ILLINGWORTH_CHAIRMAN_14MAR94

England wise up with Illingworth By : Scyld Berry

Not all the time between now and the ending of the world would be needed to list the TCCB's brainwaves, masterstrokes and veritable triumphs. So it can be safely said that the appointment of Ray Illingworth as the paid chairman of selectors is the best thing the Board have ever done. English cricket has been lacking in leadership at the highest level ever since the Board was born out of MCC in 1968. The two team managers whom England have tried, Micky Stewart and Keith Fletcher, have possessed - shall we say? - fortes in other areas, while Ted Dexter concerned himself with the roots rather than the flower. Gubby Allen was the last man to stand back yet take control - and Illingworth has been rather more democratically elected. Perhaps no other Englishman has known so much of what is worth knowing about the first-class game by the age of 61. He was tutored in batting by Len Hutton and in spin bowling by Johnny Wardle, having begun as a medium-paced outswinger. No England chairman of selectors has been so versed in all the crafts. It was this detailed craftsmanship which made him one of the finest county cricketers. Like the rest of his cricket, his off-spinning was balanced, controlled, economical; and when Brian Close was hemming batsmen in at silly point, Fred Trueman round the corner and Phil Sharpe at slip, he hustled Yorkshire to victory on many a third afternoon, and to seven championships. One summer he calculated, as Yorkshiremen do, that he dismissed 44 batsmen with that arm ball which he had developed in his swinging youth. The value of cricket knowledge could not be better illustrated than when Illingworth and Close departed Yorkshire and Trueman retired, leaving nobody in the dressing room to pass on the game's lore. The county have never recovered, and it has been all too similar with England. Bad habits and unthinking cricket have crept in: how many England pace bowlers now strain too hard for the first ball of a spell, drop it short and get clattered for four, letting all the pressure evaporate, instead of giving it controlled, good-length 'width'? That is unwisdom. According to Illingworth, he has "usually had a bit of a chat with Mike Atherton" whenever they have been at the same game. He knows him to have "a pretty good cricket brain"; "as far as technique is concerned there's a bit of Geoff Boycott in him - he's not as good yet, but then he's only 25 and still improving." What Atherton mainly lacks as a captain, unavoidably, is "the confidence which comes from having seen and done it all". They have plenty in common, not only as northerners and nontracksuiters. Both were almost as often out of the England side as in it until they became captain, and found the extra responsibility a stimulus. Illingworth's Test batting average was only 16 when he took over England, a figure which would have extended beyond its eventual 23 to 26 if all his damage-limitation exercises against the Rest of the World in 1970 had been counted as Tests. Had he become a chairman of selectors or team manager straight after his retirement, it is possible Illingworth might be too brusquely "hands on". It was because he could not ensure the sight of unthinking cricket that he returned to whites and led Yorkshire in 1983, winning the Sunday League, and at 51, was their most economical bowler. Now he is relaxed and tolerant enough to work out the right relationship with Atherton. What England require of Illingworth is firstly a definition of priorities and secondly the strategies to achieve them. Muddling along has not been very effective; preparing for the Ashes by playing nine months' almost solid cricket is not clever. Illingworth's starting point is that both in Test and one-day cricket, England rank above Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and no one else, according to the points table in The Cricketer, which is the one objective guide. Agreeable as the World Cup would be on the mantlepiece, Illingworth will recognise that the Ashes still represent the highest priority for English cricket; defeating West Indies and becoming World Test champions can be longer-term ambitions. Then the new chairman must call on his playing experiences - only commentating experience in the case of the sub-continent - to advise on appropriate strategy. Here, the identification of the distinct peculiarities of each Test playing country is a seriously unstudied subject: Graham Gooch's "we just concentrate on our game" is all too typical. This summer, New Zealand have to be assailed with aggression and wrist spin before they can settle into the dogged defence which is their traditional strength. Ian Salisbury will also be key figure against South Africa, and therefore needs plenty of that wisdom which Illingworth inherited from Wardle and the masters before him. But with Illingworth, as with Atherton, time and media pressure will not be on their side. Assuming a defeat in the West Indies along the lines of 3-0, unless the Georgetown Test is the most glorious surprise, England go straight into two summer series, before setting off for Australia and the ultimate prize with less than a month's respite. England have not regained the Ashes in Australia against a first-choice team since Illingworth did so in 1970-1; before him, it was Jardine in 1932-3. And if this is not mission improbable, England on their return have to meet West Indies again in 1995. Both Illingworth and Atherton are the right men, but are they at the right time? The existing schedule could prove too much for any Englishman. The Irishman would not have started from here.

Thanks :: Sunday Telegraph