Cricket
Best man
Alan Gibson
The appointment of Brearley as England captain was made on the basis that he was the likeliest man to save the series against Australia. This was, in principle, a correct decision, because beating Australia should be regarded as an end in itself, not a preparation for anything else. Even if none of your best eleven are going to be able to make the following tour, they should still be chosen. Still, it does make you wonder about who is going to be captain in India next winter.
Brearley has repeated that he will not be available, though I suppose the decision might not be irreversible, since it is reported that he may be visiting there as a journalist. Botham might be reappointed, if he recovers his form, though that cuts both ways for the poor chap. For if he does, there will be plenty to say 'Just shows how much better he is when he's not captain.'
Botham's departure was gracefully handled, without recriminations, though he was wrong in believing that there was anything derogatory in being made captain on a match-by-match basis. The great majority of England captains, at home, have been so appointed. I have much sympathy for him. When he Was given the job, it was the general opinion that he was too young for it by a couple of years or so. But there was really nobody else. Brearley, by announcing that he would not tour again, had effectively invited the selectors to choose a successor. Fletcher would have made a good captain, but he was not so young, and even at his best was never a famous player of fast bowling — and it so happened that the next two rubbers, consecutively home and away (a stupid arrangement) were to be played against the West Indies, with their four very fast bowlers. Rose might have been a good choice, but you must remember that at the beginning of the 1980 season he had not come near to establishing himself in the England side. Then, in the West Indies, he had eye trouble and had to come home early. I have seen him bat well several times this season, and he may come into the reckoning again, but eye trouble of a degree which causes a man to leave in mid-tour is something of which any selector would be wary. Other names are thrown about. Knight has never seemed quite good enough to play for England, though there were those who said the same of Lewis (the men have some similarities) before Lewis did well both as captain and batsman on the Indian tour of 1972-3. This season I saw Knight captain Surrey against Derbyshire at the Oval with a lack of initiative which was deplorable — though I suppose there are those who feel a lack of initiative is a desirable quality in an England captain, as modern Tests are played. Gooch has his supporters, and so does Gower, their preference usually dePending upon upon the part of the country from Which they come. I met a Yorkshireman the Other day who swore that Jack Hampshire Was the man, although Hampshire lost his Job as Yorkshire captain last year. Then there is Boycott. John Woodcock, whose Opinions I always value ('Hail, honour'd Woodcock, enterprising sage!' as the poet Shenstone nearly wrote), thought that Boycott might be the best man to lead England at home this season, but shied away from him as a touring captain. There was too much going against Boycott, and he would not have been a popular choice with the players — though I do not think Brian Close, one of the selectors, had any business to say in public that Boycott would not Captain England while he was on the Committee.
Botham's experience of captaincy has not matured him, as had been hoped, not least by Brearley, whose support for him made me think the original choice was the right one. He is still too much inclined to a Punch-up, verbal and occasionally physical. The extra responsibility has affected his play, and so has the extra weight. But it is Improbable that any England captain could have done much better, in results, in those two fearsome series against the West Indies. He had no real adviser to whom to turn on the West Indies tour. Alan Smith was desperately preoccupied with managerial Problems, Barrington died, Brearley was at home. He has a young man's pride, and Perhaps should have leant more on Boycott, though Boycott is not the easiest of men to lean upon.
I return to the point. Who would do better? I am glad Brearley has been chosen, but there was a better man available, Michael Procter. Procter is now qualified to Play for England, under the regulations. Of Course they are bloody silly regulations, and there was never the slightest chance of it happening. The principal reason Procter became 'English' was that Gloucestershire Could sign another overseas player. But Still, there the regulations are, and if Butcher of Barbados plays for us in the West Indies, we might at least follow the law and the logic and choose Procter for England. He has shown, in his years with Gloucestershire, an ability to identify himself with English cricket, and endear himself to English cricketers, which only a few overseas cricketers have emulated. He Is more 'English' than Greig ever was. He Would like to play for England, and there are no doubts about his merit. We should Pick him, and make him captain, or else Change the rules again.
Previous page
