is why the Tie drawn series came as a big turning point. When the coloured people from West Indies could play much the better cricket and challenge the hegemony and the old order. It was impossible for others to play in Australia except as gratified tourists.

  • POSTED BY Nadeem1976 on | December 18, 2010, 4:17 GMT

    I totaly agree, the third umpire system was introduced becuase of India and Australians who never wanted to lose at home. Indian umpires played so unfair in 80s at home series that ICC had to ask nuetral umpires. And now with this referal system and third umpire , hawk eye. Cricket seems to me a nice gentlemen game where less cheating is going on. Less ball tempring due to cameras, less baised umpiring and better compition.

    Australia and india are hardest countries to win even a single test. Wining a series means you have conquered mount everest in just two days.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY Nadeem1976 on | December 18, 2010, 4:17 GMT

    I totaly agree, the third umpire system was introduced becuase of India and Australians who never wanted to lose at home. Indian umpires played so unfair in 80s at home series that ICC had to ask nuetral umpires. And now with this referal system and third umpire , hawk eye. Cricket seems to me a nice gentlemen game where less cheating is going on. Less ball tempring due to cameras, less baised umpiring and better compition.

    Australia and india are hardest countries to win even a single test. Wining a series means you have conquered mount everest in just two days.

  • POSTED BY Percy_Fender on | December 18, 2010, 4:58 GMT

    Winning in Australia is probably easier now than it was in Ray Illingworth's days. Now it has more to do with the wickets and the very parochial crowds there, apart from some very boorish and abusive spectators.In those days the matches were overseen by local umpires who could give any verdict and it would be accepted.What to talk of UDRS, there was simply nothing one could do if one got a wrong decision. While the Englishmen, felt like their erstwhile colonisers that they were, for others like India and others, the very fact of playing in Australia was what these countrymen had to be grateful for. Who could talk of doubtful decisions in such a situation. Raise questions and be sure you would never go to Australia again. Which is why the Tie drawn series came as a big turning point. When the coloured people from West Indies could play much the better cricket and challenge the hegemony and the old order. It was impossible for others to play in Australia except as gratified tourists.

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 6:15 GMT

    I think he forgot about Gatting's side winning Ashes in 1986, and if Ray thinks that Aussies side was not strong enough, then 1971 side was also not.

  • POSTED BY gujratwalla on | December 18, 2010, 9:48 GMT

    I remember this series and how bravely Ray Illingworth led his side and i am sure his total and unwavering loyalty to his players was the inspiration to many captains afterwards including Ian Chappell.This article belies a great cricketing brain and it is all the more a paradox that Ray didn't let Mike Atherton do what he advocated all his life.But still he remains the best cricketing captain in my memory for his undeniable cricketing knowledge.

  • POSTED BY crikketfan on | December 18, 2010, 10:17 GMT

    Ariz - Gatting didn't win the Ashes in Australia, he retained them.

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 10:30 GMT

    The article/experience of Ray Illingworth quite interesting to note. No wonder, Sunil Gavaskar always fumed against Australians, considered most of the players an unsporting lot. Not to deny the fact, he too, was at the same wavelength, when the question of umpiring in Australia came in, because Australians always complain about local umpiring in , when there were in India and the strong austrarlian & British media came back strongly supporting them. Things are the other way now, with change in technology now a days. About umpiring in India, I do agree to some extent the comments from Nadeem, but I would say, to lesser extent about the umpiring, but it was the wickets where the Indians would play the tricks, preparing to suit their Batsmen & Spinners. While about the umpiring it was Pakistan in Pakistan, that all the visiting teams complained. Himansu Desai

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 16:11 GMT

    wow...Ths is a nice article!!

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 16:12 GMT

    wow...Ths is a nice article!!

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 16:24 GMT

    Let's see if they can continue the momentum till WC2010!!!

  • POSTED BY 2.14istherunrate on | December 18, 2010, 16:57 GMT

    This was an epic series. Illingworth is right aboiut Australia being hard to win in. Brisbane Adelaide and Perth are hardly a treat for England. So one has to try to make the best out of Melbourne and Sydney, and hope to limit the damage in the other venues. Illingworth went down into history for this win. I hope we are seeing Strauss waliking down into history this time round.