Brearley : Art of Captaincy
Gafoor
find a management crap type book but found the
author to be a chap with enormous common sense.
Loads & loads of common sense - that's all the book
contains.
Most of the stuff he talks about seems so obvious after
you read it but it's stuff most captains don't follow - I am
not giving examples here, everyone should read the book.
Book is a little dry, however.
Some interesting things stuff.
1) The Basil D'Olivera thingy - before the
famous South Africa tour, he was averaging around 50 in
15 odd tests, he had just scored a 150 in the last match
prior to the tour. Inspite of this, he was dropped for the
South Africa tour, because England did not want any
problems - I never knew this. Then somebody else got
injured & England had no option but to select him &
what happened next was history.
2) Brearely says that the hook shot should never be
played on a easy pitch which helps batting - on such
a pitch there are loads of run-making shots you can
play which are far less risky. Hook shot of for pitches
where batting isn't that easy.
3) Attacking field - we feel that an attacking field mean
4 slips & a gully. Brearely feels that some times you can
have an attacking field with 1 slip or no slip at all. If the
ball isn't moving much & it doesn't look like an edge will
ever go to the slips, it's far better to place the chaps in
other positions where the ball is more likely to go.
4) He doesn't believe that the underarm ball should have
been outlawed.
5) Talks a lot about spinners & how a lot of English captains
hate spinners & that's why very few spin bowlers come out
of England.
Must read book, though it's a slow read.
CiL
wrote:
>
>1) The Basil D'Olivera thingy - before the
>famous South Africa tour, he was averaging around 50 in
>15 odd tests, he had just scored a 150 in the last match
>prior to the tour. Inspite of this, he was dropped for the
>South Africa tour, because England did not want any
>problems - I never knew this. Then somebody else got
>injured & England had no option but to select him &
>what happened next was history.
+++++++++++
It was the second of those five centuries which engraved his name into
history's permanence. Basil's epic, enriching, 158 in the final Ashes
Test against the 1968 Australians at the Oval was scored on the eve of
England's winter tour to, of all benighted places, South Africa. "The
D'Oliveira Affair" was born. Before he strode out to bat, he rang
Naomi: "Pull up a chair, love, put on the telly and enjoy it; I'm
going to be at the crease all day." When he ran the single to complete
his 50, the bowler's end umpire Charlie Elliott muttered to Basil:
"Well done but by golly, lad, you're really scaring those buggers at
Lord's." When he completed his century and Kennington rose to cheer,
Elliott added: "Brilliant, m'boy, but, oh dear, you've set the cat
among the ruddy pigeons now."
And so he had. Appallingly D'Oliveira's name was missing next day when
they named the touring team. The Cape crusader would not be returning
to play on the white man's fields of his birthplace. There was uproar
as MCC members resigned, MPs clamoured for a debate. Then, when Tom
Cartwright judiciously withdrew injured and Basil had to be selected,
apartheid's Führer John Vorster said "we will not accept a team chosen
not by MCC but by our political enemies". To all intents South Africa
were pronounced sporting pariahs for the next two decades.
Triumphant through it all was D'Oliveira's dignity. That winter the
Queen awarded him the OBE and to celebrate he scored a resplendent,
undefeated, 114 out of 274 to save the Dacca Test against Pakistan on
England's replacement tour. (In fact, few in the history of cricket
can ever have celebrated more rejoicingly, or carousingly, than
Dolly).
His own best remembered innings was neither of those ....
From a quite a nice article by Frank Keating that I ad posted earlier
' 'Pull up a chair, love, I'll be at the crease all day' ' at
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,10260,560873,00.html
++++++++
>
>2) Brearely says that the hook shot should never be
>played on a easy pitch which helps batting - on such
>a pitch there are loads of run-making shots you can
>play which are far less risky. Hook shot of for pitches
>where batting isn't that easy.
Dont agree with him there. Depends on how good the batsman is with the
hook shot, infact on a good batting track, it wud be easier for him to
roll the wrists down.
His overarching point maybe is that in bad tracks you have to play ur
shots.. which ofcourse is a famous quote by one the greatest batsman
of em all- George Headley
+++
``On a bad wicket it is you and the bowler. If he
pitches up, you have to drive. If he pitches short, you have to turn
and hook. No nonsense.''
++
>
>3) Attacking field - we feel that an attacking field mean
>4 slips & a gully. Brearely feels that some times you can
>have an attacking field with 1 slip or no slip at all. If the
>ball isn't moving much & it doesn't look like an edge will
>ever go to the slips, it's far better to place the chaps in
>other positions where the ball is more likely to go.
ofcourse like ... hav a short cover man to certain batsman, so that
he doesnt stretch too much forward and or to batsman who get inside
edge on to pad and ball goes there.. depending on the wickets... or
as Fleming kept sucessfully for Marytin, 2 gullys.... for spinner also
remove the silly point at times n keep him at short cover and invitig
the batsman to play the drive... etc...
>
>4) He doesn't believe that the underarm ball should have
>been outlawed.
Does he give any reasons for this?
CiL
Cricket is essentially a co-operative sport- it is confined to no
class; it is best practised where it is most fused
'Quid'
(1866)
Bob Dubery
> Read the book a few weeks back, expecting to
> find a management crap type book but found the
> author to be a chap with enormous common sense.
>
> Loads & loads of common sense - that's all the book
> contains.
I thought there was more to it than that. I enjoyed the insights into
the dressing room and the selectorial process, the portrayals of the
captain's on-field thinking and decision making. And, of course, the
revelation that there are captains who are complete doofusses - like
the guy who was always surprised when the batsman who'd just come in
turned out to be a left-hander. There's a fantastic sprinkling of
anecdotes that remind us that the game is played by human beings.
> 4) He doesn't believe that the underarm ball should have
> been outlawed.
As probably the last guy to bowl it a serious level he wouldn't! What
he said was that there should be some limited legislation to prevent a
rolled ball.
> Must read book, though it's a slow read.
That might be a question of individual taste. I find Brearley very
readable.
Paul Robson
> Read the book a few weeks back, expecting to
> find a management crap type book but found the
> author to be a chap with enormous common sense.
>
> Loads & loads of common sense - that's all the book
> contains.
>
> Most of the stuff he talks about seems so obvious after
> you read it but it's stuff most captains don't follow - I am
> not giving examples here, everyone should read the book.
> Book is a little dry, however.
>
> Some interesting things stuff.
>
> 1) The Basil D'Olivera thingy - before the
> famous South Africa tour, he was averaging around 50 in
> 15 odd tests, he had just scored a 150 in the last match
> prior to the tour. Inspite of this, he was dropped for the
> South Africa tour, because England did not want any
> problems - I never knew this. Then somebody else got
> injured & England had no option but to select him &
> what happened next was history.
>
Not quite. England had plenty of option not to select him.
He was selected to replace Tom Cartwright, a medium
pace seam bowler. Logic would suggest that replacing a
specialist bowler with a batsman who bowls a bit is
unbalancing the party - or that it was unbalanced before.
This allowed Voorster (?) to declare that Basil was a
political selection. Not quite correct, maybe, but it
certainly was a pressure driven selection not a cricketing
one.
One can of course argue that Basil should have been
selected in the first place.
> 2) Brearely says that the hook shot should never be
> played on a easy pitch which helps batting - on such
> a pitch there are loads of run-making shots you can
> play which are far less risky. Hook shot of for pitches
> where batting isn't that easy.
Hm, Brearley's advice about batting is not taken too
seriously by those who remember watching him bat. I
don't think he could hook (or drive, pull or do anything
other than push forward and nudge runs at about 1 an
over).
> 3) Attacking field - we feel that an attacking field mean
> 4 slips & a gully. Brearely feels that some times you can
> have an attacking field with 1 slip or no slip at all. If the
> ball isn't moving much & it doesn't look like an edge will
> ever go to the slips, it's far better to place the chaps in
> other positions where the ball is more likely to go.
I think this is playing games with "attacking field".
> 4) He doesn't believe that the underarm ball should have
> been outlawed.
Well, it obviously should have been for ODOs !
> 5) Talks a lot about spinners & how a lot of English captains
> hate spinners & that's why very few spin bowlers come out
> of England.
Hardly. English spin bowlers have to contend with softer
wickets, that help trundlers - there are umpteen medium
fastish bowlers that can move the ball on the average
English wicket, and they are simply more effective in
the short term than spinners - unless they are very good.
Spinners tend not to be very good at the start of their
careers - seam bowling is much easier to master quickly.
Australia, for example, has harder wickets (more bounce)
and seamers will usually be ineffective. So they encourage
agressive bowlers ; fast and nasty, leggies.
John Hall
Paul Robson <auti...@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>Hm, Brearley's advice about batting is not taken too
>seriously by those who remember watching him bat. I
>don't think he could hook (or drive, pull or do anything
>other than push forward and nudge runs at about 1 an
>over).
But the best coaches are often those who have been no more than average
as players. The truly great players tend to find the game so easy that
perhaps they find it difficult to understand the difficulties of
ordinary mortals.
--
John Hall
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he shall end in certainties." Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Sandaas
> find a management crap type book but found the
> author to be a chap with enormous common sense.
>
> Loads & loads of common sense - that's all the book
> contains.
>
Oh, good. You managed to pick it up and understand it. I was worried
the big words would be beyond you.
> 2) Brearely says that the hook shot should never be
> played on a easy pitch which helps batting - on such
> a pitch there are loads of run-making shots you can
> play which are far less risky. Hook shot of for pitches
> where batting isn't that easy.
Did he explain the difference between a hook and a pull, or are you
still in the dark? What does he say about the pull shot? When should
it be played?
> Must read book, though it's a slow read.
It's not all that slow if you understand most of the words.
Aditya
Bob Dubery
> Not quite. England had plenty of option not to select him.
>
> He was selected to replace Tom Cartwright, a medium
> pace seam bowler. Logic would suggest that replacing a
> specialist bowler with a batsman who bowls a bit is
> unbalancing the party - or that it was unbalanced before.
>
> This allowed Voorster (?) to declare that Basil was a
> political selection. Not quite correct, maybe, but it
> certainly was a pressure driven selection not a cricketing
> one.
>
> One can of course argue that Basil should have been
> selected in the first place.
And that Vorster (one 'o') would have objected in any case. The Nat
government were going to have a real problem if Dolly toured.
SAn cricket (perhaps with some prompting from the government) had been
arguing that their non-white cricketers just were not good enough and
so an all-white SA team would, in fact, be an SA team chosen on merit.
Now here was Dolly no longer in youth's first flush (he had actually
lied about his age) still good enough to make the grade for England
and score tons at the highest level of the game. If he were to score a
ton against an all-white SA side then the embarrasment would be acute.
I can't imagine that Vorster would have allowed D'Oliveira to tour.
But he couldn't win - had D'Oliveira toured he would constantly have
been running into racist laws and popping up in "whites only"
facilities. Just having him dining in whatver Hotel the England team
were staying in would have provoked shenanigans.
DiiVolunt
But he wasnt, English middle order was jam packed. Dolivera played 1st
test with Barber and scor4ed 87* in defeat and then Graveney and
edrich? came back and he was dropped which might have been harsh, but
if we are playing bats, then one might prefer Graveney over Dolivera
any day. And then Dolivera was having a relatively bad patch in
county till he got a recall for last test and took it with both hands
as one might say. He scored that 158 and he got someone sticky bat out
in the last innings at Oval too. so his selection for bowling too made
some sense. In his book or the book on him by ghost mentions he was
desparate to make the south african tour and did wonder alound in
county dressing rooms that he was being denied a test opportunity well
in advance to prevent any chance of him going to south africa and that
embittered some relationship with colleagues and affected his cricket
to some extent. So one might argue (on Basil's evidence) with The
south african leadership that "they" (english selectors) tried their
best to keep a good man down but that seldom works! And of course
English cricket board seldom makes political decisions!
regards
Pranshu B Saxena