NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

The cricket interview/Bobby Simpson

"They are more confident, they know they can win..."

Getting to specifics, Bobby, I'm notice you have been working them hard on the fielding aspect...

Yes, that is one of the areas where, we thought, the team could do with improvement. So we have been focussing on that quite a bit -- throwing techniques, that kind of thing.

Yeah, the famous baseball throw. Seriously, is there anything to it, or is it just a fad?

No, it really does make a major difference. The baseball is pretty heavy, yet those blokes get it in from the outfield like lightning, did you notice? They throw under the shoulder -- and when you do that, you get your body into the throw. Cricketers tend to throw over the shoulder, you do that, it is your shoulder doing all the work, the body is not involved. The other way, the baseball technique, the body gives the torque, the propulsion, the energy -- the hand and arm merely become the guide, and this way, there is considerably less strain on the shoulder joint.

Mostly, we've been looking at little things like that, which make a big difference in the end. Like when you are fielding and the ball is hit to you and you are running in, attacking the ball. I noticed that the boys tend to bend just as they get to the ball, I've had them practise going down a couple of yards before the ball get to them -- that way, they are well balanced at the time of collection, their eyes are steady on the ball, the release is also faster...

The other area where I saw a lot of work being done is running between wickets...

Right! Now my intention is not to get the players to run the minute mile. Increasing their speed, their all round physical performance, all that is Andrew's (Kokinos) baby. What we, Anshu and I, are concerned with is attitude.

Indian batsmen are natural, flamboyant strokeplayers, they tend to hit a high proportion of fours and sixes compared with most other sides. And so you find that they get their runs at a rapid clip, their strike rate is very good. But my concern is not with how many runs they scored off how many balls, I am more bothered about the number of balls that were not scored off.

Look, say this batsman faces 40 balls, gets 40 runs with ten fours. Looks good on paper, 100% strike rate. But to me, it means that he has played 30 dot balls, and that is very very bad, that is 30 missed scoring opportunities. So we have been inculcating that attitude in the players -- you may have hit a four off the previous ball but that is history, the next ball is all that counts. Hit it if you can, if you can't then at the very least, work it around, look for the single.

It's also the first time I am seeing the open nets technique in use in camps here...

Yeah, frankly, I must say I am intrigued by your previous coaching methods. *This, with a wry smile* 'Fielding practise' apparently meant lining the boys up and hitting to them, but the problem is, when you do that, the player knows in advance the ball is coming to him, he is ready.

That is not how it is in the match, though, you have to be alert all the time, and open nets simulates that situation, that is also why we played those two practise matches, dividing the guys into two teams. The idea is, when we do that, the players get a chance to try out the things they have learnt in theory, and we, Anshu and I, get a chance to see how well they have imbibed what they have been taught, to fine tune them further.

I've been noticing this chap prowling around with a video camera...

*laughing* Very useful little argument-winner, the video camera. You talk all you want, you tell a bowler, say, that his shoulder is dipping a shade, or whatever, and he listens and nods, but he is unconvinced, he thinks he is doing it right. But you sit the chap down and you show him what he has been doing, freeze a frame and ask him to analyse himself, and then he is convinced. It happens to all players -- we think we are perfect, then we see ourselves on the video and realise what darn fools we look like...

Yeah, I remember Geoffrey Boycott doing a major lecture on how to play fast bowling, and then Michael Holding taking the mickey out of him, the video showing Boycs being bowled time and again through the gate...

*laughs* I remember that, during India's tour of the West Indies wasn't it? I'm lucky that way -- no embarassment in store, there is just 13 minutes of my entire career on videotape and even those are the good moments. *smiling*

Am I seeing things here, bit of wishful thinking perhaps, or is the team really a lot more relaxed than they have been in the past?

Well, I don't know what it was like in the past, but yes, the boys are very relaxed now. More importantly, you should see them at night, after a hard day on the field, they get together in the room, they are still talking cricket!

We're helping the good work along, putting a structure in place within the team, little groups, each person monitoring the other.

I spy with my little eye, that kind of thing?

Not that kind of monitoring, not the snoopy kind. Like, say a player, during practise, is focussing on one specific area, and maybe the coaches are busy elsewhere, then his colleagues will be keeping an eye on him, helping him out if he needs help. Also, we've told the players that it is up to them to spread the gospel, so to speak, when they get back to their respective states. In Australia, we've found that peer influence works very well on the younger ones, we are trying to get the same thing going in India as well.

And it is not just about the team being relaxed... I think it all comes from confidence, they are more sure of themselves, they know they have what it takes to win, even from the tightest of spots. They are more competitive today than they have been in a while. They had a bad time last year, but now they are on the way up and hopefully, it should all jell nicely just in time for the World Cup.

One thing that the media and public in India had been concerned about is that your involvement is not full time...

Yes, in a sense that is true, but don't forget you have a full-time coach. I am not the coach, merely the consultant. And besides, I will be in constant touch with Anshu, irrespective of where I am, that is part of how we operate, so the continuity will be there.

As for my direct involvement, the boys have a busy schedule from this month, the next chance we have for a camp like this is in January, if the Pakistan tour doesn't materialise. We can have two, maybe even three, weeks then, that will be very good for the side, but of course the final position on that one is not known yet. April, we are looking at having a camp, and of course, once the team reaches England, two weeks before the World Cup, I will be joining them, and will be with them right through.

How would you assess the strengths and weaknesses of the side?

The strengths are very obvious, and I must point out that there is more to the Indian team than just Sachin. Saurav, Azhar, Ajay, Rahul, these are boys any team in the world would love to have. Srinath, Prasad and that new boy, Agarkar, they are all coming along quite nicely too. India has the raw material, definitely, the trick is to weave it all together into a winning combination.

As for weaknesses, well, like I said earlier, the Indian batting mindset is, it's either a four ball or a dot ball. Flamboyance is your biggest strength, but it is also your worst enemy -- but we are working on that aspect. One thing must be said, I definitely wouldn't change the way the Indians bat, they have tonnes of natural ability, flair, a style all their own, and there is no point tampering with that. You can't teach an Indian batsman to play strokes.

Leaving the camp aside for now, you are also part of the committee rewriting the rules of cricket, could you tell us something about that?

Right, that's for the MCC, the idea is essentially to simplify it, especially the language. You know the amount of jargon there is in the rule book, you have to be a lawyer to figure it all out. I'll give you an example, there is this place there where it talks of "incommoding the striker", now what on earth is "incommode" anyway? Say "obstruct" instead, and everything becomes clear, no amiguity in there. And once you do away with the ambiguity, the rules become easier to interpret.

The other part of what we are doing, of course, is looking at the grey areas. There are certain things that haven't been spelt out in law, but have been followed in spirit. Like for instance the question of stationary fielders. When I was match referee, during the India-Sri Lanka series late last year, there was this instance when Aravinda pulled, and Chauhan had run across from backward square to square leg while the bowler was running in, he held the catch.

Now, that is not against the law, as it is written, but I think it violates the spirit of the law. A batsman, before taking strike, looks around, maps the field, he is planning what strokes he can safely play, and it is sharp practise for fielders to sneak around behind his back. So we will be putting that bit, about stationary fielders, in black and white so there can be no ambiguity. All told, I would think there are 15, 20 areas we are looking at, where there could be change. And we hope to have it all buttoned down by the year 2000.

But this stationary fielder business seems a bit... I mean, the good fielders always walk in as the ball is being delivered...

Sure, walking in is one thing, we are looking at changing positions. See, if deep fine leg walks in, he remains deep fine leg, there is no problem with that. What we are looking at is, for instance, moving sideways. Square leg moves sideways to his left, it becomes a different position altogether, if he moves to his right, it is different again, and that is not fair.

The role of the third umpire is being debated just now, what are your views?

I think it is fine, just as it is now. I don't think for instance that the third umpire should be ruling on LBWs, at least, not with the technology we have today. The camera angle shortens distance from say pad to wicket, it gives you a distorted perspective of the angle of strike of the ball... today, the image we get is not conclusive. And until we can get that kind of conclusive technology in place, where for instance we can freeze the ball without blur, I wouldn't expand the third umpire's role.

You've been a match referee. Don't you think it is about time the match referee's brief was extended to cover the performance of the umpires as well?

Actually, the match referee does report on the performance of the umpires, so do the captains.

And yet, sometimes, incompetent umpires continue to remain part of the panel... so what price the reports?

Now that is something the ICC will have to examine, I do believe there are moves in that direction.

Another old chestnut -- is there too many ODIs being played today?

Well, I notice in India you don't have a problem getting a full house for Test matches, but in most countries, Test cricket is struggling to get the crowds, while ODIs are a sellout everywhere. And this I think is not a good trend, I think unless there is a high quality of first class and Test cricket, ODIs will suffer from a diminishing of skills.

Why, exactly? I mean, at worst, won't it mean there will be more ODI specialists?

Now that is one thing I have always disagreed with. Name the greatest ODI stars in any country, they've been champions in Tests as well. Test cricket is about skill, concentration, adaptability, so too is the one day game, and that is why I always say both are essential, they are necessary to each other.

Given the amount of ODIs India plays, did you convey this point of view to our board?

Well, officially, thinking about India's schedule is not part of my brief, but then I do have a good equation with Raj Singh (Dungarpur), we go back a long way, so when we get together we chat about all sorts of things and I definitely do tell him what I think, irrespective of whether it is part of my brief or no.

We started out this interview talking about media criticism of your appointment. Recently, Jagmohan Dalmiya said the media is 'unfair'. Your thoughts?

Well, I don't know about unfair, but sensationalist, certainly. Like, I was watching the Test, Sri Lanka against England, last night and there was this commentator talking about a caught behind decision, he said something like even a blind man would have spotted it, words to that effect. Well, I was watching the same replays he got, and frankly, it wasn't all that clear to me.

And the print media?

Umm, less of reporting, really, more of spectacular writing, lots of quotes and precious little of analysis. Cricket to me is not about who said what, but of who did what, and how he did it...

Okay, the big one -- which team would you back to lift the 1999 World Cup?

*laughs* You'd like me to say India, wouldn't you? The Cup is a ways off yet, there are lots of good teams around, we need to get closer to the date, assess fitness and form at the time before even beginning to think of picking a possible winner and I for sure ain't sticking my neck out now. My job is to help coach India, help it to win the Cup, and you can bet I'll be doing that, to the best of my ability.