NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Cricket Interview/Michael Holding

'Maan, if I was bowling today I would have been an off-spinner!'

Introducing Michael Holding to a cricket fan would be an exercise in the ridiculous. The man who was dubbed the Rolls Royce of fast bowlers by the cognoscenti and, more famously, given the sobriquet Whispering Death by umpire Harold 'Dickie' Bird is a legend in his own lifetime.

Holding has, since retirement, parlayed his enormous cricket knowledge into a second innings as television commentator and print columnist -- and it is a measure of the man that he is as respected in these professions as he was on the cricket field.

His commentary on television is characterised by an in-depth knowledge of the game, an ability to speak his mind sans fear or favour, and a quirky sense of humour uniquely his own -- "Maaaan," he says when we ask him about the West Indies team's dismal performance on the South African tour, "our batting is like Noah's Ark -- we gotta send them in two by two, these days!"

'Mikey', as he is known to players and the media alike, will be writing a regular column for Rediff On The NeT, as part of our coverage of the 1999 World Cup, discussed with Prem Panicker the India-Pakistan Test series, the state of West Indies cricket, and other issues. Excerpts:

Mikey, you are the neutral commentator on this Indo-Pak series...

Maan, all commentators are neutral. At least, that is the idea [laughing]

Yeah, right, whatever. Rephrasing that, you are the 'outside' commentator here. From your perspective, keeping in mind the political confusion that preceded it, how do you rate this Test series?

We all just watched an excellent Test match in Madras. Both teams have good players, both teams gave us a good game, a closely fought game. The way they played, it was a pity one team had to lose, but that is how it goes in sport.

India and Pakistan have great players. Both are familiar with the conditions, so whether Pakistan comes here or India goes there, they can play the day after landing, and be fully familiar with the ground conditions and weather and crowds, so neither team has an advantage. All other teams, touring the subcontinent, they take time to settle down, but that is not the case here. So we had a wonderful game -- and when I think back on the four days of Test cricket we watched, it seemed a pity that the public both here and in Pakistan are being robbed of this, that the two sides are playing only at such infrequent intervals. I think they should play more often, it will be good for Test cricket.

But it did look, Mikey, during the first Test as though the players of both teams were not playing their natural, free-flowing game, that there was a touch of nerves out there...

Of course, that is right, there was a lot of tension out there on the ground, that is because both teams get pumped up when playing each other, also because of the political overtones. In that sense, I think India benefited by fielding first -- the errors you make on the field are not as costly, on day one of a Test, as the errors you make with the bat, so fielding first gives you time to shake your nerves, to get settled mentally. It was also a good thing that the first Test was played at Madras -- the crowd was brilliant, very well behaved, they applauded good performances by players of both sides, so it helped the players put the political confusion out of their minds and concentrate on the cricket.

On the evidence of the first Test, how would you rate the two teams?

Well, both sides play a similar kind of game, very stylish and flamboyant, both are filled with talented players. I think the real difference is that Pakistan is not always a 'team'. Most times, they are merely a bunch of 11 players, and then they look very ordinary. But when they come together and begin playing as a team, I would back them to beat any other side in the world.

India is the better 'team' in that sense. Unity is not a problem with your boys, they seem comfortable with each other, and they are as talented as the Pakistani boys. I think the difference here is that Pakistan, when it plays as a team, is very well balanced in both batting and bowling. India plays as a team, but they are not too well balanced. Srinath is an exceptional fast bowler, and Prasad when he bowls at his best is a good support act, but you don't have much else.

Aren't you leaving out Anil Kumble?

Kumble is a very tight bowler, he keeps things buttoned down, but I don't think he is an attacking bowler, he is not the kind who is after the batsman from ball one, he is very good only on crumbling tracks. So that means you actually have only Srinath, with Prasad and Kumble giving some little support -- and that kind of attack does not make a balanced team.

And the captaincy, Mikey? I notice Akram getting his boys into a rugby-style huddle before the start of each session, lots of consultations and stuff, whereas the Indians seem more laid back.

Both Azhar and Akram are experienced captains, both are cool under pressure. No problem there. As for tactics, well, we all have our own ways of looking at things, it doesn't make sense to compare something one captain does with what the other person does. I think, like I said before, India doesn't have a problem with unity, the players are closer to one another than the Pakistan guys are. I guess that is why Akram here is making a conscious effort to bring about that unity, with that rugby-huddle and frequent consultations on the field and all that kind of stuff.

I think another area where the teams differ is attitude. Pakistan looked to be the more aggressive side throughout that first Test, they were always trying to make things happen, whether batting or bowling, whereas the Indians seemed to hang around and wait for something to happen. I got the feeling that while Pakistan backed itself, India lacked belief in themselves and their own abilities.

To move from the particular to the general, Mikey, why has international cricket stopped producing good fast bowlers? I mean, 10 years ago, the West Indies were producing them by the dozens, there were the three all-rounders, Hadlee, Kapil and Imran, Akram was coming up, Australia had a pack of them... Suddenly, there seems to be a famine, despite South Africa re-entering the Test ranks and producing Donald and Pollock, we still can't seem to name 8, 10 quality quicks...

Well, I agree that we are not producing fast bowlers like before. I don't think it is because of any one reason, more a case of lots of reasons coming together.

For one thing, pitches around the world are becoming slower. South Africa has some quick pitches, Australia has Perth where the wicket is fast, though not really true. But that's it -- in the West Indies, pitches are becoming slower, and increasingly of bad quality, the other pitches in Australia are not really quick tracks, and in the subcontinent you don't have a single pitch I would love to bowl on. And without quick pitches, you can't hope to produce quick bowlers -- maan, if I was bowling today I would have been an off-spinner!

Then there is the one-day factor. For one thing, in limited overs, quick bowlers are not really encouraged to bowl flat out, especially these days when batsmen are looking to take advantage of field restrictions in the first 15 overs. Today the premium is on bowling within yourself, maintaining a good line, not letting the batsman hit you around.

Also, look at the number of matches that are being played these days, especially ODIs. A quick bowler looks at his schedule and he's thinking, maaan, no point in running in flat out, I better conserve myself, bowl within myself. So then that becomes a habit, to bowl at less than top pace, and pretty soon they lose that quickness.

Some quick bowlers say the moratorium on bouncers is also dampening the enthusiasm of budding fast bowlers...

No, that is rubbish, you can bowl two bouncers per over so that is 33 per cent of your deliveries. That is good enough -- give me two bouncers per over and I'll keep the batsman honest. I don't think that is as much a factor as the ones I mentioned, that is simply an excuse.

So we have seen the end of the great fast bowlers?

No, I don't think so. These things are cyclic. I mean, remember one time India had those world-class spin bowlers? And there were very good ones elsewhere in the world, Pakistan had Qadir and that other chap, Tauseef, Australia, West Indies, England, all had good spinners, then suddenly spin bowlers weren't coming through, now you are getting some very good ones coming up again. I think that is the case with quick bowlers as well -- right now there ain't too many of them on the shop shelves, but I don't think the art of quick bowling is dying out.

Moving on to your own turf, Mikey, what is wrong with West Indies cricket? A couple of years earlier, when I asked Clive Lloyd this, he said the Windies were badly hit by losing so many talented players in one lot -- Greenidge, Haynes, Marshall, Garner, Richards, Lloyd, Dujon, all went out pretty much at the same time, he pointed out. But then, earlier you had Weekes, Worrell and Walcott, you had Sobers, Kanhai, Hall, Griffith, Gilchrist... they quit, and were replaced, so why is the young talent not coming up this time?

Well, actually, you must remember that when the three Ws and Sobers and Kanhai and the others quit, we had our problems, I don't have the exact figure, but I think you will find that during that time, we went through something like 24 Tests or so without a single win, before we put it together again. And during that period, it was not like we didn't have talent, Lloyd and Kallicharan and Rowe and Roberts and the rest of us were around, we just didn't get the results was all.

So then what changed, how did the team you were part of become world beaters?

Packer cricket, maan -- that is what made the difference for us. All of us who joined the World Series Cricket were outlawed by our countries, and our cricket establishments. So that brought us together, we had to come together because we were being bad-mouthed by our own countries. Also, every day we were playing against the best in the world, so that made us tough, made us into a fighting unit. The Packer series taught us unity, it brought us together as a strong, determined team. The Packer men quit, and our results went with them.

And we can't have a Packer-type situation again. Meanwhile, the team is slumping from defeat to disaster. So what needs to be done to get the Windies back to glory days?

We need academies, in the West Indies. Not to teach cricket, I think our cricketers are talented enough. We need academies to teach attitude, to put in the players a pride in wearing the maroon cap. Today's players act as if they don't care whether they win or lose, and that is the real problem -- we got to put the passion back in West Indies cricket. Our lot, the greatest thrill of our lives was wearing the Windies cap, we hated to lose. I remember after we lost the 1983 World Cup final to India, we were crying in the dressing room, bawling like babies, some of us wanted to quit right then. We could not take defeat, maan -- we had this fierce thing of wanting to win everything.

Continued