'Your wicket or your life'

Kepler Wessels, the Northants coach with a foot in three camps, chats to Ed Craig about the strengths and weaknesses of Australia, South Africa and England

You've played for both Australia and South Africa. How do you view these sides at the moment?
Australia are in a transition phase. They still have a strong team but not as strong as they have had over the past decade. Other than England, who bowled particularly well against them, they are good enough to beat most other countries on the world stage. There are young players coming through, particularly batsmen. Perhaps there aren't as many young seam bowlers knocking on the door as in the past but they have a couple of spinners. I don't think it is a disadvantage to have an older side provided they don't all retire at the same time. This happened when I first came into the Australia team. Greg Chappell, Rodney Marsh, Dennis Lillee - those experienced players all retired at once. That left a big hole to fill.

What about South Africa?
South Africa have been an unsettled team for some time. There have been many changes with people coming in and out. In one-day cricket South Africa have a good combination. If Shaun Pollock stays fit, they'll be a force in the World Cup. They bat all the way down, have a lot of allrounders but they are battling in the longer version of the game - battling to adapt to batting for long periods, their catching is not up to scratch and they don't have a strike bowler; Makhaya Ntini is the closest. They have limitations in Test cricket.

What do you make of South Africa's new positive approach - 'Brave Cricket'?
It is strange terminology because the one thing South African cricket teams have always done is be courageous, fought hard and got stuck in. I read it as being more adventurous, taking more risks. But you want to play winning cricket. To make a statement saying you are going to play `brave cricket' is neither here nor there. You have to play winning cricket and, if you look at this South African side in Test matches, it has been a real struggle.

Doesn't it mean taking risks to give yourself a chance of winning?
They did that in Sydney and it backfired horribly [Graeme Smith declared twice against Australia and lost]. You can only take those risks once you have the basics right and a team in place that is capable of winning Test matches. If you start declaring and keep losing, it has the opposite, negative effect. Winning brings confi dence and then you can take more risks. Otherwise you keep losing and it goes from bad to worse.

Lance Klusener is playing for Northamptonshire this year. Should he be playing for South Africa?
He doesn't get on with Graeme Smith. He was left out of the system prematurely and I think he has a lot to offer. The opposition fear him, he bowls well and he's a destructive hitter. He is competing with Justin Kemp and Andrew Hall and I reckon he is better than both of them. It must be personality rather than ability.

Do South Africa miss a player of your style, battling it out with grit?
They have Jacques Kallis for that, he fights hard. But you have to remember that cricket has moved on, it has changed - even in my experience with the younger players at Northants. We were taught that you value your wicket more than your life but these days, if they think they can take the opposition on, if they think they can hit the ball, I want them to hit it because I want them to embrace the way the game has changed. But I also want to give them a good defence so they can use it if they need.

What do you think of the first-class game in England?
It is good and competitive. I have played in Australia and know the South African system. At one time county cricket was behind both. The English domestic game is in front of the South African domestic game and not far from the Australians. There are few weak teams and promotion and relegation has made a big difference. There are fewer meaningless games. Some say there is too much cricket, I am not so sure - perhaps a little. To sustain a professional system like England's you have to play cricket all the time, otherwise how can you fully employ people for that time of year? The English coaching structure is good, there are competent coaches all around the country and at county level there are few average coaches. That is a big advantage and it is no coincidence that English cricket has improved. A slight weakness is that the international players don't play enough for their counties as it would strengthen the system.

Northants have used a number of Kolpak players. What do you think of that issue?
If used in moderation, it is good. There are not that many Kolpak players in the system anyway. If the 18 fi rst-class counties had only English players, you would struggle to sustain a standard. Provided it doesn't get out of control, it helps smaller counties fi eld competitive sides. "Your wicket or your life" Kepler Wessels, the Northamptonshire coach with a foot in three camps, on the strengths and weaknesses of Australia, South Africa and England