Cricket
North v South
Alan Gibson
The arguments about the England car taincy next season are well under way: or, at least, both sides are suggesting that there 15 nothing to argue about. Why, we are asked, should there be any hesitation in choosing Brearley, assuming he is fit and in tolerable form? He beat the Australians, and did as well as anyone could be expected to do in Pakistan. In the present English batting side, he is obviously worth his place. If it had not been for his unlucky injury, no question would ever have arisen. End of discussion.
Hard luck on Brearley, no doubt, agree the Boycott supporters. But it so halVens that the injury has brought the natural car tam n of England to his rightful place at last, and there is no point at all in messing BOYcott about any more. End of discussion. All sorts of other things will bebrought, into the argument as it develops, sonic 0` them ungraciously, but those are the essen" tial positions. When you come to More detailed examination, the trouble is that So much of the evidence can be interpreted lo more than one way. Boycott, they saY (chiefly) in the south, let England down hY leaving the Test team at the time he we most needed, because he was scared of the fast bowlers. The first part of this accusation may be true. As for the second part, I do not profess to understand Boycott's motives for withdrawing, and I doubt very much whether he does himself, but they were oer" tainly more.complex than fear.
Brearley, they say (chiefly) in the north, Would never have been in the England side all, had it not been that Lord's wanted an establishment' captain in the old amateur tradition. He was only a second-bester to start with. All right, he hasn't done so badly,
i but they would never have thought of him if he hadn't been a fancy-cap. As against this, Brearley, although he certainly had the misfortune to be educated at Cambridge, is not atall the kind of man whom Yorkshiremen Identify with the establishment. His views might be described in many ways as leftish. He markedly did not join in the Packer hunt last summer, keeping a cool, impartial attitude, one fitting to an England captain — and much needed, after the contortions of Greig.
Then there is the question of experience. Boycott has been captain of Yorkshire since 1971, the same year as Brearley became captain of Middlesex, but Boycott has a much wider and longer knowledge of Test cricket, and its special stresses. On the other hand, Brearley has led Middlesex to several Successes, and Boycott — some of whose teams, on the face of it, contained a lot of talent — has not done the same for Yorkshire. So you can also take that both ways. In 1969, an injury to Cowdrey, who had Won a series in the West Indies, and had the better of a drawn rubber against Australia, caused the selectors to choose Illingworth as captain. Close had lost the England captaincy by sheer stubbomess, but was still in cornmand in Yorkshire. Illingworth, with very little experience of captaincy — though always a valued counsellor — had moved to Leicestershire, to be captain there. Few thought of him as more than a temporary Choice for England, and he had not had ranch of a Test career. But it was the begin 0 mg of a long reign, and, as it proved, the 1 end of the captaincy of Cowdrey, who went to Australia four times as vice-captain, with a different leader each time. Illingworth recovered the Ashes in Australia. Only two Other Englishmen have won a series there I since 1930 (and it was after 1930, according to many good judges, that Test cricket against Australia stopped being a game). 1:he other • two were Jardine and Hutton, outh, in strategy and tactics, dour, tough men, as Illingworth was. On these precedents, the auspices for Boycott are Lavourable. If winning is all, might not urearley to be too nice a chap? I would not be altogether surprised if at any time Brearley decided he had had enough Test cricket. He is not the man to relish a public debate of this kind, any more than David Sheppard was. But it would 'take a fine conclusion to his career to hold the Ashes in Australia, before he turns his linind to more important things than cricket. Wonder what his old Cambridge opening Partner, Craig, advises. Craig, another :aceptional batsman and scholar, felt that a 'evy years of first-class cricket, while interesting, were enough.
I have one suggestion to make. The old match, North v South, should be revived this season. It could still be fitted in, with an effort. Brearley would captain the south, Boycott the north. They might even choose their own sides. I do not suggest that the winner should automatically be captain, but if the selectors are in any doubt, it might help them to make up their minds. Test trials do not usually attract much attention nowadays, but I bet that one would.
I suppose it would be cowardly not to declare my preference, though it is early days and much may happen. I am a Yorkshireman, but I am on Brearley's side. Maybe if winning, or at least avoiding defeat, is all that matters, he would not be the best choice. But it is not. After all, we sometimes beat Australia, and they sometimes beat us, and it would be pointless were it not so. A happy tour next winter, a popular touring side, is, in the present state of international cricket, more important than who holds the Ashes. Brearley is of course not nearly so good a batsman as Boycott, nor quite so utterly dedicated to the game. Boycott might be the harder man to beat, but I have never known it suggested that anyone on his own side has deliberately run Brearley out.
Previous page
