Cricket
Home and duty
Alan Gibson
The Jubilee Test was not so enthralling as the Centenary, one, partly because of the weather,, and partly because the captains. became a little cautious at critical moments. This was understandable at the beginning of a series between two sides which seem to be of approximately equal merit. Brearley, the England captain — no, one may write the English captain, after a Welshman, a Scot, and a South African — must have been par- ticularly anxious not to lose his first match, Lord's and Jubilee and all. He is a Har- rovian — born, not educated there (he was at the City of London School and Cambridge) — an indisputable English qualification.
Brearley did well, and it is probable that with ordinary luck he will continue for some time as the captain of England, though he is not a youngster (he is thirty-five, three and a half years older than Greig). He may not, of course, wish to carry on for long. A man of various talents and scholarly mind, he may not enjoy the captaincy much, and decide that he could do better things with his time.
That apart, there are only two doubts about Brearley's captaincy. The first con- cerns his own form, and the second con- cerns Boycott.
There is the question, 'Is he a good enough player to be chosen in his own right?' It is not the most important question to be asked of a captain. It is commonly said that the Australians pick the best eleven players, and only then decide who to make captain. There are many examples to the contrary, but whether they have ever done this or not, it would be a bad rule. The proper question to be asked of a captain is `Can he get the best out of his side?' Obvi- ously a captain who made a string of low scores would find it difficult to do so, but if he came up with a useful forty now and then, and could give a lead in the field, and the team wanted him, and the results were as good as could reasonably be expected from the team's gifts — then that captain might easily remain the best choice for the job. I am not disparaging Brearley's batting — he had Made his way into the England team before any question of the captaincy arose — but it is not by his batting average that he should be judged, so much as his qualities of leadership.
There are plenty of precedents for this, although they are somewhat despised by the modern generation of professional cric- keters who like to think of themselves as `scientific'. Older readers will remember the brilliant, though ultimately tragic career of Percy Chapman. There was an outcry when he was made captain for the last Test match of 1926, a young man of twenty-five. He won the match and regained the Ashes.
He had Hobbs and Rhodes in his team, both selectors and 'Rhodes had played for Eng- land before Chapman was born. It was assumed that they would give the orders. In the last innings, with England winning com- fortably, Chapman took Rhodes off — and Rhodes had taken four wickets for 44. Rhodes complained. Chapman smiled his agreeable smile and said he thought it was a good idea to share the wickets round a bit. Rhodes did not much appreciate this, but the rest of the team did.
Nevertheless, Chapman led England to 1 victory in nine Test matches running, although it is probably true to say that even by 1926 his best batting days were over, and he would not have been at all sure of a place had he not been captain (he had in fact been dropped for the fourth Test in 1926). When he was replaced by Wyatt for the last Test of 1930, there was an even bigger row than there had been four years earlier. But Chapman was not sacked because of a fail- ure to get runs. Rightly or wrongly (sub- sequent events suggest it may have been rightly) he was sacked for what were held to be defects of tactics and character.
. . . and battles long ago. Now let us return to the present, and to Boycott. He has graciously said to the chairman of the England selectors that he is ready to be chosen for England again, and does not even make a point of nominating the cap- tain (it was upon this issue, at least accord- ing to one version, that his negotiations with Mr Packer broke down). There is really no doubt at all that Boycott, in good health and temper, would be the first England batsman to be chosen. There is no doubt that he has shown himself a sound captain, tactically, of Yorkshire.
Boycott is a year and a half older than Brearley, but with lots of cricket still in him. Because he comes from Yorkshire, and Brearley from Middlesex, there is much north-south feeling mixed up in the argu- ment about their merits. (Yorkshiremen, and I write as one, will say the most savage things about Boycott among themselves, but at a word of criticism from anywhere else, as it might be E. W. Swanton, they form the Shield-Ring.) The trouble is sim- ply that he declined to play for England at a time when he was most needed, and his recall, at least as captain, would be far from popular with the other players who bore the heat and burden of Lillee and Thomson. It is not that they really doubt his courage, or his devotion to Yorkshire cricket (his pro- fessed reason for withdrawal) — but 'When we needed an opener, were you there?' Still, as John 011iff pointed out, when writ- ing of Lenglen's tremendous row with the Wimbledon referee, temperamental geniuses have to be allowed to make their own rules now and then. I hope Boycott will soon be back in the England side; but I hope also, if he still has ambitions for the cap- taincy, he will be made to work his passage, demOnstrate his character as well as his skill, and not be rushed into the job if Brear- ley happens to make a couple of ducks.
Previous page
